| Chess One 2007-01-30, 8:23 pm |
|
"Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1167775147.307807.92880@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> And there is also "intelligent design" that seeks to unite the two
> theories in many ways.
And there is also an article by Damon Linker on a new title by Garry Wills,
What Paul Meant, and reviewed in the NY Times 28, Dec book review.
Rather than commit the fallacy - the infamous- Pathetic Fallacy; which is
to say, 'If, not A, Then it must be B,' which seem to form around these
conversations, I quote a small extract which suggests at least a 'C' being
present.
'Well, not "religion." Willis insists that
Jesus and Paul both opposed "religion,"
claiming that the worship of God was
not something "based on external
observances, on temples or churches,
on hierarchies or priesthoods." Both
Jesus and Paul were, in fact, "killed
by religion."
The editorial author of the piece then continues to note that not until AD70
did the 'radicals' [Christians] begin to think of themselves as a religion.
Personally, I do not quite agree with Wills's comment on external
circumstance, and only wish to note that not only is there more to any A,
than a necessary B, but there is a C, and other appreciations of what is
religion compared to what could be said to be religious - the latter [as
faith] being much more akin to science than what this article terms about
the radical egalitariansim of early Christians, including admission of
women, with what Wills calls "Soviet-style rewriting of history".
Phil Innes
|