"...in their separate fashions [Rochefort] and Helu gave thanks; and they added a wish for the soul of Wa Chaou." (pp. 539-540)
Their fashions are Jerusalem Catholic and Muslim, respectively. Both believe in souls. Wa Chaou is their recently deceased Cynthian comrade. Cynthians are another rational species and we are not told what they believe. Of course, if rational beings have souls, then Wa Chaou has a soul whether or not he believes that he has.
Someone might convene a big interstellar, multi-species, theological conference but, in this fictional universe, it would be impossible to include everyone, there would no prospect of formulating a common creed and certainly no need to. There are at least three mutually incompatible monotheisms:
Terran (with subdivisions)
The Merseian Roidhunate
The Ythrian New Faith
Axor, a Wodenite convert to Jerusalem Catholicism, seeks the Universal Incarnation.
Everyone would continue their own practices and would be able to learn from new beings that they met. The senior lay minister in our Zen group thinks that we learn more about inter-faith dialogue just by interacting with neighbours and colleagues rather than by organizing conferences.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe Christian monotheism to be truly universal, Catholic in fact, and at least potentially open to converts from any or all species of rational beings. An idea I discussed in some detail in my "God and Alien" article, with citations from Anderson, CS Lewis, and Catholic sources.
I cannot agree to a hypothetical multi-species theological conference if that is supposed to end with Catholics and other convinced Christians being asked to deny the reality of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ as Incarnate God and Man, or His Resurrection after His atoning sacrifice on the Cross. Nor can Christians agree that the beliefs of their faith are mere symbols or metaphors. The "practices" associated with Christianity would be empty jokes if they stood for nothing except allegories and fanciful myths.
I recall how, in THE PESHAWAR LANCERS, Stirling mentioned a synod was being held by the Anglican Church of India debating whether they should accept being absorbed into Hinduism, with Christ becoming an empty, interchangeable "avatar" of the Hindu "gods."
I can easily imagine how this horrible blasphemy would outrage convinced low and high church Anglicans! The end result, if that synod succumbed to Hinduism, would be the low/high church Anglicans repudiating the apostate Church of India. And, of course, no Catholic can agree with such a synod deciding Christians can become Hindus. Mention was made of the Catholic crown prince of France-Over-the-Sea politely but firmly rejecting such an apostasy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course a multi-species conference would not ask anyone to deny anything! It would invite everyone to expound what they believed AND listen to others. I did say above that there would be no prospect of formulating a common creed.
Avatars are not empty, just different from what Christians believe. Outrage is inappropriate when disagreement is sufficient.
Since we have wound up stating disagreements, then let me again say that I find the atoning sacrifice of the Cross abhorrent: a rationalization of what had to seem at the time to be a failed Messiahship.
(I didn't think we'd get into all this.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but I think such a conference, if set up as you described, could or would end with some people thinking it would be fine to water down Christianity the way some of those Indian Anglicans wanted to do. And that will provoke shocked outrage from deeply convinced believers. Some people do tend to be far too "accommodating"!
And I don't believe avatars or other "gods" exist. And no need for them.
The strained, desperate, unconvincing arguments of anti-Christian writers do not convince me, based as they are on drawing contradictory conclusions from the evidence we have: the NT and early extra-NT writings such as the Didache, St. Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, the Letters of St. Ignatius, etc. People who argue from an a priori denial of the supernatural are not convincing.
Ad astra! Sea
Sean,
I do not believe that avatars, gods or God exist but reality does. We apprehend it, experience it and are part of it.
This post was not intended to initiate an argument about questions of truth in religion. Such arguments are unnecessary. Each of us practices what seems right to us and we learn from others. I heard a Buddhist praising a Catholic priest for the mindfulness with which he practiced the liturgy.
Since you raise the issue, and only for that reason, I have to say that I find it extraordinary to read of anti-Christian arguments being dismissed as strained, desperate and unconvincing. Unconvincing to you, of course. Your arguments are unconvincing to me, of course. Do you really not accept that many people are sincere and informed and honestly disagree with you on these matters? Are you convinced that all of their arguments are "strained" and "desperate"? This kind of language gives me the impression that you are "desperate" to reassure yourself. It was unnecessary to raise this issue but you did anyway.
We have been through this "a priori denial" accusation many times. Are we all supposed to start with an a priori acceptance of the supernatural? Someone who makes a positive assertion, whether it is that God exists or anything else, is obliged to give some reason/evidence/argument etc to back up his assertion. Someone who does not initially see any reason to accept or make such an assertion is not obliged to present any disproof of the assertion. The onus of proof is entirely on the side of the person making a positive assertion. In court, a prosecutor must try to prove the defendant's guilt, not challenge the defense lawyer to disprove it!
