Laurinda, defending Gaia, says:
"'I think, myself, she is in the same position as the traditional God. Being good, she wants to share existence with others, and so creates them. But to make them puppets, automatons, would be senseless. They have to have consciousness and free will. Therefore, they are able to sin, and do, all too often.'" (p. 193)
But to create people who were so morally good that they never "sinned" would not be to create puppets. If you had the power to create people who would be:
(i) a teetotaller;
(ii) a moderate drinker;
(iii) a drunkard;
(iv) an alcoholic;
(v) a weak-willed man who always succumbed to temptation and never learned from experience;
(vi) a strong-willed man able both to resist temptation and to learn from experience
- and if, further, you created (i), (ii) and (vi) but not (iii), (iv) or (v), then you would have created three good men who were not automata.
When Christian asks why Gaia has not made her emulated human beings morally stronger, Laurinda replies that this is because she has chosen to make them human. But human beings can be morally stronger. Moral strength negates neither humanity nor "free will." The latter is merely absence of constraint. Don't constrain "sinners." Just don't create them.
On a more fundamental issue, I think that self is recognized as such only by contrast with other, therefore that a self-conscious being who creates everything other than himself is impossible. Therefore, I argue that Gaia is feasible whereas "God" is not.
We have discussed these issues before. I merely follow Poul Anderson's texts which address every important issue.
43 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Needless to say, I disagree with the, to me, absurd notion that God is not "feasible." And if you have to insist that for God to have a "self" contrasted with others to exist, then I would argued that the Second and the Third Persons provides that "contrast" to God the Father (withing the unity of the One divine "substance").
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Trinity doctrine originated because the Fourth Gospel deified the Son and personified the Spirit while remaining monotheist. Thus, three Persons in one God: Trinity. The doctrine was not a response to the philosophical question of the self-other relationship as necessary for consciousness.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I know, but it was your oft repeated argument about God not being possible because He has none other to contrast Himself with that led to my comment immediately above.
And it is not true that belief in the divinity of the Son is found only in John's Gospel. That can be found as well in the other Gospels, such as Matthew and in the letter of Paul; John merely sharpened and clarified that point. Which is not surprising, given how John had forty or fifty years on which to reflect on the mystery of Christ.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I agree that the divinity of Christ is in the other Gospels. John emphasizes it.
Peter at Pentecost and Paul when addressing the philosophers speak of Jesus not as God but as a man raised up by God. We see Christianity developing in the texts.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And Peter could be explicit about that belief as well. Such as in Matthew 16, responding Christ's question to His disciples on what men thought Him to be.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Peter said Jesus was the Messiah, not that he was God.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But the first of the Popes also declared Christ is the Son of the living God, which the Lord very famously agreed was correct. That can only mean Christ is also divine.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But surely it doesn't? "Son of God" and "God the Son" are not the same concept. In Hosea 11:1, "I have called my son out of Egypt..." refers to the collective adopted son, Israel. A Jew like Peter would refer to the Anointed/Messiah/King of Israel as "son of God" without meaning that he was a divine person.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still have to disagree. You need to keep in mind how Christ did and said things that made sense only if He was either a madman or truly what He said He was: the Incarnate Logos, God the Son. For example, when He healed persons, it was almost always with simply a word of command, or a gesture. Christ had no need to pray to the Father to cure anyone. That as well as "teaching with authority," more and more convinced Peter He was more than a mere man. Also, Christ said none had revealed that to Peter except the Father.
In the OT, the Law and the Prophets pointed towards Christ. What they said were types or foreshadowings of the full revelation the Messiah would bring.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
All four gospels make clear that Peter was impulsive and spoke without thinking. My reading of this text and of subsequent passages is that:
Jesus, like John, preached the imminence of the kingdom;
he was also a powerful healer;
these two factors got him a large following;
this in turn made him wonder about his own role in the kingdom;
he checked out what others thought of his status;
predictably, Peter, when asked, praised him in the highest terms known to Peter;
Jesus could at that stage have said, "Get thee behind me...," and just continued preaching and healing;
instead, he got the idea that he was the Messiah;
but he interpreted this Messiahship as that of the Suffering Servant, not of the Davidic monarch;
he provoked the authorities by entering Jerusalem in a demonstration with people proclaiming him as Messiah;
he thought that his vicarious suffering would initiate the kingdom;
he died realizing that that had not happened;
the disciples would have fled, not hung around in Jerusalem;
crucifixion victims were buried in mass graves;
the pious story of a decent burial in an unused tomb could have started very early;
the prophets were reinterpreted as saying that suffering was the way to Messiahship;
this led to a certainty of Jesus' resurrected presence, like the certainty of Evangelicals to this day (they do not mean that Jesus visibly enters a room, shakes hands, sits at a table, shares food etc);
Paul describes not a physical body reanimated and emerging from a tomb but a physical body entering the earth like a seed and a (different kind of) spiritual body rising up like a growing plant - he ridicules questions about what has become of the physical body;
Paul's Christ is a man raised up by God, not God raising Himself up.
Paul.
The empty tomb is not mentioned either in Peter's Pentecost sermon or in Paul's letters. The latter contradicts it. Peter does not point at an empty tomb as evidence. His only argument for the resurrection is interpretations of scripture. He mentions witnesses only once to back up scriptural arguments and does not give details like who saw what when where, for how long etc.
Whichever gospel was written first introduced the empty tomb and the others got it from there. Mark says the women were told to tell no one - as if to explain why no one has heard of this before. Luke and John introduce a tangible resurrected body. Matthew says that the single resurrection appearance was in Galilee, not Jerusalem. The Synoptics give three different versions of the statement about Galilee. John's account of the disciples going fishing is completely different from Luke's account of them meeting indoors in Jerusalem. Luke's Gospel has the Ascension immediately after the resurrection appearance whereas Acts has it after 40 days.
Kaor, Pau!
Respectfully, I find these arguments strained, over complex, unconvincing. It all boils down to desperate attempts to deny the fierce supernaturalism in the claims of Christianity.
Why SHOULD St. Peter have mentioned the empty tomb in his address? Whether or not many of his audience believed Christ had risen from the dead, it was commonly known that was what his disciples and eyewitnesses had said.
Nor do I think, given Christ had a few disciples of some wealth and influence, such as Joseph of Arimathea, that it would be that odd for Joseph to request Pilate that he be allowed to bury Christ. Again, I find the contra arguments strained and unconvincing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Pentecost was the first proclamation of the Resurrection. It was news to Peter's audience. I would have thought that (i) if there was a tomb and (ii) if it was known where it was, then someone would have gone to check whether there was a body in it. Matthew alone tells us that a guard was placed on the tomb as if to forestall the objection that the disciples or someone else could have removed the body. Matthew, writing later, makes an issue of the tomb but it was not an issue at Pentecost. At that earlier stage, the concept of resurrection did not involve a body, having been placed in a tomb, returning to life and reemerging from the tomb.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Unfortunately, we can't agree. Christ's resurrection was literally from the dead. And I believe the Shroud of Turin, at the very least, indicates SOMETHING happened with the body of Christ.
And it would make sense for a hostile Sanhedrin to place guards at Christ's tomb.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Shroud was carbon dated to the century in which it was first displayed.
It seems obvious to me that Matthew invents the guard on the tomb for purely apologetic purposes. He alone mentions it, having received the tomb burial story from his sources.
BUT, if there was a tomb and if the Sanhedrin had had it guarded, THEN certain other things would follow. EITHER the Sanhedrin would refute Peter's Pentecost sermon by displaying the tomb and its contents OR Peter, when challenged, would direct critics and inquirers to an empty tomb with its stone rolled aside. The tomb is simply not mentioned either way. It is not an issue at that first crucial stage. It is first mentioned in propaganda written later and elsewhere by authors who were not eye-witnesses and were not involved in the original events.
BTW, we are not going to reach agreement here. At most, we can clarify issues. Context is important. In Peter's Jewish context, the phrase, "Son of God," did not mean a divine person. In the context of Pentecost, the resurrection was not an already known claim. It was being announced for the first time and people would have asked, "Where was the body buried? If in a tomb, where is the tomb? Is it empty?" etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree. All that was carbon dated from the Shroud was a much later, newer patch added to the Shroud. That should be taken into account.
It is NOT obvious Matthew merely invented the story about the Sanhedrin having guards sent to Christ's tomb. What could be more OBVIOUS for His opponents to do but to send guards? And no mention was made of the Sanhedrin challenging Peter the way you suggested. Possibly because the tomb WAS empty.
And I have no reason to seriously doubt that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was not built over the site of Jesus' tomb.
And many people already knew of the claim that Christ rose from the dead at the time of Peter's speech. St. Paul made a point of searching out eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ, a point Anderson thought was important, as we see in his story "A Chapter of Revelation."
And the title "Son of God" changed its meaning as it was understood in OT time to the fuller, truer meaning brought by the Incarnation of Christ.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Nevertheless, Peter in his impulsive reply, which Jesus accepted as a revelation, would not not have meant that the "Son of God" was a divine person (which was what we started on).
Many people knew of the claim before Peter's Pentecost sermon? That sermon was the first public proclamation.
Of course, we disagree about Q. The commentaries that I have read have given me to understand that:
neither Peter nor Paul mentioned either a tomb burial or an empty tomb;
Mark introduced the tomb;
the other Evangelists got it from him;
Matthew alone added the guard on the tomb (as he added other details) with no other source for this story.
The simplest explanation remains that he added the guard for apologetic reasons.
The object of this exchange is not to reach agreement, just to clarify reasons for disagreement.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Seeking to clarify areas of disagreement, not to reach an agreement? Understood!
I used to believe in the Q/Markan Priority theory, but not in the anti-Christian way of these commentaries you mentioned. Rather, I did so in a Catholic and orthodox sense, as exemplified in many of the works of the late Fr. Raymond Brown. E.g.: THE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH, THE DEATH OF THE MESSIAH, AN INTRODUCTION TO NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, etc. Fr. Brown began with the premises you seem to favor--but came to opposite conclusions.
However, I no longer believe Q/Markan Priority is correct. David L.Dungan's A HISTORY OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM demolished my former belief in that theory. Briefly, his analysis convinced me Q/Markan Priority was based on faith in non-existent documents, circular reasoning, anti-Catholic prejudice and, a stubborn unwillingness to accept far simpler hypotheses better fitting the known facts.
Rather, Dungan favored the work of the late William Farmer, who built on the earlier work of Abbot Chapman and Bishop Butler, to expound what has come to be called the Neo-Griesbachian Hypothesis in works like Farmer's THE GOSPEL OF JESUS.
Many other points comes to mind to explain why I now reject Q/Markan priority. One being the Oxford Fragments of Matthew, which were texts from Matthew's Gospel found with legal documents in Egypt dated to the 12th year of Nero's reign (AD 65-66). Assuming at least ten years for Matthew's work to reach Egypt from Syria, then his gospel arguably goes back to at least AD 55. That alone demolishes the Q argument that Matthew was written late, as late as AD 80.
And secularists have never convincingly explained how the IMAGE on the Shroud of Turin, a photographic negative, was somehow created in the 13 century, when the technology for such things did not exist.
I've also mentioned Lourdes, as another thing secularists cannot plausibly explain away. About one hundreds has been grudgingly accepted by the Lourdes Medical Board as having no known scientific cause.
There's also the case of the stigmatist Padre Pio, who is widely believed to have possessed powers like telepathy and bilocation. Which I would have thought would interest you, reminiscent as it was to me of what we see in "The Chapter Ends."
Truthfully, BELIEVERS don't need cases like the Shroud, Lourdes, or Padre Pio (altho a merciful God will sometimes grant cures thru His saints). Rather, I think God uses these things as a means of sometimes getting thru or shaking the disbelief of materialists and secularists.
Ad astra! Sean
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know a secularist Biblical scholar, James G. Crossley, who argues, in THE DATE OF MARK'S GOSPEL: INSIGHT FROM THE LAW IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY, that Mark was written between the late 30s and early 40s.
Paul.
Sean,
It is possible to accept a materialist account of the origin of consciousness - sensitive organisms began to sense their environments - while also acknowledging the possibility of transcendent experience through meditation.
Prima facie miracles should not be grudgingly conceded but welcomed as phenomena that have not been explained - yet. Scientists keep seeking explanations. They do not stop at "God did it."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That interests me, apparently the advocates of the Neo-Griesbachian hypothesis seemed to have convinced some of their opponents that the Synoptic gospels were not written after AD 70. But I still favor the Synoptics being written in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke.
Well, I believe species which became intelligent had to evolve and that at some point God intervened to grant that race the special quality called having an immortal soul.
My recollection of Lourdes is that the Bishops of that city took pains to select only the toughest, most resolutely secularist skeptics to the Medical Board which investigates possible cures. To make sure any cases finally accepted as miraculous had no known scientific cause.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that James has his own reasons for his conclusions. He thinks that Jesus was Law-observant, contradicting John.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course Our Lord was a Jew! And I believe He was Torah observant. BUT, He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, which means things like declaring kosher was no longer necessary (which we see in Mark 7).
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
James has a complicated argument that Jesus remained kosher. You would have to read his book.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that makes me suspicious! Strained, complex arguments are not likely to be convincing if simpler arguments better fitting the known facts are available. Which is why I now believe in the Neo-Griesbachian hypothesis, not the Q/Markan Priority theory. I recommend reading the Dungan and Farmer books I cited for an explication of that.
Ad astra! Seam
Sean,
Strained, complex arguments are no good. However, interpreting a Greek text about Aramaic sayings about elaborate ritual cleanliness is bound to get abstruse.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but I think the simplest explanation is the usual Christian one, that the laws of kosher were simply no longer necessary. Which is also borne out by Peter's visions in Acts and the decision made by the apostolic council in Acts 15.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The simplest explanation of what? Rightly or wrongly, James argues from the text of Mark that that text shows Jesus as fully Law-observant, including continuing the kosher rules. Of course this contradicts the later account of Peter's vision and the decisions of church councils. Christianity began as a Jewish sect, then parted company, and there was mutual excommunication.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Actually, I see no contradiction. I have no trouble believing our Lord was a Torah observant Jew up till the time He began his public ministry. But, the Son of God, the Logos Incarnate, did not become man simply to retain in full what had gone before. After Christ's atoning sacrifice on the Cross and His Resurrection, things like the kosher laws were simply no longer necessary. And we see the beginnings of that in places like Mark 7.
So, I still stand by my previous blog comment.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But Mark 7, which I have just looked at, is precisely what James is talking about. He interprets it differently. But now we get into details that I don't remember, having read his book only once.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But the point Our Lord was making was that kosher was no longer necessary, that what goes into a man (what he eats) is not that important. Rather, what matters is what comes out of him, from his heart and mind, that is what matters. And the author of Mark interpreted that as Christ declaring all foods to be "clean."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, I know that that is text and the standard interpretation. I will try to track down James' different interpretation.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Sometimes the "standard" explanation for something is actually true! And remember my comment about strained and overly complex arguments.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course but remember I am not trying to persuade you of anything, only to impart information about an alternative view which I am not qualified to assess. I have received an email reply from an intermediary with James so I will get back to you shortly.
Paul.
Sean,
The email exchange is on-going. I have asked for reasons (which I know that I have read and heard before) for thinking that Jesus remained fully Law-observant and would have disagreed with the church soon afterward breaking kosher rules. If it turns out that I have misunderstood what I heard before, we will clarify that.
Paul.
Discussion continued by forwarding an email message.
If anyone else has been following this exchange, the point seems to be that Jesus wanted to do away with Pharisaic interpretations of the Law, not with the Law. He saw that as remaining in place until the kingdom has come. Matthew 5:18.
In fact, that verse of Matthew says, "Till heaven and earth pass..."
Peter's vision in Acts 10 contradicts the Torah by declaring clean animals that the Law had declared unclean.
I misremembered the argument about the Law as abstruse. On the contrary, it is so straightforward that it might be missed.
I think I've got it now: Jesus upheld both the spirit and the letter of the Law so he condemned those who both denied the spirit and added to the letter, particularly if the latter helped them to do the former. It is easy to misunderstand him as upholding the spirit and not the letter, especially if the additions to the letter are confused with the letter.
Kaor, Paul!
I have the comments, both here and in your emails, and I still have to disagree with James Crossley's argument. I still believe our Lord was a Torah observant Jew who, as God Incarnate, began the process of declaring the ritual purity laws were no longer needed. And that Peter in Acts 10, the apostolic council in Acts 15, and St. Paul simply extended what Christ began.
I don't know what Crossley believes about issues like the divinity of Christ, but I think he is overlooking what I believe is the supernatural aspect, touched on above.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
James is not a Christian. I find his account plausible. I think that we have clarified our disagreements on the issue.
Paul.
Post a Comment