Posts by RationalWitness

23

Human Sacrifice

by IslandWoman in

in my religious and cultural heritage, human sacrifice has always been abhored.

yet, that is what the christ was; a human sacrifice.. the jewish writings condemned human sacrifice, but the christians reveled in the notion that a man died in their place.. human sacrifice is the foundation of the christian faith.

they are no better than the mayans!.

RationalWitness

Peaceful,

I again notice that you associate nonbelief with dispare and metaphysical naturalism.

What else would I associate atheism with, if not metaphysical naturalism? Why is there anything at all (rather than nothing)? Theists answer that question with "God"; atheists must answer it with "it just is". This is a naturalist answer to a metaphysical question, hence metaphysical naturalism. There's no way to avoid it. If you disagree, please explain.

As for nonbelief and despair, that association has been made by such atheist philosophers as Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus, and Jean Paul Sartre (among others). Russell spoke bravely about 'building our lives upon the firm foundation of unyielding despair' in his book Why I Am Not a Christian. I would agree that no atheist actually lives by that principle ... it's impossible to do so: the cognitive dissonance of living a life without ultimate meaning would lead to depressive suicide or, at the least, despairing self-absorption.

In this latter connection, in a 1991 address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Dr. L. D. Rue (an atheist) spoke on "The Saving Grace of Noble Lies". He affirmed that it is necessary for people to deceive themselves into thinking that they and the universe still have value despite the absence of God. "The lesson of the past two centuries is that intellectual and moral relativism is profoundly the case.... There is no final, objective reading on the world or the self. There is no universal vocabulary for integrating cosmology and morality." His solution was "the noble lie", i.e., one that deceives us and compels us beyond self-interest. It is a lie (according to Dr. Rue) because it falsely claims the universe is infused with value and because it makes a claim to universal truth; it is necessary and noble because, as Rue says, "without such lies, we cannot live." So the association of despair with atheism comes from atheists themselves.

What happens in practice, I believe, is that atheists subconsciously participate in the "noble lie" without realizing it, by smuggling theistic principles unconsciously into their philosophy so as to avoid total moral relativism and despair. Sartre (who was a Marxist) insisted that we create meaning for our life by freely choosing to follow a certain course of action, for example, by becoming an activist. But that explanation offers no more permanent meaning to life than does the composting of dead leaves which regenerate the soil each year. Nazi vivisectionist Dr. Josef Mengele was passionately devoted to his work of medical science; did his life have meaning? What about the lives of his subjects? Did they have ultimate meaning?

As another way to look at this, consider an act of self-sacrifice. Several winters ago an airliner crashed into the icy Potomac River in Washington, D.C. One passenger, poised to take the rope ladder from the rescue helicopter, repeatedly pushed the ladder to other passengers rather than take it himself. After placing other passengers' lives ahead of his own about six times, he was swept away to his death. Now if there is no ultimate justice, no ultimate reward for such sacrifice, and all those who demonstrate this kind of humanitarianism are ultimately the 'losers' ... how can that not lead to despair? Christian theism, on the other hand, posits an ultimate value of human life, enforced ultimately by God.

Now I want to ask about something you said:

Without the low valuation of people that Christianity engenders by it's endless emphasis on sin and the despirate need for salvation, humanists have seen a beautiful potential begun to be realized. As to metaphysics I discussed this in the Questians for Atheists thread.The changes will be gradual and with many setbacks.The setbacks largely do to the persistance of mystisism.

First, I disagree wholeheartedly that Christianity devalues people (or engenders such a devaluation). On the contrary, Christianity teaches that every human has ultimate and incalculable worth. Traditional, orthodox Christianity claims that God values humanity so much that He indwelt a human, Jesus Christ, and suffered death in behalf of mankind. [Note that this in itself does not presuppose the 'sacrificial' view of atonement which opened this thread.] Jesus' illustration of the shepherd leaving 99 sheep to recover the one lost one demonstrates that valuation graphically. Blaming Christianity for what individual Christians or even 'Christian' nations or religious organizations do is like blaming medical science for what Josef Mengele did. The question must always be asked, why was this or that done? Was it done because this is what Christ taught Christians to do? Or was it done despite what Christ taught Christians to do? Even if Christians misapply Jesus' words to justify their own wrong actions, that does not indict Jesus as an accomplice.

