The classic service pre-Christmas of nine lessons and carols is probably the main way in which most non-Christians are exposed to the Christian message; but If one actually tries to make sense of the readings and put-them-together... Well, if they make any converting appeal to the alienated atheist in search of meaning and purpose - it is not clear to me.
(I accept that the nine lessons services are not meant to convert atheists; but nonetheless, they are probably the only scripture and sermon to which most atheists get exposed in the course of a year.)
And when Christianity is summarized briefly but in terms of its primary concepts; the philosophical explanation of what it's all about, seems to require all kinds of assumptions that aren't at all natural or obvious - or even good!
Not obviously right, confusing and incoherent stuff, from my perspective, is:
That God (and then Jesus) are in practice mainly interested in judging us for our sins, and will inevitably find us deserving of punishment - probably horrible and everlasting punishment...
Yet Jesus, as saviour, seems to be saving us from a situation that (by definition) has been entirely set-up by God.
But God and Jesus are essentially the same - yet "the Jesus aspect of God" was somehow necessary for the work of salvation to happen. Apparently; God needed to become Man (while remaining God) in order to save us from a God-created situation...
But that the fact this world is full of sinful people is not God's fault, despite that he created absolutely everything that exists - instead the universality of sin the fault of some combination of inherited original sin (hence the Genesis reading in the nine lessons) plus our own freely-chosen individual sins.
It seems that, faced with the sinfulness of His Creation; God would - because of justice - condemn every single person to damnation - except that Jesus (who, by some selection or combination of his birth, life, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension) somehow negated this damnation* - on certain conditions (which conditions vary between different churches and denominations).
(*Various theories are offered; maybe God punished or sacrificed Jesus instead of us; maybe Jesus experienced the totality of suffering that otherwise would have been experienced by us... there are various theories, none of which fit common sense ideals of good relationships or virtuous behaviour among people.)
Most of being-a-Christian is about these conditions required for salvation: what we must do (and not do) to satisfy our judge/s, and avoid the punishments of Hell.
But Jesus (for reasons which aren't clear) did all this is a two-phase process - beginning the work during his life as a Man some 2000 years ago, and ending the process at some future date when Jesus will (in some sense) return and finish the job.
It is not terribly clear what we (and all humans of the past) are supposed to be doing in the meanwhile...
I can only suppose that all this business is utterly bewildering to most people (insofar as they take the slightest notice of it), and that it does not amount to something that one would obviously endorse as a way of setting-up and running things.
I also think it is factually wrong in many important respects, and that reality is not really structured thus.
But you all know what I think already. My main point here is to point out that - quite apart from whether the teachings are true - all this doesn't come across as anything like as self-evidently appealing as some Christians seem to think it is...
(I know all this can be and is nuanced into other and more positive and appealing stuff by the many and complex abstractions of official theology... But Christians need to ask why it is that they are so utterly unable to explain their religion concisely and lucidly, what it "offers", what is its appeal, how it "works" - even when they have the attention of a captive audience.)
9 comments:
indeed, the sales pitch always seemed to me very poor: 'have you heard the Good News? you're most likely going to hell!'
@Laeth - What is so bizarre, is that the Good News, understandable As Good News, is so simply and clearly described in the Fourth Gospel - if only it is read as the primary and most authoritative source.
Too simple, and too clear - I suppose.
Or "the wrong kind of Good News" for the purposes of those who controlled the message, perhaps.
@A-G - Too political, topical, explicit.
For many I believe it has more to do with anti-modernity being a sort of non-negotiable absolute, therefore whatever medieval/ancient authorities believed before the bad modern times has to be correct.
Of course it sounds kind of stupid when I put it that way, but I think it may really be that simple: They hate modernism (leftism and it's manifestations etc.) more than they care to think through things like this.
Dr. Bruce … you’re touching on one of my hobbyhorses here … “pointy-hattism”, gobbledegook of much speaking, formalisation of a priesthood, and one thing struck me immediately whilst agreeing with the criticisms, the impossibility of it appealing the way it’s put out to the people …
… that thing is there was no mention of the Holy Spirit in the post, only of Father and Son. This faith is a trinity and the verses are there … the sending of the comforter, the conscience, the setter-righter … major part of the trinity.
Without that, then it’s just a dry, intellectual stick demanding “proof”. It’s not about proof, it’s about faith … even about why I put in my tuppence halfpenny at 0310, middle of the night. Why? I was told to. By whom? Maybe by the HS … the ways are mysterious … but I knew I had to.
Bless, Dr. Bruce.
At the risk of being flippant, I will only add that Christians insist we must be extremely grateful for and obsequious to the state of affairs you have described--to the point of making worship the primary activity of mortal life--and accept that it is all "good," even though little of it really makes sense or adequately addresses the question of why God decided to create in the first place.
Until that question rises to the forefront, Christianity will continue to flounder in its various guises, from strict ortho-trad bastions of smug righteousness to servile System-aligned bogs and everything else in between (prosperity gospel, Christianity as a self-improvement program, altruism on steroids, etc.)
The nuanced, positive stuff you allude to comes too late or comes off as relatively inauthentic and equally bewildering qualifications and modifications. I honestly cannot blame atheists for raising their eyebrows and shaking their heads when they encounter the bulk of theology.
@James - I agree that the Holy Ghost is the key - here and now.
@Frank - Personally, I find "the second coming" a particularly unconvincing and incoherent doctrine.
Of course it isn't in the Fourth Gospel (or Mark) - and I'm sure it was not taught by Jesus.
Nonetheless it is enshrined in Classical Orthodoxy (and in Mormonism) and has led to all kinds of very unconvincing theology, it grossly underrates Jesus Christ; and also encourages a Bad Attitude IMO!
If those people were right, then I would without any doubt choose death. I would rather die with Odin than live with their Yahweh. I would rather die alone than live with Yahweh.
But here's the funny thing: Most of them claim that death is not an option. There is no escape, because you're going to be tortured forever! How does it feel??
@Hagel "But here's the funny thing: Most of them claim that death is not an option. There is no escape"
This is not distinctive to any particular religion, or group of religions. Until recently, as far as known, everybody who lived believed that there was survival of something after death, in some way or another. Probably most people have believed in some version of reincarnation.
The idea that death was following by annihilation of the individual seems to be very modern, or else (but we may be misinterpreting) the idea of a very few intellectuals here and there.
Post a Comment