I think you have more intellectual humility than the entire rest of the internet combined. I'm genuinely barely even exaggerating at all. It's very rare to see people publicly admit that they were wrong online, as you so regularly do. This was a very well-written reflection, I enjoyed it a lot. Keep up the good work!
Samuel I 16:12 "with fair eyes and a pleasing appearance." In the original Hebrew it can be read as 'with beautiful eyes and seeing the good.'
A Rabbi, (I don't remember who) connected this to the later description of David's followers (22:2) as 'embittered souls' — David saw the good in them, and they gathered around him.
I agree that the passage is plausibly a metaphor rather than a literal statement about the metaphysical status of the human eye, but I think you're still engaging in a tiny bit of creative misinterpretation here, as well. Apparently "good eye" was some sort of Biblical locution referring to generosity. In the context of the preceding verses 19-21 about the importance of donating material wealth, Jesus is therefore offering a kind of eye-based pun on how lack of generosity with one's wealth is a symptom of a much larger spiritual sickness. That's in the general vicinity of your gloss on the passage, but seems a lot less interesting and profound.
That said, I don't really understand the overall point of arguing for or against Christianity based on a handful of confusing things Jesus did or didn't say. Surely to whatever extent it's unexpected for Jesus to have said those bizarre things, it's overwhelmingly more unexpected for a Christian deity to have allowed this or that genocide, plague, famine, or even just gratuitous-seeming toe stubbing. Whatever evidence weird sayings might provide, it's inevitably going to be completely trivial in comparison to the problem of evil, a less-than-negligible rounding error. And if you don't think the problem of evil is a big deal, then probably the anomalous sayings shouldn't be, either, for exactly the same reasons! For example, if the solution to the PoE is supposed to be that God creates all net-good worlds, then those are going to include some worlds where his incarnation goes around saying even more flagrantly incomprehensible things like "fingernail table cat square." Either both should be considered the sorts of things that are capable of providing robust evidence against an arbitrary religion in principle, or neither should be.
Once you conclude theism is right, then you'll agree there's a reason for God to be evil. But it will remain suspicious if his incarnate son says stuff that sounds more like what a mere mortal would say than what God would.
But what is a theodicy that successfully defends against the problem of evil as a powerful argument against theism, but does not end up simultaneously defending against the problem of weird sayings in an exactly analogous manner? (And do *you* endorse that specific theodicy?)
Well, the archon theodicy wouldn't predict Jesus having weird sayings. But also, it's not so much that the sayings are bad, it's that they seem likelier if he's human than divine.
The archon theory can easily be adapted to handle this. One of the responsibilities of the archons was to build a world where humans can gradually come to understand their creator and thereby someday achieve theosis, the highest good. If they had succeeded at this, we would have been all the better bound to them in eternal gratitude as the bridge-builders to the divine. But they shirked or failed their duties, and so we, with our subsequently imperfect comprehension, ended up not quite putting the puzzle pieces together when God came down to earth and said "fingernail table cat square."
I of course think this is a terribly dubious response to complaints about weird sayings, but only insofar as the archon theodicy is a terribly dubious response to all the gratuitous-seeming suffering in the world.
Indeed, maybe there is, but the point is that in this case pretty much nothing Jesus said could've provided significant evidence against Christianity, so there's no real need in a cumulative case to focus on any of the details of his sayings or regard them as a potential source of evidentiary threat. Whatever those details are, you have available this completely general response to defuse them.
So what kind of God do you believe in? You are ok with God as creator, but object when He starts doing godly things because they are hard to grasp? Given the incomparable revolution of moral good that swept the world as a result of Jesus’s life work and teaching, how can you not think there might be something there?
"Imagine the feeling of dread you would have if you knew you would be tortured tomorrow in the most hideous ways imaginable. If there is a God, our feelings should be precisely the inverse of this."
If there is no hell and no pain, there's little reason for man to consider obeying God.
I would say that spirituality is partially about actually being capable of seeing people and creation in general in this light. Which isn't really something that can be learned through words.
I also have to say that seeing the eyes of animals did nothing for me, however.
There are blind animals and animals with stronger senses than their sight which therefore constitute a richer portion of their phenomenology than sight. Boo religious feel good passages
I think you have more intellectual humility than the entire rest of the internet combined. I'm genuinely barely even exaggerating at all. It's very rare to see people publicly admit that they were wrong online, as you so regularly do. This was a very well-written reflection, I enjoyed it a lot. Keep up the good work!
Thanks! The negative reading is, of course, that I am often wrong online!
שמואל א' או:יב
יפה עינים וטוב ראי
Samuel I 16:12 "with fair eyes and a pleasing appearance." In the original Hebrew it can be read as 'with beautiful eyes and seeing the good.'
