Matthew 26.36-46
Mark 14.32-42
Luke 22.39-46
I do not know what I believe about the connection between Jesus and God (the Son and the Father), but I would like to explore one aspect of Jesus' knowledge (or lack thereof).
If Jesus is completely God (as ecumenical councils and common Christian theology would seem to teach), then what's the deal with what God wants vs. what Jesus wants, or what God knows vs. what Jesus knows? I do not believe that Jesus was omniscient, I believe that if he was, he would not be completely human. I would like to bring up something that I believe is biblically undeniable: Jesus did not want to be crucified.
Now this may seem like something elementary. "Of course," we may say, "of course he did not want to be crucified...who would?" However, what do we risk when we say this?
Jesus prayed to God in the garden of Gethsemane. Regardless of the problem present when we ask "Did Jesus pray to himself? What's the point?" it must be recognized that Jesus prayed that "the hour might pass from him" (Mark version; in Matthew and Luke he prays for the "cup" to pass from him). In Matthew and Mark, Jesus reportedly says "if it is possible" before he makes his request. This implies that Jesus did not know what was possible (otherwise he wouldn't have said "if"). The gospel of John does not include Jesus' prayer and states that he knew what was going to happen. This is not surprising from John, because John's Jesus is very much in control of most every situation. As John is likely the latest and most theologically evolved, the fourth gospel will be set aside from this discussion, as it bears no texts on this prayer.
So now it seems that Jesus did not know what was going to happen (he no doubt had a good idea, otherwise he wouldn't have prayed this in the first place, but he still thought that there was a possibility that it wouldn't happen). Not only did he not know whether or not what was going to happen to him, but if what he thought was correct, then he did not want to do it.
This is somewhat troubling to popular theology. Jesus and God did not want the same thing. Jesus' will was not to be crucified. He kept going back from waking up the disciples and praying the same thing. As Luke puts it: "yet, not my will but yours be done." This directly implies that God's will and Jesus' will were not the same. Jesus did not want to do what was required of him. He only wanted to so far as he was willing to.
For example, when one compromises to make happy the spouse, they in turn are happy because they made the other happy. It is not that one wants to compromise, but only wants to so far as they are willing. This, I believe, is what is present in the synoptic gospels' account of Jesus' prayer.
Jesus did not want to be crucified. He probably didn't want to die at all. He didn't know what God was going to decide to send him through, but he was willing.
I do not think that it is troublesome to say that the will of Jesus was not the same as the will of God, but some people whose Christology is much higher than mine would probably take issue. I believe that most Christians would have problems with that statement. I believe that statement is firmly established in the passages of Scripture mentioned above.
What does this mean then?
It seems that Jesus' connection with God did not include omniscience. It seems that Jesus' connection with God did not include the power to change the events himself. He was praying to God that God would change the events, because he didn't want to go through with it, and was hoping that maybe he wouldn't have to. What does this do about Atonement theories then? Jesus didn't want to die for the sins of the world? Jesus didn't want Christianity to be founded? One could argue that if the crucifixion and resurrection (since there couldn't be a resurrection without his death) did not happen, then Christianity would not exist, and we'd all be Jewish. That seems to be what Jesus prayed for. If Jesus didn't want to be crucified, then one could say that he had no idea what his death would mean. He didn't know that he was the perfect sacrificial lamb. He didn't know he was going to take the sins of the world upon him. He didn't know, and because of that, he didn't want to do it. This challenges us to rethink what we think about the crucifixion and what Jesus' death really meant. If Jesus didn't even know the results of his death, then how much are we allowed to read into it?
This makes Jesus a lot more human than most Christians may want to admit. I think this is very important though. Jesus suffered as we do. He was uncertain about things. He didn't know how the future was going to happen. He didn't know what God was going to do next. He was a scared human being who repeatedly prayed for there to be another way. His request was not granted.
That's something that we should take note of. God did not grant Jesus' request. Jesus, this "Son of God," this "Messiah," the great "I AM" in the flesh...couldn't ask hard enough to escape his fate. What we should also observe is that Jesus accepted God's will over his will. Jesus probably was pretty sure that God wasn't going to let him off the hook, and he accepted it. He said that God's will in his life should take precedence over his own human will. This is the example to follow. What is there to learn if we say that Jesus wasn't really praying for God to change his mind? What would it benefit us to view this as Jesus talking to himself for therapeutic reasons? The greatest lesson we can learn from these passages are when we look at Jesus as a scared human who doesn't know what's going to happen, but accepts the will of God in his life. This is as we all must do. We, like Jesus, are men incapable of knowing everything God is going to do. We should learn to pray as Jesus did, that God's will be done, not ours.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Stolen Philosophy
I think people get famous for the strangest things.
I would like to state from the start that I do not think that I am a genius and I do not think I am some brilliant thinker. I am intelligent no doubt, but hardly any Einstein, and I do not intend this post to be a boast of my intellect, only an inquisitive look in the "genius" of certain concepts that have been glorified.
The first I was thinking of is the "Liar Paradox." In case you are not familiar with what this is (at least by that name), I will give an example.
This is a false statement.
Obviously, this is troubling. If the statement is false, then it would make it true, making it false, etc. So pretty much this is simply nonsense.
I figured that out when I was about 12. And yet it has been grappled with for over two millennia. Can't we just admit that it is nonsense and be done with it? If someone walks up to you and says "I can't speak a word of English," they are obviously quite mistaken and have just spoken a paradox. People get famous over grappling with this. Just look it up on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-liar.htm) and see how many people got in there for talking about this kind of thing. It just seems quite elementary to me, but I suppose that may only reveal my own elementary mind.
Another thing I don't get is Rene Descartes. His famous "I think, therefore I am" from his Meditations on First Philosophy is pretty much universally known. Basically this statement confirms the existence of the mind of the one thinking. I know I exist because I can think. Everything I see may be an illusion, because eyes can be deceived. Everything I smell, taste, touch or hear may also be illusions, because they are only senses that can be faulty (The Matrix, anyone?). The only thing that is certain is that the mind exists. But I don't know that anyone else's mind exists, only that my own does. From this Descartes figures that God exists. This is one of the most famous philosophical discussions there has ever been, and I figured it out in the fourth grade.
I remember the conversation with my friend Adam in class. We were discussing how we knew that we existed, but not that the other did. We could be dreaming and not know it. We may not even be human, but only in our dream. Why couldn't I have been born a few hundred years earlier and written it down? I would have been famous...
Blast.
I wonder how many other Philosophical concepts are things that a ten year old had already figured out a century earlier and just never said anything. I can just imagine some old and broken man in the 1650s living his entire life wishing that he had done something worthwhile and then stumbling upon his friend Rene's manuscript Meditations on First Philosophy and having a stroke because he actually thought of it 40 years earlier.
Just a thought.
I would like to state from the start that I do not think that I am a genius and I do not think I am some brilliant thinker. I am intelligent no doubt, but hardly any Einstein, and I do not intend this post to be a boast of my intellect, only an inquisitive look in the "genius" of certain concepts that have been glorified.
The first I was thinking of is the "Liar Paradox." In case you are not familiar with what this is (at least by that name), I will give an example.
This is a false statement.
Obviously, this is troubling. If the statement is false, then it would make it true, making it false, etc. So pretty much this is simply nonsense.
I figured that out when I was about 12. And yet it has been grappled with for over two millennia. Can't we just admit that it is nonsense and be done with it? If someone walks up to you and says "I can't speak a word of English," they are obviously quite mistaken and have just spoken a paradox. People get famous over grappling with this. Just look it up on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-liar.htm) and see how many people got in there for talking about this kind of thing. It just seems quite elementary to me, but I suppose that may only reveal my own elementary mind.
Another thing I don't get is Rene Descartes. His famous "I think, therefore I am" from his Meditations on First Philosophy is pretty much universally known. Basically this statement confirms the existence of the mind of the one thinking. I know I exist because I can think. Everything I see may be an illusion, because eyes can be deceived. Everything I smell, taste, touch or hear may also be illusions, because they are only senses that can be faulty (The Matrix, anyone?). The only thing that is certain is that the mind exists. But I don't know that anyone else's mind exists, only that my own does. From this Descartes figures that God exists. This is one of the most famous philosophical discussions there has ever been, and I figured it out in the fourth grade.
I remember the conversation with my friend Adam in class. We were discussing how we knew that we existed, but not that the other did. We could be dreaming and not know it. We may not even be human, but only in our dream. Why couldn't I have been born a few hundred years earlier and written it down? I would have been famous...
Blast.
I wonder how many other Philosophical concepts are things that a ten year old had already figured out a century earlier and just never said anything. I can just imagine some old and broken man in the 1650s living his entire life wishing that he had done something worthwhile and then stumbling upon his friend Rene's manuscript Meditations on First Philosophy and having a stroke because he actually thought of it 40 years earlier.
Just a thought.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Can God Sin?
From my earlier post on God's Morality, a question was raised on "Can God sin?" I do not claim to know the answer, but maybe by the end of my written thought process, I'll have somewhat of a conclusion and where I stand.
First we must define the terms.
God --> The divine being. Coming from the Christian faith, to me (and as I will refer to him throughout) God is an immaterial spirit who created the world and continues to exist in everything everywhere and reveals himself to humans here and there. That would probably suffice for my definition as far as this topic is concerned, although further clarification may be allowed.
Can --> What does it mean if I ask Can God do something. Is he able to? If he so chose to, he could imagine anything and do it. He could create the universe, destroy the universe, if he can. So notice the question is not would God do something, but can he, if he wanted to.
Now for the real topic. How do you define sin. There are 2 ways that I'm going to approach defining sin.
1. Sin --> Going against God, separation from God, not doing what God has commanded. This is a very popular definition. I would even say it's the (overwhelmingly) dominant definition in Christianity. In this model, God, being sovereign, makes up what is right and what is wrong. When he created the universe, he also "created" what was good. Good was doing what he said. Good brought people closer to God, and sin brought them away from God. Separation is the result of the action (sin), and the action (sin) is when we (the people) go against the commandments/instructions of God. Adam sinned because he ate the apple when he was told not to. Christians sin when we don't follow the Bible (the Bible for the purpose of argument here is going to be equivalent with God's commandments). How would everyone else sin? By not following the law anyway (as addressed by Paul in Romans). As Paul says, we all have the law of God written on our hearts, and when we sin, we're still to blame whether we know God's commands or not (I'm not telling you my own opinion, but how it is presented by Paul).
Whatever God does then, is good. If good is defined as what God is, then whenever we are good, we are being like God. When we love others, we are doing what God would do. Goodness is defined by God.
This model works I suppose, you have God as good, and he wants everyone on earth to be good as well. He tells us what to do (directly or indirectly), and then if we follow it we are on God's good side, and if not then we are not on his good side, which leaves us screwed. This is not the topic to discuss whether or not people who have never heard of God are doomed as sinners, but to ask if God can sin.
Ignore the statement "God can do anything" for a moment ok?
If loving others is good because it's what God would do (WWJD?), then we could form a perfect model of behavior by following what God would do. So to Christians, when Jesus shows up and people start saying that he is God, they say that if we do what Jesus did, we are doing what God would do because Jesus was/is God.
So by this model, if God got jealous of a man's wife and came down and struck the husband dead in a rage and then killed his wife in order to take her up to heaven, this would not be sin. If sin is defined by what God does/is, then this would still not be sin, because God is doing it.
This is very uncomfortable. Of course we would say God wouldn't do something like that, but we'd like to think that God could do it. So if we follow model 1 of sin, then God cannot sin, because as soon as he would do something that we'd like to call sin, it becomes not-sin because by definition it can't be (since God is doing it).
I reject this model. I think it can be inappropriately used (as my example above shows), and just leads to ridiculousness.
This leads to model 2.
2. Sin --> Moral code is independent of what God choses to do. Something isn't good because it is like God. We do not call God good because he defines what good is, but we call him good because he "follows" the moral code better than anyone. In this way, God could sin. We would again say that he would never sin, but we would admit the possibility that he could if he wanted to.
This is again uncomfortable. It is less uncomfortable, because we can say that Jesus (God) was the perfect human because he didn't sin.
As a side note, this is simiar to Pelagianism. This would imply that we could all be like Jesus, and choose not to sin. Pelagianism was declared heresy in 451 CE.
Also, neither of these models accounts for Original Sin. I'll leave it at that. Original sin doesn't make sense in these models and I may talk about it another time.
The biggest way that this model (2) of sin seems not quite right is that it makes God independent of morality. He didn't invent it, but abides by it. That just seems weird. It makes it seem as if God is not really inherently good, but has to try just like anyone else, and because he succeeds, we can worship him. This is definitely uncomfortable.
What then does that leave us with. To the question "Can God sin?" we are left with a yes or no that puts God in awkward positions.
I then challenge sin itself. I challenge the notion of it. But I will save that for another time. My conclusion on the question "Can God sin?" is that there is a problem with the question of sin. I would challenge the idea of God and sin that is all to common. Not that they don't exist, but that they are extremely misunderstood. I do not claim that I know something everyone else doesn't, but I would only ask people to think about things on their own, and don't just accept what you're told.
First we must define the terms.
God --> The divine being. Coming from the Christian faith, to me (and as I will refer to him throughout) God is an immaterial spirit who created the world and continues to exist in everything everywhere and reveals himself to humans here and there. That would probably suffice for my definition as far as this topic is concerned, although further clarification may be allowed.
Can --> What does it mean if I ask Can God do something. Is he able to? If he so chose to, he could imagine anything and do it. He could create the universe, destroy the universe, if he can. So notice the question is not would God do something, but can he, if he wanted to.
Now for the real topic. How do you define sin. There are 2 ways that I'm going to approach defining sin.
1. Sin --> Going against God, separation from God, not doing what God has commanded. This is a very popular definition. I would even say it's the (overwhelmingly) dominant definition in Christianity. In this model, God, being sovereign, makes up what is right and what is wrong. When he created the universe, he also "created" what was good. Good was doing what he said. Good brought people closer to God, and sin brought them away from God. Separation is the result of the action (sin), and the action (sin) is when we (the people) go against the commandments/instructions of God. Adam sinned because he ate the apple when he was told not to. Christians sin when we don't follow the Bible (the Bible for the purpose of argument here is going to be equivalent with God's commandments). How would everyone else sin? By not following the law anyway (as addressed by Paul in Romans). As Paul says, we all have the law of God written on our hearts, and when we sin, we're still to blame whether we know God's commands or not (I'm not telling you my own opinion, but how it is presented by Paul).
Whatever God does then, is good. If good is defined as what God is, then whenever we are good, we are being like God. When we love others, we are doing what God would do. Goodness is defined by God.
This model works I suppose, you have God as good, and he wants everyone on earth to be good as well. He tells us what to do (directly or indirectly), and then if we follow it we are on God's good side, and if not then we are not on his good side, which leaves us screwed. This is not the topic to discuss whether or not people who have never heard of God are doomed as sinners, but to ask if God can sin.
Ignore the statement "God can do anything" for a moment ok?
If loving others is good because it's what God would do (WWJD?), then we could form a perfect model of behavior by following what God would do. So to Christians, when Jesus shows up and people start saying that he is God, they say that if we do what Jesus did, we are doing what God would do because Jesus was/is God.
So by this model, if God got jealous of a man's wife and came down and struck the husband dead in a rage and then killed his wife in order to take her up to heaven, this would not be sin. If sin is defined by what God does/is, then this would still not be sin, because God is doing it.
This is very uncomfortable. Of course we would say God wouldn't do something like that, but we'd like to think that God could do it. So if we follow model 1 of sin, then God cannot sin, because as soon as he would do something that we'd like to call sin, it becomes not-sin because by definition it can't be (since God is doing it).
I reject this model. I think it can be inappropriately used (as my example above shows), and just leads to ridiculousness.
This leads to model 2.
2. Sin --> Moral code is independent of what God choses to do. Something isn't good because it is like God. We do not call God good because he defines what good is, but we call him good because he "follows" the moral code better than anyone. In this way, God could sin. We would again say that he would never sin, but we would admit the possibility that he could if he wanted to.
This is again uncomfortable. It is less uncomfortable, because we can say that Jesus (God) was the perfect human because he didn't sin.
As a side note, this is simiar to Pelagianism. This would imply that we could all be like Jesus, and choose not to sin. Pelagianism was declared heresy in 451 CE.
Also, neither of these models accounts for Original Sin. I'll leave it at that. Original sin doesn't make sense in these models and I may talk about it another time.
The biggest way that this model (2) of sin seems not quite right is that it makes God independent of morality. He didn't invent it, but abides by it. That just seems weird. It makes it seem as if God is not really inherently good, but has to try just like anyone else, and because he succeeds, we can worship him. This is definitely uncomfortable.
What then does that leave us with. To the question "Can God sin?" we are left with a yes or no that puts God in awkward positions.
I then challenge sin itself. I challenge the notion of it. But I will save that for another time. My conclusion on the question "Can God sin?" is that there is a problem with the question of sin. I would challenge the idea of God and sin that is all to common. Not that they don't exist, but that they are extremely misunderstood. I do not claim that I know something everyone else doesn't, but I would only ask people to think about things on their own, and don't just accept what you're told.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
On a Tragedy
I am only an undergraduate, and cannot boast of superior knowledge in the matters of church history, but I can comment on what I have learned, and in many aspects, I see the unfolding of Jesus' amazing message upon his followers as an unfortunate tragedy.
I call myself a Christian, although I know that probably the comfortable majority of others claiming the same title would disagree. I believe that it is not doctrine or theology that saves though, but God. I look to Jesus for inspiration. I look to God for help, for comfort, for guidance, for strength, for pretty much anything I would call good in me. But sometimes I realize that so many who share the same faith and same tradition have fallen so far away from intent, that I can't help but call it a constantly unfolding tragedy.
I suppose I should start at the beginning.
Jesus, a remarkable man and teacher, is unjustly sentenced to death for preaching radical love and peace. After the death of this man, his followers go out through the world proclaiming his teachings. Paul, the great missionary, never even met the pre-Easter Jesus, and yet spoke on behalf of God as a devout Jew and ex-pharisee. Years go by, martyrs die, and Jesus is deified as more than just any man. People start writing of his divinity, of how he was unlike any human, and even greater than any prophet who had come before him. People started calling him God in the flesh, the incarnation of the Jewish YHWH. Years go by and people start arguing about what this man was exactly. Was he God? Was he not God but equal to God? Was he less than God? What exactly was this man who reportedly healed the sick and made the blind man see? It was God, they decided. It was none other than the Old Testament YHWH who created the world and spoke to Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt. But did this man Jesus have a body? Or did he only appear to? Does he still have a body? What happened to his body? What happened to his body if he ever did have one? Did he know everything? As God, did he limit his powers while incarnated? Did he change? Did he cease to be everywhere when he was on earth? People started dying for this man, they were dying, people with families, people with children, people with brothers or sisters, young people with futures ahead of them, elderly people with full lives behind them. They all died for this man, this God. What was this man? Does he still have holes in his hands? Does he still wince when he walks from the holes in his feet? Does he still feel my pain? Does he still care about me when I have a bad day?
Then they had to make sure that the correct teaching made its way through history. So we had to make sure that we got everyone on the same page. There must be unity among believers, since we all believe in the same thing, and there was only one Truth, they must make sure that everyone believes it. Get people who were with Jesus. Of course, that must be the way to do it, because I'm sure that after hanging around somebody for a couple years make them worthy of speaking on account of him, knowing exactly what he would have said had he been there. And then when they all die, I guess the real teachings belong to the followers of them. Because, of course, I would know exactly what my grandparents would believe on any matter because I was raised by those that they raised. So a few generations after Jesus of course it must have been the same way, and I'm sure that something like "Authority" is something that can be passed from one person to another at will. I'm sure that if I taught someone for 20 years they would know what I would say if asked about something new that I had not taught them. But the bishops of the old church kept the Truth. The one and only. But then they disagreed. So what truth? Who knew exactly who this Jesus was?
When they start disagreeing about who Jesus was, what Jesus was, what he wasn't, they must be heretics. Let's kill them. That seems to be appropriate. Let's go to war against them. Let's tell them that they cannot be accepted into the kingdom of God that Jesus talked about because they don't believe the doctrines that Jesus never mentioned.
Let's deny Jesus' offer in his name. That sounds like a good idea.
Let's tell everyone what we think Jesus meant, and let's look at what other people thought he meant. Let's look at a few writings that have made it through and see if what we already think about Jesus is reflected in it, and if it's so, then they must be right. Then eventually let's start associating them with the Hebrew Bible, and let's start calling it all divine. Let's start making up theories about inerrancy and God's infallible word because it allows us to use the Bible as evidence for whatever we want it to and claim that it's not our own ideas, but it's God's.
Let's tell someone they're not a Christian because they don't want to believe what someone wrote about Jesus is really not written by them but written by God and therefore the complete Truth. Let's find something to cling to that will allow us to condemn people that aren't like us in the name of an incredible man that reached out to those same people.
Let's tell everybody else that we're the only ones who have it right. Lucky us eh?
I think Jesus would be absolutely appalled at what his teachings became. I think Jesus of Nazareth would find it disgusting that people learned how to hate and discriminate by being raised on "his words." I think Jesus would laugh out loud at the philosophies of those only several generations after his death. I think he would be sad to know that all of his work in trying to promote love and acceptance turned into obnoxious self-righteousness and elitist inclusiveness.
Am I saying that we should not be Christians, not at all. I think we should reevaluate what it means to say that we are one. I think Jesus would weep to those that said you had to believe that these ancient writings we have are divine and as long as we believe every word of them we'll go to Heaven when we die. I think Jesus would weep if he knew that his "followers" did not love those that were "sinners" and instead told them that they were doomed (unless they became like us). I think Jesus would hardly want to be labeled a "Christian" in our society today.
I am proud of being a follower of Jesus. I believe that he was unlike any other man that has ever lived or ever will. I believe that he has the power to save us in this life. I believe that God is revealed through him in a unique way, and that through Jesus we can see what God is like. God is like the caring parent, the loving husband, the accepting friend. God loves us, but it seems like Christians today would like to think that he loves them the best. I think that Jesus is in heaven with God looking down shaking his head at his flock. I think that we could all learn something from him. He died because he wanted us all to love. He died to overcome the power of death. He lived to teach us how.
It is a tragedy, I believe, to see what Christianity has become, and to see how far it's fallen. Oh what it must be like to love others. I hope Christianity comes around to doing that some day.
I call myself a Christian, although I know that probably the comfortable majority of others claiming the same title would disagree. I believe that it is not doctrine or theology that saves though, but God. I look to Jesus for inspiration. I look to God for help, for comfort, for guidance, for strength, for pretty much anything I would call good in me. But sometimes I realize that so many who share the same faith and same tradition have fallen so far away from intent, that I can't help but call it a constantly unfolding tragedy.
I suppose I should start at the beginning.
Jesus, a remarkable man and teacher, is unjustly sentenced to death for preaching radical love and peace. After the death of this man, his followers go out through the world proclaiming his teachings. Paul, the great missionary, never even met the pre-Easter Jesus, and yet spoke on behalf of God as a devout Jew and ex-pharisee. Years go by, martyrs die, and Jesus is deified as more than just any man. People start writing of his divinity, of how he was unlike any human, and even greater than any prophet who had come before him. People started calling him God in the flesh, the incarnation of the Jewish YHWH. Years go by and people start arguing about what this man was exactly. Was he God? Was he not God but equal to God? Was he less than God? What exactly was this man who reportedly healed the sick and made the blind man see? It was God, they decided. It was none other than the Old Testament YHWH who created the world and spoke to Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt. But did this man Jesus have a body? Or did he only appear to? Does he still have a body? What happened to his body? What happened to his body if he ever did have one? Did he know everything? As God, did he limit his powers while incarnated? Did he change? Did he cease to be everywhere when he was on earth? People started dying for this man, they were dying, people with families, people with children, people with brothers or sisters, young people with futures ahead of them, elderly people with full lives behind them. They all died for this man, this God. What was this man? Does he still have holes in his hands? Does he still wince when he walks from the holes in his feet? Does he still feel my pain? Does he still care about me when I have a bad day?
Then they had to make sure that the correct teaching made its way through history. So we had to make sure that we got everyone on the same page. There must be unity among believers, since we all believe in the same thing, and there was only one Truth, they must make sure that everyone believes it. Get people who were with Jesus. Of course, that must be the way to do it, because I'm sure that after hanging around somebody for a couple years make them worthy of speaking on account of him, knowing exactly what he would have said had he been there. And then when they all die, I guess the real teachings belong to the followers of them. Because, of course, I would know exactly what my grandparents would believe on any matter because I was raised by those that they raised. So a few generations after Jesus of course it must have been the same way, and I'm sure that something like "Authority" is something that can be passed from one person to another at will. I'm sure that if I taught someone for 20 years they would know what I would say if asked about something new that I had not taught them. But the bishops of the old church kept the Truth. The one and only. But then they disagreed. So what truth? Who knew exactly who this Jesus was?
When they start disagreeing about who Jesus was, what Jesus was, what he wasn't, they must be heretics. Let's kill them. That seems to be appropriate. Let's go to war against them. Let's tell them that they cannot be accepted into the kingdom of God that Jesus talked about because they don't believe the doctrines that Jesus never mentioned.
Let's deny Jesus' offer in his name. That sounds like a good idea.
Let's tell everyone what we think Jesus meant, and let's look at what other people thought he meant. Let's look at a few writings that have made it through and see if what we already think about Jesus is reflected in it, and if it's so, then they must be right. Then eventually let's start associating them with the Hebrew Bible, and let's start calling it all divine. Let's start making up theories about inerrancy and God's infallible word because it allows us to use the Bible as evidence for whatever we want it to and claim that it's not our own ideas, but it's God's.
Let's tell someone they're not a Christian because they don't want to believe what someone wrote about Jesus is really not written by them but written by God and therefore the complete Truth. Let's find something to cling to that will allow us to condemn people that aren't like us in the name of an incredible man that reached out to those same people.
Let's tell everybody else that we're the only ones who have it right. Lucky us eh?
I think Jesus would be absolutely appalled at what his teachings became. I think Jesus of Nazareth would find it disgusting that people learned how to hate and discriminate by being raised on "his words." I think Jesus would laugh out loud at the philosophies of those only several generations after his death. I think he would be sad to know that all of his work in trying to promote love and acceptance turned into obnoxious self-righteousness and elitist inclusiveness.
Am I saying that we should not be Christians, not at all. I think we should reevaluate what it means to say that we are one. I think Jesus would weep to those that said you had to believe that these ancient writings we have are divine and as long as we believe every word of them we'll go to Heaven when we die. I think Jesus would weep if he knew that his "followers" did not love those that were "sinners" and instead told them that they were doomed (unless they became like us). I think Jesus would hardly want to be labeled a "Christian" in our society today.
I am proud of being a follower of Jesus. I believe that he was unlike any other man that has ever lived or ever will. I believe that he has the power to save us in this life. I believe that God is revealed through him in a unique way, and that through Jesus we can see what God is like. God is like the caring parent, the loving husband, the accepting friend. God loves us, but it seems like Christians today would like to think that he loves them the best. I think that Jesus is in heaven with God looking down shaking his head at his flock. I think that we could all learn something from him. He died because he wanted us all to love. He died to overcome the power of death. He lived to teach us how.
It is a tragedy, I believe, to see what Christianity has become, and to see how far it's fallen. Oh what it must be like to love others. I hope Christianity comes around to doing that some day.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Spontaneous Treatise on God's Morality
Does God have to be moral? Or do morals come from God? What is a moral law? Is a law moral because it is from God? Or is it from God because it is moral? And if the law is from God because the law is moral in the first place, then does that mean God is following rules that are somehow outside of himself? Even if it is completely natural for God to be moral, if God caused a law to come into being because it is already inherently moral, then was God not the creator of the moral? In which case is God subordinate to a higher law?
If God is the creator of morals, and no law contains morality unless it is from God, then God is that good in which the laws come from. One should not murder because God said not to (all biblical criticism aside, for the sake of argument, I am assuming that God directly gave Moses the Decalogue with the above commandment). There is no other reason that one should not murder aside from the fact that God said not to.
This is almost uncomfortable. I think most people, even nonreligious people, would agree that murder is wrong. It is unkind, it produces grief and anger in other persons, and is often motivated by selfish greed or malevolence. If one were to say that the law is only moral because it is from God, then what is one to make of every atheist who agrees with the law? What be their motivation? It seems that there are two responses to this. Either these atheists are hiding a secret belief in God, or the laws are somehow moral even outside of belief in God's divine command.
But if we say that morality exists outside of God's command, then does it make God less? Does it mean that God did not "create" or "invent" morality? or that morality exists apart from God? What would this imply? I really don't know, honestly. Perhaps morality and God are inseparable, and that God is somehow morality. When 1 John describes God as love, it directly states that God is love. The way the letter reads, it seems as if the morality in which I speak of is love, and that love is the measurement of morality. God is love, therefore, God is morality. Sin is therefore lawlessness (as it states in 3:4). When you sin, you are going against love, against morality, therefore against God; this is lawlessness. But could it also be stated that lawlessness is sin? In this case, is it only sin because it broke the law of love? that it broke the law of God? This seems to lead back to the previous comments that sin is only sin because it breaks the law of God (which also happens to be the law of love).
Where does this put us then? It would seem to me that morality is the law of love, which is also the law of God. It does not appear that the law of love is separate from God, but that it is inseparable, but still knowable. The law of love is present in culture and society, and so much so that I believe we can see the consequences of disobeying it, and the benefits of following it. It is for this reason that atheists can still believe in the law of love, but not for reasons of God. One could also argue that the law of love is inside every human being as part of our divine image from our creator.
Therefore it seems that we should not murder people because it would be against the law of love and the law of God, not necessitating that one needs to believe in God to follow the law of love.
I feel like I am not bring the Bible into this enough, so I wish to comment on certain biblical themes. Here's an example: The bible does not have good rape laws. The laws on rape are to the extent that unless a woman is out in a field, it is not rape. If the woman is raped in the city and is married or engaged, she is to be stoned to death as well as the attacker because she did not cry out, therefore it mustn't have been rape. The attacker is punished not for rape, but for violating another man's property (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). Furthermore, if the woman who is raped is unattached, then the attacker must by law marry the woman(Deuteronomy 22:28-29). This would mean that if a man wanted a woman for himself, it would be completely lawful to rape her, and then admit to it in order to ensure he would be able to do so for as long as he desired. Women were not allowed to initiate a divorce, so the woman is trapped.
What this example demonstrates is that biblical law may not be compatible with the "law of love" which I have equated with the "law of God." My response to this is that the culture in which these Deuteronomistic laws was very patriarchal and simply did not treat women with the respect that we feel is owed to them today.
The importance of this example was to demonstrate a biblical law as being separate from the law of love. Does this mean that the Bible is not from God? In a case like this, I say yes, and that is the topic of another discussion, and it shall suffice to say that the Bible was written in a culture by men with their own worldview. In this case, it is the worldview that women were property.
If, then, the laws of the Bible are not completely compatible at all times with the law of God, how are we then to distinguish laws against murder from laws corrupted by cultural bias? This I will address further later, but will return to an original point of inquiry.
The question remaining from above is whether or not God is independent on morality. I am not led to believe that he is. Can it be, then, that God acts outside of morality? Could God commit a sin? That is, could God do something contrary to the nature of love? I would assume that most would find that question rather easy to answer, and that obviously the answer is no on all counts. Then can God murder? This may seem elementary, but I must pose the question anyway. The response would likely be that it is not murder for God to kill someone, because it is his right to do it. He is bringing us to him. Murder in the world is a banishment, whereas when God kills a body it is a uniting with God (unless the person goes to Hell, which, although the topic of another discussion, will be for the sake of simplicity referred to as a judgment deserved). Could God commit rape, then? Again, the obvious answer (Please don't give me any "God can do anything" alright? That would again be another discussion) is no. God would not do such a thing, even if he was a physical being that could (Jesus is also another discussion). It seems now that God follows his law quite well. Is it also, though, that he expects us to be like him? If we bring up Jesus just for a moment, and go under the assumption that he was God, then one might be inclined to believe that God wants us to be like him, and showed us what that is through Jesus. I believe that is a very basic Christian belief. But I would call attention to one of the most known speeches of Jesus. In the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5), Jesus says to love your enemies, and to be perfect as God is (vs. 43-48). In this case, we are commanded not to hate our enemies, and not even to wish evil on them. We are to love them as we would love ourselves, we are to pray for them. This is considered in Christianity as one of the most holy and great laws that one could follow.
So here is the climax.
If we are to be like God, and that means to love and pray for our enemies, then what does God do to them? Does God send his enemies to Hell?
Does God hold humans to a higher standard that he holds himself?
If one argues that we should love our enemies because it's not our place to condemn them, but God's, then that is saying that God would not follow what Jesus said in Matthew 5.
The law of love, which is the law of God, seems to say that God does not send people to Hell, because that would be unloving.
Now one may bring the Bible in it again. Yes, the New Testament Jesus talks about Hell (mostly Matthew), and I would say that a discourse on Hell belongs to another discussion, but since I brought it up, I will only say briefly that just as I have reviewed biblical rape laws and concluded that they were the product of a certain society, and not divine commandments, the same may be said of any discussion of Hell in the New Testament (since it's not in the Old Testament), and that I will discuss that on another occasion.
This was completely unplanned and minimally organized or structured before actually writing it, and it probably raised more questions that it asked, but I must say that I do not have answers for everything here, but that I am ever on a quest for them. Not that I will ever know the answers, but it is worth looking. This is the nature of my mind, and I do tend to enjoy this confusion with great satisfaction.
If God is the creator of morals, and no law contains morality unless it is from God, then God is that good in which the laws come from. One should not murder because God said not to (all biblical criticism aside, for the sake of argument, I am assuming that God directly gave Moses the Decalogue with the above commandment). There is no other reason that one should not murder aside from the fact that God said not to.
This is almost uncomfortable. I think most people, even nonreligious people, would agree that murder is wrong. It is unkind, it produces grief and anger in other persons, and is often motivated by selfish greed or malevolence. If one were to say that the law is only moral because it is from God, then what is one to make of every atheist who agrees with the law? What be their motivation? It seems that there are two responses to this. Either these atheists are hiding a secret belief in God, or the laws are somehow moral even outside of belief in God's divine command.
But if we say that morality exists outside of God's command, then does it make God less? Does it mean that God did not "create" or "invent" morality? or that morality exists apart from God? What would this imply? I really don't know, honestly. Perhaps morality and God are inseparable, and that God is somehow morality. When 1 John describes God as love, it directly states that God is love. The way the letter reads, it seems as if the morality in which I speak of is love, and that love is the measurement of morality. God is love, therefore, God is morality. Sin is therefore lawlessness (as it states in 3:4). When you sin, you are going against love, against morality, therefore against God; this is lawlessness. But could it also be stated that lawlessness is sin? In this case, is it only sin because it broke the law of love? that it broke the law of God? This seems to lead back to the previous comments that sin is only sin because it breaks the law of God (which also happens to be the law of love).
Where does this put us then? It would seem to me that morality is the law of love, which is also the law of God. It does not appear that the law of love is separate from God, but that it is inseparable, but still knowable. The law of love is present in culture and society, and so much so that I believe we can see the consequences of disobeying it, and the benefits of following it. It is for this reason that atheists can still believe in the law of love, but not for reasons of God. One could also argue that the law of love is inside every human being as part of our divine image from our creator.
Therefore it seems that we should not murder people because it would be against the law of love and the law of God, not necessitating that one needs to believe in God to follow the law of love.
I feel like I am not bring the Bible into this enough, so I wish to comment on certain biblical themes. Here's an example: The bible does not have good rape laws. The laws on rape are to the extent that unless a woman is out in a field, it is not rape. If the woman is raped in the city and is married or engaged, she is to be stoned to death as well as the attacker because she did not cry out, therefore it mustn't have been rape. The attacker is punished not for rape, but for violating another man's property (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). Furthermore, if the woman who is raped is unattached, then the attacker must by law marry the woman(Deuteronomy 22:28-29). This would mean that if a man wanted a woman for himself, it would be completely lawful to rape her, and then admit to it in order to ensure he would be able to do so for as long as he desired. Women were not allowed to initiate a divorce, so the woman is trapped.
What this example demonstrates is that biblical law may not be compatible with the "law of love" which I have equated with the "law of God." My response to this is that the culture in which these Deuteronomistic laws was very patriarchal and simply did not treat women with the respect that we feel is owed to them today.
The importance of this example was to demonstrate a biblical law as being separate from the law of love. Does this mean that the Bible is not from God? In a case like this, I say yes, and that is the topic of another discussion, and it shall suffice to say that the Bible was written in a culture by men with their own worldview. In this case, it is the worldview that women were property.
If, then, the laws of the Bible are not completely compatible at all times with the law of God, how are we then to distinguish laws against murder from laws corrupted by cultural bias? This I will address further later, but will return to an original point of inquiry.
The question remaining from above is whether or not God is independent on morality. I am not led to believe that he is. Can it be, then, that God acts outside of morality? Could God commit a sin? That is, could God do something contrary to the nature of love? I would assume that most would find that question rather easy to answer, and that obviously the answer is no on all counts. Then can God murder? This may seem elementary, but I must pose the question anyway. The response would likely be that it is not murder for God to kill someone, because it is his right to do it. He is bringing us to him. Murder in the world is a banishment, whereas when God kills a body it is a uniting with God (unless the person goes to Hell, which, although the topic of another discussion, will be for the sake of simplicity referred to as a judgment deserved). Could God commit rape, then? Again, the obvious answer (Please don't give me any "God can do anything" alright? That would again be another discussion) is no. God would not do such a thing, even if he was a physical being that could (Jesus is also another discussion). It seems now that God follows his law quite well. Is it also, though, that he expects us to be like him? If we bring up Jesus just for a moment, and go under the assumption that he was God, then one might be inclined to believe that God wants us to be like him, and showed us what that is through Jesus. I believe that is a very basic Christian belief. But I would call attention to one of the most known speeches of Jesus. In the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5), Jesus says to love your enemies, and to be perfect as God is (vs. 43-48). In this case, we are commanded not to hate our enemies, and not even to wish evil on them. We are to love them as we would love ourselves, we are to pray for them. This is considered in Christianity as one of the most holy and great laws that one could follow.
So here is the climax.
If we are to be like God, and that means to love and pray for our enemies, then what does God do to them? Does God send his enemies to Hell?
Does God hold humans to a higher standard that he holds himself?
If one argues that we should love our enemies because it's not our place to condemn them, but God's, then that is saying that God would not follow what Jesus said in Matthew 5.
The law of love, which is the law of God, seems to say that God does not send people to Hell, because that would be unloving.
Now one may bring the Bible in it again. Yes, the New Testament Jesus talks about Hell (mostly Matthew), and I would say that a discourse on Hell belongs to another discussion, but since I brought it up, I will only say briefly that just as I have reviewed biblical rape laws and concluded that they were the product of a certain society, and not divine commandments, the same may be said of any discussion of Hell in the New Testament (since it's not in the Old Testament), and that I will discuss that on another occasion.
This was completely unplanned and minimally organized or structured before actually writing it, and it probably raised more questions that it asked, but I must say that I do not have answers for everything here, but that I am ever on a quest for them. Not that I will ever know the answers, but it is worth looking. This is the nature of my mind, and I do tend to enjoy this confusion with great satisfaction.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Introduction
Hello all, this is now my blog, of which I do not know how successful I will be at keeping it updated, but I thought may be worth a try. I will attempt to maintain this page as an outlet for theological/philosophical ramblings. Welcome all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)