Subject:
|
Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:17:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
576 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> Man (unlike the remainder of God's creations) has free will, and for that
> free will to be real (as opposed to just a perception of free will), the
> options must exist independent of man's nature; ergo, man is neither good
> nor evil, but has the capacity for either (or both).(1)
This view is both aesthetically pleasing and consistent with much medieval
doctrine. That is, man is capable of embracing salvation or damnation by
his own actions. An infant starts as neither good nor evil but able to
succumb to temptation yet also to achieve grace. If man were inherently
good, then he could embrace salvation without doing anything, and if he were
inherently evil, he would be damned through no fault of his own. Either of
these outcomes could hardly be called just, since man is predisposed to be
doomed or saved regardless of his own actions. Being born imperfect but
untainted, man can decide for himself whether to give in to temptation or to
aspire to grace.
> (I realize that's somewhat circular, but I think my premise can be infered
> more easily than it can be stated catagorically.
Actually, it's a lot less circular than other arguments put forth in this
sort of discussion.
> 1:That's my derivation, and not a matter of doctrine, AFAIK.
I don't know if it's current doctrine, but it's in line with Boethius,
Milton, and a horde of medieval scholars on the subject.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
