[extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God

[john-c-wright at sff.net]

Dirk Bruere writes: 

>I don't think it un-multicultural, but a position of ignorance of  the 
>historical Jesus, of mysticism and all the religions that have a Messiah 
>from Isis and Horus to Baldur of my religion (Asatru). 

Sir, with all due respect, it is bad form to assume a stranger is ignorant of 
something when it is possible that he is familiar with it, but might come to a 
differing conclusion about it. You put me in the awkward position of having to 
boast about my learning in an area where, for all I know, you may be more 
learned than me. Modesty forbids I claim anything other than an amateur 
interest in comparative mythology. 

As an amateur, then, I can report I have a passing familiarity with Biblical 
scholarship, Sumerians and Babylonian myths, and so on. I have read Sir James 
George Frazier and James Ingersoll, and the similarity between the Passion 
story and earlier pagan myths is not lost on me. I am not of your religion, but 
I have friends who are, I have read the Havalmal and the Prose Edda. 

Let me digress to express my respect and camaraderie! I hope you are an honest, 
old-fashioned pagan, who takes his gods seriously, and not a modern dilettante. 
It is good to know that there are men willing to die, weapon in hand, eager for 
no softer fate than to be carried by the Choosers of the Slain to the Valhall, 
there to await the doom of worlds. You will fall at the side of Alfadur and 
Asathor, fighting to the last against the rude and monstrous giants of frost 
and fire, the wolf of chaos, the deadly serpent who has all the middle world in 
his coils. This is a fight all omens say is hopeless, and which will extinguish 
God and Man alike, and all our works. Unlike a Christian, no one can accuse you 
of adopting a belief as a bribe: no paradise is promised to you. I salute you 
as a brother. 

You may not think of us as brethren, but, compared to what I used to believe, 
compared to the icy world-view that says we come from nothing and return to 
nothing, children of a blind cosmos-sized machine, compared to that, the 
differences between the various flavors of faith should be measured in 
angstroms. 

If you imagine I am being sarcastic or ironic, put such imagination aside. I 
believe the absurd story that the Omnipotent compressed Himself into the son of 
a Jewish cabinet-maker and died the vile death reserved for a criminal, and 
that this somehow saves me from death and damnation. Compared to that, the tale 
of the God of the Slain crucifying himself on the world-ash with the great 
spear with all the oaths of heaven carved into its shaft, in order that he 
might seize the runes that grant him sovereign power, seems both 
straightforward and sane. A man who believes in the Virgin birth is not going 
to mock someone who believes Heimdall had nine mothers. End of digression. 

>Jesus is but a 
>latecomer in the line of Messiahs, and all the trappings from the virgin 
>birth, the rising from the dead, the travels to the underworld etc etc 
>have a long pedigree stretching back into pre-history. The Jews 
>invented/discovered nothing with respect to the Messiah, but did inherit 
>a vast amount from their neighbours and predecessors.

There are three explanations Christian offer to explain the similarity to 
earlier myths, ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime. 

First, some say devils, anticipating the Passion, impersonated it beforehand in 
other countries as a trick to erode the faithfulness of the faithful. One can 
imagine Spanish conquerors horrified to see the practices of the Aztecs 
impersonating the forms and ideas of the communion and the host. But this 
theory, true or not, sounds rather self-serving. 

Second, some say the shattering supernatural effect of the entry of God to the 
world might have cast echoes or reflections back through time, and the minds of 
men naturally picked up on this. A divine mind might be able to understand how 
effect can precede cause, but I cannot. Third, some say that man naturally 
gropes toward the light, and is inspired by his creator to find those tales 
which approach the truth; it also may be that providence arranged that the 
Incarnation would not occur on a world unprepared for the idea, therefore the 
idea had to be introduced before the Incarnation. 

These matters are too subtle for me. I make no claim that Christianity is 
original, merely that it is true. Were it as original as, say Scientology, I 
would suspect it to be largely a human invention. 

As far as my analogy goes (and it is only an analogy, mind) if I said that 
Euclid’s ELEMENTS expressed the most perfect understanding of geometry among 
all the ancient civilizations, it does not betray an ignorance on my part that 
I do not mention Pythagoras who came before him. The Chinese and the Hindu also 
understood the principles of geometry, and the fragments of text exist that 
show the Egyptians attempted to calculate pi. But Euclid was more clear and 
systematic than those who came before him.  

Mr. Bruere says in another letter:

>>If you are asking me the theoretical question, “would the Virgin Mary 
>>appear to a man in the form of Parvati if he were a Hindu, rather >>than a 
man raised in Christendom?” That question no mortal can answer. 

>Actually, that can be answered, and the answer is 'yes'.
>The archetypes are the same, but the names change.
>The Virgin Mary, as is commonly described, is Isis/Astarte.

With all due respect, this is guesswork on your part. Perhaps what I saw were 
the gods in masquerade, dressed up as familiar figures to please me.  But 
unless you, a mortal man, can peer behind the stage of life and see the 
supernatural machinery, watch the gods in their dressing rooms putting on their 
masks, then you cannot say for sure anything other than the fact that some men 
see some resemblances between tales told of Isis and Mary. Maybe one is real 
and the other is not. Maybe one is a Saint and the other an angel. 

If the gods are dressing up as Christians for my sake, honestly, I wish they 
would stop. Had they wished to impress me with characters I found impressive, 
the ghost of Cato or Scipio would have been far more to my tastes at the time. 

Mr. Buere continues:

>> If we all pray for each other, perhaps we can all be
>>saved, no matter who, in the end, turns out to be right. 

>It's not as simple as that.

I did not suspect that the matter was simple. It is merely my hope that the 
mainstream tradition of Christianity underestimate the mercy of which Our Lord 
is capable. I was expressing a wish, not a creed. 

>>I am not in a position to pass judgment on the truth or falsehood of the
>>assertion. The unambiguous mainstream belief of the Christian tradition agrees
>>with the proposition that Christ is the exclusive door to salvation. 

>Again, you seem to be lacking a great deal of theological knowledge.

Again, with the ignorance crack, my dear sir? I have read what I have read, and 
I know what I know. It may be small learning, but it is all I have.  

I am basing my understanding of “mainstream” Christian theology on my reading 
of St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. With all possible respect to the 
Mormons, I am placing their beliefs outside what I call “the mainstream” for 
the purposes of his discussion. I mean no belittling of their faith by that. 

I am willing to hear you support the proposition that Christians do not take as 
their creed the idea that Christ is necessary for salvation, if you can give 
it. Otherwise, I am not sure in what respect my theology errs? 

>Just to give one example, is Jesus still Jesus if his name was really 
>Yashua? 

Beg pardon? What is this an example of? As best I know, Jesus is a Romanization 
of the name Joshua, which is a Greek version of Yesshua, God-the-Savior. It is 
not theology, but metaphysics, which tells us that the properties of an object 
do not change when the name assigned to it changes. 

>And can we call upon Jesus even if we do not know his name 
>(any of them) at all? 

It depends, I suppose, on who does the calling. A magician cannot command what 
he knows not the true name of: this is the rule of names. A Christian seeks to 
supplicate to his God in prayer, or to confess, or to praise, not to command. 
We ask only that the names we use to glorify Him be treated with respect. 
The other Christs of other religions, we Christians are specifically forbidden 
to call upon. For whatever reason, those are our orders. 

> Can we call upon him even if we do not know he 
> existed/exists? 

It worked in my case. You can shout out the window of a burning building for a 
fireman even if you don’t know for sure the fireman is there. As long as the 
fireman knows for sure you are there, why would he not raise his ladder and 
save you? 

>In fact, *what* is Jesus?

My savior and my Lord. I’d be happy to introduce Him to you. Indeed, we are 
commanded to do so. Knock, and the door will open. Ask, and you will be 
answered.  

Mr. Walter Chen writes: 

>Interesting analogy!
>So there is some cause-effect:
>If you believe in something (such as God), you have higher probability to
get it.
>If you don't believe in something (such as God), you have less probability
to get it.

Well, it is customary in the West to ask the bride before the wedding for her 
hand. So I suppose there is a cause and effect in that case, too. If God is 
real, and those things said of Him are true, He will hear even the prayer of an 
atheist, and may well answer. The answer may be terrifying beyond belief, as it 
was in may case, and land you in the hospital, but it will be answer.