A Theology of the Cross

Quiddity · Oct 23, 2006

angellous_evangellous said:
It's going to be difficult to meaningfully define "reason" without naturalistic presuppositions. Modern thinking has made most of us methodological atheists. In other words, it's irrational to presuppose any divine existence at all without first proving first it natualistically. There's no evidence that can prove God's existence with any empirical test, so there is no God construct with which we can interact with rationally.

angellous_evangellous said:
However, Christians confess that God exists as the Creator - fully outside of natural existence that can be measured, classified, and empirically tested. If we could find God by means of our methods, we could descide how we would relate to God. The only way that we can know of God is if God tells us somehow that God exists.

Our methods? Since when is the theist bound to the empirical plane alone? Such bravado of the naturalist to Naturalize Epistemology is weak. It is not the only cognitive method (rational intuition, religious experience, innate ideas, systematic coherence, and so on) access to the world, and even if it was, it has little application to peoples everyday lives. One can be completely open to methodological naturalism and still be open to other modes.

angellous_evangellous · Oct 31, 2006

Victor said:
Our methods? Since when is the theist bound to the empirical plane alone? Such bravado of the naturalist to Naturalize Epistemology is weak. It is not the only cognitive method (rational intuition, religious experience, innate ideas, systematic coherence, and so on) access to the world, and even if it was, it has little application to peoples everyday lives. One can be completely open to methodological naturalism and still be open to other modes.

It dawned on me at some point this weekend that the "reason" that interacted with Christian theology [the referant in the famous quote 'Philosophy is the handmaiden of Theology'] died with Kant, never to recover in philosophy. The philosophy that once interacted with theology is not only dead, but at least four other major movements in philosophy have followed it.

I've said somewhere that religion is the product of culture at a fixed point in history. It can either move with culture or attempt to force the newer developments in culture to remain antiquated. We can see this very clearly in the church's testimony to ther family. The patriarchalism of the Church as preserved in Scripture is the product of a patriarchal economy. It required heterosexual marriage to provide legitimate heirs as well as to preserve patron/client relationships; slaves; and the strict obedience of children for the stability of the state, religion, and economy. In a democratic capitalist economy, none of this is needed - a family can take any form with no threat to the state. If democracy and capitalism survive, the patriarchial family will not, no matter how long the church struggles to preserve it.

In a philosophical environment that cannot affirm the activity of the divine in history because it cannot be naturalistically proven -- which strips the theologian of all meaningful historical application of theology, which is devestating to the traditional Christian message -- all we need for the preservation of a dynamic Christianity is faith. By faith we participate in what a naturalist classifies as myth for "there can be no historical effect without a historical cause." Theologians must now recognize the difference between a confession and the product of a logical construct.

King of the Nazgul · Oct 31, 2006

Process theology seems a perfectly viable stance; after all David Hume pointed out that the if we try to use empirical knowledge to discern the nature of God, many aspects of our world e.g. evil towards innocents can well imply a less than perfect creator, perhaps even a novice god with our universe as a sort of "first attempt". However, it will not fit with a conventional interpretation of Scripture, in that it appears far more of a philosopher's view of God than a believer's. Scripture will evidently not present God as imperfect, because why should we worship an imperfect God? I don't think the Bible should be used to undermine process theology; the Bible is after all a piece of literature, with an audience and a message and if it supported process theology, its whole message would be redundant. It would be like a book promoting capitalist economics talking about exploitation of the masses. Even if you do interpret Scripture as the absolute, unchanged and revealed Truth from God, an imperfect creator is hardly going to be publicising his faults is he? It would undermine the whole purpose of religion. Having said all of this, I'm not sure that if discovering God means discovering some imperfect Being, I really want to discover Him, even if it does make Him easier to identify with!

Someone said earlier that they could see no difference between being held accountable and responsibility but I disagree; I can be held accountable for something I am not responsible for; I can suffer for a crime I have not committed for example. Accountability is being blamed for something, or held answerable for something e.g. a parent is accountable for the actions of their child but responsibility is actually being responsible for them e.g. a misbehaving child is actually responsible for his/her actions because he/she is the perpetrator but the parents are accountable or held responsible, not actually responsible.

Quiddity · Oct 31, 2006

angellous_evangellous said:
It dawned on me at some point this weekend that the "reason" that interacted with Christian theology [the referant in the famous quote 'Philosophy is the handmaiden of Theology'] died with Kant, never to recover in philosophy. The philosophy that once interacted with theology is not only dead, but at least four other major movements in philosophy have followed it.

I've said somewhere that religion is the product of culture at a fixed point in history. It can either move with culture or attempt to force the newer developments in culture to remain antiquated. We can see this very clearly in the church's testimony to ther family. The patriarchalism of the Church as preserved in Scripture is the product of a patriarchal economy. It required heterosexual marriage to provide legitimate heirs as well as to preserve patron/client relationships; slaves; and the strict obedience of children for the stability of the state, religion, and economy. In a democratic capitalist economy, none of this is needed - a family can take any form with no threat to the state. If democracy and capitalism survive, the patriarchial family will not, no matter how long the church struggles to preserve it.

In a philosophical environment that cannot affirm the activity of the divine in history because it cannot be naturalistically proven -- which strips the theologian of all meaningful historical application of theology, which is devestating to the traditional Christian message -- all we need for the preservation of a dynamic Christianity is faith. By faith we participate in what a naturalist classifies as myth for "there can be no historical effect without a historical cause." Theologians must now recognize the difference between a confession and the product of a logical construct.

Im certain you are more involved in academia then I, but I have never seen theosophy as dead. In fact, Im starting to hear this word much more among RC apologists and theologians. Perhaps it was driven to isolation via the more naturalists movements in academia. Whatever it was, I know from conversations Ive had that some of these movements indirectly try to impose their philosophical world view as the only mode of cognitive access to the world. This is troubling because their philosophical world view is no different then others in the sense that it is a logical possibility. Id suggest keeping an eye on this academic debate.

angellous_evangellous · Oct 31, 2006

Victor said:
Im certain you are more involved in academia then I, but I have never seen theosophy as dead. In fact, Im starting to hear this word much more among RC apologists and theologians. Perhaps it was driven to isolation via the more naturalists movements in academia. Whatever it was, I know from conversations Ive had that some of these movements indirectly try to impose their philosophical world view as the only mode of cognitive access to the world. This is troubling because their philosophical world view is no different then others in the sense that it is a logical possibility. Id suggest keeping an eye on this academic debate.

The church preserves a philosophy that is dead to all who are outside its closed system.

I'll be glad to keep an eye on this, but I'm not a theologian, so I'm not required to keep up with modern philosophy. I usually stick with Greco-Roman philosophy.

Quiddity · Oct 31, 2006

angellous_evangellous said:
The church preserves a philosophy that is dead to all who are outside its closed system.

I'll be glad to keep an eye on this, but I'm not a theologian, so I'm not required to keep up with modern philosophy. I usually stick with Greco-Roman philosophy.

For now. As you can see from Jay's thread that some in academia are opposing the more naturalists movements for good reason. Keep an eye on that.

Nor am I a theologian. Just something to be mindful of for it affects the overall direction of academia. Something like that, can't go ignored no matter what position you hold. If anything, I hope the more naturalists movements can see that one can be a theistic naturalists. Which is an oxymoron for them but there is well to do elite scientist who do just fine.

angellous_evangellous · Nov 2, 2006

Victor said:
Something like that, can't go ignored no matter what position you hold.

Perhaps.

I tell my colleagues that I pretend like a lot of things don't exist. They think that I'm joking.

So far this method has not bitten me in the arse. : hamster :

angellous_evangellous · Dec 20, 2006

Angellous says to the thread, "Live!!"

A. Leaf · Feb 4, 2007

I managed to find the photo I was looking for, to teach of the sacrifice, but to teach of the resurrection is just as an important part of christianity as the sacrifice. When one goes through ones life, an individual as I have mentioned in another thread can be brought into remembrance by God for things that one has done since childhood.
It can be quite tough, but for an individual who understands the sacrifice and resurrection, I believe th e individual will overcome on a certain day. When that day is, I do not know and it's only a personal point of view.
</IMG>

lilithu · Mar 10, 2007

Victor said:
In order for what to happen?

To atone for His sins, in order to reconcile Himself with humans.

Not that I believe this, but it sounds like what this idea is saying.

I am an adherent of process theology and am familiar with the idea that God suffers along with us. But I've never heard this version before.

angellous_evangellous · Sep 7, 2007

Wow this is a great thread.

cityms · Oct 6, 2007

No theologian here, but it is perfectly simple to see that almost any reasonable human being can usually take responsibility for his/her actions, particularly in the matter of causing pain to others. If I shout at someone vulnerable and cause them pain, I can stop shouting, whether I am angry or not, because it is probably somewhere in my consciousness that I am picking on someone vulnerable and in an inferior position to me. If its not obvious to me, I can be told and learn for next time, so I stop or at least don't do it again. We need persons bold enough to tell a wrongdoer that he/she is wrong (and not afraid to say so) and I think this is what is so often lacking when a dominant person takes the stage and acts out bad behaviour towards others irresponsibly. This behaviour starts too often alack in the extended family. We humans are quite capable of learning responsibility for our actions provided we are told when we are out of line.
When we justify our bad behaviour with some selfrighteous excuse ("I'm hitting the child for his own good", for example) well, therein lies a problem.

doppelganger · Oct 27, 2007

I heard Gerry Rafferty's song 'Right Down the Line" this morning. It made me think of what "God" would sing to his Church if he could:

You know I need your love
You've got that hold over me
Long as I've got your love
You know that I'll never leave
When I wanted you to share my life
I had no doubt in my mind
And it's been you woman
Right down the line

I know how much I lean on you
Only you can see
The changes that I've been through
Have left a mark on me
You've been as constant as a Northern Star
The brightest light that shines
It's been you woman right down the line

I just wanna say this is my way
Of tellin' you everything
I could never say before
Yeah this is my way of tellin' you
That every day I'm lovin' you so much more
'Cause you believed in me through my darkest night
Put somethin' better inside of me
You brought me into the light
Threw away all those crazy dreams
I put them all behind
And it was you woman
Right down the line

I just wanna say this is my way of tellin' you everything
I could never say before
Yeah this is my way of tellin' you
Everything I could never say before
Yeah this is my way of tellin' you
That every day I'm lovin' you so much more

If I should doubt myself, if I'm losing ground
I won't turn to someone else
They'd only let me down
When I wanted you to share my life
I had no doubt in my mind
And it's been you woman
Right down the line

angellous_evangellous · Oct 27, 2007

I'm thinkin Willie Nelson's "Nothin I can do about it now" is more appropriate.

I've got a long list of real good reasons
for all the things I've done,
I've got a picture in the back of my mind
of what I've lost and what I've won
I've survived every situation
knowing when to freeze and when to run
And regret is just a memory written on my brow
and there's nothing I can do about it now.

I've got a wild and a restless spirit
I held my price through every deal
I've seen the fire of a woman's scorn
turn her heart of gold to steal
I've got the song of the voice inside me
set to the rhythm of the wheel
And I've been dreaming like a child
since the cradle broke the bow
And there's nothing I can do about it now.

Running through the changes
going through the stages
coming round the corners in my life,
leaving doubt to fate, staying out to late
waiting for the moon to say goodni----ight
And I could cry for the time I've wasted
but that's a waste of time and tears,
and I know just what I'd change
if went back in time somehow,
but there's nothing I can do about it now

Running through the changes
going through the stages
coming round the corners in my life,
leaving doubt to fate,
staying out too late
waiting for the moon to say goodni----ight

And I could cry for the time I've wasted
but that's a waste of time and tears, a
nd I know just what I'd change
if went back in time somehow,
but there's nothing I can do about it now.
I'm forgiving everything
that forgiveness will allow
and there's nothing I can do about it now

lunamoth · Dec 1, 2007

Thanks to the wild feral chimp we allow to run around here I've been thinking lately about theodicy and where did it lead me? To process theology. I think I 'get' at least one bit of it, but tell me if I'm on track.

If God is omnioptent and so could prevent all evil, or could have set things up differently, to allow them as they are is in conflict with the idea that He is benevolent. Yet for His own reasons He chose to risk it and let us have free will (and I know that's a whole can of worms too, but I think that this choice to allow us to do evil, to have moral autonomy, is the only way for us to experience love and growth), and to do this He limited His own omnipotence, essentially giving us as much power as He has when it comes to what we do in this world. Setting it up this way can't be accepted without also seeing Christ on the cross. God, not wanting us to do evil but unable to stop us from it, came and accepted himself the suffering that he allows us to pour out on each other. He allows us to do it to each other, and he allowed us to do it to him as well. He also showed us the way out in doing so. Somehow, and this is where it seems fuzzy, the cross exhausted evil. I think this is through the power of love and non-resistance to evil.

angellous_evangellous · Dec 1, 2007

lunamoth said:
Thanks to the wild feral chimp we allow to run around here I've been thinking lately about theodicy and where did it lead me? To process theology. I think I 'get' at least one bit of it, but tell me if I'm on track.

If God is omnioptent and so could prevent all evil, or could have set things up differently, to allow them as they are is in conflict with the idea that He is benevolent. Yet for His own reasons He chose to risk it and let us have free will (and I know that's a whole can of worms too, but I think that this choice to allow us to do evil, to have moral autonomy, is the only way for us to experience love and growth), and to do this He limited His own omnipotence, essentially giving us as much power as He has when it comes to what we do in this world. Setting it up this way can't be accepted without also seeing Christ on the cross. God, not wanting us to do evil but unable to stop us from it, came and accepted himself the suffering that he allows us to pour out on each other. He allows us to do it to each other, and he allowed us to do it to him as well. He also showed us the way out in doing so. Somehow, and this is where it seems fuzzy, the cross exhausted evil. I think this is through the power of love and non-resistance to evil.

Theodicy obviously brought me to process theology as well. An underlying theme that I add is that God truly is ultimately responsible for evil because God gave humanity freewill and he could have limited freewill to the extent that we only choose good from good instead of good from evil. That is, freewill brought about evil, but with a God who is infinately powerful and wise, God could have prevented this... which is our idea of heaven.

The cross event as a historical event in itself does not exhaust evil, but the continual pouring of evil into the cross, a daily death of both God and humanity with the re-inacting of the resurrection. That's why we celebrate mass every day - both God and humanity have to die together and raise to walk in a newness of life every day, struggling together for redemption.

lunamoth · Dec 11, 2007

angellous_evangellous said:
The cross event as a historical event in itself does not exhaust evil, but the continual pouring of evil into the cross, a daily death of both God and humanity with the re-inacting of the resurrection. That's why we celebrate mass every day - both God and humanity have to die together and raise to walk in a newness of life every day, struggling together for redemption.

This reminded me of what Marcus Borg wrote about the Gospel of John:

The Heart of Christianity said:
John's gospel not only includes the classic born-again text. Like the synoptics and Paul, John also uses the image of death and resurrection as the way to new life. The whole of John is shaped by this theme, even as John also expresses it compactly in the single verse: "Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remans just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."

Indeed, this theme is the key to understanding the well-known verse in John often used as the basis of Christian exclusivism: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except trhough me." To set this verse in the context of John's incarnation theology: just as Jesus is the "Word made flesh," so he is "the way" made flesh, the path embodied in a life. The key question then becomes: What is "the way" that Jesus incarnates? What is "the way" that Jesus is? For John, as for the New Testament generally, "the way" embodied in Jesus is the path of death and resurrection. Dying and rising is the only way to God.

(luna's comment: which is why baptism is a sign of "the way." Baptsim is a death and rebirth rite.)

Christian exclusivism understands this verse to mean that you must know about Jesus and believe certain things about Jesus in order to be saved. But "the way" that John speaks of is not about believing doctrines about Jesus. Rather, "the way" is what we see incarnate in Jesus: the path of death and resurrection as the way to rebirth in God. According to John, this is the only way--and, as I sahll soon suggest, it is "the way" spoken of by all the major religions of the world. Dying and rising is the the way. Thus Jesus is "the Way"--the way become flesh. Rather than being the unique revelation of a way known only in him, his life and eath are the incarnation of a universal way known in all of the enduring religions.

Whether you agree or disagree, it is an interesting way of looking at it.

angellous_evangellous · Dec 11, 2007

That's pretty cool.

I am actually working this theology into a paper. This morning I wrote:

A theology of the cross I think is instructive for this problem.[1] The cross can serve as the center-point for all human anger directed towards God for God’s failures. God then delivers Godself justly into human hands for God’s destruction.[2] However, humanity is still responsible for our actions. What if God gets off of the cross, shows it to us, and says, “now it’s your turn?” Being killed and resurrected by a powerful God who has atoned for divine sin would be the only way - at least to my mind - to redeem the irredeemable[3] human and divine evil of which we are so painfully aware. This theology is ongoing in two instructive ways. For whatever reason, the resurrected God is either unwilling or unable to end evil, and therefore is killed and resurrected daily in the celebration of the Eucharist, continually in human hands facing destruction and renewal. In the same way Christians carry the calling to die with Christ and live within the redemptive power of the resurrection and hope for the full renewal of the cosmos. It is only in the experience of the resurrection that we can speak of and experience the goodness of God and Jesus as a spotless lamb, an innocent sacrifice. Before the resurrection there is only guilt, and what else can we do besides torturing and killing the God who has left us in such a miserable condition?

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Cf., Moltman, The Crucified God, 145-53.

[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] Many theologians have made similar use of the incarnate God dying on the cross. Cf., Moltmann, The Crucified God (London: SCM, 1974), 215-6; Hope and Planning (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), 3; Kazoh Kitamori, Theology and the Pain of God (Richmond: John Knox, 1965).

[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] Cf., Surin, “Theodicy?,” 241.

lunamoth · Dec 11, 2007

angellous_evangellous said:
That's pretty cool.

I am actually working this theology into a paper. This morning I wrote:

A theology of the cross I think is instructive for this problem.[1] The cross can serve as the center-point for all human anger directed towards God for Gods failures. God then delivers Godself justly into human hands for Gods destruction.[2] However, humanity is still responsible for our actions. What if God gets off of the cross, shows it to us, and says, now its your turn? Being killed and resurrected by a powerful God who has atoned for divine sin would be the only way - at least to my mind - to redeem the irredeemable[3] human and divine evil of which we are so painfully aware. This theology is ongoing in two instructive ways. For whatever reason, the resurrected God is either unwilling or unable to end evil, and therefore is killed and resurrected daily in the celebration of the Eucharist, continually in human hands facing destruction and renewal. In the same way Christians carry the calling to die with Christ and live within the redemptive power of the resurrection and hope for the full renewal of the cosmos. It is only in the experience of the resurrection that we can speak of and experience the goodness of God and Jesus as a spotless lamb, an innocent sacrifice. Before the resurrection there is only guilt, and what else can we do besides torturing and killing the God who has left us in such a miserable condition?

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Cf., Moltman, The Crucified God, 145-53.

[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] Many theologians have made similar use of the incarnate God dying on the cross. Cf., Moltmann, The Crucified God (London: SCM, 1974), 215-6; Hope and Planning (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), 3; Kazoh Kitamori, Theology and the Pain of God (Richmond: John Knox, 1965).

[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] Cf., Surin, Theodicy?, 241.

I think you are going to be in hot water for that one!

angellous_evangellous · Dec 11, 2007

lunamoth said:
I think you are going to be in hot water for that one!

No way to know. I think he'll like it.:yes:

I am writing the paper for James O. Duke James Duke Bibliography, who will serve on my dissertation committee. If he doesn't like it, I am SOL.

A Theology of the Cross

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

angellous_evangellous

Guest

New Member

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

angellous_evangellous

Guest

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

A. Leaf

Guest

The Devil's Advocate

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Member

Through the Looking Glass

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Will to love

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Will to love

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Will to love

angellous_evangellous

Guest