From: bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton)
Subject: Re: Who is Christian - a simple answer
Keywords: Christ, offense,Christianity,christiandom,Kierkegaard, Socrates
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:04:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.031007.6898@newsroom.utas.edu.au>  
Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.001957.47642@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>,  
jws5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JUSTIN WINSLOW SOLONYNKA) writes:
> > 
> > In article <emc.727372344@tomalak>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)  
writes:
> > >(JUSTIN WINSLOW SOLONYNKA) writes:
> > >
> > >>So any person who accepts Christ's teachings _as a whole_ can be  
called a
> > >>Christian.  So I, a free-thinker who does not believe in Christ's  
divinity,
> > >>who does not believe in Heaven or Hell, call myself a Christian, for  
I accept
> > >>the Golden Rule.
                                                                        
> > >I think I will.
> > >If you are talking about the moral teachings of Jesus that you  
follow,
> > >you are nothing but a follower of rabinnical Judaism, as there is not
> > >much new in what Jesus taught - including forgiveness, mercy, AND the
> > >Golden Rule.  So it is not necessary to call yourself a Christian.
> > 
> > If it is true that what Christ taught didn't have "much new" ideas,  
then
> > the only important thing about him (Him) is his alleged divinity.  I  
have been
> > under the impression that Christ's ideas were quite original - if this  
is
> > untrue, please show me why.
> 
> Eli is quite correct: very littl eof what Yeshua had to say was new.
> The Golden Rule was formulated in the form presented in the gospels
> by the pharisee Hilel (a great man) who was in turn paraphrasing the
> Book of Leviticus. The use of parables, calling Yahweh 'Abba', the use
> of folk remedies and exorcism to heal people and his eschatological
> claims about the imanent end of the world all indicate that Yeshua
> ben Yosef was very much a jew of his time, until some of his followers
> turned him into a god after his death.
> 
> Tim O'Neill
> Tasmanian Devil


Disclaimer: This is my first day on USENET and my first
submission, so if there any gross violations of manners
or protocol then please excuse me. 


On being a Christian, I believe that the emphasis should be
on WHO Christ claimed to be and not what he said - although 
you can't divorce the two. Kierkegaard said that being a Christian 
was to live contemporaneously with Christ - that is, to feel 
His passion 2,000 years later (and he wasn't talking of 
emotionalism or gushy feelings) - to experience His passion
to such a degree that your life is transformed. In Christ's 
"teachings" about how one aught to act, there is nothing that I 
can think of that is unique. Christ summed up the Law as - to
Love others and to Love God (where Love is more an action than
a feeling) - and those notions had been around a long time.
Compare Socrates with Christ. In Plato's Gorgias, Socrates'
main point is that it is much better to suffer wrong than to
do wrong - even if it means your own death. One should make 
an effort to actually be good rather than merely appear good. 
Socrates certainly practiced what he preached - he was a martyr
for the Truth, and is rightly admired and revered well over
2000 years later. But, as Kierkegaard is fond of saying, 
Socrates was only an "occasion" - i.e. his relation to any
other human being is merely accidental - he had no divine
authority (by his own admission, he claimed to know nothing
nor be able to teach another anything). So in the case of
Socrates, WHAT he taught is more relevant to an existing
individual than WHO he was - so he was merely an occasion.
In the case of Christ, WHO he was is decisive. Christ claimed
to be God. And this was an offense -- and Christ's response
was, "blessed is he who is not offended at me." Christ said
this over and over again -- the emphasis being on HIM --
he did not say "blessed is him who is not offended by my 
teachings." Christianity is not a doctrine, but an existential
communication -- i.e. it is a life. One should also distinguish
between "Christiandom" and "Christianity". You can be born
into Christiandom (in this sense people call the U.S. a
"Christian" Nation, which I believe is a bad misuse of
the word Christian). Christiandom is a set of doctrine and
one can be an element of Christiandom without being contemporaneous
with Christ. There is nothing wrong with church being a social
construction, we have social needs after all, but one can only
be a Christian as an individual. Actually, the establishment
of Christiandom has made it almost impossible to become a
Christian. For the early Christians, their decision meant
loss of reputation, loss of property and wealth or even loss
of life. It was something you didn't enter into lightly. But
when all are "christian", the possibility of offense is gone,
which is what the possibility of being a Christian rests upon.



Robert Singleton
bobs@thnext.mit.edu