The Conspiracy of Religious Conspiracies

I believe that a large portion of conspiracies are a result of the inability to separate ideas. This may come in the form of fusing religion with politics, history with language, ethnicity with history, etc... I ask that you read my following essay and analyze areas where you may have "thrown the baby out with the bath water" when it comes to religion.

Edit: A large portion of my essay isn't showing up so please be patient. Hopefully after reading this you will put your heart at rest. For several years conspiracy theories made me feel alienated, different, angry, and unhappy. Perhaps this essay will help to liberate you from the bondage of conspiracy theories.

The topics of human freedom, the death of Jesus, and the death of every human are interwoven in a delicate process. Below I will present the opinions of Edward Schillebeeckx, Walter Kasper, Karl Rahner, and Bernard Prusak regarding the issues.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Enki Pontifex Maximus]

Edward Schillebeeckx begins his comments on the death of Jesus by providing various perspectives. He establishes that many people consider suffering as an incomprehensible act that provokes both rebellion and resentment of God. He claims that salvation through Jesus Christ’s suffering is a false idea and that it is in despite of Jesus’ death that God undoes evil. Schillebeeckx mentions failure and that many people subscribe to the idea that Jesus was abandoned by God. Supporters of this claim cite Pslam 22, however Schillebeeckx counteracts this argument by explaining that the reference to Pslam 22 does not intend to focus on the first couple of lines, but on the whole Pslam. Schillebeeckx next mentions the idea that although one cannot experience God’s redemptive help, God is still present and does not abandon. This ties into Schillebeeckx’s strongest argument, that despite Jesus’ death, Jesus did not let go of God. Jesus put his full trust in God no matter what evil may have been unleashed upon him. In this way Jesus was not a failure. Although Jesus had been killed by humans and his teachings ceased, God had the last word by resurrecting Jesus. The death and resurrection of Jesus is a vital teaching story in and of itself. Because Jesus had faithfully trusted in God no matter how much he suffered on the cross, Jesus was able to undo evil. Schillebeeckx tells us that the power of God is the power of love, which is helpless and disarming. This leads us to his next point. He claims that God is a defenseless God who uses his vulnerability to disarm evil. God is the great divine yielder that makes room for the freedoms of humans at the expense of giving up control. God yields and humans therefore possess free will and freedom. The covenant between God and humans is an equal partnership. Both God and humans are free from each other, but out of mutual benefit work together. God gives humans a ‘blank cheque’ or ‘vote of confidence.’ Because God is the divine yielder, his power is inwardly present and not outwardly present. God’s vulnerability is to outside forces of human power such as governments, political parties, and armies. God is vulnerable to make room for our freedom. By understanding that God is inwardly present and not outwardly, people can no longer blame God as a scapegoat for horrific acts in human history. For the longest time I had struggled with this issue of understanding God’s involvement. I had failed to separate inwardly divine power from outwardly human power. Like many people I had lumped the two different powers, one which is infinite, and the other which is finite together. Questions such as, “If God is good then how can he allow 9/11 to happen?” or “If God is good then how can he allow the genocide in Darfur to continue?” and “If God is good then why did he let Jesus die on the cross?” By understanding Schillebeeckx’s idea of divine yielding and the reservation for inwardly presence, one can clearly see that it was not God’s abandonment of us that resulted in the horrific acts of 9/11 or the genocide in Darfur, but that those events were a result of outwardly forces of human power. God was not responsible for the death of Jesus, it was men and women who were responsible. Since Schillebeckx has established that God chooses to refuse power we see similarities with Jesus. Jesus chose to refuse the title of Messiah and often wanted to associate with outcasts. As God is defenseless to the outwardly powers so is Jesus defenseless on the cross. How is Jesus’ defenseless and vulnerability a means to undo evil? Without Jesus being forced to experience the deepest and darkest moments that humans could ever live through, he would have not had a reason to put his trust, faith, and love in God. Schillebeeckx believes that the ultimate failure occurs in a person’s inability to love.

One alternate example where vulnerability can undo evil are the peaceful protests that M. K. Gandhi held called satyagraha. In satyagraha the concept of non-violence is practiced and
patience and sympathy wean the transgressor from error. In the same way that British occupying forces had learned from their errors through defenseless protests, the non-believers of Jesus such as Judas and Peter had their errors corrected through Jesus’ patience and sympathy for the transgressors despite being betrayed and denied.

Walter Kasper’s writings for the most part support Schillebeckx claims. For example, he opens his paper with talking about Psalm 22. Kasper highlights that Psalm 22 gives thanks. On page 194 of Jesus Christ, Son of God Kasper says, “The cross is the utmost that is possible to God in his self-surrendering love; it is ‘that than which a greater cannot be thought’; it is the unsurpassable self-definition of God. This self-renunciation or emptying is therefore not a self-abandonment and not a self-de-divinization of God. The love of God that is revealed on the cross is rather the expression of God’s unconditional fidelity to his promise.” Clearly in this except Kasper is reaffirming Schillebeeckx’s idea that God is defenseless but not powerless. In addition, by God maintaining his unconditional fidelity to his promise, we are shown the nature of God’s divine yielding. God’s fidelity in allowing for humans’ freedom is a testament of the unwavering covenant. A fresh idea that Kasper
brings up is how God’s suffering is an expression of his freedom and that God must have freedom in love and love in freedom. This is another example of the intricate interlocking of love and freedom. Out of God’s love we receive freedom to choose and out of freedom to choose we are more likely to love God in return. The relationship between God and human is symbiotic. In symbiotic relationships the two partners co-exist with one another instead of absorb one another. Love affirms the other. Also, to know love is to know suffering and vice versa. According to Kasper, God is a God of sympathy who suffers with man and in doing so he transforms suffering into hope.

The focus of Karl Rahner’s paper talks about the experience of human death. For Rahner one of the most important lessons to realize is not only that everyone dies, but I myself will die. For Rahner, death is a transition from imperfection to perfection. In death people become free. The freedom deceased people obtain is the freedom to choose what is to be definitive in one’s life. In death humans receive further development and maturity. For Rahner the two choices in death are to either surrender yourself to God or deny yourself to God. By surrendering yourself to God you become the most free. By denying God you reject love and ultimately failure occurs. Rahner believes that an accomplished death occurs when someone gives faith in another and becomes ultimately loved. In this case, the person would be giving faith in God. Thus, the difference between surrendering to another and denying another is the difference between death of faith and death of despair.

In Reconsidering The Relationship of Sin and Death, Dr. Prusak talks about the defenselessness of human death and how at Jesus’ moment of darkness he had to “renew once and for all his decision to trust in the Absolute Mystery of Love called God.” Prusak quotes Rahner on the idea that the darkness of the death of Jesus was an expression of his full obedience to God. Prusak cites Kasper as well about Jesus experiencing darkness more deeply than any human could ever experience. The key point that Dr. Prusak makes besides supporting the claims of Schillebeeckx, Rahner, and Kasper is that death is ambigious and we must ask new questions about its source and meanings. At a quick glance some people suggested that Jesus’ death on the cross was a failure, however by asking new questions about the true meaning of his death we are able to see his ultimate victory of giving all his faith and love in God.

The writings of Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Kasper, and Prusak all corroborate evidence of the meshing between human freedom, the death of Jesus, and the death of all humans. Just as each of the three different stages of Jesus’ life cannot stand separately on their own, these three issues are best understood when explained as a whole.

Without Jesus being forced to experience the deepest and darkest moments that humans could ever live through, he would have not had a reason to put his trust, faith, and love in God. Schillebeeckx believes that the ultimate failure occurs in a person’s inability to love.

I agree with the fact that all of the horror, inhumanity and bloodshed that occurs in this world is a result of human kinds inability to love one another.

I also agree its not God's responsibility(who or whatever God may be) to stop these things.

It ultimately comes down to personal responsibility.

Whatever happens to us in this life we are the cause of and responsible for it.

No God no saviour just us.