… and to dust you shall return
Ash Wednesday is here. Lent is upon us. Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, to the cross, to death, is our journey too.
Peace
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The civics of the Kingdom of God
26 comments:
Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, to the cross, to death, is our journey too.
Perhaps, but since He's Jee-zus, doesn't he already know the outcome? I'm sure some ancient cleric wrote hundreds of pages on this, but it's not quite clear whether JC is....G*d before the Rez., or only afterwards: He performs miracles, walks on water, and so forth. So....if He walks on water, couldn't He escape being ...crucified??
Ergo, He decides to let the romans and jewish authorities bust Him, knowing the results a priori as it were, and at any time He could just make the nails in his hand disappear.
(btw, your pal KO's recent rant probably about the least christian piece of writing to be found online).
J,
It seems very clear to me that early Christians struggled mightily with the question of how to understand Jesus and his relationship to God. My opinion in this matter is that the orthodox concensus (i.e., trinitarian God, Jesus as pre-existing, fully human and fully divine) captures important truths, but also does so at the result of a theory that can explain everything, and predict nothing.
Within the orthoxdox concensus, what it means to say that "Jesus was fully human" is that he was subject to all of the finitude our our lives, to pain, to doubt, etc. Or, at least, that's how I interpret it.
My take on this is that Jesus knew that he was on a collision course with the Roman authorities. His "Kingdom of God" was fundamentally an attack on the political status-quo: both Roman rule, and the Sadducees collaboration with it. This was not going to end well for him. This does not mean that he (as someone fully human) knew the where and when the end would come, although I don't doubt that he expected it would come with tremendous pain.
But Jesus also went to Jerusalem supremely trusting in God. He believed that even if he was rejected by the world, he was loved by God, and he was doing God's will. The question as to whether the suffering servant in Isaiah represents foreshadowing of the will of God in the Bible (and so prophesy in the debased sense of predicting the future), or a model to which Jesus conformed his life, is something that people of good will can differ over (unfortunately, not always with mutual respect).
So....if He walks on water, couldn't He escape being ...crucified??
Ergo, He decides to let the romans and jewish authorities bust Him, knowing the results a priori as it were, and at any time He could just make the nails in his hand disappear.
This is a pretty good summation of the Docetist heresy, which is simply a way of saying that some early Christians believed something very much like this, but this view did not become part of the orthodox consensus. My quick take on the orthodox consensus, btw, is that it tries hard to avoid easy answers based on oversimplified Christologies. In particular, it rejects a Christology that asserts Jesus's divinity but fails to assert with equal fervor his humanity. We confess that Jesus suffered, died, and was buried (this is a synthesis of the Apostles and Nicene Creed), in explicit rejection of the Docetist position.
btw, your pal KO's recent rant probably about the least christian piece of writing to be found online
Which specifically did you have in mind?
Part of Kirby's shtick is to be provocative. I've been thinking about a response to his "1 Cor 15:52" posting, but right now, GM seems to have taken up the challenge, and I'm inclined to let GM soften him up a bit before joining in.
Ah, I note via Wiki-in' that the Docetists were associated with the gnostics/Manicheans. That may not have become orthodox--yet the manichean heretics (if heretics they were) did not lack a certain rational basis for their beliefs.
The Manichean does not, as does the orthodox, assume that his God authored chaos and evil (including the evil of fallen nature). The dualistic battle (or polytheistic) may not be orthodox monotheism, but does seem to remove some of G*d's ...culpability (tho' there are some loose ends). Since G*d is not completely omnipotent (ie he's battling against....the Adversary), horrible things might happen but He's sort of opposed to them...and there are other sort of interesting dualistic ideas (a sort of platonic thing, for one--).
And the gnostic Christ then has sort of taken arms against darkness (really....nature itself). I suspect the early gnostics did not care too much for the Aristotelian tradition either, which does not lack naturalistic qualities ...leprosy doesn't seem too much like perfection..
Really, I think many believers are manicheans, w/o realizing it.
