Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Jesus was some guy. Message-ID: Date: 7 Oct 90 03:17:38 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 235 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , jag@cello.cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: > I certainly call myself a Christian as do the other members of the > Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship. But we do not accept the > inerrancy of the Bible, nor for that matter of any book. And we believe > that Jesus was fully human and fully divine, but so are you and I. I do not understand this. In what sense am I "fully divine"? Either you are telling me that I am *radically* deceived about my own limitations and powers, or else you are using "fully divine" to mean not very much. Please don't get the impression that this paragraph is any kind of attack. The very kindest thing anyone can do to/for me is to *explain*, and I want to say "thank you very much" for your posting. But I really have very great difficulty understanding how anyone can say "you and I are fully divine" with a straight face. Surely you are using "fully divine" in a very different sense from me. So what do you mean by it? > First, we are non-creedal. We encourage members of our congregations to > read the Bible, do Biblical scholarship, read philosophy and theology, > other religious texts, and great literature of all sorts. Why, so may anyone, without *believing* any of it. The followers of Mary Baker Eddy could say as much. Some excellent NT scholarship has been done by Jews, who would be appalled at the thought of being called "Christians". I have read the BoM, I have a mild interest in Mormon scholarship, read philosophy and theology, but none of that makes me a Mormon. > Why do many of us like Jesus? [ possible list of reasons given ] *Liking* someone is surely a very inadequate basis for appropriating that person's name. I'm sure that the Mormons would be very unhappy with me if I claimed that I was just as much a Mormon as they are because I *liked* Joseph Smith. No matter how much I like and admire America, that doesn't make me an American! No matter how much I like and admire the prophet Ratana (I'm from NZ, remember) that doesn't make me one of his followers, that doesn't entitle me to appropriate the name of Ratana. Only by accepting the authority of the doctrines and covenants brought through Joseph Smith would I be entitled to appropriate the name "Mormon". Only by accepting the authority of the teaching brought through Ratana would I be entitled to appropriate the name of Ratana. Don't you admire the *courage* of Mohammed? I was amazed, on reading the Qu'ran, to find how much of it was sort of ok, how much of it I could assent to. But unless I accepted the authority of that message as the teaching and command of God for me, it would be hypocritical twaddle to call myself a Muslim. Again, please don't take this as criticism. It's a request for more explanation. Surely there must be *something* more to it beyond *some* Unitarians "liking" Jesus that makes it right for you to appropriate the name. If it is only "many" who like Jesus rather than "all", what is it that the rest do or believe or accept that makes it right for them to call themselves by the Name? > He was a heretic: who challenged the priests of the Temple and belittled > the religious laws and customs. "I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it." "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but the smallest letter of the Law shall not." "You must do *better* than the Pharisees." and so on (from memory). This is _belittling_ the religious laws? > He was a radical: He took no thought for his own reputation and comfort, > but followed the Law of Love. What _is_ "the Law of Love"? How can I tell whether someone is following it or not, so that I know who to imitate? > The perversion of the original Gospel began with the Apostle Paul, who > transformed the human Jesus into the abstraction of a Greek divinity. I have more than a passing acquaintance with Greek divinities. My copies of Homer are rather battered, and Hesiod is getting that way. I'm sorry, but I honestly don't see the resemblance. It's worth pointing out that many modern Biblical scholars accept only 7 of the 14 "Pauline" letters as genuinely being by Paul; for example 1 Thess is accepted but not 2 Thess. So if you're going to blame "Paul", you would do well to give half the blame to someone else. Given that Paul is thought to have written in the mid-50s, Mark in the late 60s, Matthew and Luke somewhere around the late 70s or early 80s, and John in the late 80s or early 90s, it's rather difficult to see Paul as a late perverter. Surely Unitarians do well to encourage their members to do Biblical scholarship! > It is now possible to invoke his name to begin a football game. That proves that people are violating the commandment "Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." But that's _all_ it proves. > It is possible to be a Christian on Sunday and a bigot the rest of the week. Well, it depends on what you mean by "bigot". I looked it up just now, and the dictionary I usually use says "Someone who is bigoted has very strong attitudes and opinions and believes that anyone who has a different opinion must be wrong." That doesn't _quite_ fit me; I have very strong attitudes and opinions, but I believe that if someone else has a different opinion _at_least_one_of_us_ must be wrong. But that is simple sanity. If I believe P and Fred Nurke believes not-P, then I cannot meaningfully say "Fred Nurke is right". I can say "Fred Nurke and I can't both be right, one of us must be wrong, but it's not important to worry about." But that's indifference, not tolerance. I can say "I am convinced that Fred Nurke is wrong, but for his sake as a fellow human being I will walk beside him in peace", and by me that's tolerance, but by the dictionary it's bigotry. To satisfy the dictionary, I'd have to say "Fred Nurke and I are both right; we disagree completely but I won't let him try to change my mind because I'm right and I won't to try explain to him because he's right", but by me that's insane. If you feel differently about this, I'm afraid you're wrong, but I love you like a brother anyway (:-). > We believe in the Jesus who spoke with authority, who demanded action, > and who demanded that we love one another. What do you mean by "authority" here? If you mean "Jesus is Lord" in the sense in which haShem is Lord, and in which no human being is Lord, then indeed you are Christians. But if Paul is to be rejected as a perverter, and if John is unworthy as having made Jesus "piety in the sky" (odd, I'd never noticed that before), how far down Marcion's road do you travel? How do you judge which of Jesus' alleged sayings are genuinely Dominical and authoritative, and which were added or perverted so that you can ignore them? With half the NT gone, what standard do we use to judge the rest? > As Kierkegarrd said, We never become a Christian - we are always > becoming a Christian. Soren Kierkegaard is one of my favourite authors. I came across his books at just the right time, when they were deeply relevant to my needs. Kierkegaard would have been appalled to find himself quoted in support of Unitarianism or Universalism. In describing the Danish church of his time he used such phrases as "the nauseating syrupy sweets in which falsehood's "witnesses to the truth" are wont to deal" and "putting a wax nose on God's face". It is hard to believe that such an admirer of Paul would have been kinder about Unitarianism. It is impossible to believe that the man who said "neither do I call myself yet a Christian" near the end of his life, because "I am unable to endure the thought" of "what it is to become a Christian" and who said "When all are Christians, Christianity eo ipso does not exist" and "when all are Christians, the New Testament eo ipso does not exist, yea it is impossible" could have meant anything approaching universalism. If I may quote: In "Christendom" we are all Christians--therefore the relationship of opposition [to the world] drops out. In this meaningless sense they have got all men made into Christians, and got everything Christian--and then (under the name of Christianity) we live a life of paganism. They have not ventured defiantly, openly, to revolt against Christianity; no, hypocritically and knavishly they have done away with it by falsifying the definition of what it is to be a Christian. It is of this that I say that it is (1) a criminal case, (2) that it is _playing_ Christianity, (3) taking God for a fool. ... > We believe that Unitarian Universalism gives us a place where > we can become Christians and share with those who are also searching > for life and truth, but who do not wish to call themselves Christian > but who share our basic beliefs of love, respect, and peace manifested > through action in the world. > John Allan Graves *Unitarian Universalism* > jag@cello.cellbio.duke.edu A church where you don't have to > Duke Divinity School check your mind at the door! > disavows anything I say! It's partly as a consequence of this .signature that I want to quote some more of Kierkegaard. Quoting one of the most passionate enemies of one's position as if he were supporting it, how is that compatible with not checking your mind at the door? Perhaps our good Moderator may excise the following quotation; it can be found without difficulty in "Attack on 'Christendom'", but I think it is worth quoting in case anyone else is tempted to quote Kierkegaard out of context. {Note: from SK "a step further" is big time irony, and "witnesses to the truth" is really savage coming from him.} A eulogy upon the human race or a proof that the New Testament is no longer truth {The Instant #2, article 5, Soren Kierkegaard} In the New Testament the Saviour of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ, represents the situation thus: The way that leadeth unto life is straitened, the gate narrow--few be they that find it! -- -- now, on the contrary, to speak only of Denmark, we are all Christians, the way is as broad as it possibly can be, the broadest in Denmark, since it is the way in which we are all walking, besides being in all respects as convenient, as comfortable, as possible; and the gate is as wide as it possibly can be, wider surely a gate cannot be than that through which we are all going en masse. Ergo the New Testament is no longer truth. All honour to the human race! But Thou, O Saviour of the world, Thou didst entertain too lowly a notion of the human race, failing to foresee the sublime heights to which, perfectible as it is, it can attain by an effort steadily pursued! To that degree therefore the New Testamant is no longer truth: the way the broadest, the gate the widest, and all of us Christians. Yea, I venture to go a step further--it inspires me with enthusiasm, for this you must remember is a eulogy on the human race--I venture to maintain that, on the average, the Jews who dwell among us are to a certain degree Christians, Christians like all the others--to that degree we are all Christians, in that degree is the New Testament no longer truth. And since it is in point here to look for whatever contributes to the glory of the human race, one ought, though taking care not to come out with anything untrue, to be careful also not to overlook anything which in this respect is demonstrative proof or even suggestive. I venture therefore to go a step further, without expressing, however, any definite opinion, seeing that in this respect I lack precise information, and hence submit to persons well informed, the specialists, the question whether among the domestic animals the nobler ones, the horse, the dog, the cow, there might not be visible some Christian token. That is not unlikely. Just think what it means to live in a Christian state, a Christian nation, where everything is Christian and we are all Christians, where, however a man twists and turns, he sees nothing but Christianity and Christendom, the truth and witnesses to the truth--it is not unlikely that this may have an influence upon the nobler domestic animals ... I am almost dizzy at the thought; but then, on the greatest possible scale--to the honour of the human race--will the New Testament be no longer truth. Thou Saviour of the world, Thou didst anxiously exclaim, "When I come again, shall I find faith on the earth?" and then didst bow They head in death; Thou surely didst not have the least idea that in such a measure Thine expectations would be surpassed, that the human race in such a pretty and touching way would make the New Testamant untruth and Thine importance almost doubtful. For can such good beings truthfully be said to need, or ever to have needed, a saviour? -*- -- Fear most of all to be in error. -- Kierkegaard, quoting Socrates.