Weekend update
Jan. 29th, 2007 03:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theatokosLast night Adam and I watched An Inconvenient Truth. The information presented wasn't entirely new to me, but I thought the presentation of the material was engaging. Who knew Al Gore was funny? Or charming? Or so wicked smart? I was choked up, naturally, by the beautiful shots of our glorious world. Anything arctic hit me in the gut especially hard. I think about my beloved glacier in my home town dwindling down to a shadow of its former self, an anorexic behemoth. I think about parts of Alaska I've never been to withering as the permafrost melts. Bah! I can't write about this without getting upset. And I know I preach to the choir here....
Most of my weekend was spent doing theology - taking another one of those classes at the GTU that meet one weekend a month for the semester. I was a little disappointed that the first weekend was rather weak. I find it frustrating to discuss Augustine's (or anyone else's) ideas about anything if we're not given primary sources. The teacher distilled certified genius's ideas to two lines and we were supposed to say educated things about them. At the very least give us a handout with a couple of pages of original source material (in translation, please) to read during lunch or something. Plus, everyone in the class, from what I can tell, are classical theists and the teacher's bias definitely comes out, even though she is an Eastern Orthodox and I thought they were a little more accepting of panentheism, which I align myself with.
Anyway, it's great to get my juices going. I have written up my thoughts below the cut. They're not my notes for the class, but rather stuff that I was thinking while class was going on. This is rough and posted mostly to get it out of my actual notebook. No editing or further thought has occurred. If theology doesn't interest you or makes your belly queasy (I know who you are) then stay away. Otherwise, in!
If Jesus was fully human and that is part of what makes Jesus the Christ then he could not have existed from all time as the human form can not have existed from all time.
Christianity is trinitarian - all 3 are god, JC must be more than just divinized man, there can be no more than these 3; the Holy Spirit could illumine others, but JC cannot just be pinnacle of humanity, must also be God. How does this reconcile with human nature? What hope does the average person have for illumination/deification? Is Jesus an exception or an inspiration? Is he fully and completely human, then our capacity must also be similar; we too can house God - but if there are only 3 in One then we never will. Is it possible that JC - even if part of him is fully human - really did exist from all time? If not, then trinity is flawed and Christianity does not stand.
Or if we are full divinized and one in Christ whether now or after death, then we are ONE in Christ and there is no distinction; the three are still upheld. We are still gods with the possibility for Godness only after death, since JC is the only God incarnate. What of other holy men and women? Can they also be incarnate God? If yes, then JC is not unique. But if Holy Spirit is in these being as illuminator, then they don't impinge upon JC's uniqueness.
If to be Christian is to be trinitarian, if it is one of the crucial doctrines of the faith, then all other faiths are wrong/misguided/etc in which case Jews/Hellenes were the chosen people for the incarnation. How then can Christianity and JC be universal without heavy colonization and imperialism?
Paul "....God sent his only son... that we might receive adoption as children" Isn't this cheap? By latching onto JC we are automatically saved - saved from what exactly and how? I just don't understand soteriology. Are we so fearful of death that we will accept a gift we can never be sure we'll receive? And aren't we already children of God? Isn't Jesus the ultimate reminder of that fact? Isn't it our responsibility to turn to God? We are not so "depraved" that this is impossible.
Why can't there be only one God? Why are minds so limited that if there is a Holy Spirit and it is present in the world then God as upholder of the world will fall down on the job? Can the HSp only be present in one location at a time? No, then why must JC be a separate godhead? Why cannot his human self be infused wholly with God and also crucified, yet not killing off that which is Divine? The death of godself is only necessary if one has a salvation theory that requires God to pay Himself with Himself for humanity's "sin." If this is not required, does JC need to be 100% Divine? He is human, does this subordinate his divinity or make it impossible for other human forms to be divine? How important is the distinction between Divine and divine? Why was the biological form of JC singled out, what made his DNA unique?
This all sounds like so much whining - why not me? Aren't I special enough to be God? If no understanding of Augustinian original sin then it isn't my depraved nature that keeps me from becoming divine. Is this the ultimate arrogance? That Christ should be no more special or different than me? What is the right size? To say "No, it is only God working in me" - an external force that deserves all glory - is to relegate oneself to non-importance. Yet to assume all glory is assume God. What is the difference if one says "Yes, it is God in Me," not assuming to be more than any other, only that God is in us all. Does this subordinate God? Not if God is also transcendent. This is panentheism.
Having gone through these thoughts they seem so elementary and redundant. They are the same questions and thoughts that people have had since the beginning of religion. Still it's nice to get thinking again.
Most of my weekend was spent doing theology - taking another one of those classes at the GTU that meet one weekend a month for the semester. I was a little disappointed that the first weekend was rather weak. I find it frustrating to discuss Augustine's (or anyone else's) ideas about anything if we're not given primary sources. The teacher distilled certified genius's ideas to two lines and we were supposed to say educated things about them. At the very least give us a handout with a couple of pages of original source material (in translation, please) to read during lunch or something. Plus, everyone in the class, from what I can tell, are classical theists and the teacher's bias definitely comes out, even though she is an Eastern Orthodox and I thought they were a little more accepting of panentheism, which I align myself with.
Anyway, it's great to get my juices going. I have written up my thoughts below the cut. They're not my notes for the class, but rather stuff that I was thinking while class was going on. This is rough and posted mostly to get it out of my actual notebook. No editing or further thought has occurred. If theology doesn't interest you or makes your belly queasy (I know who you are) then stay away. Otherwise, in!
If Jesus was fully human and that is part of what makes Jesus the Christ then he could not have existed from all time as the human form can not have existed from all time.
Christianity is trinitarian - all 3 are god, JC must be more than just divinized man, there can be no more than these 3; the Holy Spirit could illumine others, but JC cannot just be pinnacle of humanity, must also be God. How does this reconcile with human nature? What hope does the average person have for illumination/deification? Is Jesus an exception or an inspiration? Is he fully and completely human, then our capacity must also be similar; we too can house God - but if there are only 3 in One then we never will. Is it possible that JC - even if part of him is fully human - really did exist from all time? If not, then trinity is flawed and Christianity does not stand.
Or if we are full divinized and one in Christ whether now or after death, then we are ONE in Christ and there is no distinction; the three are still upheld. We are still gods with the possibility for Godness only after death, since JC is the only God incarnate. What of other holy men and women? Can they also be incarnate God? If yes, then JC is not unique. But if Holy Spirit is in these being as illuminator, then they don't impinge upon JC's uniqueness.
If to be Christian is to be trinitarian, if it is one of the crucial doctrines of the faith, then all other faiths are wrong/misguided/etc in which case Jews/Hellenes were the chosen people for the incarnation. How then can Christianity and JC be universal without heavy colonization and imperialism?
Paul "....God sent his only son... that we might receive adoption as children" Isn't this cheap? By latching onto JC we are automatically saved - saved from what exactly and how? I just don't understand soteriology. Are we so fearful of death that we will accept a gift we can never be sure we'll receive? And aren't we already children of God? Isn't Jesus the ultimate reminder of that fact? Isn't it our responsibility to turn to God? We are not so "depraved" that this is impossible.
Why can't there be only one God? Why are minds so limited that if there is a Holy Spirit and it is present in the world then God as upholder of the world will fall down on the job? Can the HSp only be present in one location at a time? No, then why must JC be a separate godhead? Why cannot his human self be infused wholly with God and also crucified, yet not killing off that which is Divine? The death of godself is only necessary if one has a salvation theory that requires God to pay Himself with Himself for humanity's "sin." If this is not required, does JC need to be 100% Divine? He is human, does this subordinate his divinity or make it impossible for other human forms to be divine? How important is the distinction between Divine and divine? Why was the biological form of JC singled out, what made his DNA unique?
This all sounds like so much whining - why not me? Aren't I special enough to be God? If no understanding of Augustinian original sin then it isn't my depraved nature that keeps me from becoming divine. Is this the ultimate arrogance? That Christ should be no more special or different than me? What is the right size? To say "No, it is only God working in me" - an external force that deserves all glory - is to relegate oneself to non-importance. Yet to assume all glory is assume God. What is the difference if one says "Yes, it is God in Me," not assuming to be more than any other, only that God is in us all. Does this subordinate God? Not if God is also transcendent. This is panentheism.
Having gone through these thoughts they seem so elementary and redundant. They are the same questions and thoughts that people have had since the beginning of religion. Still it's nice to get thinking again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 01:23 am (UTC)Us and our high standards
Date: 2007-01-30 06:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 01:28 am (UTC)I'm not reading because i'm lazy, not because i'm intolerant.
Anyhow, it's not theology that makes my belly queasy. Everyone knows it's gouda.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 06:51 pm (UTC)Still, I suggest you cling to your laziness.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 01:56 am (UTC)I think--with all the uncertainty implied by the word--that we all have whatever divinity that Christ had within each of us, which seems to be where you're going towards the end there; but then I don't believe that Christ was God's only son, or that Christ was entirely unique, and I don't have too much use (personally) for the idea of the Christian Trinity. I tend to see Jesus as a human being who was able to (and chose to) access his own divine nature and power, rather than a god descended. In fact, I believe the God-nature is in everything--whole in each of us and yet infinitely bigger than us and containing/manifesting existence--some kind of pantheism/panentheism. I'm not sure if I believe in a personified transcendent deity these days...my state of belief is in a more fluxy state of flux than usual...
Did that make any sense?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 06:55 pm (UTC)I can completely get behind your thinking and I there are some serious concepts in Christianity, as well as cultural aspects of it, that I embrace. It's trying to make them line up that gets tricky. It's funny because panentheism isn't anathema necessarily to Christianity - there are several majors thinkers that employ this, and the idea of trinity can be amazingly beautiful with incredibly transformative potential, but getting everything to fit together is the challenging part. It's like each part of my wacky Christianity works on its own, but put together I end up being pagan. I am convinced that someday it can all come together and be good for both sides.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 03:10 am (UTC)I wasn't familiar with the word "soteriology" so I looked it up in Wikipedia. Under the section for 'Hellenic philosophy' I saw 'Epicureanism' and my first thought was, "Salvation by food?" :)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 07:02 pm (UTC)I find that "brain dumps" are really helpful. Typing up what I think are random thoughts helps me to think through them (even without editing) and get more out of the whole process. Plus, discussion and responses challenge me to work out some of the details.
....And it's also a good excersize in being brave.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 07:05 pm (UTC)This class is called Trinity:East and West. And sadly we're not actually reading any Augustine at all. In fact, we're done. Two lines from his De Trinitatae, two pages of secondary source thoughts on it, and half an hour of discussion - that's it. I feel a little cheated actually, even though I'm not a fan of Ausgustian thought.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 08:22 pm (UTC)yes, Baba certainly uses a different perspective. although in my studies i've noticed that eastern belief systems (like zoroastrianism, hinduism, etc.) don't seem to have the same sort of divine vs. human issues that often crop up in christianity.
I feel a little cheated actually, even though I'm not a fan of Ausgustian thought.
the class sounds interesting, although i am certainly rather ignorant of trinity issues. still i would feel cheated as well. i mean, augustine isn't a favorite of mine or anything but it would still feel reductive and off to only read 2 lines.