www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Death prior to the fall

The modern liberal interpretation, for example Kant's, would be that yes indeed both Adam and Christ are symbolic. In fact, Kant thinks that the story of the fall is really a story of our coming to the age of reason. Prior to the age of reason, we live solely by the natural inclinations. We are already habituated to feeding our natural, sensual desires. But, when reason dawns upon us we gain consciousness of the moral law and we find that we habitually resist it so much that we've already violated it from the get-go. Likewise, Kant does not think that Christ died to atone for our sins. Rather, he sees Christ on the cross as the highest symbol of the crucifixion of one's sensual self for the sake of the moral law. The resurrection is the new life lived in the moral law once one has died to one's sensual self. For Kant, the Scriptures are entirely mythological. They are a "picture book" way of telling people what they can really know by philosophy. Kant starts German theology down this trajectory that culminates in Hegel and those theologians who would regard themselves as Hegelian.

It is all very beautiful but it is not Orthodox Christianity and if it is true, then I see no reason why I should call myself Christian. As attractive as this view is, I will stick with Orthodoxy until it is proven to be false. Still, I do have to wonder and if I weren't Orthodox, I would probably accept a view similar to Kant's.

Joe

The modern liberal interpretation, for example Kant's, would be that yes indeed both Adam and Christ are symbolic. In fact, Kant thinks that the story of the fall is really a story of our coming to the age of reason. Prior to the age of reason, we live solely by the natural inclinations. We are already habituated to feeding our natural, sensual desires. But, when reason dawns upon us we gain consciousness of the moral law and we find that we habitually resist it so much that we've already violated it from the get-go. Likewise, Kant does not think that Christ died to atone for our sins. Rather, he sees Christ on the cross as the highest symbol of the crucifixion of one's sensual self for the sake of the moral law. The resurrection is the new life lived in the moral law once one has died to one's sensual self. For Kant, the Scriptures are entirely mythological. They are a "picture book" way of telling people what they can really know by philosophy. Kant starts German theology down this trajectory that culminates in Hegel and those theologians who would regard themselves as Hegelian.

It is all very beautiful but it is not Orthodox Christianity and if it is true, then I see no reason why I should call myself Christian. As attractive as this view is, I will stick with Orthodoxy until it is proven to be false. Still, I do have to wonder and if I weren't Orthodox, I would probably accept a view similar to Kant's.

Joe

The tension most people live with is they've adopted pieces of Kant et al. consciously or unconsciously. The view of the world as seen through the prism of the Bible becomes less and less believable the harder you look. The compromise is to think "maybe this is real, maybe that isn't or that is just a symbol or allegory". It is our reason that takes over as we examine the empirical evidence we have. I certainly go through this.

Kant also said reason has its limits, which it does. I guess if there's a critique I would offer of modernity, higher criticism of the Bible and so on is that it offers nothing to replace the Bible mythology. It only destroys in other words, so I think the consequence of loss of faith in Christiniaty is nihilism, or at least the projection of religious feeling on things like the cult of celebrity. Sometimes it seems all to real that there is nothing out there, and the universe is indifferent, and that the people who wrote the stories we argue over were just doing what they needed to do to get through a difficult and scary world. That seems quite possible to me.

And that is why faith is called faith. Huston Smith, quoting someone else (I forget who), defined faith as the most meaningful explanation. I also remember someone once telling me that he believes in God because otherwise life would have no meaning. I used to think that was a tautology; now I think that is accurate. Religion isn't journalism or even history, although both can be found in religion. Religion is a means, a tool, for living life by giving life ontological context and meaning and purpose. Or, as Jesus taught us, love God and love the neighbor . . .

-- John

Question, to either Joe or AMM:

Would Buddhism be an acceptable substitute for nihilism, within the secular perspective?

-- John

Would Buddhism be an acceptable substitute for nihilism, within the secular perspective?

That reminds me of a funny birthday card:

The Dalai Lama opens an empty box and says, "Wow! All right! Just what I've always wanted, nothing!"

In the Western Catholic tradition, which started with the Greek fathers, and then continued with Augustine, Anselm, and many others, this question originated reflections that distinguished between the natural order and the supernatural order. This eventually was synthesized in the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and the overall principle "grace does not destroy (take away, replace) nature, but perfects it".

So if they hadn't chosen to taste the fruit the first humans would literally have been immortal?