between the rock and the cold, cold sea

And we move on to the mythological-historical argument. And definitions axiomatic or historical. Ye gods and little fishes, all this constant hedging gets old. Very. Quickly.

My head still hurts.

Ouchies. Can we dispense with incarnational Christology entirely, and go directly to the apocalypse, do not pass go, do not collect your get-out-of-hell-free card? Because my [disbelieved-in deity], these guys make this much more freakin' complicated than it needs to be.

It got freakin' boring twenty pages back.

Okay, enough. I comprehend none, no more, none. I've been at this for five hours. Any longer, and I will go bonkers.

Axe-murderingly bonkers.

Some 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?

( Read more... )

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.

The other day I listened to someone claim that one can't have morality unless one also has a God. That is, they claimed that without God, morality cannot exist.

I found that viewpoint interesting, and more than slightly disturbing.

It's something our theology class has touched on in passing: Kant argues for the existence of God as a postulate of a universal morality, without first explaining how he comes to accept the existence of a universal morality. But Kant is more of a natural theologian: his arguments in this matter concern themselves with attempting to provide evidence for the existence of a higher being. He extrapolates from morality to God: this other person takes things the other way around.

He's a Christian, of the sort that believes in the rationale of 'divine inspiration' for the texts of the Bible, and he holds that God gave out moral law in the Bible, most notably the Ten Commandments, but also the Deuteronomistic laws* and the teachings of Jesus. Atheists and agnostics such as the likes of me must be inherently immoral beings, being godless heathens.

But what is morality?

I don't know about the rest of the known universe, but from where I stand, morality is the code of behaviour within a society that governs interpersonal interactions.** It needs no divine originator: most of the principles of the Ten Commandments are sensible and self-serving, from a social point of view. You don't want to be murdered, stolen from, neglected by one's children, slandered, or cheated on. Neither do you want to have other people jealous of you. It's a social contract: you accept that you can't do these things, and in return society will punish those who do or try to do these things to you.

(Many scholars of Near Eastern history argue that the dietary laws and other restrictions of the Mosaic or Deuteronomistic laws originated or were expanded upon during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BCE and the practices brought back to Judea from there: that, in essence, before the early 5th century BCE one cannot speak of 'Jews' as such. Take a look at Gen. 12 and compare it to Gen. 17, for suggestive evidence that the tradition altered at some point: Gen. 12, God says, basically, 'Come on and I'll make you prosper,' Gen. 17, on the other hand, God says the same thing in different words, except he adds, 'As long as you and your sons get circumcised.' (Also the two different accounts of the creation, and don't ask me to look the chapter numbers up.) (Also, you know the Pentateuch was written up way later than Deuteronomy and the rest of the books of the law, right?) Okay, long digression. Back to the point now.)

A system of morality is the widely accepted (and sometimes codified by law, though also sometimes not: see under shame, ostracism, social marginalisation) series of behaviours deemed acceptable and unacceptable by the consensus of a society. Diverse societies can have conflicting sets of moral behaviours (see sex, marital and sex, not marital for an easy set of examples. Also see divorce.) (This is, incidentally, one of the major flaws in Kant's argument. There is no universally accepted morality.) Morality doesn't require the stamp of divine approval: this godless heathen believes behave towards others as you would like them to behave towards you is a perfectly acceptable moral system.

...I'm writing about theology on Livejournal. Someone shoot me now.

~

*I believe he misunderstands Mosaic Law, though, or he'd avoid shellfish and pork, which he doesn't.

**Some people define it as concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct; ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong, but society and culture influence one's perceptions of right and wrong: to a Roman of the Republican or Imperial periods, slavery was perfectly moral. So were wars of conquest. Very few persons in the developed world would find those things so today.