deus otiosus

First there is the setting of the stage. What is the central problems? What does it mean to understand or misunderstand what religion is? Aslan seems to thingk that is an attempt to communicate the transcendant in a language based on human experience.

Aslan comes closest to metaphors when he tries to distinguish "faith" from "religion". Ther is a metaphor of religion as shell that must be broken to get at faith. There is a metaphor of religion as well that leads to faith. How does dig a deep well if one is immediately trying to break the shell? Aslan's typical example of Christianity as religious symbolism is "washed in the blood of the lamb"; but how can one be washed in the blood of the lamb, if Jesus was only a miserable failure of a revolutionary?

There is another common metaphor for the mystical divide between religion and faith out there in terms of a finger pointing at the moon. One may say religion is the finger and faith is the moon. But if this is an appropriate metaphor, then religion can also point away from the moon. But Aslan seems to argue that religion doesn't intrinsically point anywhere; it is rather our cultural realities that make our religion point this way or that.

His book seems to be entirely devoted to explaining why we should believe in Aslan's version of the Real Jesus (or Historical Jesus) instead of the Anointed (i.e. Mashiach/Christ) of the New Testament. It is Christ (which Aslan tends to describe as a "detached" and "celestial spirit") vs. ARJ (i.e. Aslan's Real Jesus). ARJ isn't so interested in the heavenly realm. ARJ mainly cares about political revolution. Aslan claims emphatically that the book is not an attack on Christianity (he has after all Christian family and friends), and yet his book is aimed at convincing the reader that the New Testament is almost entirely an intentionally ahistorical fabrication.

There is an astounding bit of logic behind this. Aslan seems to think that there is no way to get at Jesus' humanity than totally bracketing any sort of divinity (i.e. denying any New Testament claims that he is especially divine), and then argues on the basis of this bracketing that anything that doesn't define Jesus as being wholly like Aslan's version of his sociocultural environment is made up.

There is necessarily "absolutely nothing special" about ARJ. He was supposedly saying nothing unique or extraordinary against the backdrop of militant apocalyptic magicians, except possibly that he offered his miracl services free of charge. He goes around inciting revolution by speaking in a code that is supposedly so transparent that everybody knows what he means. He is such a nobody that it is ludicrous to think that Pilate would pay him any notice, yet such a critical threat to Roman rule that there was no way he couldn't have been executed. He obviously believes the kingdom of God will be accomplished through brute physical force because he is "no fool," and yet he thinks he can overthrow Roman rule with only 72 dedicated followers and 2 swords. ARJ is only noteworthy as a socioeconomic reformer, and Aslan admits he seems to have absolutely no plan about how this new economy will work. The only thing that seems extraordinary about ARJ is his extreme foolishness. But unlike Christ, ARJ seems concerned with the cares of this life whereas Christ is far removed, any special calim to divinity makes him deus otiosus.

PHD in Reagan , credentials, 4 degrees in the history of political parties

Jesuit politics and the infancy narratives of conversion

in religion, one man's contradiction is another man's paradox

Black Swan fallacy

errors in logic, errors in fact, problems in how it is being sold; the basis on which Aslan claims to have expertise presents a real problem. either it is possible that Aslan's education hasn't given him the sort of expertise he seems to claim, or it has failed him, or being a historian-of-religion does not necessarily confer such expertise. Is this a general problem with our universities, is it a problem with Gechult-related terms, or is it a problem with a particularl man's academic career?