george murphy wrote:
> > has discovered that it has an absolutely axiomatic structural
> > significance for Religion. However, having a semitic dead
> > body nailed to in the front of every church in Christendom, I
> > think, remains a shock and an affront to both Jews and Moslems.
> > Frankly, I've always been rather nervous about it myself.
> Of course the cross is offensive, a point that Paul emphasizes in I
> Corinthians 1:18-31. It is a "stumbling block" (Paul's word) not just as an
> incidental fact about the Christian faith but as the fundamental claim about who
> God is and how God acts in the world.
Any world publicized event is going to present a
"stumbling block" to naysayers. It is a political
stumbling block. And this is what Paul was referring to
in the early days of Christianity when it was practically
an unknown religion.
However, there has always been a downside to Calvary,
and that is that one has to wonder why the savior of
the elite Occidental Roman world had to be a barefoot semitic
person. There seems to be an element of hypocrisy there
that has simply been overlooked for 2000 years. Now what
we are finding is that apparently not only did the Jews object
to it, a billion Moslems don't appear to like it either.
> > 4.[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed
> > the limits in your religion, and do not speak
> > (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the
> > Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of
> > Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium
> > and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah
> > and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it
> > is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be
> > It from His glory that He should have a son,
> > whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the
> > earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
> > [Hammond]
> > In this passage (written ca 650 ad) Mohammed apparently
> > saw the lionization of Jesus and Mary as a threat of
> > "polytheism". Of course that threat never materialized.
> > However, there may have been some talk of the "Trinity"
> > even as early as 650.
> The Trinity had been defined as Christian dogma in the 4th century
> (whether rightly or wrongly is not the point now) & discussed extensively by
> Christians of east and west long before the Qur'an was written. For someone to
> say "there may have been some talk of the "Trinity" even as early as 650" raises
> the suspicion that he knows little of church history.
Per usual, exactly the contrary... for someone like me who
has never even bothered to look at the church history of the
Trinity, to be able to pinpoint the date of it's origin
within 2 centuries merely based on theoretical considerations,
of course indicates that I know more about it than you do.
The lore n' legend of Christianity I'm sure is utterly
fascinating to a Lutheran clergyman, that is a lay person
such as yourself, but it is hardly of interest to me.
By virtue of discovering the worlds first scientific proof of God
(which you are apparently unable to comprehend despite a PhD
in Physics from John Hopkins)- I already am aware
of the scientific explanation of the Trinity... I don't need to be
bothered with the trivia of "early Church history" to explain it.
I sir, am here to explain early Church history, not learn it.
> > ...........................
> > All in all, my (limited) reading of the Koran affirms that
> > it is the Gospel word of God just as surely as the Old and
> > New Testament are. Testimony to the "all powerful and merciful"
> > God.
> > To me, being a Protestant, reading the Koran differs little
> > from reading a Catholic Catechism. Sure, the people who wrote
> > it were Semitic, and many believers today are Indonesian or African,
> > but I find that of much lesser impact than the fact that the voice
> > is one and the same with the Christian voice... the same voice of
> > God. (Needless to say, when I get around to reading the Vedas and
> > Buddhist canon, I'll probably discover the same- that the voice
> > of God is universal).
> Needless to say! If you start with the assumption that all religions
> believe in the same God then you'll discover that all religions believe in the
> same God. But if one takes Christians claims about the cross seriously, the
> claim that "true theology and the recognition of God are in the crucified
> Christ" (Luther) then that assumption is more than problematic.
I don't deal in "assumptions" and "presumptions". I only
deal in proven scientific facts. Having _proven_ that there
is "only one God because there is only one Gravity", I can now
as you do perhaps, leisurely paw over the fascinating cornucopia
of trivia that constitutes 99% of doctrinal religion.
Meanwhile, to go around reciting "true theology is the crucified
Christ" is something that might turn a lot of heads in
Racine, Wisconsin maybe.. but it would just as likely get you
a kick in the behind in Mecca.
> George L. Murphy
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
-- Be sure to visit my website below ----------------------------------------------------------- George Hammond, M.S. Physics Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html -----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 16:02:00 EDT