|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Philosophy, and Being Good For Goodness’ Sake
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
LutheranChik wrote:
quote:
There’s also the problem of turning what can easily be seen as a natural design flaw in our species — and, as such, something that could be discussed in a fairly dispassionate way with non- Christians and disaffected Christians — into the usual baggage-loaded discussion of “ sin.” To me the tragedy of the human condition is all about the tension involved between our amazing — yet not omniscient — cognitive power and the impulses of our primitive, “lizard “ brains. Why do we do things we know are bad, to ourselves and others? Why do we do bad things for good reasons, or bad things for the right reasons? Why do we not act when we should? Why do we often feel frustration, even despair, at these moments? All questions whose answers can be seen in physiological terms, without the Garden of Eden story.
Well, I think your OP and other posts are excellent. I'm not sure why our complicated nature is tragic really. I think you have suggested that we are primates, and of course, primate behaviour seems to vary from the cooperative to the destructive (and murderous).
This doesn't seem all that mysterious, does it? I suppose its tragic nature depends on your viewpoint.
One thing that your OP points to is that secular philosophies tend to get rid of the notion of sin, which, from my point of view, can only be beneficial. In this sense, I suppose morality has been secularized in the last two centuries.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Speaking of tragedies, to me the excessive fondness for framing sin in penal terms is one of the great mistakes of Christendom. It ‘s a very Roman ( in the cultural sense) mindset.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Coming in a bit late for the discussion about the "benefit" of doing the Right Thing:
Aymen Derbali did the Right Thing in distracting the shooter for a few seconds while other people escaped. His Reward? Permanent paralysis and a difficult future for his family.
But he says he would do exactly the same in any case, because it was for the good of others. He does not hide behind his religion, or glory in it.
He just lives his philosophy.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking of tragedies, to me the excessive fondness for framing sin in penal terms is one of the great mistakes of Christendom. It ‘s a very Roman ( in the cultural sense) mindset.
I thought that the whole notion of sin is now a big barrier for many people. It smacks of guilt, superplus, and many people are already guilty enough, and then they have to consider that they have annoyed the big cheese. How many layers of guilt do we need? At the same time, I know that some people positively enjoy feeling bad, and hoping to be punished, so there you are, satisfaction guaranteed.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking of tragedies, to me the excessive fondness for framing sin in penal terms is one of the great mistakes of Christendom. It ‘s a very Roman ( in the cultural sense) mindset.
I agree. I find the Eastern emphasis on the idea of sin as disease very helpful and a welcome counter-balance.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking of tragedies, to me the excessive fondness for framing sin in penal terms is one of the great mistakes of Christendom. It ‘s a very Roman ( in the cultural sense) mindset.
I agree. I find the Eastern emphasis on the idea of sin as disease very helpful and a welcome counter-balance.
How is this better? It still ignores how our minds work and still places emphasis on a magical cure and/or will. I’m not saying a spiritual focus is useless, BTW, just that it isn’t enough.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How is this better? It still ignores how our minds work and still places emphasis on a magical cure and/or will. I’m not saying a spiritual focus is useless, BTW, just that it isn’t enough.
I think it’s better because I think it more accurately reflects the human condition. How does it ignore how our minds work? As for "magical cure," I'm not sure how think that's still emphasized (or even quite what you mean by it still being emphasized), but the assertion strikes me as dismissive at best.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Encouraging folks to take personal responsibility for their own thoughts words and deeds has always struck me as a positive thing. Sometimes the concept of sin, missing the mark, can be very helpful. However, the 'burn in Hell' approach basically encourages fear, self-interest or disbelief. The notion of moral imperatives doesn't do that. The challenge to behave better is often an appeal to our better nature, or our sense of fairness.
I think grace comes in when we come to terms with the fact that we break our own rules, through forgetfulness, or wilfulness, or even through deliberate calculation. What's the point of any moral code if you sling when it gets in the way of your own perceived self interest.
Such challenges do not foster guilt but they may cause us to take a long hard look at ourselves.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Agreed, Barnabas.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
A couple of times in this thread it was written: 'If Christianity is true'. To which I ask, what ever do you mean? It's easy to say the creeds or belief in being forgiven for sins, eternal life, born again and the like. That's for the True Believers I guess. What about the tentative and never-to-be-certain? Those who like the aesthetic of the story, find the miraculous difficult to swallow, but live in the comfort of possibility of something better than the difficult exploitive world they see, remote from salvation from death and damnation because they experience damnation already. Longing for the long sleep of death, the fade to black.
To be a little more crisp: can you imagine Christianity without any personal eternity. That your life is all you get, and at its end is annihilation of you, your personality - you're done - and the living eternally is only through your children and those you've passed on friendship with. Could there be Christianity then? Goodness then? Following the example of Jesus even if there's no heaven for you, nor hell, nor anything?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As a background, though, we are a social species of animal, and they tend to treat each other OK, as well as sometimes, not OK. I would imagine that early hominids were like this, and maybe things have gone downhill, not sure about that. Historical generalizations make my teeth ache.
I'd say that if anything we treat each other far better than most other primates. It's all very well watching a chimp or gorilla family living together in peace and harmony and wondering why humans can't do that, but doing so ignores what happens when those chimp/gorilla families come into contact with other chimp/gorilla families.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As a background, though, we are a social species of animal, and they tend to treat each other OK, as well as sometimes, not OK. I would imagine that early hominids were like this, and maybe things have gone downhill, not sure about that. Historical generalizations make my teeth ache.
I'd say that if anything we treat each other far better than most other primates. It's all very well watching a chimp or gorilla family living together in peace and harmony and wondering why humans can't do that, but doing so ignores what happens when those chimp/gorilla families come into contact with other chimp/gorilla families.
Seriously? You can look at human history and think there is any major difference other than scale? Our ability to readjust what we consider us is greater, but then so is our ability to fuck over them. We have so much more potential, which makes our failures even greater.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How is this better? It still ignores how our minds work and still places emphasis on a magical cure and/or will. I’m not saying a spiritual focus is useless, BTW, just that it isn’t enough.
I think it’s better because I think it more accurately reflects the human condition. How does it ignore how our minds work?
Because a lot of why people "sin" is due to how our brains work. Without dealing with that, it is unlikely the basic issue will change.
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"
"Pray as if everything depends on God, work as if it all depends on you"
Those are two phrases that, IMO, are the right blend of religion and practicality.
quote:
As for "magical cure," I'm not sure how think that's still emphasized (or even quite what you mean by it still being emphasized),
You never watch the telly or interact with the more conservative of your brethren? Actually, that is not fair, I've seen it in the more liberal as well. And it isn't a Christian phenomenon, it is a human one. If you give people a simple solution, they will take it. Without evaluation or evidence of efficacy.
quote:
but the assertion strikes me as dismissive at best.
I suppose it might be. From my observation, merely praying to God and wanting to end a behaviour rarely achieves that goal. One needs to work at changing that behaviour. Some Christians do this. Some do not. But the concept of sin as disease or evil does not inherently address the psychological and physiological realities.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But the concept of sin as disease or evil does not inherently address the psychological and physiological realities.
I didn’t say it does. I said I find the Eastern Orthodox idea of sin as disease to be a welcome and helpful counter-balance to what LutheranChik called "the excessive fondness for framing sin in penal terms."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd say that if anything we treat each other far better than most other primates. It's all very well watching a chimp or gorilla family living together in peace and harmony and wondering why humans can't do that, but doing so ignores what happens when those chimp/gorilla families come into contact with other chimp/gorilla families.
Seriously? You can look at human history and think there is any major difference other than scale?
Chimps and gorillas will kill every member of a rival family they can get their hands on (if they don't get killed first, of course). They have no concept of diplomacy, alliances or peaceful coexistence. So yes, I'd say we're doing better than them.
quote:
Our ability to readjust what we consider us is greater, but then so is our ability to fuck over them.
I'm not so sure. Killing is killing whether it's done with teeth and claws or guided missiles.
quote:
We have so much more potential, which makes our failures even greater.
Our failures are the same as any other creature, but the fact that's we're largely peaceful and willing to live alongside one another rather than constantly waging war against our neighbours counts as a definite plus mark for our species.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As a background, though, we are a social species of animal, and they tend to treat each other OK, as well as sometimes, not OK. I would imagine that early hominids were like this, and maybe things have gone downhill, not sure about that. Historical generalizations make my teeth ache.
I'd say that if anything we treat each other far better than most other primates. It's all very well watching a chimp or gorilla family living together in peace and harmony and wondering why humans can't do that, but doing so ignores what happens when those chimp/gorilla families come into contact with other chimp/gorilla families.
Well, it's probably correct that primate species vary in their degree of aggression and destructiveness, and also cooperation. But this seems to miss my original point - that the notion of sin gives a supernatural gloss to human wrong-doing. Well, OK, if that's your thing, carry on. But my point is that human virtue and vice don't seem particularly unnatural, that is, outside the parameters of other species. Think of the invertebrates that eat their mate. I don't think supernaturalism is required as an explanation of human benevolence or malevolence.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Our failures are the same as any other creature, but the fact that's we're largely peaceful and willing to live alongside one another rather than constantly waging war against our neighbours counts as a definite plus mark for our species.
Then bonobos have the highest marks of any primate, higher than humans
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I'm OK with the concept of sin, provided is used to label, or even explain the darker side one's own human nature.
Having said that if someone with a robe on starts wagging their finger at me with Sin this and sin that I become a lot less OK with it.
I would agree it does seem that people these days are, in many ways, generally nicer and kinder to each other. This isn’t to say secularism has been universally more successful in banishing dark deeds over and above the endeavours of Christian doctrine. It has though so far proved that there must be a natural element which helps people get on with eachother
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
To the OP: Seems to me that (some versions of) Christianity took a wrong turn when they decided salvation was simply a matter of faith alone.
There is, in philosophy, doing (ethics), knowing (epistemology), and being (ontology). They all form essential parts of the human condition, and the idea that a just God might disregard any of them in the sole preference of another of them strikes me as unlikely.
Truth is, they all feedback on each other. What we believe affects what we do, and what we do affects the way we are. And other similar relationships, also. But if I were to choose the most telling of these considerations, it would be the way we are, our ontological, spiritual status, rather than what we believe.
By all means, pursue virtue for virtue's sake, rather than any hope of salvation or fear of damnation. But also remember that we need justify virtue in it's wider context, or we cannot know it is virtue.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Interesting. Ontology was of great importance in Patristic thought and continues in Orthodox Christianity today.
I'm pretty dumb about Orthodox ontology re being human but I have a vague memory of three stages. Being (existence) well-being, eternal being. I think image of God is in there, however obscured, well-being arises out of some cleansing of the obscuring of the image of God, and eternal being is the destiny. The word theosis comes in somewhere.
That might be all toffee; is an Orthodox Christian kibbitzing?
[ 29. January 2018, 18:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Interesting. Ontology was of great importance in Patristic thought and continues in Orthodox Christianity today.
I'm pretty dumb about Orthodox ontology re being human...
Me too. I await enlightenment from the forum.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I'll PM mousethief, to see if he's interested. Haven't been able to find a good link.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I remembered that my half-remembered stuff came from Maximos the Confessor.
Here's a link
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
Thanks for that. There is much I find, in that link, to agree with.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I am quite innocent of the teachings of Maximos the Confessor. Nor do I know anything about "Orthodox ontology." Indeed the phrase is weird to me --
"ontology" means one's tally of what exists, or what it means to exist, or the study of what entities do or do not exist. But this is coming at it as an analytical philosopher (my training) rather than as an Orthodox theologian (my faith tradition).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
Yes, that is how I understand the term ontology, as well. I am really focused here on 'what it means to exist'. Part of what it means to be human is to have a character, a way of being. That character can be built by practicing virtue and eroded by practicing vice. Thus, we are rewarded and punished for our virtues and vices directly and automatically. By 'spiritual stature' I simply mean the quality of character as so affected at any given point in time.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I found this link.
The paragraph beginning 'From the earliest ..' contains a neat summary including the importance of the word 'being' in Orthodox thought.
Worth adding that I am not Orthodox, but I've found Orthodox thought quite clarifying in helping me to understand church history, the foundation and development of central doctrines.
The whole article is fascinating also in its linking of being and morality. A good read, I just found.
[ 30. January 2018, 08:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I found this link.
...
The whole article is fascinating also in its linking of being and morality. A good read, I just found.
Indeed. Though I would take issue with the idea of morality being simply a matter of obeying or disobeying rules and laws. Seems to me that the ethical involves more traction on reality than that. But the general line of argument in the link is promising.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
With thanks to Isaac Asimov, I have this nice paradox to help me. 'Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.'
What I found interesting in the article is the need to see morality in terms of the journey from being to well-being to eternal being. What that says to me is there is a real value in being open to what our experiences teach us about our present moral understanding. There is a dynamic there which I relate to very strongly.
This is one of the reasons why I am very grateful for this thread. Being prepared to look further, both without and within, for our guidance to doing what is right seems a natural part of a journey towards well-being. If our historic sense of morals is challenged by our present choices, that seems a significant part of the journey. One needs to avoid self-deception in this, but honest wrestling seems a really good thing.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
With thanks to Isaac Asimov, I have this nice paradox to help me. 'Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.'
I like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What I found interesting in the article is the need to see morality in terms of the journey from being to well-being to eternal being. What that says to me is there is a real value in being open to what our experiences teach us about our present moral understanding. There is a dynamic there which I relate to very strongly.
I can't speak for 'eternal being', never having experienced that. But, having been selfish and a coward, and having been somewhat less selfish and somewhat less cowardly, I can speak for well-being. I would tend to sympathise with the virtue ethicists, here, in that for a human to flourish in this life, virtue is necessary. If one wishes to extrapolate from that to the afterlife, well, that might not be an unreasonable projection.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Our failures are the same as any other creature, but the fact that's we're largely peaceful and willing to live alongside one another rather than constantly waging war against our neighbours counts as a definite plus mark for our species.
Then bonobos have the highest marks of any primate, higher than humans
Good for them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
@ 2RM
None of us who are alive have! Eternal being is the final state of being. The complete restoration of the image of God. Being taken up into God so He will be 'all in all'.
What we get are glimpses on our way to well-being.
Not sure how much this relates to Orthodox understanding, but it has always impressed me that mathetes, the Greek for disciple, contains the twin notions of learning and following. Again a journey thing. There is value to be found in both questioning and obedience. Learning embraces both. So does following.
[ 30. January 2018, 15:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not sure how much this relates to Orthodox understanding, but it has always impressed me that mathetes, the Greek for disciple, contains the twin notions of learning and following. Again a journey thing. There is value to be found in both questioning and obedience. Learning embraces both. So does following.
I am sure that's right. But some of us are sheep by nature, and others goats. I have no time for a theory of heaven that excludes goats, for no other reason than that they are goats. Indeed, I think scripture does goats a severe injustice, and sheep, perhaps, are unworthy of the glory they are promised.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Sounds Calvinist. Some created for salvation, some for destruction? Limited atonement? I don't believe that.
The Orthodox view is we are made in the image of God. That may be obscured but it is not effaced and cannot be lost. The journey is from being to well-being, or from being to corruption. Another way of looking at that is we become more sheepy or more goaty, but live with both aspects in our journey.
Who judges sheepiness or goatiness in the end? One thing is for sure. We don't.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
And some Orthodoxen believe that even Satan will ultimately be redeemed.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Probably worth adding answers to the sheep/goats metaphor. Sheep are characterised by unselfish loving service to the suffering and disadvantaged. Goats are characterised by indifference to the suffering and disadvantaged.
Which of us can claim to be a fully fledged sheep? Or to be completely free from the characteristic indifference of goats?
If we're honest, we'll put our hands up to somewhere in between.
The move from being to well-being is a process. Becoming more Christ-like. We get somewhere down the road but don't complete the journey. And some people without any formal connection to the Christian faith can be very Christ-like in their loving unselfishness towards the poor and disadvantaged.
If we are wise, we leave any eternal judgment on these matters to the eternal judge. Meanwhile, getting on which such good stuff as comes to hand. And dumping any notions of making comparative judgments of others. Just not our job.
[ 31. January 2018, 10:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
quote:
Barnabus62: Eternal being is the final state of being. The complete restoration of the image of God.
I guess we are all struggling to get a handle on human nature. Personally, I’m attracted to the notion of “original sin” though not in there having been a pre-existing state of grace as traditionally understood. That is why I’m uncomfortable with the notion of “complete restoration in the image of God,” as suggested by Barnabus62’s quotation, because we are the product of our genetic inheritance in the evolutionary process. Sin to my mind is a combination of consciousness, self-awareness and fear of death, which is hard-wired into our make-up. Without these elements concepts such as right and wrong actions are meaningless and creatures in such a state live in innocence, even when ‘red in tooth an claw’, which, I would suggest, is why infants are born without sin and those who have lost their minds cannot commit sin. I would also suggest that a belief in morality and/or God, true or not, is essential for the survival of the species, because without such notions humanity would degenerate into constant conflict.
What do we mean when we say that humans are created in the “image of God” because ISTM mortality is a significant difference between us and an eternal being? What are we to understand by God seeing the emergence of humans as “good,” any more than the creation of anything else? Does it refer to an empirically observed moral state? Or what? Human beings may, like God, be able to distinguish between good and evil, but unlike him sometimes choose one and not the other. Furthermore, in creating humans did God create evil or its possibility? Over to you, shipmates!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Probably worth adding answers to the sheep/goats metaphor. Sheep are characterised by unselfish loving service to the suffering and disadvantaged. Goats are characterised by indifference to the suffering and disadvantaged.
Actually, that's not how I read the sheep/goat metaphor.
Seems to me sheep are obedient and bunch together in herds, and are reluctant to take responsibility for themselves or anyone else. Just what you want of the laity if you are top of the hierarchy of some organised religion.
Goats are less biddable. They make up their own minds, and choose their own paths, and, should they come across authority, flick a v-sign at it. Just what you don't want in the laity, if you are top of the hierarchy of some organised religion.
It may be that meek sheep will inherit the earth. But it will be the goats of the world, demolishing the presumptions of the powerful, that will earn them that inheritance.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Kwesi wrote:
quote:
Sin to my mind is a combination of consciousness, self-awareness and fear of death, which is hard-wired into our make-up. Without these elements concepts such as right and wrong actions are meaningless and creatures in such a state live in innocence, even when ‘red in tooth an claw’, which, I would suggest, is why infants are born without sin and those who have lost their minds cannot commit sin. I would also suggest that a belief in morality and/or God, true or not, is essential for the survival of the species, because without such notions humanity would degenerate into constant conflict.
This is very good; the stuff about consciousness reminds me of Jung, who argued at length that Adam and Eve is a story about the birth of consciousness and loss of innocence. See Jung's famous statement, 'consciousnness is a crime against nature'.
I still don't get the notion of sin really, as it relies on some kind of supernatural foundation, which the OP seems to be trying to avoid. Well, I keep saying, working as a therapist, the one word you have to avoid is sin. Most of your clients would walk out.
I don't see morality as all that mysterious, if you look at proto-morality in animals; things like cooperation seem to be wired in.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
SecondRateMind
I was referencing this scripture
It is fascinating to see that the separation is of people like a shepherd separates sheep and goats. So the text makes it clear that sheep and goats are simply an analogy.
The rest of the text makes it clear what the reasons for the separation are, and it points to active response to need compared with indifference to need. So in this context 'sheepness' corresponds to active response and 'goatness' to indifference.
So the reasons for separation seem to have little to do with the natural characteristics of sheep as animals. The thing is that when Jesus refers to his followers as sheep and himself as the good shepherd, what he is referencing is the obedience of the sheep to the shepherd, not the natural herd behaviour of sheep. Indeed, elsewhere he points to the helplessness of sheep without a shepherd as an analogy for people.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
SecondRateMind
I was referencing this scripture
It is fascinating to see that the separation is of people like a shepherd separates sheep and goats. So the text makes it clear that sheep and goats are simply an analogy.
Indeed so.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The rest of the text makes it clear what the reasons for the separation are, and it points to active response to need compared with indifference to need. So in this context 'sheepness' corresponds to active response and 'goatness' to indifference.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So the reasons for separation seem to have little to do with the natural characteristics of sheep as animals. The thing is that when Jesus refers to his followers as sheep and himself as the good shepherd, what he is referencing is the obedience of the sheep to the shepherd, not the natural herd behaviour of sheep. Indeed, elsewhere he points to the helplessness of sheep without a shepherd as an analogy for people.
Maybe, maybe not. Would you contend that the sheep is saved by its works? By succouring the poor, healing the sick, visiting prisoners in gaol, etc? Is works alone what qualifies us for heaven?
It seems to me that this scripture, however analogous, depends for it's effectiveness on the differences in nature of sheep and goats. Their character, their way of being, rather than just their doing or believing.
The one flocks, and wants for leadership. The other pursues a more individual direction, and leads itself, according to its own priorities, ethics and beliefs. They may coincide with those of the sheep; they may not. But who is to say that being a sheep is more representative of God's intention for us, than being a goat? Presumably, having given us free-will, God intended for us to use it, and not have others dictate to us what is 'good', by which the powerful so often mean, what is 'good' for them.
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 31. January 2018, 14:28: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, there is a whole range of well known topics there, SecondRateMind.
In the context of this thread, what I think we were looking at was guides to good behaviour as a good thing in itself, not the relationship between good behaviour and salvation.
Are good works a consequence of salvation or a means of salvation. I think the scriptural answer is probably yes! What Jesus says is not the same as what Paul says. And James says faith without works is dead. I'm inclined to think there is a dynamic relationship between faith and works.
I'll think about the possibility of a new thread. Possibly in Kerygmania rather than Purgatory. They might even have one already. Give me a little while to look.
[ 31. January 2018, 15:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl : I still don't get the notion of sin really, as it relies on some kind of supernatural foundation, which the OP seems to be trying to avoid.
I've no problem with that. I'm happy to see sin as bad moral behaviour (as I usually do). As a John 3:17 (sic) man, I see God's concern with bad behaviour not as an affront to himself that needs to be satisfied, but as one who has great concern for the consequences of it for both perpetrators and victims.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
SecondRateMind
We'll, that didn't take long. I've reactivated a dormant thread in Purgatory which seems to be a good thread for continuing this sheep and goats tangent.
Here's a link to the thread.
Suggest you review contents then resume your interest by posting there.
That's respectful of the rather different purpose of this thread.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Of course it's an analogy. Nobody thinks he's talking about livestock. We realize he's talking about people.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Simple category error, mousethief.
In the general context of this thread, I've been wondering about what causes inhibitions over considering other ideas. There seems to be some kind of 'touch pitch and be defiled' taboo.
I'm not sure I understand where this came from. I see the reality of an Index Expurgatorious. But I guess my education and further education taught me how to think critically, be prepared to compare sources, look for unwarranted assumptions.
I'm in favour of using education to help people develop their own anti-BS armour as a first priority. It seems to me to be the corollary of a free society that folks are helped to spot the snake oil merchants.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Bring that whole thought stream back to sheep and goats for me. I'm not seeing the connection.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Neither am I. The natural characteristics of sheep and goats have nothing to do with the principles for separation of the people.
But the idea seems to die hard.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Neither am I. The natural characteristics of sheep and goats have nothing to do with the principles for separation of the people.
But the idea seems to die hard.
Because people will take the simplest route to bolster their conclusions, rather than do the actual maths.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because people will take the simplest route to bolster their conclusions, rather than do the actual maths.
Ain't that the truth.
One of my favourite Edward de Bono bits of lateral thinking goes like this.
Q. Why do people think?
A. In order to stop thinking.
de Bono explained that by pointing out the attraction of ready-made solutions (already in the mind) compared with working things through from first principles. Thinking kicks in when you're looking for an asnwer to something of immediate impact, or something that bothers you. Finding an "off the peg" solution (a platitude, a well worn thought path) restores short term peace of mind quicker than working things out.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
