We get on fine @Gramps49. Like you and me. The best of enemies. You've defended me more than once. We're all fair minded men. As I had to be with @chrisstiles recently. Because he's another one. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. That's easier. But if I fail to make my point, as with @chrisstiles, which I don't acknowledge often enough, I must nonetheless do so. It got to the point with him when I realised that was my only move. That I'd doubled down on an empty hand. Whether there was hope of recalibration or not. And he was gracious in return. None of us bear grudges.
If you'd paid more attention, @Martin54 you'd have seen that I wasn't saying that the 'East' per se had more positive attitudes about sex and sexuality than the 'West'. Hence my reference to 'appalling attitudes' in some 'Eastern' quarters.
Please engage with what I write and not what you think I've written.
If you'd paid more attention, @Martin54 you'd have seen that I wasn't saying that the 'East' per se had more positive attitudes about sex and sexuality than the 'West'. Hence my reference to 'appalling attitudes' in some 'Eastern' quarters.
Please engage with what I write and not what you think I've written.
I'll try and meet you half way @Gamma Gamaliel. With what you think you mean.
It would be good if people could stick to the subject, which is “The Fall: History, Theology and Palaeobiology” rather than issues of personality or whether anyone is picking a fight with anyone else. Address the subject, and play nicely, please.
Part of the Christian story is that the natural progress of things is upended from time to time. Certainly that happened with Christ, if you believe all of the claims, and so from that it isn't insane to think that the natural progress of things will once again be disrupted.
But does the Christian story mean that everything will happen all at once, as a rapid supernatural event? Idly speculating here but I don't know, maybe Jesus comes back when the human race has finally killed itself. Maybe the eschaton occurs when the universe runs out the clock and snaps back into an infinitely dense ball of matter or whatever. I think there are ways of making it work that preserve the propositions and facts of science with the propositions and revelations of Christianity.
Suspensions of the natural order are indeed a part of the Biblical narrative, but we (now) know that those things can't and/or don't happen. Like we know the universe isn't going to retract back onto/into itself -- it's going to keep accelerating apart until there's no record of it ever being at all. The problem with continuing to insist that there's some version of theology that jibes with science is that each advance of science requires religion to re-contort its claims. How long can religion keep this up? How far can it rationalize?
I didn't mean that we are incapable of understanding very long timescales. I meant that the events are outside the narrative framework. Like the birth of Molly in Joyce's Ulysses, it's not in the story. We can only speculate.
And I am aware all of the tenants are allegations, but as the thread is about the ramifications of these allegations for the scientific epistemology of the faith, treating them as more weighty than mere allegations is warranted.
I understand you re: timescales -- thanks. Strong allegations, then. Unprecedented allegations, even!
Well it's easy to say that the natural order can't be suspended if you disregard all the reports of the natural order being suspended.
I don't know why it's problematic for Christianity to continuously revise itself in the light of new information. Like that's what it has been doing since the beginning, why would it stop now? Doctrine and theology has developed, it will continue to develop as new knowledge is gained. If we didn't develop then we'd be criticized for not developing.
I'm not a physicist but the theory that eventually everything will just drift apart because of blahblahblah is a theory, just like the theory that everything will snap back together is another theory. We revise our accounts of things in light of new information. Religion is not exempt from this.
There are no reports of the natural order being suspended in the fossil record, which is nearly as long as the geological record, again, which contains no such reports. Since the formation of the Earth and Solar system. When we look into the deepest past, close to the the start of the big bang, 97% close, we find no report of the natural order being suspended since then to now. Where no laboratory ever reports the natural order being suspended.
Where are these reports? By which reporters? Do you know any? Personally?
Religion hasn't moved in the slightest toward the greatest single fact of existence. Infinity.
Well western Eurasian, Abrahamic religion hasn't. It doesn't like it all.
I think part of the problem is do we take the story literally, or is it a myth that tries to explain the way things have always been in as simple of terms as possible. I do not think even the first readers of the story understood it to be literal. They had a different sense of history.
Given all we know now about the age and size of the universe, and how slowly things happen (we need to think in terms of millions and billions of years), any suggestion of Jesus suddenly returning and ending everything becomes harder to maintain. I think we need to think seriously about how Christians should look to the future centuries and millenia.
"Christ has died.
Christ is risen.
Christ will come again."
Increasingly, I find it difficult to say the third part of that piece of liturgy with any real conviction. What do I really think the future will hold?
Again (maybe I didn't catch an answer the first time I asked it), I'm wondering--
How does this become a problem--unless it's purely emotional? Which I could understand, because I don't run on strict logic either... I mean, you're comparing a set of slow processes in this universe with an event that comes from OUTSIDE the universe and more or less breaks into it, like an author walking on stage halfway through the play--
why would the pace of the play impact the question of the author's cut-in at all?
To me, it seems kind of like expecting that, because a particular play was gloomy and slow-moving, the author himself ought to be that way when he shows up to have tea with you. Or because all the characters in the play are blondes, so must the author be.
Our stage is an infinitesimal of the universe. Not the practically infinite universe, swarming with civilizations. I'd never stop smiling, after falling over laughing, if our local hero stepped on stage, for us all to see. Every eye. It won't change a thing on the alternate Ceti Alpha V. Their guy will have either been, or is yet to be, on stage. But He won't. We step on to His.
Given all we know now about the age and size of the universe, and how slowly things happen (we need to think in terms of millions and billions of years), any suggestion of Jesus suddenly returning and ending everything becomes harder to maintain. I think we need to think seriously about how Christians should look to the future centuries and millenia.
"Christ has died.
Christ is risen.
Christ will come again."
Increasingly, I find it difficult to say the third part of that piece of liturgy with any real conviction. What do I really think the future will hold?
Again (maybe I didn't catch an answer the first time I asked it), I'm wondering--
How does this become a problem--unless it's purely emotional? Which I could understand, because I don't run on strict logic either... I mean, you're comparing a set of slow processes in this universe with an event that comes from OUTSIDE the universe and more or less breaks into it, like an author walking on stage halfway through the play--
why would the pace of the play impact the question of the author's cut-in at all?
To me, it seems kind of like expecting that, because a particular play was gloomy and slow-moving, the author himself ought to be that way when he shows up to have tea with you. Or because all the characters in the play are blondes, so must the author be.
I must admit that I am not really sure what the point of your analogy is.
Could God, after billions of years, simply step in and say "Time's up"? Of course, he could. If God is God, then surely all things are (at least remotely) possible. But, given what we now know of the history of the universe, is that in any way likely? It would be like Tolkien getting half way through writing the Lord of the Rings, with everything up in the air and unresolved, simply writing "And they all lived happily ever after. The End."
Living in a universe that is billions of years old and vast beyond our imagining, I think that those who want to hold to a sudden wrapping up of everything need to offer more of an argument than "God could do it, because God is God."
On more reflection about this, I think that there is another aspect that I want to mention. Holding on to the idea of a sudden (and possibly imminent) End allows some Christians to downplay or even ignore the environmental challenges that we face. If God is going to pull off the ultimate deus ex machina, then why bother to care for the environment? Why go to the discomfort of achieving Net Zero? Why try to protect the wildlife of the world? If God is about to wrap everything up, there is no need to worry.
(Please note that I am not saying that everyone who believes in the traditional concept of the Parousia will be like this. I know of plenty of evangelical Christians who look forward eagerly to the Second Coming and yet also care deeply about the state of the environment. But it is certainly true that some Christians DO think this way.)
On more reflection about this, I think that there is another aspect that I want to mention. Holding on to the idea of a sudden (and possibly imminent) End allows some Christians to downplay or even ignore the environmental challenges that we face. If God is going to pull off the ultimate deus ex machina, then why bother to care for the environment? Why go to the discomfort of achieving Net Zero? Why try to protect the wildlife of the world? If God is about to wrap everything up, there is no need to worry.
Yeah, but the right way to oppose something like that is on the basis of truth rather than the basis of utility.
It would be like Tolkien getting half way through writing the Lord of the Rings, with everything up in the air and unresolved, simply writing "And they all lived happily ever after. The End."
This is pretty much what Bakshi did in his film of LotR when he ran out of running time and money.
On more reflection about this, I think that there is another aspect that I want to mention. Holding on to the idea of a sudden (and possibly imminent) End allows some Christians to downplay or even ignore the environmental challenges that we face. If God is going to pull off the ultimate deus ex machina, then why bother to care for the environment? Why go to the discomfort of achieving Net Zero? Why try to protect the wildlife of the world? If God is about to wrap everything up, there is no need to worry.
Yeah, but the right way to oppose something like that is on the basis of truth rather than the basis of utility.
Can't work. The only way is to appeal to such Christians is in OT terms to care for God's creation as a mark of respect. How DARE we?! Up against 'subdue the earth'.
On more reflection about this, I think that there is another aspect that I want to mention. Holding on to the idea of a sudden (and possibly imminent) End allows some Christians to downplay or even ignore the environmental challenges that we face. If God is going to pull off the ultimate deus ex machina, then why bother to care for the environment? Why go to the discomfort of achieving Net Zero? Why try to protect the wildlife of the world? If God is about to wrap everything up, there is no need to worry.
Yeah, but the right way to oppose something like that is on the basis of truth rather than the basis of utility.
Can't work. The only way is to appeal to such Christians is in OT terms to care for God's creation as a mark of respect. How DARE we?! Up against 'subdue the earth'.
Whether it works or not is somewhat besides the point in the context of this thread, let's not rule something out simply because someone might misuse it.
Living in a universe that is billions of years old and vast beyond our imagining, I think that those who want to hold to a sudden wrapping up of everything need to offer more of an argument than "God could do it, because God is God."
On more reflection about this, I think that there is another aspect that I want to mention. Holding on to the idea of a sudden (and possibly imminent) End allows some Christians to downplay or even ignore the environmental challenges that we face. If God is going to pull off the ultimate deus ex machina, then why bother to care for the environment? Why go to the discomfort of achieving Net Zero? Why try to protect the wildlife of the world? If God is about to wrap everything up, there is no need to worry.
(Please note that I am not saying that everyone who believes in the traditional concept of the Parousia will be like this. I know of plenty of evangelical Christians who look forward eagerly to the Second Coming and yet also care deeply about the state of the environment. But it is certainly true that some Christians DO think this way.)
Okay, I think I understand where you’re coming from, and I would agree if the second coming was something Christians had extrapolated or somehow made up, because yeah, in that case to be believable you’d expect it to be in keeping with the rest of the universe. But that’s not why Christians believe it, is it? We believe it because Christ told us so. And that’s a completely different situation. In THIS case the author of the play has already explicitly told us that he intends to interrupt the play by walking on stage at a time we can’t predict. Now that we’ve been told, it’s not senseless to expect it—in fact we’d be silly to be caught completely by surprise, since after all, we were warned! It’s about the only surety we do have is his warning that the play will not reach the end of Act V without interruption. So I’m going to make my plans with a double awareness—that things will be interrupted, but that I don’t and can’t know when.
As for those who think they can trash the earth because Jesus is coming back soon—well, I wouldn’t want the author of the play to find me flubbing my lines and trashing the props and costumes when he came. There’s a purely self serving argument for treating the world well while we wait. Another is that we can’t know how close to the end of the play he intends to make his entrance, and mere self interest tells us to keep things livable for as long as we might be living there (faugh, what an argument!). Though of course the primary reason for treating the world right is because it’s the right thing to do, even if you had a registered letter from God telling you the whole thing would end tomorrow. So the Christians you mention are fools three times over.
Went to church today. Have to show my face at the PCC AGM. Wearing a suit! My choice. Just to show I can. But it hurt. The loss. The longing. The ache. Not assuaged at all by the preaching. Love The Peace. Luckily no communion, as I couldn't take it any more. Tho' I'd love it. God that brings tears.
And how does this fit in this thread? Perfectly. Salvation history, to borrow from Henry Ford, is bunk.
As I just said elsewhere on the site,
I yearned to be part of the shared... delusion. Even though the desperate, offensive distraction of sin and salvation was in full blast, in the hymns and preaching.
The epitome of the gospel vs. what's actually missing, and not missing in reality.
&
in response to @chrisstiles, utterly unrelated, but trying to avoid a double post,
On more reflection about this, I think that there is another aspect that I want to mention. Holding on to the idea of a sudden (and possibly imminent) End allows some Christians to downplay or even ignore the environmental challenges that we face. If God is going to pull off the ultimate deus ex machina, then why bother to care for the environment? Why go to the discomfort of achieving Net Zero? Why try to protect the wildlife of the world? If God is about to wrap everything up, there is no need to worry.
Yeah, but the right way to oppose something like that is on the basis of truth rather than the basis of utility.
Can't work. The only way is to appeal to such Christians is in OT terms to care for God's creation as a mark of respect. How DARE we?! Up against 'subdue the earth'.
Whether it works or not is somewhat besides the point in the context of this thread, let's not rule something out simply because someone might misuse it.
I'm ruling it in. But you'll never turn fundamentalist dominionists in to eco-warriors without GOD SAYS THEY SHALL NOT HURT NOR DESTROY IN ALL MY HOLY MOUNTAIN!!! I suggest.
Paul first hints at original sin, but it really did not become a full doctrine of the Western church until after St. Augustine. The Eastern Church does not accept Augustine's theory, though. I will differ to Gamma Gamaliel to explain the Orthodox position.
I believe the Western Church's position on original sin has caused a lot of psychological problems over the millennia. We really have to take a look at what Genesis is really saying.
You're right to attribute the full development of the doctrine to Augustine. One key reason why he was so influential in the West but not the East is that he wrote in Latin, not Greek. Therefore, his writings were not greatly read in the East. The same thing applies to Jerome, who has also had a rather baleful influence in Western thinking.
The notable Church historian Diarmaid MacCulloch has spoken about Augustine and Jerome and the way their writings about the Fall and attitudes to such things as sexuality have affected the Western Church but not the East. He is bringing out a book on a history of sex and christianity later this year, which I think will be very interesting. I'm pretty sure it will touch on some of these matters.
Original Sin (& the associated deep distrust of sex) do not have to be parts of Christianity. And I would hope that we can finally reject them and move to more healthier ways of seeing human living in all its aspects.
Christianity has always had a strong sexual ethic. One just has to read the gospels and the letters of Paul to find it. Original Sin is certainly influenced by that, but it's hardly the key influence.
Belief in Original Sin isn't required, I don't think. To the best of my knowledge it's not de fidei, it's merely a theory to explain things.
Given all we know now about the age and size of the universe, and how slowly things happen (we need to think in terms of millions and billions of years), any suggestion of Jesus suddenly returning and ending everything becomes harder to maintain. I think we need to think seriously about how Christians should look to the future centuries and millenia.
"Christ has died.
Christ is risen.
Christ will come again."
Increasingly, I find it difficult to say the third part of that piece of liturgy with any real conviction. What do I really think the future will hold?
Again (maybe I didn't catch an answer the first time I asked it), I'm wondering--
How does this become a problem--unless it's purely emotional? Which I could understand, because I don't run on strict logic either... I mean, you're comparing a set of slow processes in this universe with an event that comes from OUTSIDE the universe and more or less breaks into it, like an author walking on stage halfway through the play--
why would the pace of the play impact the question of the author's cut-in at all?
To me, it seems kind of like expecting that, because a particular play was gloomy and slow-moving, the author himself ought to be that way when he shows up to have tea with you. Or because all the characters in the play are blondes, so must the author be.
I must admit that I am not really sure what the point of your analogy is.
Could God, after billions of years, simply step in and say "Time's up"? Of course, he could. If God is God, then surely all things are (at least remotely) possible. But, given what we now know of the history of the universe, is that in any way likely? It would be like Tolkien getting half way through writing the Lord of the Rings, with everything up in the air and unresolved, simply writing "And they all lived happily ever after. The End."
Living in a universe that is billions of years old and vast beyond our imagining, I think that those who want to hold to a sudden wrapping up of everything need to offer more of an argument than "God could do it, because God is God."
On more reflection about this, I think that there is another aspect that I want to mention. Holding on to the idea of a sudden (and possibly imminent) End allows some Christians to downplay or even ignore the environmental challenges that we face. If God is going to pull off the ultimate deus ex machina, then why bother to care for the environment? Why go to the discomfort of achieving Net Zero? Why try to protect the wildlife of the world? If God is about to wrap everything up, there is no need to worry.
(Please note that I am not saying that everyone who believes in the traditional concept of the Parousia will be like this. I know of plenty of evangelical Christians who look forward eagerly to the Second Coming and yet also care deeply about the state of the environment. But it is certainly true that some Christians DO think this way.)
Do Christians think this way? I've not met any, although I move pretty exclusively within Anglican, RC, and Mainline Protestant circles so I don't know what people get up to in Evangelical land. I mean, that sounds more like people just looking for any excuse to justify not changing their behavior. You can do that with anything, Christian doctrines aren't unique in this respect.
And, agreeing with LC, that something hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't. This is especially true when we're talking about God.
Evangelical Land is no more monolithic than any other inhabited land mass or archipelago.
By and large, other than at the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum, I don’t see many evangelicals sitting on their butts waiting for 'the Rapture' these days.
Mainstream Anglican, Baptist and independent evangelicals here in the UK are as concerned with environmental issues as anyone else. We could all do a lot more, of course.
Evangelical Land is no more monolithic than any other inhabited land mass or archipelago.
By and large, other than at the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum, I don’t see many evangelicals sitting on their butts waiting for 'the Rapture' these days.
Mainstream Anglican, Baptist and independent evangelicals here in the UK are as concerned with environmental issues as anyone else. We could all do a lot more, of course.
Thank you for the reminder, that's quite right. There are even left, liberal evangelical churches. I've never heard it seriously advanced that the eschaton is a good reason for not caring about the environment. But, of course, people are insane everywhere so there could be a contingency saying as much.
Christianity has always had a strong sexual ethic. One just has to read the gospels and the letters of Paul to find it. Original Sin is certainly influenced by that, but it's hardly the key influence.
Indeed.
Peter Brown, the historian of late ancient / early medieval thought, noted that if Clement of Alexandria's relatively positive views of human nature had won out Christianity might have ended up more like Islam. Islam has no doctrine of original sin, but nobody would accuse mainstream Islam of not having a strong sexual ethic.
There's a kind of Hegelian thing going on where progress towards what we in the West think of as a relatively positive modern view of sexuality had to go by Augustine's deep suspicion of it's pitfalls.
Christianity has always had a strong sexual ethic. One just has to read the gospels and the letters of Paul to find it. Original Sin is certainly influenced by that, but it's hardly the key influence.