A Rabbi, (I don't remember who) connected this to the later description of David's followers (22:2) as 'embittered souls' — David saw the good in them, and they gathered around him.
I agree that the passage is plausibly a metaphor rather than a literal statement about the metaphysical status of the human eye, but I think you're still engaging in a tiny bit of creative misinterpretation here, as well. Apparently "good eye" was some sort of Biblical locution referring to generosity. In the context of the preceding verses 19-21 about the importance of donating material wealth, Jesus is therefore offering a kind of eye-based pun on how lack of generosity with one's wealth is a symptom of a much larger spiritual sickness. That's in the general vicinity of your gloss on the passage, but seems a lot less interesting and profound.
That said, I don't really understand the overall point of arguing for or against Christianity based on a handful of confusing things Jesus did or didn't say. Surely to whatever extent it's unexpected for Jesus to have said those bizarre things, it's overwhelmingly more unexpected for a Christian deity to have allowed this or that genocide, plague, famine, or even just gratuitous-seeming toe stubbing. Whatever evidence weird sayings might provide, it's inevitably going to be completely trivial in comparison to the problem of evil, a less-than-negligible rounding error. And if you don't think the problem of evil is a big deal, then probably the anomalous sayings shouldn't be, either, for exactly the same reasons! For example, if the solution to the PoE is supposed to be that God creates all net-good worlds, then those are going to include some worlds where his incarnation goes around saying even more flagrantly incomprehensible things like "fingernail table cat square." Either both should be considered the sorts of things that are capable of providing robust evidence against an arbitrary religion in principle, or neither should be.
Once you conclude theism is right, then you'll agree there's a reason for God to be evil. But it will remain suspicious if his incarnate son says stuff that sounds more like what a mere mortal would say than what God would.
But what is a theodicy that successfully defends against the problem of evil as a powerful argument against theism, but does not end up simultaneously defending against the problem of weird sayings in an exactly analogous manner? (And do *you* endorse that specific theodicy?)
Well, the archon theodicy wouldn't predict Jesus having weird sayings. But also, it's not so much that the sayings are bad, it's that they seem likelier if he's human than divine.
The archon theory can easily be adapted to handle this. One of the responsibilities of the archons was to build a world where humans can gradually come to understand their creator and thereby someday achieve theosis, the highest good. If they had succeeded at this, we would have been all the better bound to them in eternal gratitude as the bridge-builders to the divine. But they shirked or failed their duties, and so we, with our subsequently imperfect comprehension, ended up not quite putting the puzzle pieces together when God came down to earth and said "fingernail table cat square."
I of course think this is a terribly dubious response to complaints about weird sayings, but only insofar as the archon theodicy is a terribly dubious response to all the gratuitous-seeming suffering in the world.
Yeah there might be something to that explanation!
Indeed, maybe there is, but the point is that in this case pretty much nothing Jesus said could've provided significant evidence against Christianity, so there's no real need in a cumulative case to focus on any of the details of his sayings or regard them as a potential source of evidentiary threat. Whatever those details are, you have available this completely general response to defuse them.
Good eye is a common term in the Bible and rabbinic literature.
https://www.sefaria.org/search?q=%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F%20%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91&tab=text&tvar=1&tsort=relevance&svar=1&ssort=relevance
The idea that we should value other people goes back at least to the creation story, where people are created "b'tzellem Elohim" -- in God's image.
So what kind of God do you believe in? You are ok with God as creator, but object when He starts doing godly things because they are hard to grasp? Given the incomparable revolution of moral good that swept the world as a result of Jesus’s life work and teaching, how can you not think there might be something there?
JESUS: ...for their possession. How blest are those...
MR. CHEEKY: I don't know. I was too busy talking to Big Nose.
JESUS: ...who hunger and thirst to see...
MAN #1: I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'
JESUS: ...right prevail.
MRS. GREGORY: Ahh, what's so special about the cheesemakers?
GREGORY: Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
"Imagine the feeling of dread you would have if you knew you would be tortured tomorrow in the most hideous ways imaginable. If there is a God, our feelings should be precisely the inverse of this."
If there is no hell and no pain, there's little reason for man to consider obeying God.
Can you explain? I don't follow.
If the Christian concept of heaven is true, then it seems to me to be infinitely valuable to obey God, regardless of whether there's a hell.
The average person doesn't care about 'infinite' value in the future when they can get good value in the present by disobeying God.
The un-average person who really cares about future infinite value will also think of a million reasons why the Bible is wrong.
I would say that spirituality is partially about actually being capable of seeing people and creation in general in this light. Which isn't really something that can be learned through words.
I also have to say that seeing the eyes of animals did nothing for me, however.
There are blind animals and animals with stronger senses than their sight which therefore constitute a richer portion of their phenomenology than sight. Boo religious feel good passages
I don't think he had them in mind!