mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86 
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 5, 2016 3:24:21 GMT
Gnostics taught that the material world was evil. A counterargument by orthodox Christians I have seen is to cite Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Yet this was before the Fall, which it is said tainted not only human beings but all things.
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 5, 2016 8:25:36 GMT
The doctrine of the Fall becomes less influential and less emphasised as you go from West to East. So to eastern Christians the consideration of the Fall wouldn't make much difference, as it isn't held to be as all that decisive. For many others in the West, the Fall would cause original sin which affected everything, but didn't turn the world from good to evil. That people began to believe that the Fall made every aspect of the world totally deprave was a development of American Evangelicalism, when they extrapolated Calvin to Calvinism.
The same applies here as in the dualism topic: believers in a literal Fall seem to be in short supply here.
(If you don't mind my nitpicks, not all Gnostics taught that the material world was evil, just that it was inferior compared to the immaterial world. Generally they believed that the world was created by an inferior off-shoot god, not per se an evil god.)
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 5, 2016 13:41:06 GMT
I didn't realize how it was viewed by Eastern Christians-that's interesting. I've heard Catholics respond to Gnostic views this way though. Nit pick away  I know Gnostic views were diverse-it should have read that some felt this way. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 5, 2016 21:14:27 GMT
Yes, I've read that about Eastern christianity too - that "sin" is more like not (yet) reaching the mark rather than failing. This all fits much better with evolution than does the classic western view of the Fall and original sin. Granted evolution, there was suffering and death long before there were humans, and the definition of the first humans is quite arbitrary and inexact.
So it is hard to say when the first "sin" occurred and who did it, and doubtful if there was ever any primeval couple to pass that sin on to the rest of us. (There was a "mitochondrial Eve" and a "Y-Chromosomal Adam" from whom we are all descended, and they may even have lived around the same time, but it is statistically unlikely they were mates, and there were many others around at the time that contributed to our DNA too.) But I always thought original sin was a silly doctrine not justified by the Bible, even when I was more "evangelical" than I am now.
Likewise, we may decide to emphasise the falling short aspect as more fundamental to the idea of sin, as creation has always "fallen short" of where God intends it to reach. If that is so, our trashing of creation in the past few hundred years becomes a bigger sin than most christians recognise.
It will be interesting to see where christianity goes with these things in the next little while.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 6, 2016 1:21:38 GMT
Why would creation have always fallen short of what God intended?
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 6, 2016 5:28:39 GMT
Because it's evolving. Similar to a child in the womb falls short of being mature enough to be born - until it is born.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 6, 2016 5:42:01 GMT
I guess my question is, what purpose does evolving serve rather than to create things fully formed?
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 6, 2016 8:20:40 GMT
I didn't realize how it was viewed by Eastern Christians-that's interesting. I've heard Catholics respond to Gnostic views this way though. Nit pick away I know Gnostic views were diverse-it should have read that some felt this way. Now that I think of it, I believe my generalisation was quite right either. I think some form of Gnosticism did believe that the world was created by not just a good god, but by the highest god. But yes, Gnosticism was quite diverse already. So much that it is hard to pin down even one feature that is shared among all Gnostic groups and that many scholars would actually prefer to ditch the category. I guess my question is, what purpose does evolving serve rather than to create things fully formed? It is a methodologically naturalist way of arriving at the current Earth and would make the world less arbitrary and science much more widely applicable. Even if it comes at the cost of some evil (it makes natural disasters more or less a given), it can also be seen as an expression of loving goodness. |
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 6, 2016 8:38:25 GMT
My understanding was that many Gnostics believed the material world was made by a lesser god or being, with the true god being higher.
Why is methodological naturalism or science valuable here? Would not paradise be better? Also, loving goodness in what way?
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 7, 2016 9:24:57 GMT
My understanding was that many Gnostics believed the material world was made by a lesser god or being, with the true god being higher. Yes, that is mostly correct about the standard story, though Manichaeism posited that the world was made by emanated creators from the first god, but according to the first god's wishes. Because Gnosticism always includes a bewildering set of emanations, I'd say that this gets quite close to God creating the Earth. In most forms of Gnosticism the lesser creator did not act on the first god's behalf. Why is methodological naturalism or science valuable here? Would not paradise be better? Also, loving goodness in what way? It would be loving goodness by creating a consistent, comprehensible universe, without any hacks to achieve the current state. So there are consistent laws that will not be annulled on divine whim. |
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 7, 2016 13:40:06 GMT
It seems like a paradise could also be consistent and comprehensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 7, 2016 17:50:44 GMT
It seems like a paradise could also be consistent and comprehensible. Not in the sense I described, operating fully autonomously, as according to methodological naturalism, in which scientific laws apply. |
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 8, 2016 1:25:28 GMT
Why is that?
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 9, 2016 7:06:58 GMT
Why is methodological naturalism or science valuable here? Would not paradise be better? Also, loving goodness in what way? My view, and I think that of many christians, is that God gibes his creation more autonomy. There's that old saying, if you love somebody, set them free. I think God loves us enough to give us freedom, and indeed, he gives the whole universe autonomy. |
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 9, 2016 19:17:18 GMT
I'd suggest we could do without the autonomy of diseases, hurricanes, and so on.
|
|
I know Gnostic views were diverse-it should have read that some felt this way. 