From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:25:16 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <Bz8BKK.EB1@spss.com>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 

Re: Gnosticism and the Paulmeister

>
> 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?

Is that the part where Paul says that he has one teaching for the 
spiritually mature and one for the rest of the Christians?  2 Cor. 2;16(??)
The Valentinian Gnostics (who used the Thomas Gospel, I believe)
traced their teaching back to Paul, through one of his disciples who
claimed to have received Paul's secret teaching.  Maybe you can have
your Paul and your Gnosticism, too!  It pleases me greatly to think
that the silliness he was pushing on the ignorant masses of Asia Minor
might not have been what he really believed...:)
  
>>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???
 
Wow...really? Tell me more! What do people think the implications of this
are? That the Resurrection is a relatively late idea? 

>>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...;-)

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.  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. I don't believe in Yahweh,
except that I believe he is a real fictional character.  But I would
call myself a Christian, except that the Paulists have co-opted that term
and don't let anyone else use it. 

> [Van Kampen's book]
>>> He even identifies the AntiChrist!  :-)  
>>
> Sorry.  It's not you!  He identifies the AntiChrist as Adolf Hitler...fatal 
> head wound and all that...

Well, shucks. 
 
>>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.
>
> 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.

Fascinating...at least two totally contradictory conclusive interpretations
of the prophetic messages of the Bible. Definition of paranoia: seeing
patterns where none exist. 

As for Christ coming again, ever wonder if the big man wasn't speaking
metaphorically?  Read some Eckhart...wow! 


Re: Who created who?

>>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.

Wall, ya can't reason a man outta somethin' he warn't reasoned into. 
I will mention this lovely quotation from Oscar Wilde, though:

"What a shame. The things we are absolutely sure about are NEVER true."

And there is a reason for this. 

>>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.

Well...this is too complex to argue. I'll just say that in my view,
allegory isn't poetry, it's philosophy in code. Poetry is eternal --
that is, the events of Genesis happen every heartbeat. 

>>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.

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. 

>>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...

'Taint a theory, pilgrim. I'll let you in on a little secret, but you have to
promise not to tell anybody. Whether or not God exists, almost all
Christians are idolators who worship only self-projected images. There
is a very easy way to test if someone is one of these critters.

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."

>>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.

Alas, a feeling of subjective certainty is always a sign of delusion. 
I'm quite sure of it. :)
 
> 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?
 
>  -Steve

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Every heaven is also a prison... 


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc