That's fine, I will be totally happy to talk with anybody who wants to discuss the OP! (Though I'll add for the sake of my question about Hitchens--the only quote I found in that article or elsewhere does nothing to explain his interest. I mean, "The poetry of John Donne or George Herbert strikes me as having been produced by people who probably really believed what they were saying. I have to be impressed." Really? That's all he's got? Because I read stuff written by true believers of all sorts of stripes, and it doesn't impress me for that reason alone. Maybe he meant something else and couldn't express it, I don't know. Weird.
It's also odd that he seems to find it surprising people would believe it. I would find it far more surprising to think that someone who did not believe it would go to all the trouble of writing the body of work of someone like Donne or Herbert. What a waste of time that would be!)
Anyway:
Yes, I am well acquainted with the Spirit's clue bat! (ouch ouch ouch heheheheh). To be fair, he usually tries to get it across in a gentler way, before resorting to the bat; but me being me, well...
I wonder sometimes whether the Trinity deliberately chose the symbolism for the Holy Spirit with an eye to covering all of the non-human creation--the four elements, the animals and birds, even the mechanical and cyber areas. Because if we looked at the Father and Son alone, we might see him/them as just another happy (maybe) Mesopotamian polytheist family. The Spirit forces us out of that mold by being so very different in the ways he's portrayed. Which is good for me, since I keep trying to find patterns in what God does that will allow me to think I have him taped (as if).
Well, I've known people with no faith who have admired it in others.
I couldn't load the Hitchens interview, but I suspect that people can admire Herbert's sincerity and very evident authenticity without necessarily sharing his faith.
I've often said that Herbert did more to convert me than the ardent young evangelists at university.
Don't worry, my previous post gave you the only quotation that had anything to do with Herbert or Donne.
Calling this "fundamentalist" is misleading, as in current English that term is normally reserved for people who hold a whole lot of additional positions most of us on the Ship would disagree with--positions which cannot IMHO be adequately defended from the Scripture.
Interesting. That is just what the self-identifying Fundamentalists I have been surrounded by throughout my Christian life would say about most, maybe all, non-fundamentalists.
Who is right, I wonder, if both sides have exclusive claim on correct defense of doctrine from Scripture?
One such area of doctrine - Theology Proper - which encompasses the Trinity, the Scandal of Particularity, the Hypostatic Union is most certainly complicated by the statistical likelihood of endlessly developing planets developing sentient life within a single, expanding universe. How much greater the theological challenge, if there is not only a single uni-verse?
Biblical concepts of the physical world are incommensurable with reasonable conclusions made from actual, accurate observation. Is there a scripturally defensible model of the Godhead that adequately harmonizes with the ever-expanding foundational understanding of how the physical world works? Anything beyond @Gamma Gamaliel's generous explanation: It is a mystery? There is no nice, tidy scriptural doctrine of the Godhead that can accurately or directly address the physical facts of the universe. Fundamentalist or not.
I live quite happily with the Trinity most days. At my lowest, my family's lowest, I yearned for an additional layer of mediation between us and the Godhead. Feeling much like tortured lab rats made Kierkegaard's concept of standing "in absolute (immediate/unmediated/direct) relation to the absolute" unthinkable, unbearable. At best I felt like defiant Job, "Though he slay me, I will hope in him; yet I will argue my ways to his face." At worst, completely undone.
This or the Void?
I understand both options.
So, I guess we’ve moved from discussing persons of the Trinity we do or don’t relate to or cope with particularly well to yet another detour on why the whole conversation is pointless because God in general and the Trinity in particular are nothing but products of human imagination.
Sigh.
How do you think I feel about that other thread, where I was hoping for some questions I couldn't answer.
(Though I'll add for the sake of my question about Hitchens--the only quote I found in that article or elsewhere does nothing to explain his interest. I mean, "The poetry of John Donne or George Herbert strikes me as having been produced by people who probably really believed what they were saying. I have to be impressed." Really? That's all he's got? Because I read stuff written by true believers of all sorts of stripes, and it doesn't impress me for that reason alone. Maybe he meant something else and couldn't express it, I don't know. Weird.
It's also odd that he seems to find it surprising people would believe it. I would find it far more surprising to think that someone who did not believe it would go to all the trouble of writing the body of work of someone like Donne or Herbert. What a waste of time that would be!)
