신에 대한 이해 도덕과 심판에 대한 유대-기독교적 관점

### 신에 대한 이해 유대-기독교 전통에서 바라본 신에 대한 관점
* 🤔 신에 대한 질문을 받으면 다양한 해석을 내놓을 수 있지만, 가장 공감을 불러일으키는 이해는 **유대-기독교 전통**에서 비롯됩니다.
* 📜 이 전통은 신이 우주 내부의 물리적 실체가 아니라 **시간과 공간 외부에 존재**하며, 그 본질을 정의하는 특정 속성을 구현한다고 가정합니다.
* 🎨 이 틀 안에서 인간은 신성을 반영하는 것으로 간주되며, **예술과 영성에서 나타나는 신과 인간 사이의 본질적인 연결**을 암시합니다.
* 또한 유대-기독교적 관점은 신의 도덕적 차원을 강조하여 **인간의 도덕적 판단과 책임에 대한 신의 관심**을 강조합니다.
* ⚖ 특히 지난 2세기 동안 세속주의가 부상한 상황에서 신적 판단에 대한 이러한 근본적인 믿음이 사라지면 **사회적 도덕과 행동에 대한 비판적인 의문**이 제기됩니다.
* 🔍 현대 사회를 관찰하면 **전통적인 도덕적 제약이 쇠퇴**하면서 개인이 신성한 책임에 대한 두려움 없이 행동하는 풍토가 조성되고 있음을 알 수 있습니다.
* 📉 이러한 변화는 **판단력의 부재와 사회적 행동의 변화 사이에 상관관계**가 있음을 시사하며, 신성한 책임에 뿌리를 둔 도덕적 나침반이 없으면 사회 구조가 흔들릴 수 있음을 나타냅니다.
* 💭 궁극적으로 신과 도덕에 대한 담론은 **세속주의의 함의와 우리 행동에 대한 책임의 본질에 대한 성찰**를 불러일으킵니다.

유대-기독교의 신은 도덕적 판단을 구체화하여 사회의 책임과 윤리적 행동에 영향을 미칩니다.

Here's how you answer this question: who is God? When somebody says, 'So David, who is God?' What do you say? Well, there are a lot of different answers. You can certainly waffle your head off about a question like that. You can talk about a Plotinus-like

access to ever more refined layers of reality, a god followed by successive, successive superior gods, that sort of thing. Um, I think we're pretty limited. We're limited to a particular tradition, which is the Judeo-Christian tradition. That's where the resonance exists, and we

we understand that tradition best. I, I know there are Hindu traditions that have a completely different conception of God. The Buddhist tradition has a different concept of God, but I can't talk to those because all I know from those traditions I know as a matter of scholarship,

not intimacy. The Judeo-Christian God is outside time and space, outside the physical universe. It's not one of those things we encounter within the universe. It has certain attributes, certain powers which we assign to it. I mean, this is theology. It's not a matter of a physical

science. We're not discovering this. And there are two, there are two or at least three additional doctrines associated with the question that you just asked. One is the, the very old idea that um, within human beings there's a kind of image of God, that is, there is a

asynchronous appreciation of God for human beings, human beings for God, which is manifested in art by the assumption that a human being somehow reflects the divine. The second assumption is that the surest path to intimacy with the deity lies within it

and that's certainly what the Buddhists say as well, that is the what is within gives you the surest, most accessible way to reach the divinity. And the third is a series of pronouncements about human nature that are part of Western theology.

For example, the Christian doctrine of fallen human nature, which suggests to get back to your question that when we talk about God, I'm talking about people in our position. We talk about God, we're talking about a theoretical entity and it's just

theoretical because we have no hands-on experience. It's beyond experimental science. Who has an intense personal interest in moral judgment and that's an aspect which I think is severely neglected when we talk about God. We're not talking about someone who fulfills a certain

role in explaining how the universe came about. Well, He created the whole thing. Okay, we know that. We know that that's a traditional assumption. But a less traditional assumption, especially in the 21st century, it's not only a creating God, it's not only a God

with enormous powers, embarrassingly large powers, it's not only an infinite God, but it is a guy. And this is the crucial point, it's a God who has a peculiar interest in our moral nature and who is prepared, for example, to judge us.

That's part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the judging aspect, and it has been the foundational stone for virtually every system of Judeo-Christian morality since at least the fifth century BC. Very much neglected because the question is wide open when

you take that foundational stone away you just yank it away and you eliminate the idea of the universal system of judgment judging human beings for their acts during their life um what's the result what happens to society when you take that foundational stone away this has

been a question that I think is has been pertinent since at least 1830 when the great movement of secular liberation from Christian doctrine began to accelerate and spread to every corner of every corner of Europe in the United States we're talking about a 200 year

old process secularism is not just the last 10 years it's a long complicated tradition and we are living in a secular society it's absolutely obvious we're not living in a society where people are consumed by the thought of judgment or that they're proposing in any way to put

inhibitions or restraints on their desires or to conform in any way to whatever the code of conduct may have been enforced in the 18th and 17th and 16th century who are in fact proposing to make it up as they go along

which I'm afraid we're all doing um but when you remove that judgment you were making a point about what happens when you remove that judgment what happens well it's it's like asking what happens in a physical system you withdraw the energy from it I mean the physical system can

look just the way it it did before but there's nothing doing any work anymore let's just say it's a piston with no external source of of energy driving the piston well I I I cannot say look it's perfectly obvious what happens but

I can say if you want to know what happens, there is a correlation between the rise of secularism and the nature of society. Look around, look around. Are people restraining their behavior? Are they inhibited by a traditional series of codicils being enforced throughout the answer? Seems to

be no. Secularism seems to allow a great many things that previously were forbidden. Is that just come down to accountability? Is judgment accountability? Is, I mean, something that Pat always talks about is accountability, like who's holding the politicians accountable? Well, you know

the voters, but that's a whole other question. But judgment at the end of the day comes down to accountability. Are you going to be accountable for your actions, good or bad? Is that essentially the, that's a good question. I think it's very similar to

the question I was raising. I mean, Hobbes said the fear of death is the source of law. The fear of violent death is the source of conscience. It's a source of conscience because violent death, you meet death without any preparation, any theological preparations, and you're

going to be judged instantaneously. That's a very pregnant remark by, by Hobbes. But I think that accountability is another way of saying, look, we're now living in a society where the essential force behind judgment, the thing that made it live, that's been progressively withdrawn.

There's no point in denying it, seems to me. No point in saying, well, we've, we've recreated a moral universe in every way comparable to the, the moral universe that we have denied or derided. If you enjoyed this short clip, click over here to watch

another short clip and if you want to watch the entire episode or the entire podcast click here [Music] you

The TRUTH About God

Valuetainment Short Clips

유대-기독교 전통에서 하나님을 정의하기

연사는 하나님에 대한 다양한 해석을 인정하지만 친숙함 때문에 유대-기독교적 관점에 초점을 맞춥니다.

유대-기독교의 신은 시간과 공간의 바깥에 존재하며 특정한 속성과 힘을 가진 것으로 묘사됩니다.

연사는 하나님을 이해하는 것은 과학적 노력이 아니라 신학적인 노력이라고 강조합니다.

인간 안에 있는 하나님의 형상, 내적 성찰을 통해 하나님과 친밀해지는 길, 인간 본성에 대한 선언 등 세 가지 관련 교리가 소개됩니다.

타락한 인간 본성의 개념은 하나님에 대한 인간의 이해의 한계와 관련하여 언급됩니다.

도덕적 판단에서 하나님의 역할

연사는 도덕적 판단에 대한 하나님의 관심에서 종종 간과되는 측면을 강조합니다.

하나님은 엄청난 힘을 가진 창조주일 뿐만 아니라 인간의 도덕성을 판단하는 심판자이기도 하다는 특징이 있습니다.

유대-기독교 전통이 강조하는 심판은 도덕의 기본 요소로 논의됩니다.

연사는 신적 심판의 개념을 제거한 후 사회적 영향에 대한 질문을 제기합니다.

지난 200년 동안 세속주의의 부상은 맥락에 따라 설명할 수 있습니다.

연사는 현대 사회가 대체로 세속적이며 신의 판단을 덜 강조한다고 말합니다.

신의 판단을 제거하는 것은 물리적 시스템에서 에너지를 제거하여 그 기능에 변화를 가져오는 것에 비유할 수 있습니다.

연사는 세속주의의 맥락에서 사회적 행동에 대한 성찰을 촉구하며 사람들이 예전만큼 자신의 행동을 자제하고 있는지 의문을 제기합니다.

연사는 판단과 책임의 관계를 탐구하며 누가 사람들에게 책임을 지는지에 대해 질문합니다.

법과 양심의 원천으로서 죽음에 대한 두려움에 대한 홉스의 견해가 제시됩니다.

연사는 판단의 본질적인 힘이 사회에서 점차 사라지고 있다고 결론을 내립니다.