Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: How is it that sin happens?

Expand Messages
  • apoorear
    Certainly not, Don! Or at least, not yet! It seems to me that it is a very delicate matter - and a matter of supreme importance - what, exactly, are the
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 22, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      Certainly not, Don! Or at least, not yet!

      It seems to me that it is a very delicate matter - and a matter of supreme importance - what, exactly, are the specific questions and problems that provide that basic source of direction and structure and motivation for Haufniensis' deliberations. Your second question, in particular, seems to me highly dubious as a candidate for a central question in the book; and I would need to know much more about what your first and third questions mean, and especially how they are related, before I could be in a position t9 agree that these are properly characeterized as 'basic' in Haufniensis' inquiry. 

      I would like it that, if it's all the same to you, rather than getting stuck right away into these no doubt very interesting issues about what is basic in the book, we could continue our conversation about the place of the quality/quantity distinction, which was, I thought, quite enough on our plate to be getting on with! If you have thoughts about what the specific questions and problems are to which this distinction (in its non-polemical use) is sensitive, of course I'd be very interested to have these spelled out ...

      But perhaps you agree with what I said about the quality / quantity distinction, and its crucial place in H's dissociating himself from Pelagianism? If so, we might as well move on?

      apoorear

      P.S. Here's one alternative candidate for what question (set of questions)  is basic in Haufniensis' deliberations:

      How ought we properly approach the problem of sin? (As H. puts it somewhere in the introduction: what is 'the mood that properly corresponds' to thiz problem) And especially: how far can we intelligibly pursue a merely psychological approach to the problem of sin?

      (Relatedly: what kinds of problem does sin raise (psychological, dogmatic, ethical and so on)? how are these to be distinguished? what different kinds of resolution do they require? what are ther respective limits of the various different kinds of approach  in this regard? How are they postively related?) 

      That the drawing of distinctions, and the attempt to draw limits to particular domains of knowledge,  is basic to the book is surely indicated, for one thing, by the motto -- and its obviously central to the introduction. These are both places in which we might expect what is central to the book to come to the fore.


      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Anderson" <don@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Apoorear and all interested persons,
      >
      >
      > Before I respond to recent posts, it seems to me that H in the Concept
      > of Anxiety is responding to 3 basic and related questions. These are
      > questions that have been a souce of concern to Christians and thologians
      > throughout the centuries. There have been many attempts to answer them
      > and it has been hard to reach a consensus. Church doctrine is never
      > settled but the area of original, hereditary and sin in general have
      > been one of the most difficult.
      >
      > The three questions are:
      >
      > 1. How is it that sin came into the world and is universal?
      > 2. How is it possible that sin is universal and yet God, the creator
      > of all things, is not to be held responsible for its advent and its
      > continuance.
      > 3. How is it that sin is universal and yet each individual is held
      > responsible for for their sin.
      >
      > H, along with Christianity, wants to hold that all three of these are
      > true although from a logical, rational perspective this would appear
      > impossible.
      >
      > My question then is this: can we agree that these are the questions H
      > wishes to answer or at least ponder?
      >
      > Aloha,
      >
      > Don
      >
      > Don
      >

    • Donald Anderson
      apoorear, I received your message to me but my two subsequent responses to you seem not to have gotten through to you. I guess your email is blocked. Let me
      Message 2 of 13 , May 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        apoorear,

        I received your message to me but my two subsequent responses to you
        seem not to have gotten through to you. I guess your email is blocked.
        Let me know.

        Don
        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, apoorear <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Certainly not, Don! Or at least, not yet!
        >
        > It seems to me that it is a very delicate matter - and a matter of
        > supreme importance - what, exactly, are the specific questions and
        > problems that provide that basic source of direction and structure and
        > motivation for Haufniensis' deliberations. Your second question, in
        > particular, seems to me highly dubious as a candidate for a central
        > question in the book; and I would need to know much more about what
        your
        > first and third questions mean, and especially how they are related,
        > before I could be in a position t9 agree that these are properly
        > characeterized as 'basic' in Haufniensis' inquiry.
        >
        > I would like it that, if it's all the same to you, rather than getting
        > stuck right away into these no doubt very interesting issues about
        what
        > is basic in the book, we could continue our conversation about the
        place
        > of the quality/quantity distinction, which was, I thought, quite
        enough
        > on our plate to be getting on with! If you have thoughts about what
        the
        > specific questions and problems are to which this distinction (in its
        > non-polemical use) is sensitive, of course I'd be very interested to
        > have these spelled out ...
        >
        > But perhaps you agree with what I said about the quality / quantity
        > distinction, and its crucial place in H's dissociating himself from
        > Pelagianism? If so, we might as well move on?
        >
        > apoorear
        >
        > P.S. Here's one alternative candidate for what question (set of
        > questions) is basic in Haufniensis' deliberations:
        >
        > How ought we properly approach the problem of sin? (As H. puts it
        > somewhere in the introduction: what is 'the mood that properly
        > corresponds' to thiz problem) And especially: how far can we
        > intelligibly pursue a merely psychological approach to the problem of
        > sin?
        >
        > (Relatedly: what kinds of problem does sin raise (psychological,
        > dogmatic, ethical and so on)? how are these to be distinguished? what
        > different kinds of resolution do they require? what are ther
        respective
        > limits of the various different kinds of approach in this regard? How
        > are they postively related?)
        >
        > That the drawing of distinctions, and the attempt to draw limits to
        > particular domains of knowledge, is basic to the book is surely
        > indicated, for one thing, by the motto -- and its obviously central to
        > the introduction. These are both places in which we might expect what
        is
        > central to the book to come to the fore.
        >
        >
        > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Anderson" don@
        > wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > Apoorear and all interested persons,
        > >
        > >
        > > Before I respond to recent posts, it seems to me that H in the
        Concept
        > > of Anxiety is responding to 3 basic and related questions. These are
        > > questions that have been a souce of concern to Christians and
        > thologians
        > > throughout the centuries. There have been many attempts to answer
        them
        > > and it has been hard to reach a consensus. Church doctrine is never
        > > settled but the area of original, hereditary and sin in general have
        > > been one of the most difficult.
        > >
        > > The three questions are:
        > >
        > > 1. How is it that sin came into the world and is universal?
        > > 2. How is it possible that sin is universal and yet God, the creator
        > > of all things, is not to be held responsible for its advent and its
        > > continuance.
        > > 3. How is it that sin is universal and yet each individual is held
        > > responsible for for their sin.
        > >
        > > H, along with Christianity, wants to hold that all three of these
        are
        > > true although from a logical, rational perspective this would appear
        > > impossible.
        > >
        > > My question then is this: can we agree that these are the questions
        H
        > > wishes to answer or at least ponder?
        > >
        > > Aloha,
        > >
        > > Don
        > >
        > > Don
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.