From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 06 2005 - 19:50:49 GMT
Howdy MOQERS
Sam said:
As a theoretical proposition I am happy to accept this. But I would say a)
the denial of the uniqueness of Christ is a change orders of magnitude
greater than what Luther and Calvin were arguing for, and b) Luther
understood the tradition he was wishing to "change" (don't know enough about
Calvin to judge). So often it seems to me that the rejection/change of
Christianity is based on a poor understanding of the tradition. So a person
might be a revolutionary, but if they don't know what they're talking about,
then I'm sceptical.
dmb says:
This is way too grandiose for my taste. I don't think anyone here is
claiming to be a Luther or a Calvin. I'd also point out that my assertions
are "revolutionary" only in the sense that they represent a radical
departure from the conventional understanding. But its not new. In fact, one
of the things that persuades me that Jesus was NOT unique is the myth of
Orpheus, which is at least a thousand years older. In any case, no one here
is trying to overthrow an historical instutution or replace the Pope or
other alter that tradition. At least not today. I'm only offering an
alternative view.
Sam said:
I'd be pretty confident that most people attending a Sunday service in the
US or UK, who were regular attenders, would sign up to Jesus being unique.
Cashing that out in terms of explicit adherence to the Nicene creed is
superfluous in terms of the substance of what we're arguing about (ie it's
accepted by the 'hierarchy' as an explicit statement, whereas most people in
the pews wouldn't worry about the abstraction, only about the major sense,
ie uniqueness).
dmb says:
I think that's right. And I think that's exactly the problem. This is the
conventional view. This basic idea transcends sectarian differences.
Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Anglican and Evangelical christians will all
agree on that. Most Unitarians will squirm and the philosophical mystic will
say that the doctrine of uniqueness is one of the central obstracles to be
overcome. As I've said to Scoot, its not enough to distance yourself from
the fundamentalist snake handlers. This creed is shared by the much wider
christian community. Conventionally speaking, I think you're quite right. It
defines christianity. But again, I'm offering an alternative and am quite
well aware of the fact that this is "an unusual position that may need some
defending". This is what I'm talking about when I use the term "blindspont".
In a very real sense, the whole culture is against it, not just the
churches. But I also think this unusual view is Pirsig's view. And like
other elements of the MOQ, it is not new at but but rather represents a long
suppressed aspect of the culture. Its the contrary underground view, if you
will, and it has been since the begining.
dmb had said Sam's argument is...
...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 replied:
Not true. Christianity spread in the first three hundred years without any
force of arms whatsoever. And the uniqueness of Christ was what they were
teaching.
dmb says:
Oh please. Europe became christian by decree of an emperor, not because the
bible hit #1 one the New York Times best selller list. And one of the
church's chief aims since the very begining has been conversion as far and
wide as possible, appropriating pagan gods and pagan holidays whereever it
was politically expedient. Yes, there are many assertions about the history
of chirstianity that are debatable, but I don't think this is one of them.
And its not that christianity is unique in this. That's what culture's do.
Its just that christianity has alway had a missionary crusader element to it
and has been especisally vigorous about spreading itself. The torture, blood
and fire are just the most vivid examples. The kind of coersion I've
wittnessed in the American protestant churches could be described as
emotional terrorism. Visions of eternal hell-fire are painted and the
predominant feeling evoked by these messages is fear and self-loathing.
There are no physical forms of "persuasion", but its a kind of violence
nevertheless. Are you really going to pretend that no of that has any basis
in historical fact? You don't really think its good enough to point out that
there were periods when force wasn't used, do you? I don't. My point is
simply that the church's version won for historical and political reasons
and not because it is the only version or the best version.
dmb had said:
...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.)
Sam disagreed:
Nonsense. The New Testament scriptures, largely as we have them today, were
widely circulated within the first two or three generations after Christ.
The gnostic gospels are significantly later creations, and radically
different spiritually, textually and in terms of their literary qualities.
