[GCFL-discuss] Poygamy

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

"Who knows... He doesn't appear to have anticipated all the stuff we argue
over, split over, or wrap ourselves up in."

Christ knows all and there's no way He didn't anticipate all of this. I
think the heart of the matter is the basics, not what man has added to. We
could all list add-ons by religions so I won't go there. But it's the heart
of worship and basics of Christ's teachings that's so important. Not what
man adds.

Lance
On 11/11/06, Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List <
gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> wrote:
>
>  On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:21:56 -0700 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
> List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> writes:
>
> 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?
> Jeaneneb
>
>
> Of course that comment is partly just a snappy phrase. It comes from a
> poem in Ambrose Bierce's *Devil's Dictionary*. But there are many ways to
> put some substance on it.
>
> 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 *in the name of* 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.)
>
> I have been amused at all the attention paid to *The Gospel of Judas* 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Siarlys
>
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20061113/584c7feb/attachment.htm