In Christianity, is Earth considered a punishment or a gift?
I asked this on /his/ but even before it began the discussion got tripped up on unimportant details, like whether Eden is meant to be located on Earth or not, what 'gift' means, etc.
I was wondering if /lit/ could shed some light on the answer, although I can't think of a way to rephrase my question without running into other difficulties.
Specifically though, the chasm I'm hoping to bridge is this, Genesis 3:17-19...
>And to the man he said,
>“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
>and have eaten of the tree
>about which I commanded you,
>‘You shall not eat of it,’
>cursed is the ground because of you;
>in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
>thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
>and you shall eat the plants of the field.
>By the sweat of your face
>you shall eat bread
>until you return to the ground,
>for out of it you were taken;
>you are dust,
>and to dust you shall return.”
...(after which God expels man from Eden and blocks their return, which to me seems fairly unambiguously a punishment), with what I understand is the consensus of most Christian thinkers that the world we live in is something made for our happiness and that God wants us to be happy.
Barring what the Bible says (few "religious" people bother to read it) most Christians seem to operate from the perspective that this life on this earth is a trying ground where the object is to do the most amount of good possible so you can score enough points to have a kick-ass "life" beyond it, after you're dead.
It's questionable if anyone actually believes it, especially since you can theoretically accept Jesus at the last minute and all is forgiven. (Including the Bible, there's some evidence the goal is to go astray and then come back, as this seems to be far more notable and admirable than just always adhering to a good, modest life—such as with fables like the Prodigal Son).
>>7428184
Christianity is basically 'Stockholm Syndrome for Skydaddy' so even though, as you say, the cursed world of strife is unambiguously a punishment, it is viewed as a gift, as is human life. That's why suicide is one of the worst sins possible- even if the life you have is wretched, it is a rejection of the entire world, a rejection of the gift of Gods infinite love manifested through the world and the life that is 2deep for humans to understand and as such must be accepted as good 'on faith' even if it SEEMS like a cruel and arbitrary punishment (as Job can attest to)
>>7428184
Before I left the church, my final position on the matter is that God made the earth, after the fall, to be livable and beautiful but not perfect. Pain and suffering are inevitable in such a world. Jesus, however, offers a way to live well and reconnect with a glimpse of the perfection that once was through connection with God and each other in a spirit of sincere loving kindness and cultivation of emotional resilience given freely as a gift from God.
Unfortunately, most Christians don't actually believe that Christianity is anything special and treat Earth like something to simply be endured and only give lip service to the idea that God can help make them better people.
>>7428192
Suicide is considered a sin because it's a violation of the "Shalt Not Kill" commandment, no? I've never heard this renunciation of the "gift of God's love" stuff, but frequently ran across the "killing one's self is killing" argument.
>>7428199
>Jesus, however, offers a way to live well
Eh, money does that far better.
>>7428184
Earth was a good gift and then it fell into ruin.
And like Romans 8:22 says, the entire universe has been groaning in the pains of childbirth waiting for redemption.
>>7428190
I'd put this in the field of the Just World Hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
With phrases like "what comes around goes around", and "you reap what you sow" (is this from the Bible?)
>In Christianity, is Earth considered a punishment or a gift?
Probation, for us sinners. A chance to redeem ourselves...
I'd put this with the Leibniz theory that the world is the best of all possible worlds (this has been rephrased with : "Capitalism (Democracy) is the worst system, bar everything else")
I think it's Goethe who attacked Leibniz, and all these lazy people who choose to admire the beauty of a rose, of a sunset, the beauty of the laws of nature, and chooses to discard all the suffering, the injustice, the ugliness.
Leibniz's theory is the "pre-established harmony", something he used to solve the problem of the existence of evil despite an all-powerful God.
I believe (like Weber) we live in a world ruled by Protestant Calvinism (double predestination) : Why people want money? For pleasure? No, people want money because the current religion claims (contrary to early christianity) that success in this world means you're a good person (meritocracy). In Calvin's words, success means you're among the chosen ones. Protestants tend to reject free will, on account it's absurd (which is true), so Calvinists think that from birth, there are the chosen ones, and the damned. Only in the quest for money/success can you find out if you were Chosen, or Damned. (typically a "just world" hypothesis)
Also, Walter Benjamin, a XXth century philosopher of history, had deep thoughts about time, how time, through memory, doesn't only go one way. He fought against history as a celebration of the state of things, the "history of the winners", and thought the duty of the historian was to rescue the lost causes and the losers of history.
