|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kierkegaard's spirituality
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
Greetings. Being new to the ship I'm not quite sure where to post this, but please consider the following.
Kierkegaard's painful intellectual meanderings led him to dismiss his one and only love, Regine, his only real chance at this-worldly happiness to pursue his understanding of the great paradox: the necessity of leaping into faith in the logical absurdity that is God.
Given that most of the ship's residents, as far as I can tell, accept this logical absurdity as the only reasonable means of dealing with the existential horrors of life, do we all admire Kierkeggard for leading us to a sound intellectual justification for our faith or do we admonish him for lacking the courage to engage in living a full life on this earth?
[ 16. January 2013, 14:32: Message edited by: KHANDS ]
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Do you mean that most of us on the ship would gladly forgo human love for the 'absurdity of God' as you put it: the world of the spirit/Spirit as K put it? We will never know is real reasons for breaking off his engagement. Maybe he felt it would be a distraction from his sense of duty to God, maybe unfair to ask someone to walk that hard path alongside him when it might not be their path - who knows. But you call it an 'intellectual justification of faith' and I'm wondering was it really? I'm more inclined to think of K in a mystical sense than as a practical philosopher.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
Why is God, or even the concept of the Christian God, logically absurd?
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Why is God, or even the concept of the Christian God, logically absurd?
Kierkegaard calls belief in God logically absurd which it would seem to be from an empirical standpoint. Similarly, Jesus as God and man and other Christian dogmatics such as the virgin birth and resurrection are absurd in the same sense.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Which it is KHANDS and welcome. Poor old K just didn't have the headspace. The older I get I feel that to explain so much.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS
Kierkegaard calls belief in God logically absurd which it would seem to be from an empirical standpoint. Similarly, Jesus as God and man and other Christian dogmatics such as the virgin birth and resurrection are absurd in the same sense.
Welcome to the Ship.
Why is belief in God "logically absurd" from an empirical standpoint?
Likewise the other Christian doctrines?
They are certainly absurd from the standpoint of philosophical naturalism, but that is not what 'empirical' means.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I can't think of anything to add just at the moment, but will be reading with interest.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I'm always somewhat dubious about interpretations of Kierkegaard that take everything he said at face value.
But Kierkegaard's point, I take it, is that arguments for the existence of God or for the historicity of the Scriptures can at best produce provisional results. Suppose Wright's arguments about the early church, that the resurrection is the best explanation for the rise of belief into Jesus, come to win a general consensus. But a sensible scholar can't rule out Crossan or someone else coming up with a counterargument.
But we can't live our life on a provisional result. You can't decide to have faith on a more probable than not basis. You can't decide that you're 90% certain that this woman/man is the right partner for you, and so you'll get 90% married. You have to go the whole way. And Kierkegaard's point is that from the point of view of proportioning your belief to the evidence this will always be absurd. But you have to do it. (Or the opposite.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
When I read what Kierkegaard says about Racine he sounds to me like what we would call today, "commitment phobic."
He is very much in love with her to the point of calling her perfect and expressing that thing, so common in people who fall in love, that he felt a sense of having known her always when he first met her. He also says that if he doesn't marry her he will not marry anyone. So I don't think that his love for her came short but that he just couldn't picture marriage itself.
He sounds worried that it would require too much time and attention away from his life's work and his spiritual calling. My guess is that if he lived today he would have been better able to ease into the marital state. Racine would have had a career of her own, and he would have realized he could have her and his work without too much feeling that he was pulled two ways at once.
Soren was an all or nothing kind of man. Maybe he was right not to try to do both but I can't help thinking that after marriage and a nice long honeymoon trip, he might have found that his passion wasn't as all consuming as he feared it would be.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Welcome to the Ship.
Why is belief in God "logically absurd" from an empirical standpoint?
Likewise the other Christian doctrines?
