bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (12/07/84)
Bob Brown's five fundamentals provide an excellent springboard for discussion of differing christian perspectives as Charley Wingate has already shown. As a distinct minority in this group, I thought I'd offer what I believe to be Radical perspective on these. (Jeff Gillete and others call this heretical, a term I'll accept in the academic sense of being opposed to church dogma -- I will not accept the more popular connotation of being opposed to Christ.) To restate Bob's points: >1) The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, trustworthy on all > subjects that it deals with. > >2) The Deity of Jesus of Nazareth, that He was/is God incarnate > and the awaited Messiah of Israel. > >3) The Virgin Birth, that Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit. > His mother was Mary, Joseph's wife. > >4) The Crucifixion and shedding of Jesus's Blood as remission > for everyone's sin problem. > >5) The Resurrection of Jesus, bodily, and His imminent return. > First it must be noted that Bob has thrown a couple of extras into the pack. Item 3 assumes a belief in the Holy Spirit (and the trinity.) Item 4 assumes a belief in original sin. Neither of these are common to all christian sects. Radicals would certainly disagree with 1. The Bible is seen as selective history, parable, poetry, apocalyptic vision, behavioral prescriptions and proscriptions redacted by men imbued with and committed to a particular christian perspective. There are other writings about Jesus which do not reflect this perspective. (Not that these are any more correct, but they provide a balance and an indication of the political ferment that produced the Bible.) This does not say that the deception was deliberate. It may well have been the product of translation and recopying by individuals with certain assumptions about the nature of the universe. There is indication of significant additions, however, particularly as surround the resurrection. The above does not mean the Bible is worthless. The "sense" of christianity still leaps from the pages of the NT as a distinct impression. The particulars must be very carefully handled. Point 2 gets tricky. The physical Jesus was a man, like any other. The spiritual Christ is an aspect of the Deity, but as we all are aspects of the Deity. Literally, Jesus was not G-d incarnate, for that is impossible. The spiritual Christ is an aspect of G-d, to show the way to knowing G-d. Any relation to the expected Messiah is at best a cloudy one. As the Kingdom of G-d is in already within and around us, the relationship is probably spurious. On point 3: Agreement, but not in the expected manner. Allegorically the Christ is the progeny of The Spirit. Jesus was a man like any other, therefore his mother was Mary and his Father was Joseph -- the offspring of a human coupling. The notion of the Virgin Birth, in its traditional sense, is again seen as impossible. The biological Jesus was the product of a biological process. Point 4 is manifestly disagreed upon. The "fall of man" is seen as the result of the misperceptions of the Demiurge. There is no belief in "original sin," hence no need for salvation. The crucifixion and the resurrection are seen as the absolute demonstration of eternal spiritual life, possible when one is self-aware of one's divine nature. Again, point 5 is disagreed on. The resurrection was a spiritual, not physical event. There is evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical that Jesus was something other than physically human after the resurrection. Another comment by Bob: >However, I have heard arguments that since the Bible is the only >record of the beliefs and practices of Jesus and the early church >if you don't accept #1 how can you be sure of nos. 2 - 5. Since the assumption behind #1 is factually incorrect, there is certainly no agreement about 2 through 5. So what is the authority for the Radical Christian? Primarily inner authority. Read, learn, think, listen, look, smell, feel and sense. "Know thyself." If one is self-aware, the Truth becomes evident. Some feel that this leads to anarchy. (The usual question is "what if in becoming self-aware you "feel" it is right to murder?") I am reminded of Tim Maroney's explication of the Thelemic concept of Will. The Deity cannot conflict with itself, knowledge cannot oppose knowledge, the concept is definitional. [The above does not reflect the views of my employers, anyone else who claims Gnostic Christianity, or anyone else at all. It is not superior to any other form of belief, nor is it inferior. It simply is. All paths lead to Truth and all paths leading to Truth are equally valid.] -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/13/84)
This article contains my thoughts on Byron Howes' heterodox Christian view. Although this is a critique, I want to say that I am offering it in the spirit of reasonable discussion. Please try not to read any vituperative intent into what I write here. We have got to find a way to disagree with one another without descending into the pettiness and personal attack that is common fare in net.religion. In net.religion we have come to expect hostility. Let's no carry those expectations into this group or they will become self fulfilling prophecy. The main fault I see with Byron's view is that it seems to reject rational and evidential bases for belief totally in favor of empirical (sensory) and existential ones. When this is done beliefs slip their anchor in reality. At least it makes any attempt at defining what it means to be a Christian (disciple of Christ) futile. >Bob Brown's five fundamentals provide an excellent springboard for >discussion of differing christian perspectives as Charley Wingate >has already shown. As a distinct minority in this group, I thought >I'd offer what I believe to be Radical perspective on these. >(Jeff Gillete and others call this heretical, a term I'll accept in >the academic sense of being opposed to church dogma -- I will not >accept the more popular connotation of being opposed to Christ.) To avoid the negative connotations of the word "heretical" I use heterodox. By "church dogma" I can only infer that you mean the traditional teaching of the Christian Church (without respect to any doctrine in particular). But what remains that you can say is not opposed to Christ. Who *is* Christ? If your beliefs are not opposed to him you need to set forth a picture of who he was that others can see. Your own personal picture of Christ won't do. If there are no objective characteristics of that picture than it is easy to say that your beliefs aren't opposed to Christ because it is only your beliefs that say who he is. This makes communication of those beliefs to others pointless. More on that as we examine them: > >To restate Bob's points: > >>1) The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, trustworthy on all >> subjects that it deals with. >> >>2) The Deity of Jesus of Nazareth, that He was/is God incarnate >> and the awaited Messiah of Israel. >> >>3) The Virgin Birth, that Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit. >> His mother was Mary, Joseph's wife. >> >>4) The Crucifixion and shedding of Jesus's Blood as remission >> for everyone's sin problem. >> >>5) The Resurrection of Jesus, bodily, and His imminent return. >> > >First it must be noted that Bob has thrown a couple of extras into the >pack. Item 3 assumes a belief in the Holy Spirit (and the trinity.) >Item 4 assumes a belief in original sin. Neither of these are common >to all christian sects. But what is "christian"? Does the mere claim to be Christian make that sect Christian. What is the basis for belief? Belief in no. 3 is not an extra. It follows from 1. The Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the trinity seems aimed at getting a perspective on the nature of God. I see the concept as a tool developed by the Church to help our understanding and formualtion of biblical doctrine. It is very helpful in this (I think it is a well developed tool) but, precisely because it hits at the nature of God's existence it will fall short of completely describing that existence. The unitarian view of the Christian God has as many problems, if not more, than the trinitarian. They are both models, tools. The absolute necessity of atonement does not assume origial sin, rather total depravity. It's pointless for me to say any more than that since it is unclear what your idea of the doctrine of origial sin is. All that the Atonement assumes is that humanity is in need of it. >Radicals would certainly disagree with 1. The Bible is seen as >selective history, parable, poetry, apocalyptic vision, behavioral >prescriptions and proscriptions redacted by men imbued with and >committed to a particular christian perspective. There are other >writings about Jesus which do not reflect this perspective. (Not that >these are any more correct, but they provide a balance and an >indication of the political ferment that produced the Bible.) This >does not say that the deception was deliberate. It may well have been >the product of translation and recopying by individuals with certain >assumptions about the nature of the universe. There is indication of >significant additions, however, particularly as surround the >resurrection. But you have failed to say what constitutes a correct perspective. You say that one is no more correct than another, but what is the standard of correctness? There must be some way to judge between these writings that goes beyond one's own personal perspective. And the fact that the process involved political ferment in no way invalidates it. The major measuring stick used in cannonization of our present N.T. was apostolic authority. The Gnostics claimed to have such authority in themselves. But that is