Theodicy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Theodicy » Theodicy

Theodicy
the redemption question

Theodicy

John-Paul
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2006
Location: Munich, Germany

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 68

Posted 07/18/09 - 09:40 AM: Subject: Theodicy	#1
Quite recently two aircraft dived into the ocean - one to the northwest of Brazil, one to the east of Africa. Another one dived onto the land on the way to Armenia. Nearly all lives were lost. My heart goes out to the clerics who have to preach at the commemoration ceremonies - how can God allow this? This questioning is an entirely false understanding of the theodicy problem. Of course God allows this, just as he allows you to crash drunkenly into a tree or to misjudge (despite professional assistance) the development of a share price. Our lives include risk: All creatures on earth, even the trees, must come to terms with risk. Why does an Elm succumb to a simple fungus? It is its ontological risk, there is and there can be no idea of blame. Life on Earth is a confrontation with risk, that belongs to the deposition of our existential truths. Similarly (not relatedly) our bodies have the weaknesses of sea-mammals which conquered the land. Our vertical gait overstresses our marine spine structure, the leverage of our legs overburdens our marine hips (Neil Shubin, University of Chicago (Paleontology)). Jobian cries to God are here just bootless. It is even within the possibilities our fishlike genetics to produce an Adolf Hitler, embodiment of Satan himself - an ontological, not a moral consideration. Hitler is an ontological given, just as midwestern whirlwinds are, just as lightning strikes on listed buildings are. Theodicy researchers who thematise Hitlerian emanescences must find themselves in an endlessly dark tunnel. The problem here has nothing to do with theodicy and everything to do with man's (fallen) fascination with evil (compare the literary output by weight on Adolf Hitler and on Saint Jean Vianney, a recognisedly holy person - Hitler wins 10:1). The real theodetical problem finds itself in the German concept of EINSICHT and Einsichtigsein. This is the consideration that reason is not in fact available to all men. Reason is the supreme gift of God to man but is empirically not available to all men in all instances. The greatest exemplification of this in our days is the witness of the holocaust-deniers: Despite thousands of documented biographies (majorly that of Anne Frank) these people cling to a satanic delusion - the same one as Adolf Hitler himself clung to. The theological exegesis of this phenomenon is the true challenge of theodicy. We are building on Immanuel Kant within the Christian tradition. Kant only did the groundwork - the development is up to us. Hegel with his doctrines of state and Kierkegaard with his existentialist philosophy help only incidentally. In the end, the problem of theodicy is that of doctrine: The only Christian Wrongness is the exclusion of elements of mankind out of salvation. But they seem at times (holocaust deniers) to exclude themselves. And in this (e.g. Neo-Nazis) even to find their "truth". How on earth does God allow THIS? Why do we have the freewill even to block reason? I submit that this is the central theodetical problemsetting of our time. It is the only point of creational differentiation between Man and Animal. No reason (with its associated articulacy), no humanity.
"Christianity is not a religion of morals but of therapy" (Eugen Biser) to which I add "... not properly a religion ..."

Rockson
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 18, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 07/18/09 - 03:01 PM:	#2
>>>"Christianity is not a religion of morals but of therapy" (Eugen Biser) to which I add "... not properly a religion ..." <<< OK.Then,which one is the proper one?

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/19/09 - 03:43 AM:	#3
John-Paul wrote: Our lives include risk: All creatures on earth, even the trees, must come to terms with risk. Why does an Elm succumb to a simple fungus? It is its ontological risk, there is and there can be no idea of blame. Life on Earth is a confrontation with risk, This is why life on Earth is great. This is why life on Earth is far greater than it would be in "heaven". Actions have consequences here on Earth. Every time one feels pain, every time one is subject to a failure, one must redeem their pain and their failure themselves and thus improve themselves further. The presence of pain, misery and failure is what drives man to seek progress, to seek something better; which leads to creation, from technology to art. Nobody loves a rock, it's the easiest thing in the world to be a rock; to not feel any pain, to be indifferent. However, we empathise with other human beings and love them because we know they are going through a similar struggle of failures and victories. The ones who we love the most are the ones who are going through similar struggles to us, our family and our friends. A man is something that is always changing, always being worn down and weakened and always trying to be resilient and to become stronger. The man-in-heaven, who experiences no trials, no pains, miseries or failures, is not a man worthy of love in the same way a rock is not. The man-in-heaven is not changing, has nothing to struggle against and thus is not worthy of anything but contempt. Who loves the man who has everything done for him? Who would want to live in a place where there are no pressures, no trials, which give so many good things here on Earth? The weak, the defeatists, the pessimists, the lazy, the complainers, the untalented, the unmotivated, the unskilled, the petty, the humble and the meek (the self-humiliators), the same people who think that "nature is cruel", that "life is unfair", that "man has evil desires, man is sin", that hate Earth and want heaven and that hate life and want after-life. Where's the meaning, the fun, in a sport where one cannot lose? You may as well declare victory and resign. In heaven there is nothing to do, there are no more failures or victories. The competitive, the aggressive, the achievers, the industrious, the genius, the creative, the artistic; all in all,all decent men, would want nothing to do with "heaven." It is even within the possibilities our fishlike genetics to produce an Adolf Hitler, embodiment of Satan himself Nietzsche wrote: A great man? I always see only the actor of his own ideal. What makes Churchill any better than Hitler, Jesus any better than Judas? Each followed their own ideals and each did it with great determination. What separates them? The fact that you agree with some of their ideals and not others. Yet that is just opinion, that is subjective. To claim any of these men are "evil" is only to say "I hate them, their ideals." We all perceive differently, some would think that Hitler had a strong affinity with God, others would call him "the embodiment of Satan." The difference between you and Jesus, you and Hitler, Judas and Churchill, is that they created, followed and upheld their own ideals; which takes strength, self-assuredness, confidence and pride. You humiliate yourself by behaving like a follower (a sheep) rather than a creator (a man). Hitler and Churchill hated each other because their ideals were opposed. You hate Hitler because he is opposed to someone elses ideals. Why not truly follow Jesus and create your own ideals?

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.