The Corridors Of Time, CHAPTER TWO.
When Storm, self-professed freedom fighter, disparages:
"'...governments that blither of a detente." (p. 17)
- that briefly ignites Lockridge who expresses some political opinions but only very briefly and cuts himself off in mid-sentence with:
"'...- never mind.'" (ibid.)
Clearly, the purpose of this passage is not to initiate a debate but to inform the readers of what kind of guy Lockridge is: forthright, thinking for himself, outspoken and so on. His opponents in the bull sessions to which he refers would have called him loud-mouthed and opinionated. Indeed:
"'My arguments didn't make me any too well liked.'" (ibid.)
My issue would be not simply that I disagree with Lockridge but, more fundamentally, that I do not think in anything like the same terms. I would have to ask him to back up his generalizations with some examples in order to try to identify a set of parameters for a discussion. But the text does not move in that direction. We are just looking at Lockridge as a person.
Again we remember how reference to contentious issues is used to gauge character in Manse Everard's interview for the Time Patrol. When Everard has grasped some knobs on his chair, Mr. Gordon fires questions without waiting for answers. How does Everard react to physical danger? What are his views on internationalism, communism, fascism and women? What are his personal ambitions? Everard is understandably "What the devil?"-ing but is assured that this is only psychological testing and that his opinions do not matter:
"'...except as they reflect basic emotional orientation.'"
-Poul Anderson, "Time Patrol" IN Anderson, Time Patrol (Riverdale, NY, December 2010), pp. 1-53 AT 1, p. 3.
We learn something of Everard's opinions as the series proceeds.
Storm prefers the Triple Goddess to:
"'...the Father of Thunders.'" (p. 21)
Historically, patriarchal monotheism displaced Goddess-worship although, despite St. Paul's iconoclastic denunciation of Diana of Ephesus, Christianity incorporated a Mother of God in a Council at Ephesus. Storm expresses a preference for the Goddess but humanity as a whole has to understand past stages of religion and move on.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Incorrect, pagan notions about "mother goddesses" had nothing to with the Council of Ephesus, which met to settle the Nestorian controversy. Nor is the BVM a goddess and was never claimed to be such by the Church. She was highly favored by God when she was asked to consent to becoming the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Incorrect. The fact that there was a Mother Goddess in Ephesus must have influenced the declaration of a Mother of God in Ephesus. This dos not amount to saying that Mary is a goddess. The Annunciation in Luke's Gospel is just one of many such stories about the miraculous births of important figures.
Paul.
When a patriarchal monotheism incorporated a major feminine object of devotion, it had to label her as something other than a "goddess" but that was easily done because there were already many angels and saints who would previously have been "gods" or "goddesses."
System-building is ingenious. Patanjali based his Yoga Sutras on the atheist soul-pluralist Samkhya philosophy but wanted to recognize devotion to a deity as a yogic practice so he categorized "God" as a special kind of soul, not subject to reincarnation, the teacher of the earliest teachers but not a creator. Matter and souls, including "God," remained uncreated and beginningless as in Samkhya.
We can admire and appreciate all these systems without getting caught up in them.
Kaor, Paul!
Absolutely wrong, I have read about the Council of Ephesus in Fr. Philip Hughes' history of the general councils, THE CHURCH IN CRISIS. Not a word was said about pagan "goddesses."
Antisupernaturalist mythology is not applicable to Judaism and Christianity, which is about God's interventions in our history.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Absolutely wrong. I did not say that the Council of Ephesus referred to goddesses.
What is "Antisupernaturalist mythology..."?
The proposition that Judaeo-Christianity is about God's interventions in history is a statement of faith in that tradition. Therefore, it cannot be stated as if it were simply a fact in a discussion with someone who does not share that faith. I agree that Judaeo-Christianity is a tradition of belief that God intervenes in history.
Surely this subject-matter warrants a subtler approach than "Absolutely wrong"? I respond in kind but only to demonstrate that both sides can do it.
Paul.
Sean,
I suspect that another issue is lurking in the background, one that we have had before. I think that you think that any anti-supernaturalist who discusses Christianity automatically falsifies Christianity by denying that Christianity is based on belief in the supernatural? This only has to be stated clearly to be seen to be false.
An anti-supernaturalist acknowledges that Christianity is based on a belief in the supernatural, then states his own disbelief in the supernatural. Perfectly straightforward. This discussion has to be had. You are trying to rule it out of court before it even starts.
If you identify so completely with a belief system that you defend it as a matter of life and death, then you wind up misrepresenting the people that you are disagreeing with. I always try to make sure that I have understood a position before I take issue with it. Anti-supernaturalists do not deny that Christianity is supernaturalist. They argue against it for that very reason.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
What irked me were words like these: "Christianity incorporated a Mother of God in a council at Ephesus." It grated on me as crude and offensive because that is not how Catholics and Orthodox think. Rather, the teaching about the BVM was logically derived from the decisions made at the Council about Nestorianism and the Person of Christ.
Orthodox Christianity advances by deepening its understanding of what it believes, not by "incorporating" contradictory notions into it.
I consider antisupernaturalism a mythology because its adherents are unable to prove the supernatural is not real, while those who do believe in it can at least offer arguments for the supernatural being real. To say nothing of how antisupernaturalists are unable to explain what happens at shrines like Lourdes.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment