Allegories Gone Wild – The Theology That Boasts Of Emptiness
12 July 2009 by KA
Nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’
You gotta have somethin’
If you wanna be with me
Nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’
You gotta have somethin’
If you wanna be with me – Billy Preston, Nothing From Nothing
Apparently, there’s a new rage in religious quarters. It’s called kenotic theology. Kenosis
is a Greek word for emptiness, which is used as a theological term. The ancient Greek word κένωσις kénōsis means an "emptying", from κενός kenós "empty". The word is mainly used, however, in a Christian theological context, for example Philippians 2:7, "Jesus made himself nothing (ἐκένωσε ekénōse) …" (NIV) or "…he emptied himself…" (NRSV), using the verb form κενόω kenóō "to empty". See also Strong’s G2758. In Christian theology, Kenosis is the concept of the ’self-emptying’ of one’s own will and becoming entirely receptive to God and his perfect will. It is used both as an explanation of the Incarnation, and an indication of the nature of God’s activity and condescension. Mystical theologian John of the Cross‘ work "Dark Night of the Soul" is a particularly lucid explanation of God’s process of transforming the believer into the icon or "likeness of Christ". Yes, it does sound like some form of a Zen koan, does it not? I’ve heard this in some variety or form over the last few decades: the ‘emptying’ of oneself, to become some sort of vessel for mystic forces, or in the Eastern tradition, that act of emptiness in order to achieve/receive some kind of spiritual insight. In fact, it’s very much like the concept of zazen, or ‘opening the hand of thought’. However, the differential is that in Western thought, the act of ‘opening’ is the process of inviting something in, whereas in Eastern modalities, it’s the simple act of release. On our side of the ocean, the act of actual quietude, that silencing of the internal dialogue, is viewed (usually) with some degree of doubt and/or horror, as if silence as well as stillness is indicative of non-existence or identity loss (which is quite silly: a quasar very active, perhaps noisy, while a growing tree is neither). As a Westerner, it provides a degree of difficulty for myself – the martial art I engage in seeks stillness in motion, a paradox not a contradiction. There are countless studies showing that meditation itself, that ‘emptying of the self’ is a huge reliever of stress (that holdover of the fight/flight impulse we’ve been struggling with for years), so I shan’t belabor that point. But the Occidental mind always seems to need a prime mover, a direction – aghast at the concept of free-floating in freefall, even if only for a few minutes each day. Ergo, insert Father Figure (this is some sort of weird reverse Oedipal Rex complex), who ‘fills’ the ‘vessel’. What brings us to this? Why, evolutionary Christology. Basically, this is an effort to synchronize religion with evolution. This excerpt is from The Examined Life On-Line Journal: Did the pre-existent God come down from Heaven and become man in the person of Jesus, or did Jesus the man achieve divinity? This question emerges as a consequence of the work of a number of Catholic theologians, although most of them would probably reject the question in that form. Personally, I reject the question in its entirety. In his “The Theandric Nature of Christ”, David Coffey sets out “to concentrate on the unity of Christ without thereby devaluing his humanity over against his divinity.” His study “transfers the focus of his unity from the divinity to the humanity, so that the former is clearly seen to be actualised in the latter.” Coffey argues that the theandric, or divine-human character “of Christ’s human nature emerges from a critical study of Karl Rahner’s Christology that deepens our understanding of human nature itself.” (1999,405) He notes that in a 1958 essay Rahner had argued that human nature has “when assumed by God as his reality, simply arrived at the point to which it strives by virtue of its essence.” (1999, 411-12) This view proposes a deeper understanding of human nature – that human nature is essentially oriented towards its own divinisation, while Coffey maintains that Christ’s divinity is actualised within his human nature. Theandric? So…is there a Homo Theanderthal in the works somewhere? Snip: So from Hulsbosch, Schillebeecks, Schoonenberg and North we have agreement that latent possibilities, which are somehow contained within matter itself, evolve to reveal Jesus the God-man. From Rahner we have human nature striving towards divinisation by virtue of its essence. If human nature strives towards divinisation “by virtue of its essence” and if Jesus represents “an unfolding of possibilities which were somehow latent within matter itself”, we must try to understand those processes through which this occurs. We need to find how human nature strives towards its divinisation and how the possibilities that are latent in matter are realised. We have to ask: A) How do the latent possibilities within matter come to be realised, and in particular, what form of evolutionary process might realise these possibilities? The answer here, is almost Zen in and of itself: there were no latent possibilities, and the matter realized itself. (B) Within an evolutionary process, how might humanity achieve the divinisation that it pursues by virtue of its essence? What evolutionary process could humanity utilise in its striving towards divinisation? Well, ZERO comes to mind, as there is no ‘divine’ - this is presupposition liberally mixed with psychobabble. (C) As Jesus has achieved the divinisation that humanity pursues by virtue of its essence, what is the nature of the process that produced Jesus? Again, presupposes Jay-bus even existed. Even if he did, was his birth a result of parthenogenesis (the virgin birth)? Is there some way to analyze the DNA? Oh, that’s right: they can’t even find the tomb, so how would this apply at all? The ultimate divinisation, or deification, of man is Christian teaching, but how this might happen has always been obscure. This problem is highlighted by E.L. Mascall, who says: “The vision of God, union with God, assimilation to God – in such terms Christianity, basing itself on the Bible itself, has consistently described man’s end and beatitude. Yet it is by no means easy to see how such a destiny is consistent with the radical distinction between God and the creature. To be a creature is to exist with a derived existence; to exist with an underived existence is to be God; there can be no half-way house. How then can a creature be deified? – for this is the term which Christian theology has dared to use.” (1949,184) He contrasts the rational conviction of the “absolute distinction between God and creatures” to the equally firm faith conviction “that we can literally become ‘partakers of the divine nature.’ (2 Pet. I,4)” (1949,185) This is all really too much. Until they can find ‘deity’, capture it, analyze it, and sell it along with Estee Lauder products, this is all a bunch of metaphysical rubbish. And at this point, the author screws the pooch: I argue that Mascall proposes a false dichotomy between a derived and an underived existence when he argues that there can be “no half-way house” between underived being and derived being. Once evolution is understood as a process that involves both self-organisation and self-creation, we can postulate an intermediate position between a derived and an underived existence. This intermediate position, as the product of a process of self-creation, can be closer to the underived existence of God than to the derived existence of a creature. In my dissertation on “The Process of the Cosmos” I develop a Natural Theology, based on contemporary Cosmology, which identifies the role of human moral-cultural self-creation in the overall process of the Cosmos. So, this runs fairly contrary to all expectations of the ‘religious evolutionists’. By the very operational definitions of ‘self-organisation’ and ‘self-creation’, it relegates their deity to near-nothingness, a bystander instead of a proactive ‘creator’. If something ‘organizes’ itself, then no external participants need apply. The same goes for the ‘creation’ part. The author attempts to back pedal here: The natural theology of “The Process of the Cosmos” is not significantly affected by Biefeldt’s conclusion, indeed it argues for an understanding of God who does not intervene, or who intervenes minimally, and who certainly does not intervene in the normal life of the world. In “The Process of the Cosmos” I argued that God initiated each new Emergent stage. I now resile from all intervention by God in the process of the cosmos, once the process has been initiated, except for the initiation of life, which would seem to have been associated with a transfer of information and energy. The initiation of the cosmos, the first Emergent, is clearly associated with a transfer of information and energy. It is not affected by Biefeldt’s argument. But this is Aquinas’ ‘Uncaused First Cause’ argument revisited, not a demonstrative proof of any sort. The rest is a grab bag of analogical arguments, some copy/paste from different ‘philosophers’, and in general, an entertaining read. Mind you, subtract ‘gawd’ from the equation, and the house of cards crumbles, but it’s interesting to see the thought processes of those who are at least making the effort to acknowledge evolution, but unwilling to forgo their superstitions. Till the next post, then.
God-Man Unity
12 July 2009, on 3:07 am
I didn’t realize that Philippians said Jesus made himself from nothing. Next time a Christian decides to say evolution can’t be true because something can’t come from nothing I’ll hit them with that and see what kind of off the wall, left field bullshit I get hit with.
Just because I’m masochistic like that.
12 July 2009, on 8:51 am
KA:
Thank you for reading, so I don’t have to.
I can’t do any sort of higher math, none (bear with me, there is a point) and this is despite having numerous people attempt to teach me. I was finally diagnosed as being learning disabled in this regard, with the admonition to get a calculator that would perform those functions that I cannot.
Now, I can’t DO math, but I know that it exists and I accept the countless demonstrations of its efficacy as I go about my daily life. Belief in the Skydaddy and his son and a third person who is yet all one is also a concept that I cannot wrap my head around. More to the point, as I go about my daily life I see no evidence of GOLDY works. What I see is a set of circumstances which have near infinite permutations of chance. Actually, when I think about it, life really doesn’t require explaining so much as living it without fear of a capricious, malicious, homicidal Skydaddy fucking up the permutations with his intervention.
