Yes, Frank. The early Church councils were months-long gatherings of leaders who met to grapple with ideas that threatened the burgeoning answers to questions about who God is. No small matter. The Church had grown up because of the teachings of the radical rebel, Jesus of Nazareth, and then was confronted by his execution by the Roman e…
Yes, Frank. The early Church councils were months-long gatherings of leaders who met to grapple with ideas that threatened the burgeoning answers to questions about who God is. No small matter. The Church had grown up because of the teachings of the radical rebel, Jesus of Nazareth, and then was confronted by his execution by the Roman empire and the astounding news that he had been raised from the dead. Many had seen him. (How on earth were church folks to understand THAT?!)
The Council of Nicea in 325 CE, one of the most critical councils, gave us the Nicene Creed, asserting the relationship between the Creator, the Risen One, and the Holy Spirit. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE gave us a "formula" that defined the Risen One as not this and not that. In other words, not simply something easy to pinpoint.
What becomes clear is that the theologians of the Church repeatedly chose the more complex answer. Heresy = what is too simplistic. It is more complex to say all human beings are made "in the image of God," for example, than to say that some people matter and other people don't matter. (These leaders were all men but I don't want to dismiss their conclusions because they weren't feminists. I am interested in the ideas rather than the gender of the deciders.)
If ideas about God are too simple, they're probably unhelpful and even more likely harmful. Witness: White Nationalism. It's not Christian.
I've always felt that both the bible itself and the various Creeds imposed over time upon Christ's teachings (whatever they were) are classic examples of "decision by committee", and have been as credible, sensible, workable and effective as such decisions usually are. You only have to look at the Crusades to see how effective the conclusions of these various committees have been.
I've got news for you, Melinda, God is made in the image of People. How's that for simplicity? And heresy, too. This idea is simple AND helpful. It clears everything up. Take a person, any person. Make that person God or godlike: you get instant fascism of all kinds, including kings, priests, white nationalists, MAGA, cults, gangs and so on. All are based on erroneous definitions and false authority. That's why so much harm has been done in the name of religion, and why the founders insisted on keeping it out of government. We the People have got this, assuming truth remains the highest mandate, and lies the ultimate heresy. We let down our guard and now we have an Internatioinal Nazi movement to eliminate. It never should have happened in the first place. Lessons must be learned and relearned. It's just human. And the millions upon millions killed in 20th century wars were not sentenced to death by any god. Only man, and woman, can pull that off.
Thank you, James. That we shape God or gods according to what we can understand or want is certainly true. The deal with that Jesus figure, however, is that he challenges that tendency. He didn't engage in retribution or use force to take power or manipulate people. He blessed them. That instead of violence, he let himself be sacrificed is a mighty challenge to us self-protective humans.
A vast network of churches has been built on the 'Jesus figure', entirely political in nature and dependent upon the psyche. His story held out no deals concerning God. That idea is set in stone: God is the authority that permits 'retribution or force to take power or manipulate people' 'according to what we can understand or want'. God's mercy is just another myth, a false claim of salvation. Jesus may have blessed the people. He may have been a pacifist. He may have sacrificed himself or simply been murdered. But the imaginary authority vested in 'God' by people of all faiths is the root of all error, all evil. I say this from the political perspective, not the psychological perspective, which is the proper province of all religion. Authority is vested in the people, exclusively. We make of it what we will.
Thanks for that, my readings are more discursive, but I can follow your gist. Bart Ehrman put it Christian theology become more paradoxical (complex) as time went on. A lot, if not all Christians had trouble making sense of the Trinity, figuring out how to maintain a monotheistic religion, based on Judaism, while espousing a "Son of God" which is both distinct and subsumed within the "Godhead" . Then add in the holy spirit, and make that distinct force/companion? which reaches into human beings, those fallen creatures, and that is also part of the Godhead. Before it got so complicated, Paul would write, at least once, he didn't always know where he left off and Christ began within himself. When Christianity became legal, a variety of competing views were circulating about all this, one in particular, namesaked after Arius turned into one major multi-generational battle. It was never really resolved. Unable to be suppressed, missionaries took it to the Goths, and it spread widely, lasting for centuries. A lot of people were not happy with Chalcedon, which was imposed with the force of law, theological splits over that continue to this very day. Jews never took to any of this, and when Muslims came along, they regarded themselves as reformers of Judaism and Christianity as a form of polytheism. Much later, didn't Luther dread possible divisions over the doctrine of the Trinity as a potential nightmare? Pentecostals are very interesting, I believe the most dynamic development in modern Christianity, and they quite literally connect to being possessed by the holy spirit, speaking in tongues, to wit, Paul's references in first Corinthians. I don't think simple vs complex does this stuff justice. It's more about human beings unable to agree among themselves over a subject which has no clear terms of reference but seems very important to them. Turf matters! There is a reason the Royal Society of London excluded discussions about theology/religion when trying to work up a coherent, empirically based view of things, right? For the last 5 centuries, this has been the best scoring game in town when it comes to sorting out realities which dedicated scientific societies can agree upon. Well, forgive my meanderings. I cannot fathom the technicalities of my daughters' phd science theses, but i presume to mull over unsolved epistemological issues, science has truly left us "in media res" instead of greater certainties, holy smokes, but what a view! Must run
Yes, Frank. The early Church councils were months-long gatherings of leaders who met to grapple with ideas that threatened the burgeoning answers to questions about who God is. No small matter. The Church had grown up because of the teachings of the radical rebel, Jesus of Nazareth, and then was confronted by his execution by the Roman empire and the astounding news that he had been raised from the dead. Many had seen him. (How on earth were church folks to understand THAT?!)
The Council of Nicea in 325 CE, one of the most critical councils, gave us the Nicene Creed, asserting the relationship between the Creator, the Risen One, and the Holy Spirit. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE gave us a "formula" that defined the Risen One as not this and not that. In other words, not simply something easy to pinpoint.
What becomes clear is that the theologians of the Church repeatedly chose the more complex answer. Heresy = what is too simplistic. It is more complex to say all human beings are made "in the image of God," for example, than to say that some people matter and other people don't matter. (These leaders were all men but I don't want to dismiss their conclusions because they weren't feminists. I am interested in the ideas rather than the gender of the deciders.)
If ideas about God are too simple, they're probably unhelpful and even more likely harmful. Witness: White Nationalism. It's not Christian.
I've always felt that both the bible itself and the various Creeds imposed over time upon Christ's teachings (whatever they were) are classic examples of "decision by committee", and have been as credible, sensible, workable and effective as such decisions usually are. You only have to look at the Crusades to see how effective the conclusions of these various committees have been.
MAGA is certainly a crusade. They can’t wait to start the inquisition phase.
They are just waiting, the revenge squad
I've got news for you, Melinda, God is made in the image of People. How's that for simplicity? And heresy, too. This idea is simple AND helpful. It clears everything up. Take a person, any person. Make that person God or godlike: you get instant fascism of all kinds, including kings, priests, white nationalists, MAGA, cults, gangs and so on. All are based on erroneous definitions and false authority. That's why so much harm has been done in the name of religion, and why the founders insisted on keeping it out of government. We the People have got this, assuming truth remains the highest mandate, and lies the ultimate heresy. We let down our guard and now we have an Internatioinal Nazi movement to eliminate. It never should have happened in the first place. Lessons must be learned and relearned. It's just human. And the millions upon millions killed in 20th century wars were not sentenced to death by any god. Only man, and woman, can pull that off.
Thank you, James. That we shape God or gods according to what we can understand or want is certainly true. The deal with that Jesus figure, however, is that he challenges that tendency. He didn't engage in retribution or use force to take power or manipulate people. He blessed them. That instead of violence, he let himself be sacrificed is a mighty challenge to us self-protective humans.
A vast network of churches has been built on the 'Jesus figure', entirely political in nature and dependent upon the psyche. His story held out no deals concerning God. That idea is set in stone: God is the authority that permits 'retribution or force to take power or manipulate people' 'according to what we can understand or want'. God's mercy is just another myth, a false claim of salvation. Jesus may have blessed the people. He may have been a pacifist. He may have sacrificed himself or simply been murdered. But the imaginary authority vested in 'God' by people of all faiths is the root of all error, all evil. I say this from the political perspective, not the psychological perspective, which is the proper province of all religion. Authority is vested in the people, exclusively. We make of it what we will.
Thanks for that, my readings are more discursive, but I can follow your gist. Bart Ehrman put it Christian theology become more paradoxical (complex) as time went on. A lot, if not all Christians had trouble making sense of the Trinity, figuring out how to maintain a monotheistic religion, based on Judaism, while espousing a "Son of God" which is both distinct and subsumed within the "Godhead" . Then add in the holy spirit, and make that distinct force/companion? which reaches into human beings, those fallen creatures, and that is also part of the Godhead. Before it got so complicated, Paul would write, at least once, he didn't always know where he left off and Christ began within himself. When Christianity became legal, a variety of competing views were circulating about all this, one in particular, namesaked after Arius turned into one major multi-generational battle. It was never really resolved. Unable to be suppressed, missionaries took it to the Goths, and it spread widely, lasting for centuries. A lot of people were not happy with Chalcedon, which was imposed with the force of law, theological splits over that continue to this very day. Jews never took to any of this, and when Muslims came along, they regarded themselves as reformers of Judaism and Christianity as a form of polytheism. Much later, didn't Luther dread possible divisions over the doctrine of the Trinity as a potential nightmare? Pentecostals are very interesting, I believe the most dynamic development in modern Christianity, and they quite literally connect to being possessed by the holy spirit, speaking in tongues, to wit, Paul's references in first Corinthians. I don't think simple vs complex does this stuff justice. It's more about human beings unable to agree among themselves over a subject which has no clear terms of reference but seems very important to them. Turf matters! There is a reason the Royal Society of London excluded discussions about theology/religion when trying to work up a coherent, empirically based view of things, right? For the last 5 centuries, this has been the best scoring game in town when it comes to sorting out realities which dedicated scientific societies can agree upon. Well, forgive my meanderings. I cannot fathom the technicalities of my daughters' phd science theses, but i presume to mull over unsolved epistemological issues, science has truly left us "in media res" instead of greater certainties, holy smokes, but what a view! Must run