Re: missing communication: Schroedinger and abortion

Terry has already said some of the things I would have. While I would not
agree entirely with him (e.g., I would not be more nuanced on process
theology and
exclusivism with respect to Judaism) I'm largely in accord with what he said
and won't repeat those points.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@sbcglobal.net>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: missing communication: Schroedinger and abortion

>
> I had said:
>
>>> Yes. One Sacred Being, but many portraits -- each incomplete and less
>>> than
>>> wholly accurate -- each portrait having been crafted by creatures with
>>> limited knowledge and a particular cultural history. I think the
>>> children's book, Old Turtle, by Douglas Wood, conveys the idea well.
>
> George replied:
>
>> One problem with this imagery is that it pictures God, or "The Sacred,"
>> as
>> an essentially passive object of human investigation and reflection.
>
> Point well taken. However, I would describe God not as passive, but rather
> as inclined to be equally experienced by all peoples, irrespective of the
> tribe to which they happen to belong. On what just basis would one tribe
> be
> favored over all others?

"Inclined to be equally experienced" is still passive language. An image
that might better suit your purpose is that in Lessing's "Nathan der Weise"
in which the king gives the 3 identical rings (Judaism, Christianity &
Islam) to his 3 sons. But it's interesting that it was also Lessing who
made the now famous statement about the "scandal of particularity." He
rejected that because individual historical events couldn't prove "necessary
truths of reason" but I suspect that your idea that a unique revelation is
unfair was also in his mind. & in fact what you are arguing for is
essentially the natural religion of the Enlightenment, however it may be
modernized with process thought &c.

>> But if
>> it is God whose actions are primarily responsible for human knowledge of
>> God
>> then it is at least possible that such knowledge, while ultimately
>> intended
>> for the benefit of all people, would be communicated first of all to one
>> part of the human race.
>
> Possible? Yes, I suppose so, depending on the character of God. But are
> there any a priori reasons to expect such unequal treatment by God of the
> various members of the one human race?

Is there any reason _not_ to? You seem to be claiming some knowledge of God
that enables you to judge other claims to "experience of the sacred"?

>> Such an idea of election is of course offensive to
>> some people but that has little to do with its plausibility.
>
> Yes, I do find claims that "our tribe" has been specially chosen (elected)
> by God to represent God to the rest of humanity to be highly suspicious at
> best, perhaps the height of hubris on the part of those who present
> themselves as "the elect." Religious exclusivism or triumphalism, whether
> practiced by Christian Fundamentalists, Liberals, Protestants, Catholics,
> Orthodox, or Jews, or Muslims, is, I submit, rightly offensive to other
> religious communities. Has this not been one of the principal causes of
> major human wars? History is full of examples of what kind of behavior is
> encouraged by tribes (past and present) who feel free to declare
> themselves
> special in the eyes of God -- perhaps even commissioned by God to destroy
> the non-elect.

Again, you are imposing your own criterion on what can be valid "experience
of the sacred" or "revelation." You may claim that that criterion is a
result of your own experience of the sacred but it remains simply a claim.
& your criterion rules out not just the idea of a unique revelation but also
that of a unique locus for God's salvific action. While your idea would
require the removal of any claim to uniqueness of any religion, it really
strikes uniquely at Christianity among the major world religions today. I
don't mean that you are intentionally attacking Christianity alone, but that
is the end result. Even Islam, which claims a unique revelation, says that
that revelation is simply the culmination and perfection of something like
natural religion. Other world religions could survive the drastic pruning
process that your approach would require but Christianity can't because at
its center is not just the claim of a unique revelation but of a unique
salvific action. Terry is right: Without the cross-resurrection event
there just isn't Christianity.

Moreover, your argument ignores the fact that in Judaism as it later
developed (II Isaiah &C) and in Christianity, the election of a particular
people is for the sake of all of humanity. Of course that has in practice
been ignored by many Christians who have regarded election simply as a
privilege, but that doesn't affect the validity of the concept itself.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri Oct 15 07:07:25 2004