|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Faith &/or Doctrine/Dogma
|
Motylos
Apprentice
# 18216
|
Posted
quote:
“A faith is something one dies for,
a doctrine is something one kills for.
There is world of difference.”
Tony Benn
The above quotation from the late British MP Tony Benn highlights a problem of belief and belief systems. Can faith be sepated from dogma — does dogma need faith?
Kevin Smith’s 1999 film Dogma raises interesting issues somewhat parallel to the above question and quotation, IMHO, too.
--------------------
“Too often we assume that the light on the wall is god, but the light is not the goal of the search, it is the result of the search.”
G’Kar, ‘Meditations on the Abyss’
Posts: 31 | From: Kernow | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
He made a false distinction so he could bolster a platitude. Color me underwhelmed.
And although I enjoyed Kevin Smith's film, the essential message (It doesn't matter what you believe, just believe in *something*) is banal and stupid. What if you choose to believe in the innate superiority of the German nation?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
"The fewer things people are willing to die or kill for, the better."
Boogie Smith
2014
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Motylos:
quote:
“A faith is something one dies for,
a doctrine is something one kills for.
There is world of difference.”
Tony Benn
The above quotation from the late British MP Tony Benn highlights a problem of belief and belief systems. Can faith be sepated from dogma — does dogma need faith?
Neither should be died for or killed for I think. I see that definitions are:
dogma: 1. principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
and
doctrine: 1. a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group
Whether either or both are supported by objective evidence,, they should not be the cause of death.
Hmmm, I think that needs more thought!
[ 07. November 2014, 17:04: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
Faith does not need dogma.
Dogma can kill faith.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Faith does not need dogma.
Dogma can kill faith.
GG
Nice soundbite but it wouldn't have been much good in resolving the Arian controversy, for instance.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Faith is faith 'in' and not faith 'that'.
We basically have faith 'in' Christ/God; but for that faith to be well-placed, we need to have faith 'that' he exists, that he is whom he says he is, that he died and rose again.
If those tenets of the faith - dogmas, if you like - are not clearly stated and subscribed to, then faith 'in'Christ is founded on very little.
It isn't opinion that will set us free, but truth.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Doctrines are what you believe in, the propositional content of your faith. Dogma are those doctrines which in your mind must remain essentially unchanged in order for you to consider your faith essentially unchanged.
There is hence no faith without doctrine and dogma, that is simply a cognitive impossibility. You cannot reasonably declare that you have faith without being able to say in what, thus automatically establishing some doctrine. And you cannot sensibly claim that you maintain faith without at least implying what would show that you have stopped doing so, thus automatically establishing some dogma.
People get confused here by the requirements of some churches to accept certain doctrines and dogmas as one's own in order to become their member. That is a specific process, and whether it is good, bad or ugly - and whether one should kill another over it - is open for discussion.
The presence of doctrine and dogma wherever there is any faith isn't - that's just a fact.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Perhaps there is a bit of differential perception of the meanings of these words. Where I live "dogma" has very negative connotations. Anyone described as adhering to dogma is thought of as "dogmatic" and frankly, is perceived as the intellectual equivalent to "asshole". But we're pretty casual about authority-based approaches to anything
Doctrine would tend to be used to refer to things that cannot be proved but thought of as worthy of belief.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
"Dogma" and "doctrine" are technical theological terms, as Ingo points out above. The sort of person who uses the word "dogmatic" as an insult tends to have a log in his own eye.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... and whether one should kill another over it - is open for discussion. ...
IngoB some of us would find that a very chilling statement.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
He made a false distinction so he could bolster a platitude. Color me underwhelmed.
And although I enjoyed Kevin Smith's film, the essential message (It doesn't matter what you believe, just believe in *something*) is banal and stupid. What if you choose to believe in the innate superiority of the German nation?
I loved "Dogma" but I too was dismayed with the vapid message. Kevin Smith really blew it there. It was so New Age-y! Maybe he was trying to show what a stand-up guy he is so he made Rufus be more liberal but that really sucked. Nice touch making God appear as a man AND a woman, though! I love to think about God being a beautiful woman...ahem! I have to go think pure, pious thoughts now! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Dogmas are essentially the same as axioms in logical discussion - they provide a bedrock without which any discussion ultimately dissolves into incoherence.
There is quite a lot of discussion on what - if any - differences exist between dogmas and axioms. They are typically described differently, but effectively finish up in functional identity IMHO (and in the opinion of some proper philosophers also).
Doctrine is simply "that which is taught". So I think I'm agreeing with IngoB here, except for the bit about killing people. Though I may have had a sense of humour failure at this late hour.
[ 07. November 2014, 21:50: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As cold as Cocytus.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
The problem I've always had with dogma and doctrine is the more you define, the more you require in terms of belief, the more exclusive the religion becomes. This suits people who love to see themselves as a saved remnant from a lost humanity, but it isn't the God I believe in. I'm a minimalist in terms of what should be required doctrine.
Rabbi Hillel, a near contemporary of Jesus was once asked by a potential convert to give him a summary of the Torah while standing on one leg. He said, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary."
Perhaps that's the whole of human religion stripped of it's cultural and practical baggage. Jesus mostly told His followers that their destiny is decided by the way they treat each other. I see believing in Jesus mostly in terms of placing one's trust in what He said. I see faith in Him as faithfulness to the life He told us we must lead. That consistes of loving one another as He has loved us. It's a total orientation of life Godward, in knowledge that His love encopmasses all creation. So I place much more emphasis on devotion than on definitions.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The problem I've always had with dogma and doctrine is the more you define, the more you require in terms of belief, the more exclusive the religion becomes. This suits people who love to see themselves as a saved remnant from a lost humanity, but it isn't the God I believe in. I'm a minimalist in terms of what should be required doctrine.
Rabbi Hillel, a near contemporary of Jesus was once asked by a potential convert to give him a summary of the Torah while standing on one leg. He said, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary."
Perhaps that's the whole of human religion stripped of it's cultural and practical baggage. Jesus mostly told His followers that their destiny is decided by the way they treat each other. I see believing in Jesus mostly in terms of placing one's trust in what He said. I see faith in Him as faithfulness to the life He told us we must lead. That consistes of loving one another as He has loved us. It's a total orientation of life Godward, in knowledge that His love encopmasses all creation. So I place much more emphasis on devotion than on definitions.
Thanks, Paul. My thoughts too. Jesus' words are more value than the formulations of church fathers and theologians.
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
Another, Thanks, PaulTH.
Faith (as discussed in some posts above, derived from doctrine/dogma) is dead, lifeless as a corpse. See James.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Another, Thanks, PaulTH.
Faith (as discussed in some posts above, derived from doctrine/dogma) is dead, lifeless as a corpse. See James.
False dichotomy.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As St. Bart the Simpson said, 'Sorry man, my karma ran over your dogma.'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Another, Thanks, PaulTH.
Faith (as discussed in some posts above, derived from doctrine/dogma) is dead, lifeless as a corpse. See James.
False dichotomy.
Explain.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
You can't have faith without dogma. What do you have faith in if you have no beliefs? Nothing.
Faith is trust. What are you trusting in? What do you believe you're trusting in?
If you have faith then you have dogma. Yours just might be different from other peoples if you don't like toeing the line of a particular set of beliefs (dogmas).
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can't have faith without dogma. What do you have faith in if you have no beliefs? Nothing.
....
Evensong, I think you have spotted that the term "dogma" (much like the term "faith") is used by different people to mean different things. For some, the term "dogma" is what the Church, or part of the Church, teaches, usually with the implication "believe this or else ...".
Or, of course, you might say "After careful consideration I have come to believe that ..." and this is then your personal dogma which underpins your faith. Which some might consider an entirely reasonable approach.
A difference in definitions, perhaps. Which might, of course, be a bit of a tangent, but it seems to lie at the heart of a good deal of disagreement. FWIW I don't like toeing the line of other peoples dogmas either.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Rabbi Hillel, a near contemporary of Jesus was once asked by a potential convert to give him a summary of the Torah while standing on one leg. He said, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary." Perhaps that's the whole of human religion stripped of it's cultural and practical baggage.
No, it isn't. And you should know it because the One whom you claim as your master has provided a rather different summary of the whole of religion. But perhaps remembering the Two Great Commandments is already too dogmatic for you?
Oh yeah, and primary sources on this claim about Rabbi Hillel, please? The only thing an eminent Rabbi would have delivered if asked to distill doctrine while standing on one leg is his other leg swinging in an arc to deliver a much deserved kick in the butt. Furthermore, the idea that the very people who wrote the bloody Talmud share your dismissive attitude about "commentary" is just painful. What do you think the "School of Hillel" was actually about? Do you think they were learning algebra there, or something?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Folks seem to have a vision of what God is and what the attendant faith/doctrine/worship of God should be like according to their personalities.
For instance, those who have fine cognitive minds like exacting doctrine to help them understand God.
Those who might be more emotive find other ways to understand God.
I wonder which God prefers?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
IngoB's only. Maybe we need another other intercessor?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Rabbi Hillel, a near contemporary of Jesus was once asked by a potential convert to give him a summary of the Torah while standing on one leg. He said, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary." Perhaps that's the whole of human religion stripped of it's cultural and practical baggage.
No, it isn't. And you should know it because the One whom you claim as your master has provided a rather different summary of the whole of religion. But perhaps remembering the Two Great Commandments is already too dogmatic for you?
Oh yeah, and primary sources on this claim about Rabbi Hillel, please? The only thing an eminent Rabbi would have delivered if asked to distill doctrine while standing on one leg is his other leg swinging in an arc to deliver a much deserved kick in the butt. Furthermore, the idea that the very people who wrote the bloody Talmud share your dismissive attitude about "commentary" is just painful. What do you think the "School of Hillel" was actually about? Do you think they were learning algebra there, or something?
Actually it was the Gentile who was supposed to be standing on one leg, and Shammai who reacted in the way you suggest, IngoB.
The story appears to be from Folio 31a of the Tractate Shabbath of the Babylonian Talmud:
quote:
On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.12 When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour:13 that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.'
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can't have faith without dogma. What do you have faith in if you have no beliefs? Nothing.
Faith is trust. What are you trusting in? What do you believe you're trusting in?
If you have faith then you have dogma. Yours just might be different from other peoples if you don't like toeing the line of