From: max demian (oikoumenist@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Feb 28 2005 - 21:42:20 GMT
howdy,
Wow, such debate over who gets to call themselves Christian. Christianity,
through metonymy must direct one's attention to Christ. For me
'christianity' is a loaded title that is way to spotted for me. What hell
the Christian church has put people through! no, for me, i would perfer to
be a 'follower of Chirst' or 'follower of Jesus.' i've heard some say that
so much evil has been done in the name of Christ; however, i think it is
more accurate to say that so much evil has been done in the name of
christianity. A true mystical experience is through one's relationship to
Christ not through one's relationship to christianity
max
( See: the movie "Magdelen Sisters")
>From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: "'moq_discuss@moq.org'" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: RE: MD Static and dynamic aspects of mysticism and religious
>experience
>Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:54:31 -0700
>
>Sam, Wim and all MOQers:
>
>Sam wrote to Wim:
>'"Christian" definitionally requires some attention to Christ.'
>
>Wim replied:
>I agree, and quite a few (European) Quakers don't pay enough attention to
>Christ to call themselves Christians any more. Quite a few do however, but
>most of them would not equate Jesus and Christ as you do. They would prefer
>to talk about something like a 'cosmic Christ' who can incarnate in
>everyone, as shown in Jesus.
>
>dmb butts in:
>I'm jumping in here, Sam, because it reminds me of the time you objected to
>my use of the phrase "christian mystic" to describing my position. If I
>recall, you basically insisted that such a thing was for others to decide,
>namely the guys in charge of the tradition. Maybe that's too simple, but
>the
>idea was that such labels are in effect "owned" by the churches, no?
>Anyway,
>I'm jumping in here because of that previous dispute.
>
>And I think Wim makes a good point. Let's say we have to figure Christ into
>the equation if we are going to call ourselves christian. That only seems
>reasonable to me. But does that mean a christian has to put the unique,
>historical and only begotten son of god into the equation? Does that mean
>we
>have to put the Catholic Jesus or the Orthodox Jesus or the Anglican Jesus
>into the equation? It seems to me that the Anglican view only defines the
>Anglican view and that the word "christian" is very much broader than that.
>It seems to me that being a Catholic definitionally requires some attention
>to the Catholic Christ, but it doesn't bind me in any way. (As long as I'm
>not calling myself a Catholic or a Lutheran or whatever.)
>
>But what if my view holds that Jesus and Christ are not to be equated, or
>deny that there is only one Christ. What if I'm also quite convinced that
>the most important and essential point of his life story is to illustrate
>how each one of us to become a Christ and that in this view the churches
>are
>among the least worthy of wearing the label? It would be a bit ridiculous
>to
>ask the Pope to refrain from calling himself a christian, of course, but
>you
>see my point? Who gets to own the word? The ones with all the costumes and
>credentials or the ones who actually understand what the story is about.
>And
>are they necessarily the same ones?
>
>Think about it. Who gets to decide and on what basis is that choice taken?
>If a guy wants to describe himself as a christian and is willing to explain
>why he uses the label, who gets to tell him that he's not the right kind of
>christian or that he's not christian enough or whatever?
>
>I realize these questions must piss you off to no end, father, but if
>you're
>really a christian then you'll forgive me. ;-)
>
>Thanks.
>dmb
>
>P.S. In my version of christianity, divine grace is equated with one's
>ability to hold a grudge for eternity, which is not easy. And we've
>re-arranged other things a bit too. We consider Eve to be the original
>virgin, for example, and we hold that it was Mary was impregnated by a very
>naughty apple. One might imagine that this revision would create a ton of
>theological disputes, but in our circle it has mostly just produced a lot
>of
>jokes about where to put the snake. Also we wanted to emphasize the
>mystical
>message, but we also wanted to draw a crowd and add a little fun so we've
>hired a carnival barker who plays the sitar. I'm sure you'll be greatly
>relieved to learn that I most certainly do NOT claim that my version is the
>only correct one. (For those who would like to join, please don't forget to
>include the expiration date of your credit card.)
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 28 2005 - 22:43:26 GMT