Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Alan vs. the One True Way Message-ID: <499@ames.UUCP> Date: Thu, 30-Aug-84 14:48:03 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.499 Posted: Thu Aug 30 14:48:03 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 12:12:45 EDT References: <4011@tekecs.UUCP> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 137 [<+>] In an earlier article, Alan Driscoll asked the following questions: >> 3. None of Christianity's *claims to uniqueness* (as cited >> in a quote from Jeff's article) are actually unique. With all the >> religions in the world, why not look for some underlying, unifying >> principle? >> >> 4. How is a seeker to decide what religion(s) is(are) valid? The further quotes below are from Ken Ewing's response to these questions, with my own comments interspersed (">"= Ken Ewing). > Item #3 -- As I understand it, Christianity's claims to uniqueness go much > deeper than the few doctrinal points quoted from Jeff's article. Here is > what I see as crux of the matter: ... > Most religions, as I understand them, seem to orient their doctrines and > practices around the following points: > > -- Man is either a blank sheet or has some intrinsic goodness which, if > properly nurtured, will result in a heavenly reward of some kind. > > -- By following the tenets of [Hinduinsm, Bhuddism, Islam, Spiritism, et al], > one can nurture and develop one's own intrinsic goodness or accumulate > a treasury of good works and eventually receive the heavenly reward. I think that you will find that the emphasis in many forms of Hinduism and Buddhism is less on good works, than on personal enlightenment. They emphasize the illusory nature of the physical world, and the need to see through these illusions. I would also add that "heavenly reward" would need to be defined VERY broadly to include the more mystically- oriented types of Buddhism and Hinduism. Nirvana correlates poorly with Western notions of Heaven; even the idea of deity becomes so tenuous that many consider some Eastern religions literally "godless". > -- The emphasis rests on the action of Man reaching upward toward God. Again, I would question whether reaching toward one's "Buddha- nature" is the same as reaching toward an external deity; Buddha-nature is really more an internal state of awareness, a particular way of relating one's own existence to the outside world, without any necessary reference to a deity external to oneself. Speaking strictly for myself, the differences between mystically- oriented Eastern religions and Christianity seem far larger than those between Christianity and close cousins like Judaism or Islam. > Historic Christianity differs from other religions in the following way: > > -- The nature of Man is fallen, making him(them) inherently unable to reach > up to God. Man is not a blank sheet, nor does he have any intrinsic > goodness that enables him to aspire to a heavenly status by his own > effort. (see NOTE) I think you overstate the difference. Fallen, sure, but fallen from what? Christians maintain people were created in God's image and have a bit of the divine (souls) within them, don't they? This doesn't seem all that different to me from other religions, except in emphasis (more on this below). > -- The work necessary to bring Man to a heavenly reward has already been > done. It was accomplished by a substitutionary action, one person > doing the work on behalf of the entire human race. The work is completed, > requiring no other action on the part of Man to be effective. > Rejection of this completed work maintains a person in a state of > fallenness and emnity toward God. > > -- The emphasis rests on the action of God reaching downward to Man. > > This, I believe, is the basic doctrinal difference that makes Christianity > unique among other religions. If you say that there are other religions > that teach these same things, then please make some references so that I > can check them out. No, I don't see this as uniquely Christian, though I'll grant that the emphasis on our unworthiness and inability to save ourselves by upright living is stronger in Christianity than in the other major religions in the world today. The idea of "substitutionary action" is ancient and archetypal: Egyptian (Isis/Osiris), Greek (Persephone), Norse (Baldur) and most other mythologies include the concept, and Christlike redeemers are found in almost every culture. It goes back to making blood sacrifices to insure a good harvest, and often the one sacrificed was, symbolically at least, a king, or avatar of the godhead. More specifically, the redeemer notion in Christianity seems a pretty direct borrowing from Mithraism, which was probably the single most popular religion in Rome in the years immediately prior to the waxing of Christianity (particularly among the Roman legions). Mithra also "died for our sins". A well-educated Roman like Saul of Tarsus (the apostle Paul) was certainly familiar with Mithraism, and Jesus, himself, would no doubt have had some familiarity with the Redeemer archetype. (Aside to potentially offended Christians: the above comments are NOT meant as "disproofs" of Christian dogma, but simply to show it is not completely unique. I am deeply skeptical of reductionist "disproofs".) > Item #4 -- How does one choose? My first response is to ask the question > "Are you really interested in finding out?" I have too often heard this > question as cheap cop-out for inaction by a person who didn't want anything > to do with religion in the first place. Low blow, Ken; give the opposition the benefit of the doubt, please. > I will answer this point with a quick illustration: > > A small business owner decides he wants to get a small computer to help > with his business. He goes down to the local bookstore and buys a few > computer magazines to acquaint himself with what's available. Leafing > through the pages, he sees ad after ad for IBM, Commodore, Apollo, > DEC, Wang, etc., etc. Seeing the plethora of available products, each > claiming superiority, he throws up his hands in dismay and says, > "There's no way I can choose. There's so many and they all say they're > the best." He finally rejects the idea of buying a computer. > > Is this fictitious businessman's conclusion valid? Positively not! > He certainly could find a computer -- if he really wanted to in the first > place. In the same way, a person who is serious about evaluating religions > can also investigate. Far from answering Alan's question, it seems that you have only rephrased it. I disagree that his buying none of them is a copout. Maybe his business doesn't need a computer, and his original intent to buy was only due to a lot of glowing propaganda about the machines from friends (as a programmer myself, this should prove me a heretic beyond doubt! :-)). Or perhaps he realizes that his desire for a computer came from a desire to transfer responsibility for his business away from himself, but his investigation shows him that no computer can do this for him. Your parable fails to convince me that having no religion is a copout, and fails to even address Alan's question of how one could know which religion is the correct one. To continue the analogy, if he did investigate further, would he not find that there are any number of computers which would serve his needs admirably, and that no one of them had any claim to being "best", or "the only right choice"? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry