[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Healthy agnosticism
> This is way too Platonic for my taste. I can deal with God having an
> ontologically objective nature, but Christianity? A set of
> human-constructed sets of socio-cultural belief and ritual systems
> that are demonstrably different in both time and geography??? No, I
> can't buy that as universal, constant, or objective. For almost two
> thousand years, at least since Marcion, if not earlier, people have
> been pointing fingers, saying those *other* guys are not Christians.
Heck, I think we see evidence of that sort of in-fighting (except it isn't
"in-fighting" to the people who think that the other group belongs on the
"outside") in Paul's epistles, the earliest Christian texts we have.
Paul himself tries to be fairly broad-minded (though he has his limits),
but it seems there were all sorts of quarrels going on in his day -- and
Paul's own status as an apostle was constantly being called into question,
because he had not known Jesus personally like the other apostles, and he
sometimes claimed the right to override the apostolic hierarchy and
tradition on the grounds that God had revealed things to him directly.
> Even as far back as the New Testament writings, the different authors
> had different ideas of what the significance of the resurrection.
I am tempted to say, at least, that the *fact* of the resurrection is an
essential part of Christianity, however one interprets it. But I can
think of many self-professing Christians who would dispute even that. (Or
they would question what I mean by "fact", which entails interpretation.)
> Epistomologically yours,
You *have* to see _Memento_. :)
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
References: