End of the World May 21

I usually don't spend too much time thinking about end of the world predictions, but this one has garnered such a large number of supporters (some who have sold everything they own to go out and preach to others), that I can't let it slip by without comment. Earlier this year I gave a lecture touching on the topic of apocalyptic Christianity. During the lecture I talked about Harold Camping, a pastor originally from Colorado. He has made the prediction, based on "sound" biblical evidence, that the world will forever be changed on May 21st, 2011.. that's right, two days from now will be Judgment Day. The international news agencies have started to pick up the story. It can't get much better than this. Think about it, here is a story about a fair sized organization spending oodles of money putting up billboards all around the world predicting the end of life as we know it, and when it doesn't happen, what will Camping and his followers do? What will the couple do who has given away all their money, and add to that the fact that this young lady is due to have a baby in June (link here)? From one perspective this is obviously sheer stupidity; from another, faith.

Just this morning I was speaking with a group of Jehovah Witnesses about the place of philosophy ("worldly wisdom") in faith. Their take was that it is basically of the devil and misleading. They would do well to consider Camping and his followers. There is some irony here, however, that makes our equation Faith=Stupidity more problematic. Camping arrives at the date he does based on mathematical calculations concerning Biblical numbers, i.e. rationally! (To see how he does it, and how he gets around some other issues click here and here). This is why the facile opposition Science/Reason vs. Faith/Irrational is simply misguided. Camping's work has a rationalistic framework. What an odd result takes place when modern thinking is applied to ancient scripture and prophecy.

Where will you be when the world ends? I'll be camping with a couple of Christian guys in the middle of nowhere. If I wake up May 21st to an empty campsite after a post-meal nap (around 6pm to be precise!), will I feel a sudden panic? No, I'll assume either they got lost somewhere, or are playing a little joke on me, both possibilities (especially the former) that are much more likely to happen than the prediction made by our rather aged gentleman Camping, who, it must be said, will have to meet his own judgment day May 21st.

Hell (final)

Zoroastrianism: an ancient religion that became the religion of the Persian Empire. It would influence all three Abrahamic religions, sometimes in quite startling ways. There is no doubt that Zoroastrianism itself was influenced by still more ancient beliefs (notably Babylonian), these reaching back into the mists of prehistory.

It has had its main influence on Judaism through its notions of angels and demons, as well as afterlife conceptions. From the lake of fire, to the battle between God’s angels and the dragon and his angels (I should point out that the Jewish notion of “Satan” already existed in Jewish religion, but it was Zoroastrianism that shaped it into what it was in Jesus’ time), to the resurrection of the dead and a new creation, the Zoroastrians had a great reservoir of theological ideas to draw from. Even casually reading through the Vendidad (Zoroastrian holy scriptures dating from perhaps 8^th century BCE) one can find other interesting parallels with the Christian NT. Take for example the following, a section highly resembling the temptation of Jesus by the devil:

“Again to him said the Maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu:... Renounce the good Religion of the worshippers of Mazda, and thou shalt gain such a boon as Vadhaghna gained, the ruler of the nations.'

Spitama Zarathushtra said in answer: 'No! never will I renounce the good Religion of the worshippers of Mazda, either for body or life, though they should tear away the breath!'

Again to him said the Maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu: 'By whose Word wilt thou strike, by whose Word wilt thou repel, by whose weapon will the good creatures (strike and repel) my creation, who am Angra Mainyu?'

Spitama Zarathushtra said in answer: 'The sacred mortar, the sacred cups, the Haoma, the Word taught by Mazda, these are my weapons, my best weapons! By this Word will I strike, by this Word will I repel, by this weapon will the good creatures (strike and repel thee), O evil-doer, Angra Mainyu! The Good Spirit made the creation; he made it in the boundless Time.” (Vendidad 19:6-9).

Here Angra Mainyu (the evil one) comes to Zarathustra, the prophet of Zoroastrianism, to prevent him from destroying demons. It is a curious fact that in the gospel accounts it is not long after his temptation that Jesus begins to cast out demons (Mark 1:21: “Have you come to destroy us?”). The other similarities are obvious. In both this account and the gospels, the evil one comes to make demands on the hero. In both cases this involved renouncing the hero’s fidelity to their god. In both cases the hero uses a formula: “it is written.” Zarathustra: “By this Word will I strike, by this Word will I repel, by this weapon will the good creatures (strike and repel thee)” (here the Word of Mazda, the good God of creation). In the gospel accounts too the devil is repelled after the formulation. Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ Then the devil left him... (Matthew 4:10-11). The “Word,” as we know, will also be personified in Jesus himself who continued to cast out demons throughout his ministry.

An interesting aside: the translators of the New American Standard bible reference Exodus 8:19 for the following passage:

“And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges. "But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:19-20).
Exodus 8:19 is a reference to Pharaoh’s magicians calling the plagues a work of the “finger of God.” Here I wonder if we can’t use the connection with Zarathustra to our advantage. What if the context of Luke 11 would be better reflected in that other Hebrew scripture referring to the “finger of God”:
“The LORD gave me the two tablets of stone written by the finger of God; and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken with you at the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly” (Deuteronomy 9:10).

Here Jesus’ reference to “the finger of God” would reflect again a connection with the “for it is written” or the “Word taught by Mazda.” The demons, in other words, were being thrown out by nothing less than the “W/word of God.” Is it perhaps more than a coincidence that Deuteronomy didn’t take its final shape until the Babylonian and later Persian conquests? It’s provocative I think, but I have no time now to explore it further.

What are the implications of all this? You, thoughtful reader, will have to decide this in your own way. For some, it will make little difference, either because further thought is shut down to preserve its own status quo, or because faith has already become a lifestyle depending less on “truth” than social function. For others there is no issue because for them it is possible to think of God working behind the scenes of world religion, gradually bringing about a more complete expression of God’s will and purpose etc. For them Jesus is the culmination of this process (or the final Day), or Muhammad, the seal of the prophets. Still others may start to see things in their intricate interconnectivity, as informing and being informed (Judaism also informed later Zoroastrianism). For these God will also be working throughout, or God will be reduced to historical processes, contingent on political and sociological factors, not to mention environmental ones as well (famine, disease, etc). Or perhaps none of this floats your boat in the first place. Whatever the case I beg that you take Nietzsche’s admonition seriously: “If you wish to strive for peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you wish to be a disciple of truth, then inquire.”

Hell (part V)

As I’ve previously indicated, the Jews of Jesus’ time were informed by various apocalyptic writings. The most important of these for our purposes was the Ethiopic Book of Enoch. The Christian NT includes a quotation, found in Jude (Enochic source noted by 2011 version of the NIV):

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 14-15)

Compare Enoch 1:9

“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

That Jude is quoting from this writing is obvious from the attribution “Enoch, the seventh from Adam” also found in the Book of Enoch 60:8. For this reason some of the Church Fathers considered this writing inspired, while others took another track and decided Jude couldn’t be inspired! But Jude isn’t the only place Enoch shows up. 1 Peter 3:19-20 also draws on the Enochic tale of the pre-Noahic fall of humankind and the vision of their subsequent imprisonment, something not found in canonical scripture:

“After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water..”

For the sake of time I will quote a few passages here from Enoch (there are many more), later taken over by the Christian NT, dealing with the idea of hell or fiery punishment:

“In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations.” 10:13-14

“Woe to you, ye sinners, on account of the words of your mouth, And on account of the deeds of your hands which your godlessness as wrought, In blazing flames burning worse than fire shall ye burn.” 100:9

“And into darkness and chains and a burning flame where there is grievous judgement shall your spirits enter; And the great judgement shall be for all the generations of the world.
Woe to you, for ye shall have no peace.” 103:8

“And from thence I went to another place, which was still more horrible than the former, and I saw a horrible thing: a great fire there which burnt and blazed, and the place was cleft as far as the abyss, being full of great descending columns of fire: neither its extent or magnitude could I see, nor could I conjecture. Then I said: 'How fearful is the place and how terrible to look upon! ' Then Uriel answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said unto me: 'Enoch, why hast thou such fear and affright?' And I answered: 'Because of this fearful place, and because of the spectacle of the pain.' And he said unto me: 'This place is the prison of the angels, and here they will be imprisoned for ever.” 21:7-10 (See especially here Jesus: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Matt. 25:41, also Rev. 20).

We cannot, however, rest easy having identified an important origin of the NT notion of hell. That the Ethiopic Book of Enoch has influenced the writers of the NT is well-established and easy to demonstrate. This was a Jewish text with its origins in pre-Christian times. Jesus and his contemporaries were familiar with it and didn’t hesitate to draw on its conceptions and themes (not limited to notions of hell). Many early Christians felt it was inspired. What I find fascinating, however, is the theological origin of the Book itself. In a previous post I have briefly discussed the Biblical notion of “Satan.” Once again, and finally, we will have to shift our gaze from the ancient Jews and the later Christians, to that once great civilization famous for, among other things, its comprehensive and highly influential religion: Persia.

Hell (part IV)

One could continue to comb through the Christian scriptures to locate every instance of the mention of “hell” or a related description, and drawing up a large list, sit down to examine what the NT really says about the subject. One must be sensitive to literary styles, the use of metaphor, poetry, etc, while at the same time acknowledging when a text seems to indicate its actors truly believe the topic of their discourse has definite characteristics, really existing in some sense. So, for example, when reading the following passage:

“We ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love all of you have for one another is increasing. Therefore, among God’s churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring.
All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may bring to fruition your every desire for goodness and your every deed prompted by faith.” (2 Thessalonians 1:3-11)

It should be obvious that hell, i,e, “punishment with eternal destruction” functions in a number of ways: 1) As a promise that wrongs will be righted, that in the end there will indeed be justice for those followers of Christ who suffer terribly at the hands of their persecutors, proving the validity of the statement “God is just.” It goes without saying that, based on this passage, God’s justice is contingent on his being able to punish those who cause such “suffering” (1:5). In other words, calling into question God’s lack of mercy or grace for the persecutors simultaneously calls into question his justice.

2) This promise of eternal punishment for the persecutors brings hope to the persecuted. It is obvious that it is here meant as an encouragement for those Christians who are suffering. It functions as a reminder of their calling from God.

3) The writer contrasts two types of judgment: a) God’s judgment in his calling, and b) God’s judgment against those who persecute his elect. It seems clear the writer believes God has chosen (judged) some to be faithful in Thessalonica, that he has chosen beforehand who will be called. For some this is offensive to our modern sensibilities (does God not love all, why not call all?), whereas for others of a more Calvinist strand it is merely an indication of God’s sovereignty (the debate is ancient, again due in large measure to scripture’s ambiguities/inconsistencies). That the Thessalonican’s perseverance is “evidence that God’s judgment is right” (he chose wisely beforehand, somewhat like when we were children and chose a soccer team from among our classmates who later proved victorious- this is precisely what is happening with Job: Satan calls into question God’s judgment that Job is righteous, the rest of the story unfolds with the vindication of Job and therefore God himself. This is why I believe the introduction with Satan is a vital part of the text), so too will his judgment righteously fall upon those who oppose his chosen, a positive and a negative judgment.

4) That hell as eternal punishment is a real possibility, that it involves both fire and absence from God, i.e. it’s not merely metaphorical but actually descriptive. The writer really believes it will “happen this way” and encourages his listeners to believe “this will happen” (1:7).

I’m sure it is possible to further examine this passage in light of other critical approaches, to further flush out the life world of his audience (sociological/anthropological), to investigate further his descriptive terminology from a historical perspective (archaeological/literary) etc.

All of this is merely the scriptural consideration. Within a certain Christian approach this is sufficient. But for a large number of Christians, tradition also plays a vital role: “What has the Church to say about this topic?” Not just the Church right here in the particularity of our little town or city, but what has the Church, that great mass of saints spanning two thousand years, those great councils, those men and women of great learning and devotion, what have they to say? Can they so easily be dismissed with the naive statement “speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where it is silent”? It should be obvious how impossible this task is, how unproductive and confusing, how divisive in the long run.

We have not yet come to the end of our explorations.

Hell (part III)

We have seen that the writer of Hebrews seems not to believe in an eternal punishment for the unrighteous, unless by “eternal” we mean no chance for reprieve, no going back, no grace. He (or she) does indeed believe that those who refuse the grace of God will one day be consumed (or eaten) by God’s fire, violently shaken, and completely annihilated: they will cease to exist, vanish. Here there is no mention of everlasting fire or a torturous existence. Here too there is no more grace beyond a certain threshold, be it in the next life, or perhaps even in this one (Esau was an interesting case in point, though I won’t be too dogmatic here).

Rather than continue by summing up a particular author, I will instead consider that other view of Hell found in the Christian NT, the one in agreement with the previously mentioned councils: eternal punishment without end.

I have already indicated that the notion of a hell began some time before the writing of the NT scriptures or the ministry of Jesus. I think perhaps the earliest one can find it in the scriptures as a whole, (and this is only the idea of hell, not a formal designation) would be the book of Daniel. This is one of our post-Persian era writings (see my post on the devil) so perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising. The passage I have in mind is Daniel 12:1-2:

“At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.”

Here, as one can see, there is no specific mention of hell, but the notion of “everlasting contempt” is present. It is the sapling of what would become a horrible tree. Skipping the apocryphal books of the intertestamental period, we come to the NT itself. It is John the Baptist who first speaks of Jesus separating the wheat from the chaff, the latter being burned up with “unquenchable fire.” Jesus himself does not hesitate to use the imagery of everlasting fire and punishment:

Matthew 18:8: If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Matthew 25: 41, 46: Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Mark 9:48: It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

I’ve chosen these references specifically because they seem to indicate a sense of eternal punishment. There are many more which merely mention fire or some other horrible kind of fate, but which do not specifically hold this quality of everlastingness. One counter-example from Matthew 10, which could even be construed in an annihilationist way (does the attempt to harmonize these accounts for the sake of maintaining "one Author" not do violence to the texts themselves, not to mention the dishonesty involved, no matter how well intentioned):

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (10:28).

It should be said here that if Jesus actually said these things his words would have been unambiguous to his listeners. By this time there is already a hell tradition, and part of this tradition includes a sense of its eternity. Against modern writers who seem to want us to believe that his listeners would somehow “interpret” this differently I’m afraid that based on the overwhelming evidence they’re merely wishful thinkers (Nietzsche would refer to them as “abusers of history”).

While it is true that Jesus certainly believed in the existence of hell and its eternal nature (both its existence and, quite likely, its nature as eternal punishment), he also certainly didn’t make this the main focus of his teaching. This seems obvious even with a quick glance at the gospels. Those people who portray Christianity as a religion obsessed with hellfire are not basing their assumptions on the gospel record.

Once again we shall have to continue in another post.

Hell (part II)

In our first post concerning hell, I made the claim that Jesus was a man of his times, here in reference to apocalyptic writings popular at that time. One of these writings, and the most important for our subject, is the Ethiopic Book of Enoch. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. That the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian NT have a completely different idea of the afterlife is quite clear, especially in connection to any form of punishment after death for the unrighteous. The New Testament is indeed clear that there will be a punishment of the unrighteous, a reckoning, a righting of wrongs, and “avenging of blood.” This is entirely necessary in a place and time when whole families were persecuted for their belief. It also satisfies the sense of injustice that people have had since ancient times that the wicked should prosper while the righteous perish. This life is not the end of the story, in other words. Whether this punishment is eternal or not is a matter of which author you ask. The NT does not have a uniform voice here. The writer of Hebrews, for example, seems to indicate that this punishment is temporary, that sinners will be completely consumed by fire and destroyed:

“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” (Heb. 10:26-27).

The word translated by “consume” here means literally “to eat” often used in the most mundane passages of the NT to indicate someone eating a meal etc. Here would be a passage that annihilationists (those people who believe there is no hell, but that the unrighteous are completely destroyed) might use in their arsenal. The writer later says:

“Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done” (Heb 12: 16-17).

Here too people have found evidence that there is no second chance, that once one is lost, they are always lost. This is consistent with the declarations of the early councils that I mentioned in our first post, and it is also consistent with the first passage I quoted from chapter 10: "no sacrifice for sins is left," only fearful expectation. The councils applied this to the afterlife, but here is there not a possibility the writer even means in this life there is no grace beyond the “falling short” of God’s grace, the immoral act, the one who hates peace and holiness, even if sought with “tears?” We see here the same parallel: sin followed by a sign of regret (tears/fearful expectation), guaranteed rejection/destruction. In its context (both here and in the previous two chapters) is this not a reasonable interpretation? So for the writer of Hebrews one does not even “see the Lord” but is completely destroyed by God’s fire (perhaps God himself, see 12:29). No mention of eternal damnation to be sure, but also an interesting coupling of the usual modern response: “hell is living in the absence of God” (not “seeing the Lord”) with literally being eaten and (we must reasonably infer) completely consumed or annihilated. This same coupling can be found later in chapter 12:

“See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.” (12: 25-27)

Here we find the “removal” of the contingent, the created, that which is not the Kingdom of God (12:28), i.e. those who “turn away from him who warns us from heaven.” There is no mention of this removal involving eternal punishment, but merely a vanishing away of anything not in the Kingdom (see 11:5 where the same Greek word is used of Enoch in a seemingly positive sense, indicating the neutrality of the word: he was “taken” so that he could not be found, i.e. he vanished). Once again a possible annihilationist passage.

In our next post we will have to consider some other NT writers and their position on hell.

Hell (part I)

I have previously touched on the topic of hell. That the present aversion to any “real” hell in the next life and subsequent reinterpretation or outright dismissal is a cultural phenomenon I have already eluded to. Recently I read the blog of a Christian pastor in which he defended the view that hell is simply the self-centeredness of egotistical people, of their wallowing in raging passions and self-pity. Quoting Tim Keller he says: “Hell then is the trajectory of a soul living a self absorbed self centered life, going on and on forever.” The “fire” of hell refers to “refinement” or “purification,” while in another place burning with fire simply means never being complete, i.e. continually being broken down or destroyed, something that takes place right here without reference to a here-after.

This isn’t the first time in the history of the Church that hell has been viewed in a metaphorical sense. St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and Origen (to name a few) understood “fire” to refer to God’s wrath. “Eternal” has been understood as “definitive” or “final” rather than referring to duration per se. So our pastor is in fine company. Of course, after 553 and the Second Council of Constantinople and later the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, hell officially took on its more traditional form and was affirmed as an eternal (in the sense of duration) punishment: “If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema” (2^nd Council Const. This against good Origen).

What of the form of hell? Our good pastor was partly correct in pointing out the influence of Dante’s work on the European imagination. It was he who once wrote: Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate (Abandon hope all you who enter here). But our pastor friend neglected to mention another text of great importance, the very one Dante himself relied on: the second century Apocalypse of Peter (not to be confused with the much more pleasant Gnostic version). If you’re looking to have the crap scared out of you or to be made ill this makes for an excellent read.

But where did all this arise? Even a brief look at the Hebrew scriptures (OT) will confirm the complete lack of any semblance to the Christian understanding found in the NT scriptures, even on the very lips of Jesus himself. This is where I think we must part ways with our pastor who says very little about Jesus and hell. One must never forget that Jesus was a man of his times, informed by the same apocalyptic writings that many of his contemporaries were. Of course, our pastor would assume that Jesus was “in the know” about these things and had no need to rely on such writings. Within the circular argument of faith it is almost impossible to convince people otherwise, but I might point out that Luke says even Jesus “grew in wisdom and in stature” (2:52), that he was found “sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions” (2:46), i.e. he learned and was taught (even if, perhaps, he learned at an accelerated rate).

It is not enough to stop at the Councils or at our present cultural interpretation of hell (which is all too accommodating in any case). It is obvious too that it is not sufficient to stop at the canonical writings as there we are faced with a huge gap. We shall have to revisit this.

To Remember or Not (Letter Fragment)

You seem skeptical.. a mind of our age.. a thought without guarantee.  It's funny you mention false memory.  I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately.  For example did you know that after WWI at least 70% of returning soldiers reported having a battlefield encounter where they could see into the eyes of the enemy, a moment of contact before sticking their bayonet into them or shooting them?  But when it was empirically verified the statistics were closer to .5% actually having experienced this.  There are some interesting explanations as to how this could happen (a way to mitigate a deep anxiety etc), which I won't get into here, but it at least supports the idea that we may "remember" things that never took place.  It is possible using various techniques (some quite basic like suggestive wording etc) to help a patient "recollect" a memory that never existed, or distort an authentic memory.  Last year a psychologist in New South Wales (Australia) was prohibited from continuing his practice for this reason (among others): that he "repeated requests for his client to recall or reconstruct memories of childhood traumatic incidents" even though these incidents never took place the way the psychologist suggested.  It is a known fact that people who have been a victim of false memory suggestion often cling to these constructions even in the face of objective evidence pointing to the falseness of their recollections.  The memory takes on a vividness and clarity that few authentic memories possess.  It seems especially despicable to me that here at the hands of a person we go to in confidence for emotional aid such a great deception and sinister lie could be perpetrated.  As someone has pointed out, the person becomes quickly obsessed with the reconstructed memory (often merely the interpretation of the therapist), to the point that the true cause of the mental distress is neglected or overlooked.  It is a comfort to know that many within the healthcare field recognize and fight to overcome those within their fold who through either poor training, insufficient qualifications, the desire for power, or perhaps sheer stupidity cause further damage to the progress of some in their care.  

I think you're right to draw the conclusion that all this suggests the limitations of the human mind, that it is inherently limited, easily manipulated, even able to dupe itself.  It was Darwin who said: 

"But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?"

No doubt there is something to the idea that in our inherent "animality" we are already self-limited.  Are we monkeys dressing up in suits and taking on airs like the chimpanzee I would sometimes see on television, lounging in a sofa chair and looking every bit like George Burns?  What game are we playing with ourselves?

Josephus on Circumcision (Letter to a Colleague)

Lately I've been reading through Josephus' "The Life of Flavius Josephus" when I was reminded of something we briefly discussed: the issue of "conscience" in St. Paul. I quoted Romans 2.14-15:

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."

At the time you commented something to the effect that he may not have meant what I thought he means. You may be quite right (I’ve filed it away for another day), but of interest in Josephus was the following passage:

“At this time it was that two great men, who were under the jurisdiction of the king [Agrippa] came to me out of the region of Trachonius, bringing their horses and their arms, and carrying with them their money also; and when the Jews would force them to be circumcised, if they would stay among them, I would not permit them to have any force put upon them, but said to them, "Every one ought to worship God according to his own conscience, and not to be constrained by force; and that these men, who had fled to us for protection, ought not to be so treated as to repent of their coming hither." And when I had pacified the multitude, I provided for the men that were come to us whatsoever it was they wanted, according to their usual way of living, and that in great plenty also. (23/112).” Italics mine.

Again a similar reference to conscience, here tied to what appears to be a rebuttal of forcible conversion. It is interesting to note the similarities between Paul and Josephus: both operating in a more Hellenistic environment, cosmopolitan, self-proclaimed Pharisees... One can also note that Josephus here offers a minor refutation of that aspect of Paul’s work which seemed to place circumcision among Jews in a highly prominent position (and a major refutation of those abusers of history who go beyond any ambiguity in Paul). Perhaps we see here once again a failure to appreciate the rhetorical structure of Paul’s letters and the worlds in which he lived.

I know that certain communities, like Qumran for example, could be quite strict about membership, but if Josephus is any indication, Jewish sentiments regarding circumcision and conversion during this time were not quite as black and white as Paul or many more contemporary commentators seem to indicate.

La Voix

Mon berceau s'adossait à la bibliothèque,

Babel sombre, où roman, science, fabliau,
Tout, la cendre latine et la poussière grecque,
Se mêlaient. J'étais haut comme un in-folio.
Deux voix me parlaient. L'une, insidieuse et ferme,
Disait: 'La Terre est un gâteau plein de douceur;
Je puis (et ton plaisir serait alors sans terme!)
Te faire un appétit d'une égale grosseur.'
Et l'autre: 'Viens! oh! viens voyager dans les rêves,
Au delà du possible, au delà du connu!'
Et celle-là chantait comme le vent des grèves,
Fantôme vagissant, on ne sait d'où venu,
Qui caresse l'oreille et cependant l'effraie.
Je te répondis: 'Oui! douce voix!' C'est d'alors
Que date ce qu'on peut, hélas! nommer ma plaie
Et ma fatalité. Derrière les décors
De l'existence immense, au plus noir de l'abîme,
Je vois distinctement des mondes singuliers,
Et, de ma clairvoyance extatique victime,
Je traîne des serpents qui mordent mes souliers.
Et c'est depuis ce temps que, pareil aux prophètes,
J'aime si tendrement le désert et la mer;
Que je ris dans les deuils et pleure dans les fêtes,
Et trouve un goût suave au vin le plus amer;
Que je prends très souvent les faits pour des mensonges,
Et que, les yeux au ciel, je tombe dans des trous.
Mais la voix me console et dit: 'Garde tes songes:
Les sages n'en ont pas d'aussi beaux que les fous!'

Baudelaire

The Devil

After some conversation with a friend regarding the Christian notion of hell (though of course not a notion limited to Christianity), I've decided to write about that arch-demon in charge of the place, that slithering seducer, that "accuser": Satan.

What a colourful figure this Satan has been made out to be! For some a serpent, for others a wart-covered travesty, still others an angel of light.. the portrayals are "legion".

Let's begin at the beginning (we'll follow the monotheistic tradition). First, Satan, the devil, was not the serpent in the garden of Eden. This is quite clear from the narrative of Genesis 3. Here we are introduced to what the scripture calls a "crafty serpent". Oddly, though we have just been told that everything the Lord God had made was "good" here we encounter a creature that is manifestly not good. Where did he slither from (or rather walk, since his curse was to slither, indicating that this serpent actually moved about some other way)? Of course his existence is assumed in the narrative, as in so many other mythic accounts of astonishing creatures. It's beside the point for the purposes of the story. Regardless, this crafty fellow in no way resembles that fallen angel Jesus would later speak of. He's a punk animal who is either jealous of these two dimwits (though to be sure the woman, who does the speaking, is the intelligent one here), or is a legitimate emancipatory figure (more about this another time perhaps).

It won't be until much later, until the time of the Persian conquest, that we start to hear about Satan, the naughty angel and accuser of humanity. Before the Jews were immersed in Persian culture and adopted their notion of a Good and Evil principle, there was only God as principle. The prophet Amos makes this clear for example: "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6- evil: ra‛/râ‛âh). For the ancient Jews it was taken for granted that a sovereign and all-powerful God could alone be responsible for both good and evil. Apparently some were uncomfortable with this idea though, and once the idea of an evil principle, a fall-guy, was introduced from a brand of Zoroastrianism the Jews encountered during the captivity (Zervanism), Satan was quickly introduced into the oral and scriptural tradition. There are some pretty clear examples of this:

2 Samuel 24:1 (Pre-Persian Conquest): Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

and the exact same story told during/after the Persian conquest in Chronicles:

1 Chronicles 21:1: Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

In the post-conquest interpretation, it was Satan who incited David, obviously glossing the now distasteful idea that God would incite his anointed in such a manner and then punish him for it! Satan takes the fall..

Every single Hebrew Scripture (OT) reference to Satan takes place after the Persian conquest (see also Zechariah) with the possible exception of one book: Job. The debate still goes on whether this is an ancient story or a more recent one. Perhaps it is a combination of the two.. though I disagree that the Satan story is a later addition. It seems obvious to me that this is an integral part of the tale (if you're curious ask).

By the time we get to the Christian Scriptures a lot has happened. We won't trace the origin and evolution of the notion of hell. There is, however, one interesting reference to "Tartarus" in 2 Peter 2:4: "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell (NIV footnotes the Greek "ταρταρωσας" -Tartarus-), putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment..." Tartarus, as any classicist knows, is a Greek conception of the underworld, more hellish, it seems, than Hades (though of course even the conception of Tartarus evolved over time). It was said that if a bronze anvil falls into the earth, it would take 9 days to reach there. Interesting how Greek mythology and Christianity would bump into one another.. though not that surprising as it is obvious from recent conversations I've had that culture continues to inform a Christian reading of hell.

It should be obvious what I'm suggesting here: Satan, the devil, is not.. never was. He was a necessary evil, literally. He had explanatory power, made sense, was handy. I've heard people say, "but that's exactly what he wants you to think, that he doesn't exist!" A rather odd argument wouldn't you say?

Baptism in the Churches of Christ (Blog comment)

I will also add here the importance of baptism within this church’s soteriology. It has been typical, I think, for disillusioned members to criticize the Church of Christ’s insistence on adult baptism by immersion as too dogmatic, as missing the point of grace, as reducing the salvific act of Christ to a mechanical/automatic gesture, etc. It is ironic that it is precisely here in baptism that the Church of Christ so closely resembles a Catholic sacramentalism, an earthly/mortal gesture which somehow contains within it a divine/grace-ful/spiritual possibility. At one time the sacraments were an acute point of criticism for non-Catholic members: i.e. “it is ridiculous to think that the host literally becomes the body of Christ, that at a given point in the mass the base earthly elements transubstantiate into the body of our Lord etc.” But today I think the situation is entirely different. Are the churches not precisely embracing a sacramental understanding of Church, of the community, of nature? This is why I think it is so ironic that many disgruntled former members of the church have been so critical of baptism (and the same applies to congregational singing, precisely insofar as it too is sacramental in nature). In their pursuit of the “spiritual” they have completely overlooked the possibilities already inherent in their tradition. That baptism is not only sacramental in the Churches of Christ, but also a visible sign of a commitment, an initiation into a community, and of course an intimate gesture made in complete fidelity to the Kingdom and all its citizens (and by proxy, to the whole world as a citizen devoted to peace and the building up, rather than breaking down of humanity), all this seems forgotten in the narrow view of some who elevate human sentiment/feeling (“heavy emotion”) as an absolute, as if in a kind of gnostic ecstasy one can transcend the elemental (all the while disparaging the very thing their “spirituality” depends on and is rooted in, i.e. the human body, the waters of baptism, the basic “stuff” of the world). It is for this reason a substantial approach may be located within the Church of Christ conception. Your blog, in a somewhat more humble way, celebrates this I think.

Individualized Crest

My sister recently sent me an individualized crest based on some information I had given her some time ago. Each element of the crest is personally meaningful to me or my partner. I really like it. Thanks Marcia!

Check out her website.

René Descartes (A translation)

Quaecumque sub perceptionem nostram cadunt, vel tanquam res, rerumue affectiones quasdam, consideramus; vel tanquam aeternas ueritates, nullam existentiam extra cogitationem nostram habentes.

Cum autem agnoscimus fieri non posse, ut ex nihilo aliquid fiat, tunc propositio haec: Ex nihilo nihil fit, non tanquam res aliqua existens, neque etiam ut rei modus consideratur, sed ut veritas quaedam aeterna, quae in mente nostra sedem habet, vocaturque communis notio, siue axioma. Cuius generis sunt: Impossibile est idem simul esse et non esse: Quod factum est, infectum esse nequit: Is qui cogitat, non potest non existere dum cogitat: et alia innumera, quae quidem omnia recenseri facile non possunt...

Whatever things fall under our perception we consider as (1) things or the affections of things, or (2) as eternal truths, that have no existence outside our thoughts.

But when we recognize that something is not able to be made out of nothing, then the proposition: “Ex nihilo nihil fit” is not a thing that exists, nor even considered as a mode of something, but as a kind of eternal truth, having its seat in our mind, and is known as a common axiom or notion. Of this class are: “It is impossible simultaneously to be and not to be; What is done, cannot be undone; The man who thinks is not able to not exist when he thinks [He who thinks must exist when he thinks];” and innumerable others, all of which cannot be easily counted...

What is the meaning of Jesus? (To a comrade)

Don't mind at all.. feel free to post whatever you write me.

What or who is Jesus? Is this not the question you pose? He is neither angelic nor heroic. In fact, he is a failure. But let us not read this statement outside of its proper context. He is a failure precisely insofar as his life led to no real break in the situation. He came from nowhere, for a time was a someone, accrued those followers who glimpsed in him something higher than those animal interests so common in our species. But in the final hour all left him: his monument was little more than the tattered clothing of a common Jew, once a disciple "committed unto death" in this Nazarene cause, left behind when their owner fled for his life at the first sign of opposition. Pilate certainly never said the words "Ecce homo!" Perhaps only to ridicule this worm standing before him. Perhaps only appended to the gospel letter long after the fact. Here was no man, but something much less!

But you understand the radical break in history the death of this worm would wreak. Had the story ended with the crucifixion we would be left with any other self-deluded messianic fool, a lesson for other fools. History is replete with them. The life and death of this madman had zero consequences within the previous order. All those who were formerly willing to die with him (and declared so!), now returned to the sea whence they had been called with tail between legs. Zero consequences=zero Event. Ah but the world and ages this void would soon fill! No angels, no heroes present.. but grace was present.

We will not speak of "historicity." A truth is not of the historical order. We will speak of a break within a situation, a "creative novelty" if there ever was one. We will speak of maximal consequences, of the maximal existence of an inexistent. Why else is the Nazarene's "biography" so dispensable for St. Paul? It is clear that it is so because it is the biography of a madman and failure. It is a lesson for fools. But St. Paul is no fool! For him it is clear that the Resurrection retroactively reinstates this man from Nazareth: not his virgin birth, not his life among his disciples (Paul has no interest in biography), but his Death. This is so because the Death immanentizes the possibility of the Resurrection.

If we are to locate the meaning of Jesus in the regime of the given, it is here at this impossible moment, at this hole punched into the cosmos, a void circumscribed by being's appearance. That this void had such consequences is not a fantastic determination. This is merely its historical and political one. Fantasy is not a proper designate here. It belonged to the previous order of Messianic nationalism (an order Judas himself defended and grew disenchanted with). We are reminded of René Magritte's famous painting of a pipe with the inscription "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" beneath it. Here too might we not inscribe the field of the historical Nazarene with the words: "Ceci est un Immortel"?