From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 18:53:46 GMT
Hi Platt,
I did some checking.
In the original post, back in November, I said "I don't think that the
promise of 'life after death' has much weight in my understanding of the
world. I don't deny it, it just doesn't mean much to me."
I've also said: "if I were asked whether I believed in 'life after death'
(of either sort) the short answer is: I don't know, and it's not a 'weight
bearing' part of my faith. That is, I don't think and feel and act the way
that I do because I have a hope of a reward after death. I am the way that I
am because it is 'the way the truth and the life' - in this life. It makes
sense to me, it feels right, it seems to hold more truth and meaning than
anything else I've come across. Anything else (after this life) is a bonus.
I don't disagree with the idea of life after death, it just doesn't mean
very much to me - quite literally, I can't make much sense of it. The
beatific vision seems much too Platonic, everlasting life doesn't make
philosophical sense."
And "In so far as traditional Christianity implies 'everlasting' life - or
punishment - it doesn't have much meaning for me."
In the most recent posts I said "Views about life after death are very
diverse - diverse within Christianity as much as between Christianity and
other religions. For example, in the twelfth century in Western Christianity
there was a shift between viewing the resurrection as a corporate event at
the end of time, to being a personal judgement and vindication. It's a bit
of a distortion to think that Christianity depended on the appeal of life
after death. Clearly the Resurrection was the defining impetus for
Christianity, but how that was understood, even in New Testament times, was
never monolithic."
The reason why I was brought up short was when you then claimed that I
"appear to deny the literal resurrection of Christ from the grave." I don't
see how it is legitimate to get to that assessment from the things that I
had said. (I do see how you got the second part, "the Christian promise of
life everlasting" - because that is what we were talking about - and will
doubtless continue to talk about).
In other words, I think there is quite a bit of difference between talking
about the resurrection of Jesus and talking about what happens to an
individual Christian. Obviously they are linked, but it's possible to
distinguish them - and necessary, sometimes. For the record, I think a
belief in the resurrection is definitional for being a Christian, and I
certainly don't think I could be a priest if I didn't accept it. (If you
want to know a bit more about that in particular, see
http://www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/resurrection.htm -
that's got bits I didn't think it would make sense to put onto the MoQ) What
doesn't mean much to me is a promise of my own 'life everlasting'. As I said
originally, I don't reject it, it just doesn't form a 'weight bearing' part
of my faith.
Anyhow. Now that I've rescued my 'amour-propre' (grin) I should say
something specific.
You asked:
> So, please straighten me out. Do you believe as a practising Christian
> that you will be rewarded with life everlasting and will personally know
> the truth of that promise after you die? Thanks.
I've said before that we need to distinguish between the 'immortality of the
soul' and the 'resurrection of the body'. The former is Platonic
(Pythagorean) and intellectualist; the latter is Christian (Jewish). The
former was accepted by the intellectual elite; the latter was embraced by
the peasants. It is the latter which is more 'authentically' Christian (if
I'm allowed to say that sort of thing). Beyond that, we need to
distinguish - as I said right at the beginning - between 'life everlasting'
(ie within the stream of time) and 'eternal life' (ie outside of the stream
of time). Although what you quote from John talks about 'life everlasting'
the original Greek word (I checked!) is 'aionion' - eternal. So 'life
everlasting' is misleading as a translation.
As for eternal life, as I said in one of my posts last November, "When he
talks about the fate of the soul, his understanding is much more the first
sort, ie 'eternal life'. Even when he talks about 'separating the sheep from
the goats', the language of 'hell' that he uses is 'Gehenna', which was
apparently the rubbish tip outside of Jerusalem: you are 'cast out', not
cast into everlasting torment (although there are places where he uses that
language, eg Dives and Lazarus). There is the question of how far to take
his language as literal and how far as metaphorical. Most importantly,
though, as I read him, eternal life is something that we have access to
now - I think it is what lies behind his language of being 'born again', and
also what lies behind all the traditional language of 'sonship'
or, to use the Orthodox term, 'theosis', ie becoming like God. Eternity is
something that is found in the present moment or not at all."
So the simple answer to your questions remains: I don't know. I can hope for
a resurrection on the last day, but I don't know what that really means.
Now, you raised a much more interesting question than whether I'm a
Christian or not (!) You said "My reason for bringing all this up is the
broader question of religious belief vs. philosophical belief. The former
has had broad appeal for humanity, the latter practically none. I wonder
why? I'm very interested finding an answer to this question."
As you can imagine, it's something I have had a few thoughts about. I would
summarise my answer in the following way (and I'd be happy to unpack - or
even unpick - this answer as time goes on).
Philosophy functions on the intellectual level, by definition. Yet there is
more to us than our intellect - we are physical, bodily and social creatures
as well. Philosophy can appeal to and satisfy those intellectual functions
quite happily, but it is, by definition, something that relates poorly, if
at all, to the other bits of us. Now if you - in Platonic fashion - identify
yourself with the intellect, then some form of disembodied 'immortality of
the soul' might have some appeal (or, in its modern guise, being reproduced
as a computer program in some vast cyberspace). Yet if you do not identify
yourself in that way - if, for example, there are things which you value
about yourself or your life which don't fall under the heading of
'intellectual' - then no philosophy, strictly defined, will appeal. I happen
to believe that religions - when healthy - allow for an acceptance and
positive valuation of all the different bits of ourselves (including the
intellect); they allow for an integrity of life, thought and action which is
unavailable to a purely intellectual philosophy. Just as we need to maintain
the physical and biological parts of ourselves (eg oxygen, food) so we also
need to maintain the social level bits of ourselves (eg through ritual,
which can mean eating meals with friends just as much as it might mean the
Eucharist). Moreover the intellect is an elitist element in human life - and
you can't expect an elitist understanding, which excludes most people and
most of human life, to be popular.
So that's why I think religions flourish more than philosophies. They just
reach deeper. They also fit in rather more comfortably with something you
said in your other post, "If I doubted virtually everything, I wouldn't be
able to tie my shoelaces." Philosophy doesn't ultimately lead you anywhere -
in the end you have to make choices (assert values) and get on with your
life, and tie your shoelaces. As I see it, religions are rather better at
assisting that process.
I could be wrong.
Sam
"If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting
anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty." (Wittgenstein)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 18:53:25 GMT