[soc.religion.christian] Checking your mind at the door

lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) (09/27/90)

In article <Sep.25.03.57.40.1990.6436@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
     jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) writes...

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
>was God.
>Jesus was the way, the truth, and the life.  
>No one comes to the father except by the Word.
>The Word was the light that shines in the darkness.

This information is more or less paraphrased from the Gospel of John.  Most
of it in Chapter 1.  Not too tough to find.  The following I could not find
at all:

>What was the Word.
>That ye should honor God and love your neighbor as yourself.
>Any religion that teaches the Word but had another prophet would
>be coming to the Father through Jesus, the Word, manifested in human
>form to the Hebrews but all proclaimed by Moses, Buddha, Confuscius,
>Sequoia, and any other who proclaimed that love is all.
>A humble love that does justice and shows mercy.

This is a little difficult to interpret, but if I am reading it correctly,
then Buddha, Confucius, and Sequoia all proclaimed the same gospel as that
of Christ.  While I cannot dispute that these individuals espoused justice,
love, and mercy, I will dispute the other claim.  Somehow, Mr. Graves, you
have managed to mix in somebody's sermon notes with Scripture and are trying
to get it all to jive together.  This is not a good practice for someone who
claims his denomination does not force one to check one's mind at the door.

Christ also espoused justice, love, and mercy, just as the other individuals
you mentioned.  He further said he was God.  And that through him alone
could man achieve a relationship with God.  His version of final truth and
those of Buddha and Confucius are either mutually exclusive, or Jesus is
showing (arrogance or insanity, pick one) beyond measure.

RG

jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) (10/01/90)

[John Graves had summarized the gospel by quoting various passages
from John 1, saying that no one comes to the fatehr except by the
Word.  Then he said the following
>>What was the Word.
>>That ye should honor God and love your neighbor as yourself.
>>Any religion that teaches the Word but had another prophet would
>>be coming to the Father through Jesus, the Word, manifested in human
>>form to the Hebrews but all proclaimed by Moses, Buddha, Confuscius,
>>Sequoia, and any other who proclaimed that love is all.
>>A humble love that does justice and shows mercy.
Ronald Grham wasn't sure what this meant, but he asks whether it meant
that Buddha, Confucius, and Sequoia all proclaimed the same gospel --clh]

You read it incorrectly.  The gospel is not the same, the motivation and
message are unique to their faith communities, but they all draw on the
Word for their message.  The spirit comes to them as to the apostles or
to any Christian who preaches.   The Hellenistic Jew Christian author of the
Gospel of John taught the concept of the Word and for that I am greatful
but I donot believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.  I do not believe in
the special divinity of the human Jesus of Nazareth what I believe in is
the special humanity of a man who came to understand our relation to the
one God.  

>of Christ.  While I cannot dispute that these individuals espoused justice,
>love, and mercy, I will dispute the other claim.  Somehow, Mr. Graves, you
>have managed to mix in somebody's sermon notes with Scripture and are trying
>to get it all to jive together.  This is not a good practice for someone who
>claims his denomination does not force one to check one's mind at the door.

I made the mistake of assuming that you would know that I left the biblical
summations at the point of therefore (understood) which comes after the
summation of Jesus's commandments:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and will all thy mind.
And the second is like unto it, namely this:  Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I also believe as a Christian (my definition applies, not yours) that I and
others have the ability to prophesy.  You may disagree with our UU prophesy
but you cannot deny that we can do it except by clinging to your definition
of Christian and prophesy, a position which will get you nowhere with me.

>Christ also espoused justice, love, and mercy, just as the other individuals
>you mentioned.  He further said he was God.  And that through him alone
>could man achieve a relationship with God.  His version of final truth and
>those of Buddha and Confucius are either mutually exclusive, or Jesus is
>showing (arrogance or insanity, pick one) beyond measure.

You mix us Jesus the human, and Jesus the prophet and the Word that he
prophesies.  Jesus said he was God but in defending his use of the word,
in John 10:34 Jesus says "Is it not written in your law, I said, you are
gods'  If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture
cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent
into the world "you are blaspheming? because I said 'I am the Son of God?'.
Unitarians do not recognize that the son of man, the son of god, is God
the father but that god is in all of us, in all creation, that we are
all sons and daughters of God.  Jesus experienced knowing God the father.
Yet even he on the cross asked why God had forsaken him.  

Jesus spoke with authority because he believed in the loving God, a personal
close God.  THis was a major paradigm shift.  The one God that each of
us can know.  The kingdom of God is within.  
>
>RG


     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!

[If this discussion is going to continue, I would ask you to drop
the personal animosity that appears to be right under the surface
in both RG's posting and this response.  --clh]

jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) (10/01/90)

[John Graves commented on some similarity between Jesus' concept of
God as love and the messages of Moses, Buddha, Confuscius, and
Sequoia.  Neither I nor other people responding to this message were
quite sure what John was saying, but it appeared to some that he was
saying that those folks had proclaimed something equivalent to the
Christian Gospel.  --clh]

Confucius withheld judgement on spiritual matters.  Paraphrasing from
memory, in regard to the religious practices of his time, he said that
spirits should be respected, but kept at a distance.  Confucianism is
more a philosophy than a religion, as he avoids comment on spiritual
matters.  Confucius seems to me to also have been concerned with the
virtues that rulers (or any superior, if generalized) should cultivate.
This is hardly the egalitarianism promoted by "love thy neighbor".
To claim him as a representative of God seems very inappropiate to me
in this light.

lionti@ecs.umass.edu (10/03/90)

jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) writes:

[bulk of post cut, I prefer not to comment on this as I find that I have
quickly grown tired of all the "in-fighting" in this group]

> Jesus experienced knowing God the father.
> Yet even he on the cross asked why God had forsaken him.  

I feel I must clear up something here, however, as this was something which
bothered me also, until I followed up the reference.  When Jesus on the cross
says "My God, my God, Why have you forsaken me?" it is a reference to a 
Psalm of David (22 I believe) which starts out this way (bleakly) but moves 
to one of acceptance of God's will.  Any NIV Bible should point to the 
reference, and I _STRONGLY_ suggest that anyone who has had problems with 
this passage read this Psalm.  Until I went and read this Plasm, I found this 
passage very upsetting, but now I feel I understand it better.
 
Yours in hope,

Eric C. McClure
lionti@umaecs.bitnet
Standard Dis

ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (10/07/90)

In case I give the impression that I'm pouncing on John Graves,
I do want to apologise.  His "fault" is that he openly explains
things.  That's the very kindest thing anyone who disagrees with
me can do.

In article <Sep.30.20.39.08.1990.16183@athos.rutgers.edu>, jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) writes:

> Jesus spoke with authority because he believed in the loving God, a personal
> close God.  THis was a major paradigm shift.  The one God that each of
> us can know.  The kingdom of God is within.  

"Jesus spoke with authority because he believed..."
There's a danger of my misunderstanding this.  I can grasp
"Jesus *sounded* authoritative because he believed ...",
that's within my comprehension.  But when I mean, and what Catholics
and Pentecostals and many others mean when we say "Jesus spoke with
authority" is 
"whatever he sounded like, Jesus actually *possessed* authority
to proclaim and command what he proclaimed and commanded",
and we commonly tack on "no man ever spoke like this",
denying that any other human being ever possessed that quality of authority.

Mohammed believed that Allah is the Merciful, the Compassionate,
that He is personal, that He is closest.  If having that kind of
belief is the ground of Jesus' authority, then did Mohammed have
the same kind of authority?  If not, why not?

At a time in my life when I badly needed to talk to someone, a Jew
helped me.  (By *explaining* to me, how else?)  The thing which shocked
me most was the discovery that I had more in common morally and
theologically with him than with a particular person who appropriated
the name of Christ.  Not just that, but his emotional attitude towards
haShem was astonishingly similar.  Now I am not talking about a Reform
Jew here, I'm talking about an Orthodox Jew.  There seem to be precisely
two differences between us:  "was Jesus God and Man, or only Man,"
and "how many of the 613 commandments are still binding".  It's due to
his influence that I read soc.culture.jewish, though not sharing their
beliefs I don't presume to post there.

This makes it very hard for me to believe that Jesus' beliefs about God
constituted "a major paradigm shift".  My friend's awe, constant respect,
and love for a loving personal close God is firmly grounded in the Tenach
and in Rabbinical tradition.  Read some of the homilies posted in
soc.culture.jewish and it is impossible to see a "major paradigm shift"
except concerning those two points.  Indeed, my Jewish friend is able to
find parallels for just about everything Jesus said except concerning
His divinity.

There's a weakness in my position here of course.  I am not a Universalist.
I am convinced that the Gate is narrow, and that few enter.  But the Jewish
religion stands in a peculiar relationship to the Christian:  unless you go
down the path of Marcion (and claims of "a major paradigm shift" between
Jesus and the other Jews who preceded him have an *awfully* familiar sound)
you find that the Jewish religion is not so much wrong as surpassed.  I hope
that somehow, the Lord will continue to redeem His special people.  I wish
I could be sure about this one way or the other, and have to keep on studying
the matter.

One thing I can say:  having a Jew who knows you are a Christian does
*wonders* for quite a number of temptations; I have to live up to my
principles (not his) so that I can keep his respect!

-- 
Fear most of all to be in error.	-- Kierkegaard, quoting Socrates.