0
   

...spoiled with Christianity

 
 
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 08:43 am
This thread is about Christian understanding of human nature and how it influenced our modern understanding thereof.
What is the essence of all those so-called Abrahamic religions? They all teach that human nature is intrinsically bad. According to those religions we have man which is naturally sinful, prone to lusts and so forth. Therefore God, the Supreme Being, makes him obey to his law (which he apparently made up himself) and in case he doesn't, he shall be deprived of possessions or of life etc. Thus morality appears to be something imposed violently on human. Were there no God, were there no violence, there would not be morality, which is perfectly expressed in the words from Dostoyevsky's novel: "If there is no God, everything is permitted". This is the essence of all those Judaist sects: morality in them is dependent on existence of violence, and without it human is inevitably supposed to do "iniquity".
But the years were passing and step by step the idea of God started dropping. Actually I think he died at the beginning of the Renaissance and now this is not a secret to anyone who lives in the Western society. So God is dead, but what remained? The idea of sinful nature of a human being. Moreover it's flowering. Christianity has for so many years taught us that we are bad that we eventually believed it. Ridiculous as it may sound, but it succeeded in it much better than in establishing the idea of God.
Now, our natural state as described by evolutionists, phychologists and those of their ilk is a state of eternal struggle for pleasures: for food, sex, possessions etc. And a normal person is an animal. And happiness is to satisfy one's animal necessities. This is what we were taught by Chsitianity.
It is also interesting to notice that those psychological and evolutional theories appeared in the West, in Christian west. In India and ancient Greece we have absolutely another understanding of human life. They have never known a law-giver, someone who compels us to become moral. For them morality has always coincided with the way that leads to happiness. Thus, to be happy is impossible without being virtuous. To none of them has never fall the idea that happy life is the life of lusts. What is the teaching of Socrates, Epicurus, Seneca, Buddha, Lao-tzu? To be obedient to the law? By no means. It is the teaching how to become happy. Perhaps the mad idea that animal life, the life when everything is considered to be only means for attainment of pleasure, the life deprived of beauty which is possible only when the self is forgotten -- such an idea might come only in the heads spoiled with Judeo-Christian world-view.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 991 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
josh0335
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 01:12 pm
@Eudaimon,
The philosophers you mentioned believed happiness came from expressing the virtues (as you already mentioned) and so do the Abrahamic religions.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 08:19 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;112359 wrote:
This thread is about Christian understanding of human nature and how it influenced our modern understanding thereof.
What is the essence of all those so-called Abrahamic religions? They all teach that human nature is intrinsically bad. According to those religions we have man which is naturally sinful, prone to lusts and so forth. Therefore God, the Supreme Being, makes him obey to his law (which he apparently made up himself) and in case he doesn't, he shall be deprived of possessions or of life etc. Thus morality appears to be something imposed violently on human. Were there no God, were there no violence, there would not be morality, which is perfectly expressed in the words from Dostoyevsky's novel: "If there is no God, everything is permitted". This is the essence of all those Judaist sects: morality in them is dependent on existence of violence, and without it human is inevitably supposed to do "iniquity".
But the years were passing and step by step the idea of God started dropping. Actually I think he died at the beginning of the Renaissance and now this is not a secret to anyone who lives in the Western society. So God is dead, but what remained? The idea of sinful nature of a human being. Moreover it's flowering. Christianity has for so many years taught us that we are bad that we eventually believed it. Ridiculous as it may sound, but it succeeded in it much better than in establishing the idea of God.
Now, our natural state as described by evolutionists, phychologists and those of their ilk is a state of eternal struggle for pleasures: for food, sex, possessions etc. And a normal person is an animal. And happiness is to satisfy one's animal necessities. This is what we were taught by Chsitianity.
It is also interesting to notice that those psychological and evolutional theories appeared in the West, in Christian west. In India and ancient Greece we have absolutely another understanding of human life. They have never known a law-giver, someone who compels us to become moral. For them morality has always coincided with the way that leads to happiness. Thus, to be happy is impossible without being virtuous. To none of them has never fall the idea that happy life is the life of lusts. What is the teaching of Socrates, Epicurus, Seneca, Buddha, Lao-tzu? To be obedient to the law? By no means. It is the teaching how to become happy. Perhaps the mad idea that animal life, the life when everything is considered to be only means for attainment of pleasure, the life deprived of beauty which is possible only when the self is forgotten -- such an idea might come only in the heads spoiled with Judeo-Christian world-view.

I think there is a common point to all the Abrahmic religions if you follow their philosophy, and it is that the good should rule the brutes...

I thought Buddha was about making the world better by removing evil from the thoughts of the bad...
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 02:45 am
@Eudaimon,
I agree with most you say, Fido, but is that the whole truth? What about Jesus as the Reversal of the Law? Christianity has a subversive core. What of forgiveness of sin? Isn't Christianity also about the opposite of guilt? Yes, I see that Applied Christianity has been the opposite of Radical Christianity. I also think that the New Testament is a conjuring book. Symbols and stories can empower as well as enslave. If Jesus (character or real man) told folks that "the kingdom of God is within you," isn't this revolutionary? Isn't Protestantism an individualistic religion, at least in its radical core? Christian art, Western music? Doesn't this point at unworldly beauty, transcendence of the animal? I think original sin is an accusation against our untrained animal nature, which must be inspired and transformed by living culture, art and thought that matters, that encourages honor, ecstasy, love rather than greed, fear, shame.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 02:59 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;112359 wrote:
They all teach that human nature is intrinsically bad.


Got any references for this claim? Or is this 'gospel according to Eudaimon'?
Jay phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 07:14 am
@jeeprs,
"They all teach that human nature is intrinsically bad."Genesis 1:31 KJV

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 08:07 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;112589 wrote:
I agree with most you say, Fido, but is that the whole truth? What about Jesus as the Reversal of the Law? Christianity has a subversive core. What of forgiveness of sin? Isn't Christianity also about the opposite of guilt? Yes, I see that Applied Christianity has been the opposite of Radical Christianity. I also think that the New Testament is a conjuring book. Symbols and stories can empower as well as enslave. If Jesus (character or real man) told folks that "the kingdom of God is within you," isn't this revolutionary? Isn't Protestantism an individualistic religion, at least in its radical core? Christian art, Western music? Doesn't this point at unworldly beauty, transcendence of the animal? I think original sin is an accusation against our untrained animal nature, which must be inspired and transformed by living culture, art and thought that matters, that encourages honor, ecstasy, love rather than greed, fear, shame.


I don't know what Bible you are reading, but I read that Jesus came to fulfill the law; and he said to do as the priest say, not as they do... What he seemed to be rejecting was a formal relationship with God, one where a man went through the motions, the form of the law in expectation of God's blessing...He seemed to be pushing a psychological relationship, one of love, with the understanding that desires do not lead to sin, but are sin...
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 01:57 am
@Fido,
Fido;112638 wrote:
I don't know what Bible you are reading, but I read that Jesus came to fulfill the law; and he said to do as the priest say, not as they do... What he seemed to be rejecting was a formal relationship with God, one where a man went through the motions, the form of the law in expectation of God's blessing...He seemed to be pushing a psychological relationship, one of love, with the understanding that desires do not lead to sin, but are sin...

Good point. But certain lines have stand alone value. Also Blake and others have interpreted Christ well. Since it's just narrative for me in the first place, I don't mind making a salad of narrative and interpretation. You know how it goes. Hermeneutics. You can pull all sorts of rabbits out of that hat.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 06:25 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;113172 wrote:
Good point. But certain lines have stand alone value. Also Blake and others have interpreted Christ well. Since it's just narrative for me in the first place, I don't mind making a salad of narrative and interpretation. You know how it goes. Hermeneutics. You can pull all sorts of rabbits out of that hat.

There is only one Bible an myriads of books, interpretations of the Bible...The Aim of the Catholics to restrict access to the Bible, and to reading generally was an effort to avoid opening a can of worms...Every sin is in the Bible, and every justification...Even the justification for the murder of Jesus serves well in our own time, and I think has found voice in every Western religion through their best philosophers... Justice is not primary, and social control resulting in peace is primary... For this reason every force for change and revolution must accept that it is Godless, unless it goes to the other extreme, and becomes super pius, as Lutheranism, or Protestantism generally while also represented the power of capital...
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 06:47 am
@Eudaimon,
I see what you mean. kind of marx/hegel screw the afterlife & live as free mortal historical being
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 07:39 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;113210 wrote:
I see what you mean. kind of marx/hegel screw the afterlife & live as free mortal historical being

Marxism is a good example because it grew out of a superior morality to the Christian/capital morality...And the churches, especially the Feudal Catholic Church, but all in fact, have attacked Communism as materialistic as though human happiness and salvation did not often depend upon material conditions...What Marxism is, is as much a religion and system of thought as any religions...It has it martyrs, its high priests and its share of Judas's...It transferes the hope in God to a hope in mankind, that we can be guided by reason, and morality as a social form...The force for change, and the need for change often creates zealots, idealists; and Marxism grows out of idealism, so it is not all that strange...

It is sad that no one will tear down the old before having the new laid out for them like a shirt to climb into...If the impediments to thought and progress are torn out, there is no doubt that people can manage their own relationships even if such relationships can become a natural object of government...That is all I am about...I tear down old crap thought and forms, and expect people will reasemble the pieces as they desire...I am neither idealistic about humanity, nor optimistic about the prospect and promise of change...It is incredibly hard to change religion, economy, and government at the same time when that requires a whole shift of paradigm...Where we are today, these social forms are entrenched against human progress...They are on the point of failure, but that failure could take a hundred years, or ten minutes...When forms fail they take a lot of people with them...Jesus is a good example, but the whole diaspora is also a good example... His religion was a source of wealth that was bleeding the entire people, and Jerusalem was not going to let some hay seed preacher topple their tables...But the form had failed, and when the people took matters into their own hands they found all their wealth tied up in the temple and unable to support their war...The thing fell, and was never again the same; but the people carried on...

As you can see, these forms which can never offer the people meaning are reckless, and dangerous in their dying...Look at how the government spies on the people...It is out of fear...Why would the churches attack the morality of a health care bill only because it allows abortion??? Their behavior is governed by absolutes which will not allow a higher morality even while the morality behind their actions is the most obvious corruption... The religion of the poor is the support of the wealthy...The churches offer faith instead of social justice because social justice would deny their wealth... What will the rich not do to defend their wealth???

Things start to get shaky... The economy has bled people to the point where they have no capital left to liquify...So they are turned out to pasture, and only by the actions of government can they be made a market... If the rich need a war to feed them money, or to pacify their restless victims in other lands, then so be it...There is no morality to the bunch of them... They are all in survival mode...That fact makes them dangerous... To us, liberty is an idea...To them it is just a word, and they can use it as they see fit...Like Hitler, who chained the people and then attacked the Poles for threatening German freedom; there is no limit to their abuse of the language in the attempt to ruin its ability to communicate truth....

More of what they have is what they want, and is why they are masters of their social forms...If they think they require unrestrained tyranny to keep their status, their power, and privilage then we will suffer it under the name of democracy...The thing cannot stand, and yet stand it does... Well; some times that is the way it goes, and my purpose is to keep people out of the metaphorical way, in the event it all comes down; and to warn them that the wounded and dying beast is more dangerous than a free and wild one... Not one of our major social forms has a bit of morality... They would kill their mothers if it was expediant...
0 Replies
 
Eudaimon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 09:29 am
@Eudaimon,
josh0335;112425 wrote:
The philosophers you mentioned believed happiness came from expressing the virtues (as you already mentioned) and so do the Abrahamic religions.

There is big difference. Real philosopher wants to show others how to live happily; in different rate it was expressed in the words of the thinkers I mentioned above. But the teaching that "thou shalt do this and not do that" because this the will of "God", because thou wilt be punished (notice namely physically punished in this life, as ancient Hebrews taught, or in the afterlife as their successors, Christians). His will has nothing to do with me, rather it is imposed, like a tyranny, whereas I am always deemed to be sinner, full of lusts, prone to do iniquity. It perfectly coincide with modern Western attitude to human nature: without violence, without prisons, death penalties, punishments etc. the order is impossible. We are so conditioned with this view that we can't even doubt therein. In few words the difference between real philosopher and Judaeo-Christian lies in that for the first virtue, reasonable life is good in itself, whereas for the last it is always just surrender of the weak before the mighty. (Isn't it suggestive that Christian appraise fear, "the fear of God"?)

Fido;112537 wrote:
I think there is a common point to all the Abrahmic religions if you follow their philosophy, and it is that the good should rule the brutes...

Yes but "good" for them is nothing but expression of "God's will" and "brute" is me.

Reconstructo;112589 wrote:
I agree with most you say, Fido, but is that the whole truth? What about Jesus as the Reversal of the Law? Christianity has a subversive core. What of forgiveness of sin? Isn't Christianity also about the opposite of guilt? Yes, I see that Applied Christianity has been the opposite of Radical Christianity. I also think that the New Testament is a conjuring book. Symbols and stories can empower as well as enslave. If Jesus (character or real man) told folks that "the kingdom of God is within you," isn't this revolutionary? Isn't Protestantism an individualistic religion, at least in its radical core? Christian art, Western music? Doesn't this point at unworldly beauty, transcendence of the animal? I think original sin is an accusation against our untrained animal nature, which must be inspired and transformed by living culture, art and thought that matters, that encourages honor, ecstasy, love rather than greed, fear, shame.

Indeed, Jesus should be somewhat separated from Christianity, as well as Buddha from Buddhism. Yet in case with Christianity, the perversions are far deeper than e.g. even in Buddhism. If we are to analyse Gospel, I should say that there we have mixture of ideas, which are in big contradictions with themselves. Throughout the gospel, Jesus always claims his teachings to be in accordance with Mosaic law. Also there are passages that say that the "Son of Man" shall judge everyone and send others to eternal perdition.
But on the other hand, as thou pointedest out there is absolutely another motif in those books, the motif that comes perhaps from Greece or elsewhere, I can't say. According to it, there is neither good, nor evil, the kingdom of God is within us and the only thing necessary for happiness is love. This is much different from criminal law of old testament. But this has never been a part of Christianity as socio-historical phenomenon. Moreover this part seems to be forgotten in the first generation of Jesus' disciples (if we may speak of him as of a real man). Perhaps, it is only when we turned again to ancient Greek philosophy and to eastern philosophy that we started understanding that Christ's teachings were perhaps not the thing we were taught.

jeeprs;112595 wrote:
Got any references for this claim? Or is this 'gospel according to Eudaimon'?

Hast thou never read Pentateuch? In this case the only thing I can do is to recommend thee to do this and all my further comments will become excessive.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2009 02:44 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon;113528 wrote:
This is much different from criminal law of old testament. But this has never been a part of Christianity as socio-historical phenomenon. Moreover this part seems to be forgotten in the first generation of Jesus' disciples (if we may speak of him as of a real man). Perhaps, it is only when we turned again to ancient Greek philosophy and to eastern philosophy that we started understanding that Christ's teachings were perhaps not the thing we were taught.

It seems that certain heretics read the scripture in a radical light here and there and the church stomped them out. Of course the church did its best to keep the bible in latin/hebrew/greek. During Milton's time in England there were "antinomian" interpretations of Christianity, quite radical.

I have read much if not all of the Old Testament. I think the Bible is quite a library.
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 05:22 pm
@Eudaimon,
[QUOTE=Eudaimon;112359] This thread is about Christian understanding of human nature and how it influenced our modern understanding thereof. [/QUOTE]
Eudaimon;112359 wrote:

What is the essence of all those so-called Abrahamic religions? They all teach that human nature is intrinsically bad. According to those religions we have man which is naturally sinful, prone to lusts and so forth. Therefore God, the Supreme Being, makes him obey to his law (which he apparently made up himself) and in case he doesn't, he shall be deprived of possessions or of life etc.
In the west the problem is sin and the solution is salvation. The concept of sin varies among the three Abrahamic religions. Only Christianity carries the notion of "original sin" inherited from Adam, passed down from generation to generation and only rectified by the sacrificial death (crucifixion of Jesus) on the cross. Neither Judaism nor Islam has this notion of original, inherent, inherited sin. Judaism and Islam also reject substitutionary, vicarious or sacrificial atonement. In both Islam and Judaism man has a dual nature, an evil inclination and a good inclination and morality is a free choice between Islam "surrender" to gods will or to follow the law given by god to Moses Judaism. In any event in its most basic nature "sin" is alienation or separation from god and failure to follow the divine as opposed to the individual will. Many modern legal concepts and many of the concepts of human rights and human dignity derive from Judeo Christian Islamic concepts of man "created in the image" and following divine will about distributive justice and compassion as the basis of ethics.


[QUOTE=Eudaimon;112359] Thus morality appears to be something imposed violently on human. Were there no God, were there no violence, there would not be morality, which is perfectly expressed in the words from Dostoyevsky's novel: "If there is no God, everything is permitted". This is the essence of all those Judaist sects: morality in them is dependent on existence of violence, and without it human is inevitably supposed to do "iniquity".[/QUOTE] There are two images of the divine in the West: God as loving compassionate father and god as vengeful ruler, judge and law giver. In many ways they are in conflict and which image dominates in your religious thinking affects your notion of divine justice and what following or serving "god's will" is or means.


[QUOTE=Eudaimon;112359] But the years were passing and step by step the idea of God started dropping. Actually I think he died at the beginning of the Renaissance and now this is not a secret to anyone who lives in the Western society. So God is dead, but what remained? The idea of sinful nature of a human being. Moreover it's flowering. Christianity has for so many years taught us that we are bad that we eventually believed it. Ridiculous as it may sound, but it succeeded in it much better than in establishing the idea of God. [/QUOTE] I think actually the notion of "original sin" and substitutionary or vicarious sacrificial atonement and incarnation (Jesus as god in the flesh) is losing ground. I also think the notion of God as law giver, judge, ruler, warrior god, and heaven and hell is losing ground.

[QUOTE=Eudaimon;112359] Now, our natural state as described by evolutionists, phychologists and those of their ilk is a state of eternal struggle for pleasures: for food, sex, possessions etc. And a normal person is an animal. And happiness is to satisfy one's animal necessities. This is what we were taught by Chsitianity. [/QUOTE] "Nature, Mr. Arnault is what we were put in this world to rise above" Rosie to Charlie in the African Queen. The Abrahamic religions hold that man is created in the "divine image". Man is unique in his reason, his freedom, and his moral responsibility. The divine that dwells within makes each person worthy of respect and dignity.


[QUOTE=Eudaimon;112359] It is also interesting to notice that those psychological and evolutional theories appeared in the West, in Christian west. In India and ancient Greece we have absolutely another understanding of human life. They have never known a law-giver, someone who compels us to become moral. For them morality has always coincided with the way that leads to happiness. Thus, to be happy is impossible without being virtuous. To none of them has never fall the idea that happy life is the life of lusts. What is the teaching of Socrates, Epicurus, Seneca, Buddha, Lao-tzu? [/QUOTE] In the west the problem is "sin" in the East the problem is "suffering". In the West the solution is salvation through obedience, through grace, through healing of the separation or alienation of man from god and nature. In the east the solution is "enlightenment", lifting of the veil of ignorance and illusion which separates man from the true nature of reality.

West-Sin-alienation or separation from god-salvation, grace.
East-Suffering-ignorance, illusion about reality-enlightenment, nirvana
Problem-Cause-Solution in both cases.

Personally I think both the East and the West have many common features as would be appropriate since the existential problem of a self aware self reflective creature such as man finding his relationship and his place in the larger world or universe is similar.


[QUOTE=Eudaimon;112359] To be obedient to the law? By no means. It is the teaching how to become happy. Perhaps the mad idea that animal life, the life when everything is considered to be only means for attainment of pleasure, the life deprived of beauty which is possible only when the self is forgotten -- such an idea might come only in the heads spoiled with Judeo-Christian world-view. [/QUOTE] I also think the solution offered in the east and the west and the methods and means of obtaining them is not as different as you portray. The unexamined life is not worth living is a Western notion. The difference between Western comptemplative prayer, vows of silence, obedience and chastity and the east meditative detachment from individual worldly concerns is it seems to me two methods of achieving roughly the same goal (deeper insight into the spiritual aspects of existence and the true underlying nature of reality). Mystics East and West have much in common.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 06:06 pm
@Eudaimon,
Never are two minds more alike than when they are silent.
0 Replies
 
Eudaimon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 02:44 am
@prothero,
prothero;114495 wrote:
In the west the problem is sin and the solution is salvation. The concept of sin varies among the three Abrahamic religions. Only Christianity carries the notion of “original sin” inherited from Adam, passed down from generation to generation and only rectified by the sacrificial death (crucifixion of Jesus) on the cross. Neither Judaism nor Islam has this notion of original, inherent, inherited sin. Judaism and Islam also reject substitutionary, vicarious or sacrificial atonement. In both Islam and Judaism man has a dual nature, an evil inclination and a good inclination and morality is a free choice between Islam “surrender” to gods will or to follow the law given by god to Moses Judaism. In any event in its most basic nature “sin” is alienation or separation from god and failure to follow the divine as opposed to the individual will. Many modern legal concepts and many of the concepts of human rights and human dignity derive from Judeo Christian Islamic concepts of man “created in the image” and following divine will about distributive justice and compassion as the basis of ethics.

An attitude of Abrahamic religions to the "original sin" is not so much important. The common feature is the violent nature of morality as something imposed. Were it not so, why would have god punished Jews in the Exodus? Platonist Jews created an ideas of struggle of two principles but this acknowledged the rights of the "animal nature", made it real.


prothero;114495 wrote:
There are two images of the divine in the West: God as loving compassionate father and god as vengeful ruler, judge and law giver. In many ways they are in conflict and which image dominates in your religious thinking affects your notion of divine justice and what following or serving “god’s will” is or means.
I think actually the notion of “original sin” and substitutionary or vicarious sacrificial atonement and incarnation (Jesus as god in the flesh) is losing ground. I also think the notion of God as law giver, judge, ruler, warrior god, and heaven and hell is losing ground.

It lost its ground. And the idea of God as loving father, as whatever supernatural has lost its ground. No one believes in it, some want but they don't in reality. But the belief in animal lusts established by Christianity is prospering.


prothero;114495 wrote:
In the west the problem is “sin” in the East the problem is “suffering”. In the West the solution is salvation through obedience, through grace, through healing of the separation or alienation of man from god and nature. In the east the solution is “enlightenment”, lifting of the veil of ignorance and illusion which separates man from the true nature of reality.

West-Sin-alienation or separation from god-salvation, grace.
East-Suffering-ignorance, illusion about reality-enlightenment, nirvana
Problem-Cause-Solution in both cases.

Personally I think both the East and the West have many common features as would be appropriate since the existential problem of a self aware self reflective creature such as man finding his relationship and his place in the larger world or universe is similar.


I also think the solution offered in the east and the west and the methods and means of obtaining them is not as different as you portray. The unexamined life is not worth living is a Western notion. The difference between Western comptemplative prayer, vows of silence, obedience and chastity and the east meditative detachment from individual worldly concerns is it seems to me two methods of achieving roughly the same goal (deeper insight into the spiritual aspects of existence and the true underlying nature of reality). Mystics East and West have much in common.

By the way, why hast thou not mentioned Socrates and Co?
Eastern\Greek and Western (Christian) understanding are absolutely different. Is it not obvious? When I want to overcome suffering, this is I who wants to be happy, I really don't care what is the will of God or whatever. In Christian understanding, there is law imposed by violent God which I must follow, otherwise, God or his servants (authorities nowadays) will punish me physically. This creates all the vices of modern society where since God is abolished, my only motivation is to preserve my possessions. According to this view, bad is not to steal but to be caught. Nothing prevents me from egoistic acts when I may avoid punishment. This is Judaeo-Christian view and it is certainly different from the Greek (virtue is good per se) and the Eastern (virtue is the freedom from suffering).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ...spoiled with Christianity
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 01:36:03