These thoughts were inspired by and my most recent discussion with friends on concerning absolute morality. It's also slightly inspired by my experience with the JW ladies.
As an atheist, I don't see harm in religiosity. At least not to the point of those such as Sam Harris do. I do wish people would accept less stringent ways of life, and do wish people would have foundations for their beliefs that can hold water. But if you tell me you are happy, then I have no desire to change you.
As a Christian, I would have never allow such words, much less thoughts to be connected with myself. As a Christian, it was either Jesus or Hell. Your happiness, internal peace, passion, or inspiration drawn from your religiousness was actually just a lie from the Devil. Why the Devil would lie by providing such peace is beyond me now, but I suppose then I would say "because it lured you into Hell." In fact, I've been told by some close to me the same about my disbeliefs, that they are lies from Satan!
This sounds okay to those of us with.. I'll say.. more open minds? You'll forgive me my Christian watchers, I can't at the moment find a better phrase. I do not mean it in any condescending fashion. But I'm going to press it to a degree that can often times become unacceptable to even self-acclaimed open-minded Agnostics and Atheists, as it has recently among the above quoted forums.
JWs do not receive blood transfusions. This means that if their child, due to an accident, a disease, whatever, comes to a point where they either receive transfused blood or die, they will not permit their child to take the blood.
It seems many people are outraged at this. It is considered mistreating and harming a child. I am not convinced of this. Mainly because I understand the deep conviction of religiousity. For the JW, perhaps they truly believe if they accept the transfusion they have committed a sin and put themselves on the road to Hell. Can you, with clear a clear conscience, force a parent to send their child to Hell? It doesn't matter if you don't believe there is a Hell, these people do. For them, they live happier and more self-gratifying lives if they follow what their God tells them to do.
Do I think it's personally sick? Yes. I have my levels of morality that I follow. If God told me to sacrifice my son, I'd probably tell him to... well... I would spout unhappy things that shan't be repeated here. But can I force someone to follow my morality? Just what makes my morality, my beliefs, more important than theirs?
It's been spouted, and angers me to no end, that "secular laws must be subservient to religious laws." I've been wrapping my mind around it since I heard it, and I still can not see the logic in it. The secular world is just as corrupt, if not more than religious circles. There is nothing to logically state that somehow laws created by secular governors are any more sensical that those fashioned by religious hierarchies.
Philosophically, I think it makes zero sense. I do hope I am not alone.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
1.1 Bible Plan
For anyone curious as to what plan I'm following, it is a 2-month read through plan I formulated myself about 4 years ago. It has gone through many revisions and testings by readers, and could probably use another tweak. But I have found none like it. It's fun, and only takes about an hour out of your day.
Check it out: http://reborndead.deviantart.com/art/60-DayBible-reading-plan-41893758?q=by:RebornDead+bible&qo=1
I started day 1 today. It took me a little less than an hour, and that was with a LOT of cross referencing. Let's begin.
Genesis 1-3
Let me begin by saying that these 3 chapters are by far the most interesting and the most perplexing in the whole Bible. The language is odd, to say the least. Try to find a literal translation Bible for this passage, stay away from Bibles such as NLT for this purpose. Most verses repeat the same word about 3 or 4 times, "living creature with life," "seed-bearing plants with seeds," "flying things that fly" etc.
I recall as a Christian arguing for a complimentary first and second chapter and adamently argued against the "two creation story" belief. Now I can't imagine how I even began to do so.
Were animals created on day 6 (1:24-25), or some time after mankind was created ( 2:19)? Do all living creatures have nefesh hi'yah, the breath of life (1:30), or is only man called a living creature posessing this special breath (2:7)? Was woman created at the same time as man in God's image (1:27), or was woman created after animals in man's image (2:21-22)?
I spent way too much time on these passages pondering all these questions. My main question, how was this story shared? We have, for the most part, all come to the consensus that most of what is in Genesis was passed along orally. Should we invision this story being shared to children over the campfire? Certainly we should compare it to other ancient creation tales.
Moving passed my musings I turned to my good ole' "What does the Bible really teach" booklet that the JW ladies handed me last Sunday. Their focus was on Genesis 3 and attaching the serpent to Satan, which is a mind-blowing assumption that is described with such introductory phrases as "evidently" and "apparently" in their propoganda material although it is everything but that in the passage. Then they state that the serpent lied to Eve, although everything he told her in 3:4-5 is confirmed by God himself in 3:22. You can say they eventually died all you want, but 900+ years is a long time for that threat to actually bear fruit.
I promise, this will be the only time I spend so much space on a single passage! Genesis 1-3 never ceases to confound me, no matter how many times I read it.
Joshua 1-4
My only interesting observation here was how Joshua seems to act as a demi-god to the people. I was stunned reading1:18 "Any man who flouts your [Joshua]s] commands and does not obey every order you give him shall be put to death." Mind you this was not an edict by God, but by the people. Strange. Also contrary to the Christian idea of "me and my God and no one else", there is an apparent hierarchy: God speaks to Joshua and him alone, and Joshua tells everyone else what to do.
Psalm 1-3
The contrast between wicked and righteous interests me. Nowadays is seems the contrast is only between those who believe and those who don't. Belief outweighs deeds. Thank Luther for that one.
Isaiah 1-5
Herein were words we can all live by:
"Learn to do good,
devote yourselves to justice;
Aid the wronged,
Uphold the rights of the orphan;
Defend the cause of the widow."
1:17
Job 1
I love this chapter. Mainly because you have God here boasting to Satan about a blameless man, when Christians tout that Jesus was the only sinless man. He was blameless by the narrators voice, blameless by God's voice, and after Satan's disbelief is proved to have not sinned.
One thought-provoking question though: Why does God ask where Satan has been?
Matthew 1-2
I will break the formality of my blog here with a big: OMFG. Annoying. Matthew quotes from so many passages and had me thumbing through trying to figure out just what he is doing and if he is really quoting. After doing so, I have to wonder just what the hell Matthew is doing with the prophets? And just what prophet ever said that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene?
Interesting note, JPS translates the commonly quoted Isaiah 9:6 (in JPS it's verse 5, verse 1 of our Bibles becomes the last verse of the previous chapter): "For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us, And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father a peaceable ruler." Which makes tremendous more sense than our translations which read that this man will actually be called Mighty God.
Romans 1-2
Again noted the emphasis on good works: "but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good." 2:10
Check it out: http://reborndead.deviantart.com/art/60-DayBible-reading-plan-41893758?q=by:RebornDead+bible&qo=1
I started day 1 today. It took me a little less than an hour, and that was with a LOT of cross referencing. Let's begin.
Genesis 1-3
Let me begin by saying that these 3 chapters are by far the most interesting and the most perplexing in the whole Bible. The language is odd, to say the least. Try to find a literal translation Bible for this passage, stay away from Bibles such as NLT for this purpose. Most verses repeat the same word about 3 or 4 times, "living creature with life," "seed-bearing plants with seeds," "flying things that fly" etc.
I recall as a Christian arguing for a complimentary first and second chapter and adamently argued against the "two creation story" belief. Now I can't imagine how I even began to do so.
Were animals created on day 6 (1:24-25), or some time after mankind was created ( 2:19)? Do all living creatures have nefesh hi'yah, the breath of life (1:30), or is only man called a living creature posessing this special breath (2:7)? Was woman created at the same time as man in God's image (1:27), or was woman created after animals in man's image (2:21-22)?
I spent way too much time on these passages pondering all these questions. My main question, how was this story shared? We have, for the most part, all come to the consensus that most of what is in Genesis was passed along orally. Should we invision this story being shared to children over the campfire? Certainly we should compare it to other ancient creation tales.
Moving passed my musings I turned to my good ole' "What does the Bible really teach" booklet that the JW ladies handed me last Sunday. Their focus was on Genesis 3 and attaching the serpent to Satan, which is a mind-blowing assumption that is described with such introductory phrases as "evidently" and "apparently" in their propoganda material although it is everything but that in the passage. Then they state that the serpent lied to Eve, although everything he told her in 3:4-5 is confirmed by God himself in 3:22. You can say they eventually died all you want, but 900+ years is a long time for that threat to actually bear fruit.
I promise, this will be the only time I spend so much space on a single passage! Genesis 1-3 never ceases to confound me, no matter how many times I read it.
Joshua 1-4
My only interesting observation here was how Joshua seems to act as a demi-god to the people. I was stunned reading1:18 "Any man who flouts your [Joshua]s] commands and does not obey every order you give him shall be put to death." Mind you this was not an edict by God, but by the people. Strange. Also contrary to the Christian idea of "me and my God and no one else", there is an apparent hierarchy: God speaks to Joshua and him alone, and Joshua tells everyone else what to do.
Psalm 1-3
The contrast between wicked and righteous interests me. Nowadays is seems the contrast is only between those who believe and those who don't. Belief outweighs deeds. Thank Luther for that one.
Isaiah 1-5
Herein were words we can all live by:
"Learn to do good,
devote yourselves to justice;
Aid the wronged,
Uphold the rights of the orphan;
Defend the cause of the widow."
1:17
Job 1
I love this chapter. Mainly because you have God here boasting to Satan about a blameless man, when Christians tout that Jesus was the only sinless man. He was blameless by the narrators voice, blameless by God's voice, and after Satan's disbelief is proved to have not sinned.
One thought-provoking question though: Why does God ask where Satan has been?
Matthew 1-2
I will break the formality of my blog here with a big: OMFG. Annoying. Matthew quotes from so many passages and had me thumbing through trying to figure out just what he is doing and if he is really quoting. After doing so, I have to wonder just what the hell Matthew is doing with the prophets? And just what prophet ever said that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene?
Interesting note, JPS translates the commonly quoted Isaiah 9:6 (in JPS it's verse 5, verse 1 of our Bibles becomes the last verse of the previous chapter): "For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us, And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father a peaceable ruler." Which makes tremendous more sense than our translations which read that this man will actually be called Mighty God.
Romans 1-2
Again noted the emphasis on good works: "but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good." 2:10
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
JW Witness
So this Sunday morning (my birthday mind you) 2 sweet Jehovah's Witness people came knocking on my door. Frankly, I was excited. The only time JWs have visited I've either been asleep, so someone else has gotten to the door before me.
I played curious and open. I told them straight I was an Atheist which received a strange surprised reaction. They proceeded to share verses with me, I told them I was a Bible student and knew the story. That actually I had been a Christian my whole life. When asked, told them quite honestly why I left and why I don't plan on coming back.
So I invited them in to share/sell their wares. We had a nice chat.
Why did I do this? I'm not sure. Maybe I sympathize with them. Maybe I see my old self witnessing to people with the honest love and concern for their souls. Maybe it's a catharsis process for me, to really seal the deal or to see if I really do buy what I tote (dad claims everyone deep down believes there is a God, in other words "They can't believe in a loving God Who doesn't believe in atheists " ~ Skillet). Or maybe it's because they are the only people I have met who has cared about my soul? Out of all my Christian family, extended church family, and "friends" these ladies are the first to witness to me. And sure, I know the story more than anyone, but is "it's just a phase you'll get over" really the right reaction for family and friends to have?
Whatever reasons you want to attribute to my openness and willingness to listen to them, they wanted to set up their weekly sharings and Bible Studies and I said sure? Why not? They claim they don't want to convert me, and of course that's not true. So our meetings will probably end when they are convinced I have no intention of changing, or whenever I start getting a little too frisky and argumentative.
So, after saying that, this should be interesting. I will share what I learn, share what I tried to help them to learn, and any internal struggles I face if I do face them.
I played curious and open. I told them straight I was an Atheist which received a strange surprised reaction. They proceeded to share verses with me, I told them I was a Bible student and knew the story. That actually I had been a Christian my whole life. When asked, told them quite honestly why I left and why I don't plan on coming back.
So I invited them in to share/sell their wares. We had a nice chat.
Why did I do this? I'm not sure. Maybe I sympathize with them. Maybe I see my old self witnessing to people with the honest love and concern for their souls. Maybe it's a catharsis process for me, to really seal the deal or to see if I really do buy what I tote (dad claims everyone deep down believes there is a God, in other words "They can't believe in a loving God Who doesn't believe in atheists " ~ Skillet). Or maybe it's because they are the only people I have met who has cared about my soul? Out of all my Christian family, extended church family, and "friends" these ladies are the first to witness to me. And sure, I know the story more than anyone, but is "it's just a phase you'll get over" really the right reaction for family and friends to have?
Whatever reasons you want to attribute to my openness and willingness to listen to them, they wanted to set up their weekly sharings and Bible Studies and I said sure? Why not? They claim they don't want to convert me, and of course that's not true. So our meetings will probably end when they are convinced I have no intention of changing, or whenever I start getting a little too frisky and argumentative.
So, after saying that, this should be interesting. I will share what I learn, share what I tried to help them to learn, and any internal struggles I face if I do face them.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Summer Blog Plan
School has ended, and I really don't have any closing thoughts on what was taught. Finals and papers, that's about it. You are more than welcome to read my paper defending Enoch placement in the canon of scripture though: http://reborndead.deviantart.com/art/A-defense-for-Enoch-as-Canon-161641588
The Summer Blog Plan is as follows:
1. Learn Koine Greek via http://biblicalulpan.org/
2. Possibly read through Bible in 2 months
3. Q & A ? / Current Events
It will be fun.
The Summer Blog Plan is as follows:
1. Learn Koine Greek via http://biblicalulpan.org/
2. Possibly read through Bible in 2 months
3. Q & A ? / Current Events
It will be fun.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Week 13.2 - Jesus, Judgement, and Social Justice
Our passage for this blog is Matthew 25:31-46. Those with Bibles may open then, otherwise, utilize the wonders of biblegateway.com! Either way, you may recall it as "The sheep and the goats." It was our ending passage for The. of Poverty this week, oddly connected with Pslam 82. I won't participate in such theological gymnastics myself, and will be instead focusing on Jesus' words.
I'll ignore the many questions that can arise with the first verse, and skip to the next fascinating introduction. The gathering of the goyim, the nations. A Jewish reader would immediately recognize this as "everyone but me." Everyone not Jewish. If you want to read this through Christian eyes, even so, the term is used for the unbelievers, those outside of the covenant. As an Atheist, I can safely include myself in this group brought before the King (? ).
We are then divided into two groups, The two groups are, basically, those who participate in acts of social justice:
" For I was hungry
and you gave Me something to eat;
I was thirsty
and you gave Me something to drink;
I was a stranger and you took Me in;
I was naked and you clothed Me;
I was sick and you took care of Me;
I was in prison and you visited Me"
I can imagine the Atheist and Agnostic here chiming in, like those here in the passage do, and asking "when did I (or didn't I) do that for you? I never saw you, heck I don't even know who you are!"
We are then informed that the "I" is actually the "least of these brothers of Mine." Basically, without going into it, the people around you who exhibited the above needs.
It's a good sermon indeed, and preached often! I, however, would find this to be an immediate soteriological problem.
The problem? These acts of social justice and care for the poor is what the nations are being judged upon. Not "did you say the sinner's prayer?" not "did you believe I existed?" not "did you love me with all your heart, soul, and strength?"
This shouldn't at all be a problem if we look at the Old Testament. We see many cases of YHWH being a god actively concerned for the poor. All throughout psalms we see a god who rises up to defend the needy and put low the rich and greedy. Throughout the Torah we find laws bent towards taking care of the orphan, widow, and sojourner. Laws such as do not glean to the edges of your field, with the purpose of leaving behind sheaths for the poor (see Ruth for an example). If anything, God doesn't seem to give a hoot whether you believe in Him or not when it comes to the poor. People in the OT are not judged for unbelief, but for acts of unrighteousness. I'll add here that tsedek, righteous in Hebrew, is synonymous with charity!
So where do we get this idea that those who inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world are those who believe Jesus is God, believe there is a God, and believe that Jesus died on a wooden cross as the only way to forgive you of your sins and thus let you into said kingdom?
Well... that's another blog in itself! A fun one at that. But for now, and with this passage, it seems quite clear how we are eternally judged. And me? I have no problem with that.
I'll ignore the many questions that can arise with the first verse, and skip to the next fascinating introduction. The gathering of the goyim, the nations. A Jewish reader would immediately recognize this as "everyone but me." Everyone not Jewish. If you want to read this through Christian eyes, even so, the term is used for the unbelievers, those outside of the covenant. As an Atheist, I can safely include myself in this group brought before the King (? ).
We are then divided into two groups, The two groups are, basically, those who participate in acts of social justice:
" For I was hungry
and you gave Me something to eat;
I was thirsty
and you gave Me something to drink;
I was a stranger and you took Me in;
I was naked and you clothed Me;
I was sick and you took care of Me;
I was in prison and you visited Me"
I can imagine the Atheist and Agnostic here chiming in, like those here in the passage do, and asking "when did I (or didn't I) do that for you? I never saw you, heck I don't even know who you are!"
We are then informed that the "I" is actually the "least of these brothers of Mine." Basically, without going into it, the people around you who exhibited the above needs.
It's a good sermon indeed, and preached often! I, however, would find this to be an immediate soteriological problem.
The problem? These acts of social justice and care for the poor is what the nations are being judged upon. Not "did you say the sinner's prayer?" not "did you believe I existed?" not "did you love me with all your heart, soul, and strength?"
This shouldn't at all be a problem if we look at the Old Testament. We see many cases of YHWH being a god actively concerned for the poor. All throughout psalms we see a god who rises up to defend the needy and put low the rich and greedy. Throughout the Torah we find laws bent towards taking care of the orphan, widow, and sojourner. Laws such as do not glean to the edges of your field, with the purpose of leaving behind sheaths for the poor (see Ruth for an example). If anything, God doesn't seem to give a hoot whether you believe in Him or not when it comes to the poor. People in the OT are not judged for unbelief, but for acts of unrighteousness. I'll add here that tsedek, righteous in Hebrew, is synonymous with charity!
So where do we get this idea that those who inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world are those who believe Jesus is God, believe there is a God, and believe that Jesus died on a wooden cross as the only way to forgive you of your sins and thus let you into said kingdom?
Well... that's another blog in itself! A fun one at that. But for now, and with this passage, it seems quite clear how we are eternally judged. And me? I have no problem with that.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Week 11.2 - Do we need immortality?
As an Atheist, I am continually given the question "what is the point of life if it ends?" and demanded to answer. In PHI441, we faced the issue of immortality by first opening our Bibles to 1 Corinthians 15 and reading aloud the entire chapter (I suggest you do the same). Besides my initial reaction that Paul is spouting nothing more than the recent Greek philosophical trend, I took note of the verses that were, no doubt, of theological significance:
v.14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is without foundation, and so is your faith
v.16For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
v.40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the earthly ones
v.40 addresses another related topic: the intelligibility of what is philosophically called the disembodied life. Fact is, besides the main point that will be made here, a disembodied existence is completely unintelligible. Without of physical capacities, life can not be defined. What is a consciousness without input and stimuli? If you saw nothing, felt nothing, heard nothing, sensed nothing at all, how would your thoughts progress? We are of course assuming you have thoughts at all after your neurons cease to fire, which is a leap in itself! Religion then seems to make the claim, as Paul does here, that our minds/souls are transcended to this indescribable "heavenly body." Which is all good and well, and I will leave religion with that concept and continue to the main discussion:
Why do we so need eternal life?
Because this discussion took place in a Christian context, I withheld most of my comments. The Bible says explicitly that the Christian faith is meaningless without the possibility of resurrection. Whether you interpret that as just Jesus' resurrection or ours as well, is besides the point, here it seems the later is the one fought for by the line of Christian thought represented by this college and these Christian philosophers.
Such questions are asked such as:
(1) How can God's love permit us to cease to exist?
(2) How can the sufferings we have incurred be reconciled without an after-life?
(3) Wouldn't God's plans and purposes go unfulfilled?
These are, naturally, theological questions more than philosophical ones. However, being a theologian, technically, I will address them briefly with the excessive help of Grace M. Jantzen who's title of her work I borrowed for this blog.
(1) Grace makes an excellent point from which I can add very little:
"..Christian theology does hold that there are other things which are precious to God and which, in spite of that, perish forever... We cannot have it both ways. 'Are not three sparrows sold for a farthing?' Jesus asked. 'Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your heavenly Father's knowledge.' These words of Jesus have often (and rightly) been taken as his teaching of the tender concern of the Father for all his creatures; what has not been noticed so often is that Jesus never denies that sparrows do fall." *
Simply, the question is, why must we live eternally onward for God to love us? The analogy is in the sparrows who fall, and yet whom God loves. As Grace says, if "taken to its logical conclusion, the implication, surely, is not that we will not die but that our death will not go unnoticed."
(2) I spin this question on its head and leave it there: How can an after-life reconcile for sufferings incurred in this life? Does it? Perhaps the lolli-pop at the doctor's office remedies a child's experienced trauma, but can eternal happiness truly remedy traumatic experiences? Does heaven make up for a woman's violent rape? Does heaven make up for brutal, senseless murder? For holocausts? Genocide? Torture?
Perhaps the theologian will respond with something similar to the unfathomable love and peace of The Comforter. Which perhaps, the atheist would have to leave alone with upward palms, but would hardly be converted to anything more than Agnosticism given the lack of empirical evidence for such unfathomable comfort.
But the proposition of the theist is, it seems, to solve the problem of evil with a life after this reality. It is as if God pulls a big "April Fools!" on everyone by informing them after death that those 70-120 years, or whatever, were all a drop in the bucket and existence will hence forth continue in peace and goodness and love.
Which leads to another level of the sub-topic, the rationality of eternal-life. Besides it's logical rationality (does it make sense) there is practical rationality (is it useful?) It would seem to me this type of theology is too nihilistic in nature and can, and has lead to great harm. The doctrine of martyrdom, for example, in many religions leads to tragic harm! The seductive belief that this life is just a step into the better after-existence has caused many suicides and dangerous life-styles that eventually lead to one's death. Is this a rational way to live? The answer is obvious a emphatic No! if this life is all there is!! That is for certain.
(3) This is really just a sub-question of (1).The answer is another simple question, why can't God's plan for us go unfulfilled in this life? Unless one assumes God's plan for us is to live forever, of course! Which is fine and dandy, but not a necessary belief by a long-shot.
*Exploring Philosophy of Religion: An Introductory Anthology by Steven M. Cahn. "Do we need Immortality" by Grace M. Jantzen (1984). pg 279
v.14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is without foundation, and so is your faith
v.16For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
v.40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the earthly ones
v.40 addresses another related topic: the intelligibility of what is philosophically called the disembodied life. Fact is, besides the main point that will be made here, a disembodied existence is completely unintelligible. Without of physical capacities, life can not be defined. What is a consciousness without input and stimuli? If you saw nothing, felt nothing, heard nothing, sensed nothing at all, how would your thoughts progress? We are of course assuming you have thoughts at all after your neurons cease to fire, which is a leap in itself! Religion then seems to make the claim, as Paul does here, that our minds/souls are transcended to this indescribable "heavenly body." Which is all good and well, and I will leave religion with that concept and continue to the main discussion:
Why do we so need eternal life?
Because this discussion took place in a Christian context, I withheld most of my comments. The Bible says explicitly that the Christian faith is meaningless without the possibility of resurrection. Whether you interpret that as just Jesus' resurrection or ours as well, is besides the point, here it seems the later is the one fought for by the line of Christian thought represented by this college and these Christian philosophers.
Such questions are asked such as:
(1) How can God's love permit us to cease to exist?
(2) How can the sufferings we have incurred be reconciled without an after-life?
(3) Wouldn't God's plans and purposes go unfulfilled?
These are, naturally, theological questions more than philosophical ones. However, being a theologian, technically, I will address them briefly with the excessive help of Grace M. Jantzen who's title of her work I borrowed for this blog.
(1) Grace makes an excellent point from which I can add very little:
"..Christian theology does hold that there are other things which are precious to God and which, in spite of that, perish forever... We cannot have it both ways. 'Are not three sparrows sold for a farthing?' Jesus asked. 'Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your heavenly Father's knowledge.' These words of Jesus have often (and rightly) been taken as his teaching of the tender concern of the Father for all his creatures; what has not been noticed so often is that Jesus never denies that sparrows do fall." *
Simply, the question is, why must we live eternally onward for God to love us? The analogy is in the sparrows who fall, and yet whom God loves. As Grace says, if "taken to its logical conclusion, the implication, surely, is not that we will not die but that our death will not go unnoticed."
(2) I spin this question on its head and leave it there: How can an after-life reconcile for sufferings incurred in this life? Does it? Perhaps the lolli-pop at the doctor's office remedies a child's experienced trauma, but can eternal happiness truly remedy traumatic experiences? Does heaven make up for a woman's violent rape? Does heaven make up for brutal, senseless murder? For holocausts? Genocide? Torture?
Perhaps the theologian will respond with something similar to the unfathomable love and peace of The Comforter. Which perhaps, the atheist would have to leave alone with upward palms, but would hardly be converted to anything more than Agnosticism given the lack of empirical evidence for such unfathomable comfort.
But the proposition of the theist is, it seems, to solve the problem of evil with a life after this reality. It is as if God pulls a big "April Fools!" on everyone by informing them after death that those 70-120 years, or whatever, were all a drop in the bucket and existence will hence forth continue in peace and goodness and love.
