mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/21/85)
In article <27500168@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: > >>>Still not satisfied, Mortal asks God to explain to him who or what He is. >>>God replies by framing "the best definition that mortals can make of Me >>>at this stage of their evolution." God suggests, "I am the very process >>>of enlightenment." God continues with, "And what you mortals choose >>>to call the Devil (and I wish you wouldn't) is the unfortunate length >>>of time the process takes." >>This is essentially a fundamental Christian doctrine which has been made >>pantheistic and de-mythologized so that it is more palatable to those who >>don't like definite and concrete Gods. The doctrine is bound up in the >>theological terms and symbols of Christ as both the Word and as the Light of >>the World. The differences are that a) this revelatory action is simply a >>part of the LORD in Christianity, and that b) a key portion of the >>revelation is the God himself (or the process of enlightenment, the Word, or >>whatever itself). >Oh, bullpucky. Fundamental to Christian doctrine is the *divine nature of >Christ*. How can you talk about Christianity without all the mythological >trappings? Smullyan's notion does not involve anthropomorphism, authority, >the notion that there is a single morality. Christianity claims a *specific* >set of statements to constitute enlightenment. Well, calling God "the Process of Enlightenment" is just mythology too; it happens to be a non-western kind of mythology and is thus more palatable to those who like to think that they can free themselves from it. As for the fundamentals Jim (rather arrogantly) lists, he is proving my point. Belief in a nebulous enlightenment and a "God" without will who makes no demands is an easy religion. It is the definiteness of Christianity which is found offensive; that was precisely my orginal point. The "God = Enlightenment" idea is a whittled-down version of Christ as the Word-- whittled-down because all the difficult attributes have been denied. As for the notion that "Christianity claims a *specific* set of statements to constitute enlightenment," this is flatly wrong. Enlightenment is an eastern concept, and Christianity doesn't supply it. > You see Smullyan as talking >about Christianity because you have the arrogance to think you *know*, >or even have the faintest inkling as to what God is; that you are >enlightened. "Definite and concrete gods" my rear end. Why is it that there is such a strenuous objection to the suggestion that this supposedly novel idea is actually an integral part of a 2000 year old religion? I don't see Smullyan talking about Christianity at all; but the statement he makes is a paganized (or de-mythologized, if paganism offends you) version of a christian doctrine. Charley Wingate