Okay, so you don't know of Berger. Here are some of his words. What do you think?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Okay, so you don't know of Berger. Here are some of his... - 7/2/2008 9:06:41 PM
|
|
|
kimmiejake
Posts: 14
Joined: 6/27/2008
Status: offline
|
I'm really tired, so the formatting may be off. I have a really good reason for trying to find out more about this guy, but I need to research more before I share that. LOL This is from a book review about Berger's latest book:
Berger’s theological method is reminiscent of the ancient pseudonymous writer Dionysius the Areopagite who asked the question "what are the affirmative theologies and what are the negative?" Below I have excerpted some of the taken-for-granted negative theological notions discussed by Berger, followed by the reasons they ingratiate him.
Religion is supposed to be necessary as the basis for morality. No thanks! With admirable exceptions here and there, religions over the centuries have not been famous for their moral excellence. Religion has been shown as not necessary for morality because moral judgment is grounded not in the imperative mode (do this, do that) but in the indicative mode (see this, look at that) [p. 164]. Morality is perceptual. The historical record shows that some of the greatest religious figures engaged in really dubious behavior (Luther the anti-semite), some were downright monstrous (Medici Popes) – while agnostics and atheists have been morally admirable. There are atheist saints.
Religion demands submission to God’s will, even in the face of the innocent suffering of children. No thanks. This is not humanly acceptable. I submit to God who does not will the death of innocent children. (One might add that God does not will the death of innocents on the sacrificial altar of the holocaust, that of the Gulag, or that of an Islamic suicide bomber socially justified on the basis of some totalitarian religion or secular ideology such as Marxism. For more on this see Peter L. Berger, Pyramids of Sacrifice: Political Ethics and Social Change [1974]).
Religion may seek to console us all by saying that eventually we will be absorbed into some ocean of cosmic divinity (i.e., the mythic matrix). No thanks. To absorb those who suffer into an ultimate reality in which all individuality, uniqueness, and the irreplaceableness of persons, and the infinite preciousness of children, is lost is but another version of death.
Religion offers certainty in scriptures, spiritual experiences, and in institutions from the chaos of life. No thanks to the certitude purveyors and certainty wallahs. Scripture is inspiring, but not inerrant, religious experience of the holy spirit has been found to be inducible by social psychological manipulation, and totalistic religious institutions can be replaced by totalistic secular institutions (e.g., big tent politics).
Religion provides powerful symbols for the exigencies of human existence. No thanks. To be sure, it does, but there are other (competitive) sources for such symbols.
High religion says man is saved, not by works, but by God’s grace and forgiveness. No thanks. Some notion of damnation is necessary if one affirms the justice of God in the face of evil. Nothing short of damnation will be adequate for the perpetrators of the Holocaust. None of us, and certainly none of the victims, should be urged to forgive them.
Both religious and atheistic eschatologies (i.e., world views) often claim to know the course of history. No thanks. Those who ascribe to the popular eschatology -- rapture, end times -- or who claim to know what the secular course of history is, then proceed to help it along by their own action typically will only add to the endless accumulation of suffering, as seen in the horrific Marxist experiments.
Religionists, particularly of the orthodox and neo-orthodox schools of religion, often claim that God has spoken to them directly -- or through scriptures God has spoken to them directly. No thanks. Most of us may be considered the metaphysically underprivileged, as it were, and must acknowledge that God has not spoken to us in such a direct manner. His address to us, if that is what it is, comes to us in a much more mediated manner. It is always mediated. It is mediated through this or that experience, and most importantly it is mediated through encounters with the scriptures and with the institution that transmits the tradition. To proceed as if one had spoken to God directly is to base one’s existence on a lie. It seems plausible to propose that, if God exists, He would not want us to lie.
Religion must say no to every freedom-denying scientism or any Buddhist understanding that all reality is non-self (an-atta), and which results in a denial of the existence of the autonomous and responsible self. In the perspective of the Biblical faith the self is not an illusion, neither is the empirical world, because both are creations of God. It is possible to affirm this faith in a threefold no to the Buddha’s Three Universal Truths: All reality is not impermanence, because at its heart is the God who is the plenitude of being in time and eternity. All reality is not suffering because God’s creation is ultimately good and because God is acting to redeem (repair) those parts of creation, especially humanity, where this goodness has been disturbed. And all reality is not non-self, because the self is the image of God, not because it is itself divine but because it exists by virtue of God’s address.
The collection of Jesus’ sayings constituting what we know as the Sermon on the Mount forms the moral and ethical basis for the organization of society. No thanks! Any human society that would organize itself on the basis of the Sermon’s unrealistic demands would promptly lapse into chaos. For goodness to result we must get our hands dirty and we must recognize that many of our actions have unintended consequences. We may desire good ends and employ good means, and nevertheless the results may be unbearably evil. Jesus as a great teacher and exemplar is eminently uninteresting, and we can do well without him.
The criteria distinguishing true and untrue religion asserted mainly by academics and liberal North American Christians is whether a religious tradition induces its adherents to cultivate selfishness and altruism. No thanks! The weakness of this criterion can be seen by transferring it from religion to, say, physics: is one to accept or reject a discovery in physics on the basis of a physicist’s moral qualities? Does the theory of relativity depend on Einstein having been a nice man? If religion has anything to do with reality – transcendent reality – then the test of it being true does not depend on the "saintliness" of its representations.
Petitionary prayers are selfish and therefore to be eschewed. No thanks. This argument is completely fallacious. To put it concretely: one may pray to be delivered from an illness that is afflicting oneself, but one may also pray for the recovery of my neighbor’s sick child. And there is nothing selfish about that. But is one then asking that God should save this child, and by implication that He need not save the child down the block? Of course not. If one has faith, one cannot, not pray.
The atonement is defined in virtually all strands of Christian thought as the process by which God forgives mankind. But the atonement can also be understood as the process by which mankind can forgive God. Is such an understanding blasphemous? I don’t think so. A God who "impassibly" presides over the endless pain of His creatures…is a being whom one would repudiate morally if He were a human individual. In an ironic way, he would be a sort of cosmic Pontius Pilate. One could hardly worship Him with love: at most, one could submit to Him in a masochistic posture. That, however, is unthinkable. God’s goodness is a necessary aspect of His nature, as the Biblical witness insists. However, God’s nature can be described in the bubbling conceptualizations of human thought, He cannot be understood as morally inferior to the best of us. Put differently, it is not credible that God is less merciful than man or even those considered saints.
The conception of original sin is as an inescapable part of the human condition, of which I should feel guilty. Clearly, though, I cannot be held responsible for a condition that antecedes any deliberate act of mine, and I can thus legitimately refuse to feel guilty about it.
|
|
|
|
RE: Okay, so you don't know of Berger. Here are some of... - 7/4/2008 6:52:43 PM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 312
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
I don't have time to respond to all of this, but I want to respond to this, because it is something that really bugs me.
quote:
Religion is supposed to be necessary as the basis for morality. No thanks! With admirable exceptions here and there, religions over the centuries have not been famous for their moral excellence. Religion has been shown as not necessary for morality because moral judgment is grounded not in the imperative mode (do this, do that) but in the indicative mode (see this, look at that) [p. 164]. Morality is perceptual. The historical record shows that some of the greatest religious figures engaged in really dubious behavior (Luther the anti-semite), some were downright monstrous (Medici Popes) – while agnostics and atheists have been morally admirable. There are atheist saints.
Now, the thing is this. Athiests like to present themselves as intellectually smarter than everybody else, however, the number of athiests in the world is a very small minority, and don't nacessarily include (as they would like to make out), the great and smart. In fact, I do not know of any atheist, who is famous for anything but being an atheist (like Bertrand Russell). I did a web search for "famous atheists", and looked up the Wikipedia entry. I immediately noticed Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. Atheist's love to claim people like this "as their own", because it shows how smart they are, to be like them. Unfortunately for them, Einstein was actually a Deist, and Hawking is an Agnostic. So, who are these "atheist saints"?
Now, is religion necessary as the basis for morality? The problem is, morality is not black or white, it is graded on a curve. None of us is absolutely moral, and none absolutely immoral, (probably although some appear that way). We can only compare people in terms of their relative morality, at best. Unfortunately, there are some who cloak their immoral activities and intentions in the appearance of religion, even as the wolf in the children's fairy story, cloaks itself in sheep's clothing in order to gain trust. This deception in itself, adds to their immorality. So, to talk of immoral religionists is a moot point, as only God knows those who are His.
I can only speak for myself, and say that I am relatively speaking, a more moral person than before I came to Christ. But, I am still definately on the curve. Further up it than all atheists? I would make no such claim. However, my claim to "sanctification" is grounded on the blood of Christ, my redeemer, not on where I am on the curve of morality.
Furthermore, if as atheists claim, there is no God, on what basis do we determine what is moral, and what is not? Atheists may only claim morality on the basis of their own opinion as to what is good. Comparing ourselves to our own opinions leaves us all far further up the curve, than if we compare ourselves to an external established standard.
One further point. Yes, religion usually does ground morality on the imperitive mode, however Jesus Christ was the one who grounded it on the indicative mode. It is only by His words that I know that when I look at a women in lust, I have committed adultary in my heart. But, what does our own standard of morality say? At best, "You can look, but don't touch!" At worst, "If it feels good, do it!"
I will try to find time to make some comments about the others.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Okay, so you don't know of Berger. Here are some of... - 7/11/2008 1:39:33 AM
|
|
|
kimmiejake
Posts: 14
Joined: 6/27/2008
Status: offline
|
Thank you!
Of course, we disagree: morality isn't a gray issue with God. We are all absolutely immoral, sinful creatures. It is our very nature.
And God tells us plainly we can tell who are His by their fruit. So "only God knows" absolutely is not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Okay, so you don't know of Berger. Here are some of... - 7/12/2008 7:48:42 AM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 312
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
God of course, is absolutely totally 100% moral. So, of course, with God, morality is not a gray issue. We are either moral or not, and being by nature not 100% moral, we have (as it is said) all fallen short of the Glory of God. We are therefore, from God's perspective, immoral, fallen creatures.
I think it would be going too far, however, to say that we are immoral in every action we take, or thought we have, all of the time. And, I think on this basis, you could say that some people are more moral than others. Not that any, as we all know, would by nature come remotely close to meeting God's standard of holiness. I liken it to asking both a cripple, and an Olympic long jump champion, to jump over the Grand Canyon. One is going to get closer than the other, but not by any useful or meaningful margin.
In context, God tells us that we will know false prophets by their fruits. (Matthew 7). A true prophet speaks according to the Word, and what he speaks comes to pass. A false Prophet contradicts the Word, even if he calls Christ "Lord", and what he speaks often does not come to pass. The idea that you can tell a true believer "by their fruit", is not scriptural as far as I know. It would seem almost akin to knowing them by their works.
The term "God knows who are His" comes from the following scripture:
2 Tim 2:19 Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: The Lord knows those who are his, and, Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.
And from the idea of the universal catholic church, that the church consists of believers of all denominations or congregations, who worship Him in Spirit and truth, not being tied to the 'list of members" of any organisation of man's design. Since none of us has that list, "only God knows who are His".
My point however, was that the fact that people claim to be religious, or even claim to be Christian, does not necessarily make it so. It is also true that the fact some people can make catestrophic mistakes or errors of judgement, does not necessarily mean that they are not children of God. Take Jim Bakker as an example of a person who some might think of as an "immoral religionist". A counterfeit Chistian? Perhaps. Or perhaps a Christian who made some catestrophic errors? You can choose to "know them by their fruit", if you wish, but I would not dare make such a claim.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
