Christianity: Another Perspective
It's been too long since I posted and it's too late to really write a lot. I spent my morning reading the stuff about Christianity recently written by Zipperusup and Stillidealistic, and ALL of those comments. Fascinating discussion for so many reasons.
What I took from the post of Stilli, even before the comments, was the problem that exists within Christianity in the USA. Auntie Sam made a comment that people have the right to express their beliefs without criticism. While I do agree with the rights, the right to express, the second part I do not find true. I am not obligated to be silent when someone makes a statement of any kind. There is no right to the last word because one hamade a statement of faith. I believe Clearthinker pretty much proved that, if nothing else.
It is not here that "Liberal" Christians are failing, it is here that Christianity is failing, even our nation as a whole. We are loathe to respond for fear of offending a believer. It's a social custom. It's root is in our political DNA, because we respect the right of others to have their religion. But I think it is time to answer the call Stilli makes, believers or not. It is time to respond to assertions and declarations to show how something stated might be questionable.
Originally, I thought I would post about how the MSM defines Christianity. I was troubled by how much significance was given to James Dobson in the comments. I have always been troubled by how much attention is given to American church leaders. But to understand my perspective, I have to give some personal background.
My upbringing was in the Russian Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy is arguably the second largest Christian body in the world. It always confused me that this persepctive was overlooked when matters of fatih are reported in the news. Instead, we get Dobson, or Robertson, or a handful of others. The view is that of this homegrown faith, indigenous to the US for the most part, and it ignores more then half the world of Christianity. It is as if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and not in the Middle East. It is as if Christianity came here leaving empty and exhausted nations in its wake. As though Chirstianity lives no where else but here in the good old USA and these people have the monopoly on understanding Jesus Christ.
Quite frankly, this whole issue of there being a moment in one's life where one is "saved" is foreign to me. The teachings of the Orthodox Church revolve around a traditional form of worship and participation in the sacraments. The evangelical practices of the Russian Orthodox Church was much different then what people think of when they hear the word missionary. But I am not hear to say it is better or worse, more true or not. I only wish to suggest that there are vast differences in Christianity, and if we are to discuss the issue, we should take a broader perspective on Christianity not simply historically, with a sense it moved from East to West, but realistically in that it exapnded not vacating any place it had been.
The MSM dictates what form of Christianity it wishes to portray, and frankly, I find it sorely lacking in any real, deep understanding of it. But people give the MSM authority to make these declarations because the MSM has this authority related to so many other matters of importance. One has to ask, though, are these the real leaders of Christianity, or the ones who with the most interest for their news cycle? Does the MSM choose these people because of some spiritual need to express their love of God, or to attract more viewers and spectators?
There needs to be a separation of church and state because, if for no other reason, we cannot agree what the church/mosque/synagogue is. Our efforts to deconstruct religion into this faith-based assembly is doomed to failure because there is no democratic voice to whom these people shall be, rather they are appointed by a secular body, the government. Based on what criteria are these representatives made and on what basis are others excluded. It would be better not to form this body at all at the governmental level because it cannot possibly represent the people, or even Christianity, from a world view.
GZ,
You wrote: "Auntie Sam made a comment that people have the right to express their beliefs without criticism."
I could not find where I wrote 'without criticism' - Critique can be constructive (As my Mother said repeatedly, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it.")
This is what I found I posted in comment to Stilli's post re: Liberal Christians -
'Each of us, by law, are entitled to express our own beliefs and faith. Personal faith in God is not the same as 'organized religion/religious' tenets that exclude and condemn.
We should all be able to enjoy, value and speak of our beliefs without being ridiculed, disrespected or condemned.'
6-06-09 7:20 p.m. StillIdealistic's post
In my own post American as Apple Pie I wrote: 'We all are to be able to hold own stances privately and publicly without fear. (For this discussion I choose to ignore those who embrace bigotry or other acts born of hate and personal agendas under the guise of their specific 'religious' doctrine.)
It's the essence of Americana that we show respect without words or actions that denigrate or disparage another's faith and/or belief. This is the rationale for our celebrations and acknowledgements of our ability to choose.'
June 4, 2009, 2:53PM
Grogory, criticism is not a synonym for 'ridicule, disrespect, condemnation, denigration or disparagement.
I could not find where I said 'without criticism'. Please give cite where I used these words. Thanks.
June 10, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Auntie, I did paraphrase, but the quote is a couple sentences later, "While it may frustrate you that all don't feel/believe as you do, our right to do so without censure is part of what makes America great." {italics are mine}.
I do believe you welcome a debate of ideas and beliefs, but I also believe it is a common expectation of many of the Right wing Christians that no one question their declarations because it denies them freedom of religion. I do not put you into that category but I believe you remark an unconscious reflection of that trend.
June 10, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their declarations are based on their own attempts to justify negative personal agendas. They cherry pick at best and turn away from those pesky tenets such as, 'Thou shall not judge' and many, many more.
I was using censure in the terms of condemnations, denunciation, et al.
I find their hate speech, done under the cover of Christianity horrific and even more heinous for it.
As you wrote, 'There needs to be a separation of church and state' is mandatory if we are truly to ensure democracy.
Thanks.
June 10, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur! It is interesting that you mention the Russian Orthodox Church. I focused in on the Russian part because one of my favorite authors, Dostoyevski. He has a different take on religion and perhaps spirituality in Christianity through the use of The Brothers Karamazov. He approaches religion with The Grand Inquisitor ,Chapter V in Book V with two brothers Ivan and Alyosha. It is so rich that I will not spoil it for the potential reader. The Grand Inquisitor for me is an introduction on how different people see or don't see and seek or don't seek religion and or spirituality. I see (perhaps I haven't looked very hard?)very little to none of this diversity in Christendom within the United States. This is my aversion to Christianity in this country.
The alternative is that I look for spirituality in the natural world that surrounds me. By natural world, I mean in places like Big Sur, Yosemite and Death Valley to name a few.
June 10, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The natural world is where I draw my spirituality from also, 1849. I have been challenged a few times, asked outright if I am a Christian (like it's any of their business) or, more sneakily, asked if I attend church. I reply to the church attendance question by saying, "Yes, I attend my church every time I walk out the back door of my house."
Of course, they are a little confused by my answer, but hey, one asks questions like that at their own risk. ;o)
June 10, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too find it spiritually refreshing. In the Southwest Region. The solitude to hear my self think without distractions. Open skies, the moon lighting up the desert floor. The smell after the rain.
So many gifts.
So peaceful.
I love our home, Earth
June 10, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most "religious" moments I've ever experienced had nothing to do with religion, nor was I at church. Instead, they were quite frankly the highest peaks and the most hopeless valleys I've experienced in my life. They had to do with either an epiphanous moment, a moment of total clarity which came unexpected, or a moment of communion with either nature, or another human being. Some were when I was surrounded by countless others, but the most important ones were only felt by me, in solitude.
When the church doesn't touch what they call my soul, nor does it grant some epiphany or enlightenment, then I feel depressed, let down, as if I'm watching a production on stage, and can see the wings backstage.
June 10, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My idea of communion with God:
Sitting on a bancony, or high porch, rocking in a Mission style 1930s Rocking chair, looking across a field that lines the horizon with trees, and over the sound of a scratchy 78 RPM record ("Dark Was The Night, Cold Was the Ground' by Blind Willie Johnson) I can hear in the distance also the sound of a passing Frisco train, as the sun sets, under pinks and oranges and greens and purples. Boundless horizon. Scratchy blues record. Rocking chair. Telephone poles lined up and evaporating. Dirt roads.
That is my idea of heaven.
June 10, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and gentle drops of rain falling in a wind.
June 10, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to all five of the previous posts, let me share a bit of my upbringing. First, in the Russian Orthodox tradition, Epiphany, or as we prefer to call it Theophany, the day we celebrate the baptism of Christ and the concurrent revelation of the Holy Trinity, we believe when Christ entered the water, he sanctified ALL water. We bless water on that day. So, it is only natural that it is a blatant sin to pollute the water, because it is holy in and of itself. And if it is blessed even more so, hehehehe.
Second, there is Pentacost, when the spirit came down to the Apostles. For this holiday we bring branches into the church and bless them. pentecost is known as Green Sunday for this reason.
Third, I think this may be Dormition, or the commemoration of the passing of the Virgin Mary, a tradition that lived outside the Bible, but which lives in the Russian Orthodox church just the same. On this day, if I am not mistaken, we bless flowers.
My point is that in this ancient tradition, Mother Nature is critical to our faith. It is an integral part of the life in the Russian Orthodox Church. And it is highly probable that most, if not all of this was lifted from the pagen religions that existed prior to the time of the evangelization of the Slavs in 988, in Kiev, when, as history tells us, Prince Vladimir commanded his people to go down to the river and be baptized.
Confession is good for the soul. I have not been a very faithful practitioner of this faith for many years, but I have not forgotten its merits, and I am not ignorant of it's liabilities. As was once pointed out in a sermon I once heard, even Satan recognized the Son of God, or he would not have tempted Him. So it is with me. I amy not be pure, but that does not mean that I cannot recognize what is good in the Church. I am now an Easter Orthodox, going to church on Easter, and sometimes, when I am simply walking through the woods along a rushing stream cascading over rock cooling the air and singing through the trees that life begins with water.
June 11, 2009 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not understand the conflicts here. Funny, The Russian Orthodox Church comes in number two as far as longevity. HAHAHAAHA.
I was an altar boy. Chanting called prayer. My god, (blesses himself) we stole the idea of the rosary which is centuries older than Roman Catholicism. As we stole the word Pontif from the old Roman head of the so-called 'pagan' religion.
The Mormans among others simply wished for a 'national religion' and tweaked the old world's religions.
We have the separation of church and state for the very reason that no sect can agree no matter what book they worship.
That is all I got tonite, Gregor. Good Blog.
June 10, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
When it comes to longevity, the Orthodox Communion is the oldest, if one were to concede that the Catholic Church began at the schism when, of all things, it decided to excommunicate the rest of the Church. It is only in the West that Protestantism began AFTER the schism, but if one considers that there were five Pontiffs, errr, Christian pontiffs at the time, how is it that the one is proposed to have taken the church to himself and the other were left behind in something new? It was the other four who remained as one church and the Romans who began their own sect with this brand new, never before considered theory of infallibility. But, actually, I believe the infallible part may have originated later, but I'm not too sure on that. My point is the one decided he was leaving the rest, in protest, as it were, to the others not recognizing Rome's declaration that the Roman pope was Supreme, although I think not yet infallible.
June 11, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor, I'm a bit confused. You started off by saying the problem is with Christianity in general, not just liberal Christianity. But then you said the problem lies with the MSM for giving so much coverage to a certain kind of Christian.
I do agree that non-religious people should feel free to criticize Christianity, as long as they're OK with getting responded right back to. But I think we'd have to be living under a rock to think that faith (including Christianity) hasn't been subjected to some pretty public and withering attacks over the last few years.
June 11, 2009 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Jesse, I knew you would have something to say, and I welcome that.
First, as noted, I was brought up as a Christian, a Russian Orthodox Christian. To some of Christianity, they take issue with what that means. They might ask, "Yes, but are you saved"" for instance. For me, when I meet my Maker, I will know the answer. Till then, I'm working on it. It's His call and I assume nothing. I even would wonder if He is a She, and whether it is absurd to put gender on God. But seriously it isn't anything that is going to cause me to lose any sleep.
While I do give credit to the MSM for fabricating a characterization of Christianity, I am suggesting there are many different perspectives of Christianity that should refute the notion that the Far Right represents Christianity in any significant way. The Far Right makes a lot of noise, demanding our attention and most shrink from challenging them. I don't think we need to call those who do liberal. I think the tent that contains those who would not support the Far Right includes a much more diverse population then that.
My main proposition here is that the church needs some in-fighting to straighten out our image, if you will. There are some very poignant arguments against Christianity that really are more accurately against the Far Right, and which have little to do with the rest of Christendom. I do not feel obliged to defent their actions when they stray from the path I feel was given to us by the church and I believe there is a whole lot more to Christianity then a Bible, regardless of how important that anthology may be.
June 11, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Gregor for broadening my world view
on this subject. I appreciate your thoughts.
Source energy lives in some form in all cultures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBrConkrepI
June 11, 2009 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome, Strato. I Love the ikon towards the end, and of course the a capella
June 11, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting Gregor; your perspective places you across one of Christianity's early and wide chasms, which few in America even begin to understand, as they view it from the other side. The Orthodox Church's split with Rome came long before Martin Luther and John Calvin lived; before Henry VIII told the Papacy to go bugger off somewhere else. Yet still your Christian perspective is on the same schismatical cliff as both Rome and Protestants, when considering the rift cause by The First Council of Nicaea in 325, that caused Arius to be anathematized by the dwarfish Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, and get banished along with his followers as heretics. You grew up in a Trinitarian Christian sect.
Still, the breech's distance between Russian Orthodox and the Western Christian Religions is wide enough for you to comprehend the utter foolishness in believing that America was founded as a Christian Nation; simply because there is no concept of a Christian Gestalt big enough to encompass all variations of Christianity. There is no big 3-ring circus tent of Christian inclusiveness for one and for all.
This is what contemporary American Christians, who believe that the USA is necessarily a Christian Nation, are incapable of comprehending. The vast majority of America's Founders were indeed Christians, but they also understood why it was essential for civil government to be completely separated from Religious ideology. They fully understood that esoteric differences in Christian dogmas had set Christians upon Christians in near endless waging of bloody war in Europe. Only a fool wants to die over differences in opinion regarding arcane tenets, such as whether Jesus was pure God-seed and Mary's womb was just the vessel; or whether He got 12 chromosome pairs from Mary, when He walked as human on Earth. Only a complete imbecile is willing to die over whether the Pope is God's emissary on Earth, or whether the Devil is a goth drag-queen who wears Red Prada knock-offs. It gets worse too. There is nothing to be found in the words attributed to Jesus, able to justify killing in self-defense, nothing that even remotely validates the obscene concept of "Just War"; so why do so many believe the lie: there are no atheists in foxholes? Anyone who found their god upon a battlefield assuredly worships manifest evil.
Many of the Founders were Theists, whose world views were the product of scientific enlightenment, and they refused to believe in spiritualism, because it could not be reproduced using the scientific method. John Adams, in his later life was clear about this in his private correspondence, but Thomas Jefferson was vociferous, and this often resulted in his being libeled as Godless:
It took guts to compare The Trinity to the three-headed dog-god who guards the gates of hell in Greek/Roman mythology back then.I believe that you do not understand why the concept of "being saved" has such import in many Protestant sects, or where the idea originated from. The concept is somewhat foreign to Roman Catholics too. Much of it is can be traced back to Luther's word fill to Romans 3:28 in his translation of the Bible from Latin to German:
From durch den Glauben -- by faith
To allein durch den Glauben -- by faith alone
For Luther to justify this, he also needed to derogate James 2:22, and this he did by referring to James as "the epistle of straw", because it had "keine evangelische Art" (no {Evangelical /OR/ Protestant} {nature /OR/ character}). Luther even went on to call the Pope "Papstesel" (Donkey-Pope). Another of the myriad of schisms that fracture across the realm of Christian sects. Add to that the absolute disdain for the Papacy, fostered by Henry VIII, and his creation of The Church of England. This was the fetid ground upon which the seeds of Anabaptist dogma took root in America. At its foundations, Anabaptist dogma states that infant baptism is invalid; that true Christian baptism can only be resultant from a free choice exercised by the one who is being baptised. This is where the concept of "being saved" or being "born again" comes from. The majority of Protestant sects in contemporary America believe this.
It is amusing to see how many members of these Protestant sects, also believe that America was founded as a Christian Nation, as they perceive Christian righteousness to be, because Anabaptists were persecuted in much of Colonial America (sometimes even burned at the stake in the Massachusetts Bay Colony), and were still greatly discriminated against at the time of America's Founding. This is why Jefferson's famous letter that speaks of "the wall of separation between church and state" was addressed to the Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut. It was to allay their fears that a State Church was about to be formed in America.
It isn't the MSM defining Christianity in America; it is the TeleTubbyEvangelists, who have acquired for themselves great power within America's mainstream. The MSM is just being slovenly, and going along with the flow. Far too many followers of these phony preachermen believe there was such a thing as Judeo-Christian heritage dating back to before the time of America's Founding. They also have distorted the concept: Freedom of Religion; beyond recognition from its original intent.
Freedom of Religion had little to do with the organisation and structure of Christian Sects, and everything to do with mutual tolerance towards everyones' faith, as long as it was a faith that did not impair the Natural Liberties of other Americans. It was a tolerance for the Free Practise of Religion, and had its limits. There is an easy two-step test for whether a faith is deserving of tolearnce by the civil authority in America, that can be derived from a well-know Jefferson quotation:
The proper two-part test for whether a free practise of faith is to be tolerated by the civil authority is:- It does not suckle off the teat of the public treasury
- It does not attempt to coerce others into its midst
This is what The Nation's Citizenry has forgotten from The Dreamtime America.June 11, 2009 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good, PsuedoCyAnts I love your research and the depth.
I am always intrigued and fascinated by the direction of the Early Church
How some sects were already breaking off from the original teachings, while the Apostles were still alive.
(1 John 2:18-21) 18 Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as YOU have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us
Constantine, The council at Chalcedon, Rome declining. Leo I , Saint Augustine, Forged documents.
Isidore and Gratian transforming the pope into a universal administrator.
It is so intriguing?
If people would really research, they might be surprised how their sects developed after the Death of the Apostles.
Again thanks PCA I’ll need to go back and review.
I would recommend to Dick that you get the award, if he should ask for nominees.
June 11, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pseudo, I believe you are one of the most astute minds at TPM. I really appreciate your bringing this essay to my post. To reference the First Council of Nicea of 325 AD, 700 hundred years before the Great Schism clearly illustrated that you understand what I mean when I say Orthodox Christianity.
It was good information to add to this post when you refer to how the Founding Fathers perceived God and religion distinctly. I was unaware that the Anabaptists were among those burned at the stake in Massachusetts. I was, however, aware of the origin of being "saved". When I read you're explanation it dawned on me it fit with my post, however. From one sentence an entirely new sect developed, and Christianity, one might say, has been metastasizing further from there.
There is something to be said for different people emphasizing different aspects of Christianity. Bottom line, how can one body encompass all of it anyway? Better to visit a few different expressions, learn what they have and move on, I suppose, not forgetting, as I go, that there is still the possibility it's fiction.
June 11, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor, thanks for the compliment, but "astute" may not be a proper description, and comes laden with great potential for pride. I have certain knacks, to use vernacular. Possibly better terms: talents or aptitudes.
You need to remember though, that I do not claim to practise a Christian Faith. I had a very strong foundation of Christian Education growing up, and have always been curious about how practises of faith manifest themselves in reality. There is a great deal of cowboy in me, which is also germane, because I'm comfortable shooting fast off of the hip. A good way to describe this in context is that I can judge, while real Christians cannot, and I may judge with fire placed at the feet of those who I think are poseurs.
June 11, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
PseudoCyAnts,
Certainly the "anathematizing" of Arius by Athanasius was an important predecessor to the schism but it should be noted that the Nicene creed was something agreed to by both Eastern and Western churches, er, except for Arius', of course. The link is from a decidedly "Latin" point of view but there are Orthodox accounts of the same people and issues.
Perhaps disagreements about dogma are distorted when taken by themselves. Maybe the dogmas developed from diverging liturgies and sacraments rather than the other way around. In that context, this book by Ernst Benz is interesting. The linked "preview" let's one read the beginning of the book. Unlike most text of this kind, Benz starts with a discussion of the importance of icons in the Orthodox tradition.
June 11, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moat, thank you for bringing this link to my post. Yes, it is an arduous, and perhaps impossible task to understand Orthodoxy without understanding ikons and their role in the Church. A keen insight of the author to refrain from comparisons at the outset of a work and get right into the core of how the Orthodox worship.
June 11, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor, I am glad you found the Benz book interesting. Thank you for posting a blog about this.
June 12, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moat, you still are able to amaze me with unexpected insights and knowledge. My understanding of Orthodox Christianity almost entirely comes from reading analysis of late 18th and early 19th century Eng/Amer theologians and philosophers. You know, the people who American founders would have read. Joseph Priestly first comes to my mind, as an example:
Priestley, Joseph. 1871. A history of the corruptions of Christianity. London: British and Foreign Unitarian Association. Part I: The History Oe Opinions Relating To Jesus Christ
(Note: this is a 10th edition, the 1st Ed. was published in 1782, but the older English lower case s type-set, slows down my reading speed tremendously)
My perspective is filtered through late 18th century English Unitarianism. One of the odder discoveries when first starting to research this two or three years ago, was the personal affinity felt for much of the disdain heaped upon Plato by these early Unitarians. I've always felt that Plato's Real/Ideal depiction of reality was hogwash, and potentially, a great danger, as it can be jacked to rationalise great injustice/wrong; i.e. In America, The Ideal, We Do Not Torture, but In America, The Real, Expediency Must Carry The Day. (I did however, used to hear the music of the spheres, until shock therapy cured me...)
I'd never given more than cursory thought to the concept of a Unitary Christian God, before attempting to get a grasp on Theism in the late 18th Century, and why so many of America's Founders were attracted to it. It does go a long way in helping to clear up one of the inherent paradoxes (mysteries?) of Trinity. It's hard enough to wrap my head around the concept of a supernatural force, which exists without temporal boundaries, that can trivially ignore cause --> effect, but once that is accepted, to turn around and apply a Father-Son relationship to this same power that does, has always, and will forever, exist as an externality to time/space is insanely recursive. Within a Father/Son relationship is also a temporal relationship, where the father was preexistent to the son.
You noted The Nicene Creed of 325 had the broad support of Bishops from both the East and West, yet there is no way to tell how strong the support or faith was for it. There is a large uncertainty factor that needs to be added into the mix, because many of the attending Bishops would not have had a competent grasp of Greek enabling understanding exactly what the argument was about. By the 4th century, Christianity had already become addicted to wielding political force. The First Council of Nicaea resulted in Arians being excommunicated, exiled and condemned. It also resulted in the burning of original texts written by Arians. Even so, Arians were later able to reassert their power over Alexandria, and the Roman empire. Arians were deposed from power in the Orthodox Church eventually, through judgments, purges, punishments and executions. Those who said they believed in The Trinity did this even though Jesus had clearly stated when He walked as human upon the Earth:
Packs of Wolves and Swineherds, wearing their self-apportioned vestments of power. Is the Orthodoxy of Trinity supposed to be blindly accepted, simply because its original proponents were able to assert its supremacy using methods renounced as unrighteous by God, The Son? This reeks of an odious and brutal heretical irony.I quickly discovered that Unitarianism quickly breaks-off into its own canyon lands of schisms after first positing One God. Priestly, a man who Jefferson respected and often conversed with, in his later life publicly charged Jefferson with heresy. John Adams thought Priestly was thoroughly whacked for this, and Priestly may well have been. Priestly adamantly refused to accept that his phlogiston theory of chemistry had been proven wrong by Antoine Lavoisier. I still devote a bit of time attempting to get a good handle on Priestly, but his authorship was so extensive, and fields of study so diverse, I believe it would be an impossible task.
June 12, 2009 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
PseudoCyAnts, In keeping with my usual custom, I will only nibble at a corner of your generous serving. Let me see what I can address before I leave for work. :-}
I blitzed through the Priestly book and see that it is a very important document for understanding the background of Theism. I will make two quick observations:
His comment about "Plato traveling East" on page 10 is interesting because he could have talked about the influence of Plotinus influencing "philosophizing Christians" if he had known about him and the neo-Platonists.
It seems odd to me that Priestley makes Paul out to be someone who didn't deify the person of Jesus. I don't think Priestley comes to terms with Paul's anticipation of the impending end of the world and the cosmology that becomes associated with having "Christ" change the condition of all humanity.
June 12, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a little tidbit of unofficial orthodoxy. It is suggested that the three visitors to Abraham were actually the Trinity. It is one way the Orthodox create the argument the Trinity was always present, i.e. Jesus was the Son of God at Creation, it was only here on Earth that he began an earthly life, but he had existed pre-eternally.
Another example of this is the suggestion that at Creation Jesus was there was in breaking down the declaration, "In the beginning was the Word." In this it has been proposed that God who spoke the Word, Jesus, was the Word, and the Holy Spirit was the breathe of the Word.
One thing that always intrigued me about the Orthodox was they manage to tie together many different things. But that is how things become Orthodox. Some one presents an idea, everyone questions and answers how and if it ties in, and if it does not, then it is not Orthodox. Orthodoxy is a search for truth, and it takes years of study and argument to change anything. But as noted, if arguments fail, there is sometimes blood. Afterall, we're still talking about humans here.
June 14, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well put! The many branches and traditions of Christian faith are being crammed into a cookie cutter by MSM reporting. This fits into ping pong journalism-two players with one ball volleying back and forth.
In truth, the faith of those people who call themselves Christian is extremely heterodox. Orthodox Christians have a valid claim to originality and tradition. Protestant sects, such as the ones which I have ascribed to, are recent innovations of the northern European immigration to America. New sects or traditions within existing sects are being created every day in Asia and the Americas.
Painting Christianity with two colors is a disservice. Christian faith is a rainbow!
June 11, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink