This is an open-comment theology blog where I will post various theological musings, mostly in sermon or essay form, for others to read and comment on. If what I say here interests you, you may want to check out some of my books. Feel free to criticize, to critique, to comment, but keep comments to the point and respectful. Many of these posts have been published elsewhere, but I wanted them collected and made available to a wider audience.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Quotable
"It is in keeping with our lot that we should seek, not the loot of the lottery, but the light of the Lord."- Bill Vallicella
Friday, November 29, 2013
Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews
Marvel's INFINITY #6 (of 6)
The cosmic epic centering around the Avenger's cosmic war and Thanos' invasion of earth concludes...and what a conclusion it is! The Avengers finally return home to find Thanos triumphing over their home planet. They join the battle against him in a fight that should go down in comic book history. I'll not ruin the ending for you, but let me say the epilogue includes both triumph and foreboding. What a ride! What a book! Not exactly groundbreaking but very rich in content and very entertaining. It was well worth the price of admission.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Marvel's AVENGERS ARENA #18
The mad Arcade's personal "Hunger Games" using some of Earth's youngest heroes concludes. There is a lot of high drama, though the action left a little to be desired. There is a commentary on modern media and what drives men like Arcade...fitting for a HUNGER GAMES homage. This was a good...though not great...book. And the ending was like unto the series. But worth the read and the costs of collecting it. I recommend the trade paperbacks though.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
DC's JUSTICE LEAGUE: DARK #25
Swamp Thing joins forces with Constantine and the sorceress-nurse that is helping him fight the Crime Syndicate and locate his former team members. They collectively begin an assault against the DC universe's version of satan. Reading this I realized how far the art and pacing have fell in this book. They just used to be better. Still there is some good character development here and a surprise ending I liked very much. It remains a good book, despite the problems. One problem is the way Deadman has been pushed to the sidelines. He is my main reason for collecting this book, after all.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Archie Comics' AFTERLIFE WITH ARCHIE #1
WOW, I haven't been this impressed with an opening issue since MINIATURE JESUS. This is a whole new approach to Archie and the gang. Serious, dark, and frightening, the only thing binding this story to other Archie offerings is the characters and the relationships. This is not kids stuff and it is not tongue in cheek. It is a genuinely horrific book. It is a Zombie Apocalypse hitting Riverdale and it is done realistically. And it is done well. I don't usually like pulp art, but it really adds to the overall tone in this case. The crossover with SABRINA THE TEENAGE WITCH was very well done to. Pick up this book. You won't regret it.
Storyline: 5 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 5 Stars
The cosmic epic centering around the Avenger's cosmic war and Thanos' invasion of earth concludes...and what a conclusion it is! The Avengers finally return home to find Thanos triumphing over their home planet. They join the battle against him in a fight that should go down in comic book history. I'll not ruin the ending for you, but let me say the epilogue includes both triumph and foreboding. What a ride! What a book! Not exactly groundbreaking but very rich in content and very entertaining. It was well worth the price of admission.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Marvel's AVENGERS ARENA #18
The mad Arcade's personal "Hunger Games" using some of Earth's youngest heroes concludes. There is a lot of high drama, though the action left a little to be desired. There is a commentary on modern media and what drives men like Arcade...fitting for a HUNGER GAMES homage. This was a good...though not great...book. And the ending was like unto the series. But worth the read and the costs of collecting it. I recommend the trade paperbacks though.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
DC's JUSTICE LEAGUE: DARK #25
Swamp Thing joins forces with Constantine and the sorceress-nurse that is helping him fight the Crime Syndicate and locate his former team members. They collectively begin an assault against the DC universe's version of satan. Reading this I realized how far the art and pacing have fell in this book. They just used to be better. Still there is some good character development here and a surprise ending I liked very much. It remains a good book, despite the problems. One problem is the way Deadman has been pushed to the sidelines. He is my main reason for collecting this book, after all.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Archie Comics' AFTERLIFE WITH ARCHIE #1
WOW, I haven't been this impressed with an opening issue since MINIATURE JESUS. This is a whole new approach to Archie and the gang. Serious, dark, and frightening, the only thing binding this story to other Archie offerings is the characters and the relationships. This is not kids stuff and it is not tongue in cheek. It is a genuinely horrific book. It is a Zombie Apocalypse hitting Riverdale and it is done realistically. And it is done well. I don't usually like pulp art, but it really adds to the overall tone in this case. The crossover with SABRINA THE TEENAGE WITCH was very well done to. Pick up this book. You won't regret it.
Storyline: 5 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4 Stars
Overall: 5 Stars
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Prayer For Thanks
God, thank you for this moment...
Thank you for your love and all that it produces,
The wonders of existence and the beauty of nature.
Thank you for life and for love, for every breath that I take and every beat of my heart.
Thank you for my wife and our relationship,
For every community of which I am a part, my friends and my family.
For the opportunity to serve you this day.
For the overcoming of darkness with light, the overcoming goodness with evil, and for the overcoming of lies with the truth.
For knowledge and for wisdom, for faith and for feeling, for imagination.
For Your presence, especially in the form of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ, and in the form of your Holy Spirit.
And for all that I have, and all that I am,
Thank you.
Amen.
Thank you for your love and all that it produces,
The wonders of existence and the beauty of nature.
Thank you for life and for love, for every breath that I take and every beat of my heart.
Thank you for my wife and our relationship,
For every community of which I am a part, my friends and my family.
For the opportunity to serve you this day.
For the overcoming of darkness with light, the overcoming goodness with evil, and for the overcoming of lies with the truth.
For knowledge and for wisdom, for faith and for feeling, for imagination.
For Your presence, especially in the form of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ, and in the form of your Holy Spirit.
And for all that I have, and all that I am,
Thank you.
Amen.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
One-Post Wednesday: The Last Moment
I doubt in the last moment many people think about the revenge they never got, the drugs they never did, the sex they didn't have, the things they didn't buy.
I suspect many people in the last moment think about the forgiveness they didn't give, the love they never shared, the words they failed to say, the book they missed out on, or the thing they never learned.
It can be a very fruitful thing, reflecting on that last moment. For any moment may be your last. A Muslim proverb serves me well, "live for this life as if it will never end, and the next as if you will die tomorrow." What did I give to God? This is the question that will haunt me, I suspect. I gave both suffering and joy. I hope I gave more the latter than the former, but there is no way to know for sure, as Ecclesiastes reminds us endlessly. We can only hope that God's grace is what Jesus said it was.
Tomorrow is Thanksgiving, and I will be posting the prayer of thanks I make daily. I am thankful to God for so many things. But it is important to think about the most important things. I thank God for all I am and do. But there are some things I need to be more aware of. What are those things for you? What will you think about in that last moment? What would you do if this day were your last? Worthy things to think about as the day of thanks approaches.
One thing I am thankful for is my readers. My last moment will be filled with less regret because I started to blog more heavily. My words here are given to those who read them, but they are also sacrifices to God. I hope they edify and enrich your life because if they do, I can have confidence they also satisfy and enrich His.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone. You are a gift from God to me. I hope through me God gives a little something back to you.
I suspect many people in the last moment think about the forgiveness they didn't give, the love they never shared, the words they failed to say, the book they missed out on, or the thing they never learned.
It can be a very fruitful thing, reflecting on that last moment. For any moment may be your last. A Muslim proverb serves me well, "live for this life as if it will never end, and the next as if you will die tomorrow." What did I give to God? This is the question that will haunt me, I suspect. I gave both suffering and joy. I hope I gave more the latter than the former, but there is no way to know for sure, as Ecclesiastes reminds us endlessly. We can only hope that God's grace is what Jesus said it was.
Tomorrow is Thanksgiving, and I will be posting the prayer of thanks I make daily. I am thankful to God for so many things. But it is important to think about the most important things. I thank God for all I am and do. But there are some things I need to be more aware of. What are those things for you? What will you think about in that last moment? What would you do if this day were your last? Worthy things to think about as the day of thanks approaches.
One thing I am thankful for is my readers. My last moment will be filled with less regret because I started to blog more heavily. My words here are given to those who read them, but they are also sacrifices to God. I hope they edify and enrich your life because if they do, I can have confidence they also satisfy and enrich His.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone. You are a gift from God to me. I hope through me God gives a little something back to you.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Death As A Religious Experience
I have spoken before about 'mundane religious experiences'... experiences common to humanity that, in some way, seem to point to some transcendent force that impinges on the human condition. Some of those experiences are paradoxical. One such paradoxical religious experience is our experience of death.
Death stands before us in each moment. We cannot ever really escape it, it is always with us. We may do things to push away our awareness of death, but in some sense even this pushing away just makes its presence that much sharper. It is there, in every thought, word and breath: someday we will be no more. Every moment testifies to the reality of death, for each and every moment dies before us. Life is a long story of passing away, there is no way really around it.
I've argued many times that this fact of passing away is what presents us with the problem of meaning and significance. For if death is the final word, nothing we do makes any real difference. The Buddhists rightly recognize impermanence as a problem to any project of self-development or any quest for meaning or significance. People instinctively realize this, and so much of life is a reaction to this fact. Again, many lives are the long story of ignoring the power of death. Pleasure gives one a momentary release from its power. So do many of the mundane religious experiences I've spoken of elsewhere: joy, play, humor, and hope. Other people just give in to this power, they in some sense worship death and find some kind of delight in their acceptance of its power.
Others face this reality head-on, and truly struggle with it. Not content to give up either the transcendent experiences that seek to rob death of its power, nor to ignore the power it does contain, they seek some life that holds the truths in tension. The truths of our experience of eternity and our experience of death. Interestingly, they may find that death has its own transcendent message.
A person who faces the reality of death, can find in it a kind of companion. The passing away of life stands there as a kind of divine call. Reflecting on death can drive us to seek depth in the present moment. I try to savor more richly, to take more time, to embrace the present because I KNOW it is passing into death. Death can make life sharper, more zesty, more real, by giving it an edge of substance. This will be gone, and so I must hold onto it as hard as I can. In this way death actually adds to my own quest for meaning by making me seek the most meaning I can in each moment. For truly, this is my only chance to make this moment significant. It passes into death soon.
So we have in death a paradox. Death comes to us as the thief of meaning, and yet it adds to our need to find meaning in the first place. If I was to live forever, if death was no kind of threat, then I would not need any transcendent source of meaning, for my meaning could be found in myself. Indeed without death life might seem meaningless altogether. The fact of death is the horror of life, and threatens all I value. But the experience of death includes in it a kind of divine call: a call to make the most of the moment. Yet if that call is truly divine, then there is some kind of eternity in the world, and my life isn't limited by the boundary of death at all. How do we make sense of this?
It is here that yet again a process theological perspective can help us make sense of the fullest range of our experiences. For process theology accounts God dipolar: God is partly within time, and partly beyond time. Each moment stands for God an opportunity: an opportunity to be more. God takes each experience of value, and adds it to His own experiential stock. The Kingdom of God itself will be larger and enriched by every moment that adds value to the universe. God seeks two things in each moment: the maximization of benefit for all, and the maximization of 'zest', of depth of experience. The deeper and richer the experience, the more of it is retained for God. But only experiences of value are retained at all. Thus each moment wherein the life of the universe is not added to is a moment that is lost to God. It truly passes into oblivion. And every moment not savored, not soaked in, is a moment that at best exists for God as it existed for the experiencer, as a whisp, however positive the experience itself was.
Thus God takes death and turns it into a call. God can speak to us through our experience of death as He speaks to us through so many other experiences. God reminds us in each moment, to soak up that moment, to soak up all life has to offer, and indeed to make the moment mean something, to do the right thing so that the moment is not lost to oblivion but is retained in eternity. We can also make sense of the same God being the source of this experience AND those that kind of laugh in the face of death. For we are simply experience life as God does: in a dipolar way. The transcendent experience of death is a direct encounter with God's temporal pole. The transcendent experiences that defy death are an encounter with the atemporal pole of God. There is eternity, and in the face of that eternity death is nothing but the servant of life. Yet death's power is real, and it is that power that gives God the opportunity to reach out to us and push us to help add to His own life.
Death stands before us in each moment. We cannot ever really escape it, it is always with us. We may do things to push away our awareness of death, but in some sense even this pushing away just makes its presence that much sharper. It is there, in every thought, word and breath: someday we will be no more. Every moment testifies to the reality of death, for each and every moment dies before us. Life is a long story of passing away, there is no way really around it.
I've argued many times that this fact of passing away is what presents us with the problem of meaning and significance. For if death is the final word, nothing we do makes any real difference. The Buddhists rightly recognize impermanence as a problem to any project of self-development or any quest for meaning or significance. People instinctively realize this, and so much of life is a reaction to this fact. Again, many lives are the long story of ignoring the power of death. Pleasure gives one a momentary release from its power. So do many of the mundane religious experiences I've spoken of elsewhere: joy, play, humor, and hope. Other people just give in to this power, they in some sense worship death and find some kind of delight in their acceptance of its power.
Others face this reality head-on, and truly struggle with it. Not content to give up either the transcendent experiences that seek to rob death of its power, nor to ignore the power it does contain, they seek some life that holds the truths in tension. The truths of our experience of eternity and our experience of death. Interestingly, they may find that death has its own transcendent message.
A person who faces the reality of death, can find in it a kind of companion. The passing away of life stands there as a kind of divine call. Reflecting on death can drive us to seek depth in the present moment. I try to savor more richly, to take more time, to embrace the present because I KNOW it is passing into death. Death can make life sharper, more zesty, more real, by giving it an edge of substance. This will be gone, and so I must hold onto it as hard as I can. In this way death actually adds to my own quest for meaning by making me seek the most meaning I can in each moment. For truly, this is my only chance to make this moment significant. It passes into death soon.
So we have in death a paradox. Death comes to us as the thief of meaning, and yet it adds to our need to find meaning in the first place. If I was to live forever, if death was no kind of threat, then I would not need any transcendent source of meaning, for my meaning could be found in myself. Indeed without death life might seem meaningless altogether. The fact of death is the horror of life, and threatens all I value. But the experience of death includes in it a kind of divine call: a call to make the most of the moment. Yet if that call is truly divine, then there is some kind of eternity in the world, and my life isn't limited by the boundary of death at all. How do we make sense of this?
It is here that yet again a process theological perspective can help us make sense of the fullest range of our experiences. For process theology accounts God dipolar: God is partly within time, and partly beyond time. Each moment stands for God an opportunity: an opportunity to be more. God takes each experience of value, and adds it to His own experiential stock. The Kingdom of God itself will be larger and enriched by every moment that adds value to the universe. God seeks two things in each moment: the maximization of benefit for all, and the maximization of 'zest', of depth of experience. The deeper and richer the experience, the more of it is retained for God. But only experiences of value are retained at all. Thus each moment wherein the life of the universe is not added to is a moment that is lost to God. It truly passes into oblivion. And every moment not savored, not soaked in, is a moment that at best exists for God as it existed for the experiencer, as a whisp, however positive the experience itself was.
Thus God takes death and turns it into a call. God can speak to us through our experience of death as He speaks to us through so many other experiences. God reminds us in each moment, to soak up that moment, to soak up all life has to offer, and indeed to make the moment mean something, to do the right thing so that the moment is not lost to oblivion but is retained in eternity. We can also make sense of the same God being the source of this experience AND those that kind of laugh in the face of death. For we are simply experience life as God does: in a dipolar way. The transcendent experience of death is a direct encounter with God's temporal pole. The transcendent experiences that defy death are an encounter with the atemporal pole of God. There is eternity, and in the face of that eternity death is nothing but the servant of life. Yet death's power is real, and it is that power that gives God the opportunity to reach out to us and push us to help add to His own life.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews
DC's GREEN LANTERN: THE NEW GUARDIANS #25
We'll I decided to give this book another chance. Some big changes have taken place in the Green Lantern books, and I thought this would be a good opportunity for a second chance. This was a pretty good issue. Kyle Rayner is seeking out the secret to human perfectibility. So far the quest is not going well.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's TRINITY OF SIN: PANDORA #5
Pandora confronts the Crime Syndicate's Alfred as her colleague begins to re-engineer Pandora's Box. This book is getting a little repetitive. I don't think the main character can carry this book much longer.
Storyline: 3 Stars
Dialogue: 2.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's BATMAN 1966 #5
This was one of the best books in a very good series. There were two stories here, one with Batman & Robin fighting the Sandman and the other with Batgirl thwarting Cat Woman. The Sandman story
was original and surprisingly engaging. The Batgirl story was classic and entertaining. There was a new approach to the art here too, and it worked, giving a new twist to a classic look.
Storyline: 5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Dynamite's GRIMM #7
This was a great approach to the kind of storytelling we see on the show. Two wessen take up the mantle of superheroes. They cause a kind of trouble that challenges Nick creatively and morally. That is what a good GRIMM story is all about.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Big Dog Ink's LEGEND OF OZ: THE WICKED WEST # 13
A good continuation of the origins of the flying monkeys, this book lacks the near-perfect pacing of most of this book, though it is still better paced than most books. I just love this book. Even the weakest issues are better than 90% of what is out there.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4.5
Overall: 4 Stars
We'll I decided to give this book another chance. Some big changes have taken place in the Green Lantern books, and I thought this would be a good opportunity for a second chance. This was a pretty good issue. Kyle Rayner is seeking out the secret to human perfectibility. So far the quest is not going well.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's TRINITY OF SIN: PANDORA #5
Pandora confronts the Crime Syndicate's Alfred as her colleague begins to re-engineer Pandora's Box. This book is getting a little repetitive. I don't think the main character can carry this book much longer.
Storyline: 3 Stars
Dialogue: 2.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's BATMAN 1966 #5
This was one of the best books in a very good series. There were two stories here, one with Batman & Robin fighting the Sandman and the other with Batgirl thwarting Cat Woman. The Sandman story
was original and surprisingly engaging. The Batgirl story was classic and entertaining. There was a new approach to the art here too, and it worked, giving a new twist to a classic look.
Storyline: 5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Dynamite's GRIMM #7
This was a great approach to the kind of storytelling we see on the show. Two wessen take up the mantle of superheroes. They cause a kind of trouble that challenges Nick creatively and morally. That is what a good GRIMM story is all about.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Big Dog Ink's LEGEND OF OZ: THE WICKED WEST # 13
A good continuation of the origins of the flying monkeys, this book lacks the near-perfect pacing of most of this book, though it is still better paced than most books. I just love this book. Even the weakest issues are better than 90% of what is out there.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 4.5
Overall: 4 Stars
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Off-Topic: What I Did On My Vacation
The lull in blogging was due to my being on vacation. I attended WIZARD CON, a fantasy, sci-fi, and comic book convention in Austin. Here are some highlights from my trip:
Meeting Tom Hutchison from the comic publisher BIG DOG INK. He co-created and co-writes a favorite comic of mine, LEGEND OZ: THE WICKED WEST. I've long wanted to meet some of the people behind that book and I finally did. He signed a comic for me and I got to directly give him my feedback...I was very excited.
Meeting the animator Tom Cook and having him sign my SUPER FRIENDS DVD. He was excited to see it. This man had an incredible career, working on some of the most iconic kids shows of all time.
Getting my Adam Warlock commission from Javier Avila, Jr
The Stan Lee Panel...I got to ask him a question.
The James Marsten Panel... I originally had no interest in this but the guy blew me away. This was a great experience.
The Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Episode... Simulcast with the BBC premiere on movie-size screens, surrounded by whovians, this was so much fun.
The Scott Bakula/ William Shatner Panel... I had a pretty extended conversation with Bakula, and got a very interesting story to bring home. This was the absolute high point of the convention for me.
The Bruce Campbell Panel- This was basically a 45 minute stand up routine. It was absolutely hilarious.
My wife found a Wonder Woman art piece to add to her collection and she got a deal on it. I was very proud of her shopping skills.
Finally, I found a shirt I've been looking for for months.
Overall, a great trip!
Meeting Tom Hutchison from the comic publisher BIG DOG INK. He co-created and co-writes a favorite comic of mine, LEGEND OZ: THE WICKED WEST. I've long wanted to meet some of the people behind that book and I finally did. He signed a comic for me and I got to directly give him my feedback...I was very excited.
Meeting the animator Tom Cook and having him sign my SUPER FRIENDS DVD. He was excited to see it. This man had an incredible career, working on some of the most iconic kids shows of all time.
Getting my Adam Warlock commission from Javier Avila, Jr
The Stan Lee Panel...I got to ask him a question.
The James Marsten Panel... I originally had no interest in this but the guy blew me away. This was a great experience.
The Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Episode... Simulcast with the BBC premiere on movie-size screens, surrounded by whovians, this was so much fun.
The Scott Bakula/ William Shatner Panel... I had a pretty extended conversation with Bakula, and got a very interesting story to bring home. This was the absolute high point of the convention for me.
The Bruce Campbell Panel- This was basically a 45 minute stand up routine. It was absolutely hilarious.
My wife found a Wonder Woman art piece to add to her collection and she got a deal on it. I was very proud of her shopping skills.
Finally, I found a shirt I've been looking for for months.
Overall, a great trip!
Thursday, November 21, 2013
From The Site '"Sojourners"... On Sunday Mornings
http://sojo.net/blogs/2013/11/19/sunday-mornings-are-broken/
I largely agree with this. People believe as much as ever, and they are spiritually hungry. But they are extraordinarily dis-satisfied with the trappings of modern religion. They want community but can't find themselves the communities that exist. Certainly in my ministry Sundays are important, but they are by no means the most important times (that being Wednesday and Wednesday Night). New forms are emerging and the Church must adapt to them. And creating worship services that embrace the culture is not going to do it. I've thought for a long time that the Episcopal Church is uniquely capable of being a force in what is happening because of the prayer book. It has the tradition people want with the mobility that they need.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
One-Post Wednesday: The Real Exodus
Few historians think the accounts given in Genesis-Judges accurately portray the way in which the Israelites settled and came to dominate the Holy Land. There is simply no archeological evidence that people wandered in the Sinai Desert on the scale mentioned there, nor that the area known as Canaan was invaded by some massive force from the outside.
But the Bible is still seen as having some historical foundation. There was a time when ancient documents were considered prima facie suspect. That time is no longer. Nowadays most ancient texts that deal with historical issues and figures are thought to have some kind of historical basis. And what is clear is that at some certain time the Israelites did come to dominate that region. Some explanation for what caused this has to be proffered and a return from exile makes some sense.
The general scholarly consensus is that some subset of the Israelite people did live in captivity for some extended period of time in Egypt. In the meantime, related tribes lived under the foot of Canaanite nations, in a kind of serfdom situation. Their enslaved relatives escaped from Egyptian rule and re-entered the land, disrupting the tribal balance and creating a 'peasant revolt' that eventually, and over a long period of time, led to Israelite control of the region.
There is a lot of evidence for this in the text of the Bible itself. For one thing, Joshua and Judges give quite different accounts of the rise of the Hebrews in some areas, and those accounts conflict. Judges indeed gives the impression of a kind of gradual peasant revolt, whereby the balance of power was changed.
There is also the issue of the splits between the North and the South. The nation of Israel split into two, with the norther ten tribes forming nation which continued to carry the name Israel, and the southern tribes of Benjamin and Judah forming the southern nation of Judah. This split reflected tensions that existed long before, as is evidenced in the civil war recounted in Judges 19-21.
There were also important cultural differences and religious difference. In the North, the name used to identify the God of the Hebrews is El, which just means "God". This was also, however, the name of the chief God of many Canaanite tribes. In the south, the name used for God was "Yahweh", which some believe is of Midianite origin (lending more credence to the proposition that at least some of Exodus is true, as Moses is said to have lived among the Midianites).
In the South, it was believed that true worship should take place in the Temple of Solomon and there alone. Those who worshiped at local altars known as "high places" are indicted as sinners. In the North, the high places were considered normal and perfectly fine. After all isn't God everywhere? Elijah and other northern prophets say nothing against these practices.
Nor do they prophesy against the bull set up at Shechem, which was used to represent Yahweh. It was believed in the North that bulls and calves could be used to represent Yahweh. The South saw this as a terrible idolatry and deeply sinful. But in the North a graven image of Yahweh was considered perfectly fine. (Now with this in mind go read Exodus 32. It will change the text for you.)
In the North kingship was a matter of coups and military might. In the south David's line maintained power for a remarkable period of time. In the North, backsliding into polytheism was far more common, and the anger of God was directed through the prophets at worship of Baal and Asherah alongside El. In the South, this kind of apostasy didn't take place until very late, when Manasseh took over. The main prophets there spoke out against the idolatry of money and political idolatry.
All of these indicate a continued influence of Canaanite culture. It seems clear to me that in the North Canaanite indigenous culture was far more influential than in the south. This buoys up the theory that only a few of the tribes lived in Egypt, probably only Judah and Benjamin. And that is our story for today, children.
But the Bible is still seen as having some historical foundation. There was a time when ancient documents were considered prima facie suspect. That time is no longer. Nowadays most ancient texts that deal with historical issues and figures are thought to have some kind of historical basis. And what is clear is that at some certain time the Israelites did come to dominate that region. Some explanation for what caused this has to be proffered and a return from exile makes some sense.
The general scholarly consensus is that some subset of the Israelite people did live in captivity for some extended period of time in Egypt. In the meantime, related tribes lived under the foot of Canaanite nations, in a kind of serfdom situation. Their enslaved relatives escaped from Egyptian rule and re-entered the land, disrupting the tribal balance and creating a 'peasant revolt' that eventually, and over a long period of time, led to Israelite control of the region.
There is a lot of evidence for this in the text of the Bible itself. For one thing, Joshua and Judges give quite different accounts of the rise of the Hebrews in some areas, and those accounts conflict. Judges indeed gives the impression of a kind of gradual peasant revolt, whereby the balance of power was changed.
There is also the issue of the splits between the North and the South. The nation of Israel split into two, with the norther ten tribes forming nation which continued to carry the name Israel, and the southern tribes of Benjamin and Judah forming the southern nation of Judah. This split reflected tensions that existed long before, as is evidenced in the civil war recounted in Judges 19-21.
There were also important cultural differences and religious difference. In the North, the name used to identify the God of the Hebrews is El, which just means "God". This was also, however, the name of the chief God of many Canaanite tribes. In the south, the name used for God was "Yahweh", which some believe is of Midianite origin (lending more credence to the proposition that at least some of Exodus is true, as Moses is said to have lived among the Midianites).
In the South, it was believed that true worship should take place in the Temple of Solomon and there alone. Those who worshiped at local altars known as "high places" are indicted as sinners. In the North, the high places were considered normal and perfectly fine. After all isn't God everywhere? Elijah and other northern prophets say nothing against these practices.
Nor do they prophesy against the bull set up at Shechem, which was used to represent Yahweh. It was believed in the North that bulls and calves could be used to represent Yahweh. The South saw this as a terrible idolatry and deeply sinful. But in the North a graven image of Yahweh was considered perfectly fine. (Now with this in mind go read Exodus 32. It will change the text for you.)
In the North kingship was a matter of coups and military might. In the south David's line maintained power for a remarkable period of time. In the North, backsliding into polytheism was far more common, and the anger of God was directed through the prophets at worship of Baal and Asherah alongside El. In the South, this kind of apostasy didn't take place until very late, when Manasseh took over. The main prophets there spoke out against the idolatry of money and political idolatry.
All of these indicate a continued influence of Canaanite culture. It seems clear to me that in the North Canaanite indigenous culture was far more influential than in the south. This buoys up the theory that only a few of the tribes lived in Egypt, probably only Judah and Benjamin. And that is our story for today, children.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Partly Off-Topic: "MAN OF STEEL Vs THOR: THE DARK WORLD" or, "Advice For Warner Brothers"
Okay, *SPOILER ALERT*, if you've not seen these movies don't read this commentary. This is a lesson I think Warner Brothers needs to take to heart as it goes forward building it's own film-verse, in response to the massive success of Marvel's cinematic universe. These are things to think about.
I enjoyed MAN OF STEEL. It was a good movie and worth seeing in the theater. The acting wasn't terrible, as it sometimes was in SUPERMAN RETURNS. The writing was pretty good. But the film was not great. I can handle a 'good not great' film, as it can lead to better work down the road. BATMAN BEGINS was a good film, not a great film. The films that followed were indeed 'great'.
However, I feel these characters from top to bottom deserve great film making. Good is not good enough, not really. It will keep the franchise going but it will not cause a phenomenon. I want to contrast MAN OF STEEL with THOR: THE DARK WORLD. The latter was a truly great film. And even the original THOR film was significantly better than MAN OF STEEL. What accounts for the difference?
The truth is that the THOR films embraced the godlike scale and the cosmic settings of the comic books. Half of the first THOR movie took place on other planes and planets, and 80% of the new film was set in such places. I think MAN OF STEEL went off-track by focusing too much on Superman's beginnings. We all knew about those beginnings, we all know who Superman is and where he comes from. Instead, we needed a giant cosmic-level story that took place primarily off of the planet. We needed a character of the scale of Brainiac or Darkseid. The reasons for this are manifold.
First the action sequences are more interesting when they take place in new settings. On alien worlds you can play with the surroundings and make fight scenes which are superficially similar to what we've seen before and make them something wholly new.
Second, story lines can go directions that we aren't used to. There are just limits to earth-bound storytelling. In point of fact, this is exemplified all the times in the comics. Many of the best and most memorable stories take place as giant space dramas. This introduces the novelty that is necessary for making films that are successful.
Third, this stays true to the elements that have made the comics so successful. Go with what works in other mediums. Earthy and gritty stories work well for some characters, but not so much for others. Superman is godlike. Embrace that don't limit it. MAN OF STEEL accomplished some of this by embracing the connection to messianism present in the comic books. And that was very enjoyable. But Jesus Himself is only an interesting figure because He embodies the Divine. Jesus sacrifice is fascinating because it reveals a cosmic significance and a cosmic struggle. Jesus' defeat of the devil is what really makes us care about Him. Without a cosmic scale that drama would just be a footnote in history. I didn't think that the inclusion of Kal's home world and other Kryptonians as the center of the action properly captured a cosmic scale. What would've was a fight in a cosmic context, and a more galactic or universal threat.
You saw a similar problem with the GREEN LANTERN film. GREEN LANTERN should've been THE LAST STAR FIGHTER with green rings. Instead it was the story of a human being who became a cosmic cop. Very little time was spent in space, when in fact nearly the whole film should've been set there. You robbed GL of his most interesting aspect: that of his cosmic context.
Wonder Woman should be the THOR of DC. We need to see her on a kind of CLASH OF THE TITANS scale, working as much or more in other worlds as this one. Take us on a journey, show us what we've never seen before. The intellectual properties are good, now play to their strengths. It isn't that hard.
I enjoyed MAN OF STEEL. It was a good movie and worth seeing in the theater. The acting wasn't terrible, as it sometimes was in SUPERMAN RETURNS. The writing was pretty good. But the film was not great. I can handle a 'good not great' film, as it can lead to better work down the road. BATMAN BEGINS was a good film, not a great film. The films that followed were indeed 'great'.
However, I feel these characters from top to bottom deserve great film making. Good is not good enough, not really. It will keep the franchise going but it will not cause a phenomenon. I want to contrast MAN OF STEEL with THOR: THE DARK WORLD. The latter was a truly great film. And even the original THOR film was significantly better than MAN OF STEEL. What accounts for the difference?
The truth is that the THOR films embraced the godlike scale and the cosmic settings of the comic books. Half of the first THOR movie took place on other planes and planets, and 80% of the new film was set in such places. I think MAN OF STEEL went off-track by focusing too much on Superman's beginnings. We all knew about those beginnings, we all know who Superman is and where he comes from. Instead, we needed a giant cosmic-level story that took place primarily off of the planet. We needed a character of the scale of Brainiac or Darkseid. The reasons for this are manifold.
First the action sequences are more interesting when they take place in new settings. On alien worlds you can play with the surroundings and make fight scenes which are superficially similar to what we've seen before and make them something wholly new.
Second, story lines can go directions that we aren't used to. There are just limits to earth-bound storytelling. In point of fact, this is exemplified all the times in the comics. Many of the best and most memorable stories take place as giant space dramas. This introduces the novelty that is necessary for making films that are successful.
Third, this stays true to the elements that have made the comics so successful. Go with what works in other mediums. Earthy and gritty stories work well for some characters, but not so much for others. Superman is godlike. Embrace that don't limit it. MAN OF STEEL accomplished some of this by embracing the connection to messianism present in the comic books. And that was very enjoyable. But Jesus Himself is only an interesting figure because He embodies the Divine. Jesus sacrifice is fascinating because it reveals a cosmic significance and a cosmic struggle. Jesus' defeat of the devil is what really makes us care about Him. Without a cosmic scale that drama would just be a footnote in history. I didn't think that the inclusion of Kal's home world and other Kryptonians as the center of the action properly captured a cosmic scale. What would've was a fight in a cosmic context, and a more galactic or universal threat.
You saw a similar problem with the GREEN LANTERN film. GREEN LANTERN should've been THE LAST STAR FIGHTER with green rings. Instead it was the story of a human being who became a cosmic cop. Very little time was spent in space, when in fact nearly the whole film should've been set there. You robbed GL of his most interesting aspect: that of his cosmic context.
Wonder Woman should be the THOR of DC. We need to see her on a kind of CLASH OF THE TITANS scale, working as much or more in other worlds as this one. Take us on a journey, show us what we've never seen before. The intellectual properties are good, now play to their strengths. It isn't that hard.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Seven Years In Paradise
Today marks my seventh wedding anniversary. I can say, in the words of Vigo Mortensen, that I was not truly born again until I met my wife. Here are some things I've learned in the last seven years:
1) My wife cannot be the most important person in my life. The most important person in my life is God. The same is true of my wife. She puts God above me, and rightly so. To the degree that God remains the most important person, I am free to be for my wife the man I should be for her, and she can be the person she should be, for me. I cannot turn to my wife for everything, and idolatry leads to disappointment and failure.
2) Laughter is truly divine. We have had problems, significant problems, like any other couple. What has kept those problems at bay is prayer and laughter. When you can laugh at yourself and at your problems, you mute the ego, and rob your problems of power. Laughter is magic.
3) The Buddhists are mostly right about the ego. When there are problems, it is because we forget 'us' and focus on the 'me'. My wife says our problems are the sound of "me, me, me, me". When we forget the 'me' and remember the 'us', life is good.
4) The presentation of marriage in film and television is crap. I am happier in my marriage today than I was seven years ago. Things have overall gotten better, and life gets easier. Things are not monotonous nor boring. There is not greater adventure than the adventure of relationship.
5) Progress, not perfection. Becoming a better process is achingly slow. It is day by day, little by little. I cannot use even the power of love to simply will myself to be something else. But with the power of love, change does come. "With God's help." As my wife always says.
6) Life is short. I have had such a good time these last seven years that they have also been the shortest of my life. It all goes by so quickly. Thank God for meditation, which lets me extend some moments, and lucid dreaming, which lets me step out of time altogether periodically. One lifetime of this is certainly not enough.
7) The world is too hung up on race. My wife is Hispanic and we have a vastly different cultural background. She makes jokes about my race and I make jokes about hers. We critique cultural values and behaviors. This never turns negative or hateful. There is always going to be a divide, and really this doesn't hurt the relationship, it actually helps it. There is a bit of mystery and constant discovery going on. It is fun and interesting.
8) Both similarities and differences are important in a relationship. People say opposites attract, and there are ways in which my wife are very, very different people. Yet we had somewhat similar backgrounds and enjoy similar things, and without these shared interests and struggles we would not be as close as we are. But the differences matter as well. They keep our lives interesting.
9) Forgiveness is life. Beyond the importance of God is the importance of the Gospels, of Jesus and what He came to do. The idea that God is willing to forgive even deicide is a very important message. Forgiveness and love are two sides of the same coin.
10) Honest is life. However important it is to forgive, it is also important to be honest with your feelings. I used to keep a lot of what I was thinking and feeling inside, with Angelic. Now I'm more open with her than with my friends. She knows everything, including when I'm mad or disappointed. It is as important to give as to receive, and it is as important to be open about needing forgiveness as about forgiving.
1) My wife cannot be the most important person in my life. The most important person in my life is God. The same is true of my wife. She puts God above me, and rightly so. To the degree that God remains the most important person, I am free to be for my wife the man I should be for her, and she can be the person she should be, for me. I cannot turn to my wife for everything, and idolatry leads to disappointment and failure.
2) Laughter is truly divine. We have had problems, significant problems, like any other couple. What has kept those problems at bay is prayer and laughter. When you can laugh at yourself and at your problems, you mute the ego, and rob your problems of power. Laughter is magic.
3) The Buddhists are mostly right about the ego. When there are problems, it is because we forget 'us' and focus on the 'me'. My wife says our problems are the sound of "me, me, me, me". When we forget the 'me' and remember the 'us', life is good.
4) The presentation of marriage in film and television is crap. I am happier in my marriage today than I was seven years ago. Things have overall gotten better, and life gets easier. Things are not monotonous nor boring. There is not greater adventure than the adventure of relationship.
5) Progress, not perfection. Becoming a better process is achingly slow. It is day by day, little by little. I cannot use even the power of love to simply will myself to be something else. But with the power of love, change does come. "With God's help." As my wife always says.
6) Life is short. I have had such a good time these last seven years that they have also been the shortest of my life. It all goes by so quickly. Thank God for meditation, which lets me extend some moments, and lucid dreaming, which lets me step out of time altogether periodically. One lifetime of this is certainly not enough.
7) The world is too hung up on race. My wife is Hispanic and we have a vastly different cultural background. She makes jokes about my race and I make jokes about hers. We critique cultural values and behaviors. This never turns negative or hateful. There is always going to be a divide, and really this doesn't hurt the relationship, it actually helps it. There is a bit of mystery and constant discovery going on. It is fun and interesting.
8) Both similarities and differences are important in a relationship. People say opposites attract, and there are ways in which my wife are very, very different people. Yet we had somewhat similar backgrounds and enjoy similar things, and without these shared interests and struggles we would not be as close as we are. But the differences matter as well. They keep our lives interesting.
9) Forgiveness is life. Beyond the importance of God is the importance of the Gospels, of Jesus and what He came to do. The idea that God is willing to forgive even deicide is a very important message. Forgiveness and love are two sides of the same coin.
10) Honest is life. However important it is to forgive, it is also important to be honest with your feelings. I used to keep a lot of what I was thinking and feeling inside, with Angelic. Now I'm more open with her than with my friends. She knows everything, including when I'm mad or disappointed. It is as important to give as to receive, and it is as important to be open about needing forgiveness as about forgiving.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews
DC's JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA #9
In this issue Martian Manhunter and Stargirl continue to attempt to free members of the various Justice Leagues from their psychosomatic prisons. This is an attempt to really pump up Stargirl, to present her as a future major force in JLA stories. It succeeds in this somewhat, though the story comes off as a little repetitive (as in almost the same exact story as last time) and seems to be almost pleading Stargirl's case too much. It is as if the writers are sitting me down and saying "no, really, she is an important and awesome character." Something a little more organic next time, boys and girls, please.
Storyline: 3 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Artwork: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3 Stars
DC's SUPERMAN/WONDER WOMAN #2
WOW, did this second issue deliver. We delve deeper into the new DOOMSDAY saga while Wonder Woman has to contend with some jerky relatives. Since these relatives are Olympian "gods" this puts a little damper on her relationship with Clark.Overall, a good book elevated by one aspect: a full-on fight between Apollo and Superman and WOW, is it awesome.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Artwork: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's CONSTANTINE #8
I haven't been keeping up too much with this book, but I'm a fan of the recent work done with the character in JUSTICE LEAGUE: DARK. The storyline was a bit hard to keep up with at first because of this, but once I started getting the gist of what was going on, I was thoroughly impressed. I liked the way Constantine found a new use for an ancient magical weapon. The art really leaves something to be desired though. I mean really.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Artwork: 1.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Zenescope's OZ #4
I'm really enjoying this book, and this issue had all the elements as to why. I am currently reading two different Oz-based stories right now and I like the fact that they are both very different. Here the entire captivity of Dorothy is re-imagined, with something kept in from the classic story that had just the right hint of nostalgia. The only negative is the pacing seems a bit off.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Artwork: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
In this issue Martian Manhunter and Stargirl continue to attempt to free members of the various Justice Leagues from their psychosomatic prisons. This is an attempt to really pump up Stargirl, to present her as a future major force in JLA stories. It succeeds in this somewhat, though the story comes off as a little repetitive (as in almost the same exact story as last time) and seems to be almost pleading Stargirl's case too much. It is as if the writers are sitting me down and saying "no, really, she is an important and awesome character." Something a little more organic next time, boys and girls, please.
Storyline: 3 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Artwork: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3 Stars
DC's SUPERMAN/WONDER WOMAN #2
WOW, did this second issue deliver. We delve deeper into the new DOOMSDAY saga while Wonder Woman has to contend with some jerky relatives. Since these relatives are Olympian "gods" this puts a little damper on her relationship with Clark.Overall, a good book elevated by one aspect: a full-on fight between Apollo and Superman and WOW, is it awesome.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Artwork: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's CONSTANTINE #8
I haven't been keeping up too much with this book, but I'm a fan of the recent work done with the character in JUSTICE LEAGUE: DARK. The storyline was a bit hard to keep up with at first because of this, but once I started getting the gist of what was going on, I was thoroughly impressed. I liked the way Constantine found a new use for an ancient magical weapon. The art really leaves something to be desired though. I mean really.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Artwork: 1.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Zenescope's OZ #4
I'm really enjoying this book, and this issue had all the elements as to why. I am currently reading two different Oz-based stories right now and I like the fact that they are both very different. Here the entire captivity of Dorothy is re-imagined, with something kept in from the classic story that had just the right hint of nostalgia. The only negative is the pacing seems a bit off.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Artwork: 4 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Saturday, November 16, 2013
What It Is All About
In everything I do, I measure success by the degree to which I feel I am engaging in a relationship with God. God slowly, slowly permeates more and more of my life. When I'm dancing, I reflect on the way dance creates connection between people, and the way empty space plays such a vital role in thinking about what you are doing, and seeing that and knowing it, while feeling the pure joy of dancing, there are moments when I can feel myself draw closer to God. So much of dancing is about the interplay of rules and freedom, and about willing and letting go, it is a lot like faith. And so when I'm dancing I have moments that are truly religious experiences. When dance ceases to be like this, it ceases to be something of meaning in my life, at all.
When I meet a new person, and I fail to reach out to them and to try to relate, I feel I've missed out on the chance to talk to my Lord and my God yet again. When I learn a new fact, if it fails to fill me with the awe and wonder that can only come from the presence of the Holy Spirit, it means nothing. Life fully live is God lovingly embraced, and vice versa.
Martin Luther wanted to put Christ at the center of everything. Reading the Bible was NOT just reading some account of God telling us what we should be. It was an opportunity to touch the very presence of God in Christ Jesus. Isn't this what the Incarnation is all about? Any faith that puts anything, absolutely anything, above the simple and direct encounter with Christ Jesus is simply missing the point. Bibliolatry, which focuses on the words of the Bible rather than the Presence behind it, is an example of this sin.
When I eat good food, I try to remember to stop and think "God is sharing in this moment with me, God is tasting this as I taste it. As I savor it, I save it forever in the life of my Lord Jesus Christ." Every morsel of food eaten without this is not as tasty, not as zesty, and is ultimately all but wasted. What is life without God? Meaningless, pointless. It is not without zest and flavor, but this zest and flavor is over-powered by the tragedy that surrounds it. As the Upworthy video I posted points out, these moments invite us to eternity, but they turn out to be misdirections or lies once reflected upon, unless the invitation itself is fully taken hold of.
If we as Christians are honest, we'll admit that we don't take that invitation as often as we should, which is really every moment. I know I don't. But I'm trying, and I'm getting a little better at it every day. Life is so much better with it than without it. Why, then, do we turn aside from it so often?
When I meet a new person, and I fail to reach out to them and to try to relate, I feel I've missed out on the chance to talk to my Lord and my God yet again. When I learn a new fact, if it fails to fill me with the awe and wonder that can only come from the presence of the Holy Spirit, it means nothing. Life fully live is God lovingly embraced, and vice versa.
Martin Luther wanted to put Christ at the center of everything. Reading the Bible was NOT just reading some account of God telling us what we should be. It was an opportunity to touch the very presence of God in Christ Jesus. Isn't this what the Incarnation is all about? Any faith that puts anything, absolutely anything, above the simple and direct encounter with Christ Jesus is simply missing the point. Bibliolatry, which focuses on the words of the Bible rather than the Presence behind it, is an example of this sin.
When I eat good food, I try to remember to stop and think "God is sharing in this moment with me, God is tasting this as I taste it. As I savor it, I save it forever in the life of my Lord Jesus Christ." Every morsel of food eaten without this is not as tasty, not as zesty, and is ultimately all but wasted. What is life without God? Meaningless, pointless. It is not without zest and flavor, but this zest and flavor is over-powered by the tragedy that surrounds it. As the Upworthy video I posted points out, these moments invite us to eternity, but they turn out to be misdirections or lies once reflected upon, unless the invitation itself is fully taken hold of.
If we as Christians are honest, we'll admit that we don't take that invitation as often as we should, which is really every moment. I know I don't. But I'm trying, and I'm getting a little better at it every day. Life is so much better with it than without it. Why, then, do we turn aside from it so often?
Friday, November 15, 2013
Re-Post From Facebook: On Haidt
A Critique of Haidt's Categories And Indirect Review of "Liberals aren't Un-American, Conservatives Aren't Ignorant"
This was inspired by this article:
http://www.utne.com/Politics/Liberals-Arent-Un-American-Conservatives-Arent-Ignorant.aspx
I have read some of Haidt's stuff before. I liked the overarching point he was trying to make in this particular article, but in most of his research, the data is almost always interesting, his analysis and conclusions are almost always question begging to the point of being nausea-inducing. You see it in this article. He labels some moral attitudes 'rational' or 'rationalistic' and others 'non-rational'. That isn't doing science, it is doing philosophy. And there is good reason to think that it is bad philosophy. The idea, for instance, that emotion or feeling is non-rational is self-defeating since feeling and emotion go into the process of constructing an epistemology, a theory of knowledge and the process of categorizing 'rational' and 'irrational' and 'non-rational' in the first place. All conceptions of what it even means to 'reason' or 'know' are interest-relative and context sensitive. That is the thrust of the postmodern critique and it finds confirmation both inside science and most philosophers who seek to hold on to some concept of knowledge at all would agree with that.
Martha Nussbaum, pulling from the best cognitive psyche research we have, in her book UPHEAVALS OF THOUGHT, argues persuasively that emotions themselves can be rational, and are part of our rational faculties. The idea that reverence is 'non-rational' and only the harm principle is 'rationalistic' is completely unsupported scientifically and philosophically it is suspect. (There is no non-circular argument for utilitarianism and there are very, very good arguments against it. The same can be said of just about ANY ethical philosophy.) Paul Woodruff, using Nussbaum’s research argues in his book REVERENCE that reverence is a rational judgment, and that any mind that lacks a strong sense of reverence is exhibiting features of rational dysfunction. Maybe you are disinclined to agree with Woodruff, but until you acknowledge the possibility, and deal with his (and Nussbaum’s) research and arguments, any labeling falls under suspicion of being little more than ad hoc and circular. And while I can make a very good case that Haidt overstates what we can know from evolutionary psychology, there is an interesting self-refuting pattern to Haidt's pronouncement on these issues.
"Evolution" developed ALL our faculties, our emotions no less than our purely abstract logical functions. Both only exist because of survival friendliness. If emotions and abstraction didn’t help us to survive, we wouldn’t have either. But do they give us access to reality? If you are inclined to think that survival value is going to closely track truth value (that is, if you think a feature of the mind is only likely to help us survive if it helps us see the world as it really is), then yes. If you are disinclined to think that, then no. But there’s no way to do this piecemeal. You can’t just assume emotions are non-rational and then make up truth-independent but survival-friendly reasons why we feel that way, because the faculties you’d be using to make that distinction are sourced in the same place, and there is no non-arbitrary reason why you can’t just make the same move with those faculties as well. I mean, anyone can assume the falsehood of a certain kind of reasoning and then give evolutionary reasons for why people behave or think that way, philosophers play that game all the time. But if you’re going to take that skeptical attitude, then you open up the possibility of adopting it for ANYTHING we have to believe and ANY way we happen to reason. I personally think reason is broader than all that. In the end ALL our faculties are important, but also all are fallible. I think that is the only attitude that is internally consistent, and consistent with the facts on the ground.
But I agree with Haidt that the political discourse in this country has gone off the right track, and everyone falls into using simplistic labels too easily. So what is the problem, really, and what is the solution? If I don’t accept that we are looking at too incommensurable paradigms, or the clashing of rational and irrational worldviews, what is really going on.
Here, Haidt’s own evolutionary psychology may be helpful broadly. People evolved within a context of the tribe. Small family groups, not large scale societies, were the primary moral unit. And because protecting your tribe meant protecting your genes, evolution 'programmed' us to think in terms of one group being better or more important than another. That just makes good natural selection sense. So people tend to congregate in camps and seek to valuate that camp to the expense of others. This is sometimes called 'us and them' thinking.
We naturally think of ourselves as more valuable and important han others, and since it is hard to convince ourselves of this sometimes, we often choose groups that, because of their size and scope, are easier to imagine as of some special value over and against other groups, and we use THAT as our vehicle of egoism. Now, combine that with another problem, namely that as time goes on, and the world evolves at an ever-increasing rate, we encounter more and more situations that are removed from the context in which our moral reasoning capacities evolved. This creates confusion and fear, which reinforces our perceived need for some kind of group context, for a tribe, which offers comfort and security.
The other upshot is that none of us can claim some kind of privileged access to moral truth. That is because, in reality, our perception of a moral reality is vague, unformed, and not really geared to deal with the problems of today. The moral dimensions are larger, but our ability to think about them remain pretty small by comparison. That is on one level a pessimistic assessment. But on another it offers hope. Becuase we can, if we so choose, realize we are ALL in the same boat. And the recognition of our collective ignorance can breed humility. It could also paralyze us morally, but it need not. It is important, for me at least (as a minister) to note something very similar exists within the Christian tradition, and Christianity has at its best times been struggling with a similar question for years: how to reconcile the doctrine of sin-nature with the call to moral action. I think that, if we can admit our limitations in the face of ever-growing moral difficulties, while yet still holding fast to what we believe to be the truth, then while we may not end all division, it will cease this senseless arrogance and hatred festering on all sides.
In the end I cannot be sure of the rightness of any of my actions. And the truth is, I never could. The current state of things really only enlightens what we already knew: that the neurotic quest to remove all moral risk from life, the quest to secure some absolute proximate security, paradoxically leads to an immoral life and creates a kind of ultimate insecurity. All we can really do is take the risks life has presented to us, do the best we can with the limited capacities we have, and throw ourselves on the mercy of God, hoping there is vindication, on the other side. If we can recognize this fact, if we can live into repentance (or some analogous secular psychological fact for our less than religious friends) and grace rather than certainty, we can be saved. It is the uneasy heart of the moral risk taker, rather than the assured heart of moral certitude, that can lead to real moral creativity, stop the hatred that stems from a fear of confusion and unknowing, and maybe even lead to some reduction in the problems themselves.
http://www.utne.com/Politics/Liberals-Arent-Un-American-Conservatives-Arent-Ignorant.aspx
I have read some of Haidt's stuff before. I liked the overarching point he was trying to make in this particular article, but in most of his research, the data is almost always interesting, his analysis and conclusions are almost always question begging to the point of being nausea-inducing. You see it in this article. He labels some moral attitudes 'rational' or 'rationalistic' and others 'non-rational'. That isn't doing science, it is doing philosophy. And there is good reason to think that it is bad philosophy. The idea, for instance, that emotion or feeling is non-rational is self-defeating since feeling and emotion go into the process of constructing an epistemology, a theory of knowledge and the process of categorizing 'rational' and 'irrational' and 'non-rational' in the first place. All conceptions of what it even means to 'reason' or 'know' are interest-relative and context sensitive. That is the thrust of the postmodern critique and it finds confirmation both inside science and most philosophers who seek to hold on to some concept of knowledge at all would agree with that.
Martha Nussbaum, pulling from the best cognitive psyche research we have, in her book UPHEAVALS OF THOUGHT, argues persuasively that emotions themselves can be rational, and are part of our rational faculties. The idea that reverence is 'non-rational' and only the harm principle is 'rationalistic' is completely unsupported scientifically and philosophically it is suspect. (There is no non-circular argument for utilitarianism and there are very, very good arguments against it. The same can be said of just about ANY ethical philosophy.) Paul Woodruff, using Nussbaum’s research argues in his book REVERENCE that reverence is a rational judgment, and that any mind that lacks a strong sense of reverence is exhibiting features of rational dysfunction. Maybe you are disinclined to agree with Woodruff, but until you acknowledge the possibility, and deal with his (and Nussbaum’s) research and arguments, any labeling falls under suspicion of being little more than ad hoc and circular. And while I can make a very good case that Haidt overstates what we can know from evolutionary psychology, there is an interesting self-refuting pattern to Haidt's pronouncement on these issues.
"Evolution" developed ALL our faculties, our emotions no less than our purely abstract logical functions. Both only exist because of survival friendliness. If emotions and abstraction didn’t help us to survive, we wouldn’t have either. But do they give us access to reality? If you are inclined to think that survival value is going to closely track truth value (that is, if you think a feature of the mind is only likely to help us survive if it helps us see the world as it really is), then yes. If you are disinclined to think that, then no. But there’s no way to do this piecemeal. You can’t just assume emotions are non-rational and then make up truth-independent but survival-friendly reasons why we feel that way, because the faculties you’d be using to make that distinction are sourced in the same place, and there is no non-arbitrary reason why you can’t just make the same move with those faculties as well. I mean, anyone can assume the falsehood of a certain kind of reasoning and then give evolutionary reasons for why people behave or think that way, philosophers play that game all the time. But if you’re going to take that skeptical attitude, then you open up the possibility of adopting it for ANYTHING we have to believe and ANY way we happen to reason. I personally think reason is broader than all that. In the end ALL our faculties are important, but also all are fallible. I think that is the only attitude that is internally consistent, and consistent with the facts on the ground.
But I agree with Haidt that the political discourse in this country has gone off the right track, and everyone falls into using simplistic labels too easily. So what is the problem, really, and what is the solution? If I don’t accept that we are looking at too incommensurable paradigms, or the clashing of rational and irrational worldviews, what is really going on.
Here, Haidt’s own evolutionary psychology may be helpful broadly. People evolved within a context of the tribe. Small family groups, not large scale societies, were the primary moral unit. And because protecting your tribe meant protecting your genes, evolution 'programmed' us to think in terms of one group being better or more important than another. That just makes good natural selection sense. So people tend to congregate in camps and seek to valuate that camp to the expense of others. This is sometimes called 'us and them' thinking.
We naturally think of ourselves as more valuable and important han others, and since it is hard to convince ourselves of this sometimes, we often choose groups that, because of their size and scope, are easier to imagine as of some special value over and against other groups, and we use THAT as our vehicle of egoism. Now, combine that with another problem, namely that as time goes on, and the world evolves at an ever-increasing rate, we encounter more and more situations that are removed from the context in which our moral reasoning capacities evolved. This creates confusion and fear, which reinforces our perceived need for some kind of group context, for a tribe, which offers comfort and security.
The other upshot is that none of us can claim some kind of privileged access to moral truth. That is because, in reality, our perception of a moral reality is vague, unformed, and not really geared to deal with the problems of today. The moral dimensions are larger, but our ability to think about them remain pretty small by comparison. That is on one level a pessimistic assessment. But on another it offers hope. Becuase we can, if we so choose, realize we are ALL in the same boat. And the recognition of our collective ignorance can breed humility. It could also paralyze us morally, but it need not. It is important, for me at least (as a minister) to note something very similar exists within the Christian tradition, and Christianity has at its best times been struggling with a similar question for years: how to reconcile the doctrine of sin-nature with the call to moral action. I think that, if we can admit our limitations in the face of ever-growing moral difficulties, while yet still holding fast to what we believe to be the truth, then while we may not end all division, it will cease this senseless arrogance and hatred festering on all sides.
In the end I cannot be sure of the rightness of any of my actions. And the truth is, I never could. The current state of things really only enlightens what we already knew: that the neurotic quest to remove all moral risk from life, the quest to secure some absolute proximate security, paradoxically leads to an immoral life and creates a kind of ultimate insecurity. All we can really do is take the risks life has presented to us, do the best we can with the limited capacities we have, and throw ourselves on the mercy of God, hoping there is vindication, on the other side. If we can recognize this fact, if we can live into repentance (or some analogous secular psychological fact for our less than religious friends) and grace rather than certainty, we can be saved. It is the uneasy heart of the moral risk taker, rather than the assured heart of moral certitude, that can lead to real moral creativity, stop the hatred that stems from a fear of confusion and unknowing, and maybe even lead to some reduction in the problems themselves.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Quotables- What We Owe
"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible." - Viktor Frankl
"When Piedmont died, I knew I had to pay him back for my life. Along the way I learned there's another debt we all owe for the privilege of being alive."- Larry Darrow from THE RAZOR'S EDGE (Film)
"For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men."- 1 Corinthians 7:22-23
"When Piedmont died, I knew I had to pay him back for my life. Along the way I learned there's another debt we all owe for the privilege of being alive."- Larry Darrow from THE RAZOR'S EDGE (Film)
"For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men."- 1 Corinthians 7:22-23
A Collection of Recent, Good, Relevant Posts At Maverick Philosopher
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/11/david-lewis-on-religion.html
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/11/theism-is-not-a-religion-.html
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/11/more-than-an-animal.html
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/11/the-stoic-insight-and-its-limits.html
The second post is something worth commenting on briefly, as it makes a very, very important point that many people miss. Just as atheism is not a religion, neither is theism. Theism is the proposition that God exists. Many religions include theism, or are founded on theistic philosophies, but theism is not a religion. There have been theists that derided or outright hated religion. Separation of Church and State is does not imply an atheistic state. No state can exist without a philosophical underpinning. The United State's founding was underpinned by a theistic worldview.
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/11/theism-is-not-a-religion-.html
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/11/more-than-an-animal.html
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/11/the-stoic-insight-and-its-limits.html
The second post is something worth commenting on briefly, as it makes a very, very important point that many people miss. Just as atheism is not a religion, neither is theism. Theism is the proposition that God exists. Many religions include theism, or are founded on theistic philosophies, but theism is not a religion. There have been theists that derided or outright hated religion. Separation of Church and State is does not imply an atheistic state. No state can exist without a philosophical underpinning. The United State's founding was underpinned by a theistic worldview.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
One-Post Wednesday: Off-Topic- My Favorite Comic Book Fights
I have not read every comic book ever made or even every major comic book story arc ever written. Of the comic books I've read, here are the best battles from them, as I see it. Some are great because of the art involved, some because of the intricacies of the interaction, some are here because they break new ground; they shock and surprise. Others are here because of their bizarre nature and others are here because of import in the history of comic books. These are the best of the best as I see it and according to my own personal experience:
15- The Midnight Sons Vs Lillith & The Lillin (Ghost Rider Vol 2 #31)
The ultimate conclusion of one of the best story arcs I have ever read, this final battle between the demon queen and her terrible offspring and the supernatural superheroes assembled and led by Ghost Rider to defeat her is not particularly action-packed, but it is bizarre and was a great opportunity to show off a variety of heroes' and villains powers. The artwork by Andy Kubert was amazing, with an incredible fold out in the middle. It affected the storylines of many heroes for years to come, and to my mind is the climax of the best writing in the history of the GHOST RIDER saga.
14- The New Warriors & Spider-Man Vs Sinister Syndicate (Web of Spider-Man Annual #3)
This was part of a story arc involving the Sphinx and kidnapped superheroes. That arc actually produced two entries on our list, which is a testament to the writing and the action-packed nature of the storyline. The art was good, and there is an intricacy to the battle I really liked. Spider-Man makes a great temporary team leader and he shines here as he helps the young heroes face down some of HIS oldest enemies. There are a multitude of heroes and villains on display and each gets some significant book time. I simply love it.
13- The Chosen Ones Vs Freddy Kreuger & Jason Vorhees (Freddy Vs Jason Vs Ash Trade Paperback)
This was the conclusion of a trilogy that was meant originally for the big screen, but got moved to comics when the last two movies failed to get produced. Disgusting, disturbing, but engrossing and entertaining like all good horror art, the ultimate conclusion brought in elements from just about every film in the three franchises involved. It was big, it was weird, it was exciting. The scale is incredible. If you've got a strong stomach, you should check it out.
12- Spider-Man & The New Warriors Vs The Sphinx (New Warriors Annual #2)
This was the conclusion to the story arc mentioned in #14 on this list. The return of the Sphinx was a big enough deal, but to see the warriors take him on one-by-one really made for an interesting comic. Again, Spider-Man in the lead helped make the whole thing very interesting. I love it when we get to see Spidey the strategist. People rarely realize how often he plays that role and for good reason: he's been at the hero game a long time and he's highly intelligent. Any time we get to see him in 'action', playing that game, it can raise a comic to new heights. The whole thing felt a bit rushed, though, and one could almost feel that a bigger battle was demanded by the circumstances. It was cut short, and a part two was demanded. We would get that part two when the New Warriors and The Sphinx met again in NW #50.
11- Superman & Doomsday Re-Match (Superman/Doomsday Hunter/Prey #3)
This was the second time Supes faced his most dangerous enemy. Doomsday spends most of this limited comic series fighting other enemies to fantastic results. But when Supes meets him at the end...WOW. Nothing on the scale of their first meeting, but still, an entire planet is almost destroyed in the process and that in itself is fun to watch unfold. The art is fantastic, and the scale is huge. Particularly impressive is the moment when Doomsday and Superman cause a thermonuclear explosion. It is just a well-done fight in a well-done comic.
10- Spider-Man & Ghost Rider Vs Hobgoblin (Spider-Man #6-7)
This is not a particularly intricate fight, but the nature of the whole encounter is captivating and interesting. Hobgoblin has kidnapped a small child and fused part of him with a demonic force. Spider-Man is trying to save the child, whose parents Hobgoblin has killed, while Ghost Rider is focused only on meting out righteous vengeance. The danger to the child, the mystical powers of both Hobgoblin and Ghost Rider, and the sense of Spidey being caught in the middle all add up to an amazing storyline, and Todd Mcfarlane’s attending artwork is second to none. A must-read.
9- Bartman Vs Mutated Springfield (Bartman: The Best of the Best Trade Paperback)
This is a wonderful parody of the classic superhero vs superhero motif. The various super powers given to the different citizens of Springfield is hilarious, and watching poor Bart, a superhero without superpowers, having to face down his friends is entertaining and hilarious. My favorite part is when “Oldblood” (led by Grandpa Simpson, AKA “Coma) faces “WildBRATS” (led by Jimbo). For the homage paid to the classic superhero battle motif, this one deserved a place of honor on this list.
8- X-Force & Spider-Man Vs Juggernaut (Spider-Man #16 & X-Force #4)
This fight is a kind of halting and has a weird rhythm to it, but there is an intricacy to the strategies involved that really makes the battle engrossing and interesting. In particular is Juggernaut’s relationship with Spider-Man, and Spider-Man’s leadership of X-Force. I spoke before of Spider-Man as strategist. Well this is that motif at its best.
7- Spider-Man & Friends Vs Sinister Six (Spider-Man #23)
What? Spider-Man again? Yea, well Spidey’s had some good writers and artists and they have done a bang-up job putting him into some awesome donnybrooks. The front of this book says it all: “If this book don’t got it, you don’t need it!”. Some of Spidey’s best villains armed with supped up alien weapons with a Godzilla-type monster under their control fighting Spider-Man and some of his most powerful and closest allies (including the Fantastic Four). It jumps around a bit too much but well worth the price of admission. This is one of my favorite comic books and one of my favorite storylines of all time.
6- New Warriors Vs Sphinx (New Warriors #50)
When the New Warriors and Sphinx had their re-match, when they finally finished what they started in New Warriors Annual #2, it was a sight to behold. While a bit choppy, the artwork was top notch and you really got to see Nova and Sphinx ‘work out their differences with extreme prejudice’, something that many fans had been waiting for a looooong time. The ending, so strange, so off the beaten path, so surprising, is really what earns this match-up such a high place on our list. In the end, the Warriors use truth, or more exactly the Living Embodiment of Truth, Veritas, to confront Sphinx and make him, ultimately, defeat himself.
5- Thanos, Silver Surfer & Adam Warlock Vs Asgard’s Warriors & Odin (Warlock & The Infinity Watch #25)
This battle really takes place in two parts. The first involves Thanos, Silver Surfer, and Adam Warlock, verses all of Asgard’s greatest warriors (except Thor) on the rainbow bridge. It is amazing. It really shows off the power of Silver Surfer and Warlock, and Thanos just mows through countless warriors. Then it comes down to just Thanos and Odin. In no other book is Odin’s full power explored, nor is there any other battle where the full UNAUGMENTED power of Thanos is fully on display. This fight just boggles the mind. The power levels involved are off the charts. The big downside to this battle is that the artwork isn’t that great. The concept is excellent, however, and the coloring is so good it almost makes up for the weak penciling.
4- Red Son Superman Vs Lex Luthor (Final chapter of RED SON trade paperback)
This battle isn’t on this list because it is all that epic in scope, it really isn’t. Nor is it on the list because it is particularly important in any story line, as RED SON is an alternate universe storyline that had no lasting effects in the main Superman line. No, this fight is about one thing: the ending. The final move, which ends one of the best storylines in comic history, is so amazing, so beautiful, that it enhances the fight that precedes it and raises this into the top tier of battles. Check, it, out.
3- Spider-Man Vs Firelord (Amazing Spider-Man #270)
You may not be familiar with Firelord. He is a herald of Galactus, and his power level is just under that of someone like Silver Surfer. You’d think that Spider-Man, whose powers are mid-range in the world of superheroes, would stand no chance against him. But Spider-Man is more than just his powers. He is a highly intelligent person who has spent years fighting, and has developed fighting skills just under Captain America and Wolverine. No other comic book so perfectly displays the full range of his powers, and what happens when those powers are filtered through a keen mind and skilled spirit. It is one of the most famous battles in Spider-Man’s history, and for good reason.
2- Everyone Vs Thanos (Infinity Gauntlet #4-5)
Thanos is one of the most interesting, dark, and powerful villains in the Marvel universe, and has always been a favorite character of mine. During the Infinity Gauntlet Saga he gained, for the second time, godlike power which gave him near-total dominion over the universe. First, nearly every superhero on earth (at least those not killed when Thanos killed half of all life in the universe) lined up behind Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer to face down the death-worshipping monster. Captain America led that first wave and it made for an extremely fascinating run down of the powers of some of Earth’s greatest heroes, as well as their varied approaches to battle. Then Adam himself led the cosmic beings of the universe (Galactus, the Stranger, Master Order and Lord Chaos and many others) on an all-out assault that nearly destroyed the universe. The Infinity Gauntlet series is one of the best ever, and the climactic battle in the middle of the series is something every comic book lover should read.
1- Superman Vs Doomsday/ The Death of Superman (Adventures of Superman #497, Superman: Man of Steel #19, Superman #75)
It really all comes down to one battle, one battle that would change forever the DC universe and help define the character who started it all. It was a brutal battle that spanned half of the United States and three issues. The full limit of both characters powers are explored in detail and the whole thing ended with the death of earth’s most powerful superhero. The artwork was superb, especially in the final chapter, and the writing was second to none. Important, well executed artistically and well written, it was everything a major battle should be and more. Many of the moments are burned into my brain, and I for one think there is no other moment in comic book history that can take its place. Nor do I think one ever will.
15- The Midnight Sons Vs Lillith & The Lillin (Ghost Rider Vol 2 #31)
The ultimate conclusion of one of the best story arcs I have ever read, this final battle between the demon queen and her terrible offspring and the supernatural superheroes assembled and led by Ghost Rider to defeat her is not particularly action-packed, but it is bizarre and was a great opportunity to show off a variety of heroes' and villains powers. The artwork by Andy Kubert was amazing, with an incredible fold out in the middle. It affected the storylines of many heroes for years to come, and to my mind is the climax of the best writing in the history of the GHOST RIDER saga.
14- The New Warriors & Spider-Man Vs Sinister Syndicate (Web of Spider-Man Annual #3)
This was part of a story arc involving the Sphinx and kidnapped superheroes. That arc actually produced two entries on our list, which is a testament to the writing and the action-packed nature of the storyline. The art was good, and there is an intricacy to the battle I really liked. Spider-Man makes a great temporary team leader and he shines here as he helps the young heroes face down some of HIS oldest enemies. There are a multitude of heroes and villains on display and each gets some significant book time. I simply love it.
13- The Chosen Ones Vs Freddy Kreuger & Jason Vorhees (Freddy Vs Jason Vs Ash Trade Paperback)
This was the conclusion of a trilogy that was meant originally for the big screen, but got moved to comics when the last two movies failed to get produced. Disgusting, disturbing, but engrossing and entertaining like all good horror art, the ultimate conclusion brought in elements from just about every film in the three franchises involved. It was big, it was weird, it was exciting. The scale is incredible. If you've got a strong stomach, you should check it out.
12- Spider-Man & The New Warriors Vs The Sphinx (New Warriors Annual #2)
This was the conclusion to the story arc mentioned in #14 on this list. The return of the Sphinx was a big enough deal, but to see the warriors take him on one-by-one really made for an interesting comic. Again, Spider-Man in the lead helped make the whole thing very interesting. I love it when we get to see Spidey the strategist. People rarely realize how often he plays that role and for good reason: he's been at the hero game a long time and he's highly intelligent. Any time we get to see him in 'action', playing that game, it can raise a comic to new heights. The whole thing felt a bit rushed, though, and one could almost feel that a bigger battle was demanded by the circumstances. It was cut short, and a part two was demanded. We would get that part two when the New Warriors and The Sphinx met again in NW #50.
11- Superman & Doomsday Re-Match (Superman/Doomsday Hunter/Prey #3)
This was the second time Supes faced his most dangerous enemy. Doomsday spends most of this limited comic series fighting other enemies to fantastic results. But when Supes meets him at the end...WOW. Nothing on the scale of their first meeting, but still, an entire planet is almost destroyed in the process and that in itself is fun to watch unfold. The art is fantastic, and the scale is huge. Particularly impressive is the moment when Doomsday and Superman cause a thermonuclear explosion. It is just a well-done fight in a well-done comic.
10- Spider-Man & Ghost Rider Vs Hobgoblin (Spider-Man #6-7)
This is not a particularly intricate fight, but the nature of the whole encounter is captivating and interesting. Hobgoblin has kidnapped a small child and fused part of him with a demonic force. Spider-Man is trying to save the child, whose parents Hobgoblin has killed, while Ghost Rider is focused only on meting out righteous vengeance. The danger to the child, the mystical powers of both Hobgoblin and Ghost Rider, and the sense of Spidey being caught in the middle all add up to an amazing storyline, and Todd Mcfarlane’s attending artwork is second to none. A must-read.
9- Bartman Vs Mutated Springfield (Bartman: The Best of the Best Trade Paperback)
This is a wonderful parody of the classic superhero vs superhero motif. The various super powers given to the different citizens of Springfield is hilarious, and watching poor Bart, a superhero without superpowers, having to face down his friends is entertaining and hilarious. My favorite part is when “Oldblood” (led by Grandpa Simpson, AKA “Coma) faces “WildBRATS” (led by Jimbo). For the homage paid to the classic superhero battle motif, this one deserved a place of honor on this list.
8- X-Force & Spider-Man Vs Juggernaut (Spider-Man #16 & X-Force #4)
This fight is a kind of halting and has a weird rhythm to it, but there is an intricacy to the strategies involved that really makes the battle engrossing and interesting. In particular is Juggernaut’s relationship with Spider-Man, and Spider-Man’s leadership of X-Force. I spoke before of Spider-Man as strategist. Well this is that motif at its best.
7- Spider-Man & Friends Vs Sinister Six (Spider-Man #23)
What? Spider-Man again? Yea, well Spidey’s had some good writers and artists and they have done a bang-up job putting him into some awesome donnybrooks. The front of this book says it all: “If this book don’t got it, you don’t need it!”. Some of Spidey’s best villains armed with supped up alien weapons with a Godzilla-type monster under their control fighting Spider-Man and some of his most powerful and closest allies (including the Fantastic Four). It jumps around a bit too much but well worth the price of admission. This is one of my favorite comic books and one of my favorite storylines of all time.
6- New Warriors Vs Sphinx (New Warriors #50)
When the New Warriors and Sphinx had their re-match, when they finally finished what they started in New Warriors Annual #2, it was a sight to behold. While a bit choppy, the artwork was top notch and you really got to see Nova and Sphinx ‘work out their differences with extreme prejudice’, something that many fans had been waiting for a looooong time. The ending, so strange, so off the beaten path, so surprising, is really what earns this match-up such a high place on our list. In the end, the Warriors use truth, or more exactly the Living Embodiment of Truth, Veritas, to confront Sphinx and make him, ultimately, defeat himself.
5- Thanos, Silver Surfer & Adam Warlock Vs Asgard’s Warriors & Odin (Warlock & The Infinity Watch #25)
This battle really takes place in two parts. The first involves Thanos, Silver Surfer, and Adam Warlock, verses all of Asgard’s greatest warriors (except Thor) on the rainbow bridge. It is amazing. It really shows off the power of Silver Surfer and Warlock, and Thanos just mows through countless warriors. Then it comes down to just Thanos and Odin. In no other book is Odin’s full power explored, nor is there any other battle where the full UNAUGMENTED power of Thanos is fully on display. This fight just boggles the mind. The power levels involved are off the charts. The big downside to this battle is that the artwork isn’t that great. The concept is excellent, however, and the coloring is so good it almost makes up for the weak penciling.
4- Red Son Superman Vs Lex Luthor (Final chapter of RED SON trade paperback)
This battle isn’t on this list because it is all that epic in scope, it really isn’t. Nor is it on the list because it is particularly important in any story line, as RED SON is an alternate universe storyline that had no lasting effects in the main Superman line. No, this fight is about one thing: the ending. The final move, which ends one of the best storylines in comic history, is so amazing, so beautiful, that it enhances the fight that precedes it and raises this into the top tier of battles. Check, it, out.
3- Spider-Man Vs Firelord (Amazing Spider-Man #270)
You may not be familiar with Firelord. He is a herald of Galactus, and his power level is just under that of someone like Silver Surfer. You’d think that Spider-Man, whose powers are mid-range in the world of superheroes, would stand no chance against him. But Spider-Man is more than just his powers. He is a highly intelligent person who has spent years fighting, and has developed fighting skills just under Captain America and Wolverine. No other comic book so perfectly displays the full range of his powers, and what happens when those powers are filtered through a keen mind and skilled spirit. It is one of the most famous battles in Spider-Man’s history, and for good reason.
2- Everyone Vs Thanos (Infinity Gauntlet #4-5)
Thanos is one of the most interesting, dark, and powerful villains in the Marvel universe, and has always been a favorite character of mine. During the Infinity Gauntlet Saga he gained, for the second time, godlike power which gave him near-total dominion over the universe. First, nearly every superhero on earth (at least those not killed when Thanos killed half of all life in the universe) lined up behind Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer to face down the death-worshipping monster. Captain America led that first wave and it made for an extremely fascinating run down of the powers of some of Earth’s greatest heroes, as well as their varied approaches to battle. Then Adam himself led the cosmic beings of the universe (Galactus, the Stranger, Master Order and Lord Chaos and many others) on an all-out assault that nearly destroyed the universe. The Infinity Gauntlet series is one of the best ever, and the climactic battle in the middle of the series is something every comic book lover should read.
1- Superman Vs Doomsday/ The Death of Superman (Adventures of Superman #497, Superman: Man of Steel #19, Superman #75)
It really all comes down to one battle, one battle that would change forever the DC universe and help define the character who started it all. It was a brutal battle that spanned half of the United States and three issues. The full limit of both characters powers are explored in detail and the whole thing ended with the death of earth’s most powerful superhero. The artwork was superb, especially in the final chapter, and the writing was second to none. Important, well executed artistically and well written, it was everything a major battle should be and more. Many of the moments are burned into my brain, and I for one think there is no other moment in comic book history that can take its place. Nor do I think one ever will.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Modalism Transcended & The New Problem
When studying the Trinity one of the issues that comes up is modalism. Modalism is ostensibly a heresy. It says that God exists in three 'modes of being', rather than 'as three persons'. This is a problem because it denies the individuality of the varying parts of the Trinity. It also brings into question whether the wholeness of God was poured into the man Jesus.
The Trinity grew out of a problem with the Incarnation. If the wholeness of God was present in the man Jesus, then who was running the universe when Jesus was alive? The God just cease to exist in Heaven. That, indeed, would seem absurd. Yet the idea that the One True God of monotheism, poured the whole of Himself into Jesus is important to maintain the salvific significance of the Incarnation, the Cross and the Resurrection. The positing of multiple persons, who are distinct yet each wholly God, became necessary to make full sense of the Incarnation, or rather to maintain the salvific significance of the event.
The Bible gives us raw experience of God, it is pure data. Theology tries to make formulas of the data. The central New Testament convictions are: sin makes it impossible for man to save himself or for us to be saved by any human being, only God can save us, Jesus was a human being, and in and through Jesus we are saved. Add to that the Old Testament convictions about the oneness of God, and you see how the problems develop. There is no way to make sense of all this without complexity of thought. The Trinity is the linguistic expression of the tension.
Modalism is a problem, because if God exists in three modes of being, then it seems to deny the full humanity of Jesus and/or the fullness of Divinity within Him. The idea that the One God of the Old Testament is the only one who could save us and yet in Jesus, a man, God saved us is just the center of the experiential encounter with God that the New Testament reflects upon and reveals.
But some of this disappears if we drop the substance ontology that our language is generally tied into. We think and talk in terms of substances and essences. There is a thing, and through investigation and reflection we can find the essence of that thing, as it is, isolated from everything else. But modern physics tells us that 'things' are really 'events', collections of relationships whose intersections manifest to us AS things. When ball is thrown, we think in terms of the thing "ball" and the action it is involved in, "thrown". But as a chemistry teacher pointed out to me years ago, the ball thrown is a different 'thing' than the ball at rest. A ball thrown has a wavelength and frequency, and has a different mass. Energy and matter are one, the energy of the thrown-ness and the mass of the ball are interchangeable. The ball thrown is not "a ball thrown" but "a ball possessing thrown-ness", a quality the ball at rest totally lacks.
So while chronological modalism (the idea that God is 'sometimes' the son and 'sometimes' the Holy Spirit) is clearly problematic, functional modalism is not. For if God acts in three 'modes' then those very actions create three separate realities. The God acting as revealer/redeemer is a unique individual, distinguishable clearly from God acting as 'inspirer' or God acting as 'creator'. Yet just as the ball thrown is still the ball that was at rest, this God who ALWAYS acts in these three modes remains the same God. One God acting in three different ways all the time is One God who can exist AS three individuals.
Relations and actions are no different than what we normally take to be 'substances'. If one God acts eternally in three personal ways, and can be related to in three distinct personal relations, then that God just IS three different persons. The real problem becomes the paradoxical understanding of how action and relation change something and yet we can still conceive of that something being the same. The ball at rest is a fundamentally different reality than the ball thrown. Yet it is still the same ball! The important thing is that the Trinity then becomes an instantiation of a more global philosophical problem. No one has yet been able to make logical or philosophical sense of how we can conceive of what science is telling us about relations being truly fundamental. But it should be clear, then, that the Trinity is not a particular problem for Christians, but part of a global problem for anyone who wants to fundamentally understand anything at all. Once we realize that relational-actional ontology is true, and substance ontology is false, problems arise in conceiving the former AS true, even if we know it is true. But that is a problem for EVERYBODY, not just the Trinitarian.
God is as God does. God always acts and does in three distinct, personal ways. Yet it is still the one God who acts. The ball thrown is a fundamentally different reality than the ball at rest. Yet it is still the same ball. I suggest to you that these two paradoxes are equivalent. So functional modalism ceases to be heretical but the Trinity does not cease to be a problem, but is shown to be a particular instantiation of a larger problem any thoughtful 21st century person has to struggle with. But that is assuming my analyses here is right. And it could be wrong, I could always be wrong.
The Trinity grew out of a problem with the Incarnation. If the wholeness of God was present in the man Jesus, then who was running the universe when Jesus was alive? The God just cease to exist in Heaven. That, indeed, would seem absurd. Yet the idea that the One True God of monotheism, poured the whole of Himself into Jesus is important to maintain the salvific significance of the Incarnation, the Cross and the Resurrection. The positing of multiple persons, who are distinct yet each wholly God, became necessary to make full sense of the Incarnation, or rather to maintain the salvific significance of the event.
The Bible gives us raw experience of God, it is pure data. Theology tries to make formulas of the data. The central New Testament convictions are: sin makes it impossible for man to save himself or for us to be saved by any human being, only God can save us, Jesus was a human being, and in and through Jesus we are saved. Add to that the Old Testament convictions about the oneness of God, and you see how the problems develop. There is no way to make sense of all this without complexity of thought. The Trinity is the linguistic expression of the tension.
Modalism is a problem, because if God exists in three modes of being, then it seems to deny the full humanity of Jesus and/or the fullness of Divinity within Him. The idea that the One God of the Old Testament is the only one who could save us and yet in Jesus, a man, God saved us is just the center of the experiential encounter with God that the New Testament reflects upon and reveals.
But some of this disappears if we drop the substance ontology that our language is generally tied into. We think and talk in terms of substances and essences. There is a thing, and through investigation and reflection we can find the essence of that thing, as it is, isolated from everything else. But modern physics tells us that 'things' are really 'events', collections of relationships whose intersections manifest to us AS things. When ball is thrown, we think in terms of the thing "ball" and the action it is involved in, "thrown". But as a chemistry teacher pointed out to me years ago, the ball thrown is a different 'thing' than the ball at rest. A ball thrown has a wavelength and frequency, and has a different mass. Energy and matter are one, the energy of the thrown-ness and the mass of the ball are interchangeable. The ball thrown is not "a ball thrown" but "a ball possessing thrown-ness", a quality the ball at rest totally lacks.
So while chronological modalism (the idea that God is 'sometimes' the son and 'sometimes' the Holy Spirit) is clearly problematic, functional modalism is not. For if God acts in three 'modes' then those very actions create three separate realities. The God acting as revealer/redeemer is a unique individual, distinguishable clearly from God acting as 'inspirer' or God acting as 'creator'. Yet just as the ball thrown is still the ball that was at rest, this God who ALWAYS acts in these three modes remains the same God. One God acting in three different ways all the time is One God who can exist AS three individuals.
Relations and actions are no different than what we normally take to be 'substances'. If one God acts eternally in three personal ways, and can be related to in three distinct personal relations, then that God just IS three different persons. The real problem becomes the paradoxical understanding of how action and relation change something and yet we can still conceive of that something being the same. The ball at rest is a fundamentally different reality than the ball thrown. Yet it is still the same ball! The important thing is that the Trinity then becomes an instantiation of a more global philosophical problem. No one has yet been able to make logical or philosophical sense of how we can conceive of what science is telling us about relations being truly fundamental. But it should be clear, then, that the Trinity is not a particular problem for Christians, but part of a global problem for anyone who wants to fundamentally understand anything at all. Once we realize that relational-actional ontology is true, and substance ontology is false, problems arise in conceiving the former AS true, even if we know it is true. But that is a problem for EVERYBODY, not just the Trinitarian.
God is as God does. God always acts and does in three distinct, personal ways. Yet it is still the one God who acts. The ball thrown is a fundamentally different reality than the ball at rest. Yet it is still the same ball. I suggest to you that these two paradoxes are equivalent. So functional modalism ceases to be heretical but the Trinity does not cease to be a problem, but is shown to be a particular instantiation of a larger problem any thoughtful 21st century person has to struggle with. But that is assuming my analyses here is right. And it could be wrong, I could always be wrong.
Monday, November 11, 2013
The Existential Bummer
Think about this in light of my own approach to apologetics. Do atheists not feel this, do they not get this? How can beauty but make us despair, and joy but mask sadness and depression, in a universe wherein the invitation to eternity, which these things come to us AS, are but illusions? For theologians, how do we make sense of the sadness if we affirm the eternity?
http://www.upworthy.com/are-you-happy-and-in-love-here-s-why-that-makes-you-so-sad?c=ufb1
http://www.upworthy.com/are-you-happy-and-in-love-here-s-why-that-makes-you-so-sad?c=ufb1
The Ever-Changing, Changeless God
I was very pleased to find that the professor we have for the doctrine of God is in tune with process theology. He is the first professor I've had that is a fan of Whitehead or truly grasped process THEOLOGY in all of its subtleties. It was very refreshing. The class quickly took to the idea of a changing, dynamic God, and saw this as illuminating what they already believed all along.
But quickly the turn towards a processual God seemed to leave something vital out. It seemed to some in the class that we had turned towards the idea of a God that was somehow essentially in flux. Again, Whitehead comes in to help clarify what good theology should actually be saying. God for Whitehead is dipolar. God has a primordial nature and a consequent nature. The primordial nature is the ideal image of what the universe should or rather could be at its best given all of the facts on the ground as they exist in this moment. This primordial nature is indeed ever-changing, in terms of EXPRESSION. But content is always the same.
The upshot of this is that God is not in all ways changeable. If He were, He could not be a ground for our faith and trust, or rather our faith and trust would be groundless. For a truly essentially changeable God could be faithful one day and fickle the next, He could be loving one day and hating the next, and He could be classically omnipotent one day and totally impotent the next. Such a God could not command our faith because we could not trust in him. The ancients, for all the mistakes they made in positing an in-all-ways changeless God were right on this score. They sought a ground of stability in the sea of change that could actually ground our trust and faith. If we fail to capture the truth of this insight, our faith is truly pointless.
And so changelessness, and indeed impassibility (the idea that God cannot be affected by anything external) are not completely without merit. But what must be changeless and impassible is God's CHARACTER. God is always love and always loving, always good and always righteous, always merciful and always just. God transcends humanity qualitatively in this way: what happens to us can affect our character. God's character is never affected by what happens to Him. I can be tortured to the point that I can be brainwashed. My suffering can lead to a loss of trust, and a loss of moral rectitude. People are affected by what happens to them not only in their experience or their emotions, but in who they are. You can hurt me so bad you change me.
This can never, ever happen to God. No matter what God suffers, it never changes who God is. God's character, His goodness, is the eternal stability in a sea of change. God is indeed the same yesterday, today, and forevermore, for God's goodness is truly eternal. The ideal image God manifests as may change with the facts on the ground, but what never changes is that this image is the image of the best possible world, for it is an image infused with the character of God, with the goodness of God. God always guides us towards the good.
Whitehead, then, was simply pointing out something that should have been apparent all along to Christian theologians, that God's changeless character demands that God NOT be in ALL WAYS changeless. For a God who is always love will always feel for His creation. A God who is always compassionate will always empathize, and thus share in the joy and suffering of, other free and sentient beings. Such a God's experience must always be changing, for such a God must always reach out in the most personal of ways to the other. That is just what love, and indeed goodness are.
Thus God's changelessness and impassibility are not at odds with God's dynamism and His passion. They are part and parcel of the same fact: God's goodness. Whitehead's dipolar nature helps us make sense of many of our theological intuitions.
But quickly the turn towards a processual God seemed to leave something vital out. It seemed to some in the class that we had turned towards the idea of a God that was somehow essentially in flux. Again, Whitehead comes in to help clarify what good theology should actually be saying. God for Whitehead is dipolar. God has a primordial nature and a consequent nature. The primordial nature is the ideal image of what the universe should or rather could be at its best given all of the facts on the ground as they exist in this moment. This primordial nature is indeed ever-changing, in terms of EXPRESSION. But content is always the same.
The upshot of this is that God is not in all ways changeable. If He were, He could not be a ground for our faith and trust, or rather our faith and trust would be groundless. For a truly essentially changeable God could be faithful one day and fickle the next, He could be loving one day and hating the next, and He could be classically omnipotent one day and totally impotent the next. Such a God could not command our faith because we could not trust in him. The ancients, for all the mistakes they made in positing an in-all-ways changeless God were right on this score. They sought a ground of stability in the sea of change that could actually ground our trust and faith. If we fail to capture the truth of this insight, our faith is truly pointless.
And so changelessness, and indeed impassibility (the idea that God cannot be affected by anything external) are not completely without merit. But what must be changeless and impassible is God's CHARACTER. God is always love and always loving, always good and always righteous, always merciful and always just. God transcends humanity qualitatively in this way: what happens to us can affect our character. God's character is never affected by what happens to Him. I can be tortured to the point that I can be brainwashed. My suffering can lead to a loss of trust, and a loss of moral rectitude. People are affected by what happens to them not only in their experience or their emotions, but in who they are. You can hurt me so bad you change me.
This can never, ever happen to God. No matter what God suffers, it never changes who God is. God's character, His goodness, is the eternal stability in a sea of change. God is indeed the same yesterday, today, and forevermore, for God's goodness is truly eternal. The ideal image God manifests as may change with the facts on the ground, but what never changes is that this image is the image of the best possible world, for it is an image infused with the character of God, with the goodness of God. God always guides us towards the good.
Whitehead, then, was simply pointing out something that should have been apparent all along to Christian theologians, that God's changeless character demands that God NOT be in ALL WAYS changeless. For a God who is always love will always feel for His creation. A God who is always compassionate will always empathize, and thus share in the joy and suffering of, other free and sentient beings. Such a God's experience must always be changing, for such a God must always reach out in the most personal of ways to the other. That is just what love, and indeed goodness are.
Thus God's changelessness and impassibility are not at odds with God's dynamism and His passion. They are part and parcel of the same fact: God's goodness. Whitehead's dipolar nature helps us make sense of many of our theological intuitions.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Not-Really Off-Topic: DC's FOREVER EVIL & A Critique of Soteriology
DC has a limited series comic book going on right now, that is also a major crossover event in the DC universe. It is called "Forever Evil." In it an alternate-universe version of the Justice League, from a world that is the very birth place of evil, has ostensibly killed off our own Justice League and replaced them. This ersatz team, known as the Criminal Syndicate, is like a group that incarnates satan, extremely evil and throwing the entire world into disarray. They have recruited the world's villains to help them subdue the planet, and so far have triumphed handily over every obstacle. The world is a dark place, and all seems blackness at this point.
Issue three sees some of the villains, those who are crooks and thieves but refuse to kill en masse as the Syndicate demands, banding together to begin a resistance to this new brand of villainy. Issue three was particularly good, as I remarked in my recent comic book reviews. Part of what made it so good was this critique of DC's soteriology, which I have commented on elsewhere. In the DC universe, there is a very theistic bent. There is this sense that humanity cannot save itself on its own, but needs help from 'on high', with some divine or semi-divine beings coming down to do what we can't...to fight the evil we are incapable of fighting.
In FOREVER EVIL #3, we see Lex Luthor criticizing the heroes of the DC universe, particularly Superman, for making humanity weak, and so when a threat comes up that Superman cannot handle, we are lost. Lex insists that salvation for humanity must come from within the human condition itself, and that he is the one to do it. He derides even hope, saying only stern action is the way to salvation. Luthor is a perfect image of the Nietszchean 'ubermensch', a human being who throws of all illusions and takes on life for what it is, triumphing by his own inner resources.
The comic is good in that this message is delivered expertly. Deep thoughts are these, and deep thoughts make for great art, especially in comic books. I understand this point of view, heck I respect it. But ultimately I must disagree, and the comic itself gives the key as to why. There is no salvation from men like Lex Luthor. Those who embrace fierce will are almost always corrupted. They can create, but they destroy more than they create. The vitality of life shows itself ultimately to be at war with the law of life, if there is no God. There is no way to reach true greatness, for true greatness is self-defined. Lex is wrong...if we cannot hope, we have no hope. There is only scant evidence that God exists. There is massive counter-evidence to the proposition that mankind can save themselves. For all the wacky things I believe, that one is just too much for me.
Issue three sees some of the villains, those who are crooks and thieves but refuse to kill en masse as the Syndicate demands, banding together to begin a resistance to this new brand of villainy. Issue three was particularly good, as I remarked in my recent comic book reviews. Part of what made it so good was this critique of DC's soteriology, which I have commented on elsewhere. In the DC universe, there is a very theistic bent. There is this sense that humanity cannot save itself on its own, but needs help from 'on high', with some divine or semi-divine beings coming down to do what we can't...to fight the evil we are incapable of fighting.
In FOREVER EVIL #3, we see Lex Luthor criticizing the heroes of the DC universe, particularly Superman, for making humanity weak, and so when a threat comes up that Superman cannot handle, we are lost. Lex insists that salvation for humanity must come from within the human condition itself, and that he is the one to do it. He derides even hope, saying only stern action is the way to salvation. Luthor is a perfect image of the Nietszchean 'ubermensch', a human being who throws of all illusions and takes on life for what it is, triumphing by his own inner resources.
The comic is good in that this message is delivered expertly. Deep thoughts are these, and deep thoughts make for great art, especially in comic books. I understand this point of view, heck I respect it. But ultimately I must disagree, and the comic itself gives the key as to why. There is no salvation from men like Lex Luthor. Those who embrace fierce will are almost always corrupted. They can create, but they destroy more than they create. The vitality of life shows itself ultimately to be at war with the law of life, if there is no God. There is no way to reach true greatness, for true greatness is self-defined. Lex is wrong...if we cannot hope, we have no hope. There is only scant evidence that God exists. There is massive counter-evidence to the proposition that mankind can save themselves. For all the wacky things I believe, that one is just too much for me.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews
DC's EARTH 2 #17
Wow, this book is intense, and though this issue is a bit depressing it is certainly impressive in its execution. Things really explode here: a lot of strands and a lot of action but this doesn't throw the pacing off. And the art is, as always for EARTH 2, fantastic.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Marcel's LONGSHOT SAVES THE MARVEL UNIVERSE #1
I have always been a fan of Longshot, whose power is my favorite: probability manipulation. Here his powers play a wonderful role as story-drivers. Probability manipulation can drive a story as no other power can... it almost becomes a character in its own right. The pacing feels a bit off, but the story is original. A great start.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's FOREVER EVIL #3
Wow, this book is really taking off. There is this underlying atheological reflection on DC's classical underlying soteriology. I will write more on that later. I disagree with the message but the way it is sent is amazing.
Storyline: 5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Dynamite's ARMY OF DARKNRESS VS HACK/SLASH #3
This book continues to deliver, though there is some unevenness. Earlier issues were consistently "good". This issue is mostly "okay" with moments of sheer brilliance.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
DC's SUPERMAN: UNCHAINED #4
This was a great issue as Wraith's and Superman's relationship expands. The book jumps around a bit too much, and the pacing is thrown off some by that, and the parts with Lex drag a bit. But these are minor issues compared to the overall, which comes off brilliantly.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Dynamite's ARMY OF DARKNESS/RE-ANIMATOR One-Shot
Most of Dynamite's ARMY OF DARKNESS offerings are quite good. This is an exception. It kind of sucked. Everything was off.
Storyline: 1.5 Stars
Dialogue: 2 Stars
Pacing: 2 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 2 Stars
Wow, this book is intense, and though this issue is a bit depressing it is certainly impressive in its execution. Things really explode here: a lot of strands and a lot of action but this doesn't throw the pacing off. And the art is, as always for EARTH 2, fantastic.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Marcel's LONGSHOT SAVES THE MARVEL UNIVERSE #1
I have always been a fan of Longshot, whose power is my favorite: probability manipulation. Here his powers play a wonderful role as story-drivers. Probability manipulation can drive a story as no other power can... it almost becomes a character in its own right. The pacing feels a bit off, but the story is original. A great start.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's FOREVER EVIL #3
Wow, this book is really taking off. There is this underlying atheological reflection on DC's classical underlying soteriology. I will write more on that later. I disagree with the message but the way it is sent is amazing.
Storyline: 5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Dynamite's ARMY OF DARKNRESS VS HACK/SLASH #3
This book continues to deliver, though there is some unevenness. Earlier issues were consistently "good". This issue is mostly "okay" with moments of sheer brilliance.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
DC's SUPERMAN: UNCHAINED #4
This was a great issue as Wraith's and Superman's relationship expands. The book jumps around a bit too much, and the pacing is thrown off some by that, and the parts with Lex drag a bit. But these are minor issues compared to the overall, which comes off brilliantly.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 2.5 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
Dynamite's ARMY OF DARKNESS/RE-ANIMATOR One-Shot
Most of Dynamite's ARMY OF DARKNESS offerings are quite good. This is an exception. It kind of sucked. Everything was off.
Storyline: 1.5 Stars
Dialogue: 2 Stars
Pacing: 2 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 2 Stars
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Re-Post From Facebook: Notes On Robert Wright's THE EVOLUTION OF GOD
Part 1
Im now about 1/4th the way through the book. There is a lot to like about it. I like the interplay of reductionist and non-reductionist approaches, I really think Wright is a holistic thinker. As a history of religion it is top notch, as well, superior to Armstrong's A HISTORY OF GOD. I enjoy the arguments for moral progress and its relationship to religion, and it is well written. On the downside, I think Wright relies too heavily on evolutionary psychology. I read an a priori attack on EP that to me was rather devastating. Some of what Wright things evolutionary psyche has 'proven' has not only not really BEEN proven, but is suspect from the beginning because of massive category mistakes. I think Wright's examination of early Israelite history is too narrow. He makes too many sweeping statements based on tangential research. He needs to read, for instance, SLAYING THE DRAGON: MYTHMAKING IN THE BIBLICAL TRADITION. He extensively talks about the relationship between Baalism and Yahwism but knows nothing about the debt both traditions owe to the Sumerian myths he talks about earlier on. I also think his scholarship leaves something to be desired here. He gives theory A and explains how it accounts for data B and C in the Biblical tradition. What he doesn't give is competing theories of equal interest that may actually account for the same data. For instance, I think it is absolutely true that monotheism evolved out of polytheism among the Hebrews, however, I think his account of how this happen is off a might. He asks unanswered questions as to why El and Yahweh became related conceptually. He may have had an answer to this if he'd known a little bit more contemporary theories in Biblical history. He discounts anything like a real exodus, but rather thinks the Hebrews were always a Canaanite tribe. The truth is both may be true. There is a theory that the indigenous Canaanite Hebrews absorbed a group that had escaped from Egypt, and that this event is what caused so much upheaval in the area. The Yahweh of the incoming group (which may or may not have been actually descended from the Canaanite tribe) then merged with the El of the indigenous group. I actually think this theory accounts for more information than Wrights' does. There are other competing theories, all with pretty good backing. Wright implies too strongly that his position has the most support, even as he tangentially mentions he is using peripheral resources. Finally, he relies too heavily on archaeological evidence that has many possible interpretations. Besides these quibbles, I agree that there was evolution rather than revolution in the development of the Yahwist religion, and in general I've really enjoyed the book. His argument against a purely reductionist approach to neurotheology, for instance, is the best I've ever read.
Part 2
Let me begin by making a clarifying point about my last note: I think that the earliest strands of text in the first books of the Bible point to Egyptian influences AND point to an attempt to counter Egyptian influences. I also accept, a la Richard Coggins, that you have to look to Canaan itself to make sense of some other strands and to understand the Hebrew beginnings fully. The best way to reconcile this, I think is Coggins: that some small group of "Canaanite Hebrews" or some group the early Canaanite Hebrews absorbed had indeed escaped from Egypt.
Now on to the section leading up to the Greeks and Philo. First a word on writing style. Robert Wright is an incredible author, as good an author as he is an interviewer. The only quibble I have is his tendency to say 'zero-sum' and 'non-zero-sum' and 'non-zero-sumness' over and over again. I wish he would've traded the words for symbols (ZS and NZS). It gets annoying. But that is a minor complaint in an overall very well written book. On to substance. I think Robert Wright's thrust is correct. I think his case that NZS relationships foster moral progress is right, and I think that evolution does indeed create these relationships more and more. I agree it has an important influence on religious evolution. However, I think he overstates the explanatory power of his case. Wright is wrong, for instance, that Second Isaiah was written during the Babylonian exile. It is almost certain that it is at least organized (and most of it was probably written) AFTER Babylon had been taken over by Persia and just before the journey back to Israel for the exiles in the now-Persian empire. Isaiah 40 and 41 are celebratory in tone and are announcing that the return has started, Isaiah, as Wright pointed out, lauds Cyrus. But how could it Isaiah have known about Cyrus but that he's writing under Cyrus' rule? Wright is correct, however, that Second Isaiah is not simply universalst, nor that there is a simple evolution towards universalism, but that the movment is up and down depending on circumstances, generally. Normal Podhoretz makes a similar case in THE PROPHETS, and argues the case persuasively. Wright is also wrong about the Priestly writer. I think SLAYING THE DRAGON gets closer to the actual Priestly writer's project. I think P was writing during the exile, before Persian rule, and I think the attempt to make the use of the term Elohim mean what Wright tries to make it means is a big, big stretch. From what I've read and studied, and making my own best judgment, it seems to me that Egypt is more a metaphor for Babylon, and the mythologizing of the exodus is more about hope. I see P more as a guerilla writing project, underground and in revolt against the Baylonian leadership. The attempt to make ALL universalism the result of NZS relationships is also suspect. He ignores completely, for instance, the Persian-era Tritio-Isaiac Isaiah 56, which is clearly a universalist text written by foreigners and eunuchs and others who were living within Israel but had been rejected by the wider Jewish society. The ability of those who are oppressed to attain moral insight due simply to the fact that they ARE oppressed is impressive in its own right, and I think there are examples of that in the Bible, such as Isaiah 56. I think Isaiah 56 enlightens some of Wrights over reaching. Though, indeed, I think that generally speaking, Wright is correct: it is NZS relationships that foster the moral growth of religion. Finally, I found the exposition of the Greek and Roman eras very fascinating, and his NZS interpretation make a lot of sense of those relationships. I had wanted to learn more about Philo since Sandmel's THE GENIUS OF PAUL, and was glad to get the chance to. Overally, the middle of the book has been top notch, but Wright certainly has a bad tendency to overstate is case.
Part 3
This reviews the section beginning with Wright's own vision of a Logos theology through the Christian era. Let me begin by saying that I have a lot of sympathies for Wright's Logos theology, I think his vision of a scientifically compatible theology, pulled from Philo's work, is impressive. I would say that I prefer the abstract theology of Whithead, which I think retains the best of Wright's own worldview but adds an intimacy between God and the universe that Wright lacks. Whithead's provision for a God who is intimately involved in the universe without being coercively intervening, and a God who indeed becomes incarnate through creation, has the same effect as the imminent Logos without removing the transcendence of the universe itself. Wright has a trancendent God and an imminent Logos, Whitehead has a God that transcends the universe AND a universe that transcends God, to some extant. This will reveal another weakness for Wright I'll come to later. But in the overall, Wright's Logos theology is very, very impressive, and a good read.
Wright's views on Jesus and Paul are both in broad strokes correct. Jesus was far more Judeo-centric than we normall are taught or we seen in most of the gospels. Paul is the genius of universal lover Wright makes him out to be. A person could read Wright as a part of an overall new testament education and get a lot out of it, I would always caveat that it needs to be one part of a greater education. However, Wright seems to take each thinker and believe he can somehow 'distill' his core beliefs and insights. Lacking in Wright's analaysis is any nuanced discussion of the fact that thinkers' views change over time. Paul's thinking on various matters changed over a 30 year or so period, and I think even Jesus' views changed on various matters over time. This strikes me as odd. That such an evolutionary thinker could treat individuals as themselves so static is odd. And so what we get is Jesus and Paul as each having one overarching vision and project that was stuck in one place for all time. I think in both individuals a lot of changes took place. Jesus, for instance, I think lacked an emphasis on redemptive suffering until John is beheaded, and rather originally focused on a 'remnant theology' and creating a moral community to fulfill scripture, later adding in the possibility of his own imprisonment and death after John's execution. I think Paul's views on Christian human nature change over time. And I think Jesus' ideas about inclusivity evolve. I think Jesus' end position was probably the general pharasaic position: that Jews could be recieved into God's kingdom by following the Mosaic covenant, and that gentiles could be recieved into God's kingdom by following the Noahdic covenant.
Wright overestimates his ability to discern which parts of the gospel are historical are which are not. His heavy reliance on Mark has less basis in fact than he thinks. Sammy Sandmel argues persuasively that Mark is not as historical as some might think, though I agree with Wright that it is more historical than the other gospels. Wright also puts way, way too much historical stock in the Book of Acts, and while I think Acts has some grounding in history, it is far more apocryphal than Wright realizes. A much broader skepticism is called for here, and thus historical reconstructions must allow for more pluralism. I think, for instance, a la Russell Pregeant, that the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke probably harkens back to Jesus' time, because the story doesn't make much sense told to a Gentile or Samaritan crowd, it only really has the impact it does put into a 1st century Jewish context, and I think Wright gets that story all wrong. Wright is not as able to separate the 'sheep from the goats' when it comes to the gospels as much as he thinks he is, and the result becomes some circular reasoning, interpreting passages that challenge his thesis in such a way that they mean what he wants them to mean. But I think Jesus was a less consistent thinker than Wright believes he was, and that more or less universalism was present in Jesus' thinking at different times. A lot of Wright's interpretations of texts actually miss the point, I think (the Samaritan example is one).
One thing that kind of showed Wright's less than perfect expertise in this field was his complete lack of mention of the connection between Philo and Paul. He spends copious amounts of time on both thinkers and the themes of universal ethics in both thinkers, he compares and contrasts them and never brings up the fact that Paul studied Philo, almost certainly. Sammy Sandmel establishes this fact conclusively, Paul paraphrases Philo in a couple of places. That oversight betrays the fact that some of Wright's details are off, and I think justifies some of my criticism. However, Wright's OVERALL appraisal of Paul is top-notch, I think that Paul is playing many of the roles Wright thinks he is, and that these roles influenced his theology. Wright's attempt to flesh out the details on how it all worked leaves a bit to be desired, some of his stuff really seems to be stretching a point. And I think Wright, as he discusses social forces' influence on ideas, underestimates the power of ideas themselves, and this gets him into trouble sometimes.
I think that much of Wright's analysis of an evolutionary process within early Christianity is so, freaking, good. His recognition of the complexity of religious belief systems is second to none, and he gives good natural selection analyses of why the various strands developed, and stopped developing, the way they did. Again, a great history of early Christianity, a good source for some general historical info. But Wright is too 'inevitablist' and deterministic. He lacks a clear vision of free will. His claim that someone fulfilling the various roles in history is inevitable rings no truth with me. And it contradicts something he says earlier. Wright claims at one point that the Logos creates opportunities for growth, but does not guarantee growth, but in his discussion of Christianity he claims that Jesus and Paul were really interchangeable, that SOMEone would've done what they did, because of the Logos' activity in history. But that doesn't seem right to me. Some opportunities to do something like what they did, may have come up, but it takes certain people at certain times to respond to those opportunities. And this reveals the superiority of Whithead. Whitehead's God gives options, and calls people to new ideal possibilities, and retains the consequences, in this way, a possible progressivism is retained without some absolute faith in the progressive directionality of history. History CAN be directional, because of God's influence, but it need not be. Whitehead says that every decision made leaves the world with a greater or lesser imprint of God. Wright's implicity determinism clouds this (to me clear) insight: the world trancends God as God transcends the world, and so nothing is inevitable. Jesus and Paul were special because they responded to the call, the call may have come anyways, but that is no guarantee that these men would've fuliflled that role.
Part 4
This review of the section on Islam will be shorter than the rest for the simple reason that I know less about Islam, and so have less to review.
Wright's exposition of Islam is top notch, he takes a fresh approach that is lacking in many historians: a source critical approach. Wright is correct that the Koran is inconsistent because it is written at different times in Muhammed's life, and that because Muhammed's position changed, you can coherently create many different "Islams" from the substance of the book. I found it disconcerting, however, that Wright would see Muhammed in such an 'evolutionary' way, but lacked the ability to apply the same principle to Jesus or Paul, who while not AS fluid as Muhammed, changed in their perpsectives as well. I was also very satisfied that Wright was willing to quesiton if as much of the Quran was written by Muhammed as traditionally thought. However, he's inconsistent on this point. Sometimes his argument appeals to the 'fact' that the Quran likely reflects Muhammed's actual words, and sometimes it appeals to the likelihood of an edited oral tradition. There's some inconsistency in his method, on this point, and he never clarifies it. Some of his historical reconstructions, again, strike me as reaching. I don't think he can with any confidence say, for instance, that Islam began as a Judaistic movement, and I'm not impressed by his arguments on that account. He may well be right, but his evidence is suspect. In fact, Wright admits that he is using a source that has been rejected by the general society of historical scholarship. In other words, most historians think the people he is citing are wrong, but he holds to the evidence anyway. This again enlightens something: Wright is really bending a lot of evidence to his will in order to make his case. He stretches, a lot, to make the evidence fit his theory. This bothers me. It's slightly intellectually dishonest. But in the end, his history of early Islam may be the best I've ever read. It is about time a popular writer took a source critical eye to the Quran, and Wright did, for that alone the section is worth the read, and in the end I'm more informed for having read it.
Part 5
Wright's overall vision is one I have a lot of agreement with: that there are good reasons to believe in God, but not the God of traditional theism. I'm not sure HIS vision of God I am in total agreement with, but I think I have a lot of sympathy for it. His section on "God as Love" is particularly interesting. The final section of the book involves way, way too much evolutionary psychology, and none of his sweeping statements about how we evolved what psychological features has anything close to a lot of credence with me. Every time I read an account by him, that old article just started popping in my mind. To state it briefly: Wright overestimates our ability to have a clear picture of the environment within which our brain evolved, he underestimates how quickly evolution can take place and so can't really say connect the conjectures of the original environment with WHY this or that psychological state continues to exist TODAY, and the methodologies of evolutionary psychology violage the methodologies of other branches of evolutionary biology. In short, there is reason to be very skeptical of everything he says on this matter. Also missing from Wright is the perspective of the thinking, feeling, DECIDING, individual. There is no existential or phenomenological element. I agree with his conclusion that the history of God is the history of a projection, and that the history of that projection itself gives us some reason to think that God may be a projection AND yet still more than a projection, but I prefer, say, Peter Berger's arguments in A RUMOR OF ANGELS for why we should think this, than Wright's. This brings up a contradiction I pointed to earlier, that comes up again at the end of the book. I think Wright's 'diagnosis' of the modern problems for religion and the world is largely correct, I think his 'solution' is less correct but still possesses some good insights, however, Wright's caution about the dangers of the current world situation begs an important question. Wright's description is largely materialist, and earlier in the book he claims that the niches that developed at different points in the history of religion would've been inevitably filled by SOME evolving cultural phenomenon. But he claims at the end that just because religions COULD evolve into something world-saving, they won't necessarily do so. It is like an opportunity has evolved, but that we can DECIDE to take it, or decide not to take it. But it is just this vision of a deciding individual (or society) that is completely lacking in his account. And this contradicts the earlier claims of inevitability in religious evolution earlier on. I also think that Wright's writing got a little dryer and less dynamic towards the end of the book, I wasn't as engaged as I was when he was playing the role of the historian. He is a better historical writer than philosophical writer.
In the end, I think Wright's book is quite good. It challenges assumptions, and gives a good overview of the history of the idea of God, seen from the point of view of the social forces 'on the ground'. In that sense, though, it is only half the story. I was kind of let down to see, at the end, Wright wasn't AS holistic a thinker as I gathered from the beginning of the book, or at least the end of the book didn't reflect that. (I still think Wright does a better job than most at bringing in both reductionist and non-reductionist points of view, though). Wright's thesis in the final analysis over reaches. Wright admits that the power of ideas plays some role in the evolution of the concept of God, but severely subjugates that story to the one about social forces. In order to make his case, Wright over reaches on the data as well. He cherry picks historical data, misrepresents many facts, chooses to side with severely minority views when it suits his purposes, and winds up with some circular arguments, gentle sophisms, unintential misdirections and mild contradictions. The historical reconstruction he comes up with he then insists is the correct one, and he is able to do this effectively because he's a good writer, but the historical picture he comes up with is rather controversial, to say the least, and there's no recognition of that fact. Contrast this with Podhoretz's book on the prophets. Podhoretz deals directly with historical thinkers that contradict his own view, he admits that his position is a minority position but points out, rightly, that there really IS no 'majority position' on all but a few points, and that ultimately, a plurality of historical reconstructions can probably be made that are reasonable. Because Wright fails to do that, he violates some of his intellectual duties, and so when he gets the details wrong, and I think he does enough of the time to be concerned about it, it comes off has less forgivable (but not unforgivable). In he end, the history of the power of an idea and the history of the facts on the ground are inevitably intertwined, and you cannot tell where one begins and the other ends, or which was primary and when and to what degree. Becuase of Wright's skill as a writer and because of the truth of his overall vision, I would highly recommend the book, but ONLY to those who already had enough of a background in Biblical history and philosophy to put a critical eye to the book. Without that background, the book would misdirect too much, and in a convincing way. In that sense, the book is wonderful, and dangerous, all at the same time.
Im now about 1/4th the way through the book. There is a lot to like about it. I like the interplay of reductionist and non-reductionist approaches, I really think Wright is a holistic thinker. As a history of religion it is top notch, as well, superior to Armstrong's A HISTORY OF GOD. I enjoy the arguments for moral progress and its relationship to religion, and it is well written. On the downside, I think Wright relies too heavily on evolutionary psychology. I read an a priori attack on EP that to me was rather devastating. Some of what Wright things evolutionary psyche has 'proven' has not only not really BEEN proven, but is suspect from the beginning because of massive category mistakes. I think Wright's examination of early Israelite history is too narrow. He makes too many sweeping statements based on tangential research. He needs to read, for instance, SLAYING THE DRAGON: MYTHMAKING IN THE BIBLICAL TRADITION. He extensively talks about the relationship between Baalism and Yahwism but knows nothing about the debt both traditions owe to the Sumerian myths he talks about earlier on. I also think his scholarship leaves something to be desired here. He gives theory A and explains how it accounts for data B and C in the Biblical tradition. What he doesn't give is competing theories of equal interest that may actually account for the same data. For instance, I think it is absolutely true that monotheism evolved out of polytheism among the Hebrews, however, I think his account of how this happen is off a might. He asks unanswered questions as to why El and Yahweh became related conceptually. He may have had an answer to this if he'd known a little bit more contemporary theories in Biblical history. He discounts anything like a real exodus, but rather thinks the Hebrews were always a Canaanite tribe. The truth is both may be true. There is a theory that the indigenous Canaanite Hebrews absorbed a group that had escaped from Egypt, and that this event is what caused so much upheaval in the area. The Yahweh of the incoming group (which may or may not have been actually descended from the Canaanite tribe) then merged with the El of the indigenous group. I actually think this theory accounts for more information than Wrights' does. There are other competing theories, all with pretty good backing. Wright implies too strongly that his position has the most support, even as he tangentially mentions he is using peripheral resources. Finally, he relies too heavily on archaeological evidence that has many possible interpretations. Besides these quibbles, I agree that there was evolution rather than revolution in the development of the Yahwist religion, and in general I've really enjoyed the book. His argument against a purely reductionist approach to neurotheology, for instance, is the best I've ever read.
Part 2
Let me begin by making a clarifying point about my last note: I think that the earliest strands of text in the first books of the Bible point to Egyptian influences AND point to an attempt to counter Egyptian influences. I also accept, a la Richard Coggins, that you have to look to Canaan itself to make sense of some other strands and to understand the Hebrew beginnings fully. The best way to reconcile this, I think is Coggins: that some small group of "Canaanite Hebrews" or some group the early Canaanite Hebrews absorbed had indeed escaped from Egypt.
Now on to the section leading up to the Greeks and Philo. First a word on writing style. Robert Wright is an incredible author, as good an author as he is an interviewer. The only quibble I have is his tendency to say 'zero-sum' and 'non-zero-sum' and 'non-zero-sumness' over and over again. I wish he would've traded the words for symbols (ZS and NZS). It gets annoying. But that is a minor complaint in an overall very well written book. On to substance. I think Robert Wright's thrust is correct. I think his case that NZS relationships foster moral progress is right, and I think that evolution does indeed create these relationships more and more. I agree it has an important influence on religious evolution. However, I think he overstates the explanatory power of his case. Wright is wrong, for instance, that Second Isaiah was written during the Babylonian exile. It is almost certain that it is at least organized (and most of it was probably written) AFTER Babylon had been taken over by Persia and just before the journey back to Israel for the exiles in the now-Persian empire. Isaiah 40 and 41 are celebratory in tone and are announcing that the return has started, Isaiah, as Wright pointed out, lauds Cyrus. But how could it Isaiah have known about Cyrus but that he's writing under Cyrus' rule? Wright is correct, however, that Second Isaiah is not simply universalst, nor that there is a simple evolution towards universalism, but that the movment is up and down depending on circumstances, generally. Normal Podhoretz makes a similar case in THE PROPHETS, and argues the case persuasively. Wright is also wrong about the Priestly writer. I think SLAYING THE DRAGON gets closer to the actual Priestly writer's project. I think P was writing during the exile, before Persian rule, and I think the attempt to make the use of the term Elohim mean what Wright tries to make it means is a big, big stretch. From what I've read and studied, and making my own best judgment, it seems to me that Egypt is more a metaphor for Babylon, and the mythologizing of the exodus is more about hope. I see P more as a guerilla writing project, underground and in revolt against the Baylonian leadership. The attempt to make ALL universalism the result of NZS relationships is also suspect. He ignores completely, for instance, the Persian-era Tritio-Isaiac Isaiah 56, which is clearly a universalist text written by foreigners and eunuchs and others who were living within Israel but had been rejected by the wider Jewish society. The ability of those who are oppressed to attain moral insight due simply to the fact that they ARE oppressed is impressive in its own right, and I think there are examples of that in the Bible, such as Isaiah 56. I think Isaiah 56 enlightens some of Wrights over reaching. Though, indeed, I think that generally speaking, Wright is correct: it is NZS relationships that foster the moral growth of religion. Finally, I found the exposition of the Greek and Roman eras very fascinating, and his NZS interpretation make a lot of sense of those relationships. I had wanted to learn more about Philo since Sandmel's THE GENIUS OF PAUL, and was glad to get the chance to. Overally, the middle of the book has been top notch, but Wright certainly has a bad tendency to overstate is case.
Part 3
This reviews the section beginning with Wright's own vision of a Logos theology through the Christian era. Let me begin by saying that I have a lot of sympathies for Wright's Logos theology, I think his vision of a scientifically compatible theology, pulled from Philo's work, is impressive. I would say that I prefer the abstract theology of Whithead, which I think retains the best of Wright's own worldview but adds an intimacy between God and the universe that Wright lacks. Whithead's provision for a God who is intimately involved in the universe without being coercively intervening, and a God who indeed becomes incarnate through creation, has the same effect as the imminent Logos without removing the transcendence of the universe itself. Wright has a trancendent God and an imminent Logos, Whitehead has a God that transcends the universe AND a universe that transcends God, to some extant. This will reveal another weakness for Wright I'll come to later. But in the overall, Wright's Logos theology is very, very impressive, and a good read.
Wright's views on Jesus and Paul are both in broad strokes correct. Jesus was far more Judeo-centric than we normall are taught or we seen in most of the gospels. Paul is the genius of universal lover Wright makes him out to be. A person could read Wright as a part of an overall new testament education and get a lot out of it, I would always caveat that it needs to be one part of a greater education. However, Wright seems to take each thinker and believe he can somehow 'distill' his core beliefs and insights. Lacking in Wright's analaysis is any nuanced discussion of the fact that thinkers' views change over time. Paul's thinking on various matters changed over a 30 year or so period, and I think even Jesus' views changed on various matters over time. This strikes me as odd. That such an evolutionary thinker could treat individuals as themselves so static is odd. And so what we get is Jesus and Paul as each having one overarching vision and project that was stuck in one place for all time. I think in both individuals a lot of changes took place. Jesus, for instance, I think lacked an emphasis on redemptive suffering until John is beheaded, and rather originally focused on a 'remnant theology' and creating a moral community to fulfill scripture, later adding in the possibility of his own imprisonment and death after John's execution. I think Paul's views on Christian human nature change over time. And I think Jesus' ideas about inclusivity evolve. I think Jesus' end position was probably the general pharasaic position: that Jews could be recieved into God's kingdom by following the Mosaic covenant, and that gentiles could be recieved into God's kingdom by following the Noahdic covenant.
Wright overestimates his ability to discern which parts of the gospel are historical are which are not. His heavy reliance on Mark has less basis in fact than he thinks. Sammy Sandmel argues persuasively that Mark is not as historical as some might think, though I agree with Wright that it is more historical than the other gospels. Wright also puts way, way too much historical stock in the Book of Acts, and while I think Acts has some grounding in history, it is far more apocryphal than Wright realizes. A much broader skepticism is called for here, and thus historical reconstructions must allow for more pluralism. I think, for instance, a la Russell Pregeant, that the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke probably harkens back to Jesus' time, because the story doesn't make much sense told to a Gentile or Samaritan crowd, it only really has the impact it does put into a 1st century Jewish context, and I think Wright gets that story all wrong. Wright is not as able to separate the 'sheep from the goats' when it comes to the gospels as much as he thinks he is, and the result becomes some circular reasoning, interpreting passages that challenge his thesis in such a way that they mean what he wants them to mean. But I think Jesus was a less consistent thinker than Wright believes he was, and that more or less universalism was present in Jesus' thinking at different times. A lot of Wright's interpretations of texts actually miss the point, I think (the Samaritan example is one).
One thing that kind of showed Wright's less than perfect expertise in this field was his complete lack of mention of the connection between Philo and Paul. He spends copious amounts of time on both thinkers and the themes of universal ethics in both thinkers, he compares and contrasts them and never brings up the fact that Paul studied Philo, almost certainly. Sammy Sandmel establishes this fact conclusively, Paul paraphrases Philo in a couple of places. That oversight betrays the fact that some of Wright's details are off, and I think justifies some of my criticism. However, Wright's OVERALL appraisal of Paul is top-notch, I think that Paul is playing many of the roles Wright thinks he is, and that these roles influenced his theology. Wright's attempt to flesh out the details on how it all worked leaves a bit to be desired, some of his stuff really seems to be stretching a point. And I think Wright, as he discusses social forces' influence on ideas, underestimates the power of ideas themselves, and this gets him into trouble sometimes.
I think that much of Wright's analysis of an evolutionary process within early Christianity is so, freaking, good. His recognition of the complexity of religious belief systems is second to none, and he gives good natural selection analyses of why the various strands developed, and stopped developing, the way they did. Again, a great history of early Christianity, a good source for some general historical info. But Wright is too 'inevitablist' and deterministic. He lacks a clear vision of free will. His claim that someone fulfilling the various roles in history is inevitable rings no truth with me. And it contradicts something he says earlier. Wright claims at one point that the Logos creates opportunities for growth, but does not guarantee growth, but in his discussion of Christianity he claims that Jesus and Paul were really interchangeable, that SOMEone would've done what they did, because of the Logos' activity in history. But that doesn't seem right to me. Some opportunities to do something like what they did, may have come up, but it takes certain people at certain times to respond to those opportunities. And this reveals the superiority of Whithead. Whitehead's God gives options, and calls people to new ideal possibilities, and retains the consequences, in this way, a possible progressivism is retained without some absolute faith in the progressive directionality of history. History CAN be directional, because of God's influence, but it need not be. Whitehead says that every decision made leaves the world with a greater or lesser imprint of God. Wright's implicity determinism clouds this (to me clear) insight: the world trancends God as God transcends the world, and so nothing is inevitable. Jesus and Paul were special because they responded to the call, the call may have come anyways, but that is no guarantee that these men would've fuliflled that role.
Part 4
This review of the section on Islam will be shorter than the rest for the simple reason that I know less about Islam, and so have less to review.
Wright's exposition of Islam is top notch, he takes a fresh approach that is lacking in many historians: a source critical approach. Wright is correct that the Koran is inconsistent because it is written at different times in Muhammed's life, and that because Muhammed's position changed, you can coherently create many different "Islams" from the substance of the book. I found it disconcerting, however, that Wright would see Muhammed in such an 'evolutionary' way, but lacked the ability to apply the same principle to Jesus or Paul, who while not AS fluid as Muhammed, changed in their perpsectives as well. I was also very satisfied that Wright was willing to quesiton if as much of the Quran was written by Muhammed as traditionally thought. However, he's inconsistent on this point. Sometimes his argument appeals to the 'fact' that the Quran likely reflects Muhammed's actual words, and sometimes it appeals to the likelihood of an edited oral tradition. There's some inconsistency in his method, on this point, and he never clarifies it. Some of his historical reconstructions, again, strike me as reaching. I don't think he can with any confidence say, for instance, that Islam began as a Judaistic movement, and I'm not impressed by his arguments on that account. He may well be right, but his evidence is suspect. In fact, Wright admits that he is using a source that has been rejected by the general society of historical scholarship. In other words, most historians think the people he is citing are wrong, but he holds to the evidence anyway. This again enlightens something: Wright is really bending a lot of evidence to his will in order to make his case. He stretches, a lot, to make the evidence fit his theory. This bothers me. It's slightly intellectually dishonest. But in the end, his history of early Islam may be the best I've ever read. It is about time a popular writer took a source critical eye to the Quran, and Wright did, for that alone the section is worth the read, and in the end I'm more informed for having read it.
Part 5
Wright's overall vision is one I have a lot of agreement with: that there are good reasons to believe in God, but not the God of traditional theism. I'm not sure HIS vision of God I am in total agreement with, but I think I have a lot of sympathy for it. His section on "God as Love" is particularly interesting. The final section of the book involves way, way too much evolutionary psychology, and none of his sweeping statements about how we evolved what psychological features has anything close to a lot of credence with me. Every time I read an account by him, that old article just started popping in my mind. To state it briefly: Wright overestimates our ability to have a clear picture of the environment within which our brain evolved, he underestimates how quickly evolution can take place and so can't really say connect the conjectures of the original environment with WHY this or that psychological state continues to exist TODAY, and the methodologies of evolutionary psychology violage the methodologies of other branches of evolutionary biology. In short, there is reason to be very skeptical of everything he says on this matter. Also missing from Wright is the perspective of the thinking, feeling, DECIDING, individual. There is no existential or phenomenological element. I agree with his conclusion that the history of God is the history of a projection, and that the history of that projection itself gives us some reason to think that God may be a projection AND yet still more than a projection, but I prefer, say, Peter Berger's arguments in A RUMOR OF ANGELS for why we should think this, than Wright's. This brings up a contradiction I pointed to earlier, that comes up again at the end of the book. I think Wright's 'diagnosis' of the modern problems for religion and the world is largely correct, I think his 'solution' is less correct but still possesses some good insights, however, Wright's caution about the dangers of the current world situation begs an important question. Wright's description is largely materialist, and earlier in the book he claims that the niches that developed at different points in the history of religion would've been inevitably filled by SOME evolving cultural phenomenon. But he claims at the end that just because religions COULD evolve into something world-saving, they won't necessarily do so. It is like an opportunity has evolved, but that we can DECIDE to take it, or decide not to take it. But it is just this vision of a deciding individual (or society) that is completely lacking in his account. And this contradicts the earlier claims of inevitability in religious evolution earlier on. I also think that Wright's writing got a little dryer and less dynamic towards the end of the book, I wasn't as engaged as I was when he was playing the role of the historian. He is a better historical writer than philosophical writer.
In the end, I think Wright's book is quite good. It challenges assumptions, and gives a good overview of the history of the idea of God, seen from the point of view of the social forces 'on the ground'. In that sense, though, it is only half the story. I was kind of let down to see, at the end, Wright wasn't AS holistic a thinker as I gathered from the beginning of the book, or at least the end of the book didn't reflect that. (I still think Wright does a better job than most at bringing in both reductionist and non-reductionist points of view, though). Wright's thesis in the final analysis over reaches. Wright admits that the power of ideas plays some role in the evolution of the concept of God, but severely subjugates that story to the one about social forces. In order to make his case, Wright over reaches on the data as well. He cherry picks historical data, misrepresents many facts, chooses to side with severely minority views when it suits his purposes, and winds up with some circular arguments, gentle sophisms, unintential misdirections and mild contradictions. The historical reconstruction he comes up with he then insists is the correct one, and he is able to do this effectively because he's a good writer, but the historical picture he comes up with is rather controversial, to say the least, and there's no recognition of that fact. Contrast this with Podhoretz's book on the prophets. Podhoretz deals directly with historical thinkers that contradict his own view, he admits that his position is a minority position but points out, rightly, that there really IS no 'majority position' on all but a few points, and that ultimately, a plurality of historical reconstructions can probably be made that are reasonable. Because Wright fails to do that, he violates some of his intellectual duties, and so when he gets the details wrong, and I think he does enough of the time to be concerned about it, it comes off has less forgivable (but not unforgivable). In he end, the history of the power of an idea and the history of the facts on the ground are inevitably intertwined, and you cannot tell where one begins and the other ends, or which was primary and when and to what degree. Becuase of Wright's skill as a writer and because of the truth of his overall vision, I would highly recommend the book, but ONLY to those who already had enough of a background in Biblical history and philosophy to put a critical eye to the book. Without that background, the book would misdirect too much, and in a convincing way. In that sense, the book is wonderful, and dangerous, all at the same time.