Christianity's Challenge
In reading about
Edward Gibbon for research for an article I'd like to publish, I ran across
his most famous work on the decline of the Roman Empire and its greatest controversy, that of its clash with Christianity. A friend referred me to Gibbon once and I was dismissive of it simply because I tire of constantly defending Christians.
However, on this account, as one of the two main critiques by Gibbon that I am reading secondhand, I think Gibbon and my friend are correct. Specifically his claim is that Christians focus so much on the afterlife that they lose their own care about the present. I think another way to structure that argument would be to call it a Christian selfishness about their own salvation -- that they become so focused with their relationship with God and their entrance into heaven that they forget about God existing in the people around them right now, here on Earth. They disgrace their faith by ignoring the needs of the present. Douglas Hyde, to a degree, talks about this phenomenon as it relates to Communist organizing in "
Dedication and Leadership", that those who care about the world are so often scooped up into false doctrines because Christianity offers so few real ways to address and alleviate the problems of this world. It's too easy to become too focused on forever and not enough on the here and now.
I have felt this myself, watching priests and Bishops opine about the world and then do virtually nothing to help it. The excoriations are always upon the sheep, the loud lamentations of the shepherds that their flocks are not good enough. Moralizing Catholics, especially, are so prone to pick apart one's own faults and never tackle the most basic problems within themselves: apathy and inaction. Justifying their own wants and desires by claiming they want closeness to the Lord, they skirt the real issue which is that they want comfort from the pain of this world by the promise of peace in the next. It's not that they actually want communion with God because that will undoubtedly involve the pain of watching so many of His people suffer, of wanting to help His people but due to the constraints of creation and the love embedded within free will, unable to do so. God undoubtedly wants to help us, He wants to give us respite from our suffering, and yet the disciples he has provided on Earth are so preoccupied with their own pains that they forget to tend to that of others. Their desire to be in communion with their creator is a challenge, is their goal, it is their stated desire and never the byproduct of their virtuous life here as a human.
Are we good for ourselves, are we good for others, are we good because that's what we're told to do, or are we, hopefully, good because good acts are best, and what gives our creator glory, and what brings about our own fulfillment.
And, of course, this is far from a call for 'social justice' or of false 'equality' or redistribution, which are thievery masking as theology. No, I intend to say that our own actions, our individual choices, our daily decisions ought to be concerned less with our personal salvation and missing every crack while walking as to not offend a legalistic Lord, and rather on providing real relief, sincere compassion and opportunities for individuals to serve themselves and in so doing realize self-fulfillment and give glory to God through our acts and not our desires. The simple act of having children and raising them is the perfect realization of this, and is so crass when we in society who are so blessed fill our emotional voids with animals. Married couples living in the most prosperous nation in the history of man take their time with children and fill their fertile years with felines and canines instead of little ones. Blessed as a marriage in the church, given such opportunity, we turn to trivialities. Given a great library we read the comics, offered time-travel we would go to the first Britney Spears concert, offered genetic control over food and we make sweeter candy -- in our prosperity and given our opportunities we are almost unworthy of this world.
We justify ourselves not through our attention and focus, but from our discipline and obedience to serve despite the promises. Bravery is not the same as duty, heroism is not that which is in a job description. These traits we once admired were what we recognized as unique, commendations that we have watered down by proclaiming every janitor brave and every soldier a hero. Going out of our way to conflate Audie Murphy with Jessica Lynch, we have only degraded ourselves. We ought to act not as we expect will gain entry to heaven but in remarkable ways that exceeds the expectations. Our faith should motivate us all to be a martyr for the faith in the example of Murphy and not the quiet, calm Christian sheltered and isolated ticking off a checklist of to-dos in the pursuit of salvation. In many ways the promise of heaven seems a distraction to what we are called to do, would we serve the Lord so willfully, so powerfully and so well if we knew that there was no heaven and that we ought to be thankful enough for our simple creation, or would we fall into hedonism? What if our path to heaven depends on the degree to which we operate as though it wasn't there - that we act and serve not out of an expectation as to quid pro quo but out of a reverence, devotion and actual fealty to God.
-I am not good because of what is promised, I try to be good because it is what the father wants from me.
-I am not trying to be virtuous because of how wonderful the next life will be, but because I know that the father desires that act from me.
-I am not working to help the unborn because I expect choirs of babies to sing my praises to Peter to gain my entrance into heaven, but because to do otherwise is an affront to my creator.
-My greatest goal is to surprise my Lord through my actions, and to do them for Him and not for myself.
Labels: Catholicism, God, heaven, society, theology
Angry Atheists
I accidentally ran across
this blog, Leviticus 19:19, which displays about the same level of anger and hostility that I've seen from other atheists. It's amazing to read the posts, and see the pain and wounds this person obviously carries with them. They obviously have been let down in the past, been hurt, and had reason to question their faith and have fallen away from it. Having been through the same journey myself, I hope their road leads back to Rome, as so many others have.
Labels: atheists, God, society, truth
Good feedback and criticism on my "Logical Procession"
So, several friends had good thoughts on my "
Logical Progression into Christianity"
-Amanda suggested to avoid Deism, change some terms to be more accurate, and that it only leads to general belief, not in a necessarily Christian God.
-Steve pointed out that C.S. Lewis has already done great work here to consider.
-Jon pointed out that including a chart perhaps listing the evidence would be more persuasive.
All good advice, and advice I intend to follow.
Labels: God, religion, theory
Logical Progression into Christianity
About a year ago, a colleague and I sat in a hotel room dreaming up the logical proofs one needed to accept, in what order, to accept the Christian God. Atheists always attack one and never the progression, the logic and rational thought behind it. Having never seen it drawn out like this, I can't say how good or accurate my listing is, but I suppose it's a start. If you disagree or see room for improvement, please let me know.
Logical procession into Christianity
-2. There is nothing
-1. What is seen is not real
0. There is nothing more than what can be seen
1. There is more than what can be seen.
2. There is a spiritual world
3. There are spiritual beings
4. These beings are not bound by the rules of the universe
5. These beings are more powerful than man
6. These beings are beyond time and thus, know everything
7. There is one being who is more powerful than the others
8. This one spiritual being cannot be half one thing and half another, it must be all one thing or all another.
9. This one omnipotent being is good
10. This omnipotent being who exists beyond time existed before man
11. This omnipotent being who exists beyond time and before man had some power over the creation of man
12. Having had power over the creation of man, man's creation was according to its will.
13. Man's life is owed to either the action of the omnipotent being or its inaction.
14. This omnipotent being has the power to destroy man, but does not and had the power to stop his creation, but did not
15. This omnipotent being beyond time who is good has the ability to communicate with all men at any moment, but does not, does so in ways that isn't obvious or scientifically measurable, or does so very rarely.
16. This decision to not contact man in a direct way must have a reason which is good because the being itself is good.
17. The being has three choices in any given situation: direct action, indirect or circuitous action, or inaction. Every action or indirect action must be a good because the being is wholly good.
18. The creation of man was not a natural occurrence.
19. By its unnatural occurrence, as well as man's ability to perceive and communicate with the spiritual, the being must have created man.
20. Because the being is good, and man is its creation, the being seeks the good for each man, though it may not intervene in order to always give the good.
21. Because man can perceive the spiritual, there must be a purpose to his creation.
22. This purpose is hidden or obscured from man for some reason. This purpose, however, exists and is communicated in indirect ways.
23. This superior being communicates to man in indirect ways.
24. This superior being would communicate with man in a way to distinguish its will from man's will.
25. The will of this superior being would, if it desired not to be obvious, have to be carried out by men.
26. Most men are not capable of separating their interest from a separate altruistic interest.
27. This superior being would not be able to depend solely on all men to enact its will as long as it used indirect communication because men cannot separate their interest from altruistic interest.
28. If this superior being cannot use all men, then it must use some men. There must be some system of authority to determine which men to use and which ones do not have such authority.
Conclusion so far: God exists, God is good, God created us, God wants the best for us.
Labels: Catholicism, Christianity, God, philosophy, religion
Seed thrown on the ground of a good homily
I went to mass this weekend in Cape Cod at Our Lady of Victory in Hyannis. The gospel reading was
from Mark, about the sower of seeds parable. The priest gave a homily wholly inadequate to the passage, however. His contention was that it was about Christ explaining failure to the apostles, and that in a way Christ was the failure, that he was crucified on the Cross, that he was living a hard life among the thorns, and persisted. In a way I find that interpretation appealing, because it suggests that one ought to be unconquerable in faith, and overcome all that stands in one's way. However, though that might be an overall positive message, it obviously isn't what the Lord is trying to convey. He's saying that their efforts will be worthwhile even in the face of quantitative failure: that the one saved soul is a good even though there might be five souls that cannot be saved-- and that one cannot be upset that some seed doesn't grow everywhere, but faith and grace ought to be spread everywhere and everyone given the chance to blossom regardless of their obstacles. From my very limited readings, Christ's parables to the apostles all seem geared towards preparing them for very tough lives preaching the word. But Christ had a very definite purpose in each parable, whereas most homilies these days seem intent to simply buttress people's vision of Church as a moral oasis and a place to seek validation for the good things they've done. It doesn't serve as a moral corrective, or a realm of moral self-improvement to help counter the many evils, trials, tribulations and temptations of this world. This homily stands in contrast to the one I went to two weeks ago, where the priest made the wonderful observation that God's laws are very difficult, and of course we fail, of course we fall short as hard as we try: but that's why we need to rely on grace to sustain us. We need to not only try as hard as we can to avoid sin, but also ask God for help to overcome sin. Prayer can bring us that grace and sustain us, otherwise we quickly slip into heresy as we believe that we are powerful enough to overcome all these temptations independent of God.
Labels: God, homily
