The age old question

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator: Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9997
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: The age old question

Post by Metacrock » Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:18 am

QuantumTroll wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:24 am
Metacrock wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:28 am
QuantumTroll wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:27 am
My personal belief is that God (if there is something to which that label can refer) can't be overly concerned with human morality. Our concepts of good and evil, of helping your fellows or of stepping on them, of providing succour in hard times or letting people suffer alone, they don't matter much to God. He's got more important principles to follow — whether that's some freaky game with "original sin" or a self-consistent Creation or something completely unknown to us.

My personal favourite "morality" for God is that He just likes a good story, and gripping stories can't be told without involving pain of some sort. To me, this God is far more compatible with this world than one that cares about people.
Ok but you are not a believer so you do not have the same concerns to reflect the Christian tradition, That is not to invalidate yoiur view but since this guy doesn;t know you.
Thanks :)

Christian soteriology is probably the thing in Christianity that's most difficult for me to swallow. Salvation is a concept in many other religions, but only Christianity has Original Sin being a consequence of our ancestor's actions. The idea that the decision of two humans is responsible for all the evil in the world, rather than the Creator who set up the system in the first place, strikes me as blaming the victim. And then Jesus is tortured and killed (though the actual death doesn't stick), and that event opens the possibility for salvation and forgiveness for this thing that started thousands of years earlier? But nothing actually changes in the world (yet), unlike that first time in the Garden of Eden — people continue to suffer and die in a million ways, each of them comparable to what Jesus went through but somehow less important (and more permanent, because they don't come back to life after three days).

I appreciate the Christian message of love and forgiveness, but man, this stuff gives me real trouble. Compare with Buddhism, say:

The material world is imperfect and full of suffering. It is what it is, basically. Salvation is achieved by elevating one's spirit so that you're no longer bound to this imperfect world of suffering.

This makes sense to me. I might not believe it entirely (again, what *is* a spirit without the material? Probably a self-contradiction.), but it satisfies some internal standard of believability that I have.
Not all Christians believe in original s in and not all have the same view of it. Not all believe i'ts imposed upon by ancestors. In my view the terms merely refers to our capacity to sin. We are not born with any established guilt, we don't inherit guilt but just human nature,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: The age old question

Post by Jim B. » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:06 pm

I think the garden of Eden story is a metaphor for the human propensity for evil. It's about free will which includes the capacity for screwing up. Since free will really didn't become a "thing" until over a millennium later, this had to be couched in a myth about original sin.

Buddhism is largely about serenity and the liberation from, the transcendence of suffering. Suffering is the human problematic for Buddhists, I think. For Xians and other Abrahamic religions the problematic is separation from God, from the creator. For them, suffering isn't necessarily the greatest evil and absence of suffering isn't the greatest good. I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong. It's just a different way of conceiving of the basic problematic.

User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts: 1073
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Re: The age old question

Post by QuantumTroll » Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:05 am

Metacrock wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:18 am
Not all Christians believe in original s in and not all have the same view of it. Not all believe i'ts imposed upon by ancestors. In my view the terms merely refers to our capacity to sin. We are not born with any established guilt, we don't inherit guilt but just human nature,
The New Testament makes it pretty clear that we need Jesus to be saved and live forever in a blissful heavenly state. Regardless of your views on original sin, I fail to understand why Jesus' death and resurrection (and a personal belief in Him, according to many Christians) is necessary to save us from anything. God placed us in this situation, either by orchestrating the Fall and Original Sin or by creating human nature the way it is. It's up to Him to bring us to Heaven or not, and if He loves everyone then he'd save them regardless of what happened in Jerusalem roughly 1992 years ago. God is omnipotent and God is love, right?

User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts: 1073
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Re: The age old question

Post by QuantumTroll » Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:18 am

Jim B. wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:06 pm
I think the garden of Eden story is a metaphor for the human propensity for evil. It's about free will which includes the capacity for screwing up. Since free will really didn't become a "thing" until over a millennium later, this had to be couched in a myth about original sin.