a circular claim. The apostles claim to authority came from Jesus himself. Byron has often stated elsewhere that "History is written by the winners". Probably true. But that statement borders on being tautologous, the winners being the ones whose historical records survive. But I get the feeling that this is supposed to be some kind of support for the idea that winners are never right, specifically with respect to the N.T. The question remains, what compels us to assume that the Gnostic accounts are to be considered on par with the N.T. documents, that the process of cannonization was invalid? I would expect there to be false teachings circulating about any religion. If that hadn't happened with Christianity, we probably would not have the N.T. Standards were applied to existing documents in order to preserve true doctrine. I would expect this to happen also. Yet this is the very process that is supposed to invalidate N.T. authority. It is often claimed that other writings don't support those of the cannon. But that's the main reason for the cannon in the first place--the desire to weed out falsehood. Even if other writings were to be considered on par with the N.T. documents, that still doesn't say why Byron rejects the N.T. in favor of the others. The point of additions being made with respect to the resurection is very contestable. > >The above does not mean the Bible is worthless. The "sense" of >christianity still leaps from the pages of the NT as a distinct >impression. The particulars must be very carefully handled. But what makes the Bible worth more than a romance novel? What validates your assertion that the "sense" of Christianity is even there? How do you distinguish it from falsehood? > >Point 2 gets tricky. The physical Jesus was a man, like any other. >The spiritual Christ is an aspect of the Deity, but as we all are >aspects of the Deity. Literally, Jesus was not G-d incarnate, for that >is impossible. The spiritual Christ is an aspect of G-d, to show the >way to knowing G-d. Any relation to the expected Messiah is at best >a cloudy one. As the Kingdom of G-d is in already within and around >us, the relationship is probably spurious. Why is it impossible that Jesus is God incarnate? How do you know that the kingdom of God is already within and around us? Here you begin to set forth doctrine, but you have no accepted basis for it that I can see. So what is the point in talking about doctrine at all? > >On point 3: Agreement, but not in the expected manner. Allegorically >the Christ is the progeny of The Spirit. Jesus was a man like any >other, therefore his mother was Mary and his Father was Joseph -- the >offspring of a human coupling. The notion of the Virgin Birth, in its >traditional sense, is again seen as impossible. The biological Jesus >was the product of a biological process. How do you know? > >Point 4 is manifestly disagreed upon. The "fall of man" is seen as the >result of the misperceptions of the Demiurge. There is no belief in >"original sin," hence no need for salvation. The crucifixion and the >resurrection are seen as the absolute demonstration of eternal >spiritual life, possible when one is self-aware of one's divine >nature. > >Again, point 5 is disagreed on. The resurrection was a spiritual, not >physical event. There is evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical >that Jesus was something other than physically human after the >resurrection. On what basis do you reject the biblical evidence that Jesus did indeed rise physically, other than your own preconceptions? > >Another comment by Bob: >>However, I have heard arguments that since the Bible is the only >>record of the beliefs and practices of Jesus and the early church >>if you don't accept #1 how can you be sure of nos. 2 - 5. > >Since the assumption behind #1 is factually incorrect, there is >certainly no agreement about 2 through 5. You make a statement of fact without any basis. What makes the beliefs you have set forth factually correct if the ones in the N.T. aren't? >So what is the authority for the Radical Christian? Primarily inner >authority. Read, learn, think, listen, look, smell, feel and sense. >"Know thyself." If one is self-aware, the Truth becomes evident. *Only* inner authorty, as far as I can see. Read what? Learn what? Think about what? Listen to what? etc. Everything? Impossible. What then? The object is missing from all of these. > >Some feel that this leads to anarchy. (The usual question is "what >if in becoming self-aware you "feel" it is right to murder?") I am >reminded of Tim Maroney's explication of the Thelemic concept of >Will. The Deity cannot conflict with itself, knowledge cannot oppose >knowledge, the concept is definitional. > Then the "Deity" is yourself, of which you are self-aware. I agree there is no contradiction here, but what does it really say? You don't contradict yourself and neither does the one who believes