One of the questions that are answered inadequately (incoherently) by the off-the-peg mainstream religions is: What is the point of this mortal life on earth?
Why don't we go directly to Heaven? Why must we mass-through mortal life, why must so many people endure (and, sometimes, enjoy) decades of earthly existence - what may amount to decades of suffering?
Even for Christians: Why do some of us spend so-much time, effort (and, often, misery) tediously mucking-about in getting, conceived, born, growing-up, living, getting sick, maybe reproducing, getting old and dying (the whole complicated and hazardous rigmarole) - before we get to Heaven (maybe).
There are indeed ways of making sense of this, but mainstream Christianity - with it's omni-God and double-negative Jesus - is not one of them.
But do we really need (after 2000 years without!) a deep, metaphysical, theology that tells us positively what this mortal life is for, and what Jesus did, and how it fits into divine creation?
Surely it is (as Jesus seems to have said) enough to love and follow Jesus Christ to salvation?
Yes it is enough - for salvation; assuming that we can get through mortal life still wanting it, and not so corrupted as to reject the offer when it is made after our death.
Yet this world is full of ex-Christians, fake-Christians, self-identified by not-really Christians. The churches are collapsing, and those that remain "devout" are evidently on a path leading down and away from Jesus.
But meanwhile? Are we really living through mortal life just for that final decision? - or is there something we ought to be doing here and now that will contribute to that eternal resurrected life we anticipate with confidence?
Important questions - vital questions - it seems to me.
And if our society and our churches are not giving coherent answers - then what are we (personally_ going to do about it? Say "it's not my fault"? Or find answers?
(Or, is there something more important that you need to do instead?)
when they have to answer the question of existence here on earth, it seems to me that the theologians' answers all boil down to Adam having sinned, and then all his descendants are thrown here to suffer - and that's why we're here, all paying for the crimes of our ancestor. God, apparently, can do nothing about this except send his son to suffer and die here too, and then retrieve what was lost by his suffering and death (but why are we still coming here then?). but i think that's it, that's their answer. hidden behind it, and not very well, is a theoretically heretical proposition that God the Father is actually a bad guy, because, keeping the omni assumption, he could just save us without Jesus and without us having to suffer. instead, for some reason, he choses suffering for both ourselves and his firstborn (who is also himself of course, so I guess he is both a sadist and a masochist). since this is a very badly told story, with large plot holes, then they introduce flowery prose full of abstract symbols to attempt to hide how little sense it makes for a God of Love to do this. but this is the story they tell. it doesn't surprise me that it convinces very few. but really, all they have to do is drop the omni stuff and then the story starts to make more sense. but this is the one thing they refuse to do.
ReplyDelete@Laeth - Christians say it is not a problem, because the official answers suffice, and that the real problem is I don't know or misunderstand the official answers. But it is a problem, and the official answers do not suffice.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that most people who recognize the problem and the inadequacy of the responses to the problem just don't become Christians, or stop being Christians when they realize. Because mainstream Christians have made their "omni" metaphysics and their concept of Jesus as part of a Trinity mandatory and defining.
So mainstream Christians state emphatically that unless you accept these philosophical assumptions up-front, and (logically) *before* you decide to love and follow Jesus Christ to resurrected eternal life, then you actually *aren't* a Christian.
"really, all they have to do is drop the omni stuff and then the story starts to make more sense. but this is the one thing they refuse to do."
The question is why? The answer is partly psychological, and that psychology is grounded in a primary monotheism that is more important a priority than making sense of Jesus.
Again why? There must be several or many reasons. One is fear - a kind of herd or "gang" instinct, an existential fear of ostracism. It could be self-mistrust, or an evasion of ultimate responsibility.
But it also seems to me that there are now, and always have been, many Christians who are ultimately - at bottom, above all - monotheists of a Jewish/ Islamic kind; and who have (starting very early) forcibly and without regard for coherence, reshaped Christ to fit into their de facto pure-monotheistic religion.
In the this was much less of a problem, not least because that kind of religion usually dominated public discourse of a country, and people grew up within it, unconsciously absorbing it - interwoven with the entirety of social assumptions and functioning.
As that ceased to be the case, and as many negative critiques became mainstream, Christians now find a requirement to satisfy themselves that there are solid and comprehensible explanations as to the necessity of Jesus Christ, and to get clear about what he did.
Only then can people decide whether they want the transformation that Jesus offers (they Can make the decision after death - but the post-mortal person is the same person as they were before death).
Of course, plenty of people don't want it. But too many who would want it - if they knew what it was; remain seriously deceived about what it really is that Jesus offers, and the conditions.
Worst of all, most people seem to assume/insist that the true answer/s Must be *institutionally* provided and endorsed - and that any answer they may discover and devise for themselves can only be delusional-wishful-thinking.
Thus the trap becomes inescapable.
ReplyDelete@Bruce,
I think many are enamored with the intellectuality and the high mindedness of it all, and the more obscure the more they take pride in it (and simple, coherent answers, like Mormon theology offers, do not interest them in the least, but rather they ridicule the very idea that the answer could be simple! - I know this for a fact).
I think for now, while they still have some sort of tradition, they can live well with the incoherence, because they don't regard it as incoherence, they bridge the gap with 'the Church Fathers (or the Popes) said this and also that'. Will this hold, in the long run? Meaning, will they keep a certain commitment to Jesus while pursuing this, as churches disintegrate? It certainly was possible in the past, but like you, I am pessimistic about it. I think a large amount of traditionalists will not even convert to Islam, but rather revert back to atheism.
@Laeth - I suppose, for disaffected traditionalists there here is also the option of purely-philosophical theoretical perennialist or Neo-Platonic "theism". In other words, they might stick to (or revert to) their primary metaphysical assumption of omni-God - and an eternal timeless/static and perfectly-One reality - and drop the religion.
ReplyDelete"they ridicule the very idea that the answer could be simple" - yes. This is something that I came across a lot in theoretical biology. And in an ultimate sense it is always correct to remember that any possible finite statement is a model of reality, hence not reality - since it leaves out nearly everything.
But this is used to ridicule models of reality that are simple enough to be lucid, and to enable clear inferences to be drawn from them; whereas internally incoherent, or mind-stunningly abstract, statements can be asserted to be mystically True, because un-understandable in any clear way - and consequently Not leading to clear inferences.
Abstract and absolute concepts like the omni-words, perfection, sub specie aerternitatis, ex nihilo, infinite, those in the Athanasian creed... are of this kind. When made core terms, they Stun the mind; rendering clear thought impossible.
Do you believe God engages in trial and error?
ReplyDelete@Lucinda- Are you asked about whether my understanding is that God makes errors? The answer is yes, I do believe this. God's mistakes are depicted throughout the Bible - usually a matter of God trusting Men, who then let God down - so it shouldn't really be a matter of dissent. Error is an inevitable consequence of genuine agency among beings.
ReplyDeleteWell I don't want to be tedious but the gnostic branches of early Christianity explain this situation very simply; this creation is a 'fallen world' based on admixture of God's love as well as the will of a twisted demiurge, who seeks to trap souls here to sustain this reality...
ReplyDeleteIn that sense I agree with you that God is not 'omnipotent' - or at least not in this creation. He sent Jesus as a messenger and redeemer to show mankind the way out of this corrupted world. Our task is simply to self-perfect, despite the increasing entropy and breakdown around us.
I am not actually well-informed re: mormon theology. Is the outline on the wiki page roughly accurate?
@Michael C - If you really want to "do" metaphysics - ie examine the theories of the nature of reality - you can't examine one issue at a time (like God's power), but must consider a whole system of linked and (should be) mutually compatible assumptions, and their implications (e.g. is reality ultimately one or many, is God good - and what does "good" mean, is love the primary principle or something else, are Men related to God?...).
ReplyDeleteGnostic Christianity was one such system, which you would need to examine in this way.
Momron metaphysical theology (my take on it is http://theoreticalmormon.blogspot.com/ ) is extremely different from Gnostic Christianity - and at the deepest level of assumptions Gnosticism was much closer to Catholic Christianity (or indeed Calvinism) than is Mormonism...
But of course there are similarities - as there are even between completely different religions such as Buddhism and Islam (e.g. Zen and Sufism are quite similar) - as well as very significant differences.
Yes, that is my understanding too. It seems to follow from a belief of God in time rather than outside it, and in loving relationship with developing and sometimes unpredictable beings. And it is something I find in my experience as a mother, getting to know my children and adjusting as unexpected needs occur.
ReplyDeleteFor me, this is how I understand God's wisdom in sending us to this earth-school, where we have some space to learn things on our own and allows God to lovingly experiment with us as participants, rather than merely being acted upon. The separation encourages independent contribution on our part, with entropy being a helpful Boogeyman of sorts. Given how many people just want to go back to comfortable boundary-less oneness, it does seem that entropy is useful to a loving parent seeking to encourage growth. (But that might be more of a mom thing.)
@Lucinda - One way I depart from standard Mormon theology is that I do Not regard our pre-mortal life as Heaven.
ReplyDeleteI think Jesus made Heaven possible, that there was no Heaven until Jesus; and Heaven can only be reached via death.
So *that* is why we are incarnated mortally - even if only briefly (e.g. in the womb) - because otherwise we cannot have a chance to get to Heaven.
Just an idea, but maybe premortal life was heavenly mother dominated, like how young children are more oriented toward their mom when very young.
ReplyDelete