A case for Christianity

[Mithrae]

Sometimes I like to imagine the interesting conversations I might have if I ever decided to 'become a Christian' again: No, I'm actually not even sure that 'God' exists. In fact I think that any rational assessment would conclude on balance that Jesus probably did not literally rise from the dead. Christians often profess a desire for others to become members of their religion, yet obviously I couldn't pretend to believe things that I don't believe, or to not know the things which I do. So if they somehow got their wish, how would I explain or justify those seeming contradictions, even to myself? According to most Christians throughout history, including in the bible itself, many of those intellectual hurdles but particularly these two above are pretty much non-negotiable, central elements of the religion.

Of course, there are some Christians who would disagree with that. I haven't read or seen much of them in books or the like " I gather that John Shelby Spong would be one well-known example " but there've been a few such folk on the forum on occasion. Trying to put myself in their shoes, I believe that they would emphasise more of a 'mythopoetic' perspective on 'God' and the resurrection; perhaps not necessarily viewing them as definitely literally false, but treating them primarily as powerful, fundamental or even transformative archetypes or metanarrative placeholders whose value (at least in day to day life) do not depend on a literal understanding at all.

How would I explain that to some of my more traditionalist family members? The simple fact is that aside from vague notions of 'feeling God's presence,' the actual existence of a deity has basically zero relevance to our day to day life; overt miracles or the like are pretty rare, to say the least! In fact in all probability, if a god exists it would be simply impossible for human minds to have anything even remotely approaching a conception of what that entity is really like; to imagine otherwise is to commit the 'sin' of dragging the Ultimate Reality down to our meagre level and reconstructing 'God' in our own image. So from that perspective perhaps even more traditional Christians might be able to acknowledge that 'God' as we conceive it probably doesn't exist. Yet the concept of god, however far removed that may be from the reality, is one which provides us with a potential sense of place in the world, some imagination of what might be a purpose to existence, and perhaps even hope for the future. The concept of god is a mere placeholder for something which our minds probably can't even come close to comprehending, but that concept represents an overarching story or metanarrative about our world which arguably serves us much better than a bleak deterministic materialism.

It may well turn out that after we die we'll find ourselves in a new life, and with a greatly expanded capacity for understanding reality; a scenario in which the literal reality of God (or rather, something probably quite unlike our base conception) will have become much more relevant. But in day to day life, the relevance of this placeholder concept really only comes from its role in 'answering' or even simply outlining existential questions.

Similarly for the resurrection: Again, the supposedly magical transformation of the conversion experience aside (which arguably could more properly be considered the work of the Holy Spirit in any case), whether or not Jesus literally rose from the grave really doesn't affect anyone's day to day living. But the imagery or symbolisms of humility, of self-sacrificing love, of triumph over (or fearless towards) death, of transformation and of new life... these are profound and powerful themes which find many expressions in many different cultures, but perhaps most profoundly and certainly most widely and enduringly in the stories of the Jesus of Christianity. More than once as a young Christian, when faced with a difficult course of action or hostility from others, I thought of Jesus' courage in even going to his own death and his forgiveness of those who crucified him, and they sometimes gave me the inspiration and strength do what I considered right.

Of course the thematic and existential roles which these stories of Jesus and God occupy could potentially be filled by others instead. There are stories of courage and self-sacrifice in the face of wars or disaster which by any natural measure are unquestionably more compelling than Jesus' largely self-provoked execution. With so many thousands of examples in the centuries since, it could hardly be otherwise. Similarly some of the stories of people who've overcome crippling adversities or turned tragedies into triumphs are more inspirational than the contradictory gospel stories of the resurrection. But more than those discrete themes considered individually, Christianity offers the unity and diversity of over a thousand years of ancient Hebraic culture from the bible alone, and two thousand years of Christian evolution, mistakes and growth since then.

It's a possibly unfortunate tendency amongst Protestant Christians especially to ignore or dismiss much of church history, rather than 'owning' and learning from our culture's failures every bit as much as from those of Israel and Judah in the Tanakh. In all likelihood, if we'd grown up in the times and cultures of a few centuries ago many of us would have been there burning witches with the best of them. So rather than just self-righteously condemning such atrocities, part of the historical and cultural legacy of Christianity should be providing an opportunity " perhaps even a responsibility " to learn about what went so badly wrong with Jesus' message of love, and why, and how we can hope to make our own lives and institutions better because of that knowledge. But even more than just the lessons of history, there is a vast wealth of artistic, architectural, literary and musical legacy to relate to on the basis of even tentatively-shared religious reference points: Because I was a Christian, I can appreciate anything from Handel's Messiah to Ben Hur potentially more than I might have if I'd been raised in an entirely different culture.

Socially therefore, Christianity potentially offers a sense of context, culture and community which can often be sadly lacking in our atomised, consumeristic world.

Personally, it offers the moral and existential reference points of the bible stories; whether those stories are true or false, and even when we decide that they are stories which show how earlier generations and societies have used 'god' as an excuse for their xenophobic or even genocidal agendas.

And spiritually, it offers the hope and possibility that maybe, just possibly, there really will turn out to be a loving God and a better life after death, along with the inner peace and fulfilment " for those who seek it " of exploring and imagining those possibilities as if they were fact.

In short, the role of religion in this perspective bears some similarities to the kind of cultural fandom we often see in devotees of particular sports teams, musicians, games and the like, but going much, much deeper: Fandom fulfils some of the social role above, and even that quite meagrely or transiently. A slightly closer comparison would be patriotic nationalism, which offers a broader and more enduring answer to the social role, and provides an historical context for possible questioning and answers of moral and existential questions also. It's important to note that in these examples, identifying with this or that group needn't imply that one considers it to be monolithic or perfect in any way: Being proud to be an Australian doesn't mean that I share all of even most of my views in common with other Aussies, and nor does it mean I can't acknowledge and hopefully learn something from the historical (or recent) crimes or missteps of the country.

Finally of course there are many people who are spiritual but not religious, to greater or lesser degrees. I was interested to learn recently that even the noted atheist Christopher Hitchens once said We have a need for what I would call 'the transcendent' or 'the numinous' or even 'the ecstatic,' and that Everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that theres more to life than just matter. But its very important to keep that under control and not to hand it over to be exploited by priests and shamans and rabbis and other riffraff. And perhaps for some the smorgasbord approach is found to be preferable, seeking spiritual fulfilment from one place and social integration in another while tackling moral and existential questions from yet a third angle.

But the only format in which all these needs are met (or at least addressed) in a united format as far as I'm aware is in religious contexts, in which community and history share equal importance with abstract theology and philosophy. As such it could well be argued that, even if it's not for everyone, religion fills a role in human society which is ultimately even more important than mere sports or nationalism, even in spite of the harm that it too has sometimes caused (or at least served as a vehicle for).


Does religion fill an essential role in society?
.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 59 by Mithrae]

Should we talk about content which is actually horrific next, like the alleged (and possibly historical) genocide of the Canaanites? What themes and lessons might be highlighted by even this most despicable aspect of the ancient Hebrew milieu? Without wanting to put words in his mouth, in his various comments about the bible going farther in pushing the question of the 'flourishing of life,' Theophile has perhaps offered one possible angle; that sometimes, at least in principle if not in this particular quasi-historical instance, it may be necessary to wipe a slate clean making way for 'better' things. As with the Isaac story, it would be so easy to dismiss such a possible perspective as an apology for genocide - which it clearly would not be - but to do so would be to ignore possibly interesting insights, refusing to 'learn from history': Certainly in the evolutionary history of the earth this principle actually has been demonstrated as holding true, with the greatest flourishings of biological diversity following the mass-extinctions which opened up so many previously-filled niches. Perhaps a reader of the bible's flood or genocide stories would not be surprised by that, if the 'all or nothing,' accept or condemn attitudes were not so widespread Sad

If we can recognize everything around us as conditional - so many things made possible and sustained by certain pre-conditions being in place (be it the religions we criticize, the laws we live under, our own lives even and the opportunities we have) - then in the name of God we should hear the call to expand what is possible by creating and ensuring the right conditions for life - past, present and future - to flourish.

If we can't get into this mindset where what is possible can change, where the impossible can become possible and death itself can lose its sting, we'll never be able to push the boundaries of our 'morality.' We'll be forever stuck in these narrow conversations and unable to see the wisdom (conditional though it too may be) that the bible shares.

And yes, sometimes even seeing in the conditions that we face the hard truth that the right conditions are, in fact, a clean slate.

[marco]

I find these arguments so ridiculous. If we assume, as the bible clearly declares, a God for whom the impossible will become possible, including bringing the dead back to life, then what becomes of this logic?

Nobody's denying Yahweh's tremendous powers. Did not his son raise Lazarus? It is the COMMAND TO KILL that is objectionable. What decent, normal parent wants to be asked to put a knife in his son's throat? And what brute would demand this?

This is why he willingly gave his impossible son back to God when God asked.

This way of thinking changes everything, including how we understand this story.

This way of thinking that one has a duty to kill a son is a wicked way of thinking. There is a very powerful word that can be used in these circumstances: No! The tale is despicable and attempts to rescue it are, to use your word, ridiculous. There is no great difference between this stuff and Aztecs sacrificing often compliant humans to their equally powerful gods.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 81 by marco]

Nobody's denying Yahweh's tremendous powers. Did not his son raise Lazarus? It is the COMMAND TO KILL that is objectionable. What decent, normal parent wants to be asked to put a knife in his son's throat? And what brute would demand this?

The text is explicit: Abraham's faith was being tested. God wanted Abraham to show he had faith in God's promise and was fully committed to it. What is death when you believe in God's power and promise to bring life? It loses all meaning you are giving it.

As for the underlying rationale for the test, we could endlessly debate that one. We have in the past.

To be short about it, implicit in God wanting us to rule creation is a ridiculous faith in our being worthy of that job. Doubters run rampant (surprise, surprise given how good a job we've done!). You can see these doubts surfacing in the book of Job and being the reason for his test (the satan). You can imagine them here as well...

So in short, the rationale for Abraham's test is to restore faith in those who were losing faith in God's plan, i.e., in us, and our ability to rule the earth. This requires one of us proving our worth, i.e., our commitment to God and the way God shows us. No other way about it.

This way of thinking that one has a duty to kill a son is a wicked way of thinking. There is a very powerful word that can be used in these circumstances: No! The tale is despicable and attempts to rescue it are, to use your word, ridiculous. There is no great difference between this stuff and Aztecs sacrificing often compliant humans to their equally powerful gods.

I don't know about the Aztecs, but here the result was life. Promise upheld. And, if you extrapolate, restored faith in our ability and worthiness to rule.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 73 by Danmark]

This is an incredibly false statement. It reveals amazing bias. God told Abraham to kill his son. Isaac had done nothing that merited punishment of any kind, let alone the death penalty. Yet this supposed 'God' ordered his death with no justification. It was a premeditated act. Under any measure of law, 'God' and Abraham are guilty of attempted murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder.

I find these arguments so ridiculous. If we assume, as the bible clearly declares, a God for whom the impossible will become possible, including bringing the dead back to life, then what becomes of this logic?

Actually, I quite agree with your logic here, IF one resorts to the magical thinking required to believe in a 'god' who can do the impossible. This is the essence of what is wrong with Christian theology. It assumes the impossible. It posits nothing short of magic. Yes indeed, under this kind of belief system black can be white while still being black. A man can be a god, yet be still a man and not a god at all, yet he is god; he is both the son and the father, separate yet one. There is a technical term for this kind of belief: "Hogwash."

[theophile]

[Replying to Danmark]

Actually, I quite agree with your logic here, IF one resorts to the magical thinking required to believe in a 'god' who can do the impossible. This is the essence of what is wrong with Christian theology. It assumes the impossible. It posits nothing short of magic. Yes indeed, under this kind of belief system black can be white while still being black. A man can be a god, yet be still a man and not a god at all, yet he is god; he is both the son and the father, separate yet one. There is a technical term for this kind of belief: "Hogwash."

I was precise in my language for a reason: the impossible can become possible. (As Jesus says to his disciples, they will do even greater things than he did...)

Here I would resort to that old bit of wisdom, that what we can do today would be called magic by those who came before us. So too would those of us today call our future capabilities magic. Including, perhaps even, being able to bring the dead back to life.

But that belief in the impossible becoming possible, i.e., in all things becoming possible, is a core aspect to biblical thinking. If you can accept it, then we must, as you say, seriously reconsider all these arguments against the bible.

It doesn't mean a belief in magic. It doesn't mean a belief in some Supreme Being out there who can wave His hands and make anything happen. What it means is a belief in human capability. In human ingenuity. In science, engineering and technology. In communion and working together (to shift to a more religious register). In fostering all these things through culture, and all of its enabling conditions... In our calling to image God and rule over creation, shepherding it toward this end where all things are possible and God is all in all.

All of this is part and parcel to creating the conditions where life can flourish. To expanding the conditions of possibility and making the impossible possible...

All of this is part and parcel to our calling as human beings from the very beginning. To be 'gardeners' so to speak, focused on creating these very conditions where life - past, present and future - can flourish.

Sorry to be preachy, but we need to bring together the promise of science and human potential with biblical teaching. They are not separate things.

[wiploc]

What is death when you believe in God's power and promise to bring life? It loses all meaning you are giving it.

This is why the Crucifixion was a meaningless sham.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

Actually, I quite agree with your logic here, IF one resorts to the magical thinking required to believe in a 'god' who can do the impossible. This is the essence of what is wrong with Christian theology. It assumes the impossible. It posits nothing short of magic. Yes indeed, under this kind of belief system black can be white while still being black. A man can be a god, yet be still a man and not a god at all, yet he is god; he is both the son and the father, separate yet one. There is a technical term for this kind of belief: "Hogwash."

I was precise in my language for a reason: the impossible can become possible. (As Jesus says to his disciples, they will do even greater things than he did...)

This is just ridiculous. If any other religion made an absurd claim like this, you wouldn't buy it. The impossible is impossible, not possible. Something that SEEMS impossible can become possible. In that case it was always possible.

You give a good example of why the mere words of the Bible should ot be taken seriously. According to the Gospels Jesus raised the dead, healed the blind and rose from the dead himself. None of his disciples did any of that. It's been 2000 years and none of them have raised the dead or risen themselves after being dead and buried for 3 days.

[showme]

[Replying to post 83 by Danmark]

[theophile]

[Replying to wiploc]

This is why the Crucifixion was a meaningless sham.

This changes our logic (since death loses its sting) but it doesn't make what Jesus did easy, meaningless, or a sham.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 86 by Danmark]

This is just ridiculous. If any other religion made an absurd claim like this, you wouldn't buy it. The impossible is impossible, not possible. Something that SEEMS impossible can become possible. In that case it was always possible.

If I say something is impossible, I say so in the sense we do not have the power to do it given our current conditions.

This is why I say we can expand or create new conditions of possibility. And in doing so what is impossible now can become possible. (All things becoming possible being the radical hope of the bible.)

I don't think we're saying different things. It's more a matter of me being more relative to our current conditions and you being more absolute.

You give a good example of why the mere words of the Bible should ot be taken seriously. According to the Gospels Jesus raised the dead, healed the blind and rose from the dead himself. None of his disciples did any of that. It's been 2000 years and none of them have raised the dead or risen themselves after being dead and buried for 3 days.

I would agree that the bible should not be taken literally (I doubt there was an actual man named Jesus who raised people from the dead). But it should be taken seriously.

To that end, what is absolutely impossible about any of this stuff you mention becoming possible? e.g., our being able to heal the blind or even raise the dead?