it is right to murder. >[The above does not reflect the views of my employers, anyone else who >claims Gnostic Christianity, or anyone else at all. It is not superior >to any other form of belief, nor is it inferior. It simply is. All >paths lead to Truth and all paths leading to Truth are equally valid.] All paths cannot lead to truth unless you change them. All religions cannot be equally valid unless you dismiss their exclusive teaching. You can't maintain that God made all religions without making a doctrinal statement of your own that denies the validity of the teaching in Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, and others that theirs is the true way and the others are false. You have demonstrated no independant basis for that kind of statement. You have to start with the assumption that all religions are really compatable and based on that chop off the parts of each that don't fit. (e.g. Jesus saying "I am THE way THE truth ... no one comes to the Father but by me".) It seems to me that what you are left with is nothing that can be called uniquely Christian. It reduces the idea of truth and falsehood in religious belief to a matter of individual preference. God then becomes whatever a person's existential predicament requires that he be. How is this different from no God at all? What "simply is" your belief Byron, if it cannot be compared or contrasted with any other? What you say contrasts with Bob Brown's beliefs in a way that implies that you think yours are more true than his. But here you seem to deny that. Why then should you bother with the contrast? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (12/17/84)
In article <cbscc.4354> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > >Although this is a critique, I want to say that I am offering >it in the spirit of reasonable discussion. Please try not to read >any vituperative intent into what I write here. We have got to >find a way to disagree with one another without descending into >the pettiness and personal attack that is common fare in net.religion. >In net.religion we have come to expect hostility. Let's no carry >those expectations into this group or they will become self fulfilling >prophecy. Genuine critique is always acceptable. I would not have posted the referenced article if I did not expect it. I offered my heterodox views of Bob's five points precisely in the spirit of reasonable discussion as a contrast to the more mainstream points of view represented by Bob and Charley. I am surprised that so little discussion has taken place. I agree with Paul completely about trying to avoid the hostility that marks net.religion. I assume that each point of view expressed here is the result of a honest and heartfealt search for some form of truth much like my own. I am also hoping that questions will be honestly and directly asked, rather than being loaded as they often are in net.religion. If we all restrain ourselves a bit, we'll do just fine. >The main fault I see with Byron's view is that it seems to reject >rational and evidential bases for belief totally in favor of empirical >(sensory) and existential ones. When this is done beliefs slip their >anchor in reality. At least it makes any attempt at defining >what it means to be a Christian (disciple of Christ) futile. Paul continues with a critique which goes far beyond the point of the original article -- to initiate discussion of the five Fundamentalist points. A complete response to his critique would go far beyond the polite length of a netnews article. I will respond here to the above paragraph, then divide my response to his critique into several articles to be posted over the next week or so. First, I don't know what Paul means by rational and evidential. I don't know what is irrational and non-evidential about my basis for belief, at least any more so than more orthodox beliefs. I presume, perhaps wrongly, that any adopted belief system must correspond to some extent with the believer's internal and external perception of reality. If not, then it cannot be accepted. Melodrama excepted, I do not seriously believe that many people are "converted" to a belief system diametrically opposed to something they have believed a very short while before. Usually there is some preparation. True, I regard the canonical Christian writings as to some extent suspect (more on this in a later article.) This does not mean I reject them entirely. Rather, I merely exercise the right of interpretation that the offices of the various orthodox churches seem to have held as their perogative. Similarly, I reserve the right to extend interpretation to non-canonical sources, not because they are any more or less right than canonical sources, but because they may add to the paucity of information provided by canonical sources. It is difficult for me to believe that a Christian, in coming to an understanding of the faith, would ignore historical