LivesOn and virtual life after death: When your heart stops beating, you'll keep tweeting! New Twitter APP will allow tweeting from the afterlife... REALLY?

The human desire for survival of consciousness and fear of death is so strong, despite the atheist propaganda for materialism and personal extinction after death, that now a new APP for twitter exists which allow dead people keep tweeting after death... obviously NOT literally, but "virtually". The add is known as LIVESON.

According to this website:

You might think your online fans will lose interest when you kick the bucket, but an upcoming app says it will let you keep tweeting from beyond the grave. 

LivesOn will host Twitter accounts that continue to post updates when users shed this mortal coil. 

Developers claim the app's artificial-intelligence engine will analyze your Twitter feed, learn your likes and syntax, and then post tweets in a similar vein when you're gone. 

You'll become an AI construct, a proverbial ghost in the machine. 

Obviously, such technology is sheer delusion. If there is not life after death in any literal sense, then the whole app becomes a kind of "game", a kind of online delusion. 

The whole point of twitter is the possibility of communicating with others (real, living agents). Reading their tweets, replying to them, allowing other people to know our views, etc. 

But what is the point of keep reading, let's say Michael Jackson's tweets, if he doesn't exist anymore? It is astonishing that grown, sane, rational adults will follow with interest a dead person's tweets, when such tweets come actually from a insentient, purely mechanical computer, not from a real person. More ridiculous will be retweet them or even reply to them. Sheer technology-induced self-deception, only possible in a highly secularized, anti-spiritual society.

This is a symptom of the currently fashionable, technologically based materialistic secularism, which tries to fill the spiritual vacuum created by the contemporary materialistic-atheistic-naturalistic worldview with the same religious hopes for immortality and life after death (which make full sense in a theistic worldview, but not in a purely atheistic one), even if such hopes are purely illusory or based on a computer, as in this case.

Sometimes, technology tends to make people a little bit stupid and incapable of hard, critical, rational thinking and serious, honest, fruitful seeking for true spiritual enlightment.

If there is life after death (as I happen to believe), we don't need to fool ourselves using an app like this (except for fun).

More on Ken Wilber's metaphysics: Problems related to the philosophy of mathematics, the concept of God, the Big Bang and the Kalam Cosmological Argument

In a previous post, I've commented on some problems that I think Wilber's metaphysics pose to the notion of survival of consciousness.

But I think Wilber's metaphysics is also at variance with the existence of entities which, if they exist, don't fit well with Wilber's metaphysics. A couple of examples:

1-Mathematical entities (numbers, sets, etc.): If they exist objectively (either in the strong Platonistic sense, or as divine ideas in God), then it is hard to see how Wilber's metaphysics could account for it.

If such objects like numbers exist, presumibly they are perfect, changeless, immaterial entities... how could such entities be explained in terms of holons and evolutionary development? Just think about it: Imagine that the number 0 exist objectively. Now, how exactly such object is a holon which has evolved progressively in a development process? What are the lower and higher holonic structures of such object?

If such object exists, it seems an immutable, perfect, changeless object, not sensitive to change (and hence, not sensitive to evolution or regression). 

It is not clear exactly where such objects, if exist, would fit in Wilber's metaphysics. In this point, Wilber's only consistent position would be a kind of strong anti-realism in the philosophy of mathemathics.

2-God: In the classical theistic tradition, God is a personal being, who is spiritual, immaterial, ommipotent, perfect and so forth.

But in Wilber's metaphysics, such classical concept of God is hard to find. If God is perfect, He already possess all of His essential properties at maximal degree. As consequence, He cannot evolve (i.e. change in a better, progressive way), because He is already perfect. 

Note that if we accept that God is evolving, we are accepting that God is NOT perfect in a given time, because in such time He lacks an essential property that He will have in a later time. This concept would be the concept of an imperfect, but always evolving God, which is at variance with classical theism.

Also, since He's subject to evolutionary process, such God is a contingent entity, not a necessary one. He's more like a physical object, an highly advanced extraterrestial being, than a necessary, fully perfect being which is the ground of reality.

So, Wilber's metaphysics seem to imply atheism regarding the classical concept of God as a personal, perfect immaterial being.

The Big Bang and the concept of God implied in the Kalam Cosmological Argument in tension with Wilber's metaphysics: 

As I've argued in several posts, the evidence for the absolute beginning of the universe poses a massive problem for naturalists, because such beginning cries for an explanation which, given the nature of the case, cannot be a natural explanation (because precisely is the beginning of nature itself which is the issue at stake).

Some leading atheists have fully understood this, and in order to avoid theism, they have used as their last card the view that the universe began to exist from "absolutely nothing at all", and that "there is not reason at all" for the universe's absolute coming to existence. "Nothinhness" becomes the ultimate God-stopper and the last refuge of atheism.

It is obvious why some atheists take such implausible, obscurantistic and irrational view. The absolute beginning of the universe implies that its cause is:

-Immaterial: because the whole of matter is created in the Big Bang.

-Spaceless: because space is created in the Big Bang.

-Timeless: because physical time itself is created in the Big Bang.

-Changless (at least without the universe):  since change implies time, and the cause in question is timeless.

-Extremely powerful: because the cause is creating the universe without any material cause (=creatio ex nihilo), which plausibly only an omnipotent being could do.

-Personal:  Since the only two plausible candidates for a cause possessing all the above attributes are abstract objects (like numbers), or immaterial spirits. Since abstract objects are not causally efficacious (e.g. the number 3 by itself doesn't cause anything... even thought your belief about the number 3 does), the only alternative seems to be immaterial spirits.

So, we're left (as plausible causes of the universe) with the existence of a powerful single immaterial spirit (God), or with a plurality of immaterial spirits who are extremely powerful and even omnipotent (polytheism or a pluralitiy of mini-gods). By Ockham's razor, postulating one single cause = one single God (which suffices to produce the effect) is simpler than postulating an arbitrary number of immaterial causes, it follows that it is more reasonable to postulate one single God as the creator of the universe, than postulating an arbitrary number of mini-gods or God-like spirits.

But such view of God, being timeless and changeless, doesn't fit well with Wilber's evolutionary metaphysics. 

Moreover, Wilber's basic concept that all holons have the property of being simultaneously "part/whole", cannot apply to God. If a perfect God is a holon, exactly what is the "whole" in regards to which such God is a "lower" or "smaller" part?

As I said, the problem with Wilber's metaphysics is that it is monistic, not dualistic. And form a monistic perspective, it is very hard to explain the whole diversity of everything that exists, because some entities (like God, mathematical objects, etc. seem to be ontologically different and non-reducible to a single principle common with material systems). Matter and Consciousness seems to be radically different kinds of entities, not two expressions or manifestations of a single entity.

In classical theism, God is the creator of everything which exists outside himself, including the material world. But the latter, even though God's creation, is NOT God himself (nor has any of God's essential properties). So, a kind of metaphysical dualism is implied.

But in Wilber's system, one single entitiy expresses itself (not "creating" something in addition to itself) through a bunch of wholly different manifestations, from sub-atomic particles to personal minds.

I don't think Wilber's monism is absurd nor obviously false. It could be true. But I find the metaphysical dualism of classical theism, specially in the lights of the Big Bang and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, to be more plausible.

Internet Tough Guys, online warriors, internet badass and online streetfighters

 

 

In a previous post, I commented on some atheistic and "skeptical" bastards and cowards who attacked and threatened atheist girl Rebecca Watson (aka SkepChick). I suggested that these kinds of individuals deserve to receive a good deal of butt-kicking in person in order to learn a lesson of respect. They are cowards who are not capable of giving women the respect they deserve.

But such case of atheistic misbehaviour and insanity only highlights a major problem which expresses itself beyond the atheistic sects and pervades the online world: the existence of so-called "internet tough guys", "internet badass", "online samurais and warriors" and so forth, namely, individuals with serious personal, emotional and psychological problems who use internet to portrait themselves as "tough guys" who love to bully others.

Internet provides large room for anonymity, and this single fact allows psycho-pathological individuals to express their own negativity. Incapable of keeping such behaviour in the real, extra-online world (because in all probability they would have their butt kicked and had legal problems), they manifest their real "self" when they're in front of a computer.

Amazingly, I've seen this kind of behaviour in websites in English, German, Spanish and others from several countries. Apparently, such kind of "online badass" exists across the world.

I'm sure this topic deserve detailed examination from the scientific community, because it is a wholly new phenomenon, made possible only by the existence of internet.

Ken Wilber's metaphysical theory of holons, the afterlife and survival of consciousness and his book Sex, Ecology and Spirituality

Ken Wilber is regarded by many, in New Age (and alternative spiritualities) circles, as the world's greatest living philosopher. And by his critics, as the world's greatest fake philosopher. My current opinion is that Wilber is a brilliant, intelligent, honest and extremely erudite man, with many interesting philosophical insights, even though I strongly disagree with most of his ideas (many of which are not original... many of them come from philosophers like Hegel, Plotinius and others, which doesn't undermine Wilber's own original contributions).

In this post, I'd like to comment briefly on Wilber's metaphysical theory of "holon" and its connection with survival of consciousness. My contention is that such theory (at least as explained in his major scholarly work Sex, Ecology and Spirituality or SES) is at variance with the possibility of survival of consciousness. I don't mean that such notions are straightforwardly incompatible, only that they're in tension, waiting for more elaboration and articulation from Wilber's metaphysics.

In SES, one of Wilber's essential metaphysical concepts is that the Kosmos is hierarchically structured, that is, things are arranged hierarchically, with their specific position in the hierarchy determined by their particular level of developmental advance. So, for example, atoms aggregate into molecules, molecules into cells, cells into biological organisms (please keep in mind this example, because it will be necessary for the discussion below). Each new stage in the evolutionary process “transcends and includes” what came before it and exhibits new emergent properties. So, for example cells include atoms, but "trascend" them in the sense that they have new emergent properties (e.g. metabolism).

Beginning from the Big Bang, things have evolved progressively into more complicated arrangements which create new emergent properties as the developmental process progressively unfolds.

In this point, we confront a problem, namely, the problem of the existence of "emergent properties".  Some philosophers and scientists have argued that emergent properties don't exist, except in the phenomenological-macrophysical level (that is, our sense perception interprets certain things as having emergent properties like solidity or roughness and other macroscopic properties, when in fact they don't have them).

Physicist Marco Biagini comments:

Also the concept of a macroscopic rigid and compact object is only an optical illusion, and not a physical entity. The image of the object we see is in fact only an approximate representation of the real physical object. No object exist in nature as we see it; solid objects appear to us as if they were uniformly filled with motionless matter, while they are only sets of rapidly moving particles; matter is concentrated in a very small fraction of the space occupied by the solid object, mostly in the atomic nuclea, and it has no uniform distribution as it appears to us. The laws of physics establish that the possible properties of every particle or molecule are the same, that is the property of exchange energy with other particles or photons, and the property of movement; these are the properties of every quantum particle, and no aggregate of quantum particles can have new properties. Therefore, no real macroscopic properties exist. The macroscopic properties quoted by materialists, are not objective properties of the physical reality, but they are only abstractions or concepts used to describe our sensorial experiences; in other words, they are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria, a given succession of microscopic processes, and these ideas exist only in a conscious and intelligent mind. Therefore, the macroscopic property, being only an abstraction, presupposes the existence of consciousness. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered a macroscopic property of the physical reality, because the macroscopic property itself presupposes the existence of consciousness. We have then a logical contradiction. No entities which existence presupposes the existence of consciousness can be considered as the cause of the existence of consciousness

I'm not sure whether Biagini is correct about the non-existence of macrophysical properties, but his arguments deserve careful examination. In any case, my point is that if emergent properties are not objective (but a function of our phenomenological constitution), then one of the basic pillars of Wilber's metaphysics collapses.  Wilber's position needs further defense in terms of contemporary physics and the relevant discussions in metaphysics.

But let that pass. Let's assume, for the argument's sake of this post, that emergent properties exist objectively.

Another key concept in Wilber's metaphysics is that the things so arranged in the Kosmos are simultaneously a part and a whole; a part in regards to some larger whole, and a whole in regards to its smaller parts. For example, cells are a part in regards to biological organisms; but are a "whole" in regards to their smaller parts (e.g. molecules). Wilber calls this "part/whole" property of every thing in the Kosmos HOLON (following the term coined by Arthur Koestler).

Consistent with this holonic metaphysics, Wilber argues that the mind (the individual mind like yours or mine) is a property of the brain; the brain is constituted by cells; cells by molecules; and molecules by atoms; atoms by sub-atomic particles, etc. As consequence, the mind is a higher and more developed state of the evolution of material holons like cells or atoms.

Here is where I think we can see a problem in Wilber's metaphysics for the possibility of an (unembodied) afterlife.

Note that Wilber's view so far is very similar to emergent materialism. The mind is a emergent property of the brain, not an (ontologically) independent entity. At first glance, given this premise, the mind couldn't survive the destruction of the biological brain. Therefore, survival of consciousness cannot exist.

If the mind is a holon (like everything else), then by definition it "includes and trascends" aspects of lower holons (like cells, molecules, etc.). But in such case, it's evident that the mind cannot exist after the destruction of the biological brain, because it would imply that the holonic structure underlying and supporting the mind doesn't exist anymore. If it is claimed that the mind can exist in absence of the lower holonic structure, then it becomes a kind of independent and self-subsistent holon (which is self-contradictory given the Wilberian concept of holon), or that it is not a holon anymore (which contradicts Wilber's evolutionary holonic metaphysics).

In the examples mentioned by Wilber, the lower structures of a given holon exist simultaneously to the holon. A cell, for instance, includes molecules and trascends them, but molecules exist simultaneously to cells and hence a cell cannot exist without molecules. Likewise, if the human mind include a material structure (like brain cells, etc.) and trascends it (with emergent properties like rationality or free will), then it implies that the human mind cannot exist in the absence of the brain.

Hence, the more reasonable and consistent conclusion of Wilber's metaphysics would seem to be that, once you have destroyed the lower structure (e.g. the cells), the higher structure (e.g. the brain) is destroyed. On parity of reasoning, the destruction of the brain would imply the extinction of the mind, as emergent materialists consistently realize.

The problem with Wilber's holonic metaphysics is that it is monistic, not dualistic. He postulates one single reality as ontologically fundamental, which expresses itself through progressive evolutionary process in a holonic-fashion. It doesn't make room (at least not comfortably) to basic metaphysical entities like a personal God, or to ontologically distinct entities like mathematical objects (if they exist objectively) or immaterial souls. (Note, by the way, that in the case of mathematical objects, if they exist, presumibly they are perfect, unchangless entities... how could such entities be explained in terms of holons and evolutionary development? Also, in the case of God, if He's a perfect being, it seems impossible that He's a Holon constituted by lower holons which progressively creates new entities in an evolutionary process. A perfect being cannot "evolve", since He's already perfect, He possess all his essential properties to a maximal degree).

Wilber's holon theory is useful to understand material systems (their constitution and evolution), but (in my opinion) not to understand spiritual matters, which are ontologically different and seem to obey wholly different metaphysical principles.

In conclusion:

Wilber's metaphysics of holons don't seem to provide a good theoretical framework to understand survival of consciousness in any of its standard forms (specially in unembodied forms).

If, for example, reincarnation exists, it is hard to see how Wilber's theory could consistently explain it.  How exactly a fully developed mind (that "includes and trascends" atoms and molecules of a particular biological brain) could be attached to a wholly new and independent body and brain when reincarnation happens? In this case, the mind would be previous to the new brain that supports it, which destroys the whole concept of holon in the terms argued by Wilber. (This becomes more evident in cases of "regressive reincarnations", namely, when a human being is reincarnated into lower animals, as some believers in reincarnation suggest).

Ironically, a kind of bodily immortality like the resurrection would seem, at first glance, to be compatible with Wilber's metaphysics, since in the Christian view, the "resurrection" entails the existence of a previous physical body. So, a transformed body (the resurrection body) could be considered as an holon which "trascend and include" the previous physical body (i.e., it includes the same body, and trascends it in the sense of providing it with new emergent properties, for example making it spiritually fit for immortality or immune to disease or decay).

In any case, I think Wilber's metaphysics (widely read and sympathetically accepted by many New Age believers, and fans of the paranormal) is not in home (at least not comfortably) with the idea of survival of consciousness, specially of consciousness existing in an unembodied state (e.g. as suggested by some cases of NDEs).

Misconceptions about contemporary Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) and the theory and science of self-defense and hand-to-hand combat

A positive side of the of "new passion" for Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is that the training methods have been improved. Also, the uselfulness of wrestling and ground fighting has been stressed and "re-discoveried", in contrast with the view of many "traditional" martial artists who typically ignored grappling methods for hand-to-hand combat.

But the emergence of contemporary MMA has a negative side too, and in this post I'm going to discuss some of these problems:

1-In the simplistic, over-enthusiast and superficial mentality of some people (specially in USA), MMA is the ultimate form of street self-defense.

This is false. MMA is a SPORT, and as such the mean, dirty realities of the streets (multiple opponents, weapons, etc.) are not covered by the typical training methods of MMA.

The defenders of MMA argue that all the tecniques of MMA (thai kicks, elbows, ground grappling, etc.) are useful to self-defense. 

True, they're useful to self-defense, but it doesn't mean that MMA is the ultimate form of self-defense, let a alone a self-defense art. (A baseball bat could be useful to self-defense too, but it doesn't make baseball a self-defense sport or art).

2-In contrast with the early no-holds-barred tournaments (e.g. The early UFCs, the early World Vale Tudo championship, the early International Vale Tudo Championship) which allowed virtually every possible empty hand technique (in the early UFCs, groin strikes or eye gouge were the only restrictions... but a violation of such restrictions wouldn't disqualify the figther, so in a sense they were "allowed"... in fact in the UFC 1, Gerard Gordeau bite Royce Gracie's ear and he wasn't disqualified), contemporary MMA tournaments don't allow every possible technique, incluidng "dirty techniques", but only the safest of them.

MMA is now like boxing, only that a wider repertory of techniques is allowed.

But for "old school" followers of  real Vale Tudo fights like me, contemporary MMA is fun, but not serious fighting at all. Just a nice sport to watch and train.

3-But even the "old school" Vale Tudo fighting was not wholly equivalent to street self-defense. They were real fighting, the more close you can get to a real street fight between seasoned figthers of different styles, but not properly a self-defense situation like most cases of street attacks.

4-Another negative effect of contemporary MMA is the misleading impression that traditional martial arts styles are worhtless. 

This is simply false, as anyone who knows the history of martial arts could attest. Styles such as traditional jiu-jitsu, or some styles of Kung Fu (including the Chin Na arsenal) are BATTLE-TESTED. They were used in WARS, against opponents who tried to kill you, not in rings or octagons with a referee.

The defenders of MMA tend to pose the following objection: Such supposedly "battle-tested" styles were beaten when they were faced with modern mixed martial artists.

The objection is unconvincing: Even if it were the case, how exactly that objection refute the claim that such styles were battle-tested and proven effective? Suppose that a master of Chin Na is faced with Mike Tyson in a Vale Tudo tournament, and Tyson gives him a pounding. How exactly such evidence refutes the claim that Chin Na is battle-tested and effective in streetfighting situations? At most, it proves that in certain contexts (or against certain kinds of opponents, like a powerful boxer like Tyson), such style is hard to apply. But it doesn't refute the efficacy of Chin Na in other contexts (e.g. for disarming a guy with a knife, or escaping a strangle hold, or submitting a violent but untrained street attacker).

The believer in MMA conflates the lack of efficacy in a certain contexts with the lack of efficacy in ALL contexts.

Using the same logic, take a leading champion of MMA and make him to face (using swords) a traditional Samurai in a life or death combat. In all probability, the Samurai would kill him. Does it make MMA non-efficacious? Obviously not, it only shows that in certain contexts (e.g. in a fight with weapons) MMA is limited and other styles are superior.

However, it is true that some traditional martial arts use forms of training which are not very realistic (and hence the techniques are not trained in a way which could be used against a non-resisting opponent, specially a trained one), and MMA has helped to realized that.

All the above problems and misunderstandins have been caused, in my opinion, by a lack of theoretical reflection and sytematization of the THEORY OF HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT. In the martial arts community, at least in America and with some exceptions, there are not philosophers or theoreticians of martial arts or combat.

We need to develop a sophisticated theory of hand-to-hand combat, clearifying key concepts, drawing subtle and intelligent distinctions, and (obviously) testing such concepts and theories with empirical evidence (e.g. police reports of street fighting, careful observation and analysis of early Vale Tudo matches, etc.)

This research is worth pursuing for any person interested in martial arts and the science of hand-to-hand combat.

In future posts, I'll discuss some of these things in more detail.

Antonio Piñero: Blog Cristianismo e Historia. A comment on Piñero's misuses of the criteria of authenticity about a Son of God saying in Matthew 11:27

In my opinion, Antonio Piñero is one of the most competent, honest and erudite liberal New Testament scholars that I've ever read. I have great respect for Professor Piñero's scholarship.

However, like most liberal scholars, sadly Piñero misuses the criteria of authenticity in order to deny High-Christological traditions about Jesus (i.e. that Jesus didn't considered himself to be the Son of God in any literally divine sense).

In this case, the misuses in question consists in IGNORING that a given tradition passes the criteria of authenticity PLUS assuming that the mere presence of high-Christological elements in a tradition proves its falsehood.

Before providing the evidence for my contention, you have to keep in mind that liberal scholarship on the Historical Jesus works under the influence of this major criterion:

If a tradition about Jesus supports the distinctively Christian, high Christological (divine) view of Jesus, then it must be considered non-historical, the product of a later Christian invention, even if such tradition passes positively the criteria of authenticity. 

The evidence that I'm going to provide is a telling and fine example of the working of this criterion.

EVIDENCE

You'll remember that, as I argued in this post, some of Jesus' sayings imply his exclusivistic self-perception regarding salvation and as the only or exclusive Son of God.

In his interesting blog "Cristianismo e Historia" published in Spanish (all the translations to English in this post are my own), Antonio Piñero addresses one of these sayings, in particular Mattew 11: 27: "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

What are Piñero's objections to the authenticity of this saying?

He says:

In first place, this is a passage which is very similar to the theology of the Fourth Gospel, so at a first glance it is extremely suspect: Such theology is very late; it is developed around 60-70 years after Jesus' death. Therefore, it is highly improbable that that it can be attributed  to the Historical Jesus. According to the opinion of most interpreters, it is an invention, after the death of the master, by the primitive community which (through the lips of a Christian prophet who spoke in the name of Jesus) put such words in the lips of Jesus when he still lived on Earth.

Pilñero then proceds to quote several scholars, including Geza Vermes, who agree with his opinion.

Keep in mind that  Piñero's argument is essentially that the saying in question is NOT authentic. But what evidence support such conclusion? None, only the assumption that being similar to the Fourth Gospel, it cannot be authentic.

But most important is the evidence which Piñero failed to mention.

Let's see that evidence:

1-Piñero doesn't mention that the saying in question is a Q saying, and hence is very early. Therefore, it passes positively the criterion of date (Cf. Luke 10: 22). As consequence, it refutes Piñero's claim that it reflects a "very late" theology. 

The high-Christological  theological elements about Jesus are already present in "Q". (By the way, if this early Q saying is "very similar" to the theology of the Gospel of John, then one could argue that the theology of John was, basically, Jesus' own). Piñero's argument cuts both ways!.

2-Piñero doesn't mention either that the saying also passes positively the criterion of dissimilarity. It is unlikely that the Church invented this saying because it says that the Son is unknowable—"no one knows the Son except the Father" (what would exclude Jesus' own followers from knowing him), but for the Church we can know the Son. Therefore, it is dissimilar to the early Church's belief that the Son can be known by human beings.

3-Piñero doesn't mention that, as Joachim Jeremias showed, the saying goes back to an Aramaic original, which passes positively the criterion of authenticity known as "Semitisms" (i.e. traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms), and hence it is likely to be authentic. (See discussion in The Prayers of Jesus, by Joachim Jeremias, pp. 45-46).

As seen, the saying in question passes positively THREE criteria of authenticity and therefore, on purely historical grounds, is very likely to be authentic. This is very good historical evidence for Jesus' self-perception as the only Son of God. In words of Reginald H. Fuller, Jesus "was certainly conscious of an unique Sonship to which he was privileged to admit others" (The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 115)

But note carefully that Piñero's view that such saying is "very similar" to the theology of the Gospel of John suffices to conclude, against all of the above positive evidence, that such saying is NOT authentic! And this despite that the saying passes positively THREE criteria of historical authenticity!

Note that not even the "benefit of doubt" is given to this tradition. NO. The saying, having high-Christological elements, cannot be authentic. Period. To the hell with the criteria of authenticity!!!!!!

This evidence shows clearly and irrefutably that, for liberal scholars like Piñero, the criteria of authenticity are irrelevant when they support a high-Christological view of Jesus. The mere presence of a high-Christological theology suffices to conclude that a given Jesus' tradition was an invention, regardless of the contrary,  positive historical evidence for the tradition.

Again (I'm being intentionally redundant!): It is crucial to understand that liberal scholarship works under the assumption that any tradition in which Jesus is seen as divine is an invention of the Chruch and has to be false and non-historical. Positive historical evidence for such tradition is irrelevant and doesn't count.

The liberal, anti-Christian assumption against high-Christology OVERRIDES any contrary, positive historical evidence for high-Christological traditions.

As I argued in another post, this reminds me of the position of "skeptics" of parapsychology: negative evidence in psi experiments count against psi. But positive evidence is irrelevant, insufficient (because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence") and has to be explained away with any conceivable speculation about the researchers' incompetence or credulity, undetected or unknown experimental flaws, magician's tricks which were bypassed by the researchers' controls and so forth.

Clearly, what is operative here is not an unbiased reading of the evidence, but an extremely biased approach to the evidence which fully guarantees that a certain position (in the case of Jesus, the high-Christological traditions; in the case of parapsychology, the true paranormal elements) is false, unreliable and cannot be accepted.

In another post, I've discussed another example of Piñero's misuse (actually, an egregious omission) of the criteria of authenticity on behalf of anti-Christian assumptions.

In summary, the evidence discussed in this post support my contention that liberal scholarship works with this assumption:  If a tradition about Jesus supports the distinctively Christian, high Christological (divine) view of Jesus, then it is non-historical and was the product of a later Christian invention, even if such tradition passes positively the criteria of authenticity. 

I'll provide more solid evidence of liberal scholars' misuses of the criteria of authenticity in future posts.

On God's infinite love... and infinite justice? New Age Spirituality's wishful thinking-based concept of God and self-deception about the historical Jesus

 God is widely assumed by everyone to be a perfect being. He is supposed to be the greatest conceivable being, with maximal properties (like maximal knowledge, maximal goodness, etc.).

Reading the works of New Age revisionisms of Jesus, I've found a curious emphasis on God's infinite love over other divine attributes (including over infinite justice), and this is used as an argument for the claim that God's punishment doesn't exist. 

You have to keep in mind the full context in which New Age revisionism works: They are appealing mostly to people who have been religiously injured during childhood, specially people who have suffered intense feelings of guilty and fear related to traditional Christian concepts like the hell, the final judgment and so forth. I've observed very carefully this again and again in many cases in USA, and I infer the same phenomenon applies to other countries.

This emotional injury and wound tend to predispose the injured believer to be strongly sympathetic to alternative sources of information about Jesus (radical liberal views, new age views, mystical sources about Jesus, etc.) which tell precisely what the believer wants and needs to hear, namely, that doctrines like the hell, sin, final judgment are false, that they are pure inventions of the Church in order to gain control of believers, that they are not doctrines rooted in the Historical Jesus himself.

Critique of the New Age view about God's punishment

Regardless of whether God punishes or not (I don't know), what it is true is that God's infinite love doesn't exclude God's punishment, since the latter is a function of JUSTICE, not of love.

When a criminal commits a crime, he is punished by society. This has nothing to do with "love", it is a pure function of justice. It would be extraordinarily unjust that the crimes of people like Hitler or Bin Laden were ignored by society... or by God.

If God is a perfect being, we would expect not just infinite love, but infinite justice too. A perfect being cannot be morally indifferent. Morality implies condemming evil acts and actions, and praising good deeds, people and actions.

The New Age revisionisms tend to create an unbalance between God's love and justice, in which only love counts. But why exactly God's love destroys God's justice? In a moral world of free agents, in which objective moral values exist, some kind of moral accountability for our actions would seem to be appropiate. Otherwise, morality would be just an illusion without any spiritual effects, and moral indifference would be a kind of divine virtue, which is absurd.

No rational and sane person would be morally indifferent to rapists of babies, child pornography or serial killers. Morally, they're bad persons and we want some kind of (moral) reprobation and legal measures against them. We want them to be in jail and to be morally castigated by society. We agree that some of their civil rights (e.g. freedom) be removed from them.

Likewise, no rational person would be morally indifferent to good people who do good actions. We admire and support such people, they are "good". We want the best for them, and even support their cause.

The point is that, besides cases of mentally ill or criminal people, most people are sensible to what is good and evil. Wer're NOT morally indifferent. And such moral awareness is translated into specific actions regarding the moral or immoral deed or person in question.

Now, if God exists and is a perfect being, why exactly such God should be morally indifferent? Why Hitler's evil deeds would be indifferent for God? Why is God's moral indifference an attribute of a perfect being like God? Why does God's infinite love imply moral indifference?

In some works of New Age revisionisms about Jesus, you can see a Jesus who portrays a God who is pure, infinite love, but God's infinite JUSTICE doesn't appear anywhere and is almost never addressed or mentioned. Apparently, love overrides justice (as whether they were incompatible divine attributes).

But a God who is not just, who is indifferent to cosmic justice regarding evils, is not a perfect being. He's morally indifferent.

The obsession of some New age believers with God's love, which bypasses his infinite justice, actually destroys the moral perfection of God.

The scholarly evidence for Jesus in the earliest sources contradict New Age revisionisms about Jesus and God's moral indifference

Believers in New age revisionisms about Jesus (who in general are people strongly prejudiced against Christianity and hence eager to believe that Christianity is false) either wholly ignore the scholarly evidence about the historical Jesus, or selectively choose only the passages which apparently support their view of Jesus and God.

They mention, for example, the evidence in Q (the earliest document about Jesus's sayings). But as I commented in this post, Q itself portraits a Jesus who is strongly judgmental, morally severe and discriminatory (in the sense of punishing moral evils and discriminating and excluding evildoers) and who perceives himself as someone with exclusive the authority of making moral reprobations of others and conditioning their ultimate spiritual fate to their personal response to himself.

This Q saying (Mattew 7:21-23 and Luke 13:24-27) is telling:

 In Mattew 7:21-23:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²² Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ ²³ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!

Luke 13:24-27:  

 
Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. ²⁵ Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ ²⁶ “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ ²⁷ “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!

The whole point of this Q saying is the strong moral reprobation, spiritual discrimination and severe judgment of certain kind of people. The whole point is that certain people will be saved and others (the "evildoers", note the reference to "evil" and hence to the moral aspect of the saying) won't. For the latter, the door is closed.

Note that "closing the doors" of salvation in God's kingdom is a punishment infinitely more important and severe than any imaginable earthly punishment (e.g. jail), because in the case of Jesus it is our whole spiritual fate which is at issue. If Jesus is right and we choose the wrong ways (=wider doors, instead of the narrow one), we won't enter God's kingdom, which is equivalent to the ultimate spiritual destruction.

Any earthly punishment, even the severest ones, pale in comparison with the spiritual punishment implied in Jesus' warnings. Clearly, Jesus' God is NOT morally indifferent: the evildoers won't enter God's kingdom.

This kind of Q saying causes strong cognitive dissonance to people who believe that Q provides a Jesus similar to the New Age versions. It doesn't.

Assuming for the argument's sake that the Jesus' teaching in Q is true, the New Age sources about Jesus provide a very dangerous, deceptive and misleading portrait of Jesus, which will tend to confuse a bunch of people of good will, pushing them into spiritual destruction.

You can find unpalatable this kind of Jesus' sayings (which, being in the early source Q, it is likely to be authentic according to modern standards of authenticity). What you cannot do is to misrepresent the evidence, and to claim that the Jesus in Q is similar to the "soft", "God doesn't punish", "Punishment is an human invention and God is beyond that", "be happy, buddy", "everything is an illusion", "consciousness is everything" New Age versions of Jesus. This is false and dangerously misleading.

Certainly, the best scholarly evidence and most reliable, early sources about the Historical Jesus clearly show that Jesus wasn't morally indifferent regarding to the fate of evildoers. And it doesn't refute God's infinite love... only testifies about God's infinite justice.