<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=content-type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:21:56 -0700 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List" <<A href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</A>>
writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Uh, Siarlys, what the
heck? Why would he never have been a Christian? It wasn't
possible, of course, because he was the Christ, and thus could not follow
himself, but what do you mean?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face="Comic Sans MS"
size=2>Jeaneneb</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of course that comment is partly just a snappy phrase. It comes from a poem
in Ambrose Bierce's <EM>Devil's Dictionary</EM>. But there are many ways to put
some substance on it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For one thing, Christians have never been able to agree with each other on
what a Christian is. This goes a lot farther back than the Reformation.
Therefore, it is a good bet that every Christian church has some doctrines that
Christ would not accept, or at least that Christ would not consider essential.
People do things <EM>in the name of</EM> whoever they follow, that the original
person would not have done. This is even true of God, or of Yehoshua, who called
himself Ben-Adam (Son of Man). Which heretics would Jesus have burned at the
stake? (I know, he shriveled up a fig tree that didn't have any fruit available
for him, if THAT apocryphal little tale is to be given any significance or
credence, but name one heretic Jesus put to death.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have been amused at all the attention paid to <EM>The Gospel of
Judas</EM> for two reasons. One, it really doesn't mean anything spiritually, it
has never been introduced as the newly revealed Truth to supplant the four
accepted gospels. Its just another scroll. Second, the real significance of the
writing has been totally missed. Once upon a time, there were people who called
themselves Christians who read and wrote and believed this stuff. Why? Because
for the first 300 years, Christianity was a bubbling inter-cultural ferment of
gospels and syncretisms and doctrines, out of which what we call orthodox
Christianity emerged, only to split again.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Personally, I believe that Matthew 22: 37-40 provides a comprehensive
definition of Christianity. All else is mere detail. Micah 6:8 will serve
equally well. (Actually, there is nothing in either that every Jew and Muslim
could not subscribe to -- especially as they are all are contained in the Torah
or the Prophets -- but Jews and Muslims would have a few other obligations
also). That could provide a basic unity for all Christians, or even monotheists,
but there are also some Christians who would say no, in addition, or instead...
You know, grace vs. good works, or nobody is a Christian unless they have prayed
a specific prayer for forgiveness, etc. Those are all good things, but not
essential. And what would Jesus say? Who knows... he doesn't appear to have
anticipated all the stuff we argue over, split over, or wrap ourselves up
in.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>P.S. It is a matter of definition whether there are only 4 Shakers.
Different Shaker communities disagree over whether the membership rolls were
closed to new additions (which would inevitably make the community extinct,
since celibate practitioners have no children) or not. So, some new members have
been admitted by some communities, while others say those are not true Shakers.
There are some substantial financial assets at issue in all of this
too.</DIV></BODY></HTML>