Hørt om “frelse” og “helse»?
Vel, disse to ordene, disse to begrepene, disse harde fakta, har vært der hele tiden, fra «det begynte». Eva og Adam åt av «frukten», de falt for fristelsen til å oppnå et bedre liv, muligens et helt liv uten lidelse; de fikk lidelsen. Den hører derfor med til livet, selv om livet fortoner seg som «såre godt», for de fleste for det meste dag ut og dag inn, Bortsett fra når ulykken inntreffer, sammen med lidelsen, eller konsekvensene.
Veldig få mennesker ber om å få lide mer; selve ønsket om å
få lide mer, faller de fleste tungt for brystet og et slik ønske må komme fra
et sinn som allerede er sykt. Men det fins også folk som må anses for å være
friske, som frivillig og med «lyst», gå inn for å lide, for å oppnå et høyere
mål. De dør for sitt fedreland, sin ideologi (tro); de vet at de må gjennom
smertefulle anstrengelser for å vinne seierskransen. Noen er slik født at de
ikke kjenner smerte; de er smertefrie og kan derfor ikke lide. I hvert fall
ikke i kroppen. De kan antakelig bli svært syke psykisk og dette er da en
smerte, en lidelse.
Det er viselig tilrettelagt, alt dette.
Når noen vil at vi skal lide mer og at vi skal ta et slik ønske med i det Fader-vår, «den første og største» bønnen vi lærer å be som barn i våre aftenbønner, blir det sykelig. Bare et sykt sinn kan ønske at flere kristne skal lide mer, ja, ber om at Gud skal sørge for at vi skal få lide mer. En logisk frisk sjel som ber slik, må mene at lidelsen da skal være til ære for Gud og at lidelsen skal være hellig, et middel som helliger målet, nemlig Gudsriket. En slik logisk frisk sjel tenker mekanistisk; gjør vi A, får vi B.
Men «tenker» Gud slik» Er det uttrykk for Guds vilje? Og kan
vi i så fall være visse på at det er akkurat dette Gud vil, at vi skal lide
mer, for at Guds mål skal komme tidligere? Vi ber jo: Komme Ditt rike – skal vi
ikke hjelpe Gud litt på veien? Er det ikke heller slik at jo mer vi ber om å få
lide mer, jo mer beviser dette at vi har mistet troen på Gud? At vi egentlig
ikke har noen gudstro i det hele tatt? At det er «våre» preferanser» som skal
telle, og styre Gud, ikke Hans vilje og forsyn?
«Vår mann» synes å hyse et ønske om å fremstille seg selv som
et ekstra høyt moralsk ideal, og som et ekstra godt forbilde. Men er han det?
Er han verdt å «imitere» (som i «imitatio christi», som jo led for våre synder,
se under)?.
Den norske kirke har en meget god bønn, hvor menigheten ikke ber om å få lide mer, snarere tvert imot, som godt, fornuftig og kjærlig er :
Herre, hør vår bønn. Vi ber om at de forfulgte vil sette sitt håp og sin tillit til deg. Gi beskyttelse til dem som møter forfølgelse for ditt navns skyld.
Fri oss, Herre, fra alt ondt, og gi oss nådig fred i våre dager, så vi med din barmhjertighets hjelp alltid må være fri fra synd og trygget mot all trengsel, mens vi lever i det salige håp og venter vår Frelser Jesu Kristi komme. For riket er ditt, og makten og æren i evighet.
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fader_v%C3%A5r
Den mann vi her har i fokus, vil at vi i Fader Vår skal be om å få lide mer. (Det skal være fskultatv!)
En slik bønn minner om folk som på egne og andres vegne ber om at lidelsen i seg selv skal være en fortjenestefull gjerning, hvilket er en fornærmelse mot både mennesker og Gud.
Denne mannen tror også kanskje at å lide – lidelsen - skal
være en snarvei til Paradis eller til Himmelen, so gar, han ser antakelig på
lidelsen som et betalingsmiddel, eller noe å forhandle ut fra, eller som et
smøremiddel. For en frekkhet og for et hovmod?
Vå mann ser kanskje på seg selv som en slags avatar som
kommer fra de mer himmelske regioner inn i verden for å rettlede oss, hvordan
vi kan kvitte oss med kroppen, som jo er materie, noe den «onde guden har
skapt», dvs kristendommen og jødedommens Gud. Han tror kanskje at en kristen
kan bli hellig eller utfridd fra denne verdens lidelser, eller denne verdens ondskap,
ved å plage seg selv med f eks fasting, fattigdom, ensomhet, taushet eller f eks et blodslit av hardt arbeid, dårlige
klær. Han tror kanskje til og med at ekteskapet er en synd – for det ville bety
lidelse, vil jeg tro.
Men hva hjelper vå lidelse de forfulgte og nødstedte? Hva hjelper vår lidelse, hvis det er «systemet» som påfører menneskenes lidelser? Mener «vår mann» at alle, eller flest mulig, bør bli voldelig revolusjonære for å kunne vinne Guds gunst og nåde? Når «vår mann» ber om mer lidelse, (for Jesu kropp, som er hans menighet, ja, brud), må det bety at vi nå har for lite lidelse. Hvor mye mer lidelse skal vi be om å få? Hvilken type lidelse? Lidelse kan ses på som en konsekvens av synd. Logisk vil noen trekke den konklusjon at hvis vi ber om å få lidelse, så er det jevngodt med et ønske om å få synde mer. Den som ber oss be om mer lidelse, vil ha kontroll, slik at han kan nyte og fremheve seg selv som spesielt dydig, og derfor nærmere Gud. Lidelsen blir da hans gud, dvs han avgud, hans idol, den han setter all sin lit til. Han bruker da lidelsen rent magisk, for å kunne stjele til seg makt fra sine ofre, som stadig må lide mer, for å tilfredsstille ham.
Kristne skal ofre opp sitt legeme som et hellig eller
levende og velbehagelig offer til Gud. Kristne skal ikke ofre opp sine lidelser
til Gud, for menneskets lidelser er ikke velbehagelig for Gud; han krever ikke
at «den rike og mette» skal lide for å komme til himmelen. Gud vil vi skal
reddes, bli forløst og forsont, bli befridd og gjenopprettet. Han vil ikke at
vi skal lide, selv om han har vist at han kan tillate lidelse. Vi skal ofre oss
helt – med hele legemet for Herren som et rettferdighetens instrument; Gud krever
ingen lidelse, han krever og leverer tro og håp.
Hvem vil at folk skal lide? Psykopater? Sadister? Man kan spørre: Innbefatter lidelsen både kroppslig og mental lidelse? Hvor vil han setter grensen for hva han mener med lidelse, og hva ikke?
Han forslag til nytt Fader Vår er i det ytterste
forkastelig, ja, ukristelig. I beste fall kan hans forslag sees på som et
utslag av ekstrem gnostisisme. Eller han ser på lidelsen som ikke egentlig
virkelig, slik mange stoikere gjorde. Like fullt valgte mange stoikere heller å
ta sitt eget liv enn å utstå lidelser. (Og dette var toppen av toskeskap, mente
Augustin).
Gnostikerne foraktet kroppen, som jo var materie, «skapt» av en grusom – gammeltestamentlig - gud. De kunne derfor speke seg i allslags lidelser, og dermed også skaffe seg et grunnlag for å tukte andre, for – ironisk nok – å ikke lide mer. De kunne også velte seg i allslags vellystighet, for jo snarere kroppen gikk til grunne, desto hurtigere kunne deres guddommelige sjel vende hjem til den «kjærlighetens gud» gud de mente de hadde guddommelig gnosis om, og som de derfor kunne vende tilbake til, og denne guden var ikke JHWH eller Jesu, som jo var inkarnert guddom i en konkret, jordisk og høyst historisk menneskekropp.
«Vår mann» faller lett inn i dette paradigmet. Han vet
kanskje ikke at han da tilhører en kristen sekt og at han selv er en frafallen,
eller ikke kristen; at han er en heretiker. Og forbannet, som det står.
Hva med klima-saken? Er ikke den verdt å lide litt mer for? Mener Jesus at vi skal lide for den – og vise det frem for hele verden? Bør vi ikke sone for våre klimasynder? Den som sår, skal høste – ved å lide, kan man høste mye … ?
Det lyder så fromt.
Hva med så mye annet? Har vi utelatt noe? Er det noe eller noen vi har glemt – i vår nye bønn?
Hvor har han det fra, vår mann? Har han talt i tunger og i Den hellige Ånd? Hvem[TF1] har tolket ham? Eller trekker han den nye bønnen ut fra sin egen barm? Går han med en liten kultleder i magen? Vi vet at mange har behov for lederskikkelser, for mystikk, for å tilhøre «de utvalgte» og som føler sin «leder i tykt og tynt – «steder» hvor det å tenke selvstendig er forbudt, steder der folk foretrekker å bli kuet fremfor å være fri og selvstendig.
En kjent teolog og professor sier det slik: «Ingen menneskelige
fromhetsprestasjoner kan bevege Herren til å reise seg. Mange trodde nok det,
mange forsøker stadig å gjøre inntrykk på himmelens Gud ved noe som de selv
setter i stand. Men det er for gjeves alt sammen».
Mener «vår mann» at det er mer høymoralsk å be Gud om å la oss få mer lidelse, enn ikke å be Ham om det og heller holder oss til den tradisjonelle teksten i Fader Vår?
Guds bud sier f eks «ikke stjel», «ikke lyv»,»ikke drep» etc. De fleste vil tro at det er ganske enkelt å holde disse budene. Men noen tror at dette ikke holder. Da kan ikke forstå at Gud ikke krever noe mer. De krever at vi mennesker selv må gjør noe mer, noe ytterligere, noe overskytende, noe som «viser» alvor; de trenger ikke å be i sitt Fader vår å få lide mer. Det kommer så å si automatisk, men for sikkerhets skyld skal vi nå be om å få mer lidelse, ifølge «vår mann». Og noen må vi ha å vise det frem for, og så skaffer man seg et publikum, hvorpå bifall og anerkjennelse følger. Ikke?
Er det klanderverdig å unnlate å be bønnen om å få lide mer? Er det moralsk forkastelig? Er det mer prisverdig å be den bønnen, enn ikke å be den?
Selvsagt ikke, men altså ikke så selvsagt for «vår mann», og hans «disipler». Vi kan lure på hvor han har det fra.
«Vår mann» synes å ha et stort behov for å «skinne» - jfr "skinnhellig" - på en spesiell
måte. Hans bud er preskriptivt, ikke bare normativt deskriptivt. Det virker
nokså nådeløst og snevert. Han ønsker åpenbart å fremtre som en helt, -en
funksjon han lett vil oppnå, hvis hans lille kult har «mord i blikket». Vi kan
spørre: Skal det et nytt holocaust til; hvor lenge skal vi fortsette å henrette
Quisling på Akershus festning?
Vå mann kommer med helt unødvendige påbud eller
anbefalinger. Hvilken karakter er det denne mannen har, og hvilke karaterer vil
han odle frem? Det er som om han – virkelig - vil at du skal lide mer, at du
skal få kjenne det. Bare slik kan du bli mer hellig, eller kanskje mer herlig? Han
setter seg over Gud for å oppnå sine mål, eller hva? «Vår mann» ser ut til ville
at vi skal følge hans egen snevre «maxime» som et universelt imperativ. Skal de
som lider mest av klimatrusselen be om å få lide mer? Obs: Utilitarianister
mener at en handling er den som øker den samlede nytte og lykke av handlingen. Vi
ser at lykke altså lykke mer enn lidelse har vært et naturlig tema for de
fleste, over lang tid.
Er «vår mann» ute etter mer eudaimonia, mer lykke, for flest mulig? Er virkelig målet mer lidelse? Jeg kan ikke se at kristen teologi eller hedensk filosofi noen gang har lært at «vi skal be om å få lide mer».
Et slikt bud strider jo mot naturen, og den lov Gud har
skrevet på våre hjerter, eller? Både kristen og hedninger har vært enige om at
målet for mennesket er å få blomstre, ikke lide, - å få et så gagnlig eller fruktbart
liv som mulig. Det har derfor vært viktig å dyrke fem det vi kaller dyder og
lære seg å takle alle de viderverdighetene livet nå engang kan skape av
konflikter – og lidelser. Vi skal forberede oss på å lide, ja vel, og lidelse,
smerte og sykdommer er en del av dette å leve. Vi skal med fordel forberede oss
på å forholde oss dydig til alt som river dydene ned og ødelegger oss. Vi skal
etterstrebe det Aristoteles kaller «magnanimity», vi skal være «stor-sjelede», magalopsykos.
Ifølge Platon var det umulig å «vite det gode» og samtidig gjøre «det onde». Dyd
er identisk med kunnskap, med andre ord. For den dydige er viljessvakhet ikke
mulig. For begge disse filosofene var dette å være dydig det samme som å bruke
fornuften og ta fornuftige valg. Aristoteles likte imidlertid ikke å avvike fra
«endoxa», det som folk vanligg vis trodde på. Vi fikk «den gyldne regel». her
og her og her
og her
Jeg forstår ikke hvorfor vi skulle ha behov for eller være nødt for å bryte med tradisjonene som er skissert over. Ingen steder finner vi noen «lære» eller noe «bud» om at vi må be om å bli utsatt for mer lidelse. En liten historisk oversikt i «collage» kan være på sin plass:
Gottfreid Wilhelm Laibniz, 1646-1716, mente at tror og fornuft utmerket godt kunne leve i harmoni. Han gjorde noen glimrende forsøk på å løse teodicé-problemet – hvis Gud er god, hvorfor da lidelse?
Det onde har sin rot i mennesket begrensning, dette at mennesket
er et finitt vesen; men fornuften kan erkjenne at det gode og det guddommelige
utgjør den vesentlige strukturen i eksistensen. Synd er bare det imperfekte
gode. Han dempet imidlertid sin hovedtese tese om at vi lever i den best
tenkelige av alle tenkelige verdener, en påstand Voltair angrep ham for, etter
et stort jordskjelv i Lisboa, der lidelsene ble enorme.
I dag må vi holde fast på følgende fokus og perspektiv, og ikke ønske oss mer lidelse, som non gjør.
For å
sitere Hank Hanegraff: “First, Christian theism acknowledges that God created
the potential for evil because God created humans with freedom of choice. When
we choose to love or hate, to do good or evil. The record of history bears
eloquent testimony to the fact that humans of their own free will have
actualized the reality of evil through such choices. Furthermore, without
choice, love is meaningless. God is neither a cosmic puppeteer who forces
people to love him. Instead, God, the personification of love, grants us the
freedom of choice. Without such freedom, we would be little more than preprogrammed
robots. Finally, the fact that God created the potential for evil by granting
us freedom of choice ultimately will lead to the best of all possible worlds –
a world in which “there will be no more death and mourning or crying in pain,
Revelation 21.4”.
Jean Paul Sartre, formulerte setningen: Helvete, det er de andre». Tolket bokstavelig, kan et slikt «slagord» tolkes dithen at «samværet» med disse andre er en lidelse i seg selv. Mennesker forutsettes og gjøre hverandre lidelse … Der kan settes opp lister som kan karakterisere eksistensialistens orienteringshorisont – lidelsen - stilt overfor eksistensens vilkår i dag, (Kierkegaards innsikter skinner igjennom den dag i dag):
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/03/redaktr-vi-skal-lide-mer-de-andre-mindre.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/01/hvem-vil-at-du-skal-lide-mer-ved-endre.html
Barth Qoutes:
- Joy is the simplest form of gratitude. ...
- Laughter is the closest thing to the grace of God. ...
- Conscience is the perfect interpreter of life. ...
- Grace must find expression in life, otherwise it is not grace. ...
- Faith in God's revelation has nothing to do with an ideology which glorifies the status quo.
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/11/litt-om-teologi-om-dette-vre-liberal.html
https://medium.com/nietzsches-philosophy/nietzsche-why-suffering-is-valuable-ed6b729bb727
Nietzsche in his book “The Will to Power,” argues that the will to power is the root of all happiness and that our suffering is actually a source of strength.
He believes that when we embrace our suffering, it can lead us to greater things. Nietzsche saw suffering as a sign that we are alive and progressing.
Suffering, according to Friedrich Nietzsche, is a blessing in disguise. His theory is that people who are able to endure difficult circumstances and pain are stronger individuals who are better prepared for life’s challenges.
For him, those who are able to suffer and persevere have a greater capacity for meaning and purpose in life.
Nietzsche
believed that suffering is often a blessing in disguise. For example, he argued
that being forced to confront and overcome one’s weaknesses is a necessary step
on the road to greatness.
Nietzsche
believed that the world is full of suffering and that it lacks any overall
purpose or meaning. However, he thought that our ability to deal with this
suffering, to endure hardships and overcome them, is an important and valuable
exercise of our power and character.
What does Nietzsche say about pain and suffering?
Suffering is not
just something that happens to us – it is bound up in who we are as creatures
that grow and change: “all becoming and growing,” Nietzsche wrote, “all that
guarantees the future, postulates pain.” To take joy in the future means
willing the destruction of the present.
Friedrich
Nietzsche insisted that despite what philosophers and prophets have taught,
suffering is desirable because it increases vitality and provides
opportunities for growth.
It simply means
that suffering is an inevitable component of the human experience.
However, unless you believe there is some purpose behind what you are
experiencing, you cannot overcome it. Especially if the suffering is severe.
The
meaninglessness of suffering, not the suffering, was the curse that lay over
mankind so far.” Nietzsche points out that the problem of suffering is its
meaninglessness, rather than suffering itself. It is hard to deny that to live
is to suffer, as long as we do not mean that to live is only to suffer.
Later in his
philosophical career, Nietzsche held that suffering is necessary for the
'highest value' to be realized in life; for great and heroic achievements to
occur.
Most nihilists
say life is suffering, but that is a common human observation. Nihilism would
not say suffering is noble or some deserved affliction. Suffering is
meaningless. Nihilists don't volunteer for suffering and as humans they try
to have as little suffering as they can manage.
