Showing posts with label existential crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label existential crisis. Show all posts

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Crisis (Elevator Version)

i used to think people were inherently capable of more good than they are. some recent experiences brought this to mind. i no longer believe in altruism. i think at some level, it all comes from a sense of self... some selfish notion is at play.

this isn't inherently evil nor is it inherently good. however, it usually leads to bad and if unchecked, even the seemingly good acts are bad.

does this come from original sin? no. it's how we're built. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. so if God created and claimed creation was good, then there was an opposite reaction which was evil. or think of it this way, a big light casts a big shadow. same with humans, we are beings of light and shadow, it's just easier to cultivate the shadow side.

i think a big mistake would be to deny the inherent evil that exists in humans but it's also another mistake to say the inherent good is not there either. people put bullets into other humans and they also jump in front of bullets for one another too. to say that this is because someone ate a fruit or talked to a snake is craziness. it's a mistake to think about why there is evil in the world or that there ever was a perfect earth. there is and has always been suffering. it's how you respond to it that counts.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Existential Crisis

originally written before the birth of Eve.. updated today, but i think it still serves... read and comment please!

the definition: Existential Crisis: a perceived sense of harsh confrontation experienced when a human confronts questions of existence and a change in one’s subjective perception their relation to their world.

the history: When i came into seminary i largely held a Palagian view of humanity.. mainly that had capacity to do good through reason and logic. when confronted with the truth, a person would adjust and change accordingly.

the opposite view of this is Augustine, who's view christianity has largely adopted, which is: argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses.

Pelagius argued that Augustine's doctrine that humans went to hell for doing what they could not avoid (sin) was tantamount to the Manichean belief in fatalism and predestination, and took away all of mankind's free will. Pelagius and his followers saw remnants of this fatalistic belief in Augustine's teachings on the Fall of Adam, which was not a settled doctrine at the time the Augustinian/Pelagian dispute began. Their view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that we can freely choose to obey God's commandments.

the problem:: recent events have shown me that people are happy to be stuck in their situation... some people won't choose to get out of the situtation when the evidence is presented to them as they are comfortable with the pain. sort of like "the devil i know is better than the one i don't" sort of deal. this is highly frustrating. my high view of humanity has taken a large hit.. reason and logic won't always win the day.

it was pointed out to me by two great friends that i'm largely thinking of this because i'm bringing a child into the world. i'm pondering what sort of world this is. what is the core nature of humanity?

where I'm at now: I think a balance needs to be struck. Humans are limited and sin is a very real and universal state of humankind. I can see why one would believe the doctrine of original sin but I feel that this invites too many illogical support systems that need to happen. First a semi-literal interpretation of scripture is needed and belief in a shalomic state of being was intended. There had to have been a “garden” in which to fall from. This is inconsistent with science and serves no purpose. All it does is try to fit God into a human notion of good.

However, I’m not as confident as Pelagius was in human freedom and capacity to do good. I think humans do good when it serves their self-interests or interests of their group. This is not inherently sinful as Augustine would have insisted, but it does need some work. We need to see how we are connected to everything! We are entangled in relationships with other humans as well as our environment and animals that exist in that ecosystem. We are quantum entangled on a molecular level as well.

Quantum entanglement is a possible property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart — even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This interconnection leads to non-classical correlations between observable physical properties of remote systems, often referred to as nonlocal correlations.

In short, we need to take our biological response for self and group-preservation and widen it to incorporate those who do not look or act like us.

Can Original Sin serve today? I don’t see how it can; there are too many additions one must add onto this doctrine to make it scientifically viable. It simply doesn’t fit with biology or physics. It makes for a good story and a great logical set up for the need for Jesus in a closed model, but once science enters into the picture, the story falls apart.

more research must be done... but i cannot hold that Eve is just as sinful as me... i mean doesn't my experience count for nothing?! i got 27 years on the kid! she's no more sinful than a snowflake. she will be living in a world where it's easy to learn this behavior.... so what i guess it boils down to is Freedom is a Pain in the Ass.