:s - no I don't think so at all. Smerdyakov is guilty of murdering Fyodor Pavlovich, Ivan is guilty for teaching Smerdyakov that God is dead (for then everything is permitted), and so forth. They're all guilty and sinful - whether they know what they're doing or not.The "immoral" People there are extremely loveable. They are so to say not guilty not rather unguilty guilty. — Beebert
I don't see how what D says disagrees with A&A.Yes. All are guilty. But compare Dostoevsky 's understanding of that to the understanding of Augustine and Aquinas. It is vastly different. Dostoevsky goes so much deeper. — Beebert
So then they are immoral.Yes. All are guilty. — Beebert
So this must be false.They are so to say not guilty — Beebert
No they're not unguilty in any way. I don't know where you take that from, D never suggests otherwise. Failure to love is exactly what they're doing.No they are guilty and unguilty at the same time. That is what Dostoevsky really means; there is Only one true sin: The failure to love. — Beebert
Of course.Guilty as in juridically guilty? — Beebert
No, sorry, I don't think a psychopathic murderer is worthy of love in any common sense of the term.You want to know the great difference between Dostoevsky and Most Christians (Augustine and Aquinas included)? Dostoevsky found People loveable despite their "immorality", despite their shortcomings and way of being. Or more clearly: People are ontologically worthy of love. Aquinas and Augustine thought very differently. Man is by his nature reprehensible and unworthy of love. Dostoevsky said man shall be loved THROUGH God. Augustine and Aquinas thought man should be loved for "The sake of God" (especially Aquinas). That is a grotesque difference. — Beebert
Please translate this.Vill du veta den stora skillnaden mellan Dostojevskij och de flesta kristna (Augustine och Aquinas ingår)? Dostojevskij found älskvärda trots deras "omoral", trots sina brister och sätt att vara. Eller tydligare: Människor är ontologiskt värd kärlek. Aquinas och Augustinus trodde mycket annorlunda. Människan är av sin natur förkastligt och ovärdigt kärlek. Dostojevskij sade man skall älskad genom Gud. Augustinus och Aquinas trodde man skulle bli älskad för "Guds skull" (särskilt Aquino). Det är en grotesk skillnad. — Beebert
So what if He knew? It was still the man's free choice that made him so. God's foreknowledge does not mean lack of free will. The "morality" you're putting forth here is an abomination. Can you imagine, letting the unrepentant criminal who deserves the utmost punishment go? That is not justice, that is stupidity, cowardice, and injustice masquerading itself as benevolence. Benevolence towards everyone, except the criminal's victims.But did God not know he would become like that before the foundation of the world? — Beebert
[O]ur modern narrative of nature is of an order shaped by immense ages of monstrous violence: mass extinctions, the cruel profligacy of an algorithmic logic that squanders ten thousand lives to fashion a single durable type, an evolutionary process that advances not despite, but because of, disease, warfare, predation, famine, and so on. And the majestic order thus forged? One of elemental caprice, natural calamity, the mercilessness of chance—injustice thrives, disaster befalls the innocent, and children suffer.
He wills you to have free will, exactly. Therefore He cannot control what you do with your free will, if He did, you wouldn't have free will to begin with. It's really quite a simple thing, I don't know why you don't get it. It's not God's fault that someone is a rapist, etc. etc. - it's their fault for making that choice.It seems like God's free choice. His knowledge about it and approval of creating the world that way means he wills it. — Beebert
Yes, from a limited human understanding. Apparently, God doesn't think so. He thinks free will is worth hell.then it seems to me that not creating the world at all would be far better" — Beebert
It's uncertain what "eternal" means. It certainly doesn't mean infinite temporal duration, but more like timelessness.Why does the victim need his enemy to be punished eternally as well? — Beebert
Nope, it's just that evil has to be rewarded with evil, unless there is repentance.Is it because he so hates the enemy that there can be no bliss unless the enemy is forever suffering? — Beebert
I did notice this before. But you seem to have a very rationalistic/Kantian position with regards to morality. What if true morality is - dare I say - contradictory? For example, I remember you sent me Kant's commentary on the story of Abraham and Isaac - that's also a very rationalistic way of thinking and seeing morality. Kierkegaard's version though - as expounded in Fear and Trembling - is less trapped by the boundaries of human rationality, and opens up into an authentic relationship with the Divine.This perhaps more than anything else forms the greatest barrier to my possible conversion. — Thorongil
No, God doesn't think from the perspective of one single human, but rather from the perspective of the whole of Creation. But even from the perspective of one human being, yes that may be better.So God thinks that it is better to live a short life with free will and then be eternally punished for it (something he apparently foreknew) than to live without Free will or to not live at all? — Beebert
That wouldn't change that He is God, and you are just a human being.I disagree with God if so. — Beebert
Yes, because in that case you're showing that you're not very wise.You say my actions are my fault. — Beebert
No He didn't create you that way. He created you with free will. You're using your freedom in that manner right now. Why? You could stop doing that for example.But God knew Everything before creating me, and therefore he created me that certain way — Beebert
It can't be - you have free will.In a way, it seems to be his fault of what you say is true. — Beebert
You would be a fool if you repaid, say, a criminal who has raped, tortured and killed hundreds of people with anything but justice. Justice can entail harming another. Evil is not to be trifled with, it must be squished and eradicated. If you let evil grow, it will overtake you and your society and destroy you.Didnt Christ say "Do not resort evil "? And yet evil must be repayed with evil? — Beebert
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.