Indeed.
Peter Brown, the historian of late ancient / early medieval thought, noted that if Clement of Alexandria's relatively positive views of human nature had won out Christianity might have ended up more like Islam. Islam has no doctrine of original sin, but nobody would accuse mainstream Islam of not having a strong sexual ethic.
There's a kind of Hegelian thing going on where progress towards what we in the West think of as a relatively positive modern view of sexuality had to go by Augustine's deep suspicion of it's pitfalls.
Yes, I agree. I also think that we just happen to live in such a sex saturated culture that we view it as an unambiguous good when that view has certainly not been the case for most of history. Of course, these things are always shifting back and forth. Augustine gets a lot of flack these days for his thinking about sexuality but I think that simplifies the picture far too much. (Gary Wills' little biography of Augustine is good on this point, if people are interested.)
Evangelical Land is no more monolithic than any other inhabited land mass or archipelago.
By and large, other than at the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum, I don’t see many evangelicals sitting on their butts waiting for 'the Rapture' these days.
Well, Evangelicalism lends itself to activism, so ones most looking forward to the Rapture also tend to be most invested in various forms of missionary activity.
I thought of this thread this morning at church. We had a guest speaker during the adult forum, who also assisted in the service—a NASA astrophysicist, who was in the area for a conference (which others in the church were also involved with).
The subject of the Parousa/Eschaton didn’t come up, at least while I was around, so I don’t know what might have been said about it. But one of our youth designed the art that appeared on the cover of the bulletin. It showed the Pearly Gates; beyond them was a photo from the Hubble telescope. I liked that, and found it worth meditating on.
When it comes to questions like “given what we know about the universe, how does a second coming or a new creation fit in, or can it?,” perhaps I’m an odd one out, but those aren’t questions that really bother me. When it comes to something like “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again,” I’m content to trust Christ when he says he’ll come again. I don’t really need to know when or what that’ll look like; I work on the assumption that it and the end of things and the new creation are beyond both my expectations and my imagination. It seems to me that our attempts to describe it will inevitably fall far short of the reality, but they’re the best we can do. I trust Jesus; I don’t need the details.
But I do recognize that’s me; I don’t expect one size to fit all.
I thought of this thread this morning at church. We had a guest speaker during the adult forum, who also assisted in the service—a NASA astrophysicist, who was in the area for a conference (which others in the church were also involved with).
The subject of the Parousa/Eschaton didn’t come up, at least while I was around, so I don’t know what might have been said about it. But one of our youth designed the art that appeared on the cover of the bulletin. It showed the Pearly Gates; beyond them was a photo from the Hubble telescope. I liked that, and found it worth meditating on.
When it comes to questions like “given what we know about the universe, how does a second coming or a new creation fit in, or can it?,” perhaps I’m an odd one out, but those aren’t questions that really bother me. When it comes to something like “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again,” I’m content to trust Christ when he says he’ll come again. I don’t really need to know when or what that’ll look like; I work on the assumption that it and the end of things and the new creation are beyond both my expectations and my imagination. It seems to me that our attempts to describe it will inevitably fall far short of the reality, but they’re the best we can do. I trust Jesus; I don’t need the details.
But I do recognize that’s me; I don’t expect one size to fit all.
I agree with all of this. The faith is hard enough to live and think, worrying about details like the eschaton just isn't something I do. Of course, I recognize plenty of people do worry about it and think it's precisely the kind of thing that ought to be worried over, but it's just too far removed for me.
Evangelical Land is no more monolithic than any other inhabited land mass or archipelago.
By and large, other than at the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum, I don’t see many evangelicals sitting on their butts waiting for 'the Rapture' these days.
Mainstream Anglican, Baptist and independent evangelicals here in the UK are as concerned with environmental issues as anyone else. We could all do a lot more, of course.
Thank you for the reminder, that's quite right. There are even left, liberal evangelical churches. I've never heard it seriously advanced that the eschaton is a good reason for not caring about the environment. But, of course, people are insane everywhere so there could be a contingency saying as much.
It’s unfortunately been a thing over here in the US, but US evangelicalism has its own difficult history. There was a movement to focus as solely as possible on getting as many souls saved as possible before the world ends, without the focus on poverty, justice, the environment, etc. (“It’s all gonna burn,” etc.), though now the unhealthy approach is going down a Dominionist path.
The only way I've been able to make sense of it is by the idea (I have never been able to find the source) that "history is what happened once; myth is what always happens." The world is continually falling and continually being redeemed.
The only way I've been able to make sense of it is by the idea (I have never been able to find the source) that "history is what happened once; myth is what always happens." The world is continually falling and continually being redeemed.
Interesting to apply that to the Parousia.
My old dad used to say "the world ends every day for some poor bugger".
I believe that you've always looked on the bright side of Christ. Only the positive. That your Reformed, Lutheran(?) fellowship does? That you've only ever known that?
I got there for a few years with the emergent. Found a remote oasis of it at... Oasis, Steve Chalke's gaff. But it wasn't sustainable. Even there 'the conversation' couldn't be held. Which is my problem I realise.
I'm experiencing another nail in the coffin that I didn't know was missing, this thread encapsulates it, reinforced yesterday at the nice, via media, Anglican service, as I've referred to above: the disconnect between Love as it should be, and God in Christ sacrificing Himself for our doomed, wicked little lives. Every hymn one of grovelling gratitude.
But that's not your experience Nick?
How is that avoided in the Church? That's rhetorical, because the left field minority big minded emergent manage it. Your fellowship did.
I've deconstructed too far. The emergent, the liberal, inclusive, generous, universal orthodoxy goes way beyond the NT. Even you, as I recall, don't see Karl Barth as truly universalist. Steve Chalke does. And I do.
But it's too late. The disconnect, shown in this thread, between the words of Christ himself, the plain meaning of his atonement, the whole of sacred history, and what Love as the ground of being would be like, was like in the Pericope Adulterae (that you have defended as authentic), is an infinite gulf. Which was recognized by the emotional genius who made it up. God needed a helping hand to look like Love.
(ETA spoiler tags, for comprehensibility & crusade, Doublethink, Admin)
We believe it because Christ told us so. And that’s a completely different situation. In THIS case the author of the play has already explicitly told us that he intends to interrupt the play by walking on stage at a time we can’t predict.
