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