I suggest that what he found surprising was that obviously intelligent, creative people believe it - that such people are capable of producing works in which he saw merit, which he admired, and which communicated something to him about the human condition (I surmise). Elsewhere, Hitchens said:
People like John Donne or George Herbert, it would be very, very hard to fake writing that if you weren’t a believer. It would be extremely hard. Where would you get your inspiration from? And my feeling is that it’s real devotional poetry and I personally couldn't be without it. We’d be much poorer.
I suppose I’m just disappointed in him. I hadn’t realized he found it so very difficult to accept that other people could hold very different beliefs from him and yet produce fine work. I mean, don’t most people figure that out pretty early in life?
I suppose I’m just disappointed in him. I hadn’t realized he found it so very difficult to accept that other people could hold very different beliefs from him and yet produce fine work. I mean, don’t most people figure that out pretty early in life?
Caravaggio, T S Elliott, Van Morrison, Churchill, et al, Jesus, et al all come to mind.
I suppose I’m just disappointed in him. I hadn’t realized he found it so very difficult to accept that other people could hold very different beliefs from him and yet produce fine work. I mean, don’t most people figure that out pretty early in life?
I don't think there's anyone on these forums who behaves as though that's actually the case - a lot of us pay lip service to the idea, but my observation is that we all take into account our perspective of another person's moral character and beliefs (and more) when interpreting their creative output.
As for people figuring this out early in life, I think children do the complete opposite of what you suggest - they start off assessing everything that people around them do on the basis of whether or not they're "nice".
From a more intellectual viewpoint (given the context), I suspect it's the idea that, from a given perspective, what amounts to a delusion in one area of another person's thinking brings into question the robustness of their thinking in other areas. Which might illustrate an interesting understanding of how human creativity works.
In relation to creativity itself, I think we tend to work on the basis that there is something of the artist in their art - which is the aspect that brings moral character (etc) into the equation.
There are even monstrous individuals, or people with the wrong politics etc, who are nonetheless superb poets, artists, leaders, musicians. Let alone good people with questionable beliefs.
I find I relate most easily to God the Creator, and to the Spirit, which are linked in my mind. I was brought up on the KJV, and the image of the spirit of God moving over the face of the deep. Yhis calls up the image of a great white seabird, like that albatross which Coleridge's Mariner shot, and for which he was punished.
Relating to the Son is rather more difficult. As a young evangelical, I was constantly exhorted to receive Jesus 'into my heart', a concept which I found meaningless. Was not devotion to God enough? No doubt for some that woul make me 'not a proper Christian' and hell-bound. I trust in Gpd's mercy, andhope they are wrong.
I find I relate most easily to God the Creator, and to the Spirit, which are linked in my mind. I was brought up on the KJV, and the image of the spirit of God moving over the face of the deep. Yhis calls up the image of a great white seabird, like that albatross which Coleridge's Mariner shot, and for which he was punished.
Relating to the Son is rather more difficult. As a young evangelical, I was constantly exhorted to receive Jesus 'into my heart', a concept which I found meaningless. Was not devotion to God enough? No doubt for some that woul make me 'not a proper Christian' and hell-bound. I trust in Gpd's mercy, andhope they are wrong.
It's just short-hand for apprehending a particular theological approach in a particular way.
I'm no longer an evangelical but wouldn't knock the evangelical 'experience' as such. But I do think it's very prescriptive and leaves out those who apprehend these things in other ways.
If someone is trusting in God's mercy then that must surely denote something.
'Receiving Jesus into your heart,' is argot - it's jargon. I know what they mean by it, of course. It's about an experiential - or 'experimental' as the old divines would say - assurance of salvation.
Thing is, not everyone has that and it's all about 'fruit' not particular or special experiences.
@Kendel - whether it's 'generous' or not, I can't say. The term Mystery (not how we capitalise things!) has a more specific meaning in an Orthodox context.
It's more to do with something 'revealed' than hidden, as it were.
I suppose I’m just disappointed in him. I hadn’t realized he found it so very difficult to accept that other people could hold very different beliefs from him and yet produce fine work. I mean, don’t most people figure that out pretty early in life?
Maybe endeavor to make more of a study of him than one detached quotation.
Yes, yes, my “to be read” list is getting longer by the minute… I was not in all seriousness passing judgement upon his complete body of work based on one quote. But I WAS appalled at this particular remark, and had good reason to be. To express amazement that someone could hold a very different belief and express that in good art—it’s just provincial. I knew that before I was in my teens. I thought most people did.
@Kendel - whether it's 'generous' or not, I can't say. The term Mystery (not how we capitalise things!) has a more specific meaning in an Orthodox context.
It's more to do with something 'revealed' than hidden, as it were.
By "generous" I meant something like "elastic" or "accomodating." Not in the sense that "anything goes" but that there is a willingness to say, "I don't know. I can't explain it. That's ok." Relatedly, I have in mind your frequently demonstrated attitude that I read as: "I don't see it the way you do, but the view you just expressed explains things that mine doesn't."
I see your use of "Mystery" or "mystery" in contrast to the brittleness that demands all things be seen in whatever mode "the community" in question accepts by consensus as reflected in Problema I of Fear and Trembling.
As Kierkegaard said:
"The ethical, as such, is the universal, and as the universal it applies to everyone, which from another point of view can be expressed as meaning that it applies at every moment. It reposes immanently in itself, has nothing outside itself that is its τελος [goal; end; or purpose], but is itself the τελος for everything it has outside itself, and when the ethical has incorporated this in itself, it goes no further. Defined immediately as sensuous and psychical, the single individual is the particular who has his τελος in the universal, and his ethical task consists of always expressing himself in this, of annulling his individuality in order to become the universal. Whenever the individual wants to assert himself in his particularity vis-à-vis the universal, he sins, and only by acknowledging this can he once again reconcile himself with the universal. Whenever the individual, having entered into the universal, feels an impulse to assert himself in his particularity, he is in a state of spiritual trial, and he can work his way out of it only by penitently surrendering himself, as an individual, to the universal. "
Fear and Trembling, Problema I. Bruce Kirmmse, trans. Bookshare ed in Calibre, 40%.
Yes, yes, my “to be read” list is getting longer by the minute… I was not in all seriousness passing judgement upon his complete body of work based on one quote. But I WAS appalled at this particular remark, and had good reason to be. To express amazement that someone could hold a very different belief and express that in good art—it’s just provincial. I knew that before I was in my teens. I thought most people did.
You may get more helpful insight into his thinking on this subject by watching some video on YouTube. Tone is important here, and I think his comments in this vein generally came from his explanation of how an anti-theist experiences what he generally referred to as “the numinous,” and how sometimes that appreciation included the artifacts of religion. Hitchens was not provincial. You may need to hear him as much as read him to get a closer impression in case you’re inferring a tone that’s unintended.
@Kendel - whether it's 'generous' or not, I can't say. The term Mystery (not how we capitalise things!) has a more specific meaning in an Orthodox context.
It's more to do with something 'revealed' than hidden, as it were.
By "generous" I meant something like "elastic" or "accomodating." Not in the sense that "anything goes" but that there is a willingness to say, "I don't know. I can't explain it. That's ok." Relatedly, I have in mind your frequently demonstrated attitude that I read as: "I don't see it the way you do, but the view you just expressed explains things that mine doesn't."
I see your use of "Mystery" or "mystery" in contrast to the brittleness that demands all things be seen in whatever mode "the community" in question accepts by consensus as reflected in Problema I of Fear and Trembling.
As Kierkegaard said:
"The ethical, as such, is the universal, and as the universal it applies to everyone, which from another point of view can be expressed as meaning that it applies at every moment. It reposes immanently in itself, has nothing outside itself that is its τελος [goal; end; or purpose], but is itself the τελος for everything it has outside itself, and when the ethical has incorporated this in itself, it goes no further. Defined immediately as sensuous and psychical, the single individual is the particular who has his τελος in the universal, and his ethical task consists of always expressing himself in this, of annulling his individuality in order to become the universal. Whenever the individual wants to assert himself in his particularity vis-à-vis the universal, he sins, and only by acknowledging this can he once again reconcile himself with the universal. Whenever the individual, having entered into the universal, feels an impulse to assert himself in his particularity, he is in a state of spiritual trial, and he can work his way out of it only by penitently surrendering himself, as an individual, to the universal. "
Fear and Trembling, Problema I. Bruce Kirmmse, trans. Bookshare ed in Calibre, 40%.
Rightio. I've not read your man Kierkegaard. I'm pleased to be seen as 'elastic' rather than brittle, though.
A search on Wiki claims that there are 45,000 Christian denominations in the world. They all, obviously, believe something slightly different or there wouldn't be so many. Of course the Roman Catholic Church, with 1.3 billion followers is far and away the largest. As the Orthodox all believe the same thing in spite of their overlapping jurisdictions, the explosion of denominations is a result of the Reformation. Once you remove the authority, be it the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, or the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils, in the case of the Orthodox Church, everybody can be their own Pope and decide for themselves what to believe.
If this proves anything, it is that interpreting Scripture is far from being an exact science. The formulae the Church came up with over the three to four centuries after Christ in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation can be deduced from Scripture, but it would have been equally possible, in the early centuries, to be a Bible believing Christian without subscribing to those doctrines as we have them today. Probably most of the divisions between Christians today are much smaller than the divisions of the first three centuries, but the very fact that there is so much difference of opinion makes any one group's claim to exclusive knowledge sound quite hollow.
Sorry, I meant to add that the Scandal of Particularity which has to accompany a belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement, has always been a stumbling block to my wholehearted acceptance of orthodox Christian doctrine.
A search on Wiki claims that there are 45,000 Christian denominations in the world. They all, obviously, believe something slightly different or there wouldn't be so many.
They don’t “all” necessarily “believe something slightly different.” Many if not most Protestant denominations are organized on a nation-by-nation basis. So, you could have a number of denominations that are distinct because they are in different countries, but that are in essential agreement belief-wise.
As just one example, the World Communion of Reformed Churches has 230+ member denominations. While there are some differences between denominations, particularly in terms of governance (mainly presbyterian vs congregational), the differences do not preclude communion among the denominations. The Lutheran World Federation, with 140+ member denominations, would provide another example.
To be sure, there are still an incredibly large number of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox denominations. But factors beyond simply believing something slightly different contribute to that high number.
Ok. I would agree that the proliferation of denominations - and indeed the jurisdictional issues within Orthodoxy - aren't particularly desirable.
I'm not minimising that but would point out that in many instances the differences come down to questions of emphasis or practice rather than belief as such.
How churches organise themselves and so on.
That's not to elide or minimise the differences but most of the differences aren't as wide, say, as those between Mormons or JWs and what we might call mainstream Christian churches or denominations.
I can understand how and why the Scandal of Particularity can be a stumbling block. I don't find it so. It doesn't mean we can't appreciate or celebrate other belief systems on their own terms, insofar as we can when we aren't adherents ourselves.
So, for instance, I can respect Jainism for its emphasis on the sanctity of life whilst not being a Jaim myself.
My being a Christian doesn't deprive a Jain of their Jainness or a humanist of their humanism or whatever else.
Ok, you might say I'm just saying that yo avoid the kind of problems you have with these things. I dunno. But if I aim, by the grace of God, to be a sincere Trinitarian Christian I don't see how it diminishes anyone else's right or ability to hold to whatever faith or philosophy they wish and to practice that to whatever extent they feel fit.
If I hold to orthodox or Orthodox Christian doctrine myself, it doesn't prevent you from not doing so or holding whatever position you wish to hold - unless in so doing I topple over into Inquisition type territory.
@Gamma Gamaliel If the man Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Trinity, if he is the only ever Incarnation of God, and if he died, in a cosmic Atonement, then a literal interpretation of "no one comes to the Father but by me" is indeed required. That is the Scandal of Particularity which is problematic to me. It goes totally against my Perennialist instincts.
Many years ago, in 1988, I had a long conversation with a Jewish rabbi, which resulted in an exchange of several letters (no emails back then) between us. Like all rabbis, he positively discouraged conversion, making it very clear that nobody needs to convert, only to come into a right relationship with God and His creation. Christianity is all about personal salvation, either from the wrath of God, or the wiles of the devil depending on your view. It's about gaining eternal life. To the rabbi, life is about doing the will of God in the present moment, in trust that our future in if His hands, without overly speculating about life beyond the grave, which we can't know anyway.
