http://darwiniana.com/2014/12/07/first-church-of-munzer-some-cautionary-notes Our discussion of a Protestant continuation in a ‘revolutionary church of Munzer’, linked to a previous post discussing the resurrection confusion, might seem confusing to traditionalists. And there is a strange reality at work: our many posts on the stream and sequence effect: the emergence of Xtianity is a stream effect, while its reformation version is in fact a sequence effect, giving it a full tank of gas for a new era. So the question of its content becomes important.
That’s the beauty of the macro model into which the question is placed by me: The classic church, with all its supposed liabilities like the doctrine of the resurrection fueling the ire of skeptics, simply becomes a submodule in the larger emerging ‘church’ of the Reformation. It remains for that superset to resolve the perplexities of archaeo-Xtianity in a court, as if were of religious/scientific judgment. In our model the Protestant Reformation is a macro effect, system action, while the later stream is microaction. Despite the limits there of ‘free action’ the future will show the attempts to create a Reformation beyond the Reformation. With considerable irony the Reformation becomes the superior field of judgment and continuation. And it hasn’t yet produced its own foundation. So the jury is out.
If it were up to me I would apply a skeptical judgment on the resurrection issue, but caution that the superintelligent demiurgic powers behind Jesus allowed that to happen. But maybe they lost control. The question will dissolve in time because its symbolic meaning can enlighten the future, whatever the physical reality which I can amusingly leave to the august physics of Frank Tipler with his physics of immortality.
For myself I wouldn’t accept such speculations as valid players here, but the fact remains the resurrection question is now a “beam me aboard, Scotty” question revolving around the total information (bytes and bits) of a human organism.
And if we bring the resurrection question to the Reformation court of religious scientific judgment the debate starts with furious insistence by scientists that since there are no such things as miracles, the whole doctrine should be struck down. The defense steps up and points to the known history of sufis with their miracles, noone quite sure which miracles are which and the lack of any documentation. That’s a strong objection and strangely, in the year 2014, the scientific case is dismissed. Strange. But I don’t think any sufi would make any claims on the resurrection.
But the fact remains that a failure of skepticism demands a second round. Ironic. But this issue is a distraction.
The point is what I noted at the start, that these questions don’t resolve the strangeness of religious history here.
So, in the model of religious history I have constructed, the archaic church is at risk of skeptical demolition the larger superset simply carries that classic on the way to a further Reformation of the Reformation: there the resurrection is an issue of a prior age: our future will create a new Xtian (church of Munzer) with the question of miracles put on the backburner.
We are left with the question of the spiritual powers of the demiurgic world. Our better question is how to create the successor to Xtianity as the ancients created the successor to the now lost Egyptian version, Xtianity.
The New New Testament must dwell on the Old Testament of Roman Xtianity and will try to resolve the questions of soul, mind, spirit, evolution, and historical transformation next to the issues of religion. And much more.