Buddhism is largely about serenity and the liberation from, the transcendence of suffering. Suffering is the human problematic for Buddhists, I think. For Xians and other Abrahamic religions the problematic is separation from God, from the creator. For them, suffering isn't necessarily the greatest evil and absence of suffering isn't the greatest good. I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong. It's just a different way of conceiving of the basic problematic.
I agree completely.

Except I suppose that I see a connection between suffering and separation from God. Christian Hell is described both as ultimate suffering and eternal separation from God — one could say they're identically the same condition. In Hinduism (not Buddhism) Nirvana is unification with Brahman, and Samsara (which includes suffering) is a separation from Brahman. In Buddhism, Nirvana is associated more with the loss of ego, but I see that as the other side of the same coin. So the basic problematic of these religions, while different, is also very much the same.

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: The age old question

Post by Jim B. » Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:42 pm

I would say that in Xianity, suffering is the consequence of an evil which is turning away from God. Suffering can be a good or a neutral thing; it can be ennobling, build character, encourage empathy, discourage arrogance and self-righteousness, etc.

foresthome
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:45 am

Re: The age old question

Post by foresthome » Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:33 pm

I wonder if Hinduism in some sense is closer to Christianity, in regard of suffering, not just because of theism (in the orthodox schools) but in seeing the world as a place of struggle whose goal is unity with the Godhead (in most branches of Christianity, community with the Godhead, though in Orthodoxy I've heard there is some version of unification). In both cases knowing why the Godhead requires the struggle is something that needs explanation. The demand for theodicy in Judaism and in Christianity in the book of Job is expressly mooted by God's show of his grandeur, very similar to Krishna's in the Gita.

Buddhism sees the suffering and expressly refuses to look for explanations why the world has suffering, only offering a solution for it. (Though perhaps not following the prescription: clinging, ego, etc. could be seen as a type of explanation! i.e.You Are Doing It Wrong.)
I am reading a book on Sartre right now, and wonder exactly whether a kind of non-theological theodicy is demanded by existentialism; not suffering exactly but dissatisfaction arising from not realizing our freedom? Sorry, this is vague.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9997
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: The age old question

Post by Metacrock » Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:58 am

foresthome wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:33 pm
I wonder if Hinduism in some sense is closer to Christianity, in regard of suffering, not just because of theism (in the orthodox schools) but in seeing the world as a place of struggle whose goal is unity with the Godhead (in most branches of Christianity, community with the Godhead, though in Orthodoxy I've heard there is some version of unification). In both cases knowing why the Godhead requires the struggle is something that needs explanation. The demand for theodicy in Judaism and in Christianity in the book of Job is expressly mooted by God's show of his grandeur, very similar to Krishna's in the Gita.

Buddhism sees the suffering and expressly refuses to look for explanations why the world has suffering, only offering a solution for it. (Though perhaps not following the prescription: clinging, ego, etc. could be seen as a type of explanation! i.e.You Are Doing It Wrong.)
I am reading a book on Sartre right now, and wonder exactly whether a kind of non-theological theodicy is demanded by existentialism; not suffering exactly but dissatisfaction arising from not realizing our freedom? Sorry, this is vague.
see my answer spelled out in greater detail:

http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/20 ... drama.html
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: The age old question

Post by Jim B. » Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:23 pm

The Soteriological Drama theodicy makes more sense to me as a species of a broader category. It seems that all of the evil in the world, only a small fraction of which effects people, has to be due to a more basic relation between God and creation. Maybe evils are the consequence of a necessary precondition for there being any drama in the first place.

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: The age old question

Post by Jim B. » Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:24 pm

I am reading a book on Sartre right now, and wonder exactly whether a kind of non-theological theodicy is demanded by existentialism; not suffering exactly but dissatisfaction arising from not realizing our freedom? Sorry, this is vague.

Bad faith?

SayaOtonashi
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:16 am

Re: The age old question

Post by SayaOtonashi » Thu May 17, 2018 8:38 pm

One thing I think fits is also the fact some people fill like if I'm saying why do I feel like I should question my faith. I mean how do I know I have accepted Jesus and not just goin through the motivations

Post Reply