kene@tekecs.UUCP (08/29/84)
Alan Driscoll recently took issue with Jeff Sargent over the subject of
the One True Way (we've been on this one before, haven't we?). In his
article, Alan made the following assertions (paraphrased):
1. If you say that other religions are false, you should first know
what the other religions have to say.
2. Why should a seeker assume there is only one valid religion?
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?
Item #1 is a good point. Perhaps the subscribers to this newsgroup could
do more in this area.
Item #2 -- No one has to assume there is only one valid religion. On the
other hand, by the same objectivity, you must account for the possibility
that there may be only one valid religion. Whether you decide that or not
depends (or should depend) on the results of your own personal investigation.
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:
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS (for the following description):
Religion -- A system of belief and practice dealing with God (defined below)
and Man (i.e.; all humans) and the relationship between them.
God -- Any concept of Deity or Higher Power, seen as existing on some higher
plane and to which Man ascribes some kind of subservient role.
Heaven -- Any concept of Eternal Existence, especially in the context of
after death.
A discussion on the uniqueness of Christianity could get very long, therefore
I will abstain from intricate detail here and simply make general points.
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.
-- The emphasis rests on the action of Man reaching upward toward God.
These, I believe, are the core tenets of most world religions.
It is undeniable that many "Christians" describe Christianity in this way
(i.e.; "Folow the Ten Commandments, go to church, pray, live a good life,
and you'll go to heaven..."), but a person who seriously seeks the real
meaning of Christianity understands that this is not true. 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)
-- 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.
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. 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. I do it. I am a Christian (pretty solid about it,
too) but I also investigate other religions as well. I'm not looking to
convert to anything else, but I still have a curiosity about what other
people believe. Finally, if Christianity is true (and I believe that it is),
then God is not just sitting up in Heaven waiting for you to get up to
Him, but He is right down here actively seeking you out.
--------------------
NOTE:
The reference to Man not having "any intrinsic goodness that enables him
to aspire to a heavenly status by his own effort" is not intended to say
that humankind has nothing good about it. People are obviously capable
of doing good things. The import of the statement is to say that
(according to basic Christian doctrine) the good things that people do
will not elevate them to a heavenly status. Christianity teaches that
what is needed to enter the Kingdom of God is a change of nature, not
an accumulation of good deeds.
--------------------
[decvax,ucvax]!tektronix!tekecs!kene
Ken Ewing g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (08/29/84)
The article by Ken Ewing in reply to Alan Driscoll has, I believe, some serious errors of concept in its discussions of religions other than Christianity. These begin with the definitions of terms, follow with the characterization of other religions, and make claims for uniqueness that should be qualified. Quoted material follows: > DEFINITIONS OF TERMS (for the following description): > > Religion -- A system of belief and practice dealing with God (defined below) > and Man (i.e.; all humans) and the relationship between them. > > God -- Any concept of Deity or Higher Power, seen as existing on some higher > plane and to which Man ascribes some kind of subservient role. > > Heaven -- Any concept of Eternal Existence, especially in the context of > after death. ....... > -- 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. > > -- The emphasis rests on the action of Man reaching upward toward God. ........... > -- 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) > > -- 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 enmity toward God. > > -- The emphasis rests on the action of God reaching downward to Man. The definitions of religion, God, and Heaven simply don't work if you are going to consider other major religions. For example, there is no God in the sense described in Buddhism and taoism; there is no Heaven in the sense described in Buddhism and Hinduism. The world view of Hinduism can be summarized as follows: Life is a curse. We live, die, and reincarnated to repeat the cycle. The reward of "goodness" is to be reborn in a better life. The ultimate object of the religious life is to attain sufficient merit so as to die without being reborn. This is wildly inaccurate and incomplete (I am trying to forestall outraged complaints from any Hindus on the net.) However any westerner brought up in the Christian tradition would do well to consider it as a starting point in trying to understand Eastern Oriental religions. The Christian concepts of God and Heaven are irrelevant to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. They are also irrelevant to Confucianism, but it is not clear whether Confucianism should be considered as a religion or as a moral philosophy. The blank sheet/striving upwards conception is very misleading. Indeed the object of religious effort in Oriental religions might be better described as the cessation of striving. The fundamental problem of Man is error and illusion rather than sin; the cure is enlightenment rather goodness or salvation. A note on redemption: This concept is not part of any eastern Oriental religion, to my knowledge (I simply don't know very much about Muslim theology.) However the concept of a redeemer dying and being reborn was very common in the Mystery cults of classical times. In a sense Christianity is the survivor of a number of similar competing religions that were current in the Roman Empire in the first century AD; the fundamental edge that Christianity had was that it was popular rather than aristocratic. Finally, a little example of the difference between East and West. In the West the disciple asks the master, "What is the answer?", and the master replies, "What is the question?". In the East the disciple asks the master, "What is the answer?", and the master replies, "Who is asking?". Richard Harter
ab3@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec) (08/30/84)
Thank you, Rich Harter, for pointing out that the definitions
given by Ken Ewing are decidely influenced by the Judaeo-Christian
point of view. Your capsule summary of Hinduism is as good a way
as any of encapsulating the fundamental doctrine of the search
for Nirvana (release, forever-death).
Y'see, that's the problem we non-JC (I'm gettin' tired of typing that)
folks have; the JC'ers want to look at other religious/faith/belief
systems from a JC viewpoint...
It's like trying to look at subatomic events with a classical
mechanics viewpoint...you can do it, but nothing useful arises.
How many of the JC'ers out there have read the Koran? or the
Tao Te Ching? or the teachings of Huang Po?
Look, I read *your* book.
--
---Rsk
UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk
{ decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk
It's better to burn out, than to fade away...barry@ames.UUCP (08/30/84)
[<+>] 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
anthro@ut-ngp.UUCP (Michael Fischer) (09/01/84)
<> Reminds me of a conversation with a Muslim doctor. When asked if he thought he would still be a Muslim if he had been born in the west, he thought he would since Islam was the only logically correct religion, and he would have seen this logic regardless. Michael Fischer anthro@utngp
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (09/06/84)
From Kenn Barry (ames!barry): > 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. One writer (I forget who) has commented that "In practice, neither [Hinduism nor Buddhism] pays the slightest attention to what goes on in the world today." Another writer named Doug Dickey commented that, especially in the 1960's, many people who were sincerely concerned about social injustice and world problems turned Eastward for help, but came to believe that the world was an illusion -- and thus turned away from the battle for social justice et al. altogether. Is the, not only physical, but emotional suffering of a starving person only an illusion? -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (09/06/84)
>One writer (I forget who) has commented that "In practice, neither [Hinduism >nor Buddhism] pays the slightest attention to what goes on in the world today." >Another writer named Doug Dickey commented that, especially in the 1960's, many >people who were sincerely concerned about social injustice and world problems >turned Eastward for help, but came to believe that the world was an illusion -- >and thus turned away from the battle for social justice et al. altogether. >Is the, not only physical, but emotional suffering of a starving person only >an illusion? [Jeff Sargent] And Christianity is different??? Open your eyes, Jeff... Christian morality is 2,000 years behind the times, rigid, dogmatic, and oblivious to "what goes on in the world today." Do you want to talk about the suffering of a starving person? Then look at the Christian position on birth control, abortion, and sex education. Is it helping or hurting people? Do you see any compassion in it? Maybe you consider it compassionate to bring more hungry mouths into a starving world. I consider it criminal. Tell me about social justice and world problems. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (09/12/84)
From Alan Driscoll: > Do you want to talk about the suffering of a starving person? Then look > at the Christian position on birth control, abortion, and sex education. > Is it helping or hurting people? Do you see any compassion in it? Maybe > you consider it compassionate to bring more hungry mouths into a starving > world. I consider it criminal. Generalizations.... Just because the Pope says something doesn't mean all Christians believe it. I'm the first to agree that the Catholic Church is hurting millions of people by opposing birth control. Not only are more children born into poverty, but (I suspect) the Church, if it is to provide any charitable support for those extra millions, has to dun its members in rich countries all the more -- and thus nobody wins. Abortion is one of those issues I haven't gotten opinionated about. I will only say that there is evidence that the fetus, in its later stages at least, has some degree of conscious awareness. When this starts, I don't know. As to sex education: It's a matter of what is taught in those classes. If sex ed classes teach the physical facts and encourage the students to ask their parents for the moral guidelines, there's nothing wrong with that. I personally believe that if they teach that unrestricted sex is O.K., there is something wrong with that; I don't see how sex outside a context of love and trust (and even commitment) can be anything but destructive. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK (it couldn't stand it there any longer).