Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Poll concerning Jesus's resurrection Message-ID: Date: 25 Sep 90 08:01:07 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle Lines: 139 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) writes: (incredible but cute story about generous vagrant elided) >The message at various levels in this is obvious; the story however is a >complete fabrication. If I had passed this off as being true, or more >simply stated it without saying one way or the other, some people could be >moved to reflection. Over the years the story could be told and re-told again, >as part of larger group of stories (which could all very well be true). If >we learned later that this was not an actual event, would we then deny all the >changes that have occured because of the story, or would we throw away the >meaning in the story because of this; I don't think so. The only obvious message I see in this story is that if you stop and engage a panhandler in conversation, he is likely to give *you* money rather than expect you to give to him. That message is at odds with observed reality; even if there were a correlation with some independently existing reality, it is unclear what implications the message of the story would have for the life of the hearer. Mr. Steel postulates that had he not admitted his authorship of this story as a work of fiction, it might very well have gradually gained mythical proportions, and that the truth of its "obvious" message would outlive and transcend the discovery that the story itself was false. One example of what happens under such circumstances (ignoring for the moment the implications of this assertion about Mr. Steel's beliefs about the Gospel) is given by the legend of the "hundredth monkey", which I'll recap briefly here. Several years ago, in an effort to explain his belief in a universal consciousness, an author made up a story about a remote archipelago where anthropologists on one island were teaching monkeys to wash their coconuts before eating them. Gradually, as the monkeys mastered the art of coconut-washing, other monkeys on other islands far away at the other end of the archipelago spontaneously began to wash their coconuts too, without the benefit of contact with the anthropologists' subjects. Since the author did not clearly disclaim his story as Mr. Steel did, the story has gained the status of folk legend, to the extent that the hoax debunkers were motivated to demolish it quite thoroughly. Yet it (and its underlying message of universal consciousness) lives on; I first heard it in the preaching of a bishop of the Church of England, who offered it as a sort of proof of the existence of God. Yet those who have been made aware of the story's origins have no reason to believe on the grounds of its message that there is such a consciousness, since that message is no longer "There is proof of the existence of a universal consciousness" but rather "there is an author who believes in a universal consciousness". In other words, the message of the story has been changed by the falseness of the story itself. I have difficulty conceiving of any message underlying Mr. Steel's story, or indeed underlying the Resurrection narrative, which would remain unchanged were it to be established that the story was false. >I look at the resurrection story and what has grown from it. I don't need a >verification of that event to justify the changes that have occured as a result >of the story. In fact I don't need the event itself any longer, I just listen >to the message. I have heard this said in many different ways by many different people, but I still don't understand how the message remains valid if the story itself is fabricated. >>You would be deriving >>inspiration from a lie, or from wishful thinking. Is that what you want to >>base your life on? > >No I would be deriving inspiration from a story and the message it includes. This dialogue reminds me very much of John Updike's "Pigeon Feathers." > >> If the the resurrection story is just that -- a story -- >>then the only "teaching" I would get out of it is either that (1) there is no >>God, (2) He is aloof and doesn't care about us, or (3) He hasn't gotten around >>to helping us out of our mess because he wants us to do it. > >Your points 1 and 2 do not follow from the premise. Neither does point 3, but >I'm sure he would want us to work our way out of our mess, but he has provided >help. Mr. Steel is correct here. If the (Resurrection) story is false, it does not carry the meanings which his interlocutor describes; it becomes simply meaningless, but this is ultimately not a strong argument in his favor. > >>In any case, your Christianity, which does not need the validity of the >>resurrection story, is something quite different from New Testament >>Christianity. > >I think not. I simply say that the event itself is not as important as what >we have learned from the story of it. If Christianity had not developed at all, >the event would not even exist in your life; it is the truth of the message >underlying it that has kept it alive all these centuries. The message in my >mundane little story of the beggar is no less real because it is a fable, than >the ressurection story's message would be if it were a fable. I don't think there is anything to be gained by claiming that Mr. Steel's viewpoint is not Christianity; the semantic issue doesn't erase the fact that there are thousands if not millions of members of Christian churches of all denominations who believe something very similar to this. It *is* apparent that Mr. Steel doesn't see his Christianity as a literally personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus. I don't mean thereby to denigrate his beliefs; personally, I don't believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the notion that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. What I *do* believe is that Jesus is alive. Not alive in the sense that he has a physical body and is still tramping around Lake Gennasaret, but alive in the sense that I can communicate with Him, and He with me; alive in the way you would expect a God to be. I have plenty of evidence of that, but none of it could be described as "historical" or "objective". I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead because I know Jesus lives, not because I believe the historical record left behind. Thus I wouldn't be very disturbed by evidence which calls into question the authenticity of that historical record. I admit to having been somewhat disappointed that the Shroud of Turin was pronounced spurious; but I do not believe that the resurrection didn't happen because the Shroud was a fake. On the other hand, were it to be conclusively proven (which it won't) that the whole story of Jesus of Nazareth was one of Aesop's fables, I would be embarrassed; likely the whole church would be embarrassed, and many millions would fall away into despair. Even that, though, would not invalidate my personal experiences with the One I call Jesus. It would simply be time to admit that I had been calling that One by the wrong name, and time to start learning what He chose to reveal of Himself. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com