Sam and Wim & All.
Sam wrote:
> There aren't 'two major branches' - there are in fact three: Roman
> Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and the various brands of Protestantism
> (Anglicanism would claim to be a different strand again, but it's not
> really a 'major' branch; at root it's closest to the orthodox). The
> first major split was between Latin Europe and Greek speaking Europe,
> conventionally dated to around 1054AD. A large factor in that split
> was theological disagreement over just the questions you're talking
> about; put brutally simplistically, the Eastern Orthodox view (and the
> universal understanding of Christianity in the first millenium) is
> wholly compatible with what you describe as the 'Eastern' orientation.
> In particular, a major focus of the split was that the Latins thought
> it possible to talk intelligibly about God, the Greeks thought you
> couldn't. (For an introduction to this, look at Karen Armstrong's book
> the Search for God).
Thanks for the response Sam. About the various Christian
branches you are certainly right, but about the ...
...." Eastern Orthodox view (and the universal understanding of
Christianity in the first millenium) is wholly compatible with what
you describe as the 'Eastern' orientation".......
I think we are at some disagreement - or misunderstanding. OK,
you may say "no" and I can't really disprove it, but as not to get
lost in a theological dispute let me have another go at it from a new
angle ...and this one is wide. ;-)
The most fundamental cultural difference there is, is the animistic
universe versus the non-animistic one (I forgot the term?). The first
was the rule from whenever humans got human and is found with
all "aborigines". My dictionary says that animism is the belief that
all objects have souls, but this is a SOM definition; they did/don't
view the universe through the soul/object glasses. This value-filled
world view got more complex up through the aeons and reached
some summit with the different ancient mythologies with a god for
every aspect of existence, weaving in and out among the mortals.
Now, 3-4 (?) thousand years ago in the Middle Eastern region the
old myth's (or many tribal) gods were conquered/merged by the
one God (originating in Egypt maybe?) and the most profound shift
in the history of mankind took place: The world became worthless
matter created by a good God in one sitting and then left it. At first
not so distant, he communicated by prophets who repeated/wrote
down his words, but got more and more distant and is silent by
now.
I won't go further in my exposition right now, but please note that it
is this (that I believe) Watts is talking about, and if so you will
possibly agree that God (of the Semitic Tradition) is the warrantor
for the moral order. Forever after this gigantic shift God (as Jahve,
God Father or Allah) became the one that punished wrong and
rewarded good . And as there is no behaviour except "social
behaviour" .....ipso facto.
.......................................................................
Wim wrote: (to Sam)
> I think we do Bo & Watts a bit more justice by recognizing that
> both bible and Hebrew-Christian tradition not only contain
> prophets but also priests, who are (as hireling ministers...)
> biased to preserve at least some religious conventions and
> are -historically speaking- under the suspicion of supporting a
> lot of worldly order, too.
> As a Quaker I tend to agree that prophecy is the heart of
> religion and that religion should be as free as possible of
> outward forms to stay true to its prophetic, critical insights.
> Are you sure you can -as an Anglican priest...- agree with that? Don't
> you want "the moral and logical order of [Anglican] convention"
> preserved, even if you don't identify it with the Absolute -God -?
Thanks to you Wim for entering the thread, but my point is not the
prophet/priest (or God/Church) distinction, with the latter always a
step behind. THAT is in perfect agreement with the tenets of the
MoQ. (the genuine religious experience=encounter with DQ while
the Church =static social).Your question to Sam is possibly a
defense for the first (prophet) variant, but not really addressing my
issue. Quaker? Hmmm. The MoQ seem to attract the most
interesting people :-).
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:34 BST