The "endless emphasis on sin and the despirate need for salvation" you mention is very typical, of course, of Christian fundamentalists, including JWs. But it is worlds apart from modern Christian belief as found in the sources I have mentioned elsewhere. In the NT the onus is not on humans to be sinless (something the Scriptures show is impossible), but rather to accept God's explicit forgiveness and reflect that same non-judgmental love toward others.

You also said:

...humanists have seen a beautiful potential begun to be realized.

I do not disagree. Humanitarians of all stripe have made wonderful progress in many areas of human endeavor. And yet we live in what anthropologists and others have called the most violent age in history. Imagine what might be accomplished if people everywhere actually relinquished the mimetic violence that Jesus spoke against? If all people loved and sincerely prayed for their enemies, there would be no more enemies. Christ evidently foresaw a 'beautiful potential ... to be realized' too. If he spoke the truth, then his teaching is no less beneficial than conscientious humanitarianism.

No doubt some 'mysticism' has hindered progress, depending on what you mean by 'mysticism.' All forms of ignorance--whether cynicism, bigotry, hatred, pride, fear, selfishness, and innumerable other traits of humanity--have hindered progress. Scapegoating religion, however, simply provides a whipping boy for insecure people while hiding the real underlying problems of ignorance just mentioned. Religion doesn't insure against ignorance, it merely offers people a philosophy to explore; they can bring along all their baggage with them, if they choose to do so. Ridiculing religion does nothing to solve the problems of ignorance, hatred, bad motive, etc. In fact, it perpetuates and reinforces them in the same way that fundamentalist religion does--by claiming 'We are better than you because we have a certainty that you do not'.

The question still is, if even a small amount of the scriptural teaching about Christ is disavowed by a Christian what becomes the anchor for faith?

Again, you would have to ask those about whom you are speaking. I do not know how they rationalize their beliefs. Traditional Christianity insists that the "anchor" for faith is the personal relationship the Christian has with Christ, not some doctrinal authority. Now if the individual claims Jesus never existed, or that he was not resurrected (i.e., not alive today), then I do not imagine that individual can have much of a personal relationship with Christ, and he would have to explain his rationale for claiming to be a Christian.

Men like Brown and Spong both being Catholic clergy puzzel me, yet I am indebted to them.

Spong is Episcopalian, not Catholic, btw. If by 'being indebted to them,' you mean they opened your eyes to alternative ways of looking at the Bible and Christianity, I applaud that. Expunging the fundamentalist cataracts from my eyes has brought me immense pleasure and satisfaction as it has opened avenues of exploration into theology, science and philosophy that were previously closed.

Cheers,
Rational

1

KJV / Milky...........I'm sorry

by WildHorses in

jw
friends

i'm so sorry i missed your call today.

i tried to call you back but you had already left.. if you are going to be there tomorrow, please shoot me an e-mail and let me know.

i will be home all day tomorrow unless something unexpected comes up.. shari.

RationalWitness

Milky,

Will you email me at [email protected]? I'll give you my 800 number, so we can chat.

Love to you, your wife and your mom,
RW

23

Human Sacrifice

by IslandWoman in

in my religious and cultural heritage, human sacrifice has always been abhored.

yet, that is what the christ was; a human sacrifice.. the jewish writings condemned human sacrifice, but the christians reveled in the notion that a man died in their place.. human sacrifice is the foundation of the christian faith.

they are no better than the mayans!.

