Kaufmann: Faith of a Heretic

[mdsimpson92]

I believe this work was in 1961.

[Metacrock]

I believe this work was in 1961.

he should have read Stace. Although I am not sure. His philosophy of mysticism was published in 1960. So while Kauffman was writing his book he could have missed Stace's book. or maybe he read it and didn't realize the import.

[mdsimpson92]

Fair enough, keep going.

[Metacrock]

This is the kind of gambit that the shut-ins pull on travelers. As if I had buried the Holy Ghost beyond recall when I was eleven, and God when I was eighteen! I merely started relatively early to concern myself with such questions--and have never stopped since. Let the shut-in explore Judaism and Protestantism, Catholicism and Buddhism, atheism and agnosticism, mysticism, existentialism, and psychology, Thomas and Tillich. Let him consult the lot and not just his own present prejudice; let him subject his thoughts about religion to the candid scrutiny of those who differ with him and to his own ever-new re-examination; let him have a host of deep experiences, religious and otherwise, and think about them. That is the ground on which a genuine conversation can take place: it need not make a show of erudition, if only it has grown out of a series of open-hearted encounters. But as long as one is content to gloat over the silver lining of one's own religion, one bars any serious conversation and merely makes the first move in a game of skill.

To an even moderately sophisticated and well-read person it should come as no surprise that any religion at all has its hidden as well as its obvious beauties and is capable of profound and impressive interpretations. What is deeply objectionable about most of these interpretations is that they allow the believer to say Yes while evading any No. The Hebrew prophets represent a notable exception. When interpreting their own religious heritage, they were emphatically not conformists who discovered subtle ways in which they could agree with the religion of their day. Nor was it their point that the cult was justifiable with just a little ingenuity. On the contrary.

Let those who like inspiring interpretations be no less forthright in telling us precisely where they stand on ritual and immortality, on the sacraments and Hell, on the Virgin Birth and Resurrection. on the Incarnation and the miracles, and on: "Resist not evil." And: "Let him who would sue you in court for your coat have your cloak, too." And: "No one comes to the Father but through Me."

I think one experience if it is profound enough and deep enough can tell us God is real or there is a spiritual realm or something of that nature. Kaufmann realized was a student of religion, regardless of his relation to the writings of Stace, or his dubious claim to mysticism. He was clearly a true student and he realized the fact that each tradition has it's own beauty and it's own truth. I think that's to be expected all the more if there's a single reality behind them all.

I don't subscribe the exclusivity of Christianity. I do in terms of Christ but not in terms of traditions or camps or man made institutions. I think I can base that solidly upon scripture (Acts 17: 21-29, & Romans 2:6-14) where Paul seems to say that God is working in all cultures, and that those who seek the good in abstract and in moral behavior are actually following Christ even if they don't know they are.

[mdsimpson92]

Another thing that he does bring up is the basis of hell as eternal, which is not necessarily true of all traditions. I think his studies might be a little too focused on Western Christianity.

What about his criticism of Theology? What's your thought on that? That is where he gets into Tillich.

[Metacrock]

Another thing that he does bring up is the basis of hell as eternal, which is not necessarily true of all traditions. I think his studies might be a little too focused on Western Christianity.

What about his criticism of Theology? What's your thought on that? That is where he gets into Tillich.

I'm looking for that. I'm working toward that point. I might find things along the way, like this:

First: Are they prepared to maintain their claim regarding the Jesus of any one of the four Gospels--and, if so, which? Or is it their point that the evidence warrants the assumption that the historical Jesus, however inadequately understood by the Evangelists, was a wiser and better man than Socrates and Jeremiah, Isaiah and the Buddha, Lao-tze and Hillel?

that's an old fashioned way of looking at it. That's sort of predicated upon 100% accuracy which we don't need. Its' also from the days before they examined the extra canonical books. Those tell us a lot that is useful to a compete picture and it's not all just a bunch of "disprove the Gospels."

We can have a composite picture. The gospels are the product of communities each one housing its own eye witnesses. it's a composite picture.

Secondly: Although Jesus is widely considered mankind's greatest moral teacher, the greatest Christians, not to speak of scholars, have never been able to agree what his moral teachings were.

That's because we are lousy students.

Matthew, and he alone, reports that Jesus said: "Let your Yes be Yes, and your No, No." But the four Evangelists agree in ascribing to Jesus evasive and equivocal answers to plain questions, not only those of the high priest and Pilate; and quite generally the Jesus of the New Testament avoids straightforward statements, preferring parables and hyperboles. Some of the parables are so ambiguous that different Evangelists. Not to speak of later theologians, offer different interpretations.

smoke screen. the over all drift is the influence that came form Jesus teaching, it doesn't have to be word for word. Yet we have his words in other forms such Thomas and Peter. We can produce an overall set of principles that Christianity has been teaching all along. Though some will call that 'stoic' it's not particularly.

Nor have Christians ever been able to agree on the import of the hyperboles of the Sermon on the Mount. Luther, for example, taught that Christ's commandments were intended to teach man his utter incapacity for doing good: man must throw himself on the mercy of God, believing that Christ died for our sins. On concrete moral issues, Jesus can be, and has been, cited on almost all sides. The Buddha and the Hebrew prophets were not so equivocal.

More abhorrence of diversity.

Third: One of the few things about Jesus' moral teachings that seems fairly clear is that he was not greatly concerned about social justice. This makes his ethic much less impressive than the prophets'.

total bullshit. Just becuase he didn't tell people to go join the revolution doesn't mean he has no important for social justice.

Fourth: Albert Schweitzer has argued in considerable detail that this lack of concern was due to the fact that Jesus predicated his entire message on a false belief: namely, that the world was about to come to an end. If Schweitzer is right, as I think he is, Jesus was surely not the wisest of men. And can we call him the greatest moralist unless we accept his radical depreciation of this life and his belief in Heaven and Hell?

another perilous assumption. Why is it a matter of "wisdom?" he's assuming a wise man will never be wrong that's bull shit. Jesus probalby assumed it might be soon, certainly there would be no advantage in telling us to wait and not be ready. The whole concept of an end times eschatology and being ready is not to really anticipate the end, but to live as though the end is near, so we take the teaching seriously.

Finally, the Jesus of the New Testament believed, and was not greatly bothered by his belief, that God would damn and torment the mass of mankind in all eternity. According to all three Synoptic Gospels, he actually reassured his disciples:

that's sloppy exegesis. I think my analysis is cogent, that he never talks about except in relation to parables. Good reason to think he didn't take it seriously.

"If anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha than for that town."

This is no isolated dictum; the Sermon on the. Mount, for example, is also punctuated by threats of Hell.

Yes but Kaufmann is thinking in a circle here. Hell is unthinkable so no with any brains would ever agree with it. That's just his personal wish. I think Jesus doesn't say a testimony against them means they will consciously burn on fire forever. It would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah that for that town that sounds pretty bad.

Of cousre we have to do some textual empiricism to see if that is even in the original.

there is judgment and the up shot of judgment is cessation of existence "the destruction of their souls." Not eternal conscoius torment but not Sunday school picknick either.

[mdsimpson92]

I thin his focus is more on the Catholic and Lutheran Churches (again ignoring East orthodox tradition). Seems he is making a similar mistake as Schopenhauer. He has a chapter called "Criticism of Theology" He gets into Tillich and others like Aquinas.

He also has a very complimentary analysis chapter of Judaism.

[Metacrock]

I thin his focus is more on the Catholic and Lutheran Churches (again ignoring East orthodox tradition). Seems he is making a similar mistake as Schopenhauer. He has a chapter called "Criticism of Theology" He gets into Tillich and others like Aquinas.

He also has a very complimentary analysis chapter of Judaism.

give me a link to that chapter

[mdsimpson92]

I am not sure how to give the link to the chapter but the criticism of theology should be on page 103 of the book.

[Metacrock]

I am not sure how to give the link to the chapter but the criticism of theology should be on page 103 of the book.

ok I'll look for it.