I don't find it surprising that most people in the world - past and present - find Christianity incredible, ridiculous or outrageous - at any rate: unbelievable. That was how it struck me, for most of my life.
In the West this is mostly because the official assumption of all adolescents and adults in public discourse - is that there is neither purpose nor meaning to human life: it is all a consequence of abstract processes, grinding-away because that is what they do.
But in most of the world, where a God is believed and assumed, Christianity is recognised to be an assertion of the limitations of God: that God is a person, and concerned with this world. For many that is a human limitation imposed on an unknowably great God - who can only be discussed indirectly, by negations and abstractions.
And, most strongly, other religions recognise that for Christians God is limited. Non Christians recognise that Christianity is an assertion that God is Not omnipotent - that there are things God cannot do. Such is implied by the Christian assertion that Jesus Christ was necessary.
If Jesus is necessary (and assuming he is not just a projection of God, an 'avatar') then there is something vital that God could not do; and that Jesus was needed to do.
This seems obvious to other religions; and it really ought to be obvious to Christians; however most Christian intellectuals deny these obvious inferences. Many Christians assert that God is omnipotent and also needs Jesus, who is a different person than God. Christians assert that God is unknowably great - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent - and also loves each individual person as a Father.
And this is, and always has been, a weakness of Christianity; a weakness that looks very much like dishonesty. Christians should stop attempting to 'have it both ways'; and to admit that - increasingly this fails to convince, for the simple reason that it does not make sense (at least, it does not make 'common sense').
If Jesus Christ is regarded as a fact and as a necessity; then it ought to be possible for Christians to accept the implications of that core belief - rather than to insist on fitting this into an idea of God as impersonal and abstract, all-powerful, and not-human: utterly alien - a concept that was, ultimately, derived from Non Christian religions.
I thought Lewis (and others) explained this. God can't do something not because of his limitations but because those "somethings" are non-sensical abstractions, non-entities.
ReplyDelete"Many Christians assert that God is omnipotent and also needs Jesus, who is a different person than God."
Jesus and God are not seperable, being coeternal and one despite the distinction of persons. So "needs" isn't a limitation of God, merely a statement of his nature.
@B - What I am saying is that none of these explanations work, because they rely upon introducing some kind of vast and incomprehensible abstractions that - 1800 years down the line - still cannot be explained. Explaining one thing by introducing another inexplicable term is not a real explanation.
ReplyDelete"those "somethings" are non-sensical abstractions, non-entities. " -
Not so: this "something" is absolutely concrete and real. It is our salvation, it is resurrected life eternal in Heaven - Christians know that this needed and needs Jesus.
Indeed (so far as I know) no other religion even claims to provide it - but offer some other ultimate destination (reincarnation, Sheol/ Hades, Nirvana, Paradise, eternal life as a spirit etc.) that - presumably, perhaps - does Not reqiuire Jesus.
The Creator should be well capable of connecting and interacting with his creation in a loving and personal way. The alternative view of God is the ultimate limitation—as if God were in some great prison, unable to actively love or even show interest in the details of his work.
ReplyDeleteWhat a horrible thought!
@sean "as if God were in some great prison, unable to actively love or even show interest in the details of his work."
ReplyDeleteHorrible indeed. Who holds that view?
"Horrible indeed. Who holds that view?"
ReplyDeleteAnyone who sees God as an abstraction as opposed to a loving father. Some talk of God as if he were a law of physics.
"But in most of the world, where a God is believed and assumed, Christianity is recognised to be an assertion of the limitations of God: that God is a person, and concerned with this world. For many that is a human limitation imposed on an unknowably great God"
For me that is the opposite of a limitation. That's all I mean.
I like this way of thinking. The most poignant aspect of Christ's life is the sheer difficulty of his struggle - and the Love it involved. The idea that God has undertaken immense metaphysical efforts in order to have us in his family is not without similar appeal. He's the hero we can root for!
ReplyDelete"official assumption is... it is all a consequence of abstract processes"
ReplyDeleteI have not delved as deeply as you into metaphysics Bruce, so while I am intrigued by your declaration of Love as the underlying reality, in practice my habits are still what I've absorbed from the materialistic establishment. The "mental grooves" in my thought patterns run this way.
From that perspective, I think I gained something of an appreciation of God as a sort of Nietschean divine Elon Musk figure---"'The Universe' is meaningless, but I refuse to accept that and will begin creating."
This heartens me! ---though I think your view is more fitting of a civilized person, and my hope is that the citizens of Heaven look upon my path with mild revulsion, and that I can someday come around to your view.
I know that you were a fan of the Merlin series. I liked the recurring theme that magic has a price . . . it's the nature of the world. It's charming when fiction illustrates truth in its own creative way. Some things do have a price . . . like sin. And the price for creation, it seems, was the possibility (perhaps inevitability) of sin . . . of existence separate from its creator. It must have been worth it.
ReplyDeleteOmnipotence cannot mean breaking the rules . . . when the rules are manifestations of God's own perfection. And yet that's what "omnipotentists" want . . . a sort of Dorian Gray theology where God is pure will without any consideration of anything (like goodness . . . in other word's, the way God is). I don't think that Lewis or my fellow Christian Platonists speak emptily when they argue that God cannot do something that is itself nothing. Rather, they understand that there is an order originating from and reflecting God himself . . . and that God cannot go against this order. To go against the divine order means to depart the path of being and to head toward nothingness -- evil, distortion, perversion. God cannot be God and anti-God; that's not an indictment of God's power but an affirmation of God's order.
@spdi - Well, creation as a form of God 'playing' for his own amusement seems to be the logical conclusion from God being one. The trinity was supposed to overcome this, by God loving himself in a three way relationship and yet also staying one - but this is not a genuine explanation because it is incomprehensible/ nonsense. But I must admit, the explanation seems to trivialise creation - down to the level of God playing 'Patience' with himself.
ReplyDeleteThe answer I give corresponds to the core Christian insight that love is primary - and interprets this using Mormon theology - with its understanding that God is the dyad of Heavenly Parents. As an explanation; this is simple, beautiful, comprehensible, and does the job.