Rather than needing a mediator to breach a dualistic gap between our fallen nature and a Holy God, it's about repentance and turning to God, which immediately, however marred we are by sin, restores the divine image in which we were created. Back then, I was still traumatised by my evangelical, fundamentalist background. I still am to a degree, though less so. But the message resonated with me in an enduring way, and was probably the origin of my wish to understand other, less harsh, interpretations of God, compared to what I grew up with.
Christianity is all about personal salvation, either from the wrath of God, or the wiles of the devil depending on your view. It's about gaining eternal life.
It seems to me rather than it's about salvation from sin. And from death; but Paul seems to think is the relation between sin and death is not that between crime and punishment but something closer.
An evangelical friend - or perhaps more accurately, a post-evangelical friend - said to me this week that too often evangelicals portray salvation as 'being saved from God' rather than being saved from sin and death.
I don't see the 'Scandal of Particularity' as necessarily putting your Rabbi or anyone else beyond the pale. It's not up to us to determine who will or won't be 'saved'.
@Gamma Gamaliel There would be no practical difference between God forgiving the sins of those who repent because of the atoning work of Christ and Him forgiving simply because He forgives those who truly repent, but there is a huge theological difference. In most of Christian history, assenting to Christ's role in this has been a prerequisite for salvation.
Sorry, I meant to add that the Scandal of Particularity which has to accompany a belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement, has always been a stumbling block to my wholehearted acceptance of orthodox Christian doctrine.
An evangelical friend - or perhaps more accurately, a post-evangelical friend - said to me this week that too often evangelicals portray salvation as 'being saved from God' rather than being saved from sin and death.
I don't see the 'Scandal of Particularity' as necessarily putting your Rabbi or anyone else beyond the pale. It's not up to us to determine who will or won't be 'saved'.
Okay, folks. I wanted to be sure I knew what you were talking about, so I googled "scandal of particularity" and found a dozen different though inter-related ideas.
@Lamb Chopped I was chatting to one of my cousins at my mother's funeral earlier this year. He is an evangelical Christian who believes that all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists are going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour. His view is that God has shown us how we can be rescued from this fallen world, and if we don't take His offer it's the Lake of Fire for us.
While not all Christians take such an extreme view, if Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, the only Incarnation of God, and he came to atone for human sin, then John 14.6 would have to be true. I'm a religious pluralist, who believes that anyone who lives by the Golden Rule can come into a proper relationship with God and His creation whatever religious label is attached to them.
I accept that these things may indeed come about through the atoning work of Christ, but they are mysteries beyond my comprehension. The Scandal of Particularity cas I understand it is the belief in the uniqueness of Christianity as a religion with the ability to save people. That is a natural and necessary follow on from the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation,and the Atonement, which is why I can't fully embrace them.
I think that this 'scandal' has a weak and a strong form.
In the strong form, not only is Christianity True and other religions False, but explicit commitment to Christianity is required to benefit from the salvation it offers.
In the weak form, Christianity is true or at least much truer than other religions but people can benefit from the salvation that Christianity describes without explicitly knowing or believing in how it is achieved, which achievement is described by Christianity.
The strong form has obvious objections which are well rehearsed. The weak form can be criticised as patronising to other religious adherents - "You think you're going to achieve Nirvana but that isn't actually the case because it doesn’t exist but God understands your heart's in the right place and will grant you salvation through Christ even though you don't explicitly believe in him because of your circumstances" etc.
Me, I more and more think that if God is a reality then our attempts to describe and define him are going to be approximate and metaphorical - the Trinity or any other religious doctrine may be like wave-particle duality. We know light isn't really either, so at one level it's actually not true, but the way we have to describe it is in terms of one, the other or both depending on circumstances, because what it actually is is something we don't have experiential analogues of, so at another level the concept is true. There is therefore no need to try to squeeze the experience or fate of people outside Christianity into a Christian straitjacket.
@KarlLB I agree with what you say. Which is why I worship as a Christian without any hypocrisy in spite of my ambivalence towards some of it. Anything we can say about God has to be metaphorical as He is beyond human reason. Christ is the human icon of God and I'm willing to accept the rest as mystery and take Him on trust.
It depends what you want your words "wave" and "particle" to mean. Light behaves in some ways like what we would classically have called "waves", and in some ways like what we would classically have called "particles". Is that enough for light to be a "wave"? Well, maybe, but not if part of your definition of a wave is "not like a particle".
Of course in fact it is not just light that does this, but everything. So it turns out that "wave" and "particle" as the classical, mutually exclusive categories perhaps do not apply to anything.
It depends what you want your words "wave" and "particle" to mean. Light behaves in some ways like what we would classically have called "waves", and in some ways like what we would classically have called "particles". Is that enough for light to be a "wave"? Well, maybe, but not if part of your definition of a wave is "not like a particle".
Of course in fact it is not just light that does this, but everything. So it turns out that "wave" and "particle" as the classical, mutually exclusive categories perhaps do not apply to anything.
Quite. But the classical categories are the best models we have. Which is rather my point - they are not absolute accurate definitions of the thing, only ways of thinking about the behaviour of the thing. So, when it comes to God...
The Scandal of Particularity cas I understand it is the belief in the uniqueness of Christianity as a religion with the ability to save people. That is a natural and necessary follow on from the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation,and the Atonement, which is why I can't fully embrace them.
I don't think it is a necessary follow on. Christians often talk as if Christianity has the ability to save people. But officially Christianity doesn't save people; Jesus saves people. And there is no necessity that restricts that only to Christians.
Paul writes that as in Adam all have died even so in Christ are all made alive. I'm thoroughly of the opinion that Paul meant that and believed all people will be saved, in part because he says that, and in part because in all the places in which a conservative evangelical preacher would bring up Hell and damnation Paul doesn't.
Comments
It's also odd that he seems to find it surprising people would believe it. I would find it far more surprising to think that someone who did not believe it would go to all the trouble of writing the body of work of someone like Donne or Herbert. What a waste of time that would be!)
Anyway:
Yes, I am well acquainted with the Spirit's clue bat! (ouch ouch ouch heheheheh). To be fair, he usually tries to get it across in a gentler way, before resorting to the bat; but me being me, well...
I wonder sometimes whether the Trinity deliberately chose the symbolism for the Holy Spirit with an eye to covering all of the non-human creation--the four elements, the animals and birds, even the mechanical and cyber areas. Because if we looked at the Father and Son alone, we might see him/them as just another happy (maybe) Mesopotamian polytheist family. The Spirit forces us out of that mold by being so very different in the ways he's portrayed. Which is good for me, since I keep trying to find patterns in what God does that will allow me to think I have him taped (as if).
Don't worry, my previous post gave you the only quotation that had anything to do with Herbert or Donne.
🦇
Interesting. That is just what the self-identifying Fundamentalists I have been surrounded by throughout my Christian life would say about most, maybe all, non-fundamentalists.
Who is right, I wonder, if both sides have exclusive claim on correct defense of doctrine from Scripture?
One such area of doctrine - Theology Proper - which encompasses the Trinity, the Scandal of Particularity, the Hypostatic Union is most certainly complicated by the statistical likelihood of endlessly developing planets developing sentient life within a single, expanding universe. How much greater the theological challenge, if there is not only a single uni-verse?
Biblical concepts of the physical world are incommensurable with reasonable conclusions made from actual, accurate observation. Is there a scripturally defensible model of the Godhead that adequately harmonizes with the ever-expanding foundational understanding of how the physical world works? Anything beyond @Gamma Gamaliel's generous explanation: It is a mystery? There is no nice, tidy scriptural doctrine of the Godhead that can accurately or directly address the physical facts of the universe. Fundamentalist or not.
I live quite happily with the Trinity most days. At my lowest, my family's lowest, I yearned for an additional layer of mediation between us and the Godhead. Feeling much like tortured lab rats made Kierkegaard's concept of standing "in absolute (immediate/unmediated/direct) relation to the absolute" unthinkable, unbearable. At best I felt like defiant Job, "Though he slay me, I will hope in him; yet I will argue my ways to his face." At worst, completely undone.
This or the Void?
I understand both options.
Denethor pisses me off when he snaps at Pippin for offhand comments Pippin made the day before.
How do you think I feel about that other thread, where I was hoping for some questions I couldn't answer.
It became quite tiresome quite early.
Caravaggio, T S Elliott, Van Morrison, Churchill, et al, Jesus, et al all come to mind.
As for people figuring this out early in life, I think children do the complete opposite of what you suggest - they start off assessing everything that people around them do on the basis of whether or not they're "nice".
From a more intellectual viewpoint (given the context), I suspect it's the idea that, from a given perspective, what amounts to a delusion in one area of another person's thinking brings into question the robustness of their thinking in other areas. Which might illustrate an interesting understanding of how human creativity works.
In relation to creativity itself, I think we tend to work on the basis that there is something of the artist in their art - which is the aspect that brings moral character (etc) into the equation.
There are even monstrous individuals, or people with the wrong politics etc, who are nonetheless superb poets, artists, leaders, musicians. Let alone good people with questionable beliefs.
Relating to the Son is rather more difficult. As a young evangelical, I was constantly exhorted to receive Jesus 'into my heart', a concept which I found meaningless. Was not devotion to God enough? No doubt for some that woul make me 'not a proper Christian' and hell-bound. I trust in Gpd's mercy, andhope they are wrong.
It's just short-hand for apprehending a particular theological approach in a particular way.
I'm no longer an evangelical but wouldn't knock the evangelical 'experience' as such. But I do think it's very prescriptive and leaves out those who apprehend these things in other ways.
If someone is trusting in God's mercy then that must surely denote something.
'Receiving Jesus into your heart,' is argot - it's jargon. I know what they mean by it, of course. It's about an experiential - or 'experimental' as the old divines would say - assurance of salvation.
Thing is, not everyone has that and it's all about 'fruit' not particular or special experiences.
"People are a problem." —somebody
It's more to do with something 'revealed' than hidden, as it were.
Maybe endeavor to make more of a study of him than one detached quotation.
By "generous" I meant something like "elastic" or "accomodating." Not in the sense that "anything goes" but that there is a willingness to say, "I don't know. I can't explain it. That's ok." Relatedly, I have in mind your frequently demonstrated attitude that I read as: "I don't see it the way you do, but the view you just expressed explains things that mine doesn't."
I see your use of "Mystery" or "mystery" in contrast to the brittleness that demands all things be seen in whatever mode "the community" in question accepts by consensus as reflected in Problema I of Fear and Trembling.
As Kierkegaard said: Fear and Trembling, Problema I. Bruce Kirmmse, trans. Bookshare ed in Calibre, 40%.
You may get more helpful insight into his thinking on this subject by watching some video on YouTube. Tone is important here, and I think his comments in this vein generally came from his explanation of how an anti-theist experiences what he generally referred to as “the numinous,” and how sometimes that appreciation included the artifacts of religion. Hitchens was not provincial. You may need to hear him as much as read him to get a closer impression in case you’re inferring a tone that’s unintended.
Rightio. I've not read your man Kierkegaard. I'm pleased to be seen as 'elastic' rather than brittle, though.
If this proves anything, it is that interpreting Scripture is far from being an exact science. The formulae the Church came up with over the three to four centuries after Christ in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation can be deduced from Scripture, but it would have been equally possible, in the early centuries, to be a Bible believing Christian without subscribing to those doctrines as we have them today. Probably most of the divisions between Christians today are much smaller than the divisions of the first three centuries, but the very fact that there is so much difference of opinion makes any one group's claim to exclusive knowledge sound quite hollow.
As just one example, the World Communion of Reformed Churches has 230+ member denominations. While there are some differences between denominations, particularly in terms of governance (mainly presbyterian vs congregational), the differences do not preclude communion among the denominations. The Lutheran World Federation, with 140+ member denominations, would provide another example.
To be sure, there are still an incredibly large number of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox denominations. But factors beyond simply believing something slightly different contribute to that high number.
I'm not minimising that but would point out that in many instances the differences come down to questions of emphasis or practice rather than belief as such.
How churches organise themselves and so on.
That's not to elide or minimise the differences but most of the differences aren't as wide, say, as those between Mormons or JWs and what we might call mainstream Christian churches or denominations.
I can understand how and why the Scandal of Particularity can be a stumbling block. I don't find it so. It doesn't mean we can't appreciate or celebrate other belief systems on their own terms, insofar as we can when we aren't adherents ourselves.
So, for instance, I can respect Jainism for its emphasis on the sanctity of life whilst not being a Jaim myself.
My being a Christian doesn't deprive a Jain of their Jainness or a humanist of their humanism or whatever else.
Ok, you might say I'm just saying that yo avoid the kind of problems you have with these things. I dunno. But if I aim, by the grace of God, to be a sincere Trinitarian Christian I don't see how it diminishes anyone else's right or ability to hold to whatever faith or philosophy they wish and to practice that to whatever extent they feel fit.
If I hold to orthodox or Orthodox Christian doctrine myself, it doesn't prevent you from not doing so or holding whatever position you wish to hold - unless in so doing I topple over into Inquisition type territory.
Many years ago, in 1988, I had a long conversation with a Jewish rabbi, which resulted in an exchange of several letters (no emails back then) between us. Like all rabbis, he positively discouraged conversion, making it very clear that nobody needs to convert, only to come into a right relationship with God and His creation. Christianity is all about personal salvation, either from the wrath of God, or the wiles of the devil depending on your view. It's about gaining eternal life. To the rabbi, life is about doing the will of God in the present moment, in trust that our future in if His hands, without overly speculating about life beyond the grave, which we can't know anyway.
Rather than needing a mediator to breach a dualistic gap between our fallen nature and a Holy God, it's about repentance and turning to God, which immediately, however marred we are by sin, restores the divine image in which we were created. Back then, I was still traumatised by my evangelical, fundamentalist background. I still am to a degree, though less so. But the message resonated with me in an enduring way, and was probably the origin of my wish to understand other, less harsh, interpretations of God, compared to what I grew up with.
I don't see the 'Scandal of Particularity' as necessarily putting your Rabbi or anyone else beyond the pale. It's not up to us to determine who will or won't be 'saved'.
Glad I'm not alone.
No, that's down to the competence of Love.
Which one are you discussing?
While not all Christians take such an extreme view, if Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, the only Incarnation of God, and he came to atone for human sin, then John 14.6 would have to be true. I'm a religious pluralist, who believes that anyone who lives by the Golden Rule can come into a proper relationship with God and His creation whatever religious label is attached to them.
I accept that these things may indeed come about through the atoning work of Christ, but they are mysteries beyond my comprehension. The Scandal of Particularity cas I understand it is the belief in the uniqueness of Christianity as a religion with the ability to save people. That is a natural and necessary follow on from the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation,and the Atonement, which is why I can't fully embrace them.
In the strong form, not only is Christianity True and other religions False, but explicit commitment to Christianity is required to benefit from the salvation it offers.
In the weak form, Christianity is true or at least much truer than other religions but people can benefit from the salvation that Christianity describes without explicitly knowing or believing in how it is achieved, which achievement is described by Christianity.
The strong form has obvious objections which are well rehearsed. The weak form can be criticised as patronising to other religious adherents - "You think you're going to achieve Nirvana but that isn't actually the case because it doesn’t exist but God understands your heart's in the right place and will grant you salvation through Christ even though you don't explicitly believe in him because of your circumstances" etc.
Me, I more and more think that if God is a reality then our attempts to describe and define him are going to be approximate and metaphorical - the Trinity or any other religious doctrine may be like wave-particle duality. We know light isn't really either, so at one level it's actually not true, but the way we have to describe it is in terms of one, the other or both depending on circumstances, because what it actually is is something we don't have experiential analogues of, so at another level the concept is true. There is therefore no need to try to squeeze the experience or fate of people outside Christianity into a Christian straitjacket.
Yes, we do, because waves and particles have some contradictory properties so a single thing cannot really be both.
Why not?
Because squares can't be circles.
Of course in fact it is not just light that does this, but everything. So it turns out that "wave" and "particle" as the classical, mutually exclusive categories perhaps do not apply to anything.
Quite. But the classical categories are the best models we have. Which is rather my point - they are not absolute accurate definitions of the thing, only ways of thinking about the behaviour of the thing. So, when it comes to God...
Paul writes that as in Adam all have died even so in Christ are all made alive. I'm thoroughly of the opinion that Paul meant that and believed all people will be saved, in part because he says that, and in part because in all the places in which a conservative evangelical preacher would bring up Hell and damnation Paul doesn't.