Relationship Between Christianity And Epictetus
For centuries, the idea of god and his relationship with human beings has been altered and adjusted according to the beliefs of different people. God has been molded to fit the beliefs of Christianity, Islam and redefined in Judaism. To some, God does not exist and to others, God is heaven and earth. To stoic philosophers like Epictetus, god is a playwright who assigns a role for each and every living thing, instilling himself as the rationality to all things like a conscience. To Christian, Judaism, and Islamic followers, God is an almighty divine being who is capable of both miracles and devastation, and one who must be obeyed, as seen in Genesis. These two Gods, who both hold the power to predetermine our lives, differ in the idea of free will and the practicality of it. Epictetus’s
…show more content…
god predetermines our lives, not unlike the monotheistic of God of Judaism and Christianity, while equipping us with the faculty of understand so that we may change how we feel about things that are not up to us because affairs such as our emotions, thoughts and opinions are within our control.
This faculty of understanding helps us in life to fulfill our fate in life when curveballs are thrown at us, like the death of a close relative or the loss of one’s good reputation. Whichever way god predetermines our lives, be it a beggar, a king or a priest, we must “play this part skillfully” for he is the playwright and we are his actors (Handbook, 16). The misfortunes we might encounter are simply a result of overstepping boundaries or misinterpreting the role god has handed to us. For instance, there are things in life we cannot control but still attempt to such as avoiding death. Death is “nothing dreadful… but instead the judgment about death that it is dreadful—that is what is dreadful” (Handbook, 13). If we change the way
we perceive death, then we have utilized our faculty of understanding well. To avoid such misfortunes, like the constant fear of death, Epictetus advises that we “remember that (we) are an actor in a play… play the assigned part well” which entails allowing things to happen as they will but changing how we react to these situations, much like a skilled actor (Handbook, 16). The roles handed to us are always open to interpretation, but these interpretations should have no effect on the storyline, or in this case, our destiny. Aside from the faculty of understanding, god also equipped us with the faculties of endurance and courage. He gives us endurance to help us through tough times and courage to face these difficulties to help us fulfill our fates and walk along the paved road. Epictetus’s god exists within every living thing but within us, He exists as our voice of reason, in other words, a daemon. The concept of a daemon is “assigned to each man a direction” by god and through this daemon, god is always watching us (Discourses, 9). This daemon represents a sort of overseer, or a conscience that prevents us from overstepping our boundaries knowing that god is constantly watching us, proving the presence of God in all things and representing the type of rationality that all human beings should behold. However, Epictetus’s god, while omnipresent, is restricted in his power. While he does influence the way our lives will unravel and allows for us to make our own mistakes, he is only a guiding hand. God has given us the ability to play our roles “free of all restraint compulsion and hindrance” (Discourses, 8). God has essentially given us the power of free will. He does not interfere with our lives, whether we are right or wrong. He does not punish us for our sins or reward us for our benevolence. Our decisions and choices in life are our entirely up to us.
In opposition to Epictetus’s god, the all-powerful God found in Genesis represents a different kind of faith. In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only true son, Isaac, birthed by his wife, Sarah, to test Abraham’s faith in Him. But if God is a powerful all-knowing being, why does He feel the need to test Abraham at all? Although God is all-knowing, God gave Abraham free will to reassure Himself that Abraham would in fact give him his full unabashed loyalty. The narrative in which the story is written gives no insight into how either Abraham or Isaac is feeling throughout the ordeal and does not indicate the emotional implications that might have ensued during the three day journey. Disregarding the potential emotional aspect of the story and the details that have been left ambiguous, the dry account of events leaves readers wondering whether or not Abraham still possessed his own rationality or if his immense faith in God surpasses his capacity to think for himself, which brings up the question of free will—both Isaac’s free will as well as Abraham’s free will.
In this story of Abraham, Isaac and God, rationality and free will are set aside to pave the way for uninhibited faith. Despite this apparent violent act of sacrifice, Abraham still holds full faith in God without question, believing that God will save Isaac in the end. Abraham expresses his confidence in God when he tells Isaac “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, son” (Genesis 22: 8). Although Abraham did not know whether or not God really would provide the sacrificial lamb in the end, and despite that he did in fact lie to Isaac, one can infer that perhaps Abraham really did believe that God would provide one in the end. The details, or lack thereof, do not indicate whether or not Abraham truly believed this so it is plausible that Abraham disregarded his own conscience and rationality to make way for faith. Pertaining to Abraham’s obscure response, there is no indication of Isaac’s distrust, allowing readers to infer that Isaac believed every word his father said, displaying a sort of unquestioned trust just like the sort of faith Abraham had in God, creating a parallel for these two relationships. Abraham utilizes his free will to sacrifice his own “free will” and rationality, replacing it with full faith in God, while Isaac sacrifices his own free will because of the love and faith he feels for his father. This type of faith that Isaac shows in his father, when applied to Abraham and God’s relationship, also demonstrates a different perspective of God.
The father-son relationship of Isaac and Abraham parallels God’s relationship with Abraham as God stands as a father figure as well. Like a father, God expects Abraham to do as he says without question. If Abraham refuses to do as God says, punishments follow this sort of disobedience. However, if Abraham does as God says, there would be positive reinforcements, exactly as a paternalistic relationship would be, or any parent-to-child relationship for that matter. It is convention for children to listen to their parents without question, surrendering their free will as Abraham and Isaac evidently have. God, who stands as a paternalistic figure, becomes more humanistic in this way as he intervenes with the affairs of his creations, unlike the god found in Epictetus who does not partake in the lives of human beings. Despite the fact that sacrifice of rationality and free will is necessary in this relationship, it does not indicate that this sort of relationship is unhealthy. In contrast, both these ideas of God and free will are both relatively healthy. They both portray different types of fathers. Epictetus’s god represents a more mature and rational type of father who allows you to make your own mistakes and learn on your own, while the God found in Genesis 22 asks you to close your eyes and take his hand while he leads you through life. One god guides you on your path through life, allowing for you to make mistakes and amends as you go, while the other asks that use your free will to replace your rationality with full faith in Him. Epictetus’s god gave us the opportunity to choose whether we want to lead a happy life or if we want to lead a dreary existence because our choices are entirely up to us, but the God in Genesis 22, asks that you believe in him even if he might not have given you a reason to. They both ask you to believe in what has already been predetermined for you. Epictetus’s god lays out the path as you walk alone while the other God leads you through the journey. If you attempt to open your eyes or release your hand from God, you will be disciplined as a child would but if you hold on tight and keep walking, you will be rewarded as as Abraham was with a multiplication of “seed(s) as the stars of the heavens and as the sand that is on the seashore” (Genesis 22: 17). In the end, these two different Gods have one goal in life: to lead us through a happy life, despite their varying methods.
god predetermines our lives, not unlike the monotheistic of God of Judaism and Christianity, while equipping us with the faculty of understand so that we may change how we feel about things that are not up to us because affairs such as our emotions, thoughts and opinions are within our control.
This faculty of understanding helps us in life to fulfill our fate in life when curveballs are thrown at us, like the death of a close relative or the loss of one’s good reputation. Whichever way god predetermines our lives, be it a beggar, a king or a priest, we must “play this part skillfully” for he is the playwright and we are his actors (Handbook, 16). The misfortunes we might encounter are simply a result of overstepping boundaries or misinterpreting the role god has handed to us. For instance, there are things in life we cannot control but still attempt to such as avoiding death. Death is “nothing dreadful… but instead the judgment about death that it is dreadful—that is what is dreadful” (Handbook, 13). If we change the way
we perceive death, then we have utilized our faculty of understanding well. To avoid such misfortunes, like the constant fear of death, Epictetus advises that we “remember that (we) are an actor in a play… play the assigned part well” which entails allowing things to happen as they will but changing how we react to these situations, much like a skilled actor (Handbook, 16). The roles handed to us are always open to interpretation, but these interpretations should have no effect on the storyline, or in this case, our destiny. Aside from the faculty of understanding, god also equipped us with the faculties of endurance and courage. He gives us endurance to help us through tough times and courage to face these difficulties to help us fulfill our fates and walk along the paved road. Epictetus’s god exists within every living thing but within us, He exists as our voice of reason, in other words, a daemon. The concept of a daemon is “assigned to each man a direction” by god and through this daemon, god is always watching us (Discourses, 9). This daemon represents a sort of overseer, or a conscience that prevents us from overstepping our boundaries knowing that god is constantly watching us, proving the presence of God in all things and representing the type of rationality that all human beings should behold. However, Epictetus’s god, while omnipresent, is restricted in his power. While he does influence the way our lives will unravel and allows for us to make our own mistakes, he is only a guiding hand. God has given us the ability to play our roles “free of all restraint compulsion and hindrance” (Discourses, 8). God has essentially given us the power of free will. He does not interfere with our lives, whether we are right or wrong. He does not punish us for our sins or reward us for our benevolence. Our decisions and choices in life are our entirely up to us.
In opposition to Epictetus’s god, the all-powerful God found in Genesis represents a different kind of faith. In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only true son, Isaac, birthed by his wife, Sarah, to test Abraham’s faith in Him. But if God is a powerful all-knowing being, why does He feel the need to test Abraham at all? Although God is all-knowing, God gave Abraham free will to reassure Himself that Abraham would in fact give him his full unabashed loyalty. The narrative in which the story is written gives no insight into how either Abraham or Isaac is feeling throughout the ordeal and does not indicate the emotional implications that might have ensued during the three day journey. Disregarding the potential emotional aspect of the story and the details that have been left ambiguous, the dry account of events leaves readers wondering whether or not Abraham still possessed his own rationality or if his immense faith in God surpasses his capacity to think for himself, which brings up the question of free will—both Isaac’s free will as well as Abraham’s free will.
In this story of Abraham, Isaac and God, rationality and free will are set aside to pave the way for uninhibited faith. Despite this apparent violent act of sacrifice, Abraham still holds full faith in God without question, believing that God will save Isaac in the end. Abraham expresses his confidence in God when he tells Isaac “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, son” (Genesis 22: 8). Although Abraham did not know whether or not God really would provide the sacrificial lamb in the end, and despite that he did in fact lie to Isaac, one can infer that perhaps Abraham really did believe that God would provide one in the end. The details, or lack thereof, do not indicate whether or not Abraham truly believed this so it is plausible that Abraham disregarded his own conscience and rationality to make way for faith. Pertaining to Abraham’s obscure response, there is no indication of Isaac’s distrust, allowing readers to infer that Isaac believed every word his father said, displaying a sort of unquestioned trust just like the sort of faith Abraham had in God, creating a parallel for these two relationships. Abraham utilizes his free will to sacrifice his own “free will” and rationality, replacing it with full faith in God, while Isaac sacrifices his own free will because of the love and faith he feels for his father. This type of faith that Isaac shows in his father, when applied to Abraham and God’s relationship, also demonstrates a different perspective of God.
The father-son relationship of Isaac and Abraham parallels God’s relationship with Abraham as God stands as a father figure as well. Like a father, God expects Abraham to do as he says without question. If Abraham refuses to do as God says, punishments follow this sort of disobedience. However, if Abraham does as God says, there would be positive reinforcements, exactly as a paternalistic relationship would be, or any parent-to-child relationship for that matter. It is convention for children to listen to their parents without question, surrendering their free will as Abraham and Isaac evidently have. God, who stands as a paternalistic figure, becomes more humanistic in this way as he intervenes with the affairs of his creations, unlike the god found in Epictetus who does not partake in the lives of human beings. Despite the fact that sacrifice of rationality and free will is necessary in this relationship, it does not indicate that this sort of relationship is unhealthy. In contrast, both these ideas of God and free will are both relatively healthy. They both portray different types of fathers. Epictetus’s god represents a more mature and rational type of father who allows you to make your own mistakes and learn on your own, while the God found in Genesis 22 asks you to close your eyes and take his hand while he leads you through life. One god guides you on your path through life, allowing for you to make mistakes and amends as you go, while the other asks that use your free will to replace your rationality with full faith in Him. Epictetus’s god gave us the opportunity to choose whether we want to lead a happy life or if we want to lead a dreary existence because our choices are entirely up to us, but the God in Genesis 22, asks that you believe in him even if he might not have given you a reason to. They both ask you to believe in what has already been predetermined for you. Epictetus’s god lays out the path as you walk alone while the other God leads you through the journey. If you attempt to open your eyes or release your hand from God, you will be disciplined as a child would but if you hold on tight and keep walking, you will be rewarded as as Abraham was with a multiplication of “seed(s) as the stars of the heavens and as the sand that is on the seashore” (Genesis 22: 17). In the end, these two different Gods have one goal in life: to lead us through a happy life, despite their varying methods.