"Turning away from god"
David Korn errancy@infidels.org
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 17:34:56 +0200 (00929738096, 4.1.19990618173129.03e22a50@mail.netvision.net.il)
At 10:25 PM 6/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
>At 06:44 PM 6/17/99 -0500, Jack Corbin wrote:
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> I think, however, that you and many of the list members are not typical of
>>> skeptics or freethinkers. As you know, I'm active in the Campus
>>> Freethought Alliance and other organizations, and it is my experience that
>>> the significant majority of nontheists were never Christians in the first
>>> place. (I use nontheistic rather loosely here, as there are nontheistic
>>> Christians as well, you know.) It seems that generally one has to be either
>>> indoctrinated before one learns to think critically, or one has to become
>>> indoctrinated at a time of personal crisis or trauma to embrace a theistic
>>> thought system.
>>
>>ATTORNEY REVEREND FLUFFY
>>I always read all of the messages that hit this listserv, then either save
>>them (rare), or cast them into the Bit Bucket of Eternal Damnation. The
>>foregoing message, however, has been whirring around on my hard drive for a
>>number of days now.
>>
>>I'll bite. Other than being an unsolvable paradox, what in the name of
>>Jehovah is a "nontheistic Christian"?
>
>Ed
>
>I don't think it's so unsolvable a paradox if and only if you're familiar
>with development of Christian thought in the 20th Century. Personally, I
>don't buy it, so I apologize for the weak explanation that follows.
>
>"Theism" is generally defined as a belief in a "personal" (read
>"anthropomorphic") god. Nontheistic Christians are those who think that
>there is a source or "ground of being" to existence that can be signified
>by the word "god" but do not fit the anthropomorphic description. I'd
>refer you to Paul Tillich for a better (albeit hard-to-read) discussion.
>
>Nontheistic Christians range in belief systems from such people as Marcus
>Borg to the "Christian Atheists." I'm certainly not the best guy to talk
>to for an explication of their beliefs, but they certainly exist. Lots of
>them too: Most of the Christians I know on a personal bases would fit into
>this category.
>
>>
>>On the separate issue of Jesus using "Du sagst ..." while addressing Ponty
>>P., I think I understand the subtlety you seem to suggest. Are the German
>>translators putting contempt into Jesus' attitude? Or, are the German
>>translators expressing their personal contempt for Pilate? Either way, it
>>does not bode well for the myth of "scholarly" translations of the bible.
>>
>>[For those of you who don't know what the hell is going on: A German would
>>never address an adult stranger as "du," meaning "you." The only appropriate
>>word Jesus could possibly use in addressing Pontius Pilate is the formal
>>"Sie," also meaning "you." For Jesus to address Governor Ponty with "Du
>>sagst ... " ("You said ...") would be a sign of fairly unbridled contempt.]
>>
>Ed
>
>Well, the distinction is built in to the German language. You see, Luther
>in his translation could not express neutrality in Jesus' address to
>Pilate. He either had to show Jesus offerring deference or had to show
>disrespect. Luther had to use a nominative case 2d person pronoun and had
>to choose between Du and Sie. He had no other choices.
DAVID K
The form "Sie" is not necessarily a form of deference, only of common
communication between two adults who are not on intimate terms with each
other. It is true that Luther had no other choices than either using "Sie"
or "Du," but your interpretation of the use of these two words is slightly
apocryphal. Correct would have been "Sie," at least in contemporary
German. However, in the Late Middle Ages and during the Renaissance German
was spoken differently from today, and the texts from these times are
usually not representative of good manners and politeness. Luther
especially is renowned for the employment of invective and hate speech in
his writings.
David Korn