Which leads to another level of the sub-topic, the rationality of eternal-life. Besides it's logical rationality (does it make sense) there is practical rationality (is it useful?) It would seem to me this type of theology is too nihilistic in nature and can, and has lead to great harm. The doctrine of martyrdom, for example, in many religions leads to tragic harm! The seductive belief that this life is just a step into the better after-existence has caused many suicides and dangerous life-styles that eventually lead to one's death. Is this a rational way to live? The answer is obvious a emphatic No! if this life is all there is!! That is for certain.
(3) This is really just a sub-question of (1).The answer is another simple question, why can't God's plan for us go unfulfilled in this life? Unless one assumes God's plan for us is to live forever, of course! Which is fine and dandy, but not a necessary belief by a long-shot.
*Exploring Philosophy of Religion: An Introductory Anthology by Steven M. Cahn. "Do we need Immortality" by Grace M. Jantzen (1984). pg 279
Monday, March 29, 2010
Week 10.1 -Adultery
A lady or two left the classroom during this discussion/lecture tangent in, as I perceived (biased as I am), denial. The tangent was original from a discussion on the Woman Caught in Adultery passage found in John 8:1-11. It had started off as a linguistic discussion on the Hebrew baraz translated into the English "caught" and a cross-referencing to Numbers 5:13. Apparently there are Rabbinical traditions that take this to be a physical catching. In other words, rape. We usually read it in our English equivalent of "to be caught"as the woman being "discovered in adultery."
The discussion turned, shortly, to adultery. The fact is, only a woman commits adultery. Biblically. A man is never spoken of as committing adultery. A man only commits adultery if he sleeps with another man's wife (Deuteronomy 22:22).
Go ahead. Look it up. I'll wait.
How many examples can you think of off the top of your head of men sleeping with women they aren't necessarily married to without any consequences? The rest of the context of Deuteronomy furthermore makes it clear the male preference. Especially verses 28-29. Keep in mind at this time it is common for a man to have multiple wives.
Furthermore, it was discussed in class that if a woman is raped, though she has not sinned, she is still considered adulterous. Again drawing from Deuteronomy 22 and other verses and examples she can not marry, she is not a virgin. How terrible for the woman!
With the Woman Caught in Adultery in John 8, notice there is no man present. Reread 22:22 and you'll see both the man and the woman must be stoned. Which rules out her being, as the English would render it, discovered in the act of adultery. So, she must have been raped and our physical rendering of "caught" must be applicable here. So, why are the religious leaders wishing to stone her? Probably because of the formulated tradition that a woman is an adulterous whether it is willing sex or forced sex. This isn't new. There are other nations who do not blame men for rape but the women. The question is, is this a right and good theology? Should we be basing our theology of adultery on the Bible?
I would not, that's for sure. And who's to say I can't have multiple husbands, but a man can have multiple wives? Well, that's another discussion.
The discussion turned, shortly, to adultery. The fact is, only a woman commits adultery. Biblically. A man is never spoken of as committing adultery. A man only commits adultery if he sleeps with another man's wife (Deuteronomy 22:22).
Go ahead. Look it up. I'll wait.
How many examples can you think of off the top of your head of men sleeping with women they aren't necessarily married to without any consequences? The rest of the context of Deuteronomy furthermore makes it clear the male preference. Especially verses 28-29. Keep in mind at this time it is common for a man to have multiple wives.
Furthermore, it was discussed in class that if a woman is raped, though she has not sinned, she is still considered adulterous. Again drawing from Deuteronomy 22 and other verses and examples she can not marry, she is not a virgin. How terrible for the woman!
With the Woman Caught in Adultery in John 8, notice there is no man present. Reread 22:22 and you'll see both the man and the woman must be stoned. Which rules out her being, as the English would render it, discovered in the act of adultery. So, she must have been raped and our physical rendering of "caught" must be applicable here. So, why are the religious leaders wishing to stone her? Probably because of the formulated tradition that a woman is an adulterous whether it is willing sex or forced sex. This isn't new. There are other nations who do not blame men for rape but the women. The question is, is this a right and good theology? Should we be basing our theology of adultery on the Bible?
I would not, that's for sure. And who's to say I can't have multiple husbands, but a man can have multiple wives? Well, that's another discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
