One Question
I think that our answers to this question reveal a lot about our perspective of God and faith and the focus of our lives. Here's a sample of a few of the group's answers...
"Why? Why do you allow such bad things to happen to people? Why do you allow such bad things to happen to me? Why?"
"How am I doing? Am I good enough? Do I need to fix some stuff? Am I doing enough?"
"Do you love me?"
This discussion is a cliche in Christian circles but I don't think that these are superficial questions. They really reveal our hearts and inner thoughts. These questions really mean a lot to each person that asks. Even if some of them seem simple to answer, the reality of people's personal lives and tragic stories makes these questions deeply consequential. Flippant answers do not resolve the emotion and doubt and pain and confusion that lies within these questions.
What would your one question be?
17 comments:
What happened to the dinosaurs? Really.
Oh, and I'd probably ask how to capture a giant squid.
The suffering and identity questions are just so... christian.
Actually, the whole discussion misses the point. If Jesus was physically here with us, there would be no need for any of those questions.
This is because, in the end, all of the questions that you mention arise from the fact that Jesus is not here with us right now. Really, all of these questions come down to the issue of godforsakenness -- which, of course, would be resolved if Jesus was actually physically here with us.
Oh, and the way to catch a giant squid is, of course, with a giant sperm whale.
That question has already been answered 2000 years ago. Some simply kissed his feet as an act of awe and love while others determined to kill him because they didn't like his answers.
Having God literally answer our questions doesn't necessarily mean that we will be satisfied with the answers. Jesus didn't fight with the Roman government with an ultruistic political model or directly stamp out poverty or stop injustice or eliminate "acts of God" from destroying innocent people.
He could literally look someone in the eyes and say I love you and forgive you and they might simply walk away angry at him for being so arrogant.
Mike: Suffering and identity questions follow most of us throughout our lives. Every time we face something really hard, like a death in the family, the suffering question comes up again. Every time we have a major life change, like getting married or having kids, we look in the mirror again. These questions do not leave, they just evolve. Dissing them as Christian cliches (which they are) does not diminish how crucial these questions are to people.
Less seriously, I think it's amusing that you answered this question straight up. And the best you can offer is the same curious questions that I remember you had back in high school. Now who's stuck with the same ol' same old? Heh.
Dan: I disagree that Jesus' presence eliminates these questions. Peter still needed to know that Jesus loved him, right? The one-on-one component is important. Even more, I think these types of questions reveal more about us than they do about Jesus, which is why I posted this.
And yes, a giant sperm whale is certainly the best way to capture a giant squid.
David: Good point, we may not like or accept the way that Jesus would answer our questions, if he answered them at all. He did have a habit of dodging the superficial question while getting to the heart of the person behind it.
My point is that, were Jesus to be physically present with us, then that itself would be the proof that he loved us. Peter is, in fact, a good example here. Once Jesus appeared to Peter after the resurrection, Peter knew, by the fact that Jesus had appeared to him, that Jesus loved him. It is actually Jesus, then, who still needed to know that Peter loved him, and not vice versa (which is why Jesus asks, three times, for verbal affirmation from Peter).
And the best you can offer is the same curious questions that I remember you had back in high school.
Because they are the coolest questions Jesus would be able to answer. I wouldn't ask him about desire, because God does not lack. I wouldn't ask about imagination, because infinite intuition requires none. I wouldn't ask about time, because God would be outside of it. And I wouldn't ask about being as such, because God crosses it.
So dinosaurs and squids, man. Dinosaurs and squids. If this were any other blog, there would be a string of expletives in this paragraph to emphasize just how awesome dinosaurs and squids are.
No reply yet, so I'll more fully explain my disdain for the OP's questions.
To ask about suffering in that way has two problems.
1) It is masochistic and narcissistic. The question can only be asked from a place where one feels the world actually does revolve around them, and that the world is out to get them. Substitute "world" for "God" if you so wish.
2) It displaces all responsibility onto God. God is the one that causes or allows your suffering? No, it's your own passivity.
The question "am I doing enough" will only ever be answered one way. With a big fat NO. The Law always demands more, more more. See Romans. The Law brings death.
Ok, the question about love can be a serious question. Some would say it is the only question, that our whole lives are about trying to get a positive response to it. In the context of the other questions, though, it just becomes a variation on the first two. In this context, I think "Do you love me" means "will you take responsibility for me?" and "Am I satisfying the Law?"
I'd ask Jesus ... is it true that our thoughts have as much power to change the course of our lives as so many writers say?
i don't know what i would ask him... maybe about divorce and remarriage and what his modern thoughts are on that topic. maybe they have changed in the last 2000 years.
Shona that is hilarious!
Wisely said, Mike. Though your answer to the suffering question is about as useful as saying "God's ways are mysterious."
I agree, still, that this question gets us nowhere in the end. People that are asking this question need to find healing and forgiveness and peace, not some theological or philosophical answer that doesn't resolve the pain.
aka Mike
Do you imagine Jesus giving anything other than a theological answer? How could he?
Dan's answer doesn't involve Jesus just offering more information, and hence does indeed basically dodge my critique. Still, divine presence is still presence, and (the metaphysics of) presence has its own list of limitations.
I'm not sure a sperm whale could actually be used to capture a squid. The first problem is that you'd have to capture the whale first, which can't be much easier. Then you'd have to count on the whale actually bothered to go after an impressively sized squid. Then how would you get the whale to bring the squid to the surface?
Well, Mike, catching and taming a sperm whale is a different problem entirely... :)
I only suggested a sperm whale because sperm whales are known to hunt giant squid (this has been ascertained by the observation that the beaks of giant squid have been found, undigested, in the stomachs of sperm whales, and by the observation of scars on sperm whales that have been attributed to battles with giant squid). Of course, this raises another problem: if one is able to capture and train a whale, how will one prevent the whale from eating the squid, once the squid is caught? Dear me, so many problems.
Oh, by the way, Mike, in a prior comment you mentioned that relating desire to God may be somthing of a misplaced idea because God does not lack. Rooting desire in lack is all very Freudian (and it is an idea that is continued by the likes of Lacan, Zizek, and Baudrillard) but others have argued that desire has little to do with lack and more to do with creativity (cf. Deleuze and Guattari). I think the latter party might be onto something.
Sure, D&G's Spinozist tradition would take me to task on that. I dunno, though. I guess I'm more attached to the Hegelian/Lacanian view of it, maybe just because Kojeve's book on Hegel was the first philosophy I've ever read. He got in on the ground floor and earned some loyalty.
I actually haven't read any Kojeve but, after reading Derrida's comments on the way in which Fukuyama ab/uses Kojeve (cf. Specters of Marx), I was thinking of checking him out. Any suggestions on a good place to start?
I'm pretty sure Kojeve only has the one book, Introductions to the Reading of Hegel. And of that, only parts have been translated into English.
Post a Comment