• In total there are 14 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 14 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

#88: Sept. - Oct. 2010 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

Unread post

The Bible isn't being critiqued. Robert Wright is tracing the evolution of God and of the major monotheistic religions.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

Unread post

DWill wrote:The Bible isn't being critiqued. Robert Wright is tracing the evolution of God and of the major monotheistic religions.
Where did the idea that Jesus did not promote the concept of love for all people come from? Was that sentiment expressed in TEoG?
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

Unread post

Have you ever read any literary criticism? Wright uses a very similar approach in his treatment of the Bible.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:
Where did the idea that Jesus did not promote the concept of love for all people come from? Was that sentiment expressed in TEoG?
You would know what Wright said if you actually read the book. Clearly you did not. It's no wonder you are so lost here.

Wright is examining textual evidence for Jesus' message of universal love. He argues that in the gospel of Mark—considered the most reliable of the four gospels—there's almost no evidence of Jesus preaching a message of universal love. That message comes in the later gospels which were written 50 to 70 years after Jesus' crucifixion in a religio-political environment that was more conducive to the idea of universal love. So, according to Wright, the Jesus who sometimes speaks words of universal love in the later Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John was not the true Jesus.

That time gap is an important consideration with an objective scrutiny of the Bible within its historical context, but objective is probably not possible when you believe the Bible is an unimpeachable sacred text.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

Unread post

geo wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
Where did the idea that Jesus did not promote the concept of love for all people come from? Was that sentiment expressed in TEoG?
You would know what Wright said if you actually read the book. Clearly you did not. It's no wonder you are so lost here.

Wright is examining textual evidence for Jesus' message of universal love. He argues that in the gospel of Mark—considered the most reliable of the four gospels—there's almost no evidence of Jesus preaching a message of universal love. That message comes in the later gospels which were written 50 to 70 years after Jesus' crucifixion in a religio-political environment that was more conducive to the idea of universal love. So, according to Wright, the Jesus who sometimes speaks words of universal love in the later Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John was not the true Jesus.

That time gap is an important consideration with an objective scrutiny of the Bible within its historical context, but objective is probably not possible when you believe the Bible is an unimpeachable sacred text.
In fact I did read the book and you will note that I had previously addressed this very issue in an earlier post. I have cited numerous instances where Wright is clearly wrong and intentionally ignores significant events described by the Bible. The fact that Wright considers only parts of the Bible to be legitmate does not excuse him from dealing with those parts which he doesn't, especially if he is going to make such controversial statements regarding the teachings of Jesus.

As for your defense of TEog, where is your quest for empiricism? Where is your, 'Question Everything?' Does Wright get a pass because he is contorting Christianity?
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

Unread post

DWill wrote:Have you ever read any literary criticism? Wright uses a very similar approach in his treatment of the Bible.

Literary criticism is precisely what Wright does not do. If he did, I would have less of a beef with him. In literary criticism one starts with the text in question and explores it in detail. Wright just ignores large, significant and incovenient (to his premise) sections. This leaves him free to invent his own story. That would be ok, but he should go the whole way and leave the Bible out of his book completely.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

Unread post

DWill wrote:
geo wrote: Certainly Wright seems to pull his gloves off in this chapter, doesn't he?
I thought about this after I responded, geo, and I'm glad you said it because it made me think about Wright's approach in this book. I can see why you might say he takes the gloves off, since what he says in the chapter can be taken as a strong critique of the traditional view of Jesus. But it's interesting, and I think admirable, that he does this without actually coming across as a bare-knuckles fighter. He's much less confrontational and more dispassionate than the other prominent atheist authors. (I say "other atheist" because he identifies himself as a materialist, which to me is about equivalent to atheist.) Wright starts with the assumption that the literalist stuff has been well refuted, so he doesn't need to waste time on that. That allows him to go after the higher fruit, which would be the understandings and assumptions that non-literalists or moderate traditionalists have brought to the Bible. Then, too, he's writing a book about religion, not against it, for all the sacred cows that he might need to target along the way.
I detect a certain attitude—very subtle—in Wright's writing. I can certainly empathize with him. There was a point when I started questioning the existence of God and I became fairly angry about being taught so much nonsense for so long by people who I felt should have known better. But, though my parents were insistent that I go to church, maybe I detected a certain lack of sincerity in their faith which I'm sure was subconscious. And at this point in their lives will certainly remain so.

Still, you may be right. It could merely be Wright's refusal to bow before sacred cows that I'm not used to seeing. Even Dawkins doesn't go after Jesus quite like this—with gloves off (apparently). Though I really liked Dawkins' book when I first read it, I think if I read it now I would be annoyed with his insistence on going after the literalist stuff, which after all is the most rigid and dumbest on the religion spectrum. Wright's perspective is refreshing in the way you say, that he can set his sights on higher fruit.

Having come from a religious background, Wright must to some extent have enjoyed his task of deconstructing the Bible, even if he's not directly attacking religious beliefs and, in fact, is always rather polite about it.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

Unread post

DWill wrote:what he says in the chapter can be taken as a strong critique of the traditional view of Jesus. But it's interesting, and I think admirable, that he does this without actually coming across as a bare-knuckles fighter. He's much less confrontational and more dispassionate than the other prominent atheist authors. (I say "other atheist" because he identifies himself as a materialist, which to me is about equivalent to atheist.) Wright starts with the assumption that the literalist stuff has been well refuted, so he doesn't need to waste time on that. That allows him to go after the higher fruit, which would be the understandings and assumptions that non-literalists or moderate traditionalists have brought to the Bible. Then, too, he's writing a book about religion, not against it, for all the sacred cows that he might need to target along the way.
Wright is a materialist, seeking to reconcile science and religion. This stance, correct in my view, leads him to the error, as Stahrwe has argued, of imagining Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet only, rather than a prophet of universal love. As I noted earlier, the Biblical vision of the apocalypse is grounded in a vision of universal love, so the claim that Jesus is not a prophet of love fails to engage the text sufficiently. The love of God is the source of the wrath of God, with love and justice two faces of the same sentiment.

In setting religion against evolution, the intriguing question that emerges is how an intrinsic purpose of the universe, evolution towards higher complexity, is displayed in religion. Darwin discovered the universal law of adaptive selection. This law appears to refute traditional religious theories of design, but what Wright shows is that religion displays an intrinsic purpose, towards higher complexity, that indicates the need for a new form of teleology, a theory of purpose and meaning, to understand how humans can adapt to the intrinsic purpose of the universe. If we try to find a coherent story from Jesus, we can see that love is central, and his vision explains what will happen to humanity if we fail to love. Apocalyptic vision obtains its direction and energy from a deep sense that humans belong on earth but we risk extinction because of our failure to love, amounting to failure to engage with the intrinsic purpose of natural love as the basis of an evolving complexity of life.

Wright's materialism is an important step for theology, given that most theologians have a very shaky knowledge of science. Matter is all that there is. However, when matter is formed into life, and into human intelligence, it continues to obey physical law, including the law of evolution. Intelligence evolves by adaptation to its context. Wright sees the evolving context of greater global connectivity, but somehow misses the central place of Jesus in providing a theory of time that reconciles the universal natural energies of love and justice.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
DWill wrote:what he says in the chapter can be taken as a strong critique of the traditional view of Jesus. But it's interesting, and I think admirable, that he does this without actually coming across as a bare-knuckles fighter. He's much less confrontational and more dispassionate than the other prominent atheist authors. (I say "other atheist" because he identifies himself as a materialist, which to me is about equivalent to atheist.) Wright starts with the assumption that the literalist stuff has been well refuted, so he doesn't need to waste time on that. That allows him to go after the higher fruit, which would be the understandings and assumptions that non-literalists or moderate traditionalists have brought to the Bible. Then, too, he's writing a book about religion, not against it, for all the sacred cows that he might need to target along the way.
Wright is a materialist, seeking to reconcile science and religion. This stance, correct in my view, leads him to the error, as Stahrwe has argued, of imagining Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet only, rather than a prophet of universal love. As I noted earlier, the Biblical vision of the apocalypse is grounded in a vision of universal love, so the claim that Jesus is not a prophet of love fails to engage the text sufficiently. The love of God is the source of the wrath of God, with love and justice two faces of the same sentiment.
You don't say whether you've reached this part of the book, Robert, but I think what you're not taking into account is the evolution of Christian universal love. That is what Wright is trying to trace. He tells us we won't find it in the Jesus of Mark, who likely would be closest to the portrait of the actual Jesus. You, I believe, don't appear to place much stock in the historicity of Jesus, which would mean that for you the chronology of the Gospels wouldn't have much significance. It would be the overall, composite portrait of Jesus that you would emphasize. Wright stresses the layering process that went on over time, so that universal love begins to emerge by the time of the latest Gospel. Remember that Wright has a strict criterion for what constitutes universal love. The Bible's "love thy neighbor" in its original context, for example, did not mean that we were directed to treat all humans as we would our actual neighbors.
In setting religion against evolution, the intriguing question that emerges is how an intrinsic purpose of the universe, evolution towards higher complexity, is displayed in religion. Darwin discovered the universal law of adaptive selection. This law appears to refute traditional religious theories of design, but what Wright shows is that religion displays an intrinsic purpose, towards higher complexity, that indicates the need for a new form of teleology, a theory of purpose and meaning, to understand how humans can adapt to the intrinsic purpose of the universe. If we try to find a coherent story from Jesus, we can see that love is central, and his vision explains what will happen to humanity if we fail to love. Apocalyptic vision obtains its direction and energy from a deep sense that humans belong on earth but we risk extinction because of our failure to love, amounting to failure to engage with the intrinsic purpose of natural love as the basis of an evolving complexity of life.
Some of what you say reflects Philo's thought, which was the subject of Chapter 8. He also believed that love or at least comity would be the inevitable result of our shaping our own actions to the Logos. I must disagree with you about the place of complexity in religion. I know we had a conversation a while back about greater complexity emerging as physical evolution goes on. There was disagreement on whether the direction is best described as greater complexity or greater diversity. Regardless, the parallel breaks down regarding religion in the cultural realm. The end that Wright envisions for religion exhibits greater simplicity and less diversity.

Your view of what Jesus represents for our future, as either promise or threat, is of course a further evolution of the religion we see in the New Testament. It could be the universalist form of Christianity. I don't see it having a claim to supercede other universalist claims from other traditions, though.
Wright's materialism is an important step for theology, given that most theologians have a very shaky knowledge of science. Matter is all that there is. However, when matter is formed into life, and into human intelligence, it continues to obey physical law, including the law of evolution. Intelligence evolves by adaptation to its context. Wright sees the evolving context of greater global connectivity, but somehow misses the central place of Jesus in providing a theory of time that reconciles the universal natural energies of love and justice.
To move toward the truly universal would be to not favor one tradition over another, as your proposal does. I also think we should back off from talking about Wright advocating anything certain in terms of religion. That's not his purpose in the book. He only presents evidence that leads him to conclude tentatively that human life may direct itself toward greater universality in terms of morality. He thinks that that may be what religion was building up to all along.
Last edited by DWill on Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Ch. 10 - What Did Jesus Do?

Unread post

DWill wrote: . . .
You don't say whether you've reached this part of the book, Robert, but I think what you're not taking into account is the evolution of Christian universal love. That is what Wright is trying to trace. He tells us we won't find it in the Jesus of Mark, who likely would be closest to the portrait of the actual Jesus. You, I believe, don't appear to place much stock in the historicity of Jesus, which would mean that for you the chronology of the Gospels wouldn't have much significance. It would be the overall, composite portrait of Jesus that you would emphasize. Wright stresses the layering process that went on over time, so that universal love begins to emerge by the time of the latest Gospel.
This becomes even more apparent in the next chapter on Paul.
-Geo
Question everything
Post Reply

Return to “The Evolution of God - by Robert Wright”