It is common to say that "fundamentalism" leads to violence, yet, all of us have fundamental, unprovable faith-commitments that we think are superior to those of other. The real question, then, is which fundamentals will lead their believers to be most loving and receptive to those with whom they differ? Which set of unavoidably exclusive beliefs will lead us to humble, peace-loving behavior?
One of the paradoxes of history is the relationship between the beliefs and the practices of the early Christians as cmpared to those culture around them.
The Greco-Roman world's religious views were open and seemingly tolerant-everyone had his or her own God. The practices of the culture were quite brutal, however. The Greco-Roman world was highly stratified economically, with a huge distance between the rich and poor. By contrast, Christians insisted that there was only one true God, the dying Savior Jesus Christ. Their lives and practices were, however, remarkably welcoming to those that the culture marginalized. The early Christians mixed people from different races and classes in ways that emed scandalous to those around them. The Greco-Roman world tended to despise the poor, but Christians gave generously not only to their own poor but to those of other faiths. In broader society, women had very low status, being subjected to a high levels of female infanticide, forced marriages, and lack of econmic equality. Christianity afforded women much greater security and equality than had previously existed in the ancient classical world. During the terrible urban plagues of the first two centuries, Christians cared for all the sick and dying in the city, often at the cost of their lives.
Why would such an exclusive belief system lead to behavior that was so open to others? It was because Christians had within their belief system the strongest possible resource for practicing sacrificial service, generosity, and peace-making. At the very heart of teir view of reality was a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness. Reflection on this could only lead to a radically different way of dealing with those who were different from them. It meant they could not act in violence and oppression toward their opponents.
We cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ' most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Religion
What is religion? Some say it is a form of belief in God. But that would not fit Zen Buddhism, which does not really believe in God at all. Some say it is a believe in the supernatural. But that does not fit Hinduism, which does not believe in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, but only a spiritual reality within the empirical. What is religion then? It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. For example, some think that this material world is all there is, that we are here by accident and when we die we just rot, and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that though this is not an explicit, "organized" religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with a recommendation for how to live based on that account of things.
Some call this a "worldview" while others call it a "narrative identity." In either case it is a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things. It is an implicit religion. Broadly understood, faith in some view of the world and human nature informs everyone's life. Everyone lives and operates out of some narrative identity, whether it is thought out and reflected upon or not. All who say "You ought to do this" or "You shouldn't do that" reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position. Pragmatists say that we should leave our deeper worldviews behind and find consensus about "what works" - but our view of what works is determined by what we think people are for. Any picture of happy human life that "works" is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life. Even the most secular pragmatists come to the table with deep commitments and narrative accounts of what it means to be human. All of our most fundamental convictions about things are beliefs that are nearly impossible to justify to those who don't share them. Secular concepts such as "self-realization" and "autonomy" are impossible to prove and are "conversation stoppers" just as much as appeals to the Bible.
Statements that seem to be common sense to the speakers are nonetheless often profoundly religious in nature.
Some call this a "worldview" while others call it a "narrative identity." In either case it is a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things. It is an implicit religion. Broadly understood, faith in some view of the world and human nature informs everyone's life. Everyone lives and operates out of some narrative identity, whether it is thought out and reflected upon or not. All who say "You ought to do this" or "You shouldn't do that" reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position. Pragmatists say that we should leave our deeper worldviews behind and find consensus about "what works" - but our view of what works is determined by what we think people are for. Any picture of happy human life that "works" is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life. Even the most secular pragmatists come to the table with deep commitments and narrative accounts of what it means to be human. All of our most fundamental convictions about things are beliefs that are nearly impossible to justify to those who don't share them. Secular concepts such as "self-realization" and "autonomy" are impossible to prove and are "conversation stoppers" just as much as appeals to the Bible.
Statements that seem to be common sense to the speakers are nonetheless often profoundly religious in nature.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History
17 March 1967: The first woman Marine to report to Vietnam for duty, Master Sergeant Barbara J. Dulinsky, began her 18-hour flight to Bien Hoa, 30 miles north of Saigon. MSgt. Dulinsky and the other officer and enlisted Women Marines that followed were assigned to the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) based in Saigon. Most worked with the Marine Corps Personnel Section providing administrative support to Marines assigned as far north as DMZ, but two Lieutenant Colonels, Ruth O'Holleran and Ruth Reinholz, served as historians with the Military History Branch, Secretary Joint Staff, MACV.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Random Chance
Although the idea of life forming by random chance isn't taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level.
The problems with that theory is like as throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor and forming a simple book. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce Hamlet in anything like te time of the known universe? Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance.
The problems with that theory is like as throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor and forming a simple book. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce Hamlet in anything like te time of the known universe? Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance.
Our DNA
"Human DNA contain more information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the Encyclopedia were to arrive in human code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces." - George Sim Johnson
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Mark's ending (Internal Evidence)
Eusebius gives us our clearest evidence that most NT MSS known to him ended Mark in v. 8. Jerome (one of the early church fathers) repeats Eusebius' observation, although Jerome's Vulgate contain the longer ending; Jerome was also aware of a text we know as the Freer Logion (found in MS W within the longer ending).
We need to recall that Mark was not popular within the 2nd Century; hence this Gospel was seldom cited. Westott, Hort, and Cox, and others list fathers who knew of 16:9-20, of whom the most significant is Ireneaus. In A.D. 180, he knew of 16:19 to be from Mark. But many fathers did not quote from the longer ending and may therefore not have known about it. That is of course an argument from silence.
The external evidence shows quite clearly that from the earliest times we have reliable information that Mark's Gospel circulated in dfferent forms with differing endings. There is evidence that in the second century the longer ending wasn't even quoted; in the fourth century we have evidence that scribes were aware of a problem, the ending at v. 8 was known, as were the shorter ending and the longer ending; by the sixth centuy there is evidence of the shorter ending and longer ending together.
So what is it that caused the hesitation over vs. 9-20, or their omission? Why do most printed editions and modern versions go with the minority of witnesses, and exclude vv. 9-20?
The answer is that the contents and theology vv. 9-20 are uncharacteristic of Mark elsewhere.
We need to recall that Mark was not popular within the 2nd Century; hence this Gospel was seldom cited. Westott, Hort, and Cox, and others list fathers who knew of 16:9-20, of whom the most significant is Ireneaus. In A.D. 180, he knew of 16:19 to be from Mark. But many fathers did not quote from the longer ending and may therefore not have known about it. That is of course an argument from silence.
The external evidence shows quite clearly that from the earliest times we have reliable information that Mark's Gospel circulated in dfferent forms with differing endings. There is evidence that in the second century the longer ending wasn't even quoted; in the fourth century we have evidence that scribes were aware of a problem, the ending at v. 8 was known, as were the shorter ending and the longer ending; by the sixth centuy there is evidence of the shorter ending and longer ending together.
So what is it that caused the hesitation over vs. 9-20, or their omission? Why do most printed editions and modern versions go with the minority of witnesses, and exclude vv. 9-20?
The answer is that the contents and theology vv. 9-20 are uncharacteristic of Mark elsewhere.
Ending of Marrk
Versions
1. The fourth-century Latin MS Bobbiensis (k) is textually the oldest witness to the Latin Bible, with a text going back to the early third century. Vv. 9-20 are absent, and are replaced by the shorter ending. (It is therefore no surprising to see there is nothing from this ending quoted by Tertullian or by Cyprian in North Africa.) Lvt (k) differs from NA from Mark 15:45 onwards, e.g., at v. 16:1; the additions to v.3; and the absence of v. 8b.
2. The Sahidic Coptic usually ends at 16:8. As well as the Sinaitic Syriac, early Arrmenian MSS also lack the verses. The same is true for theGeogiaan witnesses.
3. The Byzantine lectionary system seems to have developed into a settled form by the eighth century - only after that time do most lectionaries contain a reading from the longer ending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)