From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:12:20 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.


Re: Luke 14:26 - the verse that wouldn't die!

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <adams.724125297@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> Yeah.  I'll say.  Ya know, everytime I look at that text I have to wonder
>> just what was going on back around 28CE.  If Thomas is accurate, then that
>> sure throws a lot of cold water on Mr. Saul of Tarsus, now doesn't it?
>
>I really think it does. Paul, for me, is a sympathetic figure in a lot of ways.
>I laughed my way all through 1 and 2 Corinthians, as he tries to deal
>with blockheads who aren't as passionate as he is. I kept imagining
>him hearing some story about what the Corinthians were doing, and slapping
>himself on the forehead like Homer Simpson: "D'oh!" I have no doubt at all
>that he was totally sincere, and that he was a good man. 

I get the same idea...as a theology professor described Corinth, it was a
rowdy seaport, with lots of sailors do what sailor's do in port.  As he put
it, Paul was like a bucket of cold water that hit these people, but as soon
as he left town, it was party time again. ;-)

>>'Not reknowned' is an understatment.  The Gospels record him rebuking them
>>for not getting the picture.  See Mark 7:18 for an example.  Yeshua
>>basically asked the diciples how they could be as stupid as they were!
>>Sort of a early version of "You dolts!  Can't you even understand a simple
>>parable?"
>
>Interesting point: Gospel of Thomas is the only non-interpretative apostolic
>Gospel (that I know of).  The other four are all narratives. GoT is just
>a record of J.C.'s sayings, with the cryptic prologue "Whoever understands 
>these sayings will not experience death."

Yep.  The double-level stuff of Gnosticism was similar.  And there is even
a hint of it in Paul : "I give you Mother's milk because you are not ready
for solid food."  Now how did that get past the censors?

>I don't trust the understanding of the apostles, personally. They were without
>doubt unusual men (and women?) but, as you say, their record of understanding
>J.C. was not good.  For this reason, I am inclined to take the Thomas
>gospel as _more_ useful than the others, since it (apparently) is free
>of editorializing.  

Yep.  Of course, note that this particular criticism is in Mark - a
non-apostalic Gospel.  Mark also simply ends with an empty tomb, and 'they
were all afraid.'  Someone will likely pop in with the 'lost ending'
comments, but there is no evidence that is stronger than any other for that
position vs. others.  Why would John Mark, who was writing from Peter's
teachings (so it is believed) leave out the Resurection and the 40 days???

>>Amen and preach it!  No wait, that's not it.  "Come quickly Lord Jesus!
>>Amen"  Yeah, that's it! 
>
>Yo! J.C! Let's get a bloody move on!

It's not so clear that you want this...given what Revelation says is going
to happen to unbelievers...;-)

[Van Kampen's book]
>> He even identifies the AntiChrist!  :-)  
>
>Dang! I guess the cat's out of the bag, eh? My cover is blown, dad bust it!
>This could crimp my plans, mildly. Oooooh those evangelical Christians
>make me sooooo mad!

Sorry.  It's not you!  He identifies the AntiChrist as Adolf Hitler...fatal 
head wound and all that...

>I used to watch Dr. Jack Van Impe's paranoid musings on world affairs and
>scripture every Saturday night, but it got boring. Like, Russia is really
>going to invade Israel. Right, Jack. Like, the EC is going to take over the 
>world. Uh huh. They can't even agree on soybean tariffs, and they're going to
>take over the world by A.D. 2000. Fun for a while...and Rexella is SO cute..
>but life is short. 
Not Russia...it will be someone from the line of Magog (Japhethite)...mostly 
Germanic.  The '10 nations' won't be the EC, though.  And actually, it's a
3-nation coalition, with 7 hangers-on.  But hey, every centuries Christians
have read Revelation as pertaining to their day.  Van Kampen is just one
more to do that.  Evenetually, one of them WILL be right, when Christ does
come again.

>>>Just out of curiosity -- what is the source of your confidence?
>> 
>> Good question.  If I say from myself, that denies that there is more to it
>> than that, and I believe there is.  That confidene comes from God, through
>> the Holy Spirit.
>> 
>> I suspect that the atheist response to that is that it does come from me,
>> and me alone, and I just won't take credit for it.
>
>And people say atheism denies the dignity of man. What a world!

Of course, that's just a Fundamentalist response to 'atheism and humanism.'
Neither of which destroy dignity, but simply deny God and/or God's actions
in our lives.  From a purley societal view, I could care less if a person
is an atheist or not, so long as they are interested in true liberty...
something too many fundamentalists are not.

>Sort of. Yahweh is a character in a story -- in that sense he was created
>by man. This story was misunderstood as a history book, Yahweh the
>character became regarded as a real person. Just as people thought
>that the heroes of the Iliad were real, until it became clear
>that Homer was, at the very least, heavily fictionalizing. See what I mean?
>So in those senses, man created God. 
Ok...this is pretty much where I figured you were coming from.  Of course,
this *COULD* be right, but I don't think so.  Again, there is something
more to the world than just birth life and death.  Maybe it's a deep-seated
fervent hope, but whatever it is, I believe it.

>Very easy to mis-read a poem as a theology text. Very difficult to
>do the opposite. :)
My understanding of Genesis is one of the main things that keeps me from
being a strict scriptural literalist.  I *DO* recognize Gen 1:1-2:4 as
allegory, metaphor, etc.  In other words, poetry.

>Christianity is a self-referential idea-complex.  We would have no
>trouble recognizing it as a dream except that this dream says "I am not
>a dream. I am real life."  See what I'm getting at? 
Yep....perfectly.

>Here, I'll make up a simpler self-referential ideology for you.

[deleted good example & discussion]

>Nifty, eh?  Easy to see how these things persist for millenia, especially
>when statements like "believe this system and you will live forever"
>and "disbelieve this system and you will go to Hell" are part
>of the system.  The only defense is to step back and see how self-reference
>is creating a self-enclosed imaginative world with no exit. 

An interesting theory...

>>>People are religious because they fall in love with images that seem to 
>>>promise them relief from the difficulties they are experiencing with
>>>other images.  That's all I'm saying here, really. Nothing revolutionary,
>>>I assure you. 
>> But then why am I religious?  I don't think I fit this particular rule.  In
>> other words, my religion doesn't appear to me to be a defence mechanism
>> against other images, at least as far as I can tell.  How would you go
>> about finding this out?
>
>Why are you religious? Answer that, and I'll tell you if you fit that
>description or not. 

I don't know.  I really don't.  I do believe, but I have some doubts.  But
those doubts have never been big enough to reject my basic belief.  That is
what is strange.  I did go through a period where I rejected organized
religion, but never the existence of God.  He does exist.

If I ever figured out *why* I believed, then I could tell you...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan