![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIt is important to give credit where it is due. As such, I would like to thank Cardinal-Deacon Lavada's merry band of inquisitors for banning a work of Sister Margaret Farley of Yale Divinity School. Had they not done so, I probably would not have researched the woman's work. When the Vatican attacks an author or a work of literature, they do a great service to us all. They give a boost to the author by spotlighting the work and they shine a light in a corner of the intellectual world that might otherwise go unnoticed. According to The Guardian, sales of the book have since spiked.
Although I greatly admire Ms Farley for her contributions to medical and sexual ethics, her position on theology leaves much to be desired. For one thing, she considers the material Creator to be a transcendent entity. For her it is the ultimate reality. I am not sure where she got these notions but, with more careful investigation, she could come to understand the basic flaws in such propositions.
Christian orthodoxy was established on the false proposition that the heavenly parent of which Jesus spoke was the same as the deity of Abraham. When we assume that they are distinct entities, references to each take on different sets of meaning. Without that basic tool of inquiry, the material Creator serves to hinder transcendence rather than to promote it. Instead of being a gateway to higher experience, the Creator bars the passage out of the domain of delusion.
One of the reasons that Christian orthodoxy prefers to conflate the two entities is that it facilitates control. Such a conflation limits divinity to a narrow domain under the strict rule of a despotic hierarchy. It puts Jesus into a tightly controlled cage and prevents anyone from following in his footsteps. It has also been used historically as a power tool to maintain Roman hegemony. Roman potentates much prefer to wield the magic of the deity of Abraham than to practice the simple virtues espoused by Jesus. That way, they can continue to live in the lap of luxury and vice.
Farley asserts that the material Creator fashioned the human body. She should reconsider this position. Given the historic evidence, it seems more likely that the material Creator is a fabrication of the human mind. There was a time when it did not exist. People who seek to enslave humanity hold up the idea of the material Creator as a way to terrorize others into submission. Obey their dictates or risk eternal punishment.
Rome is not an eternal city. It was built as a human endeavor. Nothing that has a beginning is eternal. Once we investigate the way that the Roman deity was crafted, we can see that it will not last forever. William Paley made the false assertion that people converted willingly to the Christian religion in contrast to convert-or-die religions. This ignores the fact that people reluctantly subscribed to the Nicene Creed. Heretics preferred death to kowtowing to the Nicene idol.
I admire Farley's work. It is well researched with a strong grounding in classical antiquity. She sheds significant light on the machinations of despotism and its Christian aspect. I hope she eventually transcends the material Creator to experience a more perfect bond with the eternal.
Do you have any concept of transcendence in your political world?
Links: UK Guardian article on the Vatican ban. Margaret Farley on the sources of sexual inequality in Christianity. Margaret Farley on bioethics. Patheos Press blog article on Margaret Farley's reaction to the Vatican action.
Although I greatly admire Ms Farley for her contributions to medical and sexual ethics, her position on theology leaves much to be desired. For one thing, she considers the material Creator to be a transcendent entity. For her it is the ultimate reality. I am not sure where she got these notions but, with more careful investigation, she could come to understand the basic flaws in such propositions.
Christian orthodoxy was established on the false proposition that the heavenly parent of which Jesus spoke was the same as the deity of Abraham. When we assume that they are distinct entities, references to each take on different sets of meaning. Without that basic tool of inquiry, the material Creator serves to hinder transcendence rather than to promote it. Instead of being a gateway to higher experience, the Creator bars the passage out of the domain of delusion.
One of the reasons that Christian orthodoxy prefers to conflate the two entities is that it facilitates control. Such a conflation limits divinity to a narrow domain under the strict rule of a despotic hierarchy. It puts Jesus into a tightly controlled cage and prevents anyone from following in his footsteps. It has also been used historically as a power tool to maintain Roman hegemony. Roman potentates much prefer to wield the magic of the deity of Abraham than to practice the simple virtues espoused by Jesus. That way, they can continue to live in the lap of luxury and vice.
Farley asserts that the material Creator fashioned the human body. She should reconsider this position. Given the historic evidence, it seems more likely that the material Creator is a fabrication of the human mind. There was a time when it did not exist. People who seek to enslave humanity hold up the idea of the material Creator as a way to terrorize others into submission. Obey their dictates or risk eternal punishment.
Rome is not an eternal city. It was built as a human endeavor. Nothing that has a beginning is eternal. Once we investigate the way that the Roman deity was crafted, we can see that it will not last forever. William Paley made the false assertion that people converted willingly to the Christian religion in contrast to convert-or-die religions. This ignores the fact that people reluctantly subscribed to the Nicene Creed. Heretics preferred death to kowtowing to the Nicene idol.
I admire Farley's work. It is well researched with a strong grounding in classical antiquity. She sheds significant light on the machinations of despotism and its Christian aspect. I hope she eventually transcends the material Creator to experience a more perfect bond with the eternal.
Do you have any concept of transcendence in your political world?
Links: UK Guardian article on the Vatican ban. Margaret Farley on the sources of sexual inequality in Christianity. Margaret Farley on bioethics. Patheos Press blog article on Margaret Farley's reaction to the Vatican action.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 17:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 17:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/12 22:08 (UTC)I greatly admire Ms Farley for her contributions to medical and sexual ethics
As do I, the Good Sister (despite affliction) seems to be working to cure the beast (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/sister-margaret-farley-denounced-by-vatican.html) from within:
Do you have any concept of transcendence in your political world?
All the supernatural claims of all the religions are false.
Transcendence is conceptually possible within the natural realm of which politics is a part.
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 15:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 04:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 15:22 (UTC)One of our students remarked that politics without transcendence is called absolute monarchy.
(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 20:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/6/12 15:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/6/12 20:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/6/12 15:08 (UTC)