The mistake was made (IMO) because the theologians were monotheists first, and Christians only secondarily; such that they assumed the reality of Jesus's divinity "must" mean that he and God the Creator were ultimately One.
But this is untrue.
Consequently there are plenty of rational people throughout the past two millennia who have coherently believed in God as Creator, but disbelieve the divinity of Jesus Christ - or reject what Jesus offered Mankind.
Atheism on the one hand and non-Christian-theism (belief in God, but not the divinity of Jesus) on the other are - or should be - two different things; and they have different consequences.
To be a atheist is to reject purpose, meaning and the coherence of reality - it therefore renders the atheist self-trapped in a state of sustained irrationality: a kind of insanity.
A non-Christian theist may therefore be rational and coherent.
The difference that being a Christian makes is additive to coherence: it is hope.
For the not-Christian theist there is no hope for himself. Himself-specifically does not matter, perhaps is unreal, or perhaps the self will dissolve.
The not-Christian theist will therefore intrinsically regard mortal life as a tragedy - because it contains much evil, because it contains change/ entropy (ageing, disease and disaster) - and because it is inevitably terminated utterly, by the death of himself.
So a Christian has hope of resurrection and eternal life in a Heaven without death or evil.
But, so far, this hope is located only beyond death.
To believe only in post-mortal salvation is to recognize the coherence of reality, and to anticipate joy in eternity - but, of itself alone, this makes our present mortal life into (at best) merely an inferior version of Heaven, a time of waiting.
It is belief in the Holy Ghost - which I understand to be our experience of the living presence of Jesus during this mortal life - that converts the remote hope of post-mortal salvation into something that can, potentially, make our present lives into something better than a mere putting-off of Heaven.
The Holy Ghost is what enables integration of our our personal and present life with both salvation to come, and the reality of this world as purposive, meaningful and coherent.
The usual "Christian" (but actually dogmatically monotheist) habit-compulsion conceptually to conflate the nature and role of Father, Son and Holy Ghost; is therefore not merely a theological error, but leaves people permanently-confused and systematically-misled - about the consequences of not being fully-Christian.
10 comments:
I think you are right. I've always been unconvinced by most ot the theology of the Trinity I've read, but your post makes me realise I have experienced the Holy Ghost all my life even to today - Michaelmas - my 83rd birthday. My physical body is weary but my heart and mind are less worried than they have ever been. I have always been accompanied - even a boy of two wandered off by himself in the woods - perhaps much as Shackleton was. For me these days, the Annunciation seems to be the moment everything changed. Thank you!
Lots to think about. One thing that always bothered me is Heaven and Hell. In our Protestant (Congregational) church, we were taught if you don't believe in Jesus, you are going to Hell. That bothered me from a young age. I used to ask, "But God created us with doubting minds. Is that fair?" Also, "But what about people who never heard of Jesus?" The answer was always (something like), "Well, the Bible tells us everyone will hear about Jesus."
I wonder if you wrote any papers about this. I enjoy reading your papers. I re-discovered you after a friend reminded me of "Not Even trying." I read that years ago and loved it. I witnessed the problems as a Research Scientist in Academia, but no one was talking about it at the time. I saw lots of fraud.
@Igude - Very pleased to hear this post "hit the spot" for you.
@L - Probably it would be best to read this mini-book: https://lazaruswrites.blogspot.com/
When I wrote Not Even Trying, few few copies were read, only a few people seemed to appreciate the book, but most considered it wildly exaggerated.
However, it seems to have a bit of a new lease of life in the past few years - certainly a lot more people have read it and (on the whole) agreed with it than in 2012. But even after the events of 2020, I think most people greatly underestimate the level of dishonesty in science - that dishonesty is completely normal, and indeed encouraged and enforced.
Thank you! I look forward to reading the mini-book.
I'm glad to hear Not Even Trying has a "new lease on life." As to those people who considered it wildly exaggerated back then, I'm willing to bet it was either lay people who irrationally worship science in academia (and despise "Big Pharma"), or scientists themselves ("How dare you tell people what's really happening!"). Bruised egos.
I worked in the so-called finer institutions in the U.S., and honestly, I only knew a handful of researchers who had it all (honesty, reproducing work, etc.). I was upset when I discovered the real world of science. I idealized it before that. I blame the system, too. Science was much better before "publish or perish."
@L " scientists themselves ("How dare you tell people what's really happening!"). Bruised egos."
Actually, IMO it was much worse than that!
"Scientists" moved and swam in such an ocean of untruthfulness that they knew nothing else; and regarded it as an outrageous slur if someone "called" them on the fact that they weren't even trying to seek or speak truth - even though the *entirety* of their conversation and effort was dictated by careerism - and that they celebrated, urged, and enforced this careerism upon others.
Exactly! During my first post-doc, my job was to expand on my boss's findings published in Nature. I questioned (to myself) the validity of those findings. In one experiment, I proved his findings wrong! When I told him, he was upset. He paced back and forth, and said, "Why would you do this experiment! You can kiss you paper good-bye!"
You said it perfectly: "... dictated by careerism ... enforced this careerism upon others."
I always kick myself for not cutting my losses sooner, but maybe God wanted it this way for reasons that may reveal themselves. Or maybe they have? After all, now I can be an authority on alerting people to NOT blindly "trust the science."
Science is done by humans. To believe that a prescribed process, science, guarantees honesty and competence in those who supposedly practice it, is no better than thinking a written law guarantees a lack of crime - especially when peer review is part of it
@H - Indeed.
Yet, although never explicitly stated - there is a nigh-universal assumption that "the scientific method" is self-correcting and - of itself - will yield truth; if the handle keeps turning (powered by by sufficient funding) - and therefore, the motivations and values of individual scientists are (in practice) irrelevant.
But - if science is evaluated by actual historical and objective advances - there just is no such thing as the scientific method. As numerous historical examples teach; method is indefinably open ended, when motivation is honest.
Since there is no such thing as scientific method, then (almost...) everything depends on the motives of individual scientists (of course that is not the only factor, but it is essential) - which situation is almost the opposite of what almost-everybody believes.
The method can coherently be defined in such a way that it always reveals truth, but if this is done, it means that only the honest and competent can practice it, and therefore doesn't circumvent the reliance on virtuous people
Post a Comment