This is such an obvious logical point that it should not have to be said. It applies to everything: science; philosophy; litigation; etc.
What you do is you assume the truth of your belief to such an extent that, apparently without realizing what you are doing, you reverse the logical point so that instead of you having to prove anything, other people have to disprove something. You take it further and imagine that those people are desperate and strained. We are not.
If we are going to discuss these issues, then we have to do it as equals without an apparent assumption on your side that your opponents not only are obviously wrong but really know that they are and are "desperate" not to admit it. I want to find the truth in these matters, not to deny it or cover it up.
This has all been a major digression from seeking the truth.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree reality exists. And I also believe that reality takes its ultimate origins from God.
But many of your blog pieces strike echoes in me as I recall relevant points from the works of either Anderson or Stirling (like that Anglican synod in THE PESHAWAR LANCERS).
Disbelieving writers don't have to begin with an apriori belief in the supernatural. But I also believe it would be more honest of them to admit they cannot disprove the supernatural claims of Christianity. If they want to believe their arguments debunks Christianity, fine, but at least admit they have not proven that.
While I believe myself to be right, I have never thought you to be knowingly dishonest in what you believe to be the truth in these matters. I think you may possibly be a bit too sensitive. Also, I used "desperate" to refer to antisupernaturalist writers of the kind that used to be called the "New Atheists." Or of people like John Spong or John Dominic Crossan. I could list others, but these are enough.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If God exists, then he is reality.
No one is obliged to disprove anything. You do not seem to understand this.
Everyone believes that what he believes is right. Otherwise he would not believe it. Saying that gets us nowhere.
If this adjective, "desperate," applies only to certain people, then it should not be used as if it was being applied across the board.
It should be possible to refer to the range of religions, e.g., in Technic civilization without a Christian describing (at least some of) those who do not accept his belief as "desperate" and apparently believing that those who do not accept his belief are obliged to disprove it. This lowers the tone of the whole discussion almost to the level of partisan sniping. Let's have sharing of insights and appreciation of genuinely different perspectives.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Very well, then "hostile" would be better than "desperate." I see a lot of effort by some who attack Christianity and only Christianity. That seems to be only faith they take seriously enough to attempt debunking.
The rest of what I said I stand by.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't know who these hostile people are. I took a long time to work towards my understanding of how Christianity might have originated but I certainly have better things to do than to spend my time trying to debunk it. There are other things to do and think about.
Christianity has been the main ideology in Western civilization and has adapted itself to every stage in the development of that civilization from the Roman Empire through the Dark Ages and Middle Ages to the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the Industrial Revolution and the period we are living in so it is worth some people's while to examine the origins and historical claims of Christianity. You have a problem with people who do that and who not accept the claims of Christianity. You seem to object if they do not accept the existence of the supernatural from the outset.
Paul.
"attack Christianity and only Christianity"
Some might do that because they live where other religions have little power and while they regard Islam or Hinduism as badly mistaken, the harm those religions do occurs elsewhere in the world from where the person trying to debunk Christianity lives.
OTOH some non-believers do criticize many religions. An interesting case is Sam Harris criticizing the violence of fundamentalist Islam and pointing out that the pacifism of the Jains makes it much safer to be a non-Jain in a predominantly Jain community than to be a non-Muslim in a predominantly Muslim community.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Yet again, I was not thinking of you, but only of persons like the ones I've already mentioned.
Wrong word, Christianity is not a mere ideology, but the Faith I believed to have been revealed by God, first thru the Jews and culminating with the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ. I agree Christianity has been a massive factor in Western civilization and the entire history of the world.
Again, wrong, my problem is not with those who deny the supernatural claims of Christianity, but with those who deny the historicity of the Faith and how the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity goes straight back to Christ and His Apostles.
Jim: No, my belief and observation has been that some who attack Christianity and only Christianity do so from fear, they are afraid that Christianity, esp. the demonic Catholics, is/are right. Meaning that if we are right they would have to totally reverse their entire previous beliefs. And that can be very painful!
Ad astra! Sean
Many people brought up in a particular belief fear that it is not true.
We should just discuss reasons for or against beliefs, not attribute discreditable motives to people who disagree with us.
This blog post was about learning from diversity, not about denigrating dissenters from one belief.
Post a Comment