“Prior to his resurrection, Christ descended to the underworld — a paradox most churches prefer not to confront.”
That’s a headline in Salon from yesterday. As far as progressive battle cries go, it takes some beating, containing as it does willful ignorance of both faith and reason as well as a full-frontal strawman assault, all in just under twenty words. It’s easy to disprove the headline, and the article that follows, in a single hyperlink, but there is additional merit to be had in the examination of Salon’s reasons for publishing what amounts to libel, if only to satisfy what I think of as the “Winston Smith” aspect — namely “I understand HOW: I do not understand WHY.”
I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.
That’s the Apostles’ Creed, and it is widespread in fundamentally similar forms throughout Christianity. Lutherans to Catholics. Virtually every variant of Christianity that bothers with a profession of faith uses the Apostles’ Creed at some point in their catechism or ceremony. I, in my altar-boy days, preferred the dignity of the Nicene Creed, but I was the exception; the fact remains that you’d have to be a pretty fringe-group Christian to have never encountered the above text.
Note the portion that I bolded and italicized. Then, if you like, read the idiocy at Salon. The article refers to “The fourth century Apostle’s Creed…” as if said Apostles’ Creed had entered disuse in the fifth century. Is there not something strange and wonderful about the idea that this piece was probably read multiple times by several different people during its preparation and not a single one of them knew that the Apostles’ Creed was still in use around the world?
The world of Salon is a world where the basic tenets of the Christian faith are as recondite as the Apocrypha or the heresy of Nestorius, which is mentioned in the article, one suspects, for no other reason than it appears early in Wikipedia’s list of heresies.. It is a world where Christianity is an odd, cultish belief to be studied from a great distance.
In this way the positivist and the fundamentalist are strangely unified in their opposition to Tertullian’s infamous aphorism: credo quia absurdum (“I believe it because it is absurd”). The fundamentalist with his embarrassment over paradox denies the weirdness of his faith. The positivist can do no such thing and like Mr. Jefferson takes his razor to the Bible to excise the strangeness. But central to the Christian vision is a profound and undeniable weirdness…
There’s that word, paradox, again. You can search the dictionary definition for the word and not find anything having to do with the idea of Christ going to hell. It is no more or less “paradoxical” to note that St. Louis is between Oklahoma City and Indianapolis. The visit to hell was part of Christ’s redemption of humanity. You don’t have to believe it, but there is nothing inherently paradoxical about the story.
No, what the use of “paradox” displays is not the weakness in the Christian theology, but rather the weakness in the progressive theology. Having learned to use words like “racist”, “sexist”, and “homophobic” in entirely new and fascinating ways, the progressive considers that all words may be used in a context-sensitive manner. “Paradox” here means “stupid and hickish” the way that “racist” means “bad” or “homophobic” means “bad”. The meaning has been carefully stripped from the words. All that matters is their context. If Salon says something is a paradox, it matters not if the actual meaning of “paradox” is satisfied. Consider, if you will, this part of an interview from The Paris Review:
In this book, I feel that you have adopted categories of description, oppositions, that are worse than dubious—the sort of categories relied on by the editors of Causeur, or by Alain Finkielkraut, Éric Zemmour, even Renaud Camus. For example, the “opposition” between antiracism and secularism.
One cannot deny there is a contradiction there.
I don’t see it. On the contrary, the same people are often militant antiracists and fervent defenders of secularism, with both ways of thinking rooted in the Enlightenment.
Look, the Enlightenment is dead, may it rest in peace. A striking example? The left wing candidate on Olivier Besancenot’s ticket who wore the veil, there’s a contradiction for you. But only the Muslims are in an actually schizophrenic situation. On the level of what we customarily call values, Muslims have more in common with the extreme right than with the left. There is a more fundamental opposition between a Muslim and an atheist than between a Muslim and a Catholic. That seems obvious to me.
But I don’t understand the connection with racism …
That’s because there is none. Objectively speaking, there is none. When I was tried for racism and acquitted, a decade ago, the prosecutor remarked, correctly, that the Muslim religion was not a racial trait. This has become even more obvious today. So we have extended the domain of “racism” by inventing the crime of islamophobia.
The word may be badly chosen, but there do exist forms of stigma toward groups or categories of person, which are forms of racism …
No, islamophobia is not a kind of racism. If anything has become obvious, it’s that.
Islamophobia serves as a screen for a kind of racism that can no longer be expressed because it’s against the law.
I think that’s just false. I don’t agree.
You rely on another dubious dichotomy, the opposition between anti-Semitism and racism, when actually we can point to many moments in history when those two things have gone hand in hand.
I think anti-Semitism has nothing to do with racism. I’ve spent time trying to understand anti-Semitism, as it happens. One’s first impulse is to connect it with racism. But what kind of racism is it when a person can’t say whether somebody is Jewish or not Jewish, because the difference can’t be seen? Racism is more elementary than that, it’s a different skin color …
No, because cultural racism has been with us for a long time.
But now you’re asking words to mean something they don’t. Racism is simply when you don’t like somebody because he belongs to another race, because he hasn’t got the same color skin that you do, or the same features, et cetera. You can’t stretch the word to give it some higher meaning. (Italicized by me, because it’s the important part — jb)
But since, from a biological point of view, “races” don’t exist, racism is necessarily cultural.
But racism exists, apparently, all around us. Obviously it has existed from the moment when races first began mixing … Be honest, Sylvain! You know very well that a racist is someone who doesn’t like somebody else because he has black skin or because he has an Arab face. That’s what racism is.
Or because his values or his culture are …
No, that’s a different problem, I’m sorry.
What you see there is the conflict between the disciplined mind of Michel Houellebecq and the disorganized, FeelsWorld-compatible mind of Sylvain Bourmeau, his interviewer. Sylvain very badly wants “racist” to mean “attitudes that I, Sylvain, have been taught to dislike,”, but Michel won’t let him have it.
How many forty-year-olds have the mental discipline to play Houellebecq in a world full of Bourmeaus? How many thirty-year-olds? How many college students?
“Paradox” has a meaning, and that meaning is not satisfied in the Salon piece. It can be well and truly said of the article that it is ignorant. Which is to say that it is uneducated and uninformed and unknowing. Nowadays, “ignorant” means “from a state that voted for Mitt Romney” but the true meaning is unknowing. This Salon article is truly ignorant — both of its subject matter and the word used to characterize the subject matter.
Yet it would be a mistake to consider this ignorance accidental, or anything other than part of a massive and successful plan on the part of the progressive movement. The two pincers here are:
* the “othering” of traditional American and/or religious beliefs, so they may be safely attacked;
* the draining of meaning from words, so that the words become the servant of the people who have the loudest microphone.
Remember that Winston Smith believes that “freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four” and remember, as well, that he is brutalized into giving that freedom up. It is in precisely this way that modern progressives are draining the meaning from words like “racist” and “paradox” — and for the same reason. When “paradox” means whatever the media says it means, you cannot refute a claim that Christianity is paradoxical, or racist, or homophobic, or anything else. You have no grounding in truth or logic, no immovable foundation on which to stand. “Truth” is simply what everybody around you repeats. Two plus two can equal five if everybody on your Facebook wall believes it does.
Thus we see Tim Cook attack Indiana for “homophobia” but then turn around and cheerfully do business with Arabian states where homosexuality is punishable by death. “Homophobia”, always an unsteady neologism in its own right, now simply means “whatever powerful progressive interests dislike.” Indiana is homophobic. Dubai is not. And if you think that has anything to do with Apple’s decision to seek profits, then you, too, are homophobic by association.
What, therefore, can people who believe in truth do about the Salon article, whether they are liberal or conservative, straight or gay, rich or poor? The answer is: very little, unless you want to take up arms. If not, then there is always this, and here’s the irony: there is far more paradox in this poem than in the Apostles’ Creed.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Steve Martin used to do a bit about a guy who dies and arrives at the Pearly Gates, and is perplexed by the event: “Oh, wow. In college they said this was all bullshit.”
The image of Salon mavenette Joan Walsh being dragged, kicking and screaming, across the Styx will sustain a lot of us for a long time.
Well said!
If atheists ever get the religious war they’re dying to start they’ll realize how outgunned they are pretty quickly. There are over a billion Catholics and if there’s even the slightest bit of real push back from religious people the PC charade will come crashing down.
how many of those billion Catholics are more than just Creasters?
I doubt a religious war will be between atheists and Catholics (Christians) - it will likely be between other groups - from fundamentally the same abrahamic religious origins. I also don’t think this is an article about religion - I take it as a comment about the misuse of the meaning of words.
I don’t really think Atheists want war (OK a few vocal ones do) but I think in reality like most Americans Atheists beliefs don’t figure strongly enough into to their daily life to make it a fighting topic. Also there are certain portions of the american population that hate atheists with a passion and they now this, which is why most atheists will never admit to being atheist.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201406/why-americans-hate-atheists
It’s also why the majority of atheists will never do more to promote their faction then sign a petition to keep government and religion separate.
Sure some attack religion but that’s really like saying Westboro baptist speaks for all conservatives. And I admit it’s a bit unprogressive to attack someone else views.
Oh well.
I wonder how many of those Catholics in the world really believe in everything their religion says. I can understand why an intelligent, educated person would believe in some kind of deity, some kind of common purpose of the world, etc.
But a grown-up, educated person believing in stuff like “world being created in 7 days, about 6,000 years ago”, or actual existence of “Pearly Gates”? Believing that all the truth about the world is in some book written 2,000 years ago, which clearly shows signs of being based on myths and knowledge of the day?
I cannot comprehend this.
I don’t believe any of that is the doctrine of the RCC. matter of fact, the whole “Young Earth Creationism” thing is fairly rare.
Yeah, I think that the percentage of Christians that believes the young-earth stuff is lower than the percentage of Muslims who support violence. Not trying to be inflammatory, just forthright.
I don’t know if it counts as “official” Church Doctrine, but several past Popes have issued writings (and affirmed later by John Paul II) that the story of Genesis shouldn’t be taken as a literal account of the creation of the universe. a “day” to God could be millennia as far as we know; we just fit the story into units of time we could understand.
Few Christians in the US believe in the young Earth stuff or a literal interpretation of Genesis.
In the majority of churches these days the Bible is used as a guide to faith not as a “History of Everything” book.
“Young Earth” creationism has a very simple source - irresponsible scholarship of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
The 6000 year old Earth comes from this:
Abraham is introduced in Genesis 12, and his place in history is well-established as being around 2000 BC. Other sources can validate contemporary peoples and places of the day. So that makes 4000 years from Abraham to now.
Prior to Abraham, it is popular to simply add up the ages of Abraham’s ancestors when their sons were born. This gives us about another 2000 years, hence 6000 years to today.
The problem is this: In Genesis, when it says someone “begat” another, we conveniently translate it “fathered”, but it is also possible to translate the word as “is the ancestor of”. Therefore, it is likely that many, many generations are omitted from those genealogies.
There is no need to read them literally, and hinge your entire thinking of creation upon them. Doing so forces one to develop very contorted ideas about science and time, which are invalidated by known physical principles. The Bible is not a science book.
If you were to name all the Presidents, you’d invariably start with Washington, and include other well-known ones. You’d likely miss the two Harrisons, two Adams, Polk, van Buren, and others. I believe the Genesis genealogies are similarly written to include high points and low points, but not every detail.
Personally, I am an old Earth creationist, who doesn’t buy evolution. I have no problem with a 4 billion year old Earth a 13 billion year old universe, the dinosaurs, and so on. What I don’t buy is that we’re evolved from the primordial soup. The social and moral consequences of that viewpoint are radical and disturbing. We are the only creatures made in God’s image (likeness), which means we are unique - not mere blobs of chemistry.
The cartoonist who does “Scenes From a Multiverse,” in a shocking fit of bravery in the wake of the Charlie Hebdoo massacre, criticized Pope Francis for asking that beliefs be respected, rather than criticizing the “religion of peace” for fostering an environment where murdering inconsequential provocateurs (aka jackasses) seems reasonable.
Good piece. There is a definite Orewllian streak in the current PC progressive crowd. And speaking of paradox, could someone explain why some factions of the left make common cause with hard line Muslims. Such as when some of the more colourful members of their communities display pro Palestinian anti Israeli signs in gay pride parades. Surely even the most cursory glance of headlines would reveal that the Muslim’s world view on issues such as LGBT rights and same sex marriage is less than progressive and
enlightened.
Tant mieux, I am told Salon’s next installment in this series will be:
“The Shadowy Sect That Meets in Your Town to Practice Ritual Symbolic Cannibalism-
But Some of Them Think IT’S REAL!!!”
Great article, mon vieux!
John
That made me lulz, it seems like a salon/buzzfeed mashup
Geez, I sure hope you’re not under the impression that ALL progressives think & act this way. Some of us still remember the meaning of words such as paradox and racism.
I think there are people whose primary interest is in using the power of the state to further their agenda. In 2015, most of those people are progressives. In 1950, they were conservatives. No matter what they call themselves, I consider myself their opponent.
Jack I’m not sure I agree currently I think using the power of the state is an equal game the progressives are just little more organized to get things done. The Conservatives are split in to many ways on what they want to use the power for which means little of their agenda gets pushed,into actual change if they can rally behind a few topics I have little doubt they would do the same.
This was a ray of light in my day…im so many ways. Very reminiscent of the writings of Bishop Sheen…inspiring for sheer erudition. I can bestow no higher praise.
On Tim Cook it’s really a picking your issues thing. He’s a business leader and a activist he has to balance the two. The business leaders saw a fight they could easily win in Indiana. A pro business government leaning way to the right. The Activist business leaders saw an opening they would appeal to all the financial conservatives (not just the liberal base) and create pressure on the states leaders and that’s exactly what happened.
It’s not that they wouldn’t want to fight other areas this was just an easily winnable fight.
No, Tim Cook is a hypocrite and a coward. He should go to the grand opening of Apple’s Iranian store (if and when Obama gets the sanctions lifted) and bring his partner along with him. Any legal action taken against him would bring publicity to the harsh treatment of gays in less “progressive” areas of the world an order of magnitude greater than his speechifying over Indiana. This is typical of these types of people. It’s easy to start an internet shame-athon against Mozilla’s chairman or Indiana Republicans. Not so much to actually put your beliefs on the line and tell Apple’s board of Directors that as a gay man, you are not going to do business with this list of countries and if they honor profits over humanity they should find another CEO. Same with Salon. Christians are easy targets, with very, very few exceptions we won’t come and kill you for insulting our religion. Call me when they write an expose on the “paradox” of how the founder of the Religion of Peace (TM) can be so thin skinned that even now any insult of him, real or perceived, is punishable by death in many countries.
The progressives are their own demise. North American Whites of the future will be much more pragmatic.
The only whites reproducing at above replacement are religious conservatives, especially mormons and anabaptist germans (orthodox jews too). 50 years from now, these groups will be much larger and more powerful, and they will find ways to throw their weight around.
Also, these groups will continue to boil off the offspring who find the religious conservative way of life unfulfilling, while the remainder continue to multiply. The Mormons will get even more Mormon than they are now.
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/boiling-off/
It’s important to understand the difference between various types of Scripture (nobody is a literalist, no matter what they say), and man-made stuff. The Apostle’s Creed is man-made stuff, but pretty good.
My view of the “he descended into hell” part is this: It is a description of the punishment Jesus suffered at the hands of God the Father while dying on the cross, i.e. “why has thou forsaken me?. There is no need to take it literally.
Jack, aren’t you an atheist? Who cares what Salon magazine has to say about fairy tales. The world would be so much better if we were all atheists, one less thing to fight over.
No way man, I’m a Jesus freak. Look at my hair!
In all seriousness, I am unable to contemplate pure atheism. I am not willing to accept the idea that our nasty/brutish/short existence is all we get. I’m firmly on Pascal’s side of the wager. More importantly, I don’t think our relatively limited primate brains are capable of contemplating pure atheism. We evolved as hierarchical beings. Putting an empty spot at the top of that hierarchy doesn’t sit well with me.
A lot of it comes down to a basic un-rooting of Christianity from the cultural framework; in a world where few people have grown up in Sunday school, its understandable that media and editorial often get the basic tenets of Christianity wrong. Where there is a vacuum of knowledge, the “self” fills in the gap with its own personal biases and misunderstandings.
This isn’t a left/right or aethist/believer thing; most writers and journalists also don’t have extensive educations in medicine and science and consequently, what you find is that the average mainstream reporting on STEM topics is abysmally error prone, or at the very least out of context.
If anything it’s empirical evidence that objectivity in writing is a difficult thing. Knowledge does not guarantee the right course of action, but how can you be objective if you aren’t fully versed to begin with?
I find the idea of nothingness after death (the same as before birth) comforting. Dying might suck, but being dead, piece of cake. I won’t even know I am dead. But I don’t want to distract my favorite automotive writer with religious debate. To get us back on topic, what do you think of the cayman vs 911 Carrera. I drive and loved a 987 cayman R. Is there any more driving pleasure or r fine ent to be found by moving up to the 911?
I don’t know if I could choose between a good Cayman and a good watercooled 911. There’s a lot of delight to be had in driving a Boxster or Cayman really hard. On the track, I’d rather have the Cayman than anything but a GT3, which is faster but maybe no more fun.
But… for street use, I like the fact that the seat goes back farther on the 911.