Another response to a blog.
http://kreitsauce.com/2009/03/22/atheism-light-or-heat/
I just want to give a quick response. Just because athiests disbelieve (or rather believe in a lack of a) God, it doesn’t follow they don’t have beliefs. God isn’t necessary for a moral belief system. Look into Natural Law which may or may not include a belief in God. Natural Law originated with the Greeks, and it was the Stoics who made into an ethical system that influenced Christianity.
I’m not an atheist myself because I see it as pointless to believe in a lack of a God. I’m agnostic with a strong spiritual bent. I sense that there is something more, but I feel no inclination to formulate it as a specific belief for or against anything in particular.
Atheism isn’t really a belief system as it’s merely a negation. Atheism includes a wide variety of moral beliefs. If you want to consider atheism and morality, you’d have to look at specific organizations and belief systems.
There are a some atheist religions and religions that are accepting of atheism. Buddhism and Taoism are two examples, but I’m sure there are others.
Also, you might be interested in researching Unitarian-Universalism. They accept atheists, agnostics, and religious believers. They’ve developed an ethical code that seeks what is acceptable to all of its members.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Here is a reply to that blog:
Offhand, I don’t know the comparison between the respective histories of the Greeks and the Hebrews, but both are very ancient. I wasn’t doubting that Christians were influenced by Judaism. Anyways, monotheism or monism was a belief held as true within some Greek traditions.
I realize you’re probably not interested, but there are theological justifications for universal morality without a Lawgiver. Atheism is a disbelief in God, but not necessarily a disbelief in all metaphysics. An atheist could still believe in a universal truth that was supported by a universal force that isn’t a personal god. I pointed out Taoism and Buddhism as examples, but you can also find examples within modern philosophy.
Besides all of this, theism and atheism are just two views. There are plenty of other belief systems with various moral attitudes. I think that the theism vs atheism debate is a red herring. The debate is much more complex than that.
I didn’t realize that this blogger wasn’t seeking to real dialogue. I guess I was confused by the fact that his title was a question. My reply to his last comment:
It seems you’re fairly orthodox in your Christian beliefs. I don’t know to what extent we can find a middle ground to have a discussion. I was raised in a very liberal Christian church and so my view is quite different than yours. I sometimes think of myself as an Agnostic Christian.
I realize you “don’t see that the debate can be very complex outside of theism.” There isn’t much I can say to you. If you were truly interested, you could research the subject deeply and discover for yourself the complexity. But you seem to have found an answer that satisfies you and so I wouldn’t think you have much motivation to explore anything outside of the context of your beliefs.
Theism is what you understand and seems to be the lense by which you understand everything else. Of course your own belief in theism “seems the only plausible explanation” to you.
I really have no desire myself to debate you. I merely offered you some avenues of further research. Whether you choose to follow those avenues or not is of no concern to me.
If theism makes you happy, then that is perfectly fine. However, you seem bothered by the fact that others could claim a sense of morality from a perspective different than yours. If you actually want to understand the perspectives of others, it takes great effort. You have to spend years studying complex philosophical issues, and you have to seek to understand within your heart what a particular belief means to another person.
The blogger said he is interested in dialogue and so I offered him my personal view:
My reluctance is partly just me. I can't say I can offer a better explanation of reality than you can. I'm filled with many doubts about practically everything, and hence this is why I am I'm an agnostic. I'm just as critical as you are of atheism because it doesn't satisfy my spiritual sense, but I'm not certain what the best perspective is.
I have faith in something even if it isn't always intelectually clear to me. I trust my experience more than anything else, but my experience is limited. I feel there is something true that is beyond me and I can't really say much more without going off into speculative territory.
I don't necisarilly believe in a force, but that is one metaphor that I find useful sometimes. I tend to believe that divine truth can only be grasped indirectly through metaphor and intuitively through experience. As such, a personal God may or may not be true, but I sometimes think of divine truth in this manner. I have no loyalty to any single perspective. Truth is a multi-faceted gem.
However, I am attracted to various philosophies. I feel such philosophies as animism and panentheism can be understood in terms of Christian theology. I should say that I'm more interested in Gnostic Christianity than orthodox Christianity. Some Gnostics believed that God could be experienced within and that Heaven was all around us. I find that a comforting viewpoint. In some ways, this view of God is very simple as God is a direct and personal reality, but its hard to make sense of this rationally.
And even more of my personal view:
I’ve been studying the Bible a fair amount in recent years along with all of the early Christian texts. So far, I’ve found the most resonance with certain Gnostic texts. Beyond textual study, I’ve prayed off and on over the years. I do sometimes believe in or rather sense something that is very personal whether or not this implies a Divine personality. Whatever the case, it doesn’t fit into orthodox Christianity.
I’ve had some very intensive spiritual practices at times, and so spirituality is very real to me. I have experienced something that felt universally true. I could interpret this as a Divine Personality, but the experience itself doesn’t require such an interpretation. The most sense I’ve been able to make of it is that Divine Goodness isn’t human goodness. What I mean is that Divine Truth is greater than any philosophy or human ideology including religion.
On a personal level, I relate to this as an ideal of truth that I strive to live up to, but this isn’t an abstract ideal. Truth is simply what is, what I directly experience. The Divine is right here and now or it is not at all. Along with all of this, other aspects are involved such as love, longing, and compassion. I’m partly attracted to Eastern views of compassion, in particular Buddhism which isn’t dependent on theism.
Robert M. Price is a New Testament scholar who started out as a Christian fundamentalist, but lost his faith as he studied the Bible. He still seems to be Christian in some manner, but he has this notion of an Agnostic Gnostic. I like that idea. I know spirituality in my direct experience and so am a Gnostic, but I’m reluctant to conform my experience to ideology and so I’m an Agnostic. I agree with him that it is doubt and not belief that strengthens faith.
But my experience is just my experience. I wouldn’t claim I have a morally superior viewpoint. It’s just what makes sense to me so far in my life.
Next comment:
The best framework I've found is by seeking universals across cultures, religions, mythologies, and philosophies. I trust a moral ideal more if it's found in multiple religions than if it's found only in one.
I mostly adhere to a belief in Natural Law. Some values seem universal. Natural Law could be explained by theism of various types, by a metaphysical force or principle, or even simply a semi-universal trait of evolution. The latter gives a good rational explanation as species similar to humans have similar moral behaviors as humans.
I personally focus on a few basic principles: the Golden Rule, compassion, honesty. Alll of these were advocated by traditions prior to Christianity. They seem to be basic enough that most people accept their validity. Out of these, I've come to value honesty (and a general desire for truth) as being most fundamental.
Have you heard of integral theory? Ken Wilber is one of it's biggest advocates. It probably is the most intelligent attempt to determine universal principles which would include natural law. Wilber includes Spiral Dynamics in his model. Spiral Dynamics is a scientific model of human values which articulates how humans develop through stages of moral understanding and values. There are also other models like this that have been scientifically studied.
To me, values that can be observed across cultures are more concrete and consistent than religious doctrine of a particular religion. I still insist on judging anything by my experience, but this s because it seems to me that human experience is more alike than different between people. There is a fundamental human nature and hence a fundamental human experience. Anyways, whether we admit or not, everyone filters everything through their personal experience.
Next comment:
All very good questions. I'm not sure I'm the best person to speak to about all of this. I can be quite cynical and critical about many things in life, and for certain I'm no moral exemplary. But I am a truth-seeker and I suppose that should count for something.
Integral theory is pretty impressive, but I'm not a defender of it. It is more than a theory. Many people use it as a guideline to live a moral life and as a framework for having a positive effect on the world. There are some active online forums where you can speak with people who are dedicated to that view of life.
Integral theory is loosely related to Perennial Philosophy. Are you familiar with it? Aldous Huxley was a major proponent of it. One observation that some have made is that mystics of different religions often have more in common with eachother than they do with most people within their own religion. Ken Wilber goes into great detail explaining how spiritual experiences relate to states of mind (such as moral attitudes).
Basically, all of this is about how the convergence of religions goes deeper than mere superficial similarities. It's the reality behind the morality that I'm primarily concerned with as well, and the same would go for Wilber and Huxley.
Why be good? From an orthodox Christian view of original sin, I guess there is no reason to be good except for the carrot and stick of heaven and hell. That is the crux of the matter. Are you humans inherently sinners or inherently good? Many Gnostics believed we had a spark of God within which was our true nature. Augustine, and many orthodox Christians, argued against this. Augustine felt humans are incapable of good without the authority of the Church and God forcing them to be good.
Ultimate justice? Answering that question would involve a complicated theological discussion. Most religions posit some form of justice. Even atheist Buddhists believe in Karma which is nothing more than spiritual cause and effect.
Even within Christianity, there is a wide variety of views. Some like Augustine and Calvin, felt only an elite would be saved by God. Some early Christians believed that salvation was universal and that everyone returns to God eventually. This depends on how you conceive of God. Is God a legalistic punisher of sin or is God caring friend? The Bible and other early Christian texts offer many ways to think about God and each creates a different understanding.
"Can abstract concepts such as love, grace, and mercy be realized in concrete ways?" I don't know, but there are people all over the world living their lives according to these supposed abstract concepts. However, they're no longer abstract when you live them and when you experience them directly. I've experienced something that felt like an ultimate good and it was no abstraction.
"Is truth absolute, and what is the standard of that truth?" If you really want an answer to that, then you would need to study philosopy. People have been debating about truth for a few thousand years now. Integral theorists are particularly interested in how one deterines truth claims. There is a lot good information out there if you're willing to look for it.
"Furthermore, who do I trust?" Gnostic that I am, I'd say trust your own your own experience and insights. Religions, like the humans that make them, are flawed. That is no great insight. What to do with the Person of Jesus? If he is real to you, then that is all that matters. The Bible can't prove he is real nor can history. If Jesus isn't real within your heart, then the Bible can't save you.
I believe Divine Reality is beyond us in many ways. But the Divine will present itself in whatever form our heart desires. If you feel an authentic love for Jesus, then that is what Divine Reality will be for you. The only caveat is that we don't control what our heart desires. Divine Truth has to be discovered and can't be forced. And even universal truths must manifest on the personal level before they have any relevance. At various points in life, we realize we have a choice to stick with what others have told us or to find out for ourselves.
"Why would a cosmic entity or force or Divine Being leave us seemingly stranded in the Universe without revelation?" With a question like that, you're starting to sound like a Gnostic. Maybe God didn't leave us. Instead, maybe we left God. Or maybe God is all around us and we've forgotten. Who knows, maybe all of the world is a revelation for he who has eyes to see. Anyways, those are typical Gnostic answers.
Next (and maybe last?) comment:
Well, there is two different views I was speaking of. The first was integral theory and perennial philosophy and the second was Gnosticism, but the two have nothing directly to do with eachother.
I didn't really even say that much about Gnosticism. As for certainty, I'm sure the Gnostics felt as righteous about their beliefs as any Christian or any other religious person. Even certain atheists can be some of the most righteously certain people you'll ever meet. You don't honestly think Christians have the market cornered on feeling certain, do you?
Just because someone feels certain deosn't mean they're right. People of other religions feel just as certain as you. The certainty of humans is no test of the truth of a religion. For example, martyrdom is a tradition that has been found in many religions including those prior to Christianity. Some Buddhists will even set themselves on fire. Now, that is certainty.
In terms of Gnosticism, it's about experiencing God directly, about knowing God. That is as certain as one can get. Even you stated that your sense of certainty comes through knowing Him. There is no clear distinction between Gnosticism and Christianity as they both influenced eachother immensely for the first 5 centuries of the common era. For instance, Augustine was a Gnostic for about a decade before becoming a Catholic.
I also mentioned that there has been a popular belief within orthodox Christianity which Augustine and Calvin are known for. This belief is that only an elite will be saved, and on top of this no one knows if they're a part of the elite until they die. That would make me feel rather uncertain. This belief is still held by many Christians today.
Anyways, how can you be certain which Christian tradiition is the one true faith? All traditions claim the authority of God. Just in the first couple of centuries, there were already numerous Christian traditions that had become entirely distinct. And today there are thousands of traditions of Christianity some of which are polar opposite on important issues. The statements you made your Christian beliefs aren't agreed upon by all Christians.
Also, what is your issue with the word 'random'? As far as I know, I haven't used that word or even implied its meaning in anything I wrote. Do you believe if you lost your self-certainty that your whole life would descend into chaos? As for randomness, Integral theory is the complete opposite of it. Integral theory is about systematizing our understanding, and it's about finding an objective and concrete framework in which to discover what one can and can't be certain of.
Like I said before, of course you would say, "This seems much more coherent, reasonable, and even experiential to me than random samplings of different religions and philosophies." Every belief system seems coherent, reasonable, and experiential to the person who believes in it.
It reallly doesn't matter to me. I have no desire to convert you. I was merely offering you other perspectives. If curiosity or doubt ever gets the better of you, maybe you'll explore alternative viewpoints. If not, then that is fine.
Your basic point of this blog and your comments seems to be that you are certain in your beliefs and that you feel your beliefs give you certainty. Also, you believe that your version of Christianity is the basis of your certainty. I've mentioned that people of other belief systems also have their moral certainties as well, but apparently you believe only your version of Christianity can do this.
You haven't shown any signs of wanting to explore for yourself integral theory, perennial philosophy or even other religions. But you seem to be expecting me to be a defender of everything you disagree with. I'm not a defender of any specific position. The only thing I've defended is that there are other belief systems and that people who hold those beliefs feel themselves to be as morally certain as you feel. If you choose to neither accept this fact nor to explore it for yourself, then certainly I can't be of any assistance.
Next comment (when will it ever end?):
"But I do see coherence and reason in something like Judaism or Islam. I have issues with what they teach.."
If they are coherent and reasonable, then on what basis do you disagree? Is it because your scriptural interpretations disagree with their scriptural interpretations? How do you prove to yourself that your view is the only correct scriptrual interpretation?
"Secondly, I don’t really have any interest in Christian traditions. I have an interest in biblical orthodox doctrines."
That would be equally true of many other Christian traditions that are based in biblical orthodox doctrines. Why don't you follow the biblically orthodox doctrines of Augustine or Calvin? Also, did you know that the first person to put together a canonical New Testament was the Gnostic Marcion?
"I do have an interest in other faiths and philosophies, but I’m not searching for truth because I’ve already found it."
If you're absolute sure that you're right, then what is your interest in other opinions besides denouncing them? So far, I don't get the sense that you understand these other viewpoints nor that you're interested in putting much effort into understanding them. Is your interest in them just passing curiosity?
"I do expect anyone who espouses a theory even theoretically to be able to defend it somewhat. I’m sorry if that bothers you, but I have a hard time accepting something if its own adherents find it difficult to defend or commit to."
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'espouse' as "to take up and support as a cause : become attached to". I haven't espoused anything in my comments. The only thing that bothers me is that you keep insisting that I should defend something that only loosely relates to my personal beliefs. All that I defend is my ideal of truth, but we have very different notions of truth and so we still haven't discovered a middleground on which to base an actual discussion.
Anyways, to defend something like integral theory would necessitate that both people understood the subject. When you read at least a few basic articles about it, I might attempt to discuss it with you. Or better yet I've already told you that you should seek someone who strongly adheres to it. There are discussion boards online where very knowledgeable people will spend hours with you explaining/defending integral theory. I'm interested in it, but I'm not a devout adherent.
next...
1. "They both make sense based on first principles. Christianity also makes sense based on its cardinal doctrines concerning God, the Bible, the Atonement, death and resurrection, etc. There are flaws in Islam and Judaism, but there is none in biblical Christianity. A thorough study of this faith has led me to that conclusion."
I understand this, but it is a statement of faith and not a rational argument. Many people of other faiths have made similar claims in justifying their own religion. It's true because it's true... I've heard this argument before stated in various ways. There is nothing wrong with it in and of itself. In terms of faith, it's perfectly valid. If you've read the Bible and experienced truth, then I can't argue against your claim anymore than I could with any other religious claim. For instance, when a Pagan says they know God is the sun because they've studied the sun and it's revealed itself to be true, there isn't much of a response one can give.
2. "I believe that the Bible alone is sufficient for faith and practice."
The same statement of belief has been made for every scripture ever written. Besides, others also believe in the Bible in this way and yet come to different conclusions in their study of it. A person finds in the Bible what they bring to it.
"I don't need to know what every other Christian throughout history has believed or taught. It can be helpful, but it is not necessary to faith."
No, you don't need to do anything at all including being a Christian. Even non-Christians and spiritual atheists have faith. However, if you're not familiar with the history and development of Christianity in all of it's conflict and complexity, then your faith isn't based on knowledge. It's true that faith doesn't need to be based on knowledge, but then again faith doesn't need anything including scriptures and dogma.
Nonetheless, it was you who said "we are admonished to grow in our faith and in our love for God- heart, soul, and mind." Going by that statement, you seem to believe that your faith admonishes you to learn for the sake of your faith. Wouldn't growing in your faith through your mind necessitate studying the Christian tradition that your faith is based upon?
"As for Marcion... I don't see how it matters if he made up his own canon."
Did you know that Gnostics such as Marcion were the first Christians to write commentaries on New Testament scripture? Did you know that the writings of Paul and John include many Gnostic ideas and terms? Of course, you could just dismiss these questions based on faith.
3. "My interest in other religions and philosophies has to do with being an educated individual. Religion is one of the areas I simply enjoy studying. I put plenty of effort into studying a variety of viewpoints for this reason."
I'm glad to hear that. I must say, though, that I don't quite understand your motivation. If you've already come to a conclusion, what is the point of further study outside of the Bible? If Christianity offers all the truth you need, then are your studies just a hobby? What value can you gain from studying false beliefs? Is it your way of intellectually fortifying your faith? Or do you separate your intellect entirely from your faith? What exactly is the relationship between these two sides of yourself? Does faith automatically have veto power over intellectual analysis? And in what way does developing your mind develop your faith?
4. "Even if you don't wholly commit to it, it seems that you have a vested interest in it."
I only have a vested interest in truth. And integral theory happens to be a system that also places great value truth. But there are other theories and belief systems that value truth above all else. I don't adhere to any view in the way you adhere to your convictions. Integral theory and other viewpoints simply inform my understanding. In some ways, they're just a means to an end. Plus, I have a strong sense of curiosity.
I think the difference between us has three aspects. First, I accept multiple perspectives. That is what I like about integral theory. It includes diversity within a larger context. Ken Wilber has said that no one can be so stupid to be wrong about everything by which he means that elements of truth can be found in any viewpoint. Next, I give equal weighting to faith and rationality. I don't entirely separate them. I embrace doubt as strongly as I embrace faith. My opinion is that faith without doubt is no faith at all which brings me to the third aspect. I do separate faith from belief, in particular belief as dogmatic conviction. Faith doesn't requrie religious dogma nor intellectual certainty. Faith is an experience, a knowing. Faith isn't justified by scripture. Faith is justified by faith alone.
and again...
"I didn’t say that Christianity is true because it is true."