Atheist Under Mask:
That might work, except that they would probably tell you that it was just a metaphor. And, when you counter with, “Your deity is make believe and all of the stories are metaphorical” they would sigh, roll their eyes and tell you that, “Of course that’s untrue. Why? because GOB says so!”.
12 July 2009, on 11:38 am
What a “trip” to read all that stuff, KA.
Were you, perchance, wearing your “Palin-esque” wading boots whilst exploring all that mind-numbing murkiness?
I guess I’ll add MY thanks to democommie’s expressed gratitude.
Actually, what comes to MY mind is…the absolutely enormous amount of post-colonospic-like ‘residue’ that all those Ivory Towered, pedestaled, Theologian parasites go to, piling on endless layers of mind bending claptrap (putrid feces?)…in order to, bottom-line, justify their self-righteous, ultra-privileged and brainwashed existence.
[A Doctorate in Theology...like so many doctorate degrees...you know...
PhD?..."Piled higher and Deeper"?]
Speaking of piling…
All of it is piled on top of much earlier, totally made-up, Scientifically and Archaeologically non-evidential, mind-boggling mythological baloney.
“OY!…what a vile stench!”
OR…as Sir Walter Scott, perhaps more aptly, put it:
“Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive.”
What’s that?…and…”Practice makes Perfect”?
Yeah…”Perfect…mindbogglingly incredible…seemingly never ending…TOTAL (vile smelling) Bullshit”!
Or Horseshit…if you prefer. No?
Humongous road apples?…
12 July 2009, on 12:19 pm
AUM:
Democommie’s point is pretty accurate: but the likelihood is that you’ll be told you’re taking the phrase out of context (which is in & of itself pretty funny – 90% of them can’t agree on context anyways).
Democommie – you’re welcome.
ChuckA – I’d always thought that ‘tangled web’ quote was Shakespeare. Hm.
12 July 2009, on 12:33 pm
So, is this Kenosis some sort of uber-enema that requires a lobotomy to complete?
Sorry, double-lobotomy.
12 July 2009, on 12:53 pm
I don’t understand how something outside of time can even move and enter into space and time and become a man. If time is that dimension in which cause and effect take place then without time there can’t be any motion or cause and effect. A timeless personal being doesn’t even make any sense. If there was no time “prior” to the big bang then there was no cause and effect. No time no cause. No cause, no God.
12 July 2009, on 1:56 pm
Well like I said, masochistic like that.
Usually when they tell me something in the Bible is a metaphor I either ask what for, or I start bringing up things in the Bible, good and bad, and see which way they lean, and I then ask why I should believe this book is accurate if half of it is metaphorical. Most of the time I do things just to see how far down the stupid hole I can get them to go.
By the way, did I mention my disdain for people who think the first cause argument is a good argument and use it? It ranks up there with the banana as the easiest to counter, and all you have to do is think for a few minutes… oh wait, thinking… not they’re strong suit.
12 July 2009, on 2:03 pm
^^ KA..
“ChuckA – I’d always thought that ‘tangled web’ quote was Shakespeare. Hm.”
I guess your not alone on that…Shakespeare (whomever he REALLY was, gets erroneously credited for a lot of miscellaneous Elizabethan Era shtick!]
I may have, as is so common, slightly misquoted Sir Walter; but checking on Google at:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27150.html
Here’s the actual quote…(and source?):
“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!”
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 – 1832)
(Does practise = practice? Is that even Misquoted? Does ANYONE, including Sir Walter, ever get it straight?…SHEESH!)
[It's been a LONG time since my, English Minor, College days.]
And, yeah…”picky-picky”?…”big fucking deal”!…moving right along…
12 July 2009, on 5:24 pm
^Correction…I guess YOU’RE not alone.
]
[It's Sunday; for some reason, my brain is sluggish!
13 July 2009, on 11:22 am
ChuckA, horeshit smells worse than bullshit. I’ve smelled both. Especially if the horse is eating too much green grass.
This sort of thing is not the exception, it’s the rule. Christian theologians have jobs by making what was once a simple thing into the complex. This “emptiness” concept is one of those things from the Bible that doesn’t have much explanation, and historians and grammarians have a tough time finding places where this concept is used elsewhere to illumine what the Phillippians passage says. So, since proper exegesis is a dead end, enter eisegetical babble and voila, 30 more post-grad students have something to write their dissertations on, and people the likes of NT Wright can now publish 1,000 page books attempting to explain the concept.
Also, having been a graduate Biblical studies student at a seminary in a former life, anytime – and I mean ANYTIME – an author uses a Strong’s Concordance to define an ancient word for you, that person does not know his/her biblical languages well enough to do the gruntwork him/herself. Back in seminary we used to call it the “Wrong’s Concordance” because it over-simplifies to the point of error. That’s when I knew what you were quoting was mainstream Xian bullshit and not something academic. I will at least give the academics a chance to make their point, but if one uses a Strong’s Concordance to define a word and then hangs the entire dissertation/book or whatever on that concept or an attempt to explain it is naive.
16 July 2009, on 3:56 am
Is this what the church marquee meant when it said: “The Bible — so easy, a child can understand it; so complex, scholars are still debating it”…
To muddy further the turgid waters that we can now easily walk upon it ourselves, how about Jesus plus nothing: Undercover among America’s secret theocrats, by Jeff Sharlet (published in Harper’s in 2003)? The “nothing” he references is so toxically powerful, we could be sitting on a ticking time bomb.
16 July 2009, on 12:03 pm
Wow, Naomi, thanks for that linked, Jeff Sharlet, article.
That “stuff” should be brought out again…or would it REALLY be for the 1st time?…on CNN etc., considering the very recent News about some of our “Family Values” Senator MFs.
Talk about some creepy shit! Rachel Maddow has been featuring another expose of “The Family” fucktard story…under the “C Street” moniker… on some segments. (”YAY, Rachel!”) In fact the GOP is “after her” on that.
What!…”WAMP-omp-aloo-bomp!”?
Here’s the latest story link on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/rachel-maddow-draws-fire_n_231538.html
Watching the amazingly cool, and highly intelligent, Sonia Sotomayor get drilled from some of the dumbest Repig asshole idiots, and knowing, all the while, that our Government is STILL literally RIDDLED with complete fucktards like Ensign, etc. is enough to make one literally puke.
Just thinking about what’s gone on since both Bush retards…WAIT!…make that Reagan…Carter?…(fill in the blank?)…and all the fundie-fuck minions, with their moronically insane and totally asinine “Prayer Breakfast” bullshit; not to mention little things like…oh-I-dunno…9/11 (under their “watch”), all the Wars, yada-yada…starts to make some of those Conspiracy fanatics sound…What!…sane?
AARGH!!!
By the way, Naomi…may I extend a friendly HI!?..
It’s always good to hear from you…you…ummm…
“Road Warrior”?
16 July 2009, on 12:29 pm
starts to make some of those Conspiracy fanatics sound…What!…sane?
I’m not a hard-core conspiracy theorist, but I have often thought to myself that for one to assume history has transpired without any conspiracy is utterly naive. Like this shit for example.
17 July 2009, on 1:05 pm
Thanks, David J, for that reminder. And, lest we forget, our Pentagon still fosters “research” into many weird/darkside ventures, such as “remote viewing”. After many years and millions of dollars, they pulled the plug on that nonsense. They had hoped to find people with the ability to “see” who could also be trained to “do things” from a safe place. They give “nuts” a bad name! Now, the RVs are stars on CrackpotCentral, hosted by Art Bell and George Nouri.
But, I digress…
And a hearty hello to you, too, ChuckA! RoadWarrior is a little over-the-top, since our trucks have been turned down to 63mph. We’ve now achieved “Camp Follower” status, although so many other companies have turned their trucks down, too, that we’ve become a huge clot in our interstate-arterial-system.
Oh, man, more digressing…sorry, KA.
I only made it halfway through “Jesus plus nothing”. Reading about the octopus arms reaching into the governments of dictators made me take a break that I’ve never returned from. Religion brings out the “spooky” in many people. But an opus-dei-like network in place across the world is something my mind recognizes as pure evil.
And just because some conspiracy-theories have been debunked does not mean that ALL are.
Machiavelli, anyone?
17 July 2009, on 2:10 pm
Oops! Another C Street Vet Falls To An Extramarital Affair
Sorry, I couldn’t resist posting this.
“Thou shalt run a brothel in my name.” 
17 July 2009, on 4:34 pm
Naomi, I agree with you. Not all conspiracies are tosh. I for one think that the Christian Church has had its hand in a lot of these throughout the centuries. And I would never, ever trust an “official” communication from anything that is even remotely or tacitly connected to the AIPAC.