Hey Guys,
Since there is so much reading-
1) Finish the reading and answer the following questions on the blog, while engaging others who post on the blog. This will be due by Monday Morning at 8am.
Question: Based on the reading - Is religion needed to be moral? According to the narrator most people need religion as a guideline. Is the the grand inquistor moral? His intentions seems to be in the best interests of humans- being that we are motivated by fear of hell and awesome power- Does Jesus prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is God? How- (you can also use the new testament in your argument)
What are the problems with the grand inquisitors argument? Be specific, spell the the point- make references, use quotes and interact with your fellow class mates thoughts- do not borrow others thoughts from the internet without giving them credit and sharing what you think about it- beyond- I agree, or disagree- think about this...
A movie that is helpful is "Jésus de Montréal" or Jesus of Montreal... rent it watch it- let me know...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Based on the reading, I think the Grand Inquisitor is saying that, yes, we do need religion to be moral. Throughout the reading, the Grand Inquisitor is punishing Jesus for not being a good icon for the people. He believes that the people follow Jesus and what he says and because he did not give in to the temptations, he is a bad icon. By saying this, the Grand Inquisitor is implying that the people need religion in order to know how to act.
ReplyDeleteI think the Grand Inquisitor is moral because of the fact that he has what's best for his people in mind. It may look bad that he follows Satan, but he follows Satan because he thinks that Satan's ideas are better for his people. People will not have to make choices and thus cannot fail in life. I think when you have someone's best interest in mind, it keeps you moral.
I think that by resisting the temptations, Jesus does prove that he is God. He shows that he is stronger than that and can rise above things like the temptations. I think the fact that he didn't give in proves he's much more God-like than giving in. Giving in to temptations shows weakness.
I honestly don't know what is wrong with the Inquisitor's argument. I think it could explain more how not giving in to the temptations makes Jesus not God-like. Also, he could explain how choices are effecting people. I think the whole essay could go into a lot more detail to make his argument stronger and more understandable.
Based on the reading, I do believe that the grand inquisitor is saying that religion is needed to be moral. Religion for people acts as a guideline for what they should or shouldn’t do. Those people, who commit acts of heresy, go against religion and do not follow the guideline that is set and are considered immoral because of this.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Grand Inquisitor follows Satan, I believe that he is moral. His intentions are in the best interest of humans as the Devil is said to provide the tools to end all human suffering and the people will be happy along the way. People will not have the freedom to make their own choices and they will be made by someone else, so they will not be doomed to suffer and won’t fail. As long as you are looking out for people and keeping their best interest in mind, then you are being moral.
I believe that Jesus does prove beyond a doubt that he is God because he does not give in to the temptations set forth to him by Satan. Temptations usually lead a person to evil and bad things, and by Jesus rejecting them he shows that he is strong and can’t be seduced. By giving in, he would show weakness and that characteristic is not God-like. Jesus also rejects the temptations in favor of freedom for the people. This shows that he has the best interest in mind for the people by doing what he feels is good for them.
According to the reading, we do need religion. The Grand Inquisitor punishes Jesus for not taking supplies or giving into him to help the people. He believes that Jesus has followers because people need something to look up too, but he is a bad icon. He is saying that people need religion because if they didn’t have religion to believe in, then what would they be living for?
ReplyDeleteThe Grand Inquisitor could be looked at as moral because he wanted Jesus to do what is best for the people. But I think he is immoral in saying this because if Jesus gave into Satan, then how could people believe and look up to Jesus. Jesus had the people’s best interest in mind and therefore I believe he did the right thing.
By resisting the temptations, Jesus proves that there is a God. He proved this by not giving into the temptations, and rises above what his body wanted. I think that the Grand Inquisitor has an argument though. If Jesus really was a God then why would he help the people and give into the temptations? The choices he made also affected the people he was with. But overall, he had the people’s best interest at heart and in the end he wanted to show the people that he will do anything to help the people.
Dostoevsky’s, The Grand Inquisitor, discusses the human behavior of temptation and morality. The Inquisitor’s observations of human behavior have given him the impression that they are not capable of accepting moral responsibility. This incapability causes constant suffering and anxiety. By Jesus denying Satan’s three temptations, he ensured free will of human kind. The free will in turn allows people to choose whether or not to follow Christ. The Gran Inquisitor believes that almost nobody is able to be so faithful and follow the same footsteps as Jesus had. According to the Grand Inquisitor, religion is needed for morality. The Church acts as guidance for happiness and security of humankind. While the Grand Inquisitor has good intentions in mind for the people, it does not compensate for following Satan. Jesus proved that he was God by resisting temptation; much more difficult than easily accepting the power he was offered. This should be enough for the Grand Inquisitor to trust and not doubt Jesus in his ways.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the Inquisitors' argument, humans do, indeed, need some form of religion as a guideline to be moral. He argues that "man is born a rebel." In other words, humans, by nature, tend to stray away from morality as a result of sinful temptations. Without a code of conduct that spells out morality for us, the Inquisitor believes that we would be incapable of determining rightful decisions on our own. However, it could also be said that the presence of religion creates the sins. Without a religious code of conduct, what would there be to rebel from? Given complete freedom of judgement, would we be capable of making rightful decisions?
ReplyDeleteThe Inquisitor also stresses the hardships of decision-making itself. In reference to free will, he claims that "to man rest and even death are preferable to a free choice between the knowledge of Good and Evil." He believes that freedom of choice is a burden for humans- that we are not inherently able to decipher between good and evil. This idea is somewhat contradictory to his claim that humans are inherently rebels, as being rebellious implies that one is conscious of the nature of the two different paths one can take.
I was intrigued at the very beginning of the reading when Dostoevsky described damnation as an act of God. The Virgin Mary is said to have gone on the same journey through Hell as Dante did, and then she begs God to end the torture that the people in Hell must undergo. In The Inferno, however, Dante describes a Hell in which God has no hand. In Dante's universe, God is supposedly too pure and just to punish people in this manner. The shift in God's role in Hell between these two pieces of literature is interesting.
In the Grand Inquisitor, the narrator suggests that most people need religion as a guideline to being moral. I think this suggestion is accurate. The Inquisitor makes the point to Jesus that there are some people who were born with the ability to handle free will and moral responsibility, but most were not. The Inquisitor believes that Jesus, by giving people free will has actually made things more difficult for everyone. The Inquisitor feels this was wrong of Jesus to do but still leads the church in religion because religion gives the people some moral guidance. It is for this reason I believe the Inquisitor, although he does not agree with Jesus, is still moral. He is looking out for the best of other people and trying to help them live their lives the best they can.
ReplyDeleteI had a hard time deciding if Jesus proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is God, but in the end I think he does. He physically did things I think proved this like allow the blind man to see but I think the ending where he accepts what the Inquisitor says with a kiss exemplifies what I have always learned about God, that he is accepting of everyone, even those who do not believe in him. The Inquisitor may believe the Devil is a better example to follow than Jesus and God but Jesus still lovingly accepts the Inquisitor at the end of the parable.
I think one flaw with Inquisitor is that he is saying he believes more in the devil and the temptations the devil offers because it is more beneficial to the people however the people who did not follow Jesus at this time during the Inquisition were being persecuted for it. If he believes more in the devil than in what Jesus taught I think he should stop persecuting those who do not follow Christ as well.
Although I believe the Inquisitor mocks religion in a way I think he believes that it is necessary. Humans work as types of machines and need to be guided in ways that make them do the right things. As the Inquisitor tells us one problem is that people are provoked to do things out of fear of hell and fear itself, not because Jesus did miraculously things. His critques of Jesus prove that religion would be better of if Jesus had been that all knowingly miraculous person that proved to everyone irrefutably he was the son of God by flying with angels or turning rocks into bread.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Grand Inquisitor is moral. He wants the best for the human race and his tale does nothing but tell humans that he expects the best from them wether Jesus is God or not. Humans have a duty to fufill and denying Jesus or religion does not make the Inquisitor a moral person.
According to the new testament Jesus never proves without a shadow of a doubt that he is God. Yes, Jesus performs miraculous miracles to show his awesome powers. But it is only proven through the works of his apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that any of these miracles happened in the first place. So it takes strong people to have no physical evidence but instead faith alone to accept the fact that Jesus was miraculous and the Son of God, not God himself.
I think a major problem with the Inquisitor is that he does not place enough faith in humans as indivduals. He blames Jesus for us not performing to our full potential. In my belief and according to the teachings of Chrsitianity, humans are admintely good. Yes they are born with original sin but that is just a way of proposing that we can not be perfect as Jesus is and was. I think if the Inquistor did not think that humans were only influenced by the fear of hell than maybe his arguments could propose validity into the teachings on religion.
Based on the reading I have come to the conclusion that religion is not needed to be moral. Jesus was representing god, religion and freedom to the suffering, and by resisting the three temptations (turning stones into bread, casting himself from the temple to be saved by the angels, and ruling over all kingdoms of the world) he was seen by the inquisitor as misjudging human nature. Jesus was moral in his ideas of wanting to give freedom to the suffering, and present them with more than bread to fill their bellies, but the inquisitor was also moral in promising that all mankind will live an die happily in ignorance. He felt that men needed more than bread to survive, and casting himself down just to be saved would cement and prove his godhood. His thoughts, though moral, were not based on religion. This does not make the inquisitor immoral it just reminds us that he was simply trying to please the people, while Jesus proving to be godlike, kept in mind the requests of his father, God, to reject the temptations of Satan.
ReplyDeleteThe Inquisitor is fine with only providing bread to the people if that's what they want, while Jesus is willing to ignore temptations although it may look weak in hopes to provide more than bread to the people who are in need. The grand inquisitor's weakness with his argument is that he's not only thinking of the people in need, but he's also thinking about how to benefit himself. He wants to provide the least possible while helping at the same time, if it's bread they want, they'll have bread, and if all it takes is to cast himself and be saved so that he's seen as godlike that's what he'll do. Unlike Jesus who goes beyond just what those people want in search of more so that they can have freedom. Religion is not needed to be moral because someone can always have good intentions without religion being a part, but religion may result in more sacrifice for the good of others rather than oneself.
I believe that Religion is needed to be moral based on the reading according to the grand inquisitor. The grand inquisitor tries to undermine the greatness of faith and religion with Jesus, and in my opinion the Grand inquisitor is not a very moral person. So the fact the grand inquisitor is objecting religion and the followers of religion i would be inclined to say that the lack of religion would be imoral. The grand inquisitor also says that all mankind will live happy and die happy in ignorance under him. living in ignorance would in my mind denote that a person is not moral because they were not following what they thought was right or wrong, thus further proof that an ignorant person following the rule of the grand inquisitor would not be a moral person. This is not to say that in my mind only religious people are moral people but rather only based on the reading does it insinuated that without the lead of jesus and religion would a person not be moral.
ReplyDeleteBased on the reading of the Grand Inquisitor, I believe that we do in fact need religion. In the story, Jesus is constantly being punished and the main portion of the text is telling us why Jesus' return would ultimately interfere with the mission of the Church. You could say that because the Grand Inquisitor follows Satan that he is immoral. Jesus, on the other hand, is trying for the greater good as well by sacrificing himself to end all suffering for mankind.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think Jesus definitely proved beyond a doubt that he is God. He resisted the ultimate temptations of Satan and showed everyone that good overpowers evil in the end. If he would've eventually given in to these temptations, he would've showed the people that he is just like everyone and has a weakness. But God isn't like everyone else and by ultimately rejecting the temptations of Satan, Jesus proves he is God and he has no weakness. He could've had the world if he would've just given into the temptations, but he doesn't for the sake of freedom and mankind, a quality a God should definitely have.
I think fault in the Inquisitor's argument is that he is being too selfish in his arguments. Sure he is trying to help everyone else as well, but if he was being true to his own arguments, he wouldn't be thinking about how to benefit himself as well, he would just be thinking about everyone other than himself. He wanst to look God-like without having to do too much on his part. If all he has to do is a simple task to look God-like, then that's what he's eventually going to do. Unlike Jesus, who goes above and beyond the call of humanity, the Grand Inquisitor will only do "what is necessary." In my mind, I don't care how good your intentions are, following Satan ends any hope for the Grand Inquisitor to look God-like. I think that even though part of his arguments are good, he loses many of the followers he's gained when he follows Satan. I think there is no redemption for that in the minds of his followers.
In the argument of The Grand Inquisitor, the narrator believes that religion is not needed to be moral—if anything it leads to immorality. He feels that if free will was not an option, people would be forced to chose a moral path. But since humans have free will, we are able to choose for ourselves whether we follow a moral path or an immoral path. In the narrators opinion the Grand Inquisitor is a moral person because he is looking out for the welfare of humanity. To those who believe in religion, myself included, the Grand Inquisitor is not a moral person. God gave us free will in order to let us live our lives the way we want to. Whether we chose to be moral, immoral, good or bad is up to each individual. Although the inquisitor is trying to make humans chose the moral path, it goes against the whole point of Christianity—the ability to choose our own path, including what we believe and the choices we make.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is obvious to those who believe that Jesus is God, He did not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is God. The main objective of Christianity is to have faith—to believe without seeing. Jesus did what he could, without flaunting, to prove that He is God. He performed miracles and led a sinless life. Just because He did not hang out with the higher-ups does not mean He does not have more power than them. He was making a point by opening up His followers to those of all statuses—that anyone can achieve Heaven, not just those in power.
The Inquisitor makes good points, yet all can be refuted. The first argument he makes is that Jesus should not have given people free will so they would be content on earth. Religion does not constrict, it frees. Jesus freed us from death when He resurrected and freed us from being constricted in choices when He gave us the power of free will. The inquisitor sees free will as something that limits, not something that empowers. What is the point to life if a path of life is already chosen for you by the church? While breaking down the temptations in the desert, the inquisitor rebukes Jesus for a specific reason in each one. In the first temptation, about free will, the inquisitor argues that people are not strong enough to live off of the Word of God alone. The whole point of free will is to see who has enough faith to do so. Security and happiness should not simply be placed in someone’s life. In the second temptation, the inquisitor says that people need to see to believe. In the New Testament, when Jesus rises and goes to visit His disciples, “Doubting” Thomas argues with the others that he needs to see Jesus in order to believe He is alive. Once Jesus does appear to him, He tells Thomas that seeing is not believing. This is where faith steps in. Faith does not depend on actually seeing the power of Jesus or God in everyday life. In the third temptation, the inquisitor makes almost the same argument, that Jesus should have taken all the power in the Kingdom because the Jewish people were expecting a ruler. But exerting power over people is not God’s intention. All three of these temptations relate back to faith and free will—the two cornerstones of Christianity. The inquisitor believes that free will should be taken away and faith forced upon humans. Those two things specifically defy the meaning of religion, as explained above.
I do not believe, based on this reading, that religion is needed as a guideline to be moral. Yes, religion does prove useful if you believe in it, but I think people can understand morality and grasp right and wrong without religion guiding them. The grand inquisitor is not moral because he is preaching out against the belief in God, yet those who do not follow Christianity are being persecuted. This is hypocritical and unfair and due to this I do not see the grand inquisitor to be a moral example.
ReplyDeleteJesus does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is God, but he provides proof that people can choose to believe in or not. I believe he does this to leave His power up to the interpretation of the people.
The grand inquisitor is hypocritical. He believes more in the Devil than in God, yet at this time people are persecuted for lack of belief in Christianity. One can not believe in right and wrong, good and bad...and not believe that if there is a God there is not also an evil counterpart. He believes that he has the people's best interest at heart, but who is he to judge what the people need? Overall I do not agree with the grand inquisitor, nor do I think he presents any valid points in his argument.