You didn't say those words. Still, I sensed the implication of that argument in how you've been speaking about the Bible. You seem to start from a position of certainty and proceed from there. This isn't to say that you don't have doubts, but your doubts seem secondary. In this discussion, you haven't expressed your doubts much. However, I realize everyone has doubts.
"Much of this blog is about the various evidences we have that God is real and has worked in our world."
What evidences? Do you mean that some Christians are moral? But you admitted that there are also examples of Christians not being perfectly moral, but then you said they weren't real Christians. Christians are moral and only moral people are Christians. Why do you consider yourself a judge of who gets to be a real Christian? Isn't judgment solely the responsibility of God? Anyways, aren't all orthodox Christians by their own definition born sinners and hence failing at moral ideals is to be expected to an extent, correct? I pointed out that there are moral atheists as well. In fact, examples of morality and immorality can be found within every tradition and belief system. Morality and immorality is simply a factor of human behavior and not proof or disproof of anything.
"I have experienced God, but if real evidence could be found to break down Christian faith, I would accept it. My faith is not faith detached from reason. It is one that is based on reason."
I'm glad to hear you profess a faith based on reason. I respect that. But how do you define real evidence? Do you mean objectively real as in demonstrably true? Do you mean what can be observed scientifically? Do you mean what experts and scholars agree upon? Or do you mean what a person observes in their own experience?
And what aspect of your Christian faith is based on real evidence? God can't be proved by evidence unless you include faith experience as evidence in which case it isn't objective evidence. Even Jesus Christ can't be proved as historically real because the evidence for that claim is still being debated by scholars. It might be true, but with limited evidence we can only speak of probability. Anything beyond probability isn't history but rather faith. Certainly, the claim that Jesus is the Son of God can't be proved objectively by any means... except direct divine revelation I suppose. The supernatural and the theological are outside of scientific and historical inquiry.
"I also believe that study of the Bible is the most important sort of study a believer can do."
The question is whose Bible do you believe is God's word. Marcion had the first New Testament which was close to what we have now, but not exactly. The canon of scriptures that are considered orthodox took centuries of councils to form. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles created the canonized New Testament. The earliest Christians revered many different texts. The texts that survived depended on political power and book burning... unless you believe it was God's intervention that burned all of the other Christian scriptures and alternative versions... in which case that is a God I have absolutely no respect for.
"I try to make myself aware of what others are saying and have said throughout history, however, what they say about Christianity doesn’t ultimately matter. By taking God at His Word in a literal, historical, grammatical contextual sense, I simply study what He has said. My faith is based on knowledge, but it is mostly the knowledge of what God has said."
However, what God said obviously isn't so simple and clear. Otherwise, there wouldn't be thousands of translations and thousands of interpretations. How do you explain people who come to different beliefs than you by studying the Bible? How do you explain people who become atheist after studying the Bible carefully? The scholar Robert M. Price lost his faith studying the Bible. He even studied it with the purpose of apologetics. He was studying the Word of God in the hopes of finding support for his faith, but came to realize that not everything in the Bible could be taken literally without conflict. As an example, the gospel narratives directly conflict about specific details. Not all of the canonical gospels can be correct about all of their narrative descriptions. The only way they're harmonized is by favoring one particular gospel when disagreement arises, but this is simply smoothing over an obvious problem of taking scripture literally.
Also, have you read the Bible in its original language? Have you read the different versions of scripture that have survived? If not, why not? If so, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
"Paul and John may have been interpreted in a Gnostic way, but that doesn’t mean that that is what they intended to say."
And it doesn't mean that it isn't what they intended it to mean. Considering it objectively and without orthodox preconceptions, it is quite startling in its possible implications.
"In fact, from Colossians through Jude, the Bible begins to warn against Gnostic doctrines."
The Bible is a mix of views, and you can find support for almost any view by selecting passages that agree with your beliefs. The Bible was written by many people with different backgrounds and different motives. And, on top of that, scholarship shows that there was lots of editing and interpolation that happened in the ensuing centuries. But those facts are only significant if you're one of those people who bases their faith on reason... as you claim yourself to be.
"What difference does it make if they make their own Bible and their own commentaries? That doesn’t make them right."
I didn't say they were right. I said they were first which is very important when considering historical scholarship about the origins of a religion. The fact that they were the first commentators says much especially when considering how ruthlessly those commentaries were destroyed by the later orthodoxy. Doesn't it intrigue you that Christians would destroy the first commentaries of their own scriptures? What were the later heresiologists trying to hide by suppressing the earliest records of Christianity?
Another reason it is important is in considering that Basilides, Valentinus and Marcion all were alive within decades of the Apostles' deaths and would've intimately known the earliest Christian communities. Valentinus and Marcion were even Catholics in the early years of their preaching. Marcion was a bishop and Valentinus might've been one as well. Valentinus almost became the Bishop of Rome which is equivalent to Pope. They were both immensely popular having started traditons that would survive for centuries. Going by traditional dating, it's possible that written in their lifetimes were some of the Pauline Epistles, the Book of Revelation, and the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John (and Marcion might've been alive when the Gospel of Mark was written).... along with a wide variety of other Christian texts.
"When Jesus said that God’s Word is Truth, I accept it."
The term that translates as 'Word' is Logos. The term was used by Gnostics, Greeks, and the concept was commonly used in reference to the Egyptian virgin-born savior god-men. Possibly, the use of Logos in Gnosticism and Christianity came from the Jewish Platonic philosopher Philo who was well known during and after the life of Jesus.
"When John quotes Jesus as saying: “I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.” I accept it"
Horus, the Egyptian god-man, said similar things. Some scholars even argue that Horus might've been a prototype for the gospel narratives. Egyptian mythology was very popular in the Roman Empire. Horus' mother Isis was possibly the most popular deity in the entire Empire. Some of the Black Madonnas of Europe were originally Isis statues and Christians still worship them as the Virgin Mary which demonstrates the confusion within early Christianity. Also, the Semites and the Egyptians had a long relationship over thousands of years in which cross-pollination of ideas had occurred. Half of the people living in Egyptian city of Alexandria were Semitic, and Alexandria was the greatest center of Pagan knowledge. So, the Jews that became the first Christians would've been extremely familiar of Egyptian mythology from various sources. D.M. Murdock spent more than 500 pages of scholarly citations in comparing Christianity with the Egyptian religion (Christ in Egypt).
"I accept that the Bible has been right in matters of history, science, society, and, yes, every aspect of spirituality that I can experience."
So, do you subscribe to inerrancy?
I suppose it has been right about certain matters as would be true of most religious scriptures. Still, as for science and history, people at the beginning of the common era didn't have the modern ideal of exactitude. They lacked the instruments for precise measurements and they lacked the conceptual frameworks for complex theories. Most of the Bible is simply non-scientific in that it isn't falsifiable. But some is in direct contradiction to modern science. For example, here is the literal interpretation of the Biblical view of the earth:
"The earth was seen as being flat with four corners (Ezekiel 7:2, Isaiah 41:9, Revelation 7:1). The earth was supported on pillars (1 Samuel 2:8, Psalms 75:3). A dome, expanse or firmament, called "heaven" or "sky", separated the waters below the earth from the waters above (Genesis 1:6-8, Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 5:8). The sun, moon and stars moved about in the firmament (Genesis 1:14-18). The windows or floodgates of the sky could be opened to admit rain (Genesis 7:11, 8:2, Isaiah 24:18, Malachi 3:10). Sheol, the abode of the dead, was a pit under the earth (Numbers 16:31-34, Psalms 16:10, Isaiah 14:9)."
"Its morality makes sense. If it has been truthful in every area conceivable, when it tells me to avoid false worship and false gospels, then I have a very real reason to take it at its Word."
Which aspects of morality. Of course, the Old Testament has moral statements that offend our modern sensibilities. As far as I know, Jesus never denied the moral justification for slavery in the Old Testament, and when early Christians came into power they kept slaves. However, limiting the discussion to the New Testament, Jesus is claimed to demand many seemingly odd things of his followers of which few Christians have ever attempted to follow. Jesus said to let the dead bury themselves, he said to give everything away to the poor, and he said one should hate one's own family. Taken literally without cherry-picking, it would be nearly impossible to follow all of Jesus' commandments.
Yes, yes, I caught the reference... Douglas Adams. :)
In response to your comment about the non-answer of atheism, I'd say atheism isn't meant to be an answer. Atheism simply denies one particular answer, but an infinite number of other answers could be put in its place. You chose some of the most zealous atheists which is easy to do as zealous people in general are the most vocal. But I doubt they're representative of your average atheist.
One of the reasons i brought up integral theory is because integralists can be quite critical of the New Atheists. Integralists are often very spiritual people. The intellectual understanding of integralists is of a more subtle nature than what the materialistic atheists have to offer.
Also, I've even come across integralists who were Christians.
Since you quoted John, I have an alternate interpretation which is completely literal. The specific quote you provided is:
“I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.”
Add this next passage to the above:
John Chapter 10, verses 30-36 (KJV)
10:30 I and [my] Father are one.
10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
The King James translation has Jesus say “I am the Son of God”. Other translations simply have Jesus say “I am God’s Son”. The “the” isn’t in the original Greek. Also, the indefinite article “a” isn’t found in Greek at all as far as I understand, but translations into English often use the indefinite article to make it sound like normal English. So, one possible translation could even be that Jesus says “I am a Son of God”.
Keep that in mind when Jesus says “Ye are gods”.
How about interpreting that literally?!
I know, I know. I’m starting to tire out with this discussion. I don’t at the moment feel like tossing around any more Biblical quotes. I do want to respond to one thing you said.
The Semitic people were originally polytheistic. El was the Father god who was married to Asherah. There were many Sons of El who were gods as well, and maybe even some of them were god-men.
Each tribe had it’s own Son of El which was a local representative of the cultural god of El. Yahweh was originally one of these local tribal gods, and Yahweh became the head god when the Yahwists conquered all of the other tribes.
The gods as a whole could be referred to in the plural as Elohim or it might refer to a group of gods such as the Sons of El.
Asherah survived into Jewish texts as a personification of Wisdom who was said to be with Yahwehfrom the beginning. This relates to what is meant when it is said that man was made in ‘our’ image, meaning the divine was plural. Yahweh’s jealousy of other gods gives credence to this. Asherah was still being worshipped by Jews when the Old Testament was being written down.
There are many scholarly books about this subject that you could read if you were so inclined. But I won’t defend it because I can only debate so long before I start getting irritated. If you don’t believe it’s true, then you’re free to do so.
Two things...
I've read it argued that their is no scriptural basis for the Trinity. Of course, Jews and early Christians were aware of the various trinities of other religions and philosophies... in particular by way of influence of NeoPlatonism. Egyptian religion included several versions of Trinities over the millenium, and all of the deities were considered aspects of a one true God.
Monotheism in general is a tricky matter. What is the difference between Yahweh as Trinity with angels from other religions that have a Trinity and a head God with subordinate spiritual beings?
By the way, either the Zoroastrianism or the Egyptian religion gets to claim that they put forth monotheism before the Jewish people. Also, both of those religions had influence on the Jewish religion... as the Jesish religion had iinfluence on them at times as well. A group of Semites ruled over Egypt at one time. The Egyptian Set may have come from the Jewish Seth, and then the Christians may in turn used Set as a prototype of Satan.
If you're interested in the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, you should look into Gnostic scriptures that speak about Wisdom and Logos. This relates to the book of John because a number of scholars have argued that it was a Gnostic text.
Isn't Comparative religious studies fun? Ya know, we could go back and forth like this for the rest of our lives and never come to an agreement on anything. Oh well... such is life....
Post a Comment