They are certainly absurd from the standpoint of philosophical naturalism, but that is not what 'empirical' means. [/QB]
Thanks for the welcome; happy to be here. Perhaps philosophical naturalism would be a better explanation for K's labeling, but in my mind experience is based primarily on empirical sources, any metaphysical attachments we might add fall into the realm of the imaginative.
It seems to me we would all be better off and more credible as well, setting aside Christian dogma for the greater significance of the engagement. quote:
quote:
[ 17. January 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: KHANDS ]
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
David: why can't you live on the basis of probability? I know plenty who do including my reverend brother.
Interestingly, when I was workin I'm Denmark, most people who had heard of Kierkegaard though of him as a bit of a pain, and thought Grundvig the best representative of Danish Christianity.
I think that the idea of a neurosis about commitment explains both his sex and religious life. Neither in the case of religion nor marriage can you know for certain so as to exclude any possibility of making a wrong decision. Most people just live with this, but not Kierkegaard.
I read in a catholic polemic that the problem of Protestants is that they cannot live with the catholic teaching that you can never attain to intellectual certainty of your salvation. Similar sort of issue.f
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Previous posters have dealt well with the issue of "logical absurdity". I would like to go back to what I consider the core of Kierkegaard's thought: the "leap of faith".
It is this "leap" which overcomes absurdity, both that of the God-question and, more poignantly, that of life itself.
There is a small, but IMHO fascinating stream of philosophy/theology (for daring to uphold that nexus alone, so scandalous in modern western philosophy, they should be commended!!) called "Christian Existentialism". My own favourite thinkers, Max Scheler and Peter Wust, belong to it; so do - to quote names likely to be better known in the anglo-saxon sphere- Karl Jaspers, Paul Tillich, Jacques Maritain and Nicolas Berdyayev.
Great thinkers who face the question of man's thrown-ness into life and its absurdities. And contrary to what many come to think after some reading of Kierkegaard, very, very life affirming.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Previous posters have dealt well with the issue of "logical absurdity". I would like to go back to what I consider the core of Kierkegaard's thought: the "leap of faith".
It is this "leap" which overcomes absurdity, both that of the God-question and, more poignantly, that of life itself.
There is a small, but IMHO fascinating stream of philosophy/theology (for daring to uphold that nexus alone, so scandalous in modern western philosophy, they should be commended!!) called "Christian Existentialism". My own favourite thinkers, Max Scheler and Peter Wust, belong to it; so do - to quote names likely to be better known in the anglo-saxon sphere- Karl Jaspers, Paul Tillich, Jacques Maritain and Nicolas Berdyayev.
Great thinkers who face the question of man's thrown-ness into life and its absurdities. And contrary to what many come to think after some reading of Kierkegaard, very, very life affirming.
It is my understanding that Kierkegaard speaks of a leap into faith, not a leaf of faith.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PerkyEars
slightly distracted
# 9577
|
Posted
quote:
He is very much in love with her to the point of calling her perfect and expressing that thing, so common in people who fall in love, that he felt a sense of having known her always when he first met her. He also says that if he doesn't marry her he will not marry anyone. So I don't think that his love for her came short but that he just couldn't picture marriage itself.
This doesn't sound like great love to me, but immaturity and melodrama. Noone is perfect, and if you feel like you've known someone all your life it's projection, probably due to there being sides of your own personality you've not integrated all your life but are projecting onto the other.
That's not to say the marriage would have been a disaster, but it might well have been difficult. I think the OPs diagnosis of lack of courage is dead right in that regard. People who find 'perfection' often fear to actually have a relationship as on some level they know the edifice they've built is bull.
Whether it was the right or wrong decision spiritually though and what would have happened if he'd married is something only God can know. Perhaps he was right to drop what was essentially an idol and not a relationship for God, or perhaps he missed an opportunity for greater emotional health and a better relationship with God through loving a real spouse. I would be suspicious of any simplistic joining the dots between someone's emotional life and their faith. I'm married, and I still relate to the 'leap of faith' idea with regard to God.
Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
David: why can't you live on the basis of probability? I know plenty who do including my reverend brother.
Suppose I think arms manufacture is morally wrong, say I'm 80% convinced. I'm offered a jobs working for an arms dealer. I need the money. I can't work at the job one day a week and turn it down the other four days.
At some point I have to translate the 80% conviction into 100% commitment (or 0% commitment). I must act as I would were I 100% convinced.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
quote:
He is very much in love with her to the point of calling her perfect and expressing that thing, so common in people who fall in love, that he felt a sense of having known her always when he first met her. He also says that if he doesn't marry her he will not marry anyone. So I don't think that his love for her came short but that he just couldn't picture marriage itself.
This doesn't sound like great love to me, but immaturity and melodrama. Noone is perfect, and if you feel like you've known someone all your life it's projection, probably due to there being sides of your own personality you've not integrated all your life but are projecting onto the other.
That's not to say the marriage would have been a disaster, but it might well have been difficult. I think the OPs diagnosis of lack of courage is dead right in that regard. People who find 'perfection' often fear to actually have a relationship as on some level they know the edifice they've built is bull.
I never meant to imply "great love," but that he was "in love," as some seemed to speculate that he was just not that into her. The sensation of "falling in love," while not what you are calling mature love is, still, a very real thing. Scientists have noted the brain changes that happen, including reasons for the feeling of walking on air, which I have experienced. I don't think it says much, one way or another, about maturity.
Is the overwhelming sensation we call falling in love a good predictor of a lasting marriage? I don't know, but it has been the start of countless marriages and may, in the long run, be just as binding as some more logically arranged couplings. I've seen quite a few marriages that were perfect on paper, break up after one spouse finally found someone who made their pulse pound.
During their year long association, Kierkegaard had probably already learned that she wasn't truly perfect but still believed that she was as perfect for him as anyone he was going to find and still passionately desired her.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I know almost bugger all about Kierkegaard except that he lacked a theology of the Spirit.
Might explain some of his oddness?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I know almost bugger all about Kierkegaard except that he lacked a theology of the Spirit.
Is there a list of things to have a theology of, and any given theologian has to tick all the boxes?
Kierkegaard was not a systematic theologian. He didn't have a system. And he claimed that most of the writings for which he's famous weren't theology.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is there a list of things to have a theology of, and any given theologian has to tick all the boxes?
No.
It's just that a lack of theology of the Spirit usually makes for a distant God......and perhaps a negation of this life.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
I think one of Kierkegaard's most important contributions to human thought was identifying the human psychological dilemma. After we set aside our worldly distractions, realize the inadequacy of those individuals we've been relying on for our self-fulfillment and face our declining physical existence, there really is only the infinite to look toward.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Fully agree with Khands. Very well put. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In which case life is not a gift, it's a punishment.
well, superficially yes, for it makes your life a tad more difficult to bear. But it really is a gift.
It takes a fine, and independent, mind to see, in all its clarity, the absurdity of the human condition. And it takes incredible (superhuman?)strength, to be able to bear it. When that strength is not there, the dam breaks through speech or writing. This is what happened with Kierkegaard. Which is why he is so hard to understand for the majority of people, who do not want to / cannot notice, and reflect on, the inherent absurdity of the human condition, especially from a Christian standpoint, where one is at once an expression of the logos , created and loved, and on the other side thrown into a "Lebenswelt" (life-world) that is, in its ultimate consequence, hard to bear for anyone with a heart and a brain. Peter Wust, another Christian Existentialist, sees this as precisely what distinguishes man (and of course woman ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) from beast.
So no, this is not a philosophical stream for everyone, but some of us find immense solace (!) in reading Kierkegaard and others of his ilk.
[ 19. January 2013, 07:52: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
My own favourite thinkers, Max Scheler and Peter Wust, belong to it; so do - to quote names likely to be better known in the anglo-saxon sphere- Karl Jaspers, Paul Tillich, Jacques Maritain and Nicolas Berdyayev.