Whatever happened in later centuries, Christianity was built around
assertions of Christ's uniqueness from the very beginning.
dmb replies:
You're not really denying that the gnostic gospels were excluded so much as
giving reasons why they were excluded. And I guess it would be nonsense if I
had asserted that the new testament writing were NOT in circulaton from the
very begining or if I had asserted that the gnostic gospels were older, or
if I said the earliest scriptures are the real ones. But I asserted none of
that. But I do mention the gnostic gospels because they are old enough to
have made the cut, to have been included, but they weren't. That's the
point; alternative views go back to the begining too. But again, if I see
the message in the myth of Orpheus, then this little dispute about decades
or centuries of time is dwarfed.
dmb had said:
...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. ...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.
Sam replied:
Well, as we have discussed before, I don't think Christianity and the
'official' MoQ are compatible, no dispute. I'm interested in working out
ways of using some of Pirsig's insights in a way that harmonises with
Christianity. That's the particular furrow I'm ploughing.
dmb says:
They are not compatible, but you want to use the insights of one to
harmonize with the other? Um. Correct if me I'm wrong, but isn't trying to
harmonize two incompatible things the very essence of futility? Isn't that
the quitessential fool's errand, a deliberate exercise in frustration? I
mean, if you recognize their imcompatibility what the heck are you doing and
why are you doing it? Why not just reject the MOQ? Why not just pack it in
and take your views over to the "theology today" discussion group or some
such thing? I don't mean to suggest that you leave. Not at all. You may have
noticed that I took a position in this forum long ago and my place is
sitting directly across the table from you, Sam. Scott's too confusing and
Matt's too smug, so you're it. You're my evil twin and I would be sincerely
saddened by your departure. I'm just asking you to explain this apparent
contradiction. Does the MOQ offer something you find lacking in the church,
or what? I don't mean to be flippant, but why bother with it at all if its
not compatible with your chosen faith and profession? I'm honestly baffled
by that.
Sam said to dmb:
But for the avoidance of ambiguity, if you were able to persuade me that the
'official' MoQ, taken as a whole, was of higher Quality (social and
intellectual) than Christianity, then I would abandon Christianity. Not
something I'm expecting though.
dmb says:
The MOQ has to be better intellectually AND SOCIALLY? I think that you are
asking too much. I don't even think its POSSIBLE for a metaphysical system
can invent, contruct or otherwise offer a separate set of social level
values. All the intellect can do is examine the ones that gave rise to the
intellect in the first place. Think of it like this. Social level values can
tame and mollify the biological imperitives for food and sex, but it can't
alter the basic facts of biology. So it is with the relationship between
social and intellectual level patterns. I think Pirsig's suggestion is a
very good one. We should neither accept nor reject them blindly, but use the
intellect to examine them, to discover the point and purpose and sort them
on the some kind of rational basis. I forget who said it and I forget how it
goes exactly, but here's the basic idea. If a contemporary person lived by
old testament standards, they would be considered a criminal. If a
contemporary person lived by new testament standards they would be
considered insane. The point here being that anyone can see that its no good
to accept our Western tradition blindly or otherwise fail to choose from
among that rich heritage. I mean, the old testament tells us that gay
people, sassy children and cheating husbands should all be stoned to death
at the city gates. People just can't get away with sacrificing their
children anymore, no matter how strong their faith. I think we can all agree
that its quite all right to end such obviously objectionable practices. And
there is no reason to draw the line there. It doesn't have to be criminal or
insane to be objectionable. What if this or that social level value is in
conflict with empirically based knowledge or our rights and freedoms? All it
has to be is incorrect or inadequate. It doesn't have to be gruesome, it can
just be wrong or obsolete. All the particulars are up for grabs and on the
table. We can talk about where to draw lines for a long, long time and the
room for debate can be measured in millions of square miles. And then there
are slam-dunk no-brainers. This is an unforgivably longwinded way of saying
that a metaphysics can't be SOCIALLY superior to anything because it can't
be SOCIAL at all. It can serve to examine that level's static forms.
Sam planned:
I'll reply to your point about sacraments etc when I reply to Wim.
dmb says:
OK.
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 - 19:56:33 GMT