I refer to The Myth Of God Incarnate. Anderson's Fr Axor seeks evidence for an extraterrestrial Incarnation. In The Technic History universe, there are many intelligent species with many parallels to Terrestrial evolution and history. For example, Ikranankan Twilight Zoners have a myth of annual death and rebirth and we are told that their polytheism is standard. Thus, Axor might find many beliefs similar to Christianity but how will he determine whether any one of them records a literal Incarnation?
In The Myth Of..., John Hick makes the points that:
every available religious title was applied to Jesus;
the titles "avatar" and "Bodhisattva" would certainly have been used if Christianity had come to be centered in India instead of in the Roman Empire;
Gautama was another historical figure who came to be regarded as an incarnation of a heavenly being grounded in the Absolute;
Hindus already believe in many avatars and Buddhists in many Buddhas.
Thus, to that extent, the question of cosmic Incarnations has already been addressed.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But I don't agree Christianity would have adopted terms like "avatar" or "bodhisattvaa" for the simple reason that Christians don't believe in reincarnation or the pre-existence of the human soul. The Catholic belief is that God creates a human soul at the moment of every conception
And considering how Buddha never claimed to be a god or to do things only God can do, I have my doubts he would have approved of his followers regarding him as the incarnation of a divine being. Whereas, by contrast, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, Our Lord did and said things that makes sense only if He was a madman or truly God Incarnate.
Ray Bradbury, in his poem "Christus Apollo" has speculated that Our Lord became incarnate for other races than mankind. To say nothing of C.S. Lewis also wondering if that might have happened.
Sean
Sean,
I accept the critical view that the Gospels are not verbatim accounts of Jesus' words and deeds but are "propaganda" (in the sense of propagating a belief) and are theologically interpreted and edited. I think that Jesus had a Jewish world view and would not have agreed that he was the Second Person of a Trinity. He used the phrase "the Son of Man," not necessarily always referring to himself.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Respectfully, I disagree. And OTHER critics, like the late Fr. Raymond Brown in AN INTRODUCTION TO NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY and Fr. John Meier in his MARGINAL JEW books provide at least as compelling arguments for believing both that Our Lord knew He was and is more than a simple man and that the gospels gives us a good deal of history. And the contexts in which titles like the "Son of Man" was used plainly indicates Christ WAS referring to himself.
Sean
Sean,
Of course we disagree but the position presented by these Catholic theologians is one that has to be argued for and defended. It is insufficient merely to quote Jesus claiming divinity in John's Gospel. It is not universally accepted that Jesus said that in the same way that we know, e.g., what the British Prime Minister said last night in front of a camera and microphone.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course I agree that Catholic theologians should make reasoned arguments for believing as the Church teaches about the Person and Nature of Christ. I do say that if Our Lord says things that makes sense only if He believed Himself to be God Incarnate, that is still different from Buddha's view of himself. That is, Buddha did not claim to be a god, only a philosopher or teacher.
Ultimately, of course, it comes down to making a choice on a question of faith. That is, we have to choose whether or not to believe Christ is God Incarnate.
And to tie this in SOMEWHAT to a Poul Anderson blog I would argue that here and there in his later works we get hints of PA at least wishing he believed in God. One hint being the poem "Prayer in War," in ORION SHALL RISE. Certain passages in GENESIS also comes to mind, such as the description of how Mass was celebrated in Latin in York Minster.
Sean
Sean,
But I cannot choose to believe. My beliefs are based on reason or evidence, not on choice.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree. I say we DO choose, in many cases, what we believe in. For example, as a conservative, I do believe the arguments in favor of a free enterprise economy and the limited state (whatever form it takes!) are based on reason and evidence. Could I not have chosen NOT to accept that evidence and those arguments?
Sean
Sean,
If you had not accepted the arguments, this would have been because the arguments were not strong enough to convince you. It would not have been because you chose not to accept them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That does make sense, I have to agree with you here. I am troubled by how best to understand the relationship of free will with accepting as logically true arguments on virtually any topic.
Sean
Sean,
We choose what to do, not what to believe.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes! That clarifies matters. Many thanks!
Sean
Post a Comment