Nietzsche, on the
other hand, asserts that life without pain is meaningless. Pain is the
source of all value in the world; it is the test of one's true worth; and it is
as sacred as the gods.
Many people have
given up on happiness, because their lives are full of suffering and problems.
But do not despair – mature, authentic happiness can only be found in such
troubling circumstances. It is through suffering that many have found
enduring happiness and become fully alive.
Nietzsche calls
pity "the practice of nihilism.... It multiplies misery and conserves all
that is miserable, and is thus a prime instrument of the advancement of
decadence: pity persuades men to nothingness!" (A 573). Pity is unable
to accept suffering as one element of life, but rather desires to eradicate it.
Life itself is
a form of suffering.”
This is true for everyone, no matter his or her circumstances. The important
corollary is that “pain and loss are inevitable and we should let go of trying
to resist them.
Suffering is a
fact of life, but Buddhists believe that you can attain freedom from
suffering. The first step is to change your perspective on suffering:
Instead of viewing suffering as inherently bad, look for a silver lining in
every situation that makes you suffer.
What did Schopenhauer say about suffering?
1 He defines
suffering as the positive force instead of as the negative. Suffering or evil
is not the absence of good, but a positive force in its own right. Schopenhauer
states that human pain and suffering outweigh pleasure and joy. He
identifies that suffering does, however, have its uses.
What does Socrates say about suffering?
Socrates made the
statement that suffering an injustice is better than committing one when
discussing the nature of evil with Polus in the Gorgias. In his view, the soul
remains unharmed when attacked however the intention behind committing an
injustice corrupts the soul.
Is Nietzsche a nihilist?
Summary. Nietzsche
is a self-professed nihilist, although, if we are to believe him, it took
him until 1887 to admit it (he makes the admission in a Nachlass note from that
year). No philosopher's nihilism is more radical than Nietzsche's and only
Kierkegaard's and Sartre's are as radical.
Do nihilists believe in suffering?
Existential
nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose.
Given this circumstance, existence itself–all action, suffering, and
feeling–is ultimately senseless and empty.
What did Camus say about Nietzsche?
For instance, in the
opening of his article “Camus's Fall—From Nietzsche,” William Duvall writes
that “for Albert Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche was a remarkable thinker, a man
of lucidity and courage, a yes-sayer to free- dom and creativity, the
poet-philosopher par excellence.
Did
Nietzsche embrace nihilism?
Friedrich
Nietzsche was one of the first philosophers to articulate and popularize
nihilism in the 19th century. He argued that the death of God and the consequent loss of meaning in
life was a necessary step in the process of human development.
Is
suffering an emotion or feeling?
The word
suffering is sometimes used in the narrow sense of physical pain, but more
often it refers to psychological pain, or more often yet it refers to pain in
the broad sense, i.e. to any unpleasant feeling, emotion or sensation.
Is there virtue in suffering?
Suffering in such
forms as grief, remorse, pain, and hunger seem to represent appropriate
responses to bad situations, and they move us to alleviate those bad
situations. So suffering itself can be a virtuous motive; it moves us to
repair damage or otherwise alleviate situations of disvalue.
What does Nietzsche think about tragedy?
So according to
Nietzsche, in the tragic myth, the destruction of the tragic hero is not
sheer destruction for its own sake, but a reconstitution and rebirth of the
whole. Destruction is the negative side of fusion and creative process.
Tragedy is an Apollinian embodiment of a Dionysian excess and a Dionysian
state.
Was Nietzsche afraid of nihilism?
This key
difference is essential to understanding why Nietzsche feared Nihilism.
Nihilism has the effect of destroying all values. If a person cannot work
through the transitional stages of Nihilism, they may stagnate and lose their
humanity. Nietzsche held this fear on a mass scale.
What are the 4 types of suffering?
four sufferings ［四苦］ ( shi-ku): The four universal sufferings: birth, aging, sickness, and death. Various sutras describe Shakyamuni's quest for enlightenment as motivated by a desire to find a solution to these four sufferings.
What are the 3 forms of suffering?
Types of suffering
- Dukkha-dukkha – the suffering of suffering. This refers to the physical and emotional discomfort and pain all humans experience in their lives.
- Viparinama-dukkha – the suffering of change. ...
- Sankhara-dukkha – the suffering of existence.
Is the Enlightenment the end of suffering?
Enlightenment can
be called liberation — a total, absolute and permanent end of all suffering.
It is the ultimate and final goal of Buddhism. There are many, many qualities
to enlightenment, but the most important are perfect wisdom and great
compassion.
