the singularity of being and nothingness
existdissolve
This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Homepage: http://existdissolve.com
Jabber/GTalk: existdissolve
Posts by existdissolve
Universal Reconciliation and the Deconstruction of Personhood
Jun 6th
One of the scandals of religion is that of exclusivity, the belief that the adherents of the particular religion will receive “X” benefits and those who don’t…will not. In reaction to these claims of exclusivity, there are many who attempt to equalize the playing field, so to speak. These advocate that if there is God who rewards humans with “X,” then all humans, without qualification, will receive “X” unconditionally.
There is one level, of course, on which this idea (i.e., universal reconciliation) is an appealing concept. After all, it is difficult to imagine eternal separation from reconciled life with God. As callous as we humans can oftentimes be towards others, there is something innately disturbing about the idea of another person existing in dysfunctional relationship with God for all of eternity. Such reflections quickly lead to sentimentalized conceptions of eternity in which all, unequivocally, are reconciled to God and others.
Unfortunately, the sentiments of universal reconciliation disastrously ignore the issues that lie at the heart of the meaning of reconciliation and forgiveness. In reality, such a move co-opts the crises of reconciliation and forgiveness, replacing them with the opiate of universalism. However, this anaesthetizing of the severe consequences of relationship and its potential dysfunctions More >
Institute for Creation Research: "Proof" for Young Earth?
May 26th
I ran across a fascinating article today. The article discusses "Thousands, Not Billions," a new conference coordinated by ICR (Institute for Creation Research).
The purpose of the conference, simply enough, is to challenge the commonly accepted conclusions of scientific research which indicate that the universe is billions of years old, and that evolution is an accurate paradigm through which to describe the development of biological life on earth.To substantiate this "challenge," ICR commissioned its own scientists to conduct research to find proof for a 6,000 year-old earth.
Although I have some strong feelings about it, I will not spend time commenting on the merits of ICR's "scientists," nor of the methodology they employ to arrive at their conclusions (which, interestingly enough, are presupposed). However, I would like to simply outline some thoughts I have on the issues raised in this article, in general.
First of all, let me frame the issue. ICR's website outlines their mission as follows:
We believe God has raised up [Institute for Creation Research] to spearhead biblical Christianity's defense against godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism.Clearly, ICR believes that not only is evolutionary theory illegitimate, but moreover they make it a soteriological issue. In other words, if one happens More >
Biblical Inerrancy: Helpful?
May 23rd
Biblical Inerrancy: Helpful?
Over the last year, I have engaged numerous individuals on the issue of biblical inerrancy. For many Protestant denominations, inerrancy is a catchword which differentiates conservatives from liberals, those who are true to the Scriptures and those who are not, etc. I am no stranger or newcomer to this argument, for the denomination to which I belong has a definitive stance on this issue. As our Articles of Religion clearly state, [The Scriptures] are the inspired and infallibly written Word of God, fully inerrant in their original manuscripts and superior to all human authority, and have been transmitted to the present without corruption of any essential doctrine. As seen above, the issue of inerrancy is a textual issue. But what, exactly, do evangelicals mean by biblical inerrancy? While a precise definition is difficult to provide given the fact that there is wide range of opinions as to the extent of inerrancy, a cursory understanding can be achieved by looking at The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), a document which has dramatically impacted the current evangelical position on biblical inerrancy. Article VI of the Statement asserts, We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down More >
The Problem with Atonement Metaphors
May 17th
As I was making my arduous drive home the other day, I was listening to our local feed of Air1, the "positive alternative." Often, Air1 has various Christian speakers, leaders, and artists record short, 30-second lessons in Christian theology and biblical interpretation. More often than not, these lessons are theologically uncritical and philosophically obtuse platitudes that only perpetuate the theological wasteland of American religiosity. This particular day did not disappoint. KJ-52, a Christian rap artist and regular contributor to Air1's segments, came on air to offer his take on the atonement. Not surprisingly, he conjured the tried and true story of the train conductor.
As the story goes, there was a man whose job was to make sure that the "switch"on a set of train tracks was appropriately thrown to prevent passing trains from smashing into each other. On one particular day, the man brought his son to work with him and told him to stay close to the booth. On schedule, two trains approached the switch, and the man prepared to throw the lever. As he was preparing to do this, however, he looked up and realized–with horror–that his son was playing on the train tracks. If he left to More >
Calvinism and Open Theism
Apr 25th
The God who determines everything is the God who determines nothing. These were the words I posted in response to a Reformed member of a discussion board to which I belong. The statement was in response to one of the infinite number of similar threads devoted to discussing issues of predestination, foreknowledge, freedom of human will, etc. Almost instantly, I was bombarded with the predictable host of flames, some saying I was obtuse, others saying I was a troll seeking to undermine Calvinism at any cost, and even the obligatory accusation of Pelagianism. One thoughtful individual (a Calvinist, no less!), actually asked me what I meant. I went on to explain that I believed that open theism (a theology particularly despised by the Reformed club) was the natural by-product of a rabid Calvinism. Flabbergasted by my assertion, this individual challenged me to explain. In the following, I will seek to outline what I believe to be direct connections between Calvinism and the rise of Open Theism theology. It is my contention that instead of conceiving of the two in opposition to one another, it is more appropriate to conclude that open theism is actually the legitimate heir of Calvinistic theology, More >
Creation and Eschatology
Apr 14th
A fundamental tenant of Christian faith is that the universe, humanity and history are dynamic. Rather than simply existing as the static expression of some primordial causation, the universe, humanity and history are all moving in a direction. Christians believe that God is working within the cosmos, shaping and contouring it toward a goal, toward a final consummation. Leaving aside the debates about the interpretations of the potential chronology of the events recorded in the book of Revelations, Christians are united, at least, in the firm belief that cosmological history is going somewhere and that this movement is being actualized in the dynamism of the reality which we all experience.
It is precisely this conviction which rejects certain forms of deism. At the height of modernism, cosmological history was reduced to a series of predictable, unavoidable consequences which were merely the logical expression of causal forces. In this schema, God became reduced to a principle causation, to Aristotles' "Unmoved Mover." Being "unmoved," however, God was also the extreme disconnected deity, merely watching as the universe followed the impetus of the divine causality. This conception of God's creative relationship to the universe, however, is explicitly rejected by the Scriptures which clearly reveal More >
The Sinlessness of Christ – Part Second
Apr 7th
In my previous post, I argued that locating the sinlessness of Christ within the circumstances of Christ's biological origin is a major and glaring theological mistake. To this effect, I forcefully suggested that such an approach is effectively a denial of the reality of the Incarnation. As such a perspective ultimately makes Christ "other than" humanity in that Christ needs a special means of biological genesis in order to evade human sinfulness, it is difficult to see how 1.) one can affirm the orthodox belief that Christ is truly, fully and completely human and 2.) that Christ, as fully human, is the savior of humanity. In this sense, if sinfulness is a biologically heritable entity, Christ cannot be savior for Christ cannot assume that which Christ is thought to redeem (the full ontology of the human person) while remaining sinless.
If the biological nature of the transmission of sin is to be rejected, how is one to positively speak of Christ's sinlessness?
The first step is to properly define sin. In the previous discussion, I pointed out a few (not all, by any means!) of the conceptual problems which accompany understanding sin to be a biological entity that can be–and More >
The Sinlessness of Christ – Part I
Apr 4th
Recently, I have been participating in a debate with a hard-core Calvinist at http://www.christianforums.com. However it happened, we got onto the issue of Christ's sinlessness. As the discussion progressed, we delved into an exploration of the nature of Christ's sinlessness.
Indefatigably, my detractor maintained that Christ was sinless because of the nature of his birth. In other words, this individual claimed that because Christ is born "from above" and not of the seed of "Adam," Christ avoids inheriting the sinfulness which demarcates the whole of humanity. In no soft words, I blasted this view, noting that it leads to the following consequences:
1. It denies the Incarnation. If Christ's sinlessness is based upon his genetic makeup, Christ is not actually human. Another way, if Christ has to somehow avoid inheriting certain portions of human biology, how can Christ be considered truly human? Obviously, he cannot. The major implication of this, of course, is that such a "Messiah" cannot really save anyone, for as the Fathers maintained, "That which is not assumed [by Christ] is not redeemed."
2. Not only does it associate sinfulness with human biology, but more specifically it locates it within the male biology. This is a necessary More >
Death, Darwin and Penal Substitution
Mar 16th
For all of its philosophical machinations, Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory (PSA) can be reduced to a very simple syllogism.
A. The "penalty" of sin is death.B. Humanity has sinned.C. Therefore, humanity deserves to and must die.D. Christ has paid the "penalty" (deserved debt) of sin by dying in humanity's place.
Admittedly, this is logical, straightforward, and it preaches really well. However, despite the prima facie appeal, PSA theory is based upon several false premises and is subject to many philosophically incoherent conclusions. In the following, I shall attempt to explicate exactly what these are. Moreover, I shall attempt to briefly note how these issues relate to recent reevaluations of the structure of the universe and the nature of death.
To begin, let us examine the first statement: "The penalty of sin is death." Based upon the oft quoted words of Paul ("the wages of sin is death"), PSA theory necessitates that physical death is the causal product of sin (however this may be conceived). If one is to speculate back to the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden, such a view naturally and necessarily concludes that Adam, before the genesis of sin, lived in a state of non-death. In other words, were More >
Omnipotence…Part Second
Mar 9th
A few weeks ago, I noted some preliminary issues relating to the subject of God's "omnipotence." In this, I discussed whether or not the concept of "omnipotence" is a helpful concept for understanding the parameters and possibilities of divine action. After a bried examination of some of the seminal philosophical issues involved, I concluded that the concept of "omnipotence" is ultimately unhelpful in critically describing the nature and possibility of divine action, as the definition of "omnipotence" must eventually be reduced to a tautology–i.e., "God can do that which God can do."
Continuing on, I would like to briefly note some issues relating to the relationship of human logic and divine ability. This discussion is actually bourne out of conversation in which I have been engaged in a discussion forum at christianforums.com. The questions posed were, "Can God do that which is logically impossible, such as make a square circle?" and "What is the relationship between logical and God's action?" The following is my response to the questions:
Logic is defined by God's actions and nature, not the other way around. God is not unable to do the impossible. After all, as the action of God determines that which is More >