You inspired me to go off and read the Wikipedia article on Karl Jaspers, which I found very interesting, having studied Kant at university.
The weightier things in that article require much more time to absorb, so I will only repeat a lighter comment I read there:
quote:
our prevalent way of thinking - that is, the positivistic, natural-scientific one - cannot really be considered as philosophy
I could grow to like Jaspers.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
I could grow to like Jaspers.
Indeed... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) welcome to the club, MSHB!
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In which case life is not a gift, it's a punishment.
well, superficially yes, for it makes your life a tad more difficult to bear. But it really is a gift.
How is it a gift?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
In the sense that it opens one's eyes. One sees things as they are, in their beauty and their cruelty, in their sense and in their absurdity. It hurts, but it increases one's understanding. It increases one's conceptual vocabulary.
In Kierkegaard's terminology, it is the threshold from the "aesthetical"/"ethical" stage to the "religious" stage. Where (and I continue to paraphrase him) one feels alone, alone in the face of the universe, with that terrible responsibility of being oneself.
It is a bit like the pain of growing up, of leaving childhood. Painful, too. Terrifying. But those who can grasp it, must do so.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
By way of information, the former bishop of Lincoln, John Saxbee, is an expert on K; aspects of whose theology were JS's original research area.
John Saxbee is probably the CofE's leading authority on the subjecy.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Mmmmmnnnnnn.....
Thanks Desert Daughter. Its interesting to rehash existentialism. Fell in love with Tillich meself.....seems to have some odd connection with natural theology.
And you've just made me realise perhaps postmodernism is why I ended up where I ended up.
Postmodernism seems the only logical extension and answer to the existential crisis.
As to it being a gift in the sense of opening ones eyes and growing up: you mean like Adam and Eve eating the fruit? Knowing?
Hardly a gift. Makes life alot more difficult.
Easy to fall over the nihilism cliff.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
It's not so much like eating The Fruit. It is more a realisation -without smokescreens, discursive or otherwise, that's where it has a link to Postmodernism- of what is . A Christian (thus believing in a personal God) sharing in the experience of the Existentialists (inherent absurdity of existence) while refusing to share in their conclusions (as Camus claimed, ie existence precedes essence; this non-essentialist view is where Postmodernist have something in common with existentialists).
Hence the leap of faith (or the leap to the transcendental).
About your last point: yes, it does make life a lot more difficult. But still I think it is a gift. God's gifts aren't all about mollycoddling us, making us feel snug and cosy in His arms. God's greatest gifts to us are sometimes kicks in the @r$e go get us going, cold buckets of water over our head to wake us up, uncomfortable truths to make us grow up.
Or bearing absurdity.
The point of Christian Existentialism is that through these feelings of thrown-ness and the bearing of absurdity, it is each individual, standing as such an individual in front of God, must make his (oh, and of course her) decision of a leap of faith -or not. In other words, and this is where it is truly an existentialist posture, it is an active decision, a step towards (or away from ). In the conscious action of this step, man answers (or refuses) the call from God. This is the freedom we are given, a freedom without which there would be no love possible.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As to it being a gift in the sense of opening ones eyes and growing up: you mean like Adam and Eve eating the fruit? Knowing?
Hardly a gift. Makes life alot more difficult.
I don't think any adequate Christian theology can make too tight an identification between opening ones eyes and growing up, and eating of the tree of knowledge. Growing up isn't a fall.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Agree with Dafyd. We all have different crosses to bear; for some it is the 'cruelty' of understanding something without being able to change it. The only possible answer is a change of posture. And, in case of a Christian, this involves including God in the posture one takes.
But @ Evensong, it is not that cruel all the time. There are moments of consolation, and other, lighter ones of melancholy tinged with tender irony.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
It's not so much like eating The Fruit. It is more a realisation -without smokescreens, discursive or otherwise, that's where it has a link to Postmodernism- of what is . A Christian (thus believing in a personal God) sharing in the experience of the Existentialists (inherent absurdity of existence) while refusing to share in their conclusions (as Camus claimed, ie existence precedes essence; this non-essentialist view is where Postmodernist have something in common with existentialists).