What does Plato say about suffering?
Additionally,
Plato believes that ignorance is the greatest evil, and in order to be morally
good, one must obtain a clear knowledge of the world. He explains how he “would
rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this
miserable manner;” in the darkness (Plato 440).
What does Aristotle think about suffering?
9 In other words, Aristotle recognizes suffering as that which threatens to destroy his conceptualization of the goal and purpose of human life.
How Nietzsche overcome nihilism?
Nietzsche
believed that in order to overcome nihilism, we need to create our own
values. We need to find meaning in life and live in accordance with those
values. Nietzsche said, “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.”
Why does Camus reject nihilism?
Camus affirms
that life is meaningless, but further declares in the preface “that even within
the limits of nihilism it is possible to find the means to proceed beyond
nihilism.” The absurd stems from the fact that though life is without
meaning and the universe devoid of purpose, man longs for meaning, significance
...
What is Albert Camus most famous quote?
I would rather
live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as
if there isn't and to die to find out that there is.
Fra kirkehistorien finner vi mange teorier og tilnærminger til «lidelsen». Vi hører også snakk om «imitatio christi», bl a fra Thomas a Kempis. Det han skriver om liedelsen og lidelsene, kan selvsagt ikke oppfattes som forslag til eller påbud om å «be om å få mer lidelse», se selv:
https://catholicarchive.org/thomas_a_kempis/the_imitation_of_christ/2/12.html
The Royal Road of the Holy Cross
To many the saying, “Deny thyself, take up thy cross and follow Me,”20 seems hard, but it will be much harder to hear that final word: “Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.”21 Those who hear the word of the cross and follow it willingly now, need not fear that they will hear of eternal damnation on the day of judgment. This sign of the cross will be in the heavens when the Lord comes to judge. Then all the servants of the cross, who during life made themselves one with the Crucified, will draw near with great trust to Christ, the judge.
Why, then, do you fear to take up the cross when through it you can win a kingdom? In the cross is salvation, in the cross is life, in the cross is protection from enemies, in the cross is infusion of heavenly sweetness, in the cross is strength of mind, in the cross is joy of spirit, in the cross is highest virtue, in the cross is perfect holiness. There is no salvation of soul nor hope of everlasting life but in the cross.
Take up your cross, therefore, and follow Jesus, and you shall enter eternal life. He Himself opened the way before you in carrying His cross, and upon it He died for you, that you, too, might take up your cross and long to die upon it. If you die with Him, you shall also live with Him, and if you share His suffering, you shall also share His glory.
Behold, in the cross is everything, and upon your dying on the cross everything depends. There is no other way to life and to true inward peace than the way of the holy cross and daily mortification. Go where you will, seek what you will, you will not find a higher way, nor a less exalted but safer way, than the way of the holy cross. Arrange and order everything to suit your will and judgment, and still you will find that some suffering must always be borne, willingly or unwillingly, and thus you will always find the cross.
Either you will experience bodily pain or you will undergo tribulation of spirit in your soul. At times you will be forsaken by God, at times troubled by those about you and, what is worse, you will often grow weary of yourself. You cannot escape, you cannot be relieved by any remedy or comfort but must bear with it as long as God wills. For He wishes you to learn to bear trial without consolation, to submit yourself wholly to Him that you may become more humble through suffering. No one understands the passion of Christ so thoroughly or heartily as the man whose lot it is to suffer the like himself.
The cross, therefore, is always ready; it awaits you everywhere. No matter where you may go, you cannot escape it, for wherever you go you take yourself with you and shall always find yourself. Turn where you will–above, below, without, or within–you will find a cross in everything, and everywhere you must have patience if you would have peace within and merit an eternal crown.
If you carry the cross willingly, it will carry and lead you to the desired goal where indeed there shall be no more suffering, but here there shall be. If you carry it unwillingly, you create a burden for yourself and increase the load, though still you have to bear it. If you cast away one cross, you will find another and perhaps a heavier one. Do you expect to escape what no mortal man can ever avoid? Which of the saints was without a cross or trial on this earth? Not even Jesus Christ, our Lord, Whose every hour on earth knew the pain of His passion. “It behooveth Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, . . . and so enter into his glory.”22 How is it that you look for another way than this, the royal way of the holy cross?
The whole life of Christ was a cross and a martyrdom, and do you seek rest and enjoyment for yourself? You deceive yourself, you are mistaken if you seek anything but to suffer, for this mortal life is full of miseries and marked with crosses on all sides. Indeed, the more spiritual progress a person makes, so much heavier will he frequently find the cross, because as his love increases, the pain of his exile also increases.
Yet such a man, though afflicted in many ways, is not without hope of consolation, because he knows that great reward is coming to him for bearing his cross. And when he carries it willingly, every pang of tribulation is changed into hope of solace from God. Besides, the more the flesh is distressed by affliction, so much the more is the spirit strengthened by inward grace. Not infrequently a man is so strengthened by his love of trials and hardship in his desire to conform to the cross of Christ, that he does not wish to be without sorrow or pain, since he believes he will be the more acceptable to God if he is able to endure more and more grievous things for His sake.
It is the grace of Christ, and not the virtue of man, which can and does bring it about that through fervor of spirit frail flesh learns to love and to gain what it naturally hates and shuns.
To carry the cross, to love the cross, to chastise the body and bring it to subjection, to flee honors, to endure contempt gladly, to despise self and wish to be despised, to suffer any adversity and loss, to desire no prosperous days on earth–this is not man’s way. If you rely upon yourself, you can do none of these things, but if you trust in the Lord, strength will be given you from heaven and the world and the flesh will be made subject to your word. You will not even fear your enemy, the devil, if you are armed with faith and signed with the cross of Christ.
Set yourself, then, like a good and faithful servant of Christ, to bear bravely the cross of your Lord, Who out of love was crucified for you. Be ready to suffer many adversities and many kinds of trouble in this miserable life, for troublesome and miserable life will always be, no matter where you are; and so you will find it wherever you may hide. Thus it must be; and there is no way to evade the trials and sorrows of life but to bear them.
Drink the chalice of the Lord with affection it you wish to be His friend and to have part with Him. Leave consolation to God; let Him do as most pleases Him. On your part, be ready to bear sufferings and consider them the greatest consolation, for even though you alone were to undergo them all, the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come.
When you shall have come to the point where suffering is sweet and acceptable for the sake of Christ, then consider yourself fortunate, for you have found paradise on earth. But as long as suffering irks you and you seek to escape, so long will you be unfortunate, and the tribulation you seek to evade will follow you everywhere. If you put your mind to the things you ought to consider, that is, to suffering and death, you would soon be in a better state and would find peace.
Although you were taken to the third heaven with Paul, you were not thereby insured against suffering. Jesus said: “I will show him how great things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”23 To suffer, then, remains your lot, if you mean to love Jesus and serve Him forever.
If you were but worthy to suffer something for the name of Jesus, what great glory would be in store for you, what great joy to all the saints of God, what great edification to those about you! For all men praise patience though there are few who wish to practice it.
With good reason, then, ought you to be willing to suffer a little for Christ since many suffer much more for the world.
Realize that you must lead a dying life; the more a man dies to himself, the more he begins to live unto God.
No man is fit to enjoy heaven unless he has resigned himself to suffer hardship for Christ. Nothing is more acceptable to God, nothing more helpful for you on this earth than to suffer willingly for Christ. If you had to make a choice, you ought to wish rather to suffer for Christ than to enjoy many consolations, for thus you would be more like Christ and more like all the saints. Our merit and progress consist not in many pleasures and comforts but rather in enduring great afflictions and sufferings.
If, indeed, there were anything better or more useful for man’s salvation than suffering, Christ would have shown it by word and example. But He clearly exhorts the disciples who follow Him and all who wish to follow Him to carry the cross, saying: “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.”24
When, therefore, we have read and searched all that has been written, let this be the final conclusion–that through much suffering we must enter into the kingdom of God.
20
Matt. 16:24
21
Matt. 25:41
22
Luke 24:46,25:26
23
Acts 9:16
24
Luke 9:23
-
"To love is to suffer. To avoid suffering one must not love. But then one suffers from not loving. Therefore, to love is to suffer; not to love is to suffer; to suffer is to suffer. To be happy is to love. To be happy, then, is to suffer, but suffering makes one unhappy. Therefore, to be happy one must love or love to suffer or suffer from too much happiness."
--Diane Keaton, from Woody Allen's "Love and Death"
-
https://www.azquotes.com/author/7881-Thomas_a_Kempis/tag/suffering
If thou art willing to suffer no adversity, how wilt thou be the friend of Christ?
St. Augustine, Dr. Howard Taylor, Mrs. Howard Taylor, Apostolic Fathers, J. Oswald Sanders (2010). “Moody Classics Complete Set: Includes 19 Classics of the Faith in a Single Volume”, p.1583, Moody Publishers
Christ was willing to suffer wrongs and to be despised, and do you dare to complain of anything?.
Suffering, Complaining, Christ
Motivation, Inspiration, Adversity
St. Augustine, Dr. Howard Taylor, Mrs. Howard Taylor, Apostolic Fathers, J. Oswald Sanders (2010). “Moody Classics Complete Set: Includes 19 Classics of the Faith in a Single Volume”, p.1596, Moody Publishers
Soon Enough, Justice, Diversity
Thomas a Kempis (1913). “The Imitation of Christ”
-
Heller ikke hos Luther finner vi noe preskriptivt om
å be om å få lide mer, se følgende der Luther kommer inn på dette å lide bare
en gang:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Cross
Theology
of the Cross
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Luther in 1533 by Lucas Cranach the Elder
The theology of the Cross (Latin: Theologia Crucis,[1] German: Kreuzestheologie[2][3][4]) or staurology[5] (from Greek stauros: cross, and -logy: "the study of")[6] is a term coined by the German theologian Martin Luther[1] to refer to theology that posits “the cross” (that is, divine self-revelation) as the only source of knowledge concerning who God is and how God saves. It is contrasted with the Theology of Glory[1] (theologia gloriae),[1] which places greater emphasis on human abilities and human reason.
Catholic understanding
Paragraph 2015 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the way of perfection as passing by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle. Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually leads to living in the peace and joy of the beatitudes.[7]
As defined by Luther
The term theologia crucis was used very rarely by Luther. He first used the term, and explicitly defined it in contrast to the theology of glory, in the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518. During this debate, he represented the Augustinians and presented his theses that later came to define the Reformation movement.
Theses
The pertinent theological theses of the debate are:[8]
- The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.
- Much less can human works, which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end.
- Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.
- Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.
- The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works that apparently are good), as though they were crimes.
- The works of God (those he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless.
- The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.
- By so much more are the works of man mortal sins when they are done without fear and in unadulterated, evil self-security.
- To say that works without Christ are dead, but not mortal, appears to constitute a perilous surrender of the fear of God.
- Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin.
- Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work.
- In the sight of God sins are then truly venial when they are feared by men to be mortal.
- Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin.
- Free will, after the fall, has power to do good only in a passive capacity, but it can do evil in an active capacity.
- Nor could the free will endure in a state of innocence, much less do good, in an active capacity, but only in a passive capacity.
- The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty.
- Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ.
- It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.
- That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have happened.
- He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
- A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the things what it is.
- That wisdom that sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.
- The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ.
- Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner.
- He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ.
- The law says "Do this", and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in this" and everything is already done.
- One should call the work of Christ an acting work and our work an accomplished work, and thus an accomplished work pleasing to God by the grace of the acting work.
- The love of God does not find, but creates, what is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through what is pleasing to it.
...man's will has some liberty to choose civil
righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power,
without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual
righteousness... –Augsburg
Confession, Art.
18: Of Free Will[9]
Tenets
By reading the theses, one can see that Luther insists on the complete inability of humanity to fulfill God's law. As one would find consistent with his Evangelical breakthrough, he emphasizes the grace of God in the role of salvation. Works of the law cannot improve one's standing.[citation needed]
According to Luther, the theologian of the cross preaches what seems foolish to the world (1 Cor. 1:18). In particular, the theologian of the cross preaches that (1) humans can in no way earn righteousness, (2) humans cannot add to or increase the righteousness of the cross, and (3) any righteousness given to humanity comes from outside of us (extra nos).[citation needed]
In contrast, in Luther's view, the theologian of glory preaches that (1) humans have the ability to do the good that lies within them (quod in se est), (2) there remains, after the fall, some ability to choose the good, and (3) humans cannot be saved without participating in or cooperating with the righteousness given by God.[citation needed]
As Luther understood it, these two theologies had two radically different starting points: they had different epistemologies, or ways of understanding how people know about God and the world. For the theologian of glory, reason and personal perceptions should be employed to increase knowledge about God and the world. Thus, because an action appears to be good, it must be good. For the theologian of the cross, it is only from the self-revelation of God that people can learn about God and their relation to God—and the most perfect self-revelation of God is God's Word become flesh, Jesus the Christ. Thus, even if an action appears good, still Christ died on the cross for human sins and sinfulness, so the action is not as good as it appears.[citation needed]
In Martin Luther's sermon on the Two Kinds of Righteousness, he refers to theology of the cross as "alien righteousness" and theology of glory as "proper righteousness", owing to its origin in the person who presumes that he or she justifies himself or herself by works.[citation needed]
Theology from the cross
Some authors translate Luther's phrase as "Theology from the cross",[10][3] emphasizing the significance of social position in shaping theology. This was part of a broader trend in Liberation theology and standpoint theory which also led to people's history.[citation needed]
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar