Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

PAGES 201- 240, question a) similarities and differences between…

- - - - Some people are unable to benefit from suffering but they still experience it - terminal illness
      - Suffering can make people lose faith and become bitter or drive them to mental illness and irrationality
      - Perhaps this is just part of the learning process
      - Why are some people’s development cut short? Natural disasters appear to disrupt people
      - Issues with HIck’s view of salvation: inclusive approach but some argue it undermines christianity. Everyone gets to god in the end, why did christ have to die on the cross so gruesomely
      - Criticisms of consequentialist views, god might be unpleasant, but they are justified by the ends. Kant: humans should not be used as a means to an end. But Hick means that God does this when he allows suffering as a means to soul making.
- - - - Development of god consciousness of guilt and need for redemption
      - if we are free does that not contradict the fact that everyone is redeemed in the same way, should be more variation/freedom to develop in own way
    - - Common sinfulness is built up of wrong violations of individuals therefore universal need for redemption
        
        Sociology of Religion - alternative reasoning for common sinfulness
        
        Naturalistic Fallacy - just because something appears it should be a certain way, doesn't mean it is that way in reality. Does not follow from previous premises
        
        Kant's moral argument
  - - - Evil suffering by mankind is a punishment for sit. God doesn't directly send suffering. Our sinful response to God's good world is what brings evil to us. "were he without sin would feel what are merely the hindrance of sensuous functions as evils, the very fact he does feel them is due to sin
        
        Mill, Roger Crisp Hayden's oyster. More value in experiencing sin alongside goodness and virtue than living a bland life
      - Human's are directly responsible for inflicting suffering upon itself
        
        Thomas Hobbes - psychological egosim
      - Redemption = activity of God. The total event that culimntaes in man's redemption represents the outworkings of God's purpose.
        
        “in no sense implies that sin was ordained and willed purely for itself”. “God is only the author of sin, however, only as related to redemption”
        
        “Sin has been ordained by God, not indeed sin in and of itself. But sin merely in relation to redemption. For otherwise redemption itself could not have been ordained”
  - - - ref. Schleiermacher on RE - non cognitive view on religious experience - 'intuitive dependence' on God - these experiences of Religion are enough to justify God's existence
  - - - if redemption inevitable how much freedom do we have
  - - - If sin ultimately contributes to the fulfilment of God, does it not cease to be sin?
        
        Mackintosh: “Schleiermacher totally ignores that sin is a rebellion against the divine will”Karl Barth: “when sin is understood positively, it is esteemed and justified”. “real sin cannot be vindicated this way”
        
        On one hand we must treat sin as right and wrong. But on the other hand, we must not create a distinct cosmic duality. It is better for HIm to permit sin and evil than not to permit them.
    - - But are these analogous? It seems to compare an omniscient being with a human doctor. Incomparable level of knowledge
      - Surgery created after accident so this analogy suggests redemption was created after sin so sin existed first
    - - This is a Machinean heresy - harmful to look at sin positively
      - Things should be defined in and off itself - not in its effects (deontological)
- - - - Augustine theory regards neoplatonism - concerned with ontology (what things do or do not exist)
      - Augustine depicts a world like a mural being chipped away by human disobedience. But the principle of plenitude should surely imply both extremes of perfection alongside the greatest evils.
      - Goodness is only present in contrast to evil. We require evil in the world in order to recognise goodness of God’s creation
  - - - Evaluation - But our freedom must still be confined in some sense eg, genetic predispositions, what is possible in this world - why is this limitation of freedom ok but not a limitation that predisposes people away from sin and evil
- - - - Angel Marriages: between male angels and the daughters of the earth. taken from genesis VI. They mated unlawfully to create Nephilim. Watchers in the book of Enoch
        
        God 'saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually
        
        This is similar to Jung's morally neutral libido, N.P Williams makes this comparison. God himself implants this. In the time of St Paul, this idea of year ha-ra is mixed with the Adamic fall as his transgression creates an 'evil imagination' congenitally gifted to descendants.
        
        “it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”(Romans 1:16)
        “The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armour of light.” (Romans 13:12)
        
        Acer ha-ra: more popular with the common Jewish people, not the rabbinical and priestly circles. They had the idea of an 'evil imagination.' it is a 'culpably acquired habit of the will.'
        
        Adamic fall: based on Genesis III and written in Jubilees, this story alone explains the origin of sin. Augustine and St Paul elaborate on the story of Adam and Eve. They claim an 'original righteousness' which is tainted by Satan
        
        Genesis III itself is much simpler and only describes a primitive state- the serpent isn't a fallen angel
        
        Bible- the Lord himself does endorse sin as a universal condition eg. 'forgive us our trespasses,' no endorsement to any of these interpretations- adamic, watcher or rabbinical. There is no reliable theory to the origin of sin found in scripture
        
        Propositional knowledge criticisms - cqan not trust validity of bible as source of Religious truth
    - - In book II of his Confessions, Augustine writes that he ‘ran wild in the shadowy jungle of erotic adventures’ and that ‘Clouds of muddy carnal concupiscence filled the air; The bubbling impulses of puberty befogged and obscured my heart; I couldn’t tell the difference between lust and love.’
        
        Principle of plenitude- having lots of things in the world is a good thing- therefore being kicked out of the garden of eden was good as we were exposed to more things, even if they are bad, are good.
        
        The east did not develop their ideas about theodicies and the west accepted the Augustinian explanation- leaving Irenaeus and his Hellenistic partners largely dormant.
        
        God’s omniscience would ensure he predicts this pitfall. Friedrich Schleiermacher: impossible to find a motive for angels to sin, unless they were created imperfect in the first place. Evil did not lead from nowhere. If it came from out of nowhere, there are issues with God’s omniscience.
        
        Why did God give some angels too little grace? There's no need for that variety to include so little goodness to rebel against god.
        
        Omnibenevolence? - damning those for the past, is this all loving
        
        Are acts like infancticide not significantly worse than disobedience?
        
        No Biblical references/parallels
        
        Why is it bad to search for knowledge - we should be able to exercise our free will without