Hence the leap of faith (or the leap to the transcendental).
About your last point: yes, it does make life a lot more difficult. But still I think it is a gift. God's gifts aren't all about mollycoddling us, making us feel snug and cosy in His arms. God's greatest gifts to us are sometimes kicks in the @r$e go get us going, cold buckets of water over our head to wake us up, uncomfortable truths to make us grow up.
Or bearing absurdity.
The point of Christian Existentialism is that through these feelings of thrown-ness and the bearing of absurdity, it is each individual, standing as such an individual in front of God, must make his (oh, and of course her) decision of a leap of faith -or not. In other words, and this is where it is truly an existentialist posture, it is an active decision, a step towards (or away from ). In the conscious action of this step, man answers (or refuses) the call from God. This is the freedom we are given, a freedom without which there would be no love possible.
Thank you again Desert Daughter. I'm trained in theology, not philosophy, but in a parallel universe I would have trained in both. Perhaps when I retire?
I'm afraid I don't understand all you've said here ( I had to google non-essentialism) but what you've said has given me a bit of hope that at some stage in the future I might be able to tie up some ideas.....
To get back to a post a little while back: what is the meaning of existence for Kierkegaard? Is it to bear absurdity and commit yourself to God (on her call)?
And then what?
Commit to God, destroy illusions. But what is the purpose of life?
Methinks Kierkegaard must have had one if he dissed his love.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As to it being a gift in the sense of opening ones eyes and growing up: you mean like Adam and Eve eating the fruit? Knowing?
Hardly a gift. Makes life alot more difficult.
I don't think any adequate Christian theology can make too tight an identification between opening ones eyes and growing up, and eating of the tree of knowledge. Growing up isn't a fall.
But that's what happened with Adam and Eve. They received knowledge of good and evil and became more like God.
How is that so different from an existentialist understanding of how the world works?
It's why so many people believe that the "fall" wasn't actually a fall but a progression.
The only kickback is that they disobeyed God in becoming more like her so they reaped the consequences.
Hard to square in theology.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But that's what happened with Adam and Eve. They received knowledge of good and evil and became more like God.
How is that so different from an existentialist understanding of how the world works?
It's why so many people believe that the "fall" wasn't actually a fall but a progression.
The only kickback is that they disobeyed God in becoming more like her so they reaped the consequences.
Hard to square in theology.
I think that's missing the subtle evil of the serpent in Genesis 3.
Whatever view one takes of the literalness or otherwise of Gen 3, the theology is really powerful and undeniably central to the orthodox Christian world-view.
The temptation offered to Eve is in two parts; firstly a lie - doubting God's truthfulness - "you will not surely die" and then the half-truth "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
God knows good and evil in the sense that he is omniscient and knows everything. The knowledge of good and evil that Eve and Adam gain is one of experience by being evil, and the Curse in the later part of the chapter is an explanation of the consequences of the wrenching of God from his rightful place at the centre of the universe.
The following analogy is borrowed and (slightly) modified from Don Carson.
When I was 17, I lost my mum to cancer. She had breast cancer and had a rough time with lymphoedema before she died. Now, it would be silly to suggest that my mother (smart though she was) knew more about cancer than her oncologist. Of course not. But then, she lived the disease, she lived with the pain of a tumour pressing on her brachial plexus. Something her consultant had very little concept of.
You see, the offer of knowledge that the serpent offers Eve is extremely deceitful - Come, take, eat and learn about cancer by having cancer, then you will be like the oncologist or in the words that the serpent doesn't say: Take, eat and learn about good and evil by becoming evil.
This loss of naivety is so very far from any sense of 'growing-up.' It is entirely different.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
That is one possible interpretation on knowing evil.
What about knowing good? How does that fit?
They know good and evil in the text, not just evil.
And they learn that they are naked. Is that the evil bit or the existential bit of knowing what is (as Desert Daughter put it).?
As for the serpent: no, the serpent didn't lie. They didn't die when they ate of it. They died of natural causes - they weren't created immortal (3:22)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
claret10
Ship's Paranoid Android
# 16341
|
Posted
My immedeate non theological response to that is; to know one you therefore know the other. Before that it just was. The knowledge of evil illuminates what is good.
--------------------
Just when you think life can't possibly get any worse it suddenly does
Posts: 137 | From: Somewhere, nowhere, anywhere | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
I would reiterate what Claret10 says above. There can be no concept of good without the existence of evil. In terms of human understanding opposites are inseparable. So, after the original sin occurred good was discerned and mankind was introduce to life's existential horrors.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
So in the New Jerusalem (when Christ returns and the new earth and the new heavens are created) there will be no evil. God's will will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
So there will be no good either then.
Existential horror will be a gonner, but so will existential bliss.
[ 22. January 2013, 02:40: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So in the New Jerusalem (when Christ returns and the new earth and the new heavens are created) there will be no evil. God's will will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
So there will be no good either then.
If the argument works, the argument is that we'd have no concept of good without actual evil. Not that there would be no good.
There would still be love. And love is good whether we recognise it as good or not. Indeed, I'd say the idea that love is good is less important than that love is loving. 'Good' is an abstraction - love is an actual disposition. The different beauties of sunsets, flowers, paintings, music, etc are all more compelling that the abstract beauty. To recognise the goodness of creation is to recognise all the different goodnesses within creation, rather than to isolate a single abstract quality of 'good'.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
If we follow through on our concept of unity of opposites, there can be no love without hate, no beauty without ugliness. The concept of 'New Jerusalem' where good and evil don't exist cannot be a wonderful (horrible) place being outside of human conception. Those who yearn for such a place can only imagine it in relation to earthly reality (good/bad).
I would argue our very consciousness depends on dualities; while I believe it to be beneficial to transcend through meditation it can only be a temporary state. The answer is to seek a balance.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
The answer is to seek a balance.
Can there be a balance without an imbalance?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
Well that's the crux of it isn't it: trying to stay upright.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If the argument works, the argument is that we'd have no concept of good without actual evil. Not that there would be no good.
Does it work the other way around? Actual evil exists because of good?
quote:
Originally posted by KHANDS:
If we follow through on our concept of unity of opposites, there can be no love without hate, no beauty without ugliness. The concept of 'New Jerusalem' where good and evil don't exist cannot be a wonderful (horrible) place being outside of human conception. Those who yearn for such a place can only imagine it in relation to earthly reality (good/bad).
I would argue our very consciousness depends on dualities; while I believe it to be beneficial to transcend through meditation it can only be a temporary state. The answer is to seek a balance.
I've always had trouble with duality. Mainly because of the Christian belief that the old heaven and the new heaven and the new earth will not be dualistic. If God's will is to be done on earth as it is in heaven, how can such a sharp divide exist?
Can humans really not conceive of a world without duality?
I wonder if that's the reverse ontological argument for the existence of God: we can't conceive of no duality therefore it cannot exist.
(Not saying you're saying that KHANDS, just thinking out loud. Welcome to the ship btw. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
KHANDS
Apprentice
# 17512
|
Posted
Thanks for the welcome Evensong.
My thinking about dualism is in terms of the way the human mind works. Objective consciousness, conscious recognition of a thing can only occur, it seems to me, in relation to something else. So, transcending dualism, again, it seems to me, is to relinquish a grasp of objectness. Eastern spiritual endeavors have practiced, through meditation, the discipline necessary to override our intellectual limitations and there by arrive at that place beyond the dualistic. It seems very reasonable to me.
--------------------
belief is truth to the believer
Posts: 29 | From: minnesota USA | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
