From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 06 2005 - 02:52:46 GMT
Sam and fellow threaders:
dmb asked Sam:
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?
Sam answered:
The Nicene Creed, accepted by the vast majority of Christians - churches and
people - explicitly denies this (Jesus is the 'only begotten'). If someone
wants to call themself 'Christian' on this basis, then fine, but it will
lead to confusion.
dmb replies:
I understand your urge to defend the label and if it weren't for the fact
that we're talking about these things in a philosophical context I'd accept
your answer without pressing any further. (Who was it that said we should
respect a guys religion in the same way that we respect his theory that his
wife is beautiful and his children are smart?) But in this context your
answer really boils down to zip. Its the ultimate argument from authority
and begs the question in the biggest way. I think that even you would admit
that some doctrines are held and spread by FORCE of arms rather than the
force of the ideas themselves. And it seems to me that in the long and
bloody history of the church, denying the unique divinity of christ would
get you killed. Interesting that you'd appeal to history. So do I...
Sam continued:
In other words, why would someone who denies the central tenets of
(historical) Christianity want to identify themselves with a group that they
disagree with, on such a fundamental thing as the nature of Christ? Just
seems odd to me. I would suspect that such a person is in a state of
self-denial.
dmb says:
Oh, this is delicious. First of all, you have to admit that I was already
careful NOT to include myself within those disagreeable groups. And
HISTORCALLY, Christianity has been many things. The standard version of
history has carefully edited out those who would deny that very creed.
That's why we find the Gnostic gospels in a dusty old jar instead of in the
bible or in today's churches. (Not that they were all right either, but
still.) The destruction of the library at Alexandria put out that same
light. Isn't that also why the Cathars were torched? Well, I'm not going to
hold my breath waiting for you to be convinced that the "historical" church
and its doctrines have hidden the true meaning.
I agree with Matt to some extent on this. I'm not really fighting over who
gets to wear the label. I'm trying to say that there is a better way to look
at Christianity, one that is compatible with the MOQ's anti-theism amd its
philosophical mysticism at the very same time. I don't expect you to like
it, believe it or otherwise change your mind. At least not all at once. But
that's my view and I'm sticking to it. And its not that I want to bend
religion to make it fit Pirsig's gospel. Not at all. I just think the MOQ is
a relatively clear and simple framework. His big picture, as I keep pointing
out until you're sick of it, is based on the perennial philospophy and is
far from unique. All my intellectuals heros are singing the same song, and
bascially dealing with that basic framework. The view of christianity I'm
pushing here is one that sings along, but yours is quite the sour note. It
clashes with the rest of the picture.
It clashes so much that I still can't even gather what the word "mystic"
means within your tradition. Or rather it is so far removed from the concept
that I understand, that I don't even see how they are related? For
example...
Wim asked Sam:
Historical association of mysticism, Christianity and valuing sacraments
doesn't seem a strong argument to say that either mysticism or Christianity
requires sacraments as a focus. Why do you say so?
Sam answered:
I think it flows from the logic of the incarnation. If you think that there
is no ultimate separation between heaven and earth then a) the sacred can be
found everywhere (I imagine we'd agree on that) but b) in Christian history
certain practices have discerned the sacred (the mystery of salvation) in a
more focussed fashion. I think it's more that if you can't see the
sacraments as a focus for Christian mysticism then you won't be able to
practice it anywhere else. Here it's easy, it's all laid out for you, take
what you learn here and let it teach you how to understand the world. So I
don't think you can break apart an acceptance of the incarnation from a
sacramental understanding of reality. Is that a sufficient answer?
dmb says:
See? Its hard for me to fit this into the MOQ, except as the kind of clap
trap that buries DQ. Where is it? Wim asked how the sacrement in needed in
mysticim, but I only hear talk of salvation, incarnation and sacramental
understanding. Aren't these just futher doctrines such as original sin and
the separation of God and man? I'm serious. I want to get it, but it looks
like your christian mysticism is not mysticism at all. In the MOQ it means
letting go of static patterns and in the Anglican Church it seems to be
nothing BUT static patterns. Please explain. if "its easy" there, if "its
all laid out for you" there, why not share?
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 : Sun Mar 06 2005 - 03:22:10 GMT