tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post7436458487245783922..comments2023-12-25T23:40:17.701-05:00Comments on Confessions of a Carioca: A Hermeneutical ForayDaniel Martinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-48457936334506868942008-03-06T08:00:00.000-05:002008-03-06T08:00:00.000-05:00The links above are to some cult's webpage, not to...The links above are to some cult's webpage, not to Christian theology. Their guy is a "God-Man" and has had revelations.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005537995315440769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-87228862876710398272008-03-06T03:07:00.000-05:002008-03-06T03:07:00.000-05:00Please check out these related references on the r...Please check out these related references on the relation between reductionist exoteric religion, and reductionist scientism, both of which share the same reductionist presumptions about God, the cosmos, and Humankind.<BR/><BR/>1. http://www.dabase.org/noface.htm<BR/>2. http://www.dabase.org/christmc2.htm<BR/>3. http://www.dabase.org/ilchurst.htm<BR/>4. http://www.realgod.org <BR/>5. http://www.dabase.org/dht7.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-65543359882570450442008-02-18T12:22:00.000-05:002008-02-18T12:22:00.000-05:00"The unfortunate among us exist so that we can do ..."The unfortunate among us exist so that we can do good to them and thereby glorify God in the process. Think of it. If we had no opportunities to do good, how would we obey the commands of God to do just that? Not exactly soul satisfying, I admit, but a better explanation than most I have heard."<BR/><BR/>Wow. So God does this to people deliberately? Will there be disabilities in the Kingdom? Or will our bodies be perfected? If there aren't, will there be an opportunity to do good?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005537995315440769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-13765161862738678312008-02-18T10:44:00.000-05:002008-02-18T10:44:00.000-05:00Why are some people born deaf or blind or lame? Wh...Why are some people born deaf or blind or lame? Why do innocents suffer? This is the question of theodicy, to which there is no good answer, certainly this side of eternity, although I have read rabbinical writings that offer at least a somewhat satisfying answer. The unfortunate among us exist so that we can do good to them and therby glorify God in the process. Think of it. If we had no opportunities to do good, how would we obey the commands of God to do just that? Not exactly soul satisfying, I admit, but a better explanation than most I have heard..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-23039132352377097102008-02-16T19:52:00.000-05:002008-02-16T19:52:00.000-05:00Well, Craig, I'll leave aside your complete misrep...Well, Craig, I'll leave aside your complete misrepresentation of what I said, choosing to ascribe it to confusion rather than malice.<BR/><BR/>I certainly wasn't advocating "fog. " Indeed, never used the word at all.<BR/><BR/>What I did suggest was that there is a legitimate question about how confident we ought to be that we can know with certainty the mind of God. We mere mortals should be a bit trepidatious about such a claim - certainly for ourselves, but even for our institutions. Indeed, do we not all claim to follow a Lord who was quick to tell the religious authorities of his day that they'd gotten it wrong?<BR/><BR/>Thus, it seems to me, that Christians must be open to the possibility that God still has more to reveal to us. Our ancestors believed that God sanctioned slavery, and an honest reading of scripture seemed to confirm that. Yet today I find no Christians advocating slavery. Likewise with usury.<BR/><BR/>Call it "fog" if you will, Craig. I'll call it humility.<BR/><BR/>BTW, Fr. Dan, even though we seem to be on different sides in the current debates, I have added you as a link on my blog.Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-65838755708731360542008-02-16T13:52:00.000-05:002008-02-16T13:52:00.000-05:00This is the Alpha Issue -- is there any moral real...This is the Alpha Issue -- is there any moral reality, any authority (pace Connie) outside ourselves, or is it all at most a vague fog (as malcom+ maintains) which we must individually (ruidh) interpret according to our very own Inner Light?"<BR/><BR/>Wow! You really didn't understand a single word I said. You even quoted the part where I said you need to reflect in a Christian community (i.e. the Church) and yet you still ascribe the claim that there is no moral reality outside of ourselves to me. <BR/><BR/>There clearly is a moral authority outside of ourselves, but knowing what the moral action is in a situation requires discernment and the ability to reason about moral choices. There is no way to know what is the correct choice with certainty.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005537995315440769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-25663847609073772832008-02-16T12:05:00.000-05:002008-02-16T12:05:00.000-05:00Ruidh: "... such discernment is properly done in t...Ruidh: "... such discernment is properly done in the context of a Christian community. By sharing our experiences and reflecting them in the community, we get an important sounding board and get to hear another voice -- perhaps the voice of God -- replying back.... people can read Scripture and decide for themselves what it means."<BR/><BR/>Well, of course, Scripture must be interpreted in the light of experience. My experience, of course -- bounced off that of the Christian community, my friends, because I hang out with mostly people like me. And the Holy Spirit is right there, guiding us, we don't need the Church to tell us what it all means; the Holy Spirit working within us will handle that.