![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hawkwing_lbSome observations on theology: specifically, some observations over the debate between incarnational and non-incarnational Christologies.
Pt. 1: Brian Hebblethwaite
It's odd to have metal lyrics in the background when reading theology. Rather incongruous.
My, theologians are a snippy bunch. Accusing one's colleagues of 'sheer perversity in moral judgement'? Tch, tch, Dr. Hebblethwaite. How uncharitable of you.
Incarnational theology is headache-inducing. Two consciousnesses in the incarnate God, but no separation of natures: just one divine substance?
*does not touch theological logic with ten-metre pole*
...Oh, wait. I have to.
Tell me again why we can't have theological debates about nice, simple pantheism? Or even bloodthirsty, simple, pagan gods and goddesses? Tell me again why the most popular religion in the world has at its heart the most complicated paradoxes ever dreamed up?
Fides quaerens intellectum. And yet, there can be no intellectum of fides without a near-absolute suspension of reason and belief in consistency of the observed processes of the world.
Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. For logic will avail you not.
It's much simpler to be an atheist. Or an agnostic. Or both.*
Well, well. God looks like the ultimate projection of the human desire to be comforted. '...it is part of the meaning of Christian monotheism that there is an ultimately responsible moral being, who is absolute goodness and love, whom we may trust amid the uncertainties and anxieties of the gradual unfolding of reality to us in time.' Thank you, John Hick. But that does not square, in general, with my experience of the world.
The most obvious flaw in most theology is the 'if-this so-that' mentality. One picks one's starting assumptions and argues from there. And the prime assumption is the existence and the activity of a caring God, concerned with humanity.
If somebody, someday, ever manages to explain to my satisfaction precisely why an infinite and limitless being should be so humanocentric -- in point of fact, be specifically concerned with one human tribal group over all others, one set of human understandings of an Infinite, Limitless and Divine being over all others (which, being human and not divine in expression, must of necessity be flawed) -- then I may well take up theism again.
But until then, one mystery cult - and don't mistake me: the major difference between Christianity and the other mystery cults of the ancient world is its universal salvific promise and its enduring popularity (and the first may well account in large part for the second) - looks much the same as any other.
Hebblethwaite on the Uniqueness of the Incarnation, in comparison with other world religions: '...[O]nly one man can actually be God to us, if God himself is one.' - limiting a limitless being, are we now? We don't care if we contradict ourselves, clearly.
If one speaks of the infinite, absolute, and limitless, then human ideas of number, shape, form, must of necessity break down. The only limit on the actions of the limitless, absolute, and infinite, then, becomes the limits that the limitless chooses to place upon itself - if, that is, one may speak of choice in the human sense when referring to a limitless, absolute and infinite being.
Therefore if one is to entertain the idea of an infinite being, one must be aware of the inadequacy of language when it comes time to describe it - the inadequacy of language, and the inadequacy of human intellect.
But then, I'm part of the tribe of the perpetually unconvinced - philosophically speaking, agnostic; practically speaking, atheistic. For me the Christian promise of salvation is an empty one: the only meaningful heaven is the one that can be worked towards in the realm of the living; the only meaningful salvation, the ability to help someone else. There's no absolution, only the constant striving to be a better person tomorrow than one is today, or was yesterday.
And being a cynic, I live with the knowledge that I'll die having failed, and the world will not have been improved by my having lived in it.
But the knowledge, or the fear, of failure doesn't excuse abandoning the attempt.**
But enough about my obsession with self, and death. Now I must go forward and read the non-incarnational side of the debate.
Once more into the breach, dear friends, for Ireland, Nigel, and 20% of one's mark.
*sigh*
*onward*
*though sometimes that gets complicated, too.
**Yes, this does have particular meaning to me so close to exam season.
Pt. 1: Brian Hebblethwaite
It's odd to have metal lyrics in the background when reading theology. Rather incongruous.
My, theologians are a snippy bunch. Accusing one's colleagues of 'sheer perversity in moral judgement'? Tch, tch, Dr. Hebblethwaite. How uncharitable of you.
Incarnational theology is headache-inducing. Two consciousnesses in the incarnate God, but no separation of natures: just one divine substance?
*does not touch theological logic with ten-metre pole*
...Oh, wait. I have to.
Tell me again why we can't have theological debates about nice, simple pantheism? Or even bloodthirsty, simple, pagan gods and goddesses? Tell me again why the most popular religion in the world has at its heart the most complicated paradoxes ever dreamed up?
Fides quaerens intellectum. And yet, there can be no intellectum of fides without a near-absolute suspension of reason and belief in consistency of the observed processes of the world.
Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. For logic will avail you not.
It's much simpler to be an atheist. Or an agnostic. Or both.*
Well, well. God looks like the ultimate projection of the human desire to be comforted. '...it is part of the meaning of Christian monotheism that there is an ultimately responsible moral being, who is absolute goodness and love, whom we may trust amid the uncertainties and anxieties of the gradual unfolding of reality to us in time.' Thank you, John Hick. But that does not square, in general, with my experience of the world.
The most obvious flaw in most theology is the 'if-this so-that' mentality. One picks one's starting assumptions and argues from there. And the prime assumption is the existence and the activity of a caring God, concerned with humanity.
If somebody, someday, ever manages to explain to my satisfaction precisely why an infinite and limitless being should be so humanocentric -- in point of fact, be specifically concerned with one human tribal group over all others, one set of human understandings of an Infinite, Limitless and Divine being over all others (which, being human and not divine in expression, must of necessity be flawed) -- then I may well take up theism again.
But until then, one mystery cult - and don't mistake me: the major difference between Christianity and the other mystery cults of the ancient world is its universal salvific promise and its enduring popularity (and the first may well account in large part for the second) - looks much the same as any other.
Hebblethwaite on the Uniqueness of the Incarnation, in comparison with other world religions: '...[O]nly one man can actually be God to us, if God himself is one.' - limiting a limitless being, are we now? We don't care if we contradict ourselves, clearly.
If one speaks of the infinite, absolute, and limitless, then human ideas of number, shape, form, must of necessity break down. The only limit on the actions of the limitless, absolute, and infinite, then, becomes the limits that the limitless chooses to place upon itself - if, that is, one may speak of choice in the human sense when referring to a limitless, absolute and infinite being.
Therefore if one is to entertain the idea of an infinite being, one must be aware of the inadequacy of language when it comes time to describe it - the inadequacy of language, and the inadequacy of human intellect.
But then, I'm part of the tribe of the perpetually unconvinced - philosophically speaking, agnostic; practically speaking, atheistic. For me the Christian promise of salvation is an empty one: the only meaningful heaven is the one that can be worked towards in the realm of the living; the only meaningful salvation, the ability to help someone else. There's no absolution, only the constant striving to be a better person tomorrow than one is today, or was yesterday.
And being a cynic, I live with the knowledge that I'll die having failed, and the world will not have been improved by my having lived in it.
But the knowledge, or the fear, of failure doesn't excuse abandoning the attempt.**
But enough about my obsession with self, and death. Now I must go forward and read the non-incarnational side of the debate.
Once more into the breach, dear friends, for Ireland, Nigel, and 20% of one's mark.
*sigh*
*onward*
*though sometimes that gets complicated, too.
**Yes, this does have particular meaning to me so close to exam season.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 05:00 pm (UTC)Always were. At least, they were in my day also.
*has not had to touch theological logic for lo, these thirty years*
Because it's been cobbled together over two millennia from n (where n is a value not less than three) previous and/or different and contradictory belief systems, plus having to rationalise any number of potentially schismatic disagreements from within its own body... but you know this already...
no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 05:10 pm (UTC)After this set of exams I will crawl back to my nice, causal, sensible, historical burrow and go back to studying war and bloody murder. Politics and economics look refreshingly straightforward, after this.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 06:51 pm (UTC)Wow. The summation of religions in a pithy statement that is so true. I'd say "amen", but ..er, it seems out of place.
"But then, I'm part of the tribe of the perpetually unconvinced - philosophically speaking, agnostic; practically speaking, atheistic. For me the Christian promise of salvation is an empty one: the only meaningful heaven is the one that can be worked towards in the realm of the living; the only meaningful salvation, the ability to help someone else. There's no absolution, only the constant striving to be a better person tomorrow than one is today, or was yesterday."
As I understand it (in my limited, far-from-perfect, and deeply flawed manner), this is the basic philosophy of Judaism. In my understanding, "we" (for I am a secular Jew) feel that once we die, the body returns to the Earth and the soul returns to G-d (as "we" write it). Of course, those of us who are secular don't believe any of this, but old habits are hard to break.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-24 08:45 pm (UTC)...But no. It still sounds out of place.
Judaism, at least in its Reform incarnation, has always seemed to me to be a remarkably sensible religion, if one must believe in something. It appears to sustain a remarkable degree of internal logic - rather more, at any rate, than any of the flavours of Christianity I'm familiar with.
But agnosticism is much simpler. One doesn't have to engage in any sort of theological debate: one may simply shrug and say, 'I can't know. And neither can you, really, but I have more productive things to do than debate with you today.'
(You can really tell I'm looking forward to the end of my Introduction to Theology course. :))
no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 02:44 pm (UTC);-)
Nothing like a bunch of rabbinical scholars arguing over the smallest things.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 09:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-26 04:33 pm (UTC)