RationalWitness

Peaceful,

The only book I have read by Brown is An Introduction to New Testament Christology. He does indeed do a good job of tracing the historical roots of NT elementals, but I am not familiar with his view of the reason for Jesus' death or the literalness/non-literalness of his ascension. (Brown does not discuss atonement theories or the ascension in AITNTC.)

However, he does write about the resurrection at some length, both in his "Preface to the Discussion" and Appendix II:

The developing sequence from the way in which Jesus presented himself during his lifetime to the way in which those who believe in him presented him afterwards is more complex than such a sequence would be for any other figure. In the case of others one might find an adequate explanation for development in logical, psychological, and other familiar diagnosable factors; but in the tradition about Jesus a unique factor massively intervened that goes beyond human diagnosis, namely, the resurrection. In the publicly received tradition of Israel (i.e., what a later generation would dub canonical) no one had hitherto been raised from the dead to eternal life, and so this claim of faith about Jesus had an enormous import. Besides heralding a victory over death, God's raising of Jesus to glory vindicated both the origin and the truth of the authority/power that he had claimed and manifested. His followers who saw the risen Jesus realized that he was even more than they had understood during his public ministry. the resurrection, therefore, makes it very difficult to explain away as romanticized creation the more explicit christology attested after the resurrection.
Theoretically and ideally, a presentation of NT christology should be able to take for granted the reality of the resurrection, since what is being studied are the records of those who both believed in and proclaimed the resurrection. Yet realistically, an introductory christology book such as this will be read by students who have heard that some scholars deny the reality of the resurrection; they may be suspicious, therefore, of the honesty of a presentation that omits all discussion of the issue. I shall try to do justice to both approaches by including a discussion of the reality of the resurrection but placing it in Appendix II below, so that it does not interrupt the treatment of christology proper.

Appendix II opens:

The raising of Jesus from the dead was unlike all the other restorations to life mentioned in the Bible.... The resurrection of Jesus, then, was the supreme intervention of God in human existence, the supreme miracle. No wonder that, on the one hand, the resurrection has become a principal apologetic argument for the truth of Christianity and that, on the other hand, the reality of the resurrection has been questioned.
One would need a book to do justice to all aspects of the NT presentation of the resurrection. Here, as explained on p. 106 above, I have a restricted interest. The christological presentation of Jesus by NT authors that goes beyond his self-presentation during his public ministry flows to a large extent from their belief that he was raised form the dead. The resurrection is a presupposition of NT christology, and so books on christology usually do not discuss the factuality of the resurrection. Yet those who read an introductory book such as this have often heard doubts raised about the reality of the resurrection and may well wonder whether NT christiology is a house built without foundations. To the contrary, in my judgment, the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is strong: and a brief treatment of it may help to remove misconceptions.

Brown then proceeds to review the general objections to the reality of the resurrection and the difficulties arising from the Biblical narratives of the resurrection, and to offer his analysis of their relative worth. I quote the above only to show that Brown does not deny the reality of the resurrection. (Your mention of Brown in the context of "the temptation to literalize.... mythic hero legends" suggests to me you may have mistakenly concluded that Brown denies a literal resurrection of Jesus.) As I said above, however, I do not know his views on atonement theories and the ascension.

There are, of course, ultra-liberal theological views that tend to 'psychologize' NT elements such as the resurrection, the ascension, and the meaning of Jesus' death, but honestly these are very much on the fringe of theological scholarship. A couple of exceptions would be Shelby Spong and John Dominic Crossan. I don't find much agreement personally with either of these individuals, but if you are familiar with Crossan and "the Jesus Seminar", you probably know of his compatriot, Marcus Borg. I very highly recommend Borg's books Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, The God We Never Knew, and Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. These books introduced me to a view of Christianity that was comfortably rational yet spiritually satisfying. I'm sure you understand I am not advocating or endorsing Borg's theological views blanketly. In my personal opinion, there is very little apodictic Christian doctrine--and what there is can be summarized pretty much in Jesus' 'two greatest commandments'. But Christian scholars, philosophers and scientists like Rene Girard, Walter Wink, Raymund Schwager, Roy Clouser, Richard Swinburne, John Polkinghorne, Ian Barbour and others have helped me to navigate a path of Christian spirituality safely away from the Scylla of dogmatic fundamentalism and the Charybdis of despairing atheism. The more I read from such authors, the deeper my appreciation becomes of God, not because I agree with everything the author may claim, but because my always-provisional understanding is being tested and in some ways expanded and refined by some bit of information or some alternative viewpoint. And it seems to me that God has given us more than enough evidence to recognize his existence and purpose--if we are looking for it (as opposed to looking for justification to dismiss it). I have recalled it before, but I will mention it again ... there is an old native American legend about a man who owned two dogs. These two dogs were constantly fighting. Which one will ultimately win? Obviously, the one he feeds best. So it is with matters of belief: if we feed our reasoning solely on a diet of metaphysical naturalism to the exclusion of rational theism, then we will probably become atheists ...

If your question "How do intelligent men know what they know and yet persist to call themselves Christian?" is not rhetorical, then I assume you are asking, 'How can men like Brown (or Spong or Crossan) know the Bible is not inerrant, that Christ was not literally resurrected, etc., and yet retain something called 'Christian faith'?" But as I pointed out above, Brown does NOT deny the literal resurrection of Christ. Spong and Crossan, I believe, do so, and you would have to ask them about this.

The remainder of your question about "what is left to believe..." sounds sincere, and I would be happy to respond to it. But it is really too general to be answered in a simple post. Can you ask something more specific? Or if you wish, my email is ALWAYS open to honest and respectful discussions of belief.

Best wishes,
RW

7

My story... Warning fluff ahead

by larc in

my story,.

i was born at a very early age.

we were poor, so i was born at home.

RationalWitness

Larc,

You forgot to mention that being born was such a shock, you were unable to speak for two years. (See, I know more about you than you realize.)

Rational

35

My baby

by Kep in

jw
friends

hi there,.

i've been mia for a week now and thought i would share my news with you.. here's is my precious baby girl, born 20 march.. her name is jahkeil.. nothing to do with any religion, just came out that way.. i wanted my child to carry my dad's name (jack).. .

kep

RationalWitness

Kep,

Jahkeil is absolutely PRECIOUS. Thanks so much for the pic. (How about a pic of her sister holding her when she gets home?)

Your entire family are in our thoughts and hearts.

Best wishes,
Rational

25

Sloppy typo in the Watchtower.

by Nemesis in

jw
friends

i was just wondering if this typo is in the us version also?

its in the 1 may 2002 watchtower p.31 on the far right block of text on the seventh line down:.

and members of the great crowd are not in the inner courtyard of jehovahs great spiritual temple, which courtyard represents the condition of prefect, righteous human sonship ot the members of jehovahs holy priesthood while they are on earth.. i know its just a small typo, but i have never seen a mistake like this before [to my memory] in the watch towers literaturehas anyone else?.

RationalWitness

Nemesis,

Hold onto that copy. It may be worth something some day. (LOL)

Rational

23

Human Sacrifice

by IslandWoman in

in my religious and cultural heritage, human sacrifice has always been abhored.

yet, that is what the christ was; a human sacrifice.. the jewish writings condemned human sacrifice, but the christians reveled in the notion that a man died in their place.. human sacrifice is the foundation of the christian faith.

they are no better than the mayans!.

RationalWitness

IW,

According to anthropologist and Stanford University Professor of Civilization Rene Girard, the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus' death is in fact the product of a medieval literalization of N.T. metaphor. He has written extensively on this, both in Violence and the Sacred and Things Hidden Since the Founding of the World. His arguments are compelling, though technically lengthy. I could not do them justice in a single response here. I will provide a quote, however:

The Gospels only speak of sacrifices in order to reject them and deny them any validity. Jesus counters the ritualism of the Pharisees with an anti--sacrificial quotation from Hosea: "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice'" (Matthew 9, 13)....
There is nothing in the Gospels to suggest that the death of Jesus is a sacrifice, whatever definition (expiation, substitution, etc.) we may give for that sacrifice. At no point in the Gospels is the death of Jesus defined as a sacrifice. The passages that are invoked to justify a sacrificial conception of the Passion both can and should be interpreted with no reference to sacrifice in any of the accepted meanings.
Certainly the Passion is presented to us in the Gospels as an act that brings salvation to humanity. But it is in no way presented as a sacrifice.
If you have really followed my argument up to this point, you will already realize that from our particular perspective the sacrificial interpretation of the Passion must be criticized and exposed as a most enormous and paradoxical misunderstanding--and at the same time as something necessary--and as the most revealing indication of mankind’s radical incapacity to understand its own violence, even when that violence is conveyed in the most explicit fashion.
....
One should ask whether these Old Testament texts have not been taken up in a spirit appropriate to the Gospels, one that completely desacralizes them. Modern readers are not interested in this possibility. Whether they call themselves believers or unbelievers, they still remain faithful to the medieval reading. Some of them do so because they want to keep the conception of a sinful humanity punished by a vengeful God; others because they are interested only in denouncing the first conception rather than in subjecting the texts to a genuine criticism. It never occurs to them that these texts, which are either fetishized or held up to ridicule, never really deciphered, could be rooted in a spirit that is quite different from the spirit of sacrificial religion.
....
First of all, it is important to insist that Christ’s death was not a sacrificial one. To say that Jesus dies, not as a sacrifice, but in order that there may be no more sacrifices, is to recognize in him the Word of God: "I wish for mercy and not sacrifices". Where that word is not obeyed, Jesus can remain. There is nothing gratuitous about the utterance of that word and where it is not followed by any effect, where violence remains master, Jesus must die. Rather than become the slave of violence, as our own word necessarily does, the Word of God says no to violence.

His research led Girard to adopt Christianity.

If you would like some information about Girard's theory or other non-violent interpretations of Jesus' death from theologians such as Lesslie Newbigin or Raymund Schwager, feel free to email me at [email protected].

Best wishes,
Rational

87

Life Is On the Hairy Edge

by AlanF in

jw
friends

got a call late this afternoon: "your daughter was in a car accident along with four other girls.

you need to come to the emergency room.".

daughter not there yet.

RationalWitness

Alan and Jukie,

So sorry to hear this. (Well, but relieved, too, of course.)

Hugs and best wishes to the three of you.

RW

7

Children and inculcation

by larc in

jw
friends

the jws teach that you must bring the children to meetings.

they must be inculcated, and hear, read, and respond to what is good and bad.

that is how i was raised in the religion.

RationalWitness

I've often wondered if the Society's constant harping on the 'evil' things of the world wasn't actually counterproductive, ultimately making the proscribed activities actually more tempting than they otherwise would have been. As a psychologist, what do you think?

And, yes, I do agree with you: "Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other."--Edmund Burke, Letters on a Regicide Peace

Rational

78

Recommend a Book

by Black Man in

jw
friends

that's right....recommend a book...any book that would be a good read....... mine's is:.

invisible man by ralph ellison

RationalWitness

A couple I'm enjoying right now:

Ten Philosophical Mistakes, by American philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.

Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, by French anthropologist (and Stanford professor of civilization) Rene Girard.

The first suggests that modern philosophers (to say nothing of average people) are still plagued by mistaken views first advanced by Hobbes, Bekeley, and Hume.

The second provides a remarkable theory of the origin of sacrifice in religion (and religion itself, for that matter), as well as the implications for a radically different understanding of the death of Jesus Christ.

Rational