<BR/><BR/>What a wonderful, modern thought! Well, perhaps not quite so fresh and modern as all that:<BR/><BR/><I>Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners.</I><BR/><BR/>(Chesterton, <I>Orthodoxy</I>, ch. V)<BR/><BR/>What <I>is</I> quite modern about all this -- indeed postmodern -- is the overt underlying Humpty Dumpty narcissism of the hermeneutic. Actual texts have meaning only in terms of my experience; reading <I>Moby Dick</I> as a novel of obsession is no more valid than reading it as an allegorical description of the joys of a Danish and coffee; it all depends on my very own interpretation.<BR/><BR/><I>This</I> is the Alpha Issue -- is there any moral reality, any authority (<I>pace</I> Connie) outside ourselves, or is it all at most a vague fog (as malcom+ maintains) which we must individually (ruidh) interpret according to our very own Inner Light?Craig Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17599485715178418928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-21113453709513379082008-02-16T06:08:00.000-05:002008-02-16T06:08:00.000-05:00After getting over being intimidated by your forme...After getting over being intimidated by your former post on grammar... To be honest, I doubt there is a single "Alpha" issue. So many things come into play concerning why a person believes or does anything, obviously.<BR/><BR/>There are issues that seem to play to a individual or collective angst and people gravitate to them as a means of expressing or exercising that angst.<BR/><BR/>I keep coming back to the two great commandments of Jesus. I wonder whether the extent to which we take seriously these commandments - to the point of obeying them even to our detriment - contributes to our troubles?<BR/><BR/>There are elements of truth contained in everything written above. I gravitate to some of them more than others, yet I know what causes me to gravitate to one over another has to do with many past experiences, my past understanding of Scripture, past hurts and sins, past joys, past relationships - all wrapped together in some form of hope that as I (we) go forward God is there and willing to guide and correct and heal. Do we put first the command to love regardless of circumstance or outcome? That really does take some stand-up pissing, IMHO!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-17893896572756251552008-02-15T23:31:00.000-05:002008-02-15T23:31:00.000-05:00That issue of the Spirit's indwelling and leading ...That issue of the Spirit's indwelling and leading is key, it seems to me. <BR/><BR/>My dogmatics professor used to jest about those "who believe the Holy Spirit dies after the Council of Ephesus."Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-33237798398633099382008-02-15T23:18:00.000-05:002008-02-15T23:18:00.000-05:00I think, malcolm+, you get perhaps a bit closer to...I think, malcolm+, you get perhaps a bit closer to the <I>alpha</I> issue, as does martial artist (although not, I think, in the way he thought). What martial artist describes as a "progressive fallacy," a sort of authority by expertism, fails to appreciate the importance of your last clause, "guided by the Holy Spirit." The importance of the multiple opinions over one is the belief that the Spirit is moving in each individual, and that in hearing multiple voices speaking of how they hear the Spirit, we are all more likely to hear the Spirit accurately.<BR/><BR/>And perhaps that is the <I>alpha</I> issue: whether authority lies in what the Spirit shared in Scripture to the exclusion (or nearly so) of what the Spirit has shared since, or if the continuing guidance of the Spirit supplements and complements Scripture to a measurable and significant extent. It seems to me not unlike the long-standing disagreement between Southern Baptists (and many other Baptists) and Holiness Churches, expressed in arguing whether the gifts of the Spirit were limited to the Apostolic Age. My mother, raised a Southern Baptist and granddaughter of a Baptist preacher, remembers from her youth the disdain of "good Baptists" for the "Holy Rollers." Preachers were more academic, but equally disdainful: the <I>charismata</I> ceased with the death of John the Elder; and anything more recent was unnacceptable "enthusiasm."<BR/><BR/>The Episcopal Church these days is, I think, more charismatic in a real sense than most contemporary American churches. (I admit we see this more theologically than expressively; but I've also said Anglo-catholic liturgy is how Anglicans really express pentecostalism.) It is expressed in sacramental theology (trusting that God continues to act in and through things material) and our theology of baptism (which includes indwelling of the Spirit), and so in our theological anthropology. It is not simply that God created us good in the beginning, but also that God continues to find us acceptable as vessels for the Spirit now, and not because of our purity but by his grace.<BR/><BR/>So, the issue is, I think, not simply the authority of Scripture but also whether the continuing presence of the Spirit in all of us demonstrates authority that is exclusively derivative of Scripture, or is complementary and/or supplementary of Scripture.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-70459210191973973032008-02-15T17:56:00.000-05:002008-02-15T17:56:00.000-05:00Dan has written in broad strokes. It is a blog, a...Dan has written in broad strokes. It is a blog, after all, not a Summa.<BR/><BR/>But Dan a) has avoided (as best one can in broad strokes) from defining straw men, and b) placed the issue in terms of questions rather than answers.