AFAIK, one can't answer about Christianity in general : the Ancient Testament is harsh, with God as a punisher. The New Testament have more sympathy for the little man, saying things like "the first will be the last" (contrary to "beggards can't be choosers")
>cont'
with Max Weber quote about theodicy
>>7428207
How is it worth the effort to be so fedora when the post you're replying to begins with "before I left the church"?
>>7428228
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
>German philosopher Max Weber interpreted theodicy
(theodicy : if God is all-powerful, how come there is earthquakes and evil?)
> as a social problem,[12] and viewed theodicy as a "problem of meaning". Weber argued that, as human society became increasingly rational, the need to explain why good people suffered and evil people prospered became more important because religion casts the world as a "meaningful cosmos". Weber framed the problem of evil as the dilemma that the good can suffer and the evil can prosper, which became more important as religion became more sophisticated.[13] He identified two purposes of theodicy: to explain why good people suffer (a theodicy of suffering), and why people prosper (a theodicy of good fortune). A theodicy of good fortune seeks to justify the good fortune of people in society; Weber believed that those who are successful are not satisfied unless they can justify why they deserve to be successful.[14] For theodicies of suffering, Weber argued that three different kinds of theodicy emerged—predestination, dualism, and karma—all of which attempt to satisfy the human need for meaning, and he believed that the quest for meaning, when considered in light of suffering, becomes the problem of suffering.[15]
Who's the demon?
>>7428236
why do you hate free speech
>>>/tumblr/
>>7428242
I meant the semen demon in OP's pic
>>7428236
Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys. With their motto, "Greed is good".
Fucking Leibnizians and Calvinists.
btw, has anyone seen the film Legion, by BOLD films?
Great vampire flick that revisits the birth of Jesus, hunted by corrupt angels and Pilates.
www.google.fr/webhp?q=who+killed+jesus
>>7428201
The Shalt not Kill isT why suicide is a sin, sure
But suicide has often been viewed as 'worse' than murder in Christianity for one of two reasons
One is the thought that suicide is unforgivable, because you can't ask for forgiveness after you died and if you kill yourself you're damned for all eternity because there's no window of opportunity between the act of sinning and damnation. Most modern interpretations say 'well god can forgive all sins so a human timeframe can't really remove all chance of forgiveness due to a chronological technicality.'
The other view, is that suicide is actively blasphemous. He who kills another is, in their view, rejecting only one part of God's creation, but he who kills themself is, from their own perspective, rejecting the entirety of God's Creation, which is kinda like declaring they know better than God, hence the blasphemy. iirc Aquinas went into this a bit but I'm not sure.
Again, modern christianity makes allowances for people not being in their right mind due to depression or whatever and so reducing the culpability for their actions, so you don't really hear about these things outside of fairly esoteric discussions.
>>7428233
this is from a 2009 paper from Mark S.M. Scott (Harvard)
https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/imce/pdfs/webforum/112009/Theorizing%20Theodicy%20final.pdf
THEORIZING THEODICY IN THE STUDY OF RELIGION
>THEODICY AS MEANING-MAKING
>Max Weber: Theodicy and the Problem of Meaning
>Before we discuss the heuristic potential of the concept of theodicy as navigation, we must begin with its logical starting point: the concept of theodicy as meaning-making. We begin with Max Weber, whose delineation of “the problem of meaning” (das Problem der Bedeutung) sets the stage for the concept of theodicy as meaning-making.
According to Weber, religion posits that “the world order in its totality is, could, and should somehow be a meaningful ‘cosmos.’”
>With varying degrees of sophistication, religion explains reality within its own distinctive interpretive frameworks rather than leaving it unexplained. As religious worldviews became increasingly rational, the need to
explain the “‘meaning’ of the distribution of fortunes” took on greater urgency.
>Weber frames the problem of evil around the ethical dilemma of the suffering of the good and the prosperity of the wicked. We expect the good to prosper and the wicked to suffer, but the world does not evince a symmetrical correlation between goodness and prosperity on the one hand and wickedness and suffering on the other. With the rise of reason, Weber argues, the inequities of the world came into sharper relief: “Individually ‘undeserved’ woe was all too frequent; not ‘good’ but ‘bad’ men succeeded” (275).
>>7428266
>He who kills another is, in their view, rejecting only one part of God's creation, but he who kills themself is, from their own perspective, rejecting the entirety of God's Creation
interesting.
but this is not what I experienced when I've been suicidal.
it's nice that the view on suicide changed.
it's not trying to deny God's creation, it only happens when suffering has become unbearable, and there's nowhere to get help.
Hegel wrote about the dynamic process of denying/affirming the world.
For him, there was a dialectic process in the Trinity, the Son, the Father and the Spirit.
For Hegel, the spirit solves the contradictions between the father and the son.
While the son denies and the father affirms, the spirit progresses (see Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit : history seen as contradictions, through which the Spirit (freedom) always progresses. With a figure like Napoleon, a ruse of reason, spilling death but making liberty progress)
There are still tensions inide christianity between the Church as the defenders of order, or defenders of justice (see the Theology of Liberation, popular in South America). Pope Francis is considered by many as a "leftist"... (because he talks so much about misery)
After I saw the french film "L'ordre et la morale" (order and morality?), I was pleased to discover the biography of Philippe Legorjus, a Special Ops police Captain (negotiator) with a double PhD in theology (focus on liberation) and criminology. He called his autobiography "Morals and Action". He was the head negotiator for the french Army during the uprising of New Caledonia independendists. He fought against the killing of the independendists without negotiation, but for political reasons (presidential campaign), they were all massacred, and Legorjus was fired from GIGN.
I believe there is good and bad in everyone, I guess life should be a balance between denying and affirming the world. Too much affirming, you're a lazy autistic buddhist. Too much denying, you end up fedora, or dead.
I also recommend to study the dialectics between Martin Luther and Thomas Müntzer during the Reformation. Luther thought reform should only be spiritual. Müntzer, also a Friar/theologian/preacher, thought the duty of a Preacher was to be on the side of the Peasants, who thought Reform shall not be just spiritual, but also a struggle against exploitation (crushing taxes, no property of land).
>>7428184
>the chasm I'm hoping to bridge is this, Genesis 3:17-19...
...
>..., with what I understand is the consensus of most Christian thinkers that the world we live in is something made for our happiness
Damn, that sentence was hard to read, brah.
1) Like I said, in the Ancient Testament, I'd say life on Earth is seen more as Probation than a punishment. The New Testament (that I haven't finished reading) seems to be softer on Man.
2) Have you seen the film "Breaking the Waves" by Lars von Trier. It's a fucking masterpiece. Beth is a troubled young woman, a good Christian, living in fear of God. When she thinks she's been a bad girl, she kneels, and takes a deep, harsh voice, imagining what God would tell her. She replies with a soft little girl voice, trying to explain her good intentions despite her sins. When her husband is maimed in an oil rig, she considers her duty is sacrifice, even beyond what seems expected of a wife. But she ends up excommunicated, and when she dies, alone, she's denied the right to a grave in the churchyard. Slow film, but very powerful.
Sometimes I speak to myself like Beth does. In part, to give a voice to my harsh superego (I tend to fight him too much by denying him the right to speech). But also to make fun of his overbearing judgment, his intolerance, his harsh voice.
I used to be ashamed of having bad thoughts (e.g. thoughts about black people), I would feel bad and try to ban them. They were only coming back stronger (Freud would call it "return of the repressed"). Then I decided I would embrace these thoughts, be myself, be honest. If I'm bad, I'm bad. I wouldn't be a hypocrite like my mother. I ended up alone (but maybe I would already be dead had I chosen the other way). Bret Easton Ellis says that New Age is completely stupid when they say you should be yourself, never blame yourself. He says that someone who never tries to control himself would be an animal like American Psycho's Patrick Bateman.
All I know is that trying to be good is difficult. I studied philosophy because I didn't want to be an asshole and study finance or medicine. Now I often can't find work (never decent work), I'm often unemployed. So, ironically, I'm considered a bad man. All because I tried to be good. Just like Beth in Breaking the Waves. Ain't it funny.
>So, in your opinion, does /lit/ win again against /his/ ?
>>7428306
>interesting.
>but this is not what I experienced when I've been suicidal.
>it only happens when suffering has become unbearable, and there's nowhere to get help.
But God can always help, just turn to God, anon! :^^^^^)
But seriously, I feel like the aforementioned condemnations of suicide were more of a misguided and not very empathetic attempt to stop people from committing suicide, rather than a legitimate religious interpretation.Though we'll never know for sure what went through the heads of long-dead clerics.
>>7428340
To be honest, I believe they were right to say that there's a link between suicide and homicide. See how popular murder-suicide has become.
There used to be a lot of talk on /b/ about suicide ("an hero"), I believe, only because talking about suicide is allowed, while talking about murder is prohibited.
When you add to this the knowledge of the Werther Effect (talking positively about suicide tends to create epidemics), you start to wonder if those clerics were right to ban suicide, partly on account suicide is a form of murder, among others.
Also, what shall we think about "do it faggot" ? I used to like it, I probably said it, as chemo against the cancer of whining. Isn't it weird how the ban on suicide "naturally" evolved in a call to suicide, aka "kill yourself faget!" ?
In a just world, many things could be banned, like making fun of poverty.
In France, encouraging suicide is forbidden.
I came to /lit/ today to talk about Notes of a Dirty Old Man, it's weird how after getting involved ITT, I'm currently reading
THE ANTI-TRINITARIAN ORIGINS OF LIBERALISM Michael Allen Gillespie © Duke University https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/imce/pdfs/webforum/052013/Gillespie%20Web%20Forum%20Final%201.pdf
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism
>>7428184
Earth is a place to grow and develop.
>>7428367
>THE ANTI-TRINITARIAN ORIGINS OF LIBERALISM
fug
> As a result, Servetus was forced to flee again, hiding under the name Michel De Villeneuve first in Paris, where he studied medicine, and then in Vienne where he went as a physician at the invitation of archbishop Paulmier.xix
> While posing as a Catholic, Servetus read Calvin’s Institutes and harshly criticized Calvin’s thought in a new book, written and published in the highest secrecy, the Restitution of Christianity. He argued that Calvin was perverting Christian ethics every bit as much as the Pope.xx
> With a characteristic lack of prudence, he sent the manuscript to Calvin, apparently under the impression that the great reformer would welcome
his corrections. Instead Calvin betrayed him to the Inquisition. After a daring escape he fled toward Italy but was recognized while passing through Geneva, arrested, and tried by the authorities at Calvin's behest and with his assistance. The debate in the ensuing trial between the two greatest intellects of the
Reformation was so much in Servetus’ favor that Calvin ordered his jailors to deprive him of fresh clothes, the opportunity to bathe, and food until he was totally exhausted. Even then as he faced a slow and agonizing death in the flames, he was unwilling to renounce his beliefs.
>Servetus saw Jesus not as God but as God’s highest creation and messenger on earth, a moral exemplar for all men. He rejected notions of original sin and predestination, proclaiming that God does not condemn anyone who has not condemned himself through thought, word, or deed. Each individual
in his view is given the same free will as Adam and Eve.xxi Moreover, God wants all men to succeed, and his spirit is active in world, sustaining and assisting them.xxii
>>7428184
It should be a bannable offense on /lit/, /g/, and some other boards, to post an image of a woman purely to get attention.
(That being said I find that lady incredibly lovely and would like to snuggle her.)
Wait... I always read that as being reason for mans inherent toil, as well as constant disatisfaction for life and work.
>tfw no giantess gf
>>7428184
Against what most modern Protestants seem to believe, I think an accurate interpretation of Christianity will show that Earth/Physicality is a gift.
To substantiate this claim, I point to the vision of the New Heaven and the New Earth in Revelation 21. The holy city, where man and God shall dwell together for all time, is not located in an immaterial "heaven." Rather, it emerges from heaven and comes down to earth (albeit a New, perfected earth), for men to inhabit for al eternity.
This is a pretty strong indication that the Christian vision of Earth is positive. (For more on this stuff, see N.T. Wright, particularly his writings on the idea of resurrection among early Christians.)
