Section 3 begins:
"Samain Eve was bitterly clear." (p. 246)
4 begins:
"As ever, the first evening of Hunter's Moon filled Ys with bacchanalia." (p. 251)
This is the same festival as celebrated in Hivernia/Eriu and Ys, respectively. I have been following the Ysan narrative and will have to backtrack to events in Eriu.
In the Ysan Forum:
burning oil in the Fire Fountain
crowds
gaudy costumes
musical groups on the steps of three buildings
pipes and drums
kitharas
a trumpet
women dancing with sistrums
a juggler
copulating couples
Tommaltach and Dahut, masked
In the portico of the church, women dressed as legionaries play dice at the feet of a naked man crowned with thorns, arms outstretched. Tommaltach thinks that it is unwise and ill-bred to mock anyone else's God. In this case, the God is an executed Messianic claimant whose followers interpreted his execution as the prophesied way to Messiahship, thus not an ancient mythical figure but a deified man who has joined the myths. In The King of Ys, the myths are real.
24 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
No, Christ was not a mere deified man a la the "deified" Roman Emperors. The eternally pre-existing Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, became Incarnate as man when the BVM, consented, thru her Fiat, to conceiving Christ.
You are overlooking what Christians believe the supernatural origins of the Faith.
Ad astra! Sean
But Tommaltach would be thinking in terms of non-Christian understandings of who Christ is.
Sean,
I know what Christians believe. I am stating what I believe. Luke's account of Gabriel appearing to Mary cannot possibly be regarded as historical.
Paul.
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Jim: Actually, I think Tommaltach was thinking as many pagans or ex-pagans of his time did, that there were many gods.
Paul: No, at the very least, REPORTS of supernatural events, like Gabriel appearing to the BVM, are also historical facts. As are reports by unimpeachably honest witnesses of the miracles at Lourdes.
Your views are based on the anti-supernatural writings of Borg, Casey, Crossan, Crossley, Spong, et al, all of whom deny, in different ways, the supernatural claims of Christianity. Their strained, complicated, convoluted arguments are not convincing to me.
Some writers, like John Spong, tried to concoct a kind of "Christianity," without the supernatural, focusing only on ethics. I reject such pitiful efforts because Christianity without the divinity of Christ, etc., simply makes no sense. Far better to be a Stoic like Marcus Aurelius or practice the ethics of Confucius!
Even the two philosophers mentioned believed in some of God.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I agree about Spong but who else is making strained, complicated, convoluted arguments? I disagree with monotheism on philosophical grounds. The creator before the creation would be a self without other which is like a square without sides. That's not complicated. The Gospels do not prove their claim of a physical Resurrection. They merely proclaim it. Miraculous cures in any tradition are as yet unexplained phenomena. There will always be such phenomena because human and scientific knowledge are finite. REPORTS of visions, in all traditions, are indeed historical.
Paul.
BTW, certain scholars are not proposing Christianity without the supernatural. They are simply studying the texts and disagreeing with the supernatural.
Kaor, Paul!
The writers I listed above are making those strained and unconvincing arguments. They all start from disbelief in the supernatural.
And I believe that proclamation of the Resurrection of Christ. The writers I listed above are equally unable to disprove it. Very well, a choice has to be made, affirming or denying the Resurrection. Christians make the positive instead of the negative choice.
We still disagree, as regards miracles. No other "tradition," except Catholic Christianity, makes serious and solid reports of miracles. And the Church is very cautious and wary about accepting such reports. The history, background, context, etc., of Lourdes makes it plain, to me, the miracles reported there were due to divine intervention.
You are free to believe those miracles are due to unexplained phenomena. By all means those who think as you do should investigate them, trying to prove they were not supernatural in origin. I do not believe they will succeed.
No, those unbelieving scholars who study the NT have obvious partisan axes to grind. Again, their choice, but I don't believe them to be right.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
All those writers are not making strained and unconvincing arguments. Show me the arguments that are strained and unconvincing. Should we start from belief in the supernatural? A mere dogmatic premise? We need to be given reasons to believe in the supernatural so the argument has to start somewhere else.
It is no one's responsibility to disprove the Resurrection. Belief is a matter of evidence and reason, not of choice. We do not choose to believe that the Earth is round. We reason from evidence. We can only accept that miracles are due to divine intervention if we believe in the divine and I have explained why I do not.
We are all free to believe! We do not have to prove that miracles were not supernatural in origin.
Believers have a partisan axe to grind. We do not choose not to believe. You don't have to believe them to be right!
Let's just consider the actual arguments for or against a proposition.
Paul.
It is wrong not to assume supernaturalism? It is wrong to assume anything.
Naturalism is an unwarranted assumption? It is the default position until supernaturalism is proved.
Kaor, Paul!
No, the authors you plainly prefer were challenged and opposed by other writers, as equally learned, who came to, in many cases, opposite conclusions. I mean men like Abbot Chapman (the greatest Catholic Biblical scholar of the first four decades of the 20th century), Bishop Butler, Bernard Orchard, William Farmer, David L. Dungan, Raymond Brown, etc.
To me, the mere fact scholars can and do disagree leaves very much open the possibility their arguments can be strained and unconvincing. Including those writers you prefer.
Wrong, if so many of the writers you prefer deny Our Lord's Resurrection, and try to argue against that being the Prime Miracle of Christianity, they have assumed the "responsibility" of trying to disprove it. And they have not succeeded in doing so.
Again, perhaps unwittingly, you err. The Catholic Church does not credulously accept as true all reports of alleged miracles. She is not opposed to natural explanations for alleged miracles. The Congregation for the Causes of Saints, which investigates such things, demands that evidence be presented showing, beyond any reasonable doubt, that these miracles have no known scientific and natural explanation.
The Church begins with that "default" position.
Ad astra! Sean
We are not obliged to disprove anything. Those who make a statement must prove it.
Who said the Church credulously accepts anything?
You have now retreated to saying that it is possible that certain arguments are strained and unconvincing.
I do not deny that Christianity is based on belief in the Resurrection.
Sean,
I have long suspected and now detected two non sequiturs underlying your thinking. First, you think that anyone who disbelieves in the supernatural also denies that Christianity is based on belief in a supernatural Resurrection. This conclusion only has to be stated to be seen to be false. Of course Christians believe in the Resurrection. That is what we disagree with them about. To disagree with someone's belief is to recognize that he holds that belief, not to deny that he does.
Secondly, you think that anyone who did deny that Christians believe in the Resurrection would be obliged to prove that there had not been a Resurrection. Why? In any case, I do not deny that Christians believe in the Resurrection. Yet again, if someone affirms a belief, then he is obliged to prove it, not to challenge others to disprove it but how often have I said this?
You have been making these assumptions without making them explicit so they have skewed the whole discussion. We should simply be considering alleged evidence for the Resurrection. You should not be assuming that sceptics deny that the Resurrection is the central belief of Christianity.
Some scholars believe that there was a Resurrection. Others do not. You seem to think that we choose which scholars we prefer. We do not. Preferences determine choices, not vice versa, and, in this case, neither preference nor choice is relevant. Each of us thinks what he thinks for reasons and we should simply discuss those reasons. Let's start the discussion properly if we're going to have the discussion.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your first paragraph: I accept the correction while still thinking some of the anti-supernaturalists don't seem to understand or accept how strained their favored views are to those who disagree. It still comes across as "desperate."
Second paragraph: no, some writers do deny the Resurrection, such as Crossan and Spong. Having done so, it's not unreasonable to ask them why they do so. Or to be unconvinced if some, like Crossan, said the Resurrection accounts were only parables. Here I still disagree.
Third paragraph: I have not knowingly tried not to be explicit in what I think and believe. I argue that before the Resurrection Christ often scolded His disciples for not understanding what He told them. In fact the Apostles were weak and cowardly, with Peter even denying the Lord three times. But, something happened that transformed them--and that was the Resurrection. If not a "proof" of the kind you prefer, I still believe it indicates something happened, a supernatural event, the Resurrection.
Fourth paragraph: I still disagree because I believe preference plays a role in what we choose to believe or not believe. Those who disbelieve in Christianity will quite naturally favor writers who think like that. Or vice versa.
For example, the late Fr. John P. Meier, in his five volume A MARGINAL JEW series,* rigorously examines what he believes what can be known of Christ using only the methods of the historical sciences. But he came to conclusions which did not oppose a supernatural explanation. Believing as I do I naturally favored Meier's work over that of Casey or Crossley.
Ad astra! Sean
*I've read the first three volumes of this work. I need to get the next two.
Sean,
Believing as you do... It all comes down to a statement of belief. If it's a matter of preference, not primarily of evidence and reasons, that gets us nowhere.
Those of us who do not accept that a Resurrection happened are not obliged to prove that it did not happen. But, yes, we have a world view in which such events are not expected to happen.
Of course something happened to change the disciples. I have explained what I think that could have been.
I think you need to keep reassuring yourself by rubbishing disbelief instead of just understanding and accepting that a lot of informed people do indeed disbelieve. We do not discuss on a level playing field. You start from the assertion that the other side is strained and unconvincing (to you). More mutual respect is necessary.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And believing as "you" do. Confirmation bias cuts both ways. I've seen no evidence from the antisupernaturalists that miracles like the Resurrection of Christ is impossible. And I can cite evidence, at the very least, that miracles might be possible, as at Lourdes.
I disagree, people like Crossan, Casey, Crossley, Spong, etc., all of whom disbelieved in the Resurrection, also proposed arguments for why they think it did not happen. The very act of proposing such arguments means they have taken on that responsibility.
I disagree with your suggestion on what it was so drastically changed the Apostles because mass self delusion by a large people convincing themselves events happened that did not happen is simply too implausible. I simply don't believe a large number of people could be so massively self deluded they thought and acted in ways that changed the world in such huge ways.
No, it's the other way about. People who deny the supernatural claims of Christianity, such as the ones mentioned above, are the persons trying to reassure themselves that faith is wrong by proposing so many varying arguments against it.
Nor have I shown "disrespect" for such writers. I believe I have used very temperate language about them. I merely disagree with them and find their views unconvincing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I was quoting your "Believing as I dd..."
We are not obliged to show that the Resurrection is impossible. You keep trying to throw the onus of proof the wrong.
Disciples convincing themselves that Christ was risen is no more mass self delusion than any other conversion to a new religion.
Trying to reassure ourselves that faith is wrong! If we do not believe in God, then we do believe that God has raised anyone. The basic disagreement is much further back than that.
Paul.
way
Also missed a "not"
By respect, I mean recognizing that there are genuinely different world views based on different premises and engaging in a serious discussion with what other people do say and why they say it. This cannot be done by requiring others to prove that Resurrection is impossible.
I'll try again. Anyone who makes a positive statement is obliged to prove it. Anyone who does not accept the statement is not obliged to disprove it, let alone to prove that it is impossible. If someone claims that there are underground cities on Mars, then I neither accept this statement nor accept any obligation to disprove it. But the person who made the statement had better produce some good evidence.
In the volatile political and religious conditions of first century Jerusalem, a group of people who had thought that they had found the Messiah, then thought that their hope had been dashed by his execution as a criminal, would have massive motivation to reinterpret scripture as prophesying that suffering, death and resurrection were the way to Messiahship. And that their Messiah was present in a spiritual body appearing to some of his followers in visions. Such a belief can (i) die out, (ii) become a new permanent sect or (iii) resonate with many others and take off, especially among Gentiles attracted by Jewish monotheism and morality but repelled by circumcision and dietary laws.
That is a possible explanation. To call it mass self deception is to belittle a very serious possibility. Further, I think that some explanation of this sort is necessary since I do not accept belief either in the Biblical God or in His Covenant with Israel.
Can we get as far as recognizing that alternative explanations are possible instead of trying to insist that only the traditional belief is tenable and that any alternatives can easily be dismissed?
I want to move this discussion forward instead of just getting bogged down in repetition.
Sean's view (I think; correct me if I am wrong):
(i) Either the Son of God was literally, factually, present on Earth or He wasn't;
(ii) if He wasn't present, then it is extremely unlikely that so many people would have deluded themselves that He was.
My response:
That view is too literalistic and insensitive to real history and psychology.
(i) I cannot accept that the Son of God was literally present because I do not accept that He literally exists.
(ii) However, people have been able to convince themselves of all sorts of beliefs about supernatural beings. Look at the whole of history.
Post a Comment