<BR/><BR/>No, Connie, the issue is not whether authority lies with God or with us. That is a convenient straw man for "conservatives" to rail against, but it is a particularly frail straw man.<BR/><BR/>I'm not aware of any liberal who denies that God is the one in authority. Not a single one.<BR/><BR/>I think the issue is rather about certainty. Can we know, with certainty, what God's will is on any given question? Conservatives arguing the affirmative and liberals the negative.<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps it is a little more subtle than that. Perhaps it is more a question of how confident we should be that our understanding of God's will is accurate. This has the advantage of setting the issue as a continuum of opinion, with the most conservative arguing for the greatest confidence and the most liberals for the least.<BR/><BR/>As a liberal (I actually hate that label, but you know what I mean by it) I see that the Church has changed her views on a range of issues from usury to slavery to the role of women. The is not proof that she should change her view on issues of sexuality, but it does raise the possibility that she may, guided by the Holy Spirit.Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-17736834574521087262008-02-15T16:12:00.000-05:002008-02-15T16:12:00.000-05:00"If anyone thinks original sin is imaginary, he (s..."If anyone thinks original sin is imaginary, he (she) has not looked honestly into his (her) own heart!"<BR/><BR/>Or does not have small children!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11250037631921167989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-49799098475288864362008-02-15T15:03:00.000-05:002008-02-15T15:03:00.000-05:00I suspect that Ruidh is correct in surmising that ...I suspect that Ruidh is correct in surmising that most progressives believe that we can "rely on our own interpretation of our experience despite our sinfulness." <BR/><BR/>What I am about to write should not be taken as absolving reasserters from our own conceits. That having been said, the biggest single problem I have seen from <I>progressives</I> is what F. A. Hayek describes as the "progressivist fallacy," namely the idea that if we just gather enough factual information (data) on which we bring to bear sufficient human expertise (panel of experts) then we will all know the answer. This strikes me as being all too reminiscent of what I understand original sin to be about--wanting to believe that we can be like God. I also think Connie has it about right in her comment, above. Unfortunately, this fallacy has historically led to an arrogance the likes of which readily accounts for most of the human atrocities of history, many of them perpetrated in terms of "the common good."<BR/><BR/>We see the phenomenon not only in the current unpleasantness in TEC, but in the attitude that anthropogenic global warming is a decided issue (it is not), and in the proffered belief on the part of various would-be presidents that the government has the ability to give us all as much "health care" as we would, collectively, like to consume, as though it were a "free good," and in myriad other situations from the Hoover administration to the junior Bush administration. Humans are so addicted to thinking they understand how the world should work (<I>i.e.</I>, thinking they can decide what is good and what is evil) that there is no end of human folly. <BR/><BR/>If anyone thinks original sin is imaginary, he (she) has not looked honestly into his (her) own heart!<BR/><BR/>Blessings and regards,<BR/>Martial ArtistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-37886886376064671862008-02-15T14:32:00.000-05:002008-02-15T14:32:00.000-05:00"I think we get closer to Dan's "Alpha Issue" when..."I think we get closer to Dan's "Alpha Issue" when we consider the nature of sin and whether or not, and to what degree, it separates us from God. And, as a result of the sin we find ourselves in, how trustworthy is our experience?" <BR/><BR/>And this comes down to the issue of discernment -- how do we discern the experience. Surely we all know that people can convince themselves of the most remarkable things.<BR/><BR/>I am of the opinion that such discernment is properly done in the context of a Christian community. By sharing our experiences and reflecting them in the community, we get an important sounding board and get to hear another voice -- perhaps the voice of God -- replying back.<BR/><BR/>Others reply that the Church has already considered these issues and come to a conclusion and experience is really of no use where the Church has spoken.<BR/><BR/>"Can we rely on our own interpretation of our experience despite our sinfulness, or do we need Scripture and the church's reading of scripture to interpret our experience for us? I would say the latter; my guess is most progressives would say the former."<BR/><BR/>One of the main accomplishments of the Reformation was to get Scripture into the hands of the people. Prior to that, only educated perople could read Scripture for themselves and people were dependent on the Church telling them what Scripture meant and what God was calling them to do. A fundamental result is that people can read Scripture and decide for themselves what it means. <BR/><BR/>When you come right down to it, everyone is responsible for their own Salvation. It's much to important to leave in the hands of the Church.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005537995315440769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-91798698883433824732008-02-15T11:45:00.000-05:002008-02-15T11:45:00.000-05:00Connie @ 7:14Amen Sister! Fr. Dan should already k...Connie @ 7:14<BR/><BR/>Amen Sister! Fr. Dan should already know this being a priest who has had the privilege of seminary!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-42811691291237451752008-02-15T11:36:00.000-05:002008-02-15T11:36:00.000-05:00Dan,It seems to me that a canonical-narrative appr...Dan,<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that a canonical-narrative approach to Scripture doesn't necessarily lead one to "reasserter" viewpoints. Look at Rowan and Hauerwas. Both have speculated in the past about the need for "reappraisal"; nor has Rowan outright repudiated his speculations, even if he's been disappointed by their reception among conservatives.<BR/><BR/>Chris AshleyChris Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02905994803345346549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-59032469467092434472008-02-15T11:15:00.000-05:002008-02-15T11:15:00.000-05:00Respectfully, I completely disagree with ruidh, at...Respectfully, I completely disagree with <B>ruidh</B>, at least concerning her observations on how science is embraced or not embraced by the competing worldviews.<BR/><BR/>I know very few conservative Episcopalians (ones who subscribe to the doctrine of The Fall) who reject the science of evolution or believe in literal creationism as an alternative. However, evolution and science in general do not say anything our (or the world's) relationship to God, and I see no conflict between my college degree and the belief that at some point, sin entered the world and that the universe we experience is not the "good" creation that God intends for us.<BR/><BR/>I do, however, agree with your first paragraph, excluding your evolution/creation strawman. I think we get closer to Dan's "Alpha Issue" when we consider the nature of sin and whether or not, and to what degree, it separates us from God. And, as a result of the sin we find ourselves in, how trustworthy is our experience? Can we rely on our own interpretation of our experience despite our sinfulness, or do we need Scripture and the church's reading of scripture to interperet our experience for us? I would say the latter; my guess is most progressives would say the former.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11250037631921167989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-12491934059320158292008-02-15T10:14:00.000-05:002008-02-15T10:14:00.000-05:00The Alpha Issue is one of Authority- who has it? ...The Alpha Issue is one of Authority- who has it? Or, I ahould write - Who has it? <BR/><BR/>Are we each, individually, the final authority about how our lives are to be lived, or is GOD? <BR/><BR/>If we are the authority, what I do and what is good is up to me. If so, why would I need a Saviour? Why get up on Sunday mornings? <BR/><BR/>Are there such things as good and evil? If so, how do we determine which are good and which are evil? <BR/><BR/>If God is the Authority, if God is in charge and not we ourselves, should we not seek to conform ourselves to His will and to understand what that is? If God is the Authority, is there not a measure for when we fail to conform ourselves and live up to what God wants for us? <BR/><BR/>I say that God is the Authority and that we can begin to understand what He wants for us, what is good and what is evil, 1) through Scripture and 2) turning to Jesus, (through His Body, the Church) for instruction, forgiveness, understanding, and fellowship. <BR/><BR/>THAT’s the Alpha Issue. It’s the basic, rock-bottom, issue of our lives. <BR/><BR/>ConnieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-91477329650139964472008-02-15T08:02:00.000-05:002008-02-15T08:02:00.000-05:00Just one more comment. The "nonsense" comment to t...Just one more comment. The "nonsense" comment to the bishop's quote in that HoBD thread gets at this issue more directly. Should we conform experience (and science is definitely an experiential activity) to theology or theology to experience? This is the fundamental conflict.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005537995315440769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-27687362586507415902008-02-15T07:56:00.000-05:002008-02-15T07:56:00.000-05:00I think you're missing the fundamental difference ...I think you're missing the fundamental difference that perhaps the other discussion on creation versus fall gets at more directly. The difference is one of worldview. <BR/><BR/>For many Christians, the Bible provides a worldview that is revealed and unquestionable. The push for a creationist alternative tot he evolution narritive arises out of this worldview. At less of an extreme, scientific knowledge is accepted as truthful but missing the fundamental relationship of God-Earth-Man. Science is wrapped around the Biblical worldview. The predominant worldview of the Bible is one the Israelites held.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, many Episcopalians come to this church with at least a liberal arts education in modern science and have to fit their view of Scripture around the truths they see in science. In this worldview, the Fall is a just-so story or, at best, a deep metaphor about our separation from God. Disease exists in the world, not because some person disobeyed, but because a universe complicated enough to evolve us contains within it the potential for little bits of life to live parasitically off other organisms. Disease long predated the evolution of humans, so disease can't be a consequence of human disobeying. <BR/><BR/>I think this is really the fundamental issue. Do we conform our science to the Bible or do we conform our interpretation of the Bible to our science?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005537995315440769noreply@blogger.com