The other evening, as I watched an ABC News segment, I stared in dumbfounded amazement as an ABC News Reporter asked Gainesville Dove Church preacher Terry Jones if Jesus would have done what he plans to do: burn a pile of Qu'rans. Jones responded without batting an eyelash: "Sure, Jesus would have done it!"
I'm afraid here that Jones (like many of his deluded and hateful followers) has got the wrong message and the wrong Jesus. How or where they came by this counterfeit is anyone's guess, but since proper education ceased some three decades ago in the area of religious knowledge and history, it's not surprising. (One check of this arrived with a bang some three years ago in a survey of Christians in the U.S. , when asked for the author of the words: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Nearly 93% said 'Jesus' when it was actually part of the Hammurabi code, which predated him).
Jones and his supporters might want to actually consult: Matthew, 5:43-44:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy'.
But I say to you, 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'"
This is good advice, and it was given as part of the famous Sermon on the Mount. Jesus hereby called his followers, or those who'd profess to be, to LOVE their enemies whoever they may be (in today's context- atheists, Muslims, and anyone else considered 'sub-par' or with hostility). Most assuredly here, and it shouldn't even be necessary to explicate this: burning the scriptures of another religion - even if one believes it is of one's enemy, hardly counts as loving that enemy!
In any case, let's get a proper perspective here: the faith of Islam is not our enemy, not by any stretch. They are rather "fellow travelers on the journey of faith" in the words of Rev. Linda Gertenbach. The Qu'ran is the sacred text of Muslims, as the Bible (the Revised Standard Version, not the KJV) is for Christians. It is arrogance of the highest caliber to believe that any divine Being (putative infinite Being) speaks only through one such text and no others. This arrogance of exclusionary absolutism enters because a person somehow believes his text and only his is the absolute correct standard and all others are frauds, or pretenders.
But the propensity to assert this betrays a belief that is beyond the brain's capacity for knowing it. Since the brain is a finite, limited entity - and moreover compromised by its deficient architecture and limited neurons, it can never ever grasp an "infinite" entity or its purported purposes. Thus, it is fooling itself into a position of absolutist pretension.
We already know, from Gödel's (incompletness) theorems that in any consistent system rich enough to produce simple arithmetic there are axioms or statements that can’t remain proven-in-the-system, or without inconsistency. The problem with any texts that describe an infinite entity is that the maximum statements that their contributors' brains can make to encompass it - call them S1, will always be LESS than the most accurate embodiment (call it S(complete) ) of what the entity really is, minus contradictions!
In other words for a system S (say of a scripture's statements) the statement set for S1 will always be unprovable-in-the-system S. One really needs a set to encompass S1 + n -> oo ~
S(complete), but the extra n are impossible to generate without contradiction. The classical example of this is Epimenides “all Cretans are liars” paradox, which itself perpetuates a causal loop with no closure.
"All Cretans are Liars"
If the speaker is a Cretan, then the statement is ipso facto unresolvable. If Cretan, he exists within the so-called abstract, formal system. Yet, he’s making a statement (meta-) about the system. Hence, is he lying? Or is he telling the truth? This cannot be resolved. An undecidable proposition, as Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem (II) applies. In the same way, whichever narrators are cited in the New Testament, or in the Qu'ran, are citing moral or other injunctions from within a system S1 they themselves are describing. Thus, the self-reference renders the "truths" therein relative, since they will never be fully testable in a complete system of axioms.
What does all this mean? In a nutshell, it means all scriptures must be relative one to the other and not absolute, 'take it to the bank' (or eternity) prescriptions or proscriptions. If the Christians' scriptures lambaste unbelievers, or the Qu'ran does the same to "infidels" they are each in their respective modes to be taken as finite, imperfect statements and never absolutes. If they're adopted as the latter, it means essentially, a prescription for never ending strife....and mutually assured destruction.. since in the end only one "absolute truth" can prevail. There can't be two or more co-existing, which is the core problem with positing an absolute ownership of THE truth. Thus, the solution is to eliminate the absolute truth pretension and concede all scriptural truths and their revelations are relative, as are the god-concepts embodied.
If the "Christian" (say like Terry Jones) accepts that only his absolute truth and hence never ending strife is the answer, because none of the Qu'ran measures up, he has prescribed a hell on Earth - never to be sated until all Qu'rans or Muslims are eliminated. However, taking this extreme position definitely contradicts the words from Matthew 5:43-44. So which is it, Pastor Jones? Follow Jesus way or your own feral will to planetary perdition?
Jones and his cheerleaders might also want to consider Matthew 18: 21-22, and this in the light of whatever wrongs he believes Muslims have inflicted on him:
"Then Peter came and said to him, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?
And Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."
That is a serious statement and makes no bones about Jones actions on Saturday! Whatever ills Jones believes he has ferreted out concerning Muslims or their holy Book, he is enjoined by his master to forgive them not merely "seven times" but seventy times seven" and that means absolutely positively NO burning of one single Qu'ran! NONE! ZERO! NADA! NEIN!
It would be especially horrific if on a day commemorating the lives lost due to a hateful act, Jones used his own hateful act. Hate added to hate is not the answer, and it never rights a perceived wrong. This isn't a matter of simply Jones' "freedoms" or "rights" but encompasses the rights and safety of others, from troops in Afghanistan to innocents who may find themselves in the crosshairs of retribution because of an innately hateful act that emulates what the Nazis did - burning Jewish Torahs, before burning their bodies in gas chambers and ovens.
Can we stop Jones? I don't believe any external action would be useful, and may only make the situation worse. What we need Terry Jones to do instead is truly look inside his heart, and examine it to see if it is truly in harmony with his Savior's own words - which enjoin him to love his enemies.
Love and hate simply cannot occupy the same space in consciousness, not if one is a person of integrity.
That is the choice only Terry Jones can make, and we only hope he makes it in conformance to the words cited above from Matthew's gospel!
I'm afraid here that Jones (like many of his deluded and hateful followers) has got the wrong message and the wrong Jesus. How or where they came by this counterfeit is anyone's guess, but since proper education ceased some three decades ago in the area of religious knowledge and history, it's not surprising. (One check of this arrived with a bang some three years ago in a survey of Christians in the U.S. , when asked for the author of the words: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Nearly 93% said 'Jesus' when it was actually part of the Hammurabi code, which predated him).
Jones and his supporters might want to actually consult: Matthew, 5:43-44:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy'.
But I say to you, 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'"
This is good advice, and it was given as part of the famous Sermon on the Mount. Jesus hereby called his followers, or those who'd profess to be, to LOVE their enemies whoever they may be (in today's context- atheists, Muslims, and anyone else considered 'sub-par' or with hostility). Most assuredly here, and it shouldn't even be necessary to explicate this: burning the scriptures of another religion - even if one believes it is of one's enemy, hardly counts as loving that enemy!
In any case, let's get a proper perspective here: the faith of Islam is not our enemy, not by any stretch. They are rather "fellow travelers on the journey of faith" in the words of Rev. Linda Gertenbach. The Qu'ran is the sacred text of Muslims, as the Bible (the Revised Standard Version, not the KJV) is for Christians. It is arrogance of the highest caliber to believe that any divine Being (putative infinite Being) speaks only through one such text and no others. This arrogance of exclusionary absolutism enters because a person somehow believes his text and only his is the absolute correct standard and all others are frauds, or pretenders.
But the propensity to assert this betrays a belief that is beyond the brain's capacity for knowing it. Since the brain is a finite, limited entity - and moreover compromised by its deficient architecture and limited neurons, it can never ever grasp an "infinite" entity or its purported purposes. Thus, it is fooling itself into a position of absolutist pretension.
We already know, from Gödel's (incompletness) theorems that in any consistent system rich enough to produce simple arithmetic there are axioms or statements that can’t remain proven-in-the-system, or without inconsistency. The problem with any texts that describe an infinite entity is that the maximum statements that their contributors' brains can make to encompass it - call them S1, will always be LESS than the most accurate embodiment (call it S(complete) ) of what the entity really is, minus contradictions!
In other words for a system S (say of a scripture's statements) the statement set for S1 will always be unprovable-in-the-system S. One really needs a set to encompass S1 + n -> oo ~
S(complete), but the extra n are impossible to generate without contradiction. The classical example of this is Epimenides “all Cretans are liars” paradox, which itself perpetuates a causal loop with no closure.
"All Cretans are Liars"
If the speaker is a Cretan, then the statement is ipso facto unresolvable. If Cretan, he exists within the so-called abstract, formal system. Yet, he’s making a statement (meta-) about the system. Hence, is he lying? Or is he telling the truth? This cannot be resolved. An undecidable proposition, as Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem (II) applies. In the same way, whichever narrators are cited in the New Testament, or in the Qu'ran, are citing moral or other injunctions from within a system S1 they themselves are describing. Thus, the self-reference renders the "truths" therein relative, since they will never be fully testable in a complete system of axioms.
What does all this mean? In a nutshell, it means all scriptures must be relative one to the other and not absolute, 'take it to the bank' (or eternity) prescriptions or proscriptions. If the Christians' scriptures lambaste unbelievers, or the Qu'ran does the same to "infidels" they are each in their respective modes to be taken as finite, imperfect statements and never absolutes. If they're adopted as the latter, it means essentially, a prescription for never ending strife....and mutually assured destruction.. since in the end only one "absolute truth" can prevail. There can't be two or more co-existing, which is the core problem with positing an absolute ownership of THE truth. Thus, the solution is to eliminate the absolute truth pretension and concede all scriptural truths and their revelations are relative, as are the god-concepts embodied.
If the "Christian" (say like Terry Jones) accepts that only his absolute truth and hence never ending strife is the answer, because none of the Qu'ran measures up, he has prescribed a hell on Earth - never to be sated until all Qu'rans or Muslims are eliminated. However, taking this extreme position definitely contradicts the words from Matthew 5:43-44. So which is it, Pastor Jones? Follow Jesus way or your own feral will to planetary perdition?
Jones and his cheerleaders might also want to consider Matthew 18: 21-22, and this in the light of whatever wrongs he believes Muslims have inflicted on him:
"Then Peter came and said to him, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?
And Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."
That is a serious statement and makes no bones about Jones actions on Saturday! Whatever ills Jones believes he has ferreted out concerning Muslims or their holy Book, he is enjoined by his master to forgive them not merely "seven times" but seventy times seven" and that means absolutely positively NO burning of one single Qu'ran! NONE! ZERO! NADA! NEIN!
It would be especially horrific if on a day commemorating the lives lost due to a hateful act, Jones used his own hateful act. Hate added to hate is not the answer, and it never rights a perceived wrong. This isn't a matter of simply Jones' "freedoms" or "rights" but encompasses the rights and safety of others, from troops in Afghanistan to innocents who may find themselves in the crosshairs of retribution because of an innately hateful act that emulates what the Nazis did - burning Jewish Torahs, before burning their bodies in gas chambers and ovens.
Can we stop Jones? I don't believe any external action would be useful, and may only make the situation worse. What we need Terry Jones to do instead is truly look inside his heart, and examine it to see if it is truly in harmony with his Savior's own words - which enjoin him to love his enemies.
Love and hate simply cannot occupy the same space in consciousness, not if one is a person of integrity.
That is the choice only Terry Jones can make, and we only hope he makes it in conformance to the words cited above from Matthew's gospel!
No comments:
Post a Comment