In my previous blog, I pondered the idea of what would be a valid theophany. I first dabbled with the notion of, if God appeared, what would be the purpose of the divine event? I granted that such manifestations would be done for conversant reasons (a message from God) versus non-conversant reasons (an appearance without message, inspiring notions of God from which content would be invented). I value the case for the messaged-event over against the encounter, which could be passed off as meeting space aliens. Von Danigen would reduce the theophany to this in his Chariots of the Gods. Such a view is simplistic in light of an established dogma that sees God speaking along single lines.
But, what is that single line? It could well be that the single line of dogma as a human convention. This is a viable idea. Religion as human determination of the "Other" could resolve this matter easily. This would suppose that the theophany is a human originated phenomenon.
This leads us to the issue of content. What do the theophanies teach us? And could this core of instruction be motivated by the cultures, the political situations, the internal needs of people as perceived by humanity? In short, is all this in creation of a Santa Claus vision of the divine, a kindly benefactor who is ready to offer gifts to an appreciative group and bestowing coal on those less than desirable individuals?
What if there is a line of theophany which counters such notions? A great defeater of this concept is a line of theophanies which reject a catering to human inclinations and desires, repudiate political machinations that would promote an earth-bound utopia of idealistic dreamers, and cancel human "progress" in favor of a divine "norm" that truly regulates happiness.
Three issues of content quickly arise to promote a theophany that could not be imaginative, but holds aspects of ideas in opposition to human thought.
1. The concept of sin.
2. The concept of a moral law that is seen as impinging on human ideas of happy and fulfilled living.
3. The concept of grace.
1. The concept of sin.
It must be noted that I am not speaking to the human flaw. All religions deal with this. But usually under a line of thought that neutralizes the stigma of this flaw. Karma is a classic dodge of the ubiquity of the wrong within us. Getting what we deserve is a notable detour of the bluntness of being hostile to the divine idea. Sin is declared as an act of rebellion in a world that cherishes its rebels. To deal with sin as sin, we are good with acknowledging the flaw that "we are only human, born to make mistakes." We are not good with the idea of consequences. We can cozy up to the notion of karma, but we rancor against the accusation of sin. Any theophany that promotes the idea of sin could never be a human construct. Any epiphany that would present sin in its bluntness must of necessity be a real showing of divine thought.
2. The concept of a moral law that is seen as impinging on human ideas of happy and fulfilled
living.
Make no mistake. Man needs a code of moral living, and to a real extent is a moral creature. The issue here is the contents of that legal code. The Ten Commandments could be feasible to an atheist, except he would not adhere to the first three which deal with the relationship to God, and perhaps that law concerning adultery. But the honoring of parents (to a degree), not killing (to a degree), not stealing (to a degree), not engaging in malicious acts of lying and defamation of character (to a degree), not being overwhelmed by greed (to a degree). Here we have adequate foundations of moral living. The constant "to a degree" disclaimers in this last statement hold that we desire to live ethical lives, just not the level of morally which would be acts of godliness. Yet, such levels of godliness are evidently expressed. Their appearance, and the theophany that supports them could not be to human advantage, thus not of human origin.
3. The concept of grace.
In line with all these notices of human depravity and a need of a moral law to regulate such whims is the idea of God loving us in spite of the flaws and working to redeem us. The Santa Claus divinity would seek human performance, a consistent zeal towards being "nice." Many religious enclaves seem to border on self-improvement societies. A notion that presents human as basically un-improvable runs entirely counter to best estimates of the human spirit. Again, any divine appearance that promotes this idea could not be reduced to human imagining. Yet, it persists as a distinctive trait in the religious world in contradistinction to similar religious notions. How came it to be?
The thrust of this article seeks to establish the idea of God based on the idea of "I couldn't have dreamed this up. You couldn't either. Whence came it? Any manifestations that these could be linked to need to be taken seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment