You are correct that he first talked about it in The Concept of Anxiety, but in The Sickness Unto Death he says that humans aren't born sick (fallen), they become sick after sinning.Originally Posted by Imran Siddiqui
By saying that both God and humans are good, but that humans are both good and bad. You also seem to think that humans today are better than they were in the past.And where do you get the silly idea that I think we are different from God merely from degrees? God is not human, nor does He likely resemble any of us (image of God meaning that we are to mirror God's will and love, not look exactly like Him).
If humans are like God (good) then they don't need God to do good. You believe that humans can use the gift of reason to do good. This makes them like God. I don't believe that reason alone can make humans do good. Faith in God is always necessary for humans to do good because there is "a huge abyss between us and God."
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Where does he say that? Despair is sin only in that it prevents one from living in accordance to the will of God. Despair in and of itself does not precipitate sin.Got it. Have you read The Sickness Unto Death by Kierkegaard? He believed that anxiety preceded the origianal sin, and that in each human being anxiety comes before sin. And that human beings sin not because Adam sinned, but because they have anxiety.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi; July 17, 2012 at 21:26.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
With Kierkegaard it's kind of hard to just use quotes. You have to read the whole book to see what he's talking about. But....
"But this is not the end of the matter, for the dialectic of sin merely catches one in another way. For how does it come about that a man’s life becomes so spiritless that it is as if Christianity could not be brought into relation to it, as when a jack-screw (and like a jack-screw is the uplifting power of Christianity) cannot be employed because there is no solid ground but only moss and bog? Is this something that befalls a man? No, it is man’s own fault. No man is born with spiritlessness, and however many there be who in death bring with them this as the only acquisition of their lives -- this is not the fault of life."
... He's saying it's not Adam's fault for other's sins. Each person is at fault for falling into sin (despair).
He's talking about despair as it relates to sin. That's why I say that you have to read the book with Kierkegaard.Despair is sin only in that it prevents one from living in accordance to the will of God. Despair in and of itself does not precipitate sin.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Oh here. This is better....
"Here Christianity begins with the doctrine of sin, and therefore with the individual.(The doctrine of the sin of the human race has often been misused because it has not been noticed that sin, common though it is to all, does not gather men together in a common concept, into a society or a partnership ("any more than out in the churchyard the multitude of the dead constitute a society"), but it splits men into individuals and holds every individual fast as a sinner -- a splitting which in another sense is both in correspondence with and teleologically in the direction of the perfection of existence. This men have not observed, and so they have let the fallen race become once for all good again in Christ. And so in turn they have saddled God with an abstraction which, as an abstraction, presumes to claim kinship with Him. But this is a false pretext which only makes men insolent. For if the individual is to feel himself akin to God (and this is the doctrine of Christianity), the whole weight of this falls upon him in fear and trembling, and he must discover (if it were not an old discovery) the possibility of offense. But if the individual is to attain this glory through an abstraction, the thing becomes too easy, and essentially it is taken in vain. The individual does not in this case get the prodigious weight of God, which by humiliation presses down as deeply as it uplifts; the individual imagines that he possesses everything as a matter of course by participating in this abstraction. Being a man is not like being an animal, where the specimen is always less than the species. Man is distinguished from other animals not only by the advantages which are commonly enumerated, but qualitatively by the fact that the individual is more than the species. And this characteristic is again dialectical, it means that the individual is a sinner, but then again that it is perfection to be the individual.(The doctrine of the sin of the human race has often been misused because it has not been noticed that sin, common though it is to all, does not gather men together in a common concept, into a society or a partnership ("any more than out in the churchyard the multitude of the dead constitute a society"), but it splits men into individuals and holds every individual fast as a sinner -- a splitting which in another sense is both in correspondence with and teleologically in the direction of the perfection of existence. This men have not observed, and so they have let the fallen race become once for all good again in Christ. And so in turn they have saddled God with an abstraction which, as an abstraction, presumes to claim kinship with Him. But this is a false pretext which only makes men insolent. For if the individual is to feel himself akin to God (and this is the doctrine of Christianity), the whole weight of this falls upon him in fear and trembling, and he must discover (if it were not an old discovery) the possibility of offense. But if the individual is to attain this glory through an abstraction, the thing becomes too easy, and essentially it is taken in vain. The individual does not in this case get the prodigious weight of God, which by humiliation presses down as deeply as it uplifts; the individual imagines that he possesses everything as a matter of course by participating in this abstraction. Being a man is not like being an animal, where the specimen is always less than the species. Man is distinguished from other animals not only by the advantages which are commonly enumerated, but qualitatively by the fact that the individual is more than the species. And this characteristic is again dialectical, it means that the individual is a sinner, but then again that it is perfection to be the individual.) For it is Christianity to be sure which has taught this about the God-Man, about the likeness between God and man, but Christianity is a great hater of wanton and impertinent forwardness. By the help of the doctrine of sin and of the individual sinner God and Christ have been secured once for all, and far better than any king, against the nation, the people, the crowd, etc., item against every demand for a freer constitution. All these abstractions are before God nonexistent, before God in Christ there live only individual men (sinners ) -- yet God can well oversee the whole, He can care for the sparrows too. God is wholly a friend of order, and to that end He is Himself present at every point, in every instant, He is omnipresent -- which is specified in the text-books as one of the titles by which God is called, which men once in a while think about a little but surely never try to think every instant. His concept is not like that of man under which the individual is subsumed as a thing which cannot be absorbed by the concept, His concept comprises everything, and in another sense He has no concept. God does not help Himself by an abbreviation, He comprehends (comprehendit) reality itself, all the individuals; for Him the individual is not subsumed under the concept."
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
You missed the divine spark part? Where does that come from... if your answer is anything other than God, then you don't understand the word "divine". And I think humans have a better understanding of God - so they are better due to understanding their Creator better, not due to inherantness.
Secondly, I wonder if you read any of my posts if you think that I believe that reason alone allows for good. God has granted us reason, true, but I've many times critiqued the idea that we can simply use reason to discern the will of God - against you even in fact.
And FWIW, I do NOT believe that faith in God is always necessary for humans to do good - plenty of atheists have done good things. The concept of good may have been implanted in them by God (I believe one way God speaks to us is through our consciences), but they don't need faith to unlock it.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
"No man is born with spiritlessness"
Everyone has the spark of God in them.
His argument is talking about something entirely different. He's talking about how Original sin isn't about the sin of the human race, but provokes individual consequences in concuspiscence to sin.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Humans have the inclination to be good. With God's guidance, they can better fulfill their potential. Look at it this way, you can either teach yourself algebra or have a math whiz of good-nature help you. Not much of a decision.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
No, no. Humans do not have an easy time understanding God. The Gospels are evidence of that. The "crowd" does not understand God, because they are afraid to face Him as individuals.You missed the divine spark part? Where does that come from... if your answer is anything other than God, then you don't understand the word "divine"
And this is exactly why I say that you believe that human beings are different from God by degree, not qualitatively different from God. I say again, if you think they can do good all by themselves, and that they are naturally inclined to do so, then they are like God.Secondly, I wonder if you read any of my posts if you think that I believe that reason alone allows for good. God has granted us reason, true, but I've many times critiqued the idea that we can simply use reason to discern the will of God - against you even in fact.
And FWIW, I do NOT believe that faith in God is always necessary for humans to do good - plenty of atheists have done good things. The concept of good may have been implanted in them by God (I believe one way God speaks to us is through our consciences), but they don't need faith to unlock it.
Last edited by Kidicious; July 18, 2012 at 06:07.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
He isn't talking about a spark. A spirit is not a spark. I don't even know where that word comes from, but not from Kierkegaard, that's for sure. What he's saying in that quote is that human beings aren't born in despair or in sin as Augustine's doctrine says they are. He's saying there is no "Fall of the human race" that each human being falls individually.
Last edited by Kidicious; July 18, 2012 at 06:54.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Ah google says that "divine spark" is a Gnostic idea.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Knowing God isn't anything like knowing algebra. Learing algebra is easy. All it takes is reason. If you try to use reason to know God you are only going to get to a paradox. Understanding a paradox is nothing like knowing what x means.
When we believe that it is easy to know God we tend to think that we already do know God. When we believe that it is difficult to know God we tend to think we are in the process of becoming a christian. There is a big difference between calling yourself a cristian and knowing that you are becoming a christian. When we think we already are something then we look at things from the outside. But since we are still becoming the thing our perceptions are wrong.
Last edited by Kidicious; July 18, 2012 at 07:27.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
He's stating that original sin afflicts us as individuals.He's saying there is no "Fall of the human race" that each human being falls individually.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
No he isn't. Read post 184. He's saying that the church has interpreted the scriptures incorrectly because they want to make the guilt of sin a collective thing. He's saying the doctrine of original sin is a bad interpretation, because God does not hold us accountable for the sin of others.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Who said easy? I said they have a better understanding of God as time goes on... because we've been struggling with Scripture for 2,000 years. Here is where I think the Catholics have it right by elevating tradition - it was the accumulation of wisdom by those studying Holy Scripture.
They can do good all by themselves and they are natural inclined to do so BECAUSE OF WHAT GOD HAS PUT IN THEM!And this is exactly why I say that you believe that human beings are different from God by degree, not qualitatively different from God. I say again, if you think they can do good all by themselves, and that they are naturally inclined to do so, then they are like God.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
That would be like grading a student on attendance only, giving out A's to those who showed up everyday regardless of their proficiency in the subject.
Wisdom does not take 2,000 years to learn. It doesn't take a generation. It takes one individual with the guts to ask the hard questions and seek the answers.
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." -
-- Aldous Huxley
"If God has created us in His image, we have more than returned the compliment." - Voltaire
Of course they are how God made them. And you are saying they are only different by degree. That's how God made them. That's what I said.They can do good all by themselves and they are natural inclined to do so BECAUSE OF WHAT GOD HAS PUT IN THEM!
Last edited by Kidicious; July 18, 2012 at 20:41.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Kid, do you believe in the trinity?
It is certain that those who were followers of Christ in the first 30-100 years did not hold the trinity as we do now. Some were thinking thoughts (Paul/others?) which lead to the trinity doctrine we have now, but none believed in the current doctrine of the trinity.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, I believe in the trinity doctrine although it's not something I think about alot. Your statement seems a bit contradicting. You say you are certain that none of them believed in the trinity doctrine, but then you say that possibly Paul and others were thinking it. Is your point that no one can know truth unless they get it from another generation? How do you know no one believed that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were God?
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
The trinity doctrine is quite complicated, it is built on interpretations of the beliefs of Paul/etc. It isn't just the belief that Christ, the Father, and the Spirit were all God (were some created, one God, nature of Christ, nature of the Spirit (which isn't really found in the OT, it wasn't a solid idea I think before Christ), etc).
Just because it built upon the beliefs of Paul/etc, doesn't mean they believed it, it was the development of theologians who read the works of Paul/John/etc and were trying to understand God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...stian_theology
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Maybe I should have said not then, I do not believe in the trinity doctrine as I'm not that well read on all of the implications. I'm not a big fan of church doctrine. I'm not saying it's all wrong, but some of it is.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
What is doctrine but our understanding of God?
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Doctrine is the church's understanding of God, not necessarily mine. For example, I don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. I just don't. And it would be an atrocity if I were just to make myself believe in it just because it is church doctrine.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Huh? How is that relevant.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
I don't know, because I still don't really know what your point is. The Bible is an eternal thing. Doctine is not. It is systematic, finite and changable. I'm not really sure what your point is about doctrine.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
You disagreed with Imran about understanding increasing as time goes by. I gave an example, the current understanding of the Trinity came about over time. It wasn't what the followers of Christ held in the 1st generation.
JM
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
First, it doesn't mean that the doctrine of the trinity as you believe it is true. Second, one example doesn't make a rule. Third, it doesn't mean that what people believe today is true. And finally, I wouldn't expect most people to have believed in the trinity, as I believe most people are like herd animals. They follow each other. They started believing in the trinity because others were believing in it. The church was telling them to believe in it.
Last edited by Kidicious; July 19, 2012 at 13:15.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
Thank you, Nietzsche.
No, it takes longer. We are not yet wise. But those among us who are the wisest have taken the lessons and learning of the past to heart.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Are you wiser than Abraham or Socrates? No. Thousands of years have not helped you one bit.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
To be clear, I'm talking about wisdom in a strict sense. There has been progress do to the gain in historical knowledge. But the kind that I'm talking about doesn't lend itself to progress.
We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced these murderers. - Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogy for the Martyred Children (1963)
It doesn't really take very long to be wise. Easy to lose too.
The other day I was out working on the house. Net brought my lunch out, and her younger sisters stopped by too. On the way home there were some dishes, garbage, and tools to bring back. Net's younger sisters had a length of PVC pipe and put a couple sacks on it full of most of the odds and ends. Then they ported it on their shoulders. This could be something of a chore, as it's a long walk, dirt path, "itchy grass"... but what struck me was the whole way they were playing games with the load... trying to outmaneuver the other by standing higher on the hill (going quite a ways out of their way in the process), speeding up and slowing down, chasing after the dog, and laughing the whole way.
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks