From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:07:10 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


In article <adams.724518272@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>In article <Bz8BKK.EB1@spss.com>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> 
>>
>>Re: Gnosticism and the Paulmeister
>
> [was Paul a Gnostic?]
>
> Entirely possible.  Unfortunately, at this point, it would be pretty hard
> to determine, barring discovery of some historical documents from that time
> that laid this out...

It's an intriguing thought, but alas, you're right.  Have you ever thought
of looking at Elaine Pagels' book on this subject?  She's pretty highly
respected, I think.

>>>  Why would John Mark, who was writing from Peter's
>>> teachings (so it is believed) leave out the Resurection and the 40 days???
>> 
>>Wow...really? Tell me more! What do people think the implications of this
>>are? That the Resurrection is a relatively late idea? 
>
> What was believed between 30AD and 50AD??  Good question....

Frustrating, eh? It would be incredibly fascinating to find out just
what the heck happened back then, wouldn't it!

>>Hey...I accepted Jesus into my heart and I do the best I can to 
>>live according to the Gospel message as I understand it.  
>
> That is pretty much all that one can do...faith, not works, eh?

Well...as I said below, the accepting part is pretty meaningless to me,
because it was pretty clear that I was just saying things I didn't believe.
I guess, technically, I've done my part. :) 

>>Now, I don't
>>really believe that accepting Jesus into my heart did anything, because
>>>it seems pretty clear to me that he's dead. 
>
> Ah...here's the rub...He was raised from the dead...that's the key...

Be nice if that were true. I just can't believe it in any 
meaningful way, though.  It just seems to me to be a story. Hmm.

>>I don't believe in Yahweh, except that I believe he is a real fictional 
>>character.  
> Jesus appears to have believed in Yahweh...doesn't that count for anything?

It does, you know, because I think old JC was a pretty straight shooter.
But the next question is: Who's Yahweh?  I think JC was speaking in metaphoric
terms for an aspect of life that could go by many other names. 
Jewish tradition personifies this aspect. This has its ups and downs.
One one hand, it's a good metaphor, but on the other, it is easily
misunderstood and taken as a literal term instead of a metaphoric term.
Of course, he knew this, but went ahead with his teaching anyway.
And the literalists misunderstood him and killed him just as he knew 
they would. A very brave man.

>>As for Christ coming again, ever wonder if the big man wasn't speaking
>>metaphorically?  Read some Eckhart...wow! 
> Augustine & Origen!  Leads to 'Amillenialism'...that Revelation is simply
> all metaphor and not historically predictive.

Augustine thought this way?? Wowzers. Personally, I agree with the notion
that Revelation is all metaphor, although I haven't taken the time to
actually trace out the patterns and structure. Emerson drops
a bombshell somewhere in one of his essays and tosses off a smidgen
of his own metaphoric reading of Revelation, something about
"the stars falling from the sky when evil appears to rule."  That
just blew my mind away...a wonderful little shot of a great mind at
work.  Evil, of course, is an imaginative construct. If you regard
evil as being trumphant, then you are replacing the natural world
with your idea of it...you are living in your imagination if you
regard evil as being some kind of "thing."
Of course, if you're living in your imagination, then you're denying the 
natural world -- in other words, the stars fall from the sky.

Now that's poetry!  Just a tiny taste of what Revelation is about,
courtesy of R.W. Emerson...someday I'll work the whole thing out!

Re: Christianity the self-referential idea-complex.

>>No you don't, or you would be an even stranger type of Christian than you
>>are now. :)  In other words, I think you understand this intellectually,
>>but I'm not sure you see the practical implications of this point. 
> 
> I beleive you are correct....

It will scare the willies out of you if you do see them...your entire
life will evaporate around you, and you will awaken in an unknown world.
 
You'll know it when it happens, in other words. :)

>>Ask them: Do you sincerely think God exists?
>>
>>If they say "yes," they are narcissists in disguise. A non-idolatrous
>>Christian will say "I have no bloody idea, comrade, but it pleases
>>me to think so."
> 
> Hmm.  So what you are saying is that to have real faith, one must doubt?
> In other words, if I struggle with God's existence, then I'm doing ok?
> My answer to the question is "I believe so, but can't show you any proof."
> In other words, not simply 'yes'...

To have real faith is to live in God as comfortably as you live in your
kitchen or living room. "Struggling" is a just a battle between two images
in your mind. The fact of the matter is: We don't know at ALL if 
Big Daddy in the Sky exists or not, and there is no way to ever know. 
In fact, there is no way to know whether or not you are dreaming at this
moment. (sound familiar? :) 

Because it is impossible to _know_, it is meaningless to believe. 
To believe is to think that you know, although you may not know why
you know.  Since we cannot know, sincere belief is delusion. This is a 
very tricky point...but there is no getting away from it. 
 
This does not eliminate insincere belief -- that is to say, recognizing
that you don't know, and can never know, but still operating
as if God exists, because it pleases you to do so. After all, he might!

So...the difference between delusion and clear-headedness is not a matter
of WHAT you believe, but of what attitude you take towards your beliefs. 

The recognition of the impossibilty of knowledge is the act of true faith,
of true connection with the ultimate. 

I have spoken! :)

>>> If I ever figured out *why* I believed, then I could tell you...
>>
>>Probably you believe because it seems to you true that God exists. 
>>In other words you have certain questions, questions which are important
>>to you,  which the "God" hypothesis seems to answer adequately. Sound right?
> 
> Yes.

In other words, you have a set of ideas about life which do not seem to 
adequately account for life as you experience it. So 
you have questions. You have found that one way to deal with this
problem is to adopt another set of ideas which satisfies your
desire to have the universe make sense. 

There is a lot more to this process...the above is not the whole story..
but this is getting too long...:) We'll pick this up as we go along.

>  -Steve

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc