D, I don’t use the term “evolved” in any case but the biological.
When applied to social systems, belief systems, economic systems, political systems, and the like, it implies too much.
E.g., in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory we have natural selection of genes to account for the changes that have occurred.
But what would be the analogous mechanism in an economy, a belief system, or the like?
Additionally, there is still that vestige of 19th century usage in which “evolved” means" progressed," and we all know that doesn’t apply in neo-Darwinian theory, but folks sort of forget that when they apply the term and concept in the social sciences.
No, I don’t say beliefs have evolved, but I do say they have changed in response to the existential needs of the people who hold them.
Now, in answer to your other comments:
Quote:
1) Sure. Wouldn’t YOU like a direct, indisputable communique from God?
I’m not so sure.
Those existentialist Christians I mentioned have argued that such direction limits human freedom in a way that is contrary to God. This is linked to (4) below - think about the way in which a heteronymous ethics (sorry, it’s the opposite of an autonomous, and it means “given from without”) means we are not ultimately responsible.
I can bomb things and say that it was God’s will; I can live a life thinking I am saved b/c I believe the right thing, and leave the rest up to God - including poverty, environmental degradation, homeless people, curable diseases that we don’t bother to treat b/c “it’s too expensive,” the failure of the US healthcare system, the person dying on my doorstep…I don't have to think much about it, b/c I am saved and that’s all that matters!
It’s all a great, convenient excuse to do nothing for people in need.
Quote:
2) Make everything better? First you have to define “better”. It should be the hope of every Christian that “better” means Gods way whether WE like it or not.
I still say “better” in any reasonable sense means that we address human suffering and injustice of the sort mentioned above.
If that is not God’s way, then I have no time for God.
Is that God’s way?
Quote:
2.5) We are supposed to PRAY for our enemies. Oh and that does not mean “Please God I pray you CRUSH THEM!”
Pray for what purpose?
What exactly is prayer?
It can be seen as a request - but God has no need for such, and the practice only makes in the context of so-called “primitive” religions in which our well-being is dependent on the whims of the gods.
Is it praise?
That is a really silly idea, that God needs or wants praise.
Robert Funk defined it as listening, and that seems full of all sorts of possibilities (in his 21 Theses, on the Westar website, here:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Funk_Theses/funk_theses.html ).
Quote:
3) There IS a plan. It’s outlined in the Bible. (At least I believe it is…)
But only if you read it selectively, interpretively.
And in any case, there is still that issue of autonomy vs. heteronomy.
Quote:
4) Again, whether we like it or not, believe it or not, even those who haven’t the foggiest notion will someday see that God is in control. HE didn’t mess US up. We did it to ourselves.
I refuse to believe that humans have inherited sin, that it is passed on through the male sperm a la Augustine, just as I refuse to accept any watered down version of that.
Folks who think we are messed up miss the great generosity and altruism that people show everyday.
We end up seeing only the smaller number of corrupt people - who often end up in power, of course, b/c truly other-centered people mostly can’t stand service on the public stage…there are very few Jimmy Carters around.
Quote:
5) “Failure of the spiritual imagination”… I don’t even know what to make of that? I don’t “imagine” spirituality… Explain mo’ better please?
Well, I can’t do this easily, since the alternatives won’t make much sense without a lot of thought and study, probably; the current ideas of God found esp. in the USA reflect 19th century evangelism so much that radical alternatives, of the sort that Funk and Brandon Scott have offered usually don’t make much sense to people. They’re too foreign.
Other than saying the things I’ve said before - that the idea that God needed a sacrifice to satisfy a lust for revenge or satisfaction, that God would make God’s imperial rule conditional on belief, that it would be somewhere “over there” rather than right here with us - that is, basically all of orthodox belief, developed in times when folks were a whole lot more superstitious and ignorant - other than repeating this, I’m not sure that I can explain it very well in a post to a chat board. There’s too much to go into.
The idea is that the usual conception of God in the US is really a projection of human needs and desires, and is morally and spiritually obscene, and that it is not just a distortion of Jesus’ basic message, it is contrary to it.
Quote:
6) “an atrocious abdication of responsibility”… Yep. The whole world suffers from that malady. Common sense and personal responsibility have gone straight down the porcelain gurgler. When one can sue a restaurant and WIN because he/she was too stupid to realize that coffee is often served HOT and they burned themselves is a sure sign of de-evolution. I am a FIRM believer in that!
I meant responsibility for everything, including the choices of values one makes - this, again, is part of that heteronomy/autonomy thing.
Note what the implications of all of this are.
We should not use violence to solve our problems.
We should not allow, and should act to address with all the effort we have, great social and material injustices in the world.
This means using the best science at hand, and addressing stuff like global warming, where most people who argue that it doesn’t exist do so b/c they are worrying about their own standard of living. It means vast transfers of wealth to folks who “haven’t earned it.”
You get the idea: a completely other-centered way of living, and a rejection of almost everything that self-centered western society stands for.
This is much too short an answer - the view I am suggesting is so radically different, and it comes straight out of the actual, historical Jesus - so all of that needs to be addressed, really, to do a good job.
But folks just don’t want to look at that, and I have always been puzzled by that.
If one is Christian, shouldn’t one be really really interested in the subject?
I mean, it is obvious that the authors of the gospels put in a lot of their own theology, so doesn’t that raise the question: are we understanding the message?
And the obvious answer is: mostly, no, people have seriously misunderstood it, in ways that are dangerous.
