A couple of points from comments made on the last post have got me thinking. First, Rob saying that there are good and bad people in both the atheist and Christian/religious camps. There is of course a bridge-building value to this point: it's always good to critically reflect on your own viewpoint and those in your own camp, and look for the good in 'the other'. But the thought opens up a huge issue, which Jimmy touched on in acknowledging himself a sinner in the sight of God. What is the path to true goodness? Here the radical, searching 'joints and marrow, soul and spirit' nature of the Christian message kicks in. If you can handle the concept of seraphim, Isaiah 6:1-7 is worth a look on this score: the record of an experience of holiness and power that forced a man to exclaim 'Woe is me, for I am lost'.
Let's not be coy here, if Christianity doesn't have something distinctive to say about what it means to be good, and a source of power to produce deep radical goodness, then what's the point of being a Christian? But we (that's not meant to be royal by the way) believe it does - that an encounter with the divine can make a person aware of how oriented they are towards self. This challenges me; eg a good definition of true gentleness is 'power under control', but 'gentleness' may also be self-protection in disguise. In how many other ways can 'virtue' be a cloak for self-seeking?
This is one of the things that draws me about Cnity: that it searches and lays bare, strips away the illusions we can entertain about ourselves. We talk about being decent and moral, but scripture uncovers our state in light of the divine majesty, : 'All your righteous acts are as filthy rags'. Not a moral code, but a path through self-recognition to transformation.
God on a cross, weak to be strong, the first shall be last: the Christian ethic is counter-intuitive, turns things on their head, constantly surprises. This is part of its magnetism 'for those who have ears to hear'.
I'll get to the latter comments... think I've seen the muslim programme before Rob, I'll check it out. Heading south for the winter; well, weekend. To Devon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
21 comments:
it's always good to critically reflect on your own viewpoint and those in your own camp, and look for the good in 'the other'.
Agreed - This is why I am talking on blogs like this. To challenge my own worldview at every corner.
So please help me... what is wrong with my worldview? (How about that for making myself a target... must be the wine talking)
The worst I see is that I don't believe unless proven/shown likely, and doubt it even then.
If a claim cannot be falsified I place it in the 'to be doubted strongly' corner.
I may 'wish' for an afterlife and to join love ones after I die... but I see no reason to believe this. (And I also see problems with this wish... remember the phrase 'careful what you wish for'?)
Lee
Thanks Lee, I'll need to get back to you after Devon. Maybe someone else can help meanwhile...
BTW, the ears to hear line not meant to sound holier than thou. I guess Jesus said it first :)
Hi Bruce,
Enjoy Devon... hope it is warm.
And any 'holier than thou' statements (not saying you was) wash over me as you might guess - so don't worry.
See ya
Lee
What is "wrong" with your worldview. I dont know if I would ever put it that way. I think every way of percieving the world has something in it. I agree with you I think by listening to them all you can kind of be more for it.
Some people get drowned in the noise but I think Ive downed too much wine ever to take anything too seriously. Think of that zeno bloke who convinced himself the world couldnt exist because it was illogical - fantastic...
There was a child that went out one day and everything it saw it became - is that a wallace stevens poem ?
I have no idea what I am talking about....
Bruce,
Say hi to " The King" for me.
I assume its royal buisness that summons you to devon.
Is there an Elvis convention in Devon? Ooooh Arrrrr.
Bruce, before you can ask these questions, you have to ask what goodness is and how do you decide whether something is good.
I do not in any way feel that I am misssing out on anything.
You must surely concede that christianity is not necessary to be good.
I guess all you are left with is how good is good enough - and you dont need christianity to answer that either.
If Christianity has something distinctive to say about good, then what is it?
billy,
i thought we were left with the mind shattering conclusion : that being a christian was a possible way to be a christian - earth shattering stuff..
Billy maintains the stolen sources of christianity discount it - however as sam has so kindly pointed out christianity - regardless of its origins - remains a cultural choice focused on a certain goal. Another amazing conclusion - there is a thing which appear to be called christianity.
We should all get a doctorate for this.....
Jonathon,
I think there is a distinctiveness to christianity. Its emphassis on self sacrifice and the shared life are quite - notice I say quite distinctive features on the supermarket shelf of religions. A good christian is different - at least I think - from a good muslim - or a good athiest.
In each there are noticable nuances , textures , different flavours of tea so to speak.
Most people just drink the type of tea they did since they were a young - some people change - and other people give up tea altogether. Most people think their type of tea is really the best - or if they dont drink it - that it was a waste of time. That is human nature - we all see the world through our own eyes...
But Billy didnt arsne wegner say "everyone thinks he has the prettiest wife at home ". This I think gets close to the heart of the matter. That can't possibly be true that everyones wife is the prettiest - but it is the tendency of the doting husband to think so. Its the sign of a happy life.
All is well up until the point that someone interferes with the domestic bliss. Should you be told you must get rid of the wife you love - that you cant have a wife - that your wife is wrong for you - that is a different matter altogether. To me there is more to come from loving your wife fully than thinking about other peoples.
Unless of course you dont have a wife - but only you would know that - i mean whats inside your house is your own buisness. If that the case then you should go out and find a wife - and if you dont think she is the most beautiful one you should em ? divorce her and get a younger model with a robust sex drive.
See it is actually quite difficult for me to write parables on the spot which is why I am glad of the head start in the new testament. Life can be difficult and meta-narratives help us having to reinvent the wheel - indeed they stop us putting in a few spokes of our own.
My meta narrative is better than your meta narrative sounds a bit like my dad is bigger than your dad - but I still think its nice to have a dad - even if for some people he is in jail and you only go to visit him on the holidays ( christmas and easter)
That can't possibly be true that everyones wife is the prettiest - but it is the tendency of the doting husband to think so. Its the sign of a happy life.
You seem to be confusing subjective values with objective questions here. The question of attractiveness is subjective, the question what is good is (potentially) objective. If you want to tell me you dont believe anything is objectively good, then we have no disagreement.
However, if good is subjective, then it renders Bruces question of how we can be good somewhat meaningless as there is no universal standard that we sould attempt to achieve.
nice conclusions billy - but i am not sure about the division of phenomena into strict categories such as objective and subjective. This process seems very subjective - or is it overly objective....I cant quite remember.
There is an ontological harshness with which you approach these terms - it reminds me of such ideas as the purity of god and the separateness and falleness of man. The divisiveness of the approach neccesitates an unrewarding set of consequences. You split things into twos and wonder why your outcomes are divisive. If you tried splitting things into 3's or 4's - then at least we might be confused rather than apparently confounded....
Ultimately you dont have to think in these terms - if you choose to - thats a different matter....
Im sure paul says " we see through a glass darkly" having enough moral judgement for you own daily needs - I think is closer to the ethics of jesus - allowing yourself to be drawn limitlessly into a fuller and more wholesome approach to yourself and others - encouraging people that they can actually do this - is closer to the gospel of the NT than creating abstract moral idols and then wondering why they cant talk.
Ultimately you dont have to think in these terms - if you choose to - thats a different matter....
Rob, you seem to be retreating further and further from reality.
If goodness exists as defined by a god, it has to be objective - or the concept of sin is meaningless as no laws have infact been broken. As I say, if you claim no such objective laws exist, we are in agreement. You however confuse this with subjective feelings of what is good. either goodness is obvective or it is not. There are no other options Goodness can be relative and subjective (still subjective), but not subjective and objective. It may conceivably be possible to subjectively tap into an objective concept, but that concept is still objective and subjectivity can not be used to argue the validity of that point - in otherwords, you may subjectively stumble upon and objective concept, but you cant use that to argue for it.
Your position on different position still remains unargued for.
Rob, you seem to be retreating further and further from reality.
Maybe Im preparing to have a big thought.....
Im trying to get a handle on this array of classifications you seem to be putting up. The idea which pops into my head is that you are asking for an abstract objectivity - a concept of what is right or wrong . That is why you will never get one.
I think this is an unreal type of knowledge - which if we go for it - it must fail - and we must by default end up with nothing . But of course - as i think you might prefer - we could just head straight there - to knowing nothing....
I am suggesting that the morality in the new testament is about making choices in real situations - not in the simulation tank of abstract ethics. My suggestion is that while there is a gap between what we do - and what we think we could do better - we crack on with closing that - sermon on the mount etc...
Dont get me wrong i think you paradigm is a neat party trick - Its definately a punchy little number. But it just doesnt sit right with me - its like one of these word traps the pharisees set up in the new testament. It reflects more the structures of thoughts which precede it - than any damning conseqence which might follow in its wake - pity i aint jesus he at least could play back with wit. I reply with ramble.
But speaking of closing the gap between does and should - i should do some work. Its a tight choice between blogging and watching my family starve - but Im going to go with providing - just ....
Bruce,
Getting back to your title - I have to say that in my own observations of the way people speak about morality - people I have known often says things like "you dont have to go to church to be a good person".
Often when I hear this I am usually suprised by how paltry a definition of good comes out of it - it often appears as something like being "nice" or "friendly" or "a good egg" - and often it settles for just meeting the demands placed upon us by friends and family.
But there is another approach as you say - a sermon on the mount approach - of at least setting out to go , well beyond what is expected of you - of searching out what is good - and of striving to display an active commitment to change on a social and personal level. Have I used enough abstract nouns there ?
Personally - and from observing people - this is sort of reactive of goodness usually doesnt happen
without a catalyst - to me the christian path - shared in a community of other believers - offers to ground this catalyst into our daily lives.
Of course I would call this catalyst Christ - but that is the beauty of being a christian - you still get to make some quite big noises. Although it is important to remember its just not the done thing to show too much of your language in public - It might get in the way of buisness as Sam pointed out.
On the subject of the wrong reasons to be a christian - one of my friends and I were laughing that perhaps we were just to annoy people - to rattle the cages of the postmodern west - just for the fun of argument. So I suppose even defending your faith can become a vehicle for all sorts of vices.
You are never there - thats one of the things I love about christianity.
Rob, you have just given an opinion and not an argument.
I disagree about the morality of the NT. There are examples of absolutes that you are expected to conform to - eg love god and man. I feel you arebeing selective.
But there is another approach as you say - a sermon on the mount approach - of at least setting out to go , well beyond what is expected of you - of searching out what is good
So you do believe in objective values?
Its a tight choice between blogging and watching my family starve - but Im going to go with providing
Wish tghe same could be said about god :-)
Yeah billy its just my opinion - I dont know if i want to argue my opinion - I dont know if i would want to verbally cajole someone to believe it if they didnt - ears to hear and all that.
The language of jesus does become very obligatory - but he is speaking to a jewish culture that claimed to be following god. I would tend to be much sterner with my church if I thought it was missing the mark - than I would with an outsider who didnt claim to follow christ.
Your way of looking at the bible does strike me as very objectified - In my opinion It will never make any sense if you need it to make complete sense - nothing but nothing can do that... I dont think i need that high level of metaphysical assurance - I am much more of a bumbler - daily bread will do me. Patenting the production process ? no need...
That arguments you seek are very much your way of arguing. One of the nice things about reading your writings is your thoughts are coherent . I think it is fair to say your own conclusions match your methods. You have a consistent awareness of how you form your own opinions - and yes you are certainly more entertaining than stephen law.
But my reason for getting back on the blog is in response to
Bruce's
last post about the resurrection and 'really believing this'.
I just read ntwright's essay on the historicy of the ressurection. Thought I would leave a link here. Think this came up on stephen laws blog recently - but I couldnt be bothered to comment. I quite like Wright's approach as a historian - he is willing to knuckle down and work with what we have...
Anyway no point me doing his talking for him.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm
even better - a video of a lecture which covers most of the essay - why read when you can watch...
oh and he touches on billys ideas of opinion and demonstarable argument - having listened to wright it seems my opinion of what an opinion is might be in itself something of an opinion..
racey stuff - where did polonious go ?
r.
http://www.jamesgregory.org/tom_wright.php
Hi Bruce,
An interesting read. Just musing over your comments:
"a good definition of true gentleness is 'power under control',"
Yes this is good, as my translation of meekness is "controlled strength" someone who is meek is not soft, it's just that they have the ability to use their strength at the right time and for the right purpose.
By for now
Neil (your house mate)
It's funny being so far behind on the commentary on your own blog. Just read some dialogue between Billy and Rob from 11 Jan. I'll be interested to read the resurrection piece Rob when I'm next on..
Bruce, you ever noticed how you dont see any dinosaurs about any more? :-)
Post a Comment