Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Fundamentalism Revisited -- A Radical [Heretical] perspective
Message-ID: <2401@mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 21:31:10 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.2401
Posted: Thu Dec  6 21:31:10 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 06:34:16 EST
References: 
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 102
Summary: 

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