Not saying gnosticism/docetism is "true" but has a certain plausibility.....
I'd distinguish between the Manichaeans, Gnostics, and Docetists. The Manichaeans were syncretic, much like the Bahai of today, but their primary world-view is Zoroastrian (hence the dual Gods of good and evil). Likewise, the Gnostics were really a pre-Christian Oriental mystery religion, some offshoots of which appropriated part of the Christian story. Whereas there were Docetists proper were 2nd century Christians, and neither Manichaean nor Gnostic.
But I'll assent to a couple of points. First, Christians believe that creation is God's, and therefore that it is fundamentally good (note a lack of unanimity on the later), whereas Manichaeans believe that creation is mostly bad with a bit of good mixed in, and it was their job to separate the two. Second, some Christians, in trying to explain why evil exists, place the blame solely on Satan, and frame our world as a battleground between good and evil in which God and Satan are nearly equal adversaries, and the balance of the battle rests in our allegiance.
My take on this is that God created the world so as to enjoy authentic relationships. And for authentic relationships to exist, the other has to have the freedom not to be in relationship. Thus, it is not so much that God created evil, as it is that to create a world in which we can have the choice to do good, we must also have the choice to do evil. The God does not create evil, but he did create a world in which we can do evil. It seems to me that when we try to blame Satan or God for the existence of evil, we're scapegoating. We need to blame ourselves.
And as for the "battle" between good and evil, I believe that good has already won. Evil is just staging a fighting retreat :-).
The gnostics were Christians, at least in name--the Gospel of St. Thomas, etc. They drew on other traditions, but it was a christian sect (though considered heretical)--and material online suggests the Docetists were gnostics, more or less (as was Tertullian, wasn't he...). As with most theological disputes there were various offshoots, but the point is that the early church was not really unified in regards to many doctrines.
There are different ways to attack the problem of Evil, of course. Yet monotheism implies that G*d's omnipotent, AND omniscient, AND supposedly Just. So by definition He creates all, even apparent evil for some reason.
Really, while I oppose Calvinism in all of its forms (even the..Lutheran form), the Reformer sort of understood the implications of monotheism. Everything is under G*d--so, of course many skeptics would say then G*d is hardly any different than Evil. (The Euthyphro Dilemma also hinted at this problem, does it not). Humans have already been chosen for the Elect--or not. I think it's absurd, but monotheism...seems absurd in ways.
So instead of saying G*d brought the spanish influenza, plagues, disease, natural disasters as well as human error, crime, war, etc. some might argue against Calvin, deny G*d's omnipotence (better that than deny his Justice, isn't it??), and allow for something like Satan.
THough some skeptics might argue the amount of gratuitous evil (ie unmerited suffering, etc) offers good evidence that....G*d does not exist. Quentin Smith or Mackie argue in those lines--as did Voltaire, if not B. Russell. The Evidentiary problem of Evil poses a challenge for any theologian, prot. or cat. (or jew or muslim for that matter).
J,
You're a hard man to agree with :-). I certainly agree that some Gnostics were Christian. Turtulian wasn't Manichaean, he was Montanist, which is to say, Pentacostal.
the point is that the early church was not really unified in regards to many doctrines.
Exactly. Indeed, I'd go quite a bit further. Although the orthodox consensus drove creedal statements that largely define Christianity formally, there are many Christians who hold private theologies that are de facto Docetist or Arian. Indeed, there are a fair number of Christians today who believe strongly in the universality of the experience of God, and therefore are sympathetic to various syncreticisms. They are Manichaean in spirit, if not in detail.
There are different ways to attack the problem of Evil, of course. Yet monotheism implies that G*d's omnipotent, AND omniscient, AND supposedly Just. So by definition He creates all, even apparent evil for some reason.
I'm not a great fan of the omni's, which I think attempt to reduce difficult questions to an incantation. As I've said, I'd tackle this a bit differently. God is good, and his creation is good, but it contains within it the possibility of evil. And we (as a species, and as individuals) have too thoroughly explored this possibility.
Humans have already been chosen for the Elect--or not.
Yeah, I don't buy the Calvinist notions of Predestination or the Elect. These theological positions reduce the Universe to an automaton. But a consequence is that I'd don't grant God perfect foreknowledge of the future. I think we retain the ability to surprise him, for worse and for better.
some might argue against Calvin, deny G*d's omnipotence (better that than deny his Justice, isn't it??), and allow for something like Satan.
True. But this is not my solution. I believe in the possibilities intrinsic in chaos.
The Evidentiary problem of Evil poses a challenge for any theologian, prot. or cat. (or jew or muslim for that matter).
Challenge, yes. Refutation, no.
But a consequence is that I'd don't grant God perfect foreknowledge of the future
That's certainly your prerogative, Sir, but in effect...you limit the Almighty, and thus...something like manicheanism creeps in.
You seem to agree we can't define, or even justify some perfect, rational theology--I continually hear or read catholics and protestants insisting they can do so. That was the essential point. So, really the docetist/gnostic interpretation was one account of Scripture, and the orthodox, Nicene creed, another (though in the catholic tradition, Aristotelian rationalism took over....another issue).
I said,
But a consequence is that I'd don't grant God perfect foreknowledge of the future.
J replied,
That's certainly your prerogative, Sir, but in effect...you limit the Almighty, and thus...something like manicheanism creeps in.
I certainly take the attitude that history is more like Jazz than like a Classical composition. We're improvising, and God is also improvising in response to us. Thus, scripture citations notwithstanding, I'm not sold on the theology of the pre-existence of Jesus.
I think that God thought the Mosaic and Davidic covenants were a good deal for us, and that he was surprised at our inability to live up to our end of the bargain both times. So he came up with a radical alternative plan, one that is better suited to our limitations. But in response to our failings, not in anticipation of them.
And indeed, I find the substitutionary sacrificial explanations of Jesus to be unsatisfying. Jesus's death changed the relationship between God and man, but it is not that God paid some debt to himself on our behalf. It was never God's heart that needed melting. It was ours.
You seem to agree we can't define, or even justify some perfect, rational theology--I continually hear or read catholics and protestants insisting they can do so.
Yup. I think that Lutheran theology is pretty good, but I don't think it's perfect. Indeed, as finite creatures, I'm doubtful that we could understand let alone hold to a perfect theology. We approximate, we cut corners. We do as we are able, which is is less than we would wish, and even that wouldn't be adequate anyway. That said, I'm pragmatic enough to believe that a good approximation has value. We know what we're supposed to do, even if we're a bit fuzzy on the why's, and even fuzzier on the internal life of God.
So, really the docetist/gnostic interpretation was one account of Scripture, and the orthodox, Nicene creed, another (though in the catholic tradition, Aristotelian rationalism took over....another issue).
True. But what I like about the orthodox solution is that it is willing to live with the essential contradiction: Jesus is God, Jesus is Man, without falling into the Mormon trap of believing that we can aspire to be God.
That said, I think there are other ways of denying the Docetic and Arian errors. It is not as if
Christian and not Docitist and not Arian implies Nicean and Chalcedonian.
There are things that I like a lot about the Nicean-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonic creeds. But at the same time, I consider them to be somewhat over-constraining.
J,
You raised the Euthyphro dilemma, and I didn't respond earlier. I was familiar with the problem, but not the name.
Let me take wiki's version: Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
Let me start with a bit of history. Classical Greek thought boiled down to the first alternative, via the notion of λογος (logos). The idea behind λογος was that of a pre-existing moral order to the universe, a foundation that their Gods worked towards (and against). Whereas the Gospel of John begins with a highly engineered bit of prose that appropriates both the LXX version of the beginning of Genesis, and the Greek philosophical/theological notion of λογος, identifying and synthesizing them into the person of Lord Jesus. Quite a rhetorical tour-de-force!
So John's position, at the end of the day, is that the alternatives provided are not mutually exclusive. God commands what is morally good because God is the moral foundation of the Universe. You can understand this as embracing both alternatives, or rejecting both. But you can't understand it as embracing one and rejecting the other.
... what I like about the orthodox solution is that it is willing to live with the essential contradiction: Jesus is God, Jesus is Man, without falling into the Mormon trap of believing that we can aspire to be God.
Well, assuming JC had miraculous powers while alive, then the crucifixion story is quite strange, and fantastical--as the docetists understood. He doesn't really die, or feel pain, presumably.
Limit JC's wizard powers, humanize him, and the story seems..realistic, tragic, though not very epic. Assuming the texts of the gospels are accurate (a rather grand assumption), he does appear to be in pain--. Same with the stations of the cross, etc.
So, the situations's a bit Humean (not your favorite thinker, I wager): you weigh the two alternatives---superman, vs. wise leader or counselor, but human (and make assumptions, like the text exaggerates, or possible errors in testimony etc).
That needn't result in...non-belief, but a somewhat metaphorical reading, however quotidian. Let's not forget the roman historians don't mention Christians until about 125 AD (and not too favorably)
Re Eu. Dilemma, a slightly different matter.
The first part sounds correct, or more correct. Your response sounds like equaling G*d with the Good, but at same time saying He can do anything. OK, but still a limitation, especially for ..protestants who hold to divine right of Kings, etc. Or inconsistent.
The central point is that our sense of Justice (ie the Form of the Good) seems to count more than the supposed power of G*d; otherwise, isn't G*d a tyrant??
The first part--the Logos, if you will--is certainly not JHVH, but abstract, really--if even capable of definition. And it's a limitation as well: G*d's bound to do Good, though one wouldn't know it from human history. It's a trippy little problem--yet at the same time begs the question of ethical objectivity.
However I think most believers hold to the 2nd part/horn. They believe because they think the King-God orders them to, not because they think he's Goodness itself.....sort of either believe, follow orders, or...perish.
Or maybe it's meaningless.
J,
Well, assuming JC had miraculous powers while alive, then the crucifixion story is quite strange, and fantastical--as the docetists understood. He doesn't really die, or feel pain, presumably.
So the Docetists believed. For my part, I find most of the miracle stories to be unconvincing (which I would distinguish from false), and therefore I tend to look for "rational" explanations where ever possible. After all, the Gospel accounts were written long after Jesus died. They were attempts to synthesize, to understand, and most of all to remember the historical experience of Jesus. That said, certainly Jesus was a healer, and seems to have been so to a greater extent than we can explain rationally.
That said, there's a pretty big gap between healing a paralytic and transcending death oneself. I see the crucifixion as a painfully real historical event. The part that seems fantastical is the resurrection. Did this occur within history? So it is understood, except by radical theology (cf. Marxsen). But what drove the creation of Christianity wasn't the history per se, it was the certainty on the part of the original apostles that Jesus's death on the cross did not separate them from him. He was still with them. And the modern church is the reverberation of that first witness. We can quibble about whether Jesus actually walked on water, but not on whether the apostles felt that their relationship with him transcended his death.
Limit JC's wizard powers, humanize him, and the story seems..realistic, tragic, though not very epic.
Yes. The world has seen many such tragedies. It is the particular sense that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, and that his death (and resurrection) did not invalidate these titles, they confirmed them, that drives Christianity to this day.
Assuming the texts of the gospels are accurate (a rather grand assumption), he does appear to be in pain--. Same with the stations of the cross, etc.
I opt for the formula that the Gospels at true, but this does not mean that they should be read as modern reportage. For one thing, the primary witnesses to the events they record were often gone by the time they were written. The Gospel writers put together fragmentary records, often contradictory third-hand oral accounts, and their own faith, into as coherent a story as they could.
So, the situations's a bit Humean (not your favorite thinker, I wager): you weigh the two alternatives---superman, vs. wise leader or counselor, but human (and make assumptions, like the text exaggerates, or possible errors in testimony etc).
I'm not really familiar enough with Hume to have much of an opinion. Remember, I'm a mathematical logician, not a philosophical one. But I think your alternatives are not exhaustive :-).
That needn't result in...non-belief, but a somewhat metaphorical reading, however quotidian. Let's not forget the roman historians don't mention Christians until about 125 AD (and not too favorably)
And I do read scripture critically. I see it as a human response to an impossibility -- the confrontation with the living God. This is why I think a proof-text attitude towards the Bible is just silly, as there is way too much opportunity for misunderstanding or the cultural conventions of the day to enter into the stream of scripture. But broad, consistent messages, especially if surprising -- they're worth attending to.
J,
The first part sounds correct, or more correct. Your response sounds like equaling G*d with the Good, but at same time saying He can do anything. OK, but still a limitation, especially for ..protestants who hold to divine right of Kings, etc. Or inconsistent.
Let me put it this way: If I have to choose between the two options (God commands what is good because it is good, or what is good is good because God commands it), I would stand with the second. But at the end of the day, I think it's an artificial distinction.
And while some Protestants hold to the divine right of Kings, I don't. I do have the Lutheran preference for a well-ordered society, but I don't see this as a theological commitment, and I'm definitely a democrat (both big and little d). But I don't think that democracy is divinely ordained -- its just the best way we've found so far to order our own affairs.
The central point is that our sense of Justice (ie the Form of the Good) seems to count more than the supposed power of G*d; otherwise, isn't G*d a tyrant??
I think that justice is God's desire for us, and that we as created creatures are drawn to justice as we are (or should be) drawn to God. But of course we are selfish, and we often see justice only when it coincides with our own self interest. God's view is different.
However I think most believers hold to the 2nd part/horn. They believe because they think the King-God orders them to, not because they think he's Goodness itself.....sort of either believe, follow orders, or...perish.
As I said, if I have to chose, I'll choose door #2, but I think the distinction is artificial. You're basically asking me to assent to the proposition that if God wasn't God, then he'd still be God. I can try to answer the question in good faith, but there's still a bit of WTF!? in trying to do so. I don't think the question you're asking makes sense.
Not exactly: it's more like a G*d under no obligation to be Good or Just (even as intelligent humans define those words) cannot really be distinguished from...a demon, or tyrannical King.
And that relates to my earlier point on the evidential problem of gratuitous evil (though "unmerited suffering" perhaps a better term).
Consider the Apollo-god hypothetical: say astronomers detect a space ship, like near Sirius in a few decades. And they detect some weird messages--some videos, of some celestial Creature. Finally it's determined it's ...a type of supernatural Being, which we have called God! And He has controlled all of human AND natural history--wars, plagues, disease, famine, quakes, etc--and that can be proven (sort of a Design argument, in reverse). Yet perhaps He's limted only to a section of the Milky way--not the universe.... A bit of a stretch--yet in a sense not far from what monotheists believe.
Humans would, after a bit of reflection, consider this Being to be the greatest mass murderer who ever existed, and demand his trial. In other words, we would, claim, even if He could vaporize us at any time, that this being was a genocidal tyrant by any human standard. So why is it different with JHVH, the supposed Being of the OT? We assume the first part of the Euthyphro, really...Therefore, questions of His existence are certainly warranted, unless you care to pay homage to a demonic King-God (Quentin Smith discusses this with a bit more eloquence).
J,
Not exactly: it's more like a G*d under no obligation to be Good or Just (even as intelligent humans define those words) cannot really be distinguished from...a demon, or tyrannical King.
What I see in God is love for us, and for his creation. I believe that God has absolute power over us -- that the creation he has created he could uncreate as well. But he hasn't. That he could is no evidence that he would. No demon, no earthly king, tyrant or not, has done for us what God has done for us.
Consider the Apollo-god hypothetical: say astronomers detect a space ship, like near Sirius in a few decades. And they detect some weird messages--some videos, of some celestial Creature. Finally it's determined it's ...a type of supernatural Being, which we have called God! And He has controlled all of human AND natural history--wars, plagues, disease, famine, quakes, etc--and that can be proven (sort of a Design argument, in reverse). Yet perhaps He's limted only to a section of the Milky way--not the universe.... A bit of a stretch--yet in a sense not far from what monotheists believe.
I have a vague recollection of a science fiction story that took a theme very much like this -- that there was a benevolent polytheistic group of Gods who ran the universe, and who created a local, all powerful and jealous one God for humanity because that was evidently what we wanted. An amusing idea! But I don't see God as having exercised the kind of detailed control over nature that you do. In this, I buy Polkinghorne's position -- that a creation that retains intrinsic possibilities to surprise us with (what seems to us to be) good must also have the possibility to surprise us with (what seems to us to be) evil. As Polkinghorne points out, if we have evolution, we're also going to have cancer.
It's kind of like the high unfavorables that Obama recently had. I don't believe that this was because he wass being held to any sort of realistic standard. He wasn't being compared with a concrete Republican alternative, say a Palin or a Romney. Instead, he was and is being judged against an idealized version of himself.
Likewise, you're positing a universe in which we can life lives of unbroken contentment, and holding God responsible for the difference between this imaginary utopia and the real world in which we live. But is that utopia possible in any meaningful sense? And if it were, would it serve God's purposes in creating it? And if it could, could it perhaps be this world, if only we had the courage and vision to reach for it?
Well, it's the best of all possible worlds that G*d could have chosen, ala Leibniz, and most believers. Supposing He exists, G*d chooses cancer, STDs, plagues, spanish influenza--given to christians and non-christians (not to say quakes, floods, famines--and I would include human misery as well--war, civilians killed/raped/mutilated in and during battles, etc). More died from the span. flu in 1918-1919 than from WWI--50 mil+. And G*d of course would know about Hitler and Stalin (don't those who deny the foreknowledge of such massive events deny He exists? One reason I think your point (and anyone's) contra-Calvin is really a skeptical, at least agnostic point)
Yes, a bit obvious, even slightly maudlin, but the level of unmerited suffering (ie, babies born with STDs, deformed, etc) seems rather gratuitous if not overwhelming. A supposed creator could have chosen fewer diseases, and that's not utopia.
So, denying such a monotheistic G*d exists would be a reasonable inference. Voltaire in Candide suggests as much. The skeptic could also raise other issues, such as other beliefs (why not hindu instead of christian, etc), inability to confirm the events of scripture, modern science/physicalism, etc.
Professor Stu, perhaps peruse my latest blog on Dr Polkinghorne and "open theism". It's a bit sketchy--don't have time for real eloquent writing-- but P. says something similar to what you said in regards to omniscience--ie, it doesn't hold. Ergo, I say you deny G*d, or modify to such a degree, that theism no longer means anything. (Also a comment on the Euthphyro Dil.....related, really---the first part of the Dil. in effect limits any possible G*d, so I assume that became heresy under the catholics....who preferred the divine command concept--)
J,
I'll take a look, but here's the distinction. I do not believe that omniscience in the present implies perfect foreknowledge of the future. Yes, it gives you a huge leg up, especially if you have unlimited computational powers. But I do believe that quantum indeterminacy holds, even for the divine, and moreover that there is an intrinsic indeterminacy in the hearts of men.
We're not just playing roles. We're living.
But I do believe that quantum indeterminacy holds, even for the divine...
Well, it may hold for some quantum events, but fairly negligible--classical physics kicks in even at subatomic levels....(As Heisenberg claimed as well). A few random radioactive isotopes don't mean that cats walk through walls, or billiard balls hang in space--were that the case, we wouldn't drive cars or fly planes....
But that doesn't mean humans can know everything. It's like LaPlace's old claim--in theory we should be able to build a super computer which could predict...everything in the physical world, but we are limited by human power, too many variables
, etc. the speed of light, state of technology/computing....but that doesn't mean indeterminacy holds everywhere, but that our knowledge is limited
Either way, denying omniscience, or God's knowledge of quantum events for that matter, seems a denial of Godliness, the key point...
Danke for comments and discussion, Stu.
I don't mean to be combative, and haven't quite joined the Dawkinsistas.
This was brought about by some comments on the Lenten season, and easter related themes...after 40 years of evangelical Easters, well, one starts to wonder what's behind the smoke and mirrors....as symbol, I can understand Easter to some degree (including the..slightly pagan/celtic aspects, equinox, arrival of spring, etc). As a literal event, I'm not convinced--.
J,
Danke for comments and discussion, Stu.
I don't mean to be combative, and haven't quite joined the Dawkinsistas.
Glad to chat. I didn't take you as combative, just rhetorical. And maybe just a bit self justifying. It's almost as if you're both repelled and attracted to Christianity, and so you're trying to hold it at some philosophically ideal distance -- not too far away, but definitely not too close. But part of this dance is assuming that the Christianity you ran away from is the Christian consensus. The thought that there might be other ways of thinking about our faith that are much closer to your present position seems to make you uncomfortable. Does this make sense? You don't have to answer. I certainly do not mean to pry or offend...
This was brought about by some comments on the Lenten season, and easter related themes...after 40 years of evangelical Easters, well, one starts to wonder what's behind the smoke and mirrors....as symbol, I can understand Easter to some degree (including the..slightly pagan/celtic aspects, equinox, arrival of spring, etc). As a literal event, I'm not convinced--.
Well, I'm of the belief that calling it "Easter" is a mistake -- that association with pagan equinox celebrations and all. I prefer "Pascha" philosophically, but it has the huge disadvantage that folks don't know what I'm talking about.
As for the actual resurrection, I see the point to the Marxsen critique. Folks tend to believe a lot more about the resurrection than can be supported on the basis of scripture, and all the more so if you take a historical-critical reading thereof. And for the record, I think it is possible to read scripture through a historical-critical lens without rejecting the essentials of our faith.
But even allowing for such considerations, what we know is that after Jesus's death on the cross, his followers experienced him as alive, and this was not mere nostalgia. They ordered their life in response to that experience. Even today, we as Christians sometimes experience Jesus as alive and present. Is this more than mere enthusiasm? I believe so, but this is not a proposition that admits proof acceptable to skeptical third parties.
But here's the thing. There are a lot of ways of believing about the resurrection. The issue isn't whether you believe in this one or that. The issue is whether you believe that Jesus transcended death, and that as living Lord, he still has the power to change your life.
No it's not that personal, but based mainly on two points: ONE, the evidential issue. The ancient texts of the old and new testament are not authoritative. AS with any historical text, the reliability of the testimony cannot really be established beyond a reasonable doubt, or even be said to be probable. Something unique may have happened. Maybe not--even the Gospel reports of the Res. are not entirely consistent.
A text suggesting supernatural events happened itself poses additional problems--ie goes against our presumption of the uniformity of experience, just as a report of a UFO or Mary weeping, or Bigfoot does...so we weigh the alternatives..bigfoot, or bigfoot hoax --w/o really seeing a bigfoot, we generally reject the anecdotal reports of supernatural events....The opposition to miracles was the view of most 17th/18th century intellectuals btw, not only Hume. Spinoza did not believe the miracles to be literally true. Nor did the french Encyclopedists (ie D'lembert--tho' Voltaire actually sort of waffled on the issue), or the major American Founders (there may have been a few evangelicals, but a minority). Jefferson's abridged New Test. had all miraculous sections removed (including Res., Paul's rants, and Book of Rev.)
That's not real subtle, and not pleasing to believers, but that's how evidentiary reasoning works. In philosophical terms, no historical narrative is necessarily true. Academic historians argue over the details of say WWII battles; a fortiori, proving that events found in copies of ancient texts in obscure languages (aramaic anyone..) actually occurred pose far greater difficulties.
The dogma is not akin to natural science either, as Popper would remind us. We can't really falsify, say, the Book of Revelations--it's not a testable hypothesis...
The Second reason? Various skeptical points, such as the evidentiary problem of "gratuitous evil" (ie hard to reconcile chr. G*d with say black plague..), the possibility of ..physicalism of some sort (ie, Mind as a product of brain functions, not a soul). Other sound reasons for..agnosticism are provided by Darwinian evolution's revision of the Old Testament's archaic dating (confirmed by r-c dating), status of other faiths (why judeo-chr. rather than... hindo, etc), and finally the problems of religious hypocrisy and hysteria (not limited to christians, of course).
Not real pretty or poetic--then Truth rarely is.
J,
I think it's asking too much of the ancient witnesses that they be self-proving. If you have faith, they contain truth. If not, they're just stories. Please understand that when I say "they contain truth," I am not taking a literalist position, as I think that a critical understanding of the texts sheds light on their meaning even for those of us who have faith.
Sure, the gospel accounts aren't consistent. But that's arguably a good thing. If we were to take four living witnesses to a single historical event today, we'd not expect complete agreement, as you note regarding WW II battles. Why should we expect greater consistency from ancient witnesses? I guess it's one thing if you're a "long pen" literalist, who believes that God dictated the Bible so that we might have it in precisely the form we do. But I'm not a long pen literalist, and neither are you. I believe that the Bible is the end result of a collective human effort to discern, process, and transmit the memory of encounters with the divine.
At the same time, where you see problems dealing with supernatural events and the presumption of the uniformity of experience, I see consistency in the portrayal of God through history. Not perfect consistency of course, but the kind of consistency you'd expect from independent human witnesses drawn from radically different cultures spanning almost two millennia. Whether you take these accounts at face value or not, it is undeniable fact that humans have perceived the divine throughout all of recorded human history, and that they continue to do so today.
Certainly you could say, as other have before you, that the "God meme" is somehow well adapted within the set of possible human memes. You might even say, as others have, that belief in God has had adaptive value for the humans that hold it. Neither of these positions actually require God exists to explain the persistence of the belief that he does. But doesn't this seem more contrived, more unnatural, more of the form of special pleading, than the simple possibility that the God meme exists because humans have encountered God?
You hint at the pragmatic question: i.e. something like, doesn't religious tradition and belief in G*d--a meme, of sorts-- produce more good than ill? In other words, we needn't be overly concerned with like problem of the ancient texts, or those dreary skeptics, but whether the Church advances our interests, makes us happy, or leads to our prosperity ....the cash value of truth, as Wm James called it. :)
Actually, I will grant the force of that point, but it would be rather difficult to establish. I don't think the baptist or mormon robots do much good (they might for the elders who know....... the secret handshake). And there's a certain species of dogmatic catholic that does little or nothing for democracy (some sit on the Supreme court).
I m opposed to muslim extremists, but actually some moderate muslims are intelligent and decent citizens (and sober, at least--as are the mormonics, however much I dislike their code).
Of course a cathedral stands for something, as does say Bach, or religious art, I suppose. The pragmatist does have a point, but historically speaking, I don't think the religious pragmatist's hypothesis can be supported.
Either way, Polkinghornes or Leibniz's or Kants, or even Walker Percy's and CS Lewis's don't really matter in USA. We get John Hagees and their followers, and some creepy priests....
Then, Stu, you're generally defending Lutheranism, along with yr hysterical pal Kirby-O.
That's not just pragmatism, but the...machiavellian Christ. Truth has little or nothing to do with protestantism, at least as initially conceived (though, catholic dogmatists had their own issues).
According to Luther, Reason is a whore--which ultimately seems to suggest something like...credo que absurdum.
Reading Kirby-speak, or rather, attempting to do so, you can perceive the full force of irrationalist christianity: sort of Wagner with a kazoo. Hagee-ism.
Logos has been eradicated (and that's fairly typical of the literature business, right, or left). Protestant enthusiasm works as a rebuttal to the pragmatist's hypothesis, I believe (as the Founding fathers were aware: Madison wrote some scathing essays against the Falwells, Hagees, and Kirby O's of his era).
Post a Comment