Por qué soy cristiano

by José Antonio Marina

Esta investigación explora la caudalosa corriente de la experiencia cristiana, que tiene su origen en un enigmático judío que vivió hace veinte siglos. Los seguidores de Jesus de Nazaret tuvieron que enfrentarse con el complejo mundo helenístico y elegir entre una interpretación gnóstica, filosófica y una interpretación moral; entre una concepción carismática y otra institucional. De esas decisiones deriva parte de nuestra cultura. Este libro es, ademaás, una teoría sobre la verdad.

Genres: Philosophy

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Del Trigo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una de mis lecturas filosofías más relevantes. El autor nos muestra su camino y su apuesta ante lo espiritual y lo desconocido

[Rut Picalagartos · Rating 2 out of 5]

Al contrario de lo que el título indica, este libro no defiende el cristianismo, sino que hace un recorrido histórico del mismo, a la vez que expone su origen en la inteligencia humana y no a través de la existencia real de un Dios todopoderoso.

La teoría de la doble verdad que trata el libro es una idea interesante, pero me da la sensación de que el autor es demasiado subjetivo y no justifica con ninguna prueba o teoría sus argumentos, entonces a veces se sienten vacíos, suelta una idea esperando que los lectores consideren que su verdad es la realidad. Por otro lado, el autor usa citas bíblicas, sin embargo, les da el contexto equivocado o las escribe con matices que hacen que cambie su significado e interpretación. Esto es una forma de confundir al lector que no ha leído la biblia.

[Jose · Rating 4 out of 5]

All nascent churches advocate for freedom of worship. Once established they demand everyone tows the line. This was the case with Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism to name a few. In the process of aligning themselves with political powers, religions loose their original source and become political instruments, repressive in the best of cases, violent in the worst. In this book, the author makes the case that what Christianity was and is has very little to do with Popes, dogmas and miracles. It also dismisses the naive idea of a pure form or doctrine or the sentimental, romantic idea of unity and blissful contemplation of heaven and God's love as some sort of invisible cocoon from real life.

As personal experiences go, faith requires no rational justifications. A religious belief can be reasonable but not necessarily rational or subject to logic and proof. The author takes the view that, even when the religious impulse might be at the root of civilization, reason and universal truths are far superior to religious dogmas when it comes to organizing society. Just because you don't like Picasso, or think that murder should be an art, you have no right to close museums or murder anyone. Moreover, freedom of conscience is an essential principle of a truly religious ethos. While faith can inform and should inform ones actions, it looses its very essence when imposed on others and paraded around.

This is a brief and illuminating book written as a clear counterpoint (but not a rebuttal) to "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. The thesis in a nutshell: religious truth= personal belief (in an absolute truth). The author presents a well constructed argument that Christianity has suffered from a cultural evolution that has favored certain aspects over others. The book starts by delving into how little we really know about the historical Jesus from sources other than the Bible: Some texts by Roman historians mention him in passing. It also makes perfectly clear that virginal births, resurrections and miracles made frequent appearances in narratives from Jesus' time and before. The author's aim is to shift the readers' attention away from the supernatural (and possibly invented) to the actual experience of faith and why this would be a good thing. Not faith as a theological concept but as an experience.

He follows the Catholic Church's chronology and its many Councils pointing out how with time and power the Church tied itself in knots trying to further the correct interpretation of the faith. This process was not capricious, but was meant to fend off heresies which came in droves initially. The Christian church was born within a Greek and Latin tradition that imposed their philosophical bent on its views. Platonic traditions gave us a notion of a perfect world beyond reach from which all imperfect instances emanate, a 'heaven' that is nowhere near. Greek argumentation also pushed the original Church to debate and clarify theory that ended up being a very muddy theology. So it was the "gnosis" or knowledge and the orthodoxy that triumphed over the revelation and the orthopraxis. Philosophies like Hinduism have been more adept at accepting what is true in practice and incorporating it into their outlook no matter what the source. The idea of the "true" religion being a distinct departure from a more desirable religion "that is true". The author also notes that Hinduism is not exempt of political alliances that deteriorate its message into fanaticism.

And so the conflict between reason and revelation has always left the faithful at odds. Endless debates regarding Jesus' divine vs human nature caused multiple divisions. Many so-called dogmas practically have held the Church hostage for ages. Take the insidious idea that there is no salvation outside the Church (so what about them Indians of the New World then, uh?). Or the question of the Pope's infallibility created to dodge further criticisms. No dogma is more central to the Catholic faith than Jesus' resurrection. Here too, interpretations abound as it cannot be proven that it took place. It simply is beyond our reach to do so. In short, preaching is and has been done with a lot less certainty than displayed.

When it came to keep things together, politicians favored the theory. But revelation was favored anytime truth was clobbered. Luther split the Church in two when he decided to recover the idea that faith alone saves and tried to exclude the mediation of the Church and its many venial mechanisms. Soon Protestants, having built their own political alliances, were persecuting others. Faith had to be freely accepted but also rational -as if one could dismiss a Pythagorean theorem. May be Calvin closed the loop when he declared the need to have faith for salvation but also the inability of the person to know whether he/she has it or not.

The author presents a hegelian battle of opposites. He gets really close to the Chruch-less religion of Bonhoeffer and the self-evident truths of Heidegger (a truth that reveals itself or a revelation without a God to reveal it, similar to Hinduism). He favors the revealed truth except he e decidedly sees how a purely personal justification can serve to raise all sort of subjective "spiritual" froth. Even though the last tribunal lies within, a purely personal experience implodes quickly. He recovers the meaning of some blurred-by-time ideas to fend off illusionistic visions. A faith in Jesus is a trust in Jesus not the other way around. Jesus in his preaching is most clear in regard to action, and quite obscure, metaphorical and vague in his theories. Love, the Kingdom of God and faith can only become visible in action with us as agents. So the problem of evil in the world and other such rational conundrums: why does God not act when there is evil and why is there evil, can we relate to a God that is not involved in real life, etc.. become our call, not issues for empty pondering. He has a very interesting take on what the Kingdom really means, not a future event or a "heaven" but the realm brought about by the orthopraxis, the Christianity that manifests its love not as a sappy sentiment but as an active response. The book certainly invites one to reconsider the phrase "God is Love" in a light entirely other than some vague feel-good nonsense.

Finally, the author explains why, indeed, he is a christian. Basically, he sees in himself a higher purpose than that of a bacteria. He also marvels at the creative and multifaceted spark inside humans towards science, art and creative energy of all kinds. He admits this is his personal choice and finds Jesus as the closest interpreter of the divine dimensions of reality. Jesus command to seek justice jives with the use of human intelligence to find moral and ethical actions that collaborate with God's love. God is creative energy one can participate with. His project is God's Kingdom and Justice. Jesus also made the promise of the triumph over Death. Again, the author finds this compelling enough to place an optimistic bet.

[Raúl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jose Antonio Marina nos ofrece un ensayo que mezcla una breve historia del pensamiento cristiano con divulgación filosófica. La obra está escrita en razón de los problemas que suscita la religión, de los que cabe mencionar, en primera instancia, el más acuciante: el integrismo. Ya que la religión, como doctrina, conduce en tantos casos al fanatismo irracional, ¿merece aún un lugar en nuestra época o debemos desterrarla sin miramientos? Muchos ilustrados se llevan decantando por esta segunda opción desde hace ya algunos siglos, mientras que otros tantos lo hacen por la primera, buscando un sitio para la religión y conteniendo sus potenciales riesgos. Como saben, la cosa viene de lejos, y no es este el lugar para desarrollar el tema a gusto. El caso es que Bertrand Russell publicó en 1957 'Por qué no soy cristiano', así que ya imaginarán que la intención de Jose Antonio Marina es hacer un guiño a esa obra, con su título. Básicamente, Marina suscribe los argumentos de Russell, aunque su identidad frente al cristianismo resulte ser la contraria: Russell rechazaba el cristianismo y se declaraba, desde el punto de vista filosófico, agnóstico; Marina prefiere considerarse cristiano, aunque desde un punto de vista privado.

[Marina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Breve libro del pensador José Antonio Marina donde realiza un recorrido rápido sobre la experiencia cristiana, sobre las verdades privadas y las públicas, sobre la interpretación gnóstica y la moral, entre una concepción espiritual y otra centrada en la acción. Nos expone datos históricos y dilemas éticos para terminar el recorrido explicándonos en qué punto se encuentra él: ¿Por qué es cristiano?

Me ha gustado mucho. La idea de concebir la religión como una parte del Hombre que acompaña a su naturaleza creadora de significados, a la ciencia y a la investigación, al arte y la imaginación, es algo que comparto. Podríamos resumir la base de su tesis haciendo referencia a su descripción del "Principio ético de la Verdad": "En todo lo que afecta a las relaciones entre los seres humanos, o a asuntos que impliquen a otra persona, una verdad privada - sea individual o colectiva - es de rango inferior a una verdad universal, en caso de que entren en conflicto". Para el autor, el cristianismo es un modo de comportarse que busca el bien, la justicia y la bondad.

Personalmente, pienso que si no fuéramos capaces de intentar construir, ayudar, mejorar y crear, perderíamos parte del sentido de nuestra humanidad. Esta tarea podemos realizarla desde muchos lugares: desde la técnica, la ciencia, la ética y por supuesto también la religión.

"El proceso que condujo de pensar a Dios como el poder sumo, a pensarlo como el ser perfecto y, más allá aún, como la suma bondad, me parece el origen de la humanización de nuestra especie. El hombre era capaz de pensar algo humano más perfecto que el hombre". 🕯️

[Julian Moreno Alvarez · Rating 5 out of 5]

El libro es una disertación respecto al cristianismo, el origen y mensaje de jesus, la institucionalización de su mensaje y la construcción que le fue dando la ortodoxia de la iglesia como redentor y revelador de la verdad.

[Estevo Raposo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Explica José Antonio Marina, con una claridad meridiana, asuntos como lo datos que tenemos sobre el Jesús histórico, que es la experiencia, la diferencia entre verdad subjetiva y verdad formal, la diferencia, dentro de la religión, entre la praxis y la gnosis, etc.

Al terminar de leer este ensayo, me quedé con la sensación de haber pasado de puntillas de ideas muy interesantes, sin aprehenderlas realmente.

[Pacmanguai · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesante reflexión sobre el significado de ser cristiano y las distintas perspectivas gnostica/práctica.