facts regarding the canonization process. This doesn't mean I think the process points out grounds for rejecting the canonical view, just that it is yet more information on which to draw conclusions. Finally, I cannot reject the testimony of the senses with respect to my faith. I am surrounded by miracles each day. Charley Wingate says that the Deity is somehow "outside" the universe. My senses tell me differently. Birds fly, baking bread smells good, grass grows (in summer, this may be a miracle I can well do without) I see, feel, taste, smell and hear. I cannot separate this very living testimony from the more abstract intellectual processes of faith. Again, more on that in a future article. Let it serve for now to say that for me, the Promise is fulfilled each day. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (12/19/84)
I'm not responding as much to Paul Dubuc's article as I am to Byron's but I neglected to get the original, so I use Paul's hacked version. I think Paul is right about one thing (at least), though, we can't allow discus- sions to get to hostile from pettiness and personal attack. Paul's critique is written very much with the spirit of his intentions and I believe he raises some very important questions about the things that that Byron has said he believes. I'd just like to raise a few key questions that I feel he left out in his critique. Paul: > The main fault I see with Byron's view is that it seems to reject > rational and evidential bases for belief totally in favor of empirical > (sensory) and existential ones. When this is done beliefs slip their > anchor in reality. At least it makes any attempt at defining > what it means to be a Christian (disciple of Christ) futile. > I agree. Byron: > > > >To restate Bob's points: > > > >>1) The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, trustworthy on all > >> subjects that it deals with. > >> > >>2) The Deity of Jesus of Nazareth, that He was/is God incarnate > >> and the awaited Messiah of Israel. > >> > >>3) The Virgin Birth, that Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit. > >> His mother was Mary, Joseph's wife. > >> > >>4) The Crucifixion and shedding of Jesus's Blood as remission > >> for everyone's sin problem. > >> > >>5) The Resurrection of Jesus, bodily, and His imminent return. > >> > > > >First it must be noted that Bob has thrown a couple of extras into the > >pack. Item 3 assumes a belief in the Holy Spirit (and the trinity.) > >Item 4 assumes a belief in original sin. Neither of these are common > >to all christian sects. Paul's right! These are not extras if you accept 1. The problem is if you don't accept 1. Then there is little basis to believe anything concerning Jesus. Who was with Jesus? The Disciples or the Gnostics? Where can other information concerning Jesus be found? I think that the N.T. writings deal very much with the issues you mention concerning the Deity of Jesus, His life as a Man, His bodily Resurrection... You'll have to count much of the N.T. writings as false to believe many of the things you say. Where does the truth come in? (A little out of context maybe but this is the gist of the rest of my comment.) > >Radicals would certainly disagree with 1. The Bible is seen as > >selective history, parable, poetry, apocalyptic vision, behavioral > >prescriptions and proscriptions redacted by men imbued with and > >committed to a particular christian perspective. There are other > >writings about Jesus which do not reflect this perspective. (Not that > >these are any more correct, but they provide a balance and an > >indication of the political ferment that produced the Bible.) This > >does not say that the deception was deliberate. It may well have been > >the product of translation and recopying by individuals with certain > >assumptions about the nature of the universe. There is indication of > >significant additions, however, particularly as surround the > >resurrection. The authority of Jesus came from the O.T. prophesies and His life fulfill- ment of them. There is a systematic way to justify the authority of the Bible as G-d's Divine Revelation to man. It stems from the Jewish tradi- tion of Tanach (Pentateuch) being dictated to Moses by G-d directly and therein lies G-d's promise to send messengers to prophesy His intentions. The Jews have very strict guidelines about judging the validity of their prophets. Once Jesus is accepted as an authority through these O.T. writings, He imbues authority to His disciples through the Holy Spirit inspiration. I recommend the book _God Has Spoken_ by J. Packer for more information on the Special Revelation of the Bible as G-d's "word." One major problem I have with Christians who do not accept the inerrancy and Divine Inspiration of the Bible is the question of how G-d chooses to communicate to us if not by this. The reasoning I come up with is that, if G-d created man, then to what purpose if not to communicate with him? As Paul Dubuc states, how is it that we know the truth if there is no definite authority? How do we judge the validity of our own thoughts in expressing the intentions and desires of G-d if we have no external evidence of them? What is attributable to G-d and what is attributable to man? Are they the same? There's know way to know this if there is no external communication by G-d. Also, why accept any hypothesis about Jesus if the Bible is not considered G-d's "word." He doesn't represent the passing of the Old covenant to the New if this is so. What can we learn from a man we have know true informa- tion on? How do we judge the falsehoods from truth? It becomes very per- sonal and rather arbitrary. It reduces G-d to an impersonal being because it takes away His desires and ambitions for man. They are not uniquely His but become ours. Enough! We could write books on this issue. Byron: > >The above does not mean the Bible is worthless. The "sense" of > >christianity still leaps from the pages of the NT as a distinct > >impression. The particulars must be very carefully handled. > >Point 2 gets tricky. The physical Jesus was a man, like any other. > >The spiritual Christ is an aspect of the Deity, but as we all are > >aspects of the Deity. Literally, Jesus was not G-d incarnate, for that > >is impossible. The spiritual Christ is an aspect of G-d, to show the > >way to knowing G-d. Any relation to the expected Messiah is at best > >a cloudy one. As the Kingdom of G-d is in already within and around > >us, the relationship is probably spurious. > >Again, point 5 is disagreed on. The resurrection was a spiritual, not > >physical event. There is evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical > >that Jesus was something other than physically human after the > >resurrection. Again, what's true and what's false? You seem to discredit more than you credit. Many of the letters Paul wrote to the early churches deal with exactly those beliefs that you have. For instance, the church at Colosse had a great Gnostic influence and believed in the Demiurge as creator with a hierarchy of more perfect levels of G-d. They believed that the Resurrection was not bodily, and/or that Jesus did not come in the flesh but in the spirit. In John's first epistle, he deals with some of these Gnostic beliefs. There is evidence in every account of the Gospel that Jesus actually was Resurrected in the flesh, that He claimed to be the Son of God, as well as, the Son of Man. He admitted He was/is the awaited Messiah... All of these things come to life when you accept Scriptural authority. > > > >Point 4 is manifestly disagreed upon. The "fall of man" is seen as the > >result of the misperceptions of the Demiurge. There is no belief in > >"original sin," hence no need for salvation. The crucifixion and the > >resurrection are seen as the absolute demonstration of eternal > >spiritual life, possible when one is self-aware of one's divine > >nature. > > > > >Another comment by Bob: > >>However, I have heard arguments that since the Bible is the only > >>record of the beliefs and practices of Jesus and the early church > >>if you don't accept #1 how can you be sure of nos. 2 - 5. > > > >Since the assumption behind #1 is factually incorrect, there is > >certainly no agreement about 2 through 5. > > You make a statement of fact without any basis. What makes the > beliefs you have set forth factually correct if the ones in the > N.T. aren't? I guess this is all I'm saying too. > > All paths cannot lead to truth unless you change them. All religions > cannot be equally valid unless you dismiss their exclusive teaching. > You can't maintain that God made all religions without making a doctrinal > statement of your own that denies the validity of the teaching in > Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, and others that theirs is the true > way and the others are false. You have demonstrated no independant > basis for that kind of statement. You have to start with the assumption > that all religions are really compatable and based on that chop off > the parts of each that don't fit. (e.g. Jesus saying "I am THE way > THE truth ... no one comes to the Father but by me".) > > It seems to me that what you are left with is nothing that can be > called uniquely Christian. It reduces the idea of truth and falsehood > in religious belief to a matter of individual preference. God then > becomes whatever a person's existential predicament requires that he > be. How is this different from no God at all? Great point! Sums it all up in a nutshell (how's that for cliches? :-). I thank you Paul for the logically systematic way that you present your questions. They can teach us all how to evaluate what we believe and how to question things outside of our beliefs. Julie Harazduk {inhp4|decvax|allegra}!philabs!jah II Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: