A question for Christians
Christ taught his disciples to love their enemies and to do good to those who sinned against them but believers in the Bible are also taught about an angel named Micheal. Micheal is depicted as a warrior and he embodies the idea of a just war. Christian theory and practice seems to have revolved around the persecution they faced in the world for their loyalty to an otherworldly master but they didn't embrace the idea of a Jihad like the muslims. I know of no documented cases where christians waged war against the roman emperors who so viciously attacked them. Was this a proof of their cowardice or their wisdom? Perhaps it is strange to say that men and women who willingly faced death were cowards but perhaps someone like Nietzsche would say that this is proof of their rejection of life. Indeed Jesus says elsewhere in the Bible "whoever loves his life will lose it". Spartacus was not afraid of the roman legions and he lived only a few years before the Christians would burst onto the scene. How should christians understand this nonviolent reputation of Christ and his disciples who were tortured and murdered by tyrannical regimes? Is it the case that this nonviolence was practiced because of their faith in God's ability to punish the wicked and reward the righteous in the next world? In Matthew 26:53 christ says "Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?". If God is indeed a king with legions at his command why would he allow his son to be mistreated? Why would christ allow himself and his devoted followers to be tortured and murdered? It is a strange salvation that involves the obliteration of the flesh for the sake of something sacred like the soul.
In John 18:36 Jesus is quoted as saying "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence", here we are introduced to the idea of our heavenly father's fatherland. If God has armies of angels who have waged war for him then perhaps there is a time for war and a time for peace but what method should we use to determine when we should wage war or when we should pursue peace? Why was it acceptable for God to wage war against the wicked in heaven and somehow impermissible for his faithful son and servants here on earth? Is it a double standard or is it something deeper? Maybe Christ didn't have a dog in the fights that happen down here on earth but what are we to do? Should we fight when faced with an evil enemy like Micheal or should we do as christ did and lay down our lives for the ones we love because we are taught by him to love our enemies? What kind of mysterious wisdom would lead men to their deaths? Is it the idea that a man who has nothing to die for is already dead? Christians are taught to see heaven as their promised land but the Israelites had to carve out a place for themselves with conquest. Leaders like Joshua at Jericho and David with Goliath seem to suggest that God's people can use violent means to achieve their ends down here on earth. Indeed the Bible teaches that God gives victory in war to whoever he choses. Perhaps christians should remember when they recite the lords prayer and repeat the words "on earth as it is in heaven" that there was war in heaven once upon a time.
In John 18:36 Jesus is quoted as saying "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence", here we are introduced to the idea of our heavenly father's fatherland. If God has armies of angels who have waged war for him then perhaps there is a time for war and a time for peace but what method should we use to determine when we should wage war or when we should pursue peace? Why was it acceptable for God to wage war against the wicked in heaven and somehow impermissible for his faithful son and servants here on earth? Is it a double standard or is it something deeper? Maybe Christ didn't have a dog in the fights that happen down here on earth but what are we to do? Should we fight when faced with an evil enemy like Micheal or should we do as christ did and lay down our lives for the ones we love because we are taught by him to love our enemies? What kind of mysterious wisdom would lead men to their deaths? Is it the idea that a man who has nothing to die for is already dead? Christians are taught to see heaven as their promised land but the Israelites had to carve out a place for themselves with conquest. Leaders like Joshua at Jericho and David with Goliath seem to suggest that God's people can use violent means to achieve their ends down here on earth. Indeed the Bible teaches that God gives victory in war to whoever he choses. Perhaps christians should remember when they recite the lords prayer and repeat the words "on earth as it is in heaven" that there was war in heaven once upon a time.
Comments (81)
Suffering is kind of the point of most forms of Christianity, isn't it?
1 Peter 4:12-13 (NIV):
Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.
The Bible is an anthology, a series of allegories, dozens of separate books, written across a period of well over 1000 years, it is interpreted in multiple ways and there are thousands of Christian sects and denominations today, with their own preferred understanding of scripture. How could we narrow it down to something like the plot of a movie?
I know of no interpretation of christianity where suffering is the end and not the means. If this was the case then hell would be the goal and heaven would be avoided.
I don't think anyone knows what the allegory of heaven means exactly. Hence my latter point.
They did that a lot of that sort of thing after they attained state power.
Quoting Average
As reported by Paul, the world was about to change so dramatically that the reason to fight (which was generally considered a natural response) was less important than the impending change. The Sermon on the Mount begins with pointing to the end of days as changing the criteria of what was important due to the immediate circumstances.
As far as I know they never attained state power.
The Catholic and Orthodox churches. Having an Emperor crawl for forgiveness in order to rule.
The Crusades.
The elimination of 'heresies' wiping out entire communities.
The agreements to have states be designated as having their religion be determined by what the rulers believed.
That sort of thing.
Jesus is pretty clear on that. Put your trust in God. Let your enemies do what they will. Don't resist them. Forgive them, no matter what they do. This existence on Earth is nothing compared to what lies ahead in Heaven.
That's my reading of it anyway.
I also believe it is right and just to defend yourself or another from an attacker, and a war may be justly waged. I think Saint Thomas Aquinas commented on what constitutes a just war. The ability to wage a just war is not beyond the scope of what tradition has revealed.
I see no problem between Christ's mission and self-defense. Does that answer?
How does that square with the following:
"Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person."
But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them."
It seems obvious to me that Jesus has anticipated the self-defense/just-war question:
What if someone attacks me?
Do not resist evil
What if they attack my kids?
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you
What if my country is at war?
All who draw the sword will die by the sword
I don't know how you can read Jesus's teachings as anything other than total pacifism. He couldn't have been any clearer on the subject.
:100: :mask:
Here's a question: does anyone nowadays actually believe in "an eye for an eye?"
Is it possible to interpret that in some way that allows you to kill someone attacking you? It seems pretty straightforward to me, especially combined with other pacifist passages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8aNfg0LBgQ&ab_channel=MGM
The book of Revelation involves the idea that the fight will eventually be brought to Earth. If you are thinking in terms of the traditional Christian canon then that book will be a helpful key, but also the other eschatological writings in the New Testament (and Old).
---
Quoting RogueAI
Serious question for you: have you ever read the New Testament in its entirety? I find that those who make such claims have almost invariably never read the New Testament.
Our culture presents a very strange and lopsided version of Jesus, and it seems that such claims are more influenced by the culture than by the Bible or by historical Christianity.
Christ didn't practice self defense when it was a matter of life and death.
No, I only pay attention to Jesus's teachings. The rest is crap.
Spartacus fought the romans without state power.
Also: plenty of Christians who worship the Bible and read all of it religiously (no pun intended) have come to the same conclusion I have and preach pacifism.
I think we should differentiate on Jesus who comes from the Gospel and Jesus of Nazareth.
The role of Jesus and Christianity itself in the Bible is a metaphorical invention by Paul and John. There is not historical evidence that backs up the warrior character of this movement, but it is obvious that was a pacific revolt against Romans. Nonetheless, after Christianity is established as a rigid system it needs to be defended at all costs. I guess this is why we see some Gospels about this nature around the Bible.
On the other hand, Jesus of Nazareth (the "real" Jesus, or at least his human form) was clearly a pacifist. Luke 23:34 "Then Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they're doing...'"
That redemption came when Jesus was dying crucified on the cross. I personally believe that it was his real aim. Avoiding violence and showing the other cheek. But, it is evident that there is a controversial issue regarding what happened and then what appears in the Gospels. I guess this is why you find it contradictory.
If this is the case then perhaps christians have failed in their missionary mission.
But if you are familiar with the four canonical gospels then you must be aware of when Jesus instructed his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords (Luke 22:36); or when Jesus made a whip out of cords to drive the money changers out of the Temple (John 2:15-17); or when Jesus foretold that, "the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful" (Luke 12:46, NRSV); or when Jesus, speaking about a grievous sinner, says, "it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea" (Mark 9:42).
I could go on.
He must've intended for them to turn them into plowshares because when Peter uses the sword he is told by Jesus that whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword.
If we disregard all of the evidence that contradicts a pacifistic interpretation then our self-fulfilling prophecy will indubitably be fulfilled.
Why are you speaking in riddles?
I already acknowledged that the Bible has examples of warfare waged by the righteous against the wicked.
My point is that simple, ready-made interpretations of Jesus almost always fudge the evidence. It seems to me that at the very least Jesus was a deeply complex figure, and that simple interpretations therefore cannot stand.
What does Jesus say when the sword is actually used?
"Those who live by the sword die by the sword."
A pacifist could go around armed, presumably to scare off attackers. They just won't actually use the weapon on someone.
Yes, Jesus has a temper tantrum and tosses some money-changers out. That doesn't negate all his other teachings on non-violence. That's the human side of him coming out.
"But suppose the servant says to himself, My master is taking a long time in coming, and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers."
More "live by the sword die by the sword". If you beat people, you'll come to a violent end.
Jesus is using the imagery of a particularly nasty death to make a point.
So then you think it is moral to threaten to do things that you believe to be immoral, which is a difficult position to maintain.
Quoting RogueAI
There is nothing in the text to support your thesis that this event indicates a failure or moment of weakness on Jesus' part. On the contrary.
Quoting RogueAI
Except if you understand these parables you will understand that "the master" is the God of Israel, and therefore the violence is not only approved but it is also a foretelling (or at the very least, a severe warning about what may happen).
Quoting RogueAI
No, the point is that what awaits him will be much worse than this particularly nasty way to die, and Jesus approves both of what awaits him and of that which he proposes.
Pacifists don't talk this way. The examples I gave only scratch the surface.
It's also possible his core message was non-violence and some of the other stuff was lost in translation or just made up. Did Jesus actually whip the money-changers? Did he maybe knock over a table and the story got embellished?
I'm not Christian. The anti-violence stuff has the ring of truth to me. A lot of the other stuff was probably made up or garbled from what Jesus originally said. There are pacifist Christians who could do a better job of arguing it than me.
But they do talk this way:
[b]"Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
"If a soldier forces you to walk with him one mile, go with him two. Give to anyone who asks you for something. Don't refuse to give to anyone who wants to borrow from you."
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."[/b]
"Do not resist an evil person."
So what's a Christian to do? How do you reconcile that with the other stuff? What do you think Jesus was really saying here? I think these bolded passages trump the violent imagery and parables.
Quoting Leontiskos
Not at all. I don't think it's immoral to threaten Russia with nukes. I think it would be immoral to destroy their country if they launch against us. The threat itself produces a positive outcome. I also don't think wearing a sword is a threat. Someone could take it that way, but that's on them.
If you opt to not believe, then much of the teaching by Jesus and his Church are likely not going to make a whole lot of sense to you. If you opt to believe, it isn't that everything will fall into place and make perfect sense. If you believe you are saved from hellfire and damnation by God's grace, and you do the best you can to emulate the life of Jesus, then that's the end of it.
Why not? Jesus had his moment of doubt. Why not his moment of anger?
Jesus was talking to people who lived in a violent world. He couldn't come across as a total pussy. He had to meet them where they were at, to some extent.
Oh. Well, the god of the old testament is incredibly violent, so that's that's to be expected.
I have read the baghavad gita but I don't remember the whole thing.
Much of it is about the difficult decision of whether or not to take up arms, and it's a deep analysis.
Violence is an enactment of malice. For example, one might break a window of someone's house in order to annoy, threaten, or punish them, or simply careless of such consequences, and such would be an act of violence. But one might break the same window in order to allow the inmates to escape from a fire, and such would be an act of love.
Or if a child wanders into the path of a speeding lorry, a physically forceful intervention, even one that causes some pain or injury in order to save a life would be an act of love and not of violence.
I do not know how to calculate the misery inflicted on the poor worshipers by the exploitation by the temple money-changers compared to the misery they suffered by having their tables overturned and being whipped by Jesus. But to me, to the extent that there is a Christian message, the facts do not matter, the lesson is that violence is a state of mind, that is the opposite of love, and that non-violence does not preclude vigorous and forceful action to prevent harm to others, but does preclude harming others as the motive for action.
Perhaps it is better to shoot a pedophile, or put a millstone round his neck, than to let him abuse children unrestrained. Or perhaps there are other ways to restrain him. One might believe that mercy killing can, in extremis, be an act of love; but usually, alas, I would suspect malicious revenge.
Some criterions may be helpful for this problem and discussion.
The Bible is not a 100% faithful recording of what really happened, what people really said and thought. This applies to the Gospels and to Jesus as well. As a consequence, there isn't much point in quoting this or that text of the Bible, because all those texts are already interpretations; then we interpret them, doing interpretations of interpretations.
Jesus was not a maths theorem, nor the Bible is. There is no surprise that the Bible is full of a lot of contradictions; we should add to these contradictions the contradictions that are already contained in our thoughts when we try to interpret the Bible.
This means that this discussion should be made while being aware that we just try to build humble interpretations, without expecting these interpretations to be 100% free from contradictions. You cannot build a perfectly consistent theological system: it is just impossible.
I feel this is a vital point. By the same token, one cannot build a perfectly consistent materialistic system. These things do not work in metaphysics. They are found to give rise to contradictions.
I'd also agree about Jesus and the Bible. A literal reading kills the message and makes a mockery of it. One of the problems, it seems to me, is that many Christians today regard the Roman church's interpretation as reliable. They forget that prior to the third century Jesus was given a quite different interpretation
Why?
[quote=Friedrich Nietzsche][i]In truth, there was only one christian and he died on the cross.[i][/quote]
What percentage is faithful then? 60%, 40%, 2%? And the percentage that is not faithful - how does this reinterpret or efface the percentage which is? What is a Christian to do?
Quoting FrancisRay
Amen to that.
One of my favourite Christian writers, Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong (deseased) puts it like this:
It seems we're on the same page, for this para sums up my view precisely. Christianity is dead if it does not wake up to this issue. The problem is, it cannot change unless it returns to its mystic roots, and Christians I know tend to be horror-struck by this idea.
Biblical literalism is a vocal minority view, strongest in American Evangelical Protestantism, which is a small minority of the faithful no matter how much it tends to deny this fact to itself.
Mainline Protestants and Catholics are still citing Bonaventure's six-fold, 7 step, 3 mode journey of the Mind (mens) into God, moving outward to God's vestiges in the book of nature (Francis of Assisi, brother son and sister moon), then inward to psychological reflection (Augustine), and finally upwards (Denis).
Boehme is less common, but still explored by some Lutherans. Augustine and his mysticism is everywhere in the Latin Rite, and has even had a resurgence in the Orthodox churches. Denis still suffuses the Eastern Tradition. Granted, these have their own ultra conservative movements, but they rely less on literalism.
Anti-naturalism seems to be a more an unresolved issue for the small subset of American churches that has begun rapidly disintegrating due to culture war politics, hemorrhaging members since 2010 and seeing their median age shoot upwards like a rocket. It's not that the other sects have completely resolved this issue, but they have been working on it for a long time and have not been afraid to get their hands dirty doing metaphysics. They're also less cut off from the Churches roots in some of the greatest thinkers in the philosophical tradition, and can regularly draw on minds like Augustine or Eckhart for ammunition.
It doesn't make "perfect sense." Faith is a journey. Even Peter doubts when Christ allows him to walk on water and begins to sink. Only Christ grabbing him saves him. Likewise, he draws a sword to protect Jesus even at the end when the authorities come for him, and Jesus must rebuke him then. But then we see him finally understanding and mirroring Christ in Acts, as with the raising of Tabitha. There, it is the people who do not yet understand, they call on Peter thinking he is special, not realizing the Spirit "shall be poured out on all flesh." (Joel 2/Acts 2)
What church or synagogue isn't filled with debate? What religious life isn't filled with doubts and seasons? Israel itself means "one who wrestles with God." Jacob sees a ladder ascending to the heavens not an escalator
The problem with Nietzsche's philosophy becomes obvious when you seek to generalize it. How are we all to become overmen, revaluing all values. Cannot one man adopt values such that they find it good to deprive other's of freedom? So then, it seems that if we have some successful overmen, nothing precludes most men being thralls, unfree, slaves. And indeed Nietzsche seems to allow this. Part of the conceit of reading Nietzsche is that the reader is part of a spiritual elite, a technique utilized later by Evola and Guenon and punched up by shallow, dismissive rants against the whole prior corpus of philosophy.
The question then is, is this the ideal solution? The many unfree so that the free can be free? Further, can those who are free in such a system derive recognition from their inferiors given that they have been reduced to an "other?" Or have we just recreated Hegel's Lord/Bondsman dialectical? Is the overman unable to be truly free because he cannot adopt a view that would reduce his status vis-á-vis the masses without risking his overman status? Is he like the Romans of Augustine's City of God, unable to relinquish violent rule less it be turned on them by new tyrants ready to fill the vacuum?
Christianity is, in its core, a religion about overcoming the world through internal transformation, not through Manichean struggle between good and evil.
"Vengeance is mine, I shall repay," says the LORD in Deuteronomy. It is not the Christians duty to fight. What can man add to God if God wants to destroy something? Is God weak that he cannot accomplish his own aims? Have "[we] and arm like God. Or can [we] thunder with a voice like His?" as God asks Job. Can we "then adorn yourself with majesty and splendor, And array yourself with glory and beauty. Then I will admit that your own hand can save you."
But the Christian is not meant to judge. I would argue that they are asked to judge no one, to earnestly hope the ALL are saved.
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." - Mathew 6: 14-15
----
I think I can best answer your questions by showing how I think freedom is essential to the message of the Faith.
Freedom leads to happiness because a free man will not freely choose to be unhappy.
This does not mean we will always be ecstatic about everything we do. Being free to become certain things, to take on certain roles, means being free to accept the duties that come with these roles. If we are to become a good doctor, a nurturing father, or a loving husband, there are surely unpleasant things we must do and pleasing things we must give up. We do not have to find pleasure in all that these duties entail to find happiness in our roles and responsibilities.
Freedom requires both negative freedom, freedom from external constraints, and positive freedom, freedom to become what one authentically desires to be and to control ones own drives and desires.
The Role of Positive Freedom
Of these two, positive freedom is harder to foster. You need self-discipline to get what you want in this world. Most self-help work stops at this point. But more important still is the freedom over ones base instincts, the ability to want what you want to want. Self-control alone is not freedom, it can become its own sort of life-denying slavery. Freedom is self-control directed towards what Harry Frankfurt calls second order volitions, things that you want to want to do in essence.
Freedom then, is not easy to achieve. Like Saint Paul, we must be at war with the members of our body. On all sides we are driven on by desire, instinct, and drive. We are free only when we fathom what we want to do, why we want to do it, and act in accordance with our reason. This is why Leibniz thought the Principle of Sufficient Reason, that idea that everything happens for a causal reason, in a word, determinism, was prerequisite for freedom, not antithetical to it.
For us to be free actions must have defined consequences and we must want to do what we want for a reason. A world where our actions arent deterministic is simply a world where our actions are arbitrary. Arbitrariness isnt freedom.
Free men are like Hegels state, act[ing] in accordance with known ends, and know[ing] what it wills.
Reason then, is essential, as is reason-out-in-the-world, natural law, cause, Logos. As Paul says in Romans 7, he dies a death of autonomy and personhood when sin lives through him, when he is driven on by desire and instinct. He then talks about how he is resurrected in this life, to personhood by Christ, the Logos. Christ, who casts out the legion within, the demons that strive to control us, to rob us of our freedom.
So then, we must develop reason, but also authenticity. This is what the existentialists get right. One must discover their true selves. Where the existentialists err is in elevating the Copernican Principle into a dogma and denying the Logos, claiming the universe is absurd, even as the Logos burns bright in the order within all things.
The Importance of Social Freedom
We are also social creatures. We compete with one another, even as we compete for one another. And so freedom also has a social element. Freedom requires a state that promotes freedom, on which shapes individuals interests such that they have an incentive to promote each others development and freedom.
This is Hegels insight and vision. We progress towards this goal via the dialectical evolution of history, a sort of selection process where states that promote freedom survive because they promote human welfare, technological innovation, a greater ability to muster resources, and because they will be defended with greater zeal by their citizens. If thinking of "natural selection," in terms of intentionality bothers you, simply think of "selection," at work in Hebbian "fire together, wire together," neuronal development, where children lose most of their neurons as function is sculpted through selection, a process that both involves and causes intentionally in patterns of cyclic feedback.
The Essence of Freedom is What is Essential to It
Freedom then, includes duty, self-control, knowledge gnosis.
We have a duty to be free. This is why criminals have a right to be punished. We do not punish merely to deter crime. To do this is to treat another human being like an animal to be domesticated.
Freedom requires knowledge of nature, and so we must study the sciences. We are natural creatures and must understand nature to understand ourselves. Likewise, we must master nature, subdue it and have dominion over it, in order to enact our will.
Freedom requires knowledge of the Logos, and so we must study philosophy, logic, and mathematics.
Freedom requires knowledge of the self, and so we must study psychology, the great works of art, etc.
And as we drain the Cup of Gnosis we shall find three things at the bottom:
The external word, the symbols through which they are known, and the I that is ourselves. And these three we shall know to be in an image of three others: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit reflected in the very necessary nature of coherent being.
And then happy consciousness shall give praise to that which formed it, chanting glory to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, both now and then, and on to ages and ages, amen.
We are the midwives of the Absolute. We are Mary, the theotokos, giving birth to the Body of Christ, his Church. As the Blessed Virgin served to create his first physical body, so we now construct his immanent body through world history. We come together to form the Church and strive to fulfill its Marian mission of the creation of the Body of Christ (in this world, as an emergent, dynamical, historical process)
And yet the Church is also the Bride of Christ, of whom the Canticle of Canticles speaks. This is a mystery, but one we can fathom. For the Bride and the Bridegroom are to become one flesh, one body. And so we are the immanent body forming in this world. This is what is part of what is meant by the Kingdom being near.
And yet the Church is also the Bride of Christ, of whom the Canticle of Canticles speaks. This is a mystery, but one we can fathom. For the Bride and the Bridegroom are to become one flesh, one body. And so we are the immanent body forming in this world. This is what is part of what is meant by the Kingdom being near.
And so, we find our authentic place in the world. A Christian man is lord of all, subject to none. And yet he is servant to all, lording over none. This is the mystery, just as the Gospel is vast and concise, as Saint Denis says.
Thus, the Faith is not world denying, rather it denies the inessential, seeking freedom perfected. The most direct translation of the Lord's prayer would be "give us our super-essential bread." It is the super-essential then that is sought.
Once we realize that the Bible cannot be considered entirely faithful to historical facts, the next step is to analyze it, word by word, sentence by sentence, and study which things can be considered true and which ones cannot. Moreover, we need to consider the different perspectives from which what is true can be considered: for example, there is a difference between historical truths and theological truths.
This mix of truth and non-truth is not a problem for historians, archaeologists, scholars, scientists: for these people this mix is very normal in everything they study. Believers are those who most feel the problem of truth in the Bible. Believers have built theologies to explain why the Bible, that from their perspective is Gods Word, contains inaccuracies. One easy explanation is that God, in revealing himself, decided to use, as instruments, sinners, as those who wrote the Bible were, people with all their imperfections, problems, defects. In other words, theologically, the Bible is a particular example of God deciding to become human, flesh, mixing himself with the flaws and imperfections of humanity. At this point the hard problem is: how do we find what is true in the Bible? The problem is not so hard about historical truth; the hard problem is about theological truth. We can quickly say that this problem has never been solved. In the Roman Catholic context, the Church decided to believe that the Holy Spirit guides it in keeping and elaborating the right doctrine. The problem is that this theology is actually a vicious circle: the Church believes that the Holy Spirit assists it in keeping itself in the truth; who established that the Holy Spirit does this? The Church! So, the Church founds the action of the Holy Spirit, that founds the action of the Church. It is easy to perceive this circle like a trick just to hide an unsolved problem. Protestantism decided to believe that there is not an official Church in charge of establishing the truth, because God reveals himself not just to the high hierarchy of the Church, but to every believer. As a result, Protestantism has ended into a scattering of a lot of sub-churches, each one with its own specific doctrines. Additionally, we should consider that the problem of truth has to be examined in comparison with the philosophies of truth.
Thanks for the interesting overview.
It makes sense to me. What does not make sense is the idea that faith is preferable to knowledge, or that knowledge cannot replace faith. This is the anti-mystical idea that for me undermines the credibility of the church's dogma and alienates modern thinkers.
Learning anything requires a certain degree of faith but the idea of learning what must always remain merely a faith, and is merely a faith even to those who teach it, will be unappealing to a rational person.
He is profoundly heretical, but seems spot on to me. I suspect that if Christianity survives for another century it will because of people like him.
I don't know if that is necessarily a common teaching; certainly, it is not universal. Faith is multifaceted. Do we choose what it is that we believe? To be sure, our beliefs are reinforced by willful acts. E.g., I come to agree with some position in biology through my choice to study it more thoroughly (where I am at with EES actually). But in an important sense, beliefs are beyond our control. My car is blue; I cannot have faith that it is really red. But there is faith that and faith in, the latter being a sort of "moral regard for," and this is more controlled by the will. Notably, the Greek commonly translated a "faith" in Acts and Paul's letters can mean "arguments in favor of."
The goal is to build up both sorts of faith, through knowledge on the one hand, and experience on the other. Bonaventure mentions "three books," that we learn about God from. The Book of Nature, the books of Holy Scripture, and the Book of Mystical Experience. Jean Gearson, writing late-1300s, puts a more apt label on the mystical experience than William James' more influential effort, which is too focused on "peak experiences," IMO.
Gearson distinguishes between intellectual knowledge of a person -- the knowledge of the physician and the biographer -- and personal knowledge of that same person -- the knowledge a child or spouse might have. Mystical theology is simply the way we come to know God in that latter way, through experience. No visions or ecstasies required (and this is where people get tripped up). And indeed, many mystics, Thomas Merton, Bernard of Clairvaux, etc. do not seem to have had any Jamesian "peak experiences," (while others well worth studying, like Saint Hildegard, the Sybil of the Rhine, obviously do).
It's worth noting that when speaking of supernatural gifts that might strengthen faith, Paul says:
- Saint Paul of Tarsus - First Epistle to the Corinthians 13:8-13
Signs and wonders strengthen faith, but Christ tells Thomas in John 20 "because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed." Similar points are made at other points, for example, Jesus chides a man in John 4:48, saying "except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." If we are not to see wonders, then our faith must be built up through an intentional search of the "Three Books."
Knowledge, intellectual ascertainment of Truth, only passes away, only has secondary status, because we come to experience such Truth directly, in a way that is perfectly simple and complete, an unmediated whole, Saint Denis' divine "Darkness Above the Light."
I think the early Augustine's commentary is instructive here.
-Saint Augustine of Hippo - The Soliloquies
You and I have different understandings, but they're in the same ballpark and I don't; want to argue.
I'd just note that when I use the word 'knowledge;' I don;t mean beliefs. I mean Being, 'realisation, , 'knowledge by identity' or what Merrill Wolff calls 'introception'. .
To be pedantic. the 'peak experience' you speak of would be a misnomer in my view, since true knowledge would lie beyond the experience-experiencer duality. This is not to doubt such experiences, just only the idea that they reach to the peak .Those who reach the true peak like Eckhart and the Buddha tell us the idea of God is a mistake, and in this case 'peak experience' is not a theological phenomenon.
As for the view of the church on these matters, it it is clearly unsympathetic. Eckhart, was excommunicated and that the gnostic Christianity of the early community was suppressed.around the third century and is now largely unknown to most Christians.
As you say, many Christians have explored well beyond the confines of faith and dogma. but even so believers are not encouraged to do so. I have a Christian friend who believes both metaphysics and mysticism are the work of the devil. .
My feeling is that the only way to sort out this muddle is a study of metaphysics. and it no coincidence that A. N..Whitehead characterizes the dogmatic literalist Christianity he knew as a '#religion in search of a metaphysic'. .
I think Kierkegaard recasts the tension between faith and reason through looking at what changes our conditions in Philosophical Fragments. Obeying the command to love as laid out in his Works of Love was not a confirmation of a credo as much as it was a manual for change. Sort of a rebuttal to the The Enchiridion by Epictetus.
"Peak experience," is sort of an anachronism. It's from Maslow, working in the 1960s. It just means a powerful, intense experience that becomes a foundation for identity, defining, and highly memorable a lens through which the world is viewed. Many mystics describe only a handful of such ecstasies, Boehme for example.
Eckhart wasn't excommunicated, but his teachings were suppressed (half-heartedly), so you have a point there. However, he was never even officially condemned, just passages from his work. He did have a trail in Germany that tried to condemn him, but as a Benedictine he wasn't under their jurisdiction so it was a bit of an exercise. Only his university in Paris or the Pope could try him, Paris demured. He appealed to Avignon and a Papal committee reviewed his work. They turned up like 126 suspect statements, then dropped all but 28. Eckhart died mid trial, at 67-68, so not uncommon then.
Normally, the issue would have been dropped but the Pope was facing multiple mystical challenges, particularly a feud with the Franciscans over if Christ and the Apostles owned property, and decided to release a bull condemning some of Eckhart's statements as "error or heresy." Not necessarily heresy. Eckhart himself never really was forced to recant, his recantation, which he gave readily, just says "I reject anyone who misreads my work as not being catholic teaching and orthodox." Funny stuff.
Really, he was more someone who got caught up in political feuds and a larger wave of, in some cases obviously unorthodox mysticism.
He was still buried with the full rights and honors of his position and has since been rehabilitated. That so much of his writing survived and that he influenced Boheme, Hegel, etc. so much shows the condemnation didn't really have much influence in the end, people saw it as the political gesture it was.
Not that the Church wasn't burning people for heresy then, the same Pope who started the inquest on Eckhart had four Franciscans burnt over the question of Christ's poverty around the same time period. It's just that Eckhart's internal looking mysticism never aroused the same political passions.
Still, he's hardly flavour of the month in the Vatican. His experience seems to have outstripped the Roman theology. Christians are not usually encouraged to believe what he teaches and in my experience rarely know what it is.
I feel the battle is best revealed by the reaction of Christians to the book A Course in Miracles. Some respect it but most deem it wildly heretical. .
We seem to agree in many respects, but I feel the topic is too deep for a forum. .
I feel this is a vital observation. Orthodox theology simply does not make sense. Fortunately, this does not invalidate the teachings of Jesus but only certain interpretations. .
I think my point was just that the church wants nothing to do with mysticism, for this states that the God of monotheism is a misinterpretation of experience. As Plotinus notes, consistent with Eckhart, to think of The One as mind or God would be to think of it 'too meanly'. . . . .
Many, most, of the people here on the forum believe that the Christian God, or any god for that matter, does not exist. Quoting scripture won't get you anywhere with them. Actually, no argument will get you anywhere other than providing them with solid, concrete proof of his existence. This is a battle that has been fought here and everywhere else where theists meet atheists.
Actually, I agree with you. I consider the Bible to be evidence for the existence of God. If I were interested, we could discuss whether it is good evidence for God. But that wasn't my point. Whether or not it's fair, using the Bible or other similar religious text as evidence is not considered philosophy here.
would you describe yourself as a duplicitous person?
And are only Christians allowed to respond?
Please advise at your earliest convenience.
Quoting Average
He died in 71 B.C.E., most likely in the final battle which ended the revolt. That's at least 100 years before Jesus is said to have been crucified. Marcus Crassus, who lead the Roman army which defeated Spartacus' is said to have crucified 6,000 of the rebels along the Appian Way back to Rome. If Spartacus didn't fear the legions, he should have.
Quoting Average
You might want to read up a bit on the Crusades.
The claims regarding the persecution of the early Christians by Imperial Rome prior to the reign of Constantine are largely mythical, as modern scholarship has shown. There's little or no evidence of the many martyrs claimed by Christianity, and persecution was localized and sporadic, though a more serious effort was made during the reigns of Decius and Diocletian, but by that time it was far too late to prevent Christian assimilation of the Roman state.
Have you?
The Crusades were intended as defense against the Muslim aggression, an aggression that continues to this day against Christians.
Whether some bandits broke off from the intended purpose and indirectly caused the second and last fall of the Roman Empire is a completely different matter.
Urban II called for the freeing of the Holy Sepulchre from the infidels, and offered the remission of sins to those who died while partipating in the Crusades. That sounds rather like a holy war to me.
No doubt other factors played a part in fostering the crusades But if you think jihad is motivated solely by the desire to kill Christians, I think you're mistaken.
Not bandits, but the entire army of the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople instead of proceeding to Jeusalem, together with the fleet of Venice. Those Crusaders backed a rival of the emperor ruling at that time, who it was hoped would be more cooperative and would pay a large sum to the Crusading army. It was also hoped that the Eastern Church would acknowledge the Pope as the head of the Christian Church. Payment wasn't forthcoming and there was no unification of the Churches.The sack was so violent and destructive Constantinople never recovered, and was eventually conquered by the Ottomans.
Yes, a holy war because of what? That is the issue with you bringing up the crusades as if they were any negative.
"Oh no, people want to defend themselves against foreign death cultists coming to enslave and kill infidels? What a bunch of Nazis."
Quoting Ciceronianus
No such claim was ever made.
Quoting Ciceronianus
I know the history of the Fourth Crusade, a tragedy. The corruption of an effort for political reasons has nothing to do with its original goal. The goal of the crusades is clear for anyone who has studied it. Your implication is that the Crusades are somehow comparable to the jihad. Jesus, the crusades were the DEFENSE against the jihad. The crusades were noble and good, at least supposed to be. Obviously, after 100 years of frustration, things don't stay the same. The jihad on the other hand is the direct effort of people to impose a worldview that justifies oppressing women and child marriage it is an attack, not self-defense.
My point is simply that the Crusades were holy wars waged in the name of God, like jihad, and the crusaders were promised heaven if they died while waging war, as it seems jihadists are promised. I don't consider holy war, killing in the name of God, "noble and good", regardless of the God invoked, but you are of course free to do so. I think war fought for reasons of religion disturbing.
Your point is inaccurate, and you ignored everything I said. Here.
Not everything. Just the parts that are smug and parochial.