Well ... it's not so nice, in two ways that I mention on Twitter and one way that I'll add to that.
So,.what is this dilemma?Matthew 25 & "the least of these" is nice, but if you really need a deity to tell you that?— I'll Be Biden Time in South Carolina primary ๐ฉ๐ป (@AFCC_Esq) February 26, 2020
You probably need to learn what the Euthyphro Dilemma is.
It's called #Philosophy, folks, something not enough Americans know as is. Here's a chance to learn a bit https://t.co/W8XSPVIH8J
Per the link (and you can find it at any basic philosophy website, too, as I slack on a vow to use Wikipedia less this year and stop rewarding its Zionist owner), it's pretty simple, and it comes from Plato. Whitehead wasn't right that all philosophy, or even all Western philosophy, is but footnotes to Plato, but most of pre-1900 Western philosophy mostly is. But I digress.
Plato had Socrates ponder to Euthyphro:
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"And it IS a dilemma.
In case you don't want to think it through, let me help.
Substitute the word "good," and it becomes yet more stark.
If something good is loved by the gods because it is good, then the idea of goodness stands outside of the gods. If something is good because it's loved by the gods, then divine decrees could be arbitary.
And, yes, Plato used "the gods" plural. But, many classical Greeks were some sort of henotheists, at a minimum. Besides, it actually applies in spades to the Greek-extracted omnipotent + omnibenevolent god of Christianity.
(I had a graduate student at Harvard Divinity, a deep drinker from the "Ground of Being" [use solemn voice] Paul Tillich idea of god claim it didn't, but he was simply wrong.)
So, that's the philosophy issue: Trying to ground human ethics on a divine pronouncement gets you in trouble.
And, per that Wiki link, it's not a false dilemma and the idea exists independently of Platonism.
Per the tag, I've obviously blogged about this before.
==
And now for the biblical interpretation side.
Click this link to read Matthew 25, especially the last part from which Warren extracts "the least of these," if you're not familiar.
Three originally independent chunks of text, with a loose unity, come together.
The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins is about being prepared for the Last Judgement.
The Parable of the Ten Talents is about manifesting one's faith while living a life expecting the return of the king — "The Return of the King" — it's about expecting the Last Judgement and manifesting faith, not about expecting Aragorn. The parable talks of the "master," to be honest, not a "king," but I couldn't resist the joke.
It doesn't come off as much of a parable as the Virgins, but, the passage begins with "again," indicating that it too should be regarded as a kingdom parable.
The Sheep and Goats ends us.
I don't call it a parable at all, though many commentators do. There is no "again" connecting it, and there is no "the kingdom is like" introduction. "Pronouncement story" (extended) or something like that is a better descriptive.
Anyway ...
It's a story about that Last Judgment to which the two parables above point.
Yes, Jesus does say to the "sheep" just what Warren quotes.
He also sends the goats to an eternal hell. It says that quite explicitly at the end of the story.
So, my second tweet:
And, yes, all of that, including the Tertullian stuff, is quite true. Yes, it's a punishment based on good works, not Pauline faith, faith, faith. Still, it's an eternal punishment based on this-world temporal evil. Arguably, the Jehovah's Witnesses idea of annihilation is less painful.Let us also remember that Matthew 25 is overall a biblical chapter about the Christian Last Judgment, with a vengeful omnipotent god sending people to an eternal hell.— I'll Be Biden Time in South Carolina primary ๐ฉ๐ป (@AFCC_Esq) February 26, 2020
Early Xn Fathers like Tertullian got their jollies by imagining part of the fun of heaven wld be watching hell.
But, this is the Golden Rule, right?
Yes, and ...
The Silver Rule, as it's often called, is better. It's more laissez-faire. It's less meddling.
And, it is?
"Do NOT do unto others what you do NOT want done unto yourself."
In other words, live and let live in an ethical sense.
So, all political candidates, above all, presidential ones? "Judge not (by what biblical passages you cite) lest ye be judged."
No comments:
Post a Comment