Enduring Problems in Philosophy

[o2b]

Apologies for getting back to this a little late.

I think he redeemed man because although "fully man", he died sinless. It is true that he has to possess the traits of that which has been condemned. It gets more complicated when we ask ourselves whether Jesus was, in fact, capable of sin. Since he is "fully man", he should be capable of sin; but since he is also "fully God", he shouldn't be. I suspect that some of the non-Orthodox views stressing the humanity of Jesus over (or against) his divinity have their basis in the coherence of atonement. The Orthodox view would probably have to say that he was both capable and incapable of sin, and that this is precisely why redemption was possible.

St. Anselm has an interesting theory of atonement. Citing Encyclopedia Britannica:

Anselm held that Jesus’ death on the cross was absolutely necessary because there was no other rationally intelligible way in which sinful humankind could have been reconciled with God. If God in his mercy had simply forgiven humans for their sin, God’s moral order would have been repudiated. God’s righteousness, offended by human sin, demanded satisfaction; that satisfaction could be rendered only by someone who was both God—because God could overcome sin by sinlessness—and human—because humans were those who were guilty of sin. Anselm’s theory was also significant for presenting a comprehensive system that focused on the interrelationship between God, Jesus, and humankind; Satan and the notion of Jesus dying a substitutionary death for humankind had been avoided.

Three thoughts.

One - How Christ Was Victorious
If one subscribes to the view that Christ did not possess two natures, one divine and one human, at the same time, there would seem to have to be some explanation for His victory as a man.

Revelation 5:1-5
And I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll written inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals. 2 Then I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and to loose its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll, or to look at it.
4 So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it. 5 But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.”

So, if Christ was emptied of His divine attributes, how can His pre-incarnate identity play into this? It would seem it has to since the above Scripture ties in His victory to who He was, by implication - no other being could have been victorious.

I suggest the only explanation is that there must be some science involving His pre-incarnate identity as the only begotten Son of God and the occurrence and the substance of His faith the moment He developed to the level of moral conscious existence.

Otherwise, it seems to me the above text is a sham. If there is no science involved, then what of His faith? Did God inject Him with it? And if He did, why could He not have done the same with (say) the angel Gabriel and had him survive the earthly ordeal?


Two - Could Christ Sin
I don't think He could have. I think sin was available to Him in the sense that He was subject to temptation, but I don't think it was available to Him in the sense that His faith had the possibility of faltering.

To me, the alternative means we got lucky. Like if one was statistical about it and hypothetically redid Christ's life an infinite number of times and observed for success and failure. Say 15% of the time was a failure.

We got lucky!


Three - Anselm's View
This seems to me to follow a legal model with a high level of substitution.

I suggest a healing model where the cross was an event wherein Christ manufactured all the grace fully capable of making any person of faith perfectly righteous. If so, the challenges to such a view are:

1) What is this grace and is there a solid explanation for how it is well able to perform such a work?

2) Why has this grace been unavailable?

I am building a case for this. It requires a fair amount of support. Gonna be a while.

But, to me, this has been the liability of what some refer to as The Moral Persuasion view of the atonement that I think was first advanced by a guy named Abelard.

What is lacking is some organic connection between the cross and moral persuasion.

 

[Ren]

What does it mean for immorality to be "inherently psychologically sick"? Does man really have to be sick in order to be immoral?

I don't find this very convincing. Let me take an example.

Let's imagine someone who does something immoral only on very rare occasions, like once every ten years. The rest of the time he's a perfectly good person. Does it make sense to say that he's psychologically healthy 99.99% of the time, but somehow becomes psychologically sick every time he performs an immoral act? And then immediately returns to psychological health?

The parallel between morality and health/sickness was very common in more ancient, mythical worldviews, but I don't think it holds up these days.

 

[Ren]

Two - Could Christ Sin
I don't think He could have. I think sin was available to Him in the sense that He was subject to temptation, but I don't think it was available to Him in the sense that His faith had the possibility of faltering.

That's an interesting view. Do you mean that He might have been tempted to do certain things which he wasn't actually capable of doing?

 

[o2b]

Yup. Neither do I. Raised and educated as a Catholic, I guess it's my feeble attempt at piecing together what little I understand.

I'm a bit torn about this because immorality is a very complicated discussion. I guess if we simplify to the delineations of the ten commandments and the seven deadly sins, I guess we could say so, but this is something I still have to think about.

Sorry it took me a while to reply. I ran out of steam about the topic.

Hi mintoots,

Say, I certainly understand if you want to bow out of this discussion!

Personally, I think moral good is the principle of esteeming others above oneself and immorality the principle of esteeming self above others. The Big Ten are interesting. It's like looking at good as a contrast to bad. Sort of like: If you are righteous, you would not steal from somebody or be with another person's spouse, etc.

 

[o2b]

What does it mean for immorality to be "inherently psychologically sick"? Does man really have to be sick in order to be immoral?

I don't find this very convincing. Let me take an example.

Let's imagine someone who does something immoral only on very rare occasions, like once every ten years. The rest of the time he's a perfectly good person. Does it make sense to say that he's psychologically healthy 99.99% of the time, but somehow becomes psychologically sick every time he performs an immoral act? And then immediately returns to psychological health?

The parallel between morality and health/sickness was very common in more ancient, mythical worldviews, but I don't think it holds up these days.

Well, I don't believe people flip-flop between being good and being bad. Jesus said good trees produce good fruit and bad trees, bad. I think we are mainly bad trees with some good and we express ourselves according to what we are, even if largely isolated to our thoughts.

I appreciate I am depending on Scripture and not reason, but the Bible paints a sobering picture. Verses like the heart being deceitful above all things and who can know it. It also uses birth pang imagery to represent a season of un-intermittant and rapid character change. Like birth pangs, the later chastening episodes are more painful than the prior ones. I do think we see the worst of ourselves last, as we must, and we have no idea the level of immorality that resides within.

I think Isaiah 6 serves as an example. Isaiah has this perception of holiness and he falls down like a dead man and cries out, Woe is me for I am a man of unclean lips! Daniel has an encounter and says (KJV), My comeliness was turned into corruption.

My friend told me the story of someone he knew. Decent and upstanding guy. The guy related a story about how his neighbor got super belligerent at him. I guess it was pretty bad. Anyway, the guy almost lost it and was close to striking the guy in the head with his shovel. When he left the scene and got in the house, he was white as a sheet as he realized that under certain circumstances, he had murder in his heart.

Yeah, I think we have no idea what all is inside us.

Finally, I appreciate others thinking quite differently than I!

Oh, about the psychologically unwell part. I think very unwell toxins such as guilt and shame would overwhelm us if we had a fuller picture of ourselves. Meanwhile, a holy person would not be subject to such unwell, painful, and potentially lethal feelings.

Isaiah 33:17-18a
17 Your eyes will see the King in His beauty;
They will see the land that is very far off.
18 Your heart will meditate on terror:

Isaiah 28:19-20
19 As often as it goes out it will take you;
For morning by morning it will pass over,
And by day and by night;
It will be a terror just to understand the report.”

20 For the bed is too short to stretch out on,
And the covering so narrow that one cannot wrap himself in it.

 

[o2b]

That's an interesting view. Do you mean that He might have been tempted to do certain things which he wasn't actually capable of doing?

Yeah. I see the alternative as not viable, given the statistical thingie I shared that disputes it for me. The temptations, I believe, stemmed from the flesh He took.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[o2b]

LOL!

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Every philosophy in general is going to have an extreme.

As an aside, I'm happy we have found a space where theology/philosophy of religion can be discussed peacefully and respectfully.

It's not always easy to achieve.

Yeah. This is one of my biggest concerns when it comes to philosophy, religion, and politics. No idea can really be expanded on without consideration of the latter.

 

[Ren]

Every philosophy in general is going to have an extreme.

What do you mean by this? Curious to hear you expand.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

What do you mean by this? Curious to hear you expand.

I hate you rn, Ren...

Anything that we can think of when it comes to morality can be taken to an extreme. Once you take a philosophy and make it into a requirement or expectation, you have already made the original hoped for outcome impossible. Which isn't under conscious control, but subconscious. Meaning your perspective will change your judgement upon something, just as much as your judgement will ease your perspective. Everything alive comes with a balance, so everything we can think of with philosophy or theology will be subjected to our own view. Once you make anything objective, you've taken away the subjectivity of every separate aspect of it, whether it be an idea or a person, and denied any other possible aspect. It's like when you find something absolutely bad about your past actions, you may not realize that you're emotional reaction to a person doing something similar comes from a place of self loathing rather than a new or good choice for that person's life.
I saw each topic that you wrote in a linear fashion because each philosophy had the possibility of affecting each one because of the issues it had originally. It's not something that you can watch over with intention. It's actually something you learn to let go of.
I wrote this all down a long time ago and trashed it. The last thing I wanted was to cause anyone discomfort in any way, and wanted everyone to feel free to talk about it even if everyone disagreed. I may revisit it later, but you guys were so respectful about it, my thoughts on it are spent and I'm just happy to see everyone get along.
Sorry if I wasn't of much input on the subject. I'd say God is love and more collective, so I'm sure my view on God has grown a little bit from watching everyone get along. I'm just happy to listen. <3

 

[o2b]

Well, I drummed up a paper on what I believe the blood of Christ is. I actually began by writing what I considered other topics preparatory for the subject, but that would have been way too long.

It is already so, so long, but what I suggest the blood is, is way cool. Something I think most INFJ's would love.

I also explain the long delay and something that can be done to end this temporary existence of pain.

Foundational Christian theology and no one knows what the blood is! (I know, strong words.)

https://www.infjs.com/xfa-blog-entry/the-blood-of-christ.8016/

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

In summation, mind and body problem is that we cannot understand what is good because we’re already controlled by a subjective view of our own mind. Philosophy has to be studied in congruence to something else pretty much. So for one, it may be one religion or another, for another psychology, and for some the belief in nothing at all.
I hate to be more specific, but if you asked me what I believe, I may be in between an evangelical, nihilistic, psychologist.
Pretty much I’m hoping I’m not an actual sociopath at this point. Lmao. I’m okay with not having a specific belief. I can’t really be there for anyone if it’s objective.

 

[o2b]

Hey Exhumed,

In summation, mind and body problem is that we cannot understand what is good because we’re already controlled by a subjective view of our own mind.

Our senses of truth seem to me to be about as divergent as is even theoretically possible. Do you really believe what you wrote?

John 16:13
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

John 8:32
32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

The one attribute most assigned to Satan is that he is a deceiver. In contrast, Christ at least tries to help folks be able to discern truth.

Matthew 24:23-25
23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.

I mean...it would be one thing to assert that man has a propensity to be deceived, but also acknowledge that there are other variables out there in reality such that the attainment of truth is at least plausible. It is quite another to state that man simply cannot discern truth. That seems to me to assert such as some kind of postulate. Like some purported philosophical framework with this assertion residing at the apex of its construct and from which all else is deduced.

I will never believe this. Never. Or at least I pray that I never do.

I believe humanity has had its moments of moral attainment. This would seem to me to have to be impossible with your unproven postulate.

I think the divine, supposing one has some level of sincere submission to it, can sometimes over-ride one's own destructive tendencies, one of which is to allow his subjective experience to cloud truth-attainment.

If you really do believe as I here described, I don't know that we have much to discuss and I mean this strictly from a rational perspective.

It seems like you stand in one place, I stand in another, and the gulf is simply way too large.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Perhaps there's a difference between knowing what is good and understanding it? I think man very well, knows the difference between good and evil, but doesn't and cannot have the full grasp understanding of it due to our inability to know everything and be God himself.
I hope that you wouldn't have to....

it would be one thing to assert that man has a propensity to be deceived, but also acknowledge that there are other variables out there in reality such that the attainment of truth is at least plausible.

That's what I was implying. The body can't do it. Isn't there scripture on this?
"Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

and again what is church exactly? Is it not the body itself? Therefore the church and the body must have a God head.
You're implying that I have to teach this to you?

 

[Ren]

In summation, mind and body problem is that we cannot understand what is good because we’re already controlled by a subjective view of our own mind. Philosophy has to be studied in congruence to something else pretty much. So for one, it may be one religion or another, for another psychology, and for some the belief in nothing at all.

Are we talking about the mind-body problem now?

I'd love to discuss this. However, if we do, let us stick to rational-philosophical types of argumentation. No reliance on Scripture (this is a philosophy thread, not a theology one).

 

[Ren]

Another interesting topic comes to mind, which would be fun to discuss. It can be put forward as a question: is the self an illusion?

I guess there is a lot of New Agey thinking that goes in that direction, but I re-encountered the topic in connection with a podcast on Buddhism. To be honest, I'm not sure I've come across a convincing argument to the effect that the self/ego is an illusion that can be dissolved. But would love to hear people's thoughts.

As an aside, I'm not very impressed with the philosophy of Buddhism so far. It sounds kind of naive.

 

[o2b]

Perhaps there's a difference between knowing what is good and understanding it? I think man very well, knows the difference between good and evil, but doesn't and cannot have the full grasp understanding of it due to our inability to know everything and be God himself.

Certainly did not mean to suggest a full grasp.

That's what I was implying. The body can't do it. Isn't there scripture on this?
"Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

To my understanding, the body has a 100% lack of sentience. So the body can't know anything.

As to the Scripture, I kind of think it is referring to the body being a source of selfish pulls on the mind thereby being a source of weakness.

and again what is church exactly? Is it not the body itself? Therefore the church and the body must have a God head.

I think the Bible uses the term body, as applied to the church, as an object lesson and not in a literal sense. Taking the idea of members having different roles. And yeah, Christ being the head. But, again, I do not think the intention of its use is literal.

1 Corinthians 12:12-15
12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.
15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body?

You're implying that I have to teach this to you?

Nope.

I just took your statement at face value (we cannot understand what is good).

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

I just took your statement at face value (we cannot understand what is good).

I’m pretty sure this is more a fight about miscommunicated words more than anything.
I don’t disagree with anything you said.
I’m saying the body in both subjective and objective ways, though, objectively I would suggest it to not be used in such a way. Hahaha
But I do definitely think that looking at the body is a singular and collective experience as well. Sorry if we miscommunicated.