*

+
] wwwSite > SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index ->  /  28 April 07  /
] Section   > Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science
] Forum    > Christianity (specific issues)
] Thread   > universal-church claims to be prophetic [#1]
.
. . . and god said 'let there be bishops'
.
One of the greatest myths within Christianity today (in stark contrast to the Faith
of the earliest believers) is this silly notion that prophets no longer exist, that
they are extinct, outdated, outdone, superceded, and no longer needed. Yes,
and alas, the prophets are gone and long gone, forevermore and never to
return, and good riddance to bad-rubbish. Gone; but not necessarily forgotten.
Many believers are at least aware of the word 'prophet' (if not its full meaning),
and have some idea that it refers to a special kind of man-of-god. What? ...
.
 An earthly authority outside the closed-cleric-circle of priests, scribes, and
pharisees? Oh say it ain't so! Yet there they are, one after the other, right there
in the midst of the sacred scriptures, in both the old and new testaments. Once,
not so long ago, the scriptures were hidden away from the people so as to keep
the prophets from influencing them in unauthorized and unseemly ways. But
today it is quite impossible to with-hold or deny access to the prophets; and
therefore impossible to *completely* ignore them also, even with the colossal
blind-spot that prevents believers from recognizing many of the authors of the
greek new-testament texts as greek new-testament prophets!
.
 Now I'm not entirely sure what the "free-thinking fundamentalists" (an oxy-
moron if ever there was one) make of all these prophets stinking up the pages
of their infallible and inerrant Holy-Book (I suspect not much); but the current
approach of the Roman Catholic Church to the matter of the prophets merits, at
the very least, a cursory glance. Thus the priestly vision-of-all-things begins with
the most obvious of all "facts"; namely, that the prophets do NOT exist in the
world today. And that's the gospel truth! But this does not mean that the
prophetic function and nature of the prophets does not exist. Nor does it mean
that the prophetic spirit itself is no longer available. No indeed; far from it. All
of these things still exist, are in fact alive and well, within the warm and loving
bosom of the One and Only Universal Church.
.
 God, you see, in his infinite wisdom didst decree "... that all these unruly and
undisciplined prophets should stop running about the place, stirring up chaos
and trouble (as they go along) by making a great noise and upsetting all the
masses of peoples (and believers too). They should stop it at once, and they
should cease and desist immediately; for it is unseemly and undignified. They
should therefore clean up their act, and straighten out their thinking about
who's running the show here. And above all they should shut the hell-up and
get-in-line already. And I mean NOW!"
.
Apparently, God was quite miffed at these loyal "slaves and apostles" that have
served him so well, and for so long, and in a thousand different ways, to the
best of their abilities, to the last drop of their blood, and to their last breath,
with intelligence and humor, with commitment and passion, with vision and
wisdom, with a boundless love for all humanity, and with an unquenchable
concern for the future well-being of the entire world.
.
 "Not good enough!", sayeth Almighty-God. "From now on" - this was back in
the first century CE, btw - "Do you mind!" [insert angry divine glare at the
galleries] ... "From now on, my truly-loyal priestly-sons, named by Me (in Mine
Infinite-Wisdom & Glory) the 'overseers' and 'bishops', will take over the nature
and function of the prophets, and they will do it in an orderly and dignified
fashion, as befits those who shall rule the world, and all things in it. Therefore
my goodly-bishops shall not only be super-priests, but super-prophets as well;
so as to better serve the salvation of the world and the Eternal Church (which I
didst create just a moment ago, in fact), and whom I doth love (with a Divine &
Eternal-Love, of course) *more* than the entire Cosmos itself forsooth!"
.
 ... Well, that IS what he said (more or less), and you can't exactly argue with
*that*, now can you? And so the church does now have the teaching-authority
that has made her so great for so long. Don't kid yourself folks, the mighty
and glorious Magisterium is powered by the *same* passion and wisdom that
inspired the "prophets-of-old". It is, in fact, the SAME prophetic spirit! ... wow
.
  
x

+
] wwwSite > SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index ->  /  28 April 07  /
] Section   > Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science
] Forum    > Christianity (specific issues)
] Thread   > universal-church claims to be prophetic [#2]
.
. . . a very small pack of very big dawgz
.
 And what does the fount of all divine and inspired (and very exclusive; lest we
forget) wisdom say here and now, in the ever-amazing (and always suicidal)
21st century? Well, here's a pertinent and romish-flavored proposal but recently
offered for the world's edification: So let us by all means say that Theology is
NOT an elitist and specialized discipline, and that it IS rather and actually a very
valuable guide-to-life, the universe, and everything. Moreover, let it be known
that Theology can and does hold the answers to humanity's deepest and most
meaningful questions. In fact, Theology is the key that unlocks countless doors.
And these are merely some of the many abundant fruits of this "great endeavor"
(ie. Theology, which is the study of God and religious truth) ...
.
 So there you have it. And it all sounds pretty darned good too! Until you stop
and think about it for awhile. Theology as the guide to life? Theology?! Which
theology? Christian theology? Catholic theology? But *which* cat-theology?
Presumably Aquinas? Or maybe neo-thomism? But not philosophy, right? ...
Okay then, theology. But that could only work if theology is a bigger dawg than
philosophy. And *that* is a proposition that has several major flaws in it. Don't
get me wrong now. Theology is a really big-dawg; and no doubt about it.
And plenty big enough to satisfy most people too, to be sure. But bigger than
Philosophy? ... Not a chance!
.
 And that's not the only funny thing about all this. The fact is that even Lady
Sophia is not the biggest dawg around; and neither is Science. Alas, no; for the
biggest dawg is none other than History. So even if you are a relatively small
dog, theologically speaking that is (such as conservative and reactionary
Christians of the Western (or rather Northern) persuasion), you had best know
exactly who the alpha-male is in this particular wolf-pack. The 'hounds of hell'
are themselves small puppies compared to these titans. So the big-dawg is
History, and if you fail to acknowledge this fact, or otherwise fail to get on very
friendly terms with him, why he's liable to someday just turn and tear your
throat out! [check out church-history for many interesting and copious details]
x

+
] wwwSite > SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index ->  /  29 April 07  /
] Section   > Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science
] Forum    > Christianity (specific issues)
] Thread   > universal-church claims to be prophetic [#3]
.
. . . Fundies Rule!
.
 But Americans don't care about things like that. They only care about being
good and self-righteous little christians who can "freely" worship their idol-
golden, Glorious-Money, *and* enjoy the fruits of the Earth; while the rest of
humanity (and the future of the world to boot) can just go and get stuffed. And
if others are starving in all those lands where gluttony and apathy have yet to
reign supreme, well then just "Let them eat cake!" What do they care? They have
the Bible in one hand, and the Book of Law in the other. [And what do "God &
the Law" have in common? Both originate ultimately from the prophets; and
both can be used (or rather abused) as Weapons of Mass Oppression / WMO.]
.
And being thus armed and protected, all is right with the cosmos. And these
are the Masters of the World! They think that they can keep right on raping the
planet (with all their mighty corporations) indefinitely, can keep on squeezing
the Earth until it yields up its last pound of profits, until there is nothing left for
anyone to plunder. And nothing can stop them (because God is on their side).
.
 :(
.
And they think that no one will even notice any of this. Hell, they can't even
notice it themselves! Can't allow themselves to notice it. And they don't have to.
They can sleep at night. They have a clear conscience because it is all in God's
hands anyway. And so if humanity destroys all civilization and/or the world
itself, then *that* is God's will, and so they are not responsible. Thus the rich-
ones grow fat off the labors of others, the powerful ones grow arrogant off the
spoils of war, and the pious-ones are in constant search of ever more money to
buy ever more and more and MORE "happiness"!
.
But no; they alone cannot be held accountable for all human stupidity and
brutality in the world! And so they are not to blame after all. And they are
partially right about this second-to-last bit at least; but they are dead wrong
anyway. When the very fate of the planet hangs in the balance, denial of
responsibility on the basis of a raging willful ignorance (accompanied by a
colossal blind spot) will never do. It is, in fact, entirely unacceptable.
.
 And the worst of it is that the rest of the world can and does notice all this.
Therefore there will soon come a day when there shall be a *very* rude-
awakening. Or rather, a lot of days, each with their own little rude-awakenings.
So much for christian-theology as a 'guide to life' today. It *has* worked in the
past, when people were far too ignorant to know any better, but today? Well,
the Christian religion surely works for many *individuals*; but as a "universal-
christian-theology" intended to be a "way of life" on the planetary-scale, for a
global civilization, for billions of human creatures caught between the bronze-
age and post-modern worlds, it is wholly and woefully inadequate!
x

+
] wwwSite > SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index ->  /  1 May 07  /
] Section   > Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science
] Forum    > Christianity (specific issues)
] Thread   > universal-church claims to be prophetic [#4]
.
. . . how to insult the big-dawg
.
 Just as a side-note to re-emphasize my point about theology's attitude toward
history, I'll make one final demonstration. I recently read a report about a small
group of Christian archeologists out on a "dig" somewhere. After much time
and effort their labors were rewarded by a "find". It seems that they uncovered
some ancient artifacts, some of which were actually intact after over two
thousand years in the ground. Wow! However, the artifacts were of a
pornographic nature, and so the good scientists felt that nothing of value
could be learned from such things, and so promptly destroyed them all.
.
 Now the first problem I had here was whether or not to accept this report at
face value (always a problem when newspapers and internets are the primary
sources of information), and decided that it would be less sensible not to accept
it "as is". It was a brief story clearly designed to catch the roving eye (it certainly
caught mine), but the details provided (which I can't recall, of course) along
with its "objective" tone (you know the one I mean) lend it sufficient credibility
to "buy" it. Besides, such things are not all *that* unusual, especially in previous
centuries. So if this story is indeed "true", then it says as much about scientists
as it does about Christians, I suppose.
.
 Moreover, this incident nicely sums up the general attitude of the Christian
religion toward History. And this is so despite the beautiful and assuring words
of Pope John Paul II on the topic of the Catholic attitude toward History. Yes,
*those* particular words are by far the best words ever to come out of the RCC.
The best ever, and also the most prophetic (by a long shot). Unfortunately, they
do NOT reflect the true and traditional attitude of the church toward History: If
"it" [ie. whatever!] in *any* way offends against the delicate sensibilities of a
moral and righteous believer, then you are divinely empowered to ... Destroy it!
.
 ... Yup, that about sums it up, all right. 
.
The truth of this matter is that catholics, and indeed all christians, are simply
incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and history. As their own accounts
of the history of the early greek churches, and the formation of the new
testament documents, clearly reveals, christians much prefer their own pious
and self-glorifying fantasies to anything even remotely resembling historical-
reality. For almost 2000 years now christians have been piling one pious-lie
atop another so as to create a lie so huge that believers are unable to recognize
it for what it is; namely, utter nonsense from top to bottom.
x

+
] wwwSite > SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index ->  /  2 May 07  /
] Section   > Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science
] Forum    > Christianity (specific issues)
] Thread   > universal-church claims to be prophetic [#5]
.
. . . jesus vs christ - OR - theology vs people
.
 So that's one very big strike against the self-proclaimed universal-church
and its loudly fervent claim to be prophetic: half for the gross-inadequacy of
theology as a global guide-to-life in the 21st century, and half for its arrogant
and hateful attitude toward History. Shall we give the RCC another chance to
redeem herself for these dismal failures, and perhaps even prove her claim to
prophet-hood? Well, why not, eh ...
.
 So there is a jesuit-father, named Jon Sobrino, who has attracted considerable
attention for attempting to apply the truth of the gospels to real-world conditions
of social and political injustice. Of course, no one faults him for trying to help
victims of injustice and extreme poverty. The problem lies in his christology,
which places greater emphasis upon the 'jesus of history' rather than the
traditional 'christ of faith' (which is so deeply embedded within the christian
religion).
.
 At the risk of over-simplifying a complex issue, we may say that the jesus-of-
history is primarily understood to be a man (in this case, 'the liberator'; and
perhaps even a prophet), while the christ-of-faith is understood to be god-
incarnate (ie. "God-the-Son"). There is, of course, a world of difference between
these two views of who and what jesus is/was; and most christians (in their
gross ignorance and humongous stupidity) naturally much prefer the latter to
the former.
.
Hence it is no surprise that the romish orthodoxy-police (ie. the so-called
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; aka the Inquisition) issued a warning
against the "erroneous or dangerous propositions" that can be found within the
writings of this well-known liberation-theologian. But Sobrino does not believe
that christianity should act as an opiate or sedative that encourages people to
accept their condition of poverty and injustice in mute-silence (as if their dismal
fate was the eternal and undeniable will of god). And although the bishops can
sympathize with this view, their chief concern is for the safety and sanctity of
their beloved-orthodoxy (ie. doctrinal purity).
.
 Sobrino, however, does not believe that 'Jesus-the-Sublime-Abstraction' has the
power to affect hearts and minds so as to encourage the changes that are very
much needed to improve the lives of millions of poor and suffering people all
over the world. In this Jon is doubtless correct. And here again the bishops can
sympathize with this idea, but they do not wish to risk the church's "universal-
love" becoming over-identified with the poor. Having a "universal-love-and-
concern" for all humanity obviously means that not one drop can be spared for
the poor, lest the church be accused of being far too exclusive in her concerns
and attentions.
.
 Well! It's really not at all difficult to guess on which side of this debate the
prophetic-spirit falls. By putting their concern for theology ahead of their
*alleged* (and obviously hypocritical) "love" for the people, the bishops only
demonstrate that they are the exact polar-opposites of the prophets. Indeed, the
best definition of what the bishop is and does is simply 'the anti-prophet'. This
is both funny *and* significant; for the category of prophet (as we understand
it) is so flexible that it can include both theists and atheists, both writers and
non-writers, poets (eg. Blake) and scientists (eg. Einstein), musicians (eg. John
Lennon) and politicians (eg. Thomas Jefferson), playwrights and composers,
etc etc; and indeed almost any group of "specialists", even catholics (such as
Sobrino and saint Francis) ... but definitely NOT bishops and popes!
.
 Now the two qualities that all prophets must possess in *some* degree are
vision and wisdom. But the Magisterium is utterly lacking in *both* qualities.
And the simplest explanation for this is that the Magisterium is an institution,
and not a person; and only individual human beings (men and even women)
can be prophets. For this reason institutions, obviously, cannot be prophetic.
x

+
] wwwSite > SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index ->  /  3 May 07  /
] Section   > Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science
] Forum    > Christianity (specific issues)
] Thread   > universal-church claims to be prophetic [#6]
.
. . . an oddball russian prophet
.
Since we've now gone this far, we might as well give the romish-church one
last chance to hit a homer by validating its claim to be the exclusive source of
all things prophetic. A good place to start might be to ask what kind of thing
does the so-called universal-church consider to be a "prophetic utterance"?
Well, according to Cardinal Biffi, the warning about the modern guises that
the Antichrist can assume is a good example of how the church fulfills its
prophetic function.
.
One such modern-guise that the church warns against is in the writings of the
19th-century Russian theologian and prophet, Vladimir Solovyev, who claims
that Christianity cannot be reduced to any given set of values. He also proposes
that all the christian-confessions have (at least) some grasp on part of the truth,
and so dialogue with other believers should strive to achieve a consensus that
appeals to as many christians as possible. In this way, says Biffi, "the Antichrist
presents himself as a pacifist, ecologist, and ecumenist."
.
Of course, no christian-church wants to see its beliefs and doctrines watered-
down to a thin soup that is tasteless and lacking for substance, but it's difficult
to see how inter-christian dialogue can proceed if each church insists that its own
unique features be accepted by all the others. In any case, Solovyev desperately
wanted to see a reconciliation between Roman Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy; and his writings should be understood within this context.
.
Moreover, it is difficult to see how many of Solovyev's ideas could be anything
but attractive to many christians. For example, he believes that "true culture"
(which is not at all the same thing as a merely mechanical civilization) is
inseparable from religion. If you remove religion as an active factor in any
civilization, you are thereby upsetting the organic relationship between God, Man,
and Society, and thus distorting the whole of human-existence. The rising tide of
secularism therefore undermines the "integral fullness of life". In other words, the
individual's personal religion can only be satisfied in a fully social religion. The
best society will therefore be a thorough-going religious-society that integrates
church and state into a seamless unity.
.
Now Solovyev took his ideas so seriously that he became a roman-catholic for
the last four years of his life; and with ideas such as these, it's not hard to see
why. But, in any case, the merits and demerits of the writings of some obscure
19C russian-theologian hardly justifies a "prophetic" warning and / or
condemnation. If the RCC disagrees with the thinking of this or that theologian
or philosopher, well that is nothing new for catholics (or christians in general),
but there is nothing particularly prophetic in simply denouncing such thinkers
as wrong and/or potentially dangerous to the faithful. Neither is there anything
particularly prophetic in claiming that the church's judgments upon various
thinkers are necessary and all but infallible.
.
In any case, by again placing itself in opposition to a genuine prophet, the
romish-church once again shows its fundamentally anti-prophetic perspective
and attitude. And thus this self-serving judgment against Solovyev makes for
three big strikes against the "universal-church" in the Prophets-R-Us department.
In fact, the RCC is the least prophetic church of them all; for the Magisterium
couldn't generate an original thought of its own, even if the eternal salvation
of every last immortal cat-soul depended on it!
x

+
] wwwSite > SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index ->  /  4 May 07  /
] Section   > Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science
] Forum    > Christianity (specific issues)
] Thread   > universal-church claims to be prophetic [#7]
.
. . . concluding reflections
.
 Since this essay is a study in sophiology, this may be a good place to say a few
words about our understanding of the nature and scope of sophiology as we
perceive it. Now some folks like to call Solovyev a russian philosopher, but this
is very misleading. Solovyov is clearly much more of a mystic and theologian
than a philosopher, and indeed he might be better described as a prophet than
as a philosopher; and at least one russian writer would agree (cf. 'Three Russian
Prophets' by Nicholas Zernov).
.
Thus Solovyev is important to us chiefly because he is the first founding-father
of sophiology. And to us there is something infinitely satisfying and appropriate
in the fact that sophiology was born as the spiritual-daughter of a prophet.
In any case, sophiology first emerged out of Russia as a form of orthodox-
theology, as a mystical understanding of the intimate relationship between god
and the entire cosmos; and its main utility within the orthodox-church is as a
supporting prop for all the traditional christian doctrines (eg. trinity, incarnation,
ecclesiology, mariology, and so on). Thus the "wisdom" that orthodox-
sophiology is exclusively concerned with is the divine-wisdom.
.
By way of contrast, our new form of sophiology rejects all of this, and focuses
exclusively on human-wisdom; ie. as it is found in literature, and in its main
"carriers and transmitters", the prophets and philosophers. Accordingly, human-
wisdom is the ONLY kind of wisdom that we are able to find in the world and in
history. Yes, we've looked high and low, here and there, far away and nearby,
and never-ever have we found any hint or clue as to the existence of anything
even remotely resembling this so-called "divine-wisdom".
.
Our new and improved version of sophiology is therefore a sustained attempt to
place sophiology on a far more realistic footing by rejecting theology altogether,
and by admitting as little of metaphysics as is practically possible. For us then,
sophiology is NOT theology at all, but is fully and entirely a *philosophical*
discipline. Of course, this new form of sophiology is necessarily a type of
speculative-philosophy. And as everyone knows, speculative-philosophy is very
much out of favor these days; and so sophiology will doubtless be rejected lock,
stock, and barrel by those who "know-best"!
.
And that is most unfortunate, for there is a great deal of material available to
us that only sophiology is properly equipped to handle. The loss is not to us
therefore, but only to those who summarily conclude that philosophical-
sophiology is necessarily unwarranted and invalid, without even bothering to
see what it is that we are attempting to accomplish.
.
One curious point of convergence between Solovyev's sophiology and our
philosophical-sophiology is the "person" of Sophia. Solovyov believed in the
incarnation of divine-wisdom in an entity he called "Saint Sophia". Later on, in
his more ecumenical and orthodox period, Solovyov claimed that Sophia is
more fully revealed as the blessed-virgin-mary. To us this is the very height of
absurdity; but in his poetry Solovyov treated Sophia more like a gnostic Aeon,
or as a pagan goddess, and this is much more in line with our view of things.
.
Thus we conceive of Lady Sophia as the goddess of wisdom, much as the
ancient egyptians conceived of Thoth as the god of wisdom. Of course, we are
NOT silly enough to claim that Sophia is a real entity who exists independently
apart from human minds. On the contrary, Sophia is merely a convenient
symbol of wisdom and philosophy; the personification, if you will, of these
completely human and spiritual realities. A goddess without independent
existence. An inspiring symbol, and nothing more. But apart from this one
very minor aspect, philosophical-sophiology and theological-sophiology have
absolutely nothing in common.
.
 And *that* is entirely as it should be, of course! 
x

textman
*