Which raises the question (for me, at any rate) of how we understand the Incarnation. Christianity maintains a belief in Christ as fully human and fully divine. But what does that actually mean? It seems to me that too often these days it is taken to mean that Christ was fully human (ie he had a human body) and fully divine (ie he had the complete understanding of God). But is that correct? Did Jesus know that the universe was as vast and as ancient as we know it to be? Or did he have the limitations of understanding that all human beings have?
As I understand orthodox Christian belief about Christ being both fully human and fully divine, it DOESN'T mean that he was "simply" God in human form. The early Church went into endless debates about his human and divine natures and how they existing in the one person. A number of beliefs were condemned as heretical by the Ecumenical Councils. I am pretty sure that this was one of them.
Without going around with a possibly prurient questionnaire I have absolutely no idea whether attitudes to these things are any healthier in non-Latin Christianity or other faiths.
The Orthodox claim to have a healthier attitude than the delinquent West, but then there is a tendency to blame absolutely everything on 'the West.'
My first impressions though, is that they aren't as fazed by these things as some forms of pietistic Western Christianity. The mileage will vary.
I've heard some appalling attitudes expressed by Orthodox 'zealots' and some loud and lairy convert clergy in the US. Some beardy-wierdies in Russia, Greece and the Balkans are probably cut from similar cloth despite not having a highly conservative Protestant background.
But by and large I'm finding the Orthodox aren't at all squeamish or Victorian when it comes to 'that sort of thing.'
Well there have been some "interesting" Orthodox reactions to Francis's proposal to bless people in same sex relationships.
Thank you @Nick Tamen, my apologies. And yeah, we've been here before on Barth, as covered in Steve Chalke's excellent The Lost Message of Paul, where he argues for Barth's inclusion of all in and through the faith of Christ. That is surely God as unconditional Love.
Without going around with a possibly prurient questionnaire I have absolutely no idea whether attitudes to these things are any healthier in non-Latin Christianity or other faiths.
The Orthodox claim to have a healthier attitude than the delinquent West, but then there is a tendency to blame absolutely everything on 'the West.'
My first impressions though, is that they aren't as fazed by these things as some forms of pietistic Western Christianity. The mileage will vary.
I've heard some appalling attitudes expressed by Orthodox 'zealots' and some loud and lairy convert clergy in the US. Some beardy-wierdies in Russia, Greece and the Balkans are probably cut from similar cloth despite not having a highly conservative Protestant background.
But by and large I'm finding the Orthodox aren't at all squeamish or Victorian when it comes to 'that sort of thing.'
Well there have been some "interesting" Orthodox reactions to Francis's proposal to bless people in same sex relationships.
I'd suggest there are other reasons for those reactions than squeamishness or prudery.
I don't want to get into Epiphanies territory but the reasons for those reactions will vary greatly. With some it'd be the same if the Pope found a magic money tree in The Vatican and gave everyone a million Euros each.
With others it'd be similar objections to those raised by conservative Christians in other churches.
Regarding Christ’s knowledge during his life on earth—certainly we’re never going to get much of a handle on this (though it would make an interesting thread!) but I’ll just note that having limits to what one knows doesn’t mean you necessarily get things wrong. You might, for instance, keep your mouth shut on topics where you have gaps (due to kenosis or whatever). That would be the wise thing to do, and Jesus seems to me very wise.
We believe it because Christ told us so. And that’s a completely different situation. In THIS case the author of the play has already explicitly told us that he intends to interrupt the play by walking on stage at a time we can’t predict.
Which raises the question (for me, at any rate) of how we understand the Incarnation. Christianity maintains a belief in Christ as fully human and fully divine. But what does that actually mean? It seems to me that too often these days it is taken to mean that Christ was fully human (ie he had a human body) and fully divine (ie he had the complete understanding of God). But is that correct? Did Jesus know that the universe was as vast and as ancient as we know it to be? Or did he have the limitations of understanding that all human beings have?
As I understand orthodox Christian belief about Christ being both fully human and fully divine, it DOESN'T mean that he was "simply" God in human form. The early Church went into endless debates about his human and divine natures and how they existing in the one person. A number of beliefs were condemned as heretical by the Ecumenical Councils. I am pretty sure that this was one of them.
How long have you got?
No, Christ wasn't simply God walking around in a 'meat suit.'
Fully God. Fully man. Both/and. (You can see where I get it from, can't you?)
The idea of 'kenosis' answers the issues you raise. Jesus would have had the cosmology and world-view of any other 1st century Jew. He wouldn't have gone round pretending not to know about the vastness of the solar system etc.
On the Ecumenical Councils... yes, the problems started when people misunderstood each other when it came to what was meant by 'hypotases'.
These questions could be resolved if everyone got round a table...
The idea of 'kenosis' answers the issues you raise. Jesus would have had the cosmology and world-view of any other 1st century Jew. He wouldn't have gone round pretending not to know about the vastness of the solar system etc.
Just to underline this; as this is what it means to believe that Jesus was fully-human (as well as fully God), in the words of Robert Capon:
The inevitable condition of a historical incarnation - that he must have a particular human body and mind in an equally particular place and time - precludes his being either Superman or Mr. Know-It-All.
The upshot of this is that some Christians, failing to make such distinctions rigorously enough, fall into the trap of thinking that if Jesus is really God, it is somehow unfitting or even irreverent to posit any development at all, even in his human mind. They feel obliged to maintain that, right from the beginning, he had everything figured out completely and that any apparent developments in his awareness were simply due to the way he deferred to our slow-wittedness by doling out his revelations piece by piece.
Regarding Christ’s knowledge during his life on earth—certainly we’re never going to get much of a handle on this (though it would make an interesting thread!)
Agreed! Perhaps this ought to be split off into a new thread. Must we insist that everything Jesus said was right? Or can we allow for him to be mistaken or just plain ignorant in some matters?
Perhaps this would be a place to also bring in the interesting story from Mark 7:24-30 about the Syrophoenician woman. On the surface, this is a story about how this Gentile woman corrected Jesus and gently challenged his prejudice. Usually, when it is being preached about, the explanation is that Jesus was just testing her. But the gospel story makes no reference to this - it is something we insert into the story to escape from the uncomfortable thought that Jesus may have been wrong.
but I’ll just note that having limits to what one knows doesn’t mean you necessarily get things wrong. You might, for instance, keep your mouth shut on topics where you have gaps (due to kenosis or whatever). That would be the wise thing to do, and Jesus seems to me very wise.
But that still assumes that Jesus would have known that this was an area where he had gaps in his knowledge. Why would he have thought that? I don't really buy it.
In the end, though, I find that I am ever more convinced that the kinds of Second Coming of Christ so often described by Christians need to be put to one side in the light of what we now know. I am willing to bet it just ain't gonna happen.
But that still assumes that Jesus would have known that this was an area where he had gaps in his knowledge. Why would he have thought that? I don't really buy it.
I would be more inclined to say that when it came to this particular area Jesus was operating in a similar mode to Old Testament prophets - the mechanism was entirely the same, there were things that were revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, modulo whatever happens when such things go via an entirely human brain (without sin).
Okay, I think I understand where you’re coming from, and I would agree if the second coming was something Christians had extrapolated or somehow made up, because yeah, in that case to be believable you’d expect it to be in keeping with the rest of the universe. But that’s not why Christians believe it, is it? We believe it because Christ told us so. And that’s a completely different situation. In THIS case the author of the play has already explicitly told us that he intends to interrupt the play by walking on stage at a time we can’t predict. Now that we’ve been told, it’s not senseless to expect it—in fact we’d be silly to be caught completely by surprise, since after all, we were warned! It’s about the only surety we do have is his warning that the play will not reach the end of Act V without interruption. So I’m going to make my plans with a double awareness—that things will be interrupted, but that I don’t and can’t know when.
Didn't Jesus also tell his followers that some of them would not die before they saw the son of man coming (accompanied by his angels) in his kingdom? Did Jesus himself not get that wrong? If he did (which seems pretty clear), how can parousia be counted on in any aspect from an author who misreads his own play so glaringly?
Okay, I think I understand where you’re coming from, and I would agree if the second coming was something Christians had extrapolated or somehow made up, because yeah, in that case to be believable you’d expect it to be in keeping with the rest of the universe. But that’s not why Christians believe it, is it? We believe it because Christ told us so. And that’s a completely different situation. In THIS case the author of the play has already explicitly told us that he intends to interrupt the play by walking on stage at a time we can’t predict. Now that we’ve been told, it’s not senseless to expect it—in fact we’d be silly to be caught completely by surprise, since after all, we were warned! It’s about the only surety we do have is his warning that the play will not reach the end of Act V without interruption. So I’m going to make my plans with a double awareness—that things will be interrupted, but that I don’t and can’t know when.
Didn't Jesus also tell his followers that some of them would not die before they saw the son of man coming (accompanied by his angels) in his kingdom? Did Jesus himself not get that wrong? If he did (which seems pretty clear), how can parousia be counted on in any aspect from an author who misreads his own play so glaringly?
That was immediately before the transfiguration. Which fulfilled it.
The idea of 'kenosis' answers the issues you raise. Jesus would have had the cosmology and world-view of any other 1st century Jew. He wouldn't have gone round pretending not to know about the vastness of the solar system etc.
Just to underline this; as this is what it means to believe that Jesus was fully-human (as well as fully God), in the words of Robert Capon:
The inevitable condition of a historical incarnation - that he must have a particular human body and mind in an equally particular place and time - precludes his being either Superman or Mr. Know-It-All.
The upshot of this is that some Christians, failing to make such distinctions rigorously enough, fall into the trap of thinking that if Jesus is really God, it is somehow unfitting or even irreverent to posit any development at all, even in his human mind. They feel obliged to maintain that, right from the beginning, he had everything figured out completely and that any apparent developments in his awareness were simply due to the way he deferred to our slow-wittedness by doling out his revelations piece by piece.
Sure, I've even heard it argued that when referring to the mustard seed as the smallest, Christ said, 'some of your seeds' thereby demonstrating that he was aware of other seeds elsewhere which were actually smaller.
That observation came from an extreme Pentecostal rather than someone I'd regard as mainstream Protestant (or mainstream Pentecostal for that matter).
Okay, I think I understand where you’re coming from, and I would agree if the second coming was something Christians had extrapolated or somehow made up, because yeah, in that case to be believable you’d expect it to be in keeping with the rest of the universe. But that’s not why Christians believe it, is it? We believe it because Christ told us so. And that’s a completely different situation. In THIS case the author of the play has already explicitly told us that he intends to interrupt the play by walking on stage at a time we can’t predict. Now that we’ve been told, it’s not senseless to expect it—in fact we’d be silly to be caught completely by surprise, since after all, we were warned! It’s about the only surety we do have is his warning that the play will not reach the end of Act V without interruption. So I’m going to make my plans with a double awareness—that things will be interrupted, but that I don’t and can’t know when.
Didn't Jesus also tell his followers that some of them would not die before they saw the son of man coming (accompanied by his angels) in his kingdom? Did Jesus himself not get that wrong? If he did (which seems pretty clear), how can parousia be counted on in any aspect from an author who misreads his own play so glaringly?
Would you mind giving me chapter and verse on that? Because if it's the bit I'm thinking of, there's a different explanation. Thanks.
Comments
I don't that means Mead was necessarily right, or at least if she was, it wasn't for the reasons Gamaliel describes in his post.
If you'd paid more attention, @Martin54 you'd have seen that I wasn't saying that the 'East' per se had more positive attitudes about sex and sexuality than the 'West'. Hence my reference to 'appalling attitudes' in some 'Eastern' quarters.
Please engage with what I write and not what you think I've written.
I'll try and meet you half way @Gamma Gamaliel. With what you think you mean.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
There are no reports of the natural order being suspended in the fossil record, which is nearly as long as the geological record, again, which contains no such reports. Since the formation of the Earth and Solar system. When we look into the deepest past, close to the the start of the big bang, 97% close, we find no report of the natural order being suspended since then to now. Where no laboratory ever reports the natural order being suspended.
Where are these reports? By which reporters? Do you know any? Personally?
Religion hasn't moved in the slightest toward the greatest single fact of existence. Infinity.
Well western Eurasian, Abrahamic religion hasn't. It doesn't like it all.
Again (maybe I didn't catch an answer the first time I asked it), I'm wondering--
How does this become a problem--unless it's purely emotional? Which I could understand, because I don't run on strict logic either... I mean, you're comparing a set of slow processes in this universe with an event that comes from OUTSIDE the universe and more or less breaks into it, like an author walking on stage halfway through the play--
why would the pace of the play impact the question of the author's cut-in at all?
To me, it seems kind of like expecting that, because a particular play was gloomy and slow-moving, the author himself ought to be that way when he shows up to have tea with you. Or because all the characters in the play are blondes, so must the author be.
I must admit that I am not really sure what the point of your analogy is.
Could God, after billions of years, simply step in and say "Time's up"? Of course, he could. If God is God, then surely all things are (at least remotely) possible. But, given what we now know of the history of the universe, is that in any way likely? It would be like Tolkien getting half way through writing the Lord of the Rings, with everything up in the air and unresolved, simply writing "And they all lived happily ever after. The End."
Living in a universe that is billions of years old and vast beyond our imagining, I think that those who want to hold to a sudden wrapping up of everything need to offer more of an argument than "God could do it, because God is God."
On more reflection about this, I think that there is another aspect that I want to mention. Holding on to the idea of a sudden (and possibly imminent) End allows some Christians to downplay or even ignore the environmental challenges that we face. If God is going to pull off the ultimate deus ex machina, then why bother to care for the environment? Why go to the discomfort of achieving Net Zero? Why try to protect the wildlife of the world? If God is about to wrap everything up, there is no need to worry.
(Please note that I am not saying that everyone who believes in the traditional concept of the Parousia will be like this. I know of plenty of evangelical Christians who look forward eagerly to the Second Coming and yet also care deeply about the state of the environment. But it is certainly true that some Christians DO think this way.)
Yeah, but the right way to oppose something like that is on the basis of truth rather than the basis of utility.
Can't work. The only way is to appeal to such Christians is in OT terms to care for God's creation as a mark of respect. How DARE we?! Up against 'subdue the earth'.
Whether it works or not is somewhat besides the point in the context of this thread, let's not rule something out simply because someone might misuse it.
Okay, I think I understand where you’re coming from, and I would agree if the second coming was something Christians had extrapolated or somehow made up, because yeah, in that case to be believable you’d expect it to be in keeping with the rest of the universe. But that’s not why Christians believe it, is it? We believe it because Christ told us so. And that’s a completely different situation. In THIS case the author of the play has already explicitly told us that he intends to interrupt the play by walking on stage at a time we can’t predict. Now that we’ve been told, it’s not senseless to expect it—in fact we’d be silly to be caught completely by surprise, since after all, we were warned! It’s about the only surety we do have is his warning that the play will not reach the end of Act V without interruption. So I’m going to make my plans with a double awareness—that things will be interrupted, but that I don’t and can’t know when.
As for those who think they can trash the earth because Jesus is coming back soon—well, I wouldn’t want the author of the play to find me flubbing my lines and trashing the props and costumes when he came. There’s a purely self serving argument for treating the world well while we wait. Another is that we can’t know how close to the end of the play he intends to make his entrance, and mere self interest tells us to keep things livable for as long as we might be living there (faugh, what an argument!). Though of course the primary reason for treating the world right is because it’s the right thing to do, even if you had a registered letter from God telling you the whole thing would end tomorrow. So the Christians you mention are fools three times over.
And how does this fit in this thread? Perfectly. Salvation history, to borrow from Henry Ford, is bunk.
As I just said elsewhere on the site,
The epitome of the gospel vs. what's actually missing, and not missing in reality.
&
in response to @chrisstiles, utterly unrelated, but trying to avoid a double post,
I'm ruling it in. But you'll never turn fundamentalist dominionists in to eco-warriors without GOD SAYS THEY SHALL NOT HURT NOR DESTROY IN ALL MY HOLY MOUNTAIN!!! I suggest.
Christianity has always had a strong sexual ethic. One just has to read the gospels and the letters of Paul to find it. Original Sin is certainly influenced by that, but it's hardly the key influence.
Belief in Original Sin isn't required, I don't think. To the best of my knowledge it's not de fidei, it's merely a theory to explain things.
Do Christians think this way? I've not met any, although I move pretty exclusively within Anglican, RC, and Mainline Protestant circles so I don't know what people get up to in Evangelical land. I mean, that sounds more like people just looking for any excuse to justify not changing their behavior. You can do that with anything, Christian doctrines aren't unique in this respect.
And, agreeing with LC, that something hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't. This is especially true when we're talking about God.
By and large, other than at the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum, I don’t see many evangelicals sitting on their butts waiting for 'the Rapture' these days.
Mainstream Anglican, Baptist and independent evangelicals here in the UK are as concerned with environmental issues as anyone else. We could all do a lot more, of course.
Thank you for the reminder, that's quite right. There are even left, liberal evangelical churches. I've never heard it seriously advanced that the eschaton is a good reason for not caring about the environment. But, of course, people are insane everywhere so there could be a contingency saying as much.
Peter Brown, the historian of late ancient / early medieval thought, noted that if Clement of Alexandria's relatively positive views of human nature had won out Christianity might have ended up more like Islam. Islam has no doctrine of original sin, but nobody would accuse mainstream Islam of not having a strong sexual ethic.
There's a kind of Hegelian thing going on where progress towards what we in the West think of as a relatively positive modern view of sexuality had to go by Augustine's deep suspicion of it's pitfalls.
Yes, I agree. I also think that we just happen to live in such a sex saturated culture that we view it as an unambiguous good when that view has certainly not been the case for most of history. Of course, these things are always shifting back and forth. Augustine gets a lot of flack these days for his thinking about sexuality but I think that simplifies the picture far too much. (Gary Wills' little biography of Augustine is good on this point, if people are interested.)
Well, Evangelicalism lends itself to activism, so ones most looking forward to the Rapture also tend to be most invested in various forms of missionary activity.
The subject of the Parousa/Eschaton didn’t come up, at least while I was around, so I don’t know what might have been said about it. But one of our youth designed the art that appeared on the cover of the bulletin. It showed the Pearly Gates; beyond them was a photo from the Hubble telescope. I liked that, and found it worth meditating on.
When it comes to questions like “given what we know about the universe, how does a second coming or a new creation fit in, or can it?,” perhaps I’m an odd one out, but those aren’t questions that really bother me. When it comes to something like “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again,” I’m content to trust Christ when he says he’ll come again. I don’t really need to know when or what that’ll look like; I work on the assumption that it and the end of things and the new creation are beyond both my expectations and my imagination. It seems to me that our attempts to describe it will inevitably fall far short of the reality, but they’re the best we can do. I trust Jesus; I don’t need the details.
But I do recognize that’s me; I don’t expect one size to fit all.
I agree with all of this. The faith is hard enough to live and think, worrying about details like the eschaton just isn't something I do. Of course, I recognize plenty of people do worry about it and think it's precisely the kind of thing that ought to be worried over, but it's just too far removed for me.
It’s unfortunately been a thing over here in the US, but US evangelicalism has its own difficult history. There was a movement to focus as solely as possible on getting as many souls saved as possible before the world ends, without the focus on poverty, justice, the environment, etc. (“It’s all gonna burn,” etc.), though now the unhealthy approach is going down a Dominionist path.
Interesting to apply that to the Parousia.
My old dad used to say "the world ends every day for some poor bugger".
I believe that you've always looked on the bright side of Christ. Only the positive. That your Reformed, Lutheran(?) fellowship does? That you've only ever known that?
I got there for a few years with the emergent. Found a remote oasis of it at... Oasis, Steve Chalke's gaff. But it wasn't sustainable. Even there 'the conversation' couldn't be held. Which is my problem I realise.
I'm experiencing another nail in the coffin that I didn't know was missing, this thread encapsulates it, reinforced yesterday at the nice, via media, Anglican service, as I've referred to above: the disconnect between Love as it should be, and God in Christ sacrificing Himself for our doomed, wicked little lives. Every hymn one of grovelling gratitude.
But that's not your experience Nick?
How is that avoided in the Church? That's rhetorical, because the left field minority big minded emergent manage it. Your fellowship did.
I've deconstructed too far. The emergent, the liberal, inclusive, generous, universal orthodoxy goes way beyond the NT. Even you, as I recall, don't see Karl Barth as truly universalist. Steve Chalke does. And I do.
But it's too late. The disconnect, shown in this thread, between the words of Christ himself, the plain meaning of his atonement, the whole of sacred history, and what Love as the ground of being would be like, was like in the Pericope Adulterae (that you have defended as authentic), is an infinite gulf. Which was recognized by the emotional genius who made it up. God needed a helping hand to look like Love.
(ETA spoiler tags, for comprehensibility & crusade, Doublethink, Admin)
Doublethink, Admin
Which raises the question (for me, at any rate) of how we understand the Incarnation. Christianity maintains a belief in Christ as fully human and fully divine. But what does that actually mean? It seems to me that too often these days it is taken to mean that Christ was fully human (ie he had a human body) and fully divine (ie he had the complete understanding of God). But is that correct? Did Jesus know that the universe was as vast and as ancient as we know it to be? Or did he have the limitations of understanding that all human beings have?
As I understand orthodox Christian belief about Christ being both fully human and fully divine, it DOESN'T mean that he was "simply" God in human form. The early Church went into endless debates about his human and divine natures and how they existing in the one person. A number of beliefs were condemned as heretical by the Ecumenical Councils. I am pretty sure that this was one of them.
Well there have been some "interesting" Orthodox reactions to Francis's proposal to bless people in same sex relationships.
And I am Reformed, specifically Presbyterian, not Lutheran.
I'd suggest there are other reasons for those reactions than squeamishness or prudery.
I don't want to get into Epiphanies territory but the reasons for those reactions will vary greatly. With some it'd be the same if the Pope found a magic money tree in The Vatican and gave everyone a million Euros each.
With others it'd be similar objections to those raised by conservative Christians in other churches.
Ask us in 500 years time.
Ok. 1500 years.
C'mon, to our shame we've not resolved the dispute with the 'Oriental Orthodox' that arose after the Council of Chalcedon after all that time.
How long have you got?
No, Christ wasn't simply God walking around in a 'meat suit.'
Fully God. Fully man. Both/and. (You can see where I get it from, can't you?)
The idea of 'kenosis' answers the issues you raise. Jesus would have had the cosmology and world-view of any other 1st century Jew. He wouldn't have gone round pretending not to know about the vastness of the solar system etc.
On the Ecumenical Councils... yes, the problems started when people misunderstood each other when it came to what was meant by 'hypotases'.
These questions could be resolved if everyone got round a table...
But people being people ...
Just to underline this; as this is what it means to believe that Jesus was fully-human (as well as fully God), in the words of Robert Capon:
Perhaps this would be a place to also bring in the interesting story from Mark 7:24-30 about the Syrophoenician woman. On the surface, this is a story about how this Gentile woman corrected Jesus and gently challenged his prejudice. Usually, when it is being preached about, the explanation is that Jesus was just testing her. But the gospel story makes no reference to this - it is something we insert into the story to escape from the uncomfortable thought that Jesus may have been wrong.
But that still assumes that Jesus would have known that this was an area where he had gaps in his knowledge. Why would he have thought that? I don't really buy it.
In the end, though, I find that I am ever more convinced that the kinds of Second Coming of Christ so often described by Christians need to be put to one side in the light of what we now know. I am willing to bet it just ain't gonna happen.
(If I am wrong, I will apologise in heaven!)
I would be more inclined to say that when it came to this particular area Jesus was operating in a similar mode to Old Testament prophets - the mechanism was entirely the same, there were things that were revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, modulo whatever happens when such things go via an entirely human brain (without sin).
Didn't Jesus also tell his followers that some of them would not die before they saw the son of man coming (accompanied by his angels) in his kingdom? Did Jesus himself not get that wrong? If he did (which seems pretty clear), how can parousia be counted on in any aspect from an author who misreads his own play so glaringly?
That was immediately before the transfiguration. Which fulfilled it.
Sure, I've even heard it argued that when referring to the mustard seed as the smallest, Christ said, 'some of your seeds' thereby demonstrating that he was aware of other seeds elsewhere which were actually smaller.
That observation came from an extreme Pentecostal rather than someone I'd regard as mainstream Protestant (or mainstream Pentecostal for that matter).
Would you mind giving me chapter and verse on that? Because if it's the bit I'm thinking of, there's a different explanation. Thanks.
Well, between now and about 100 years max, I'd say, depending on how long each of us has left here--then we can ask.