Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Fundamentalism Revisited -- A Radical [Heretical] perspective
Message-ID: <4354@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 13:53:25 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4354
Posted: Thu Dec 13 13:53:25 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 07:25:16 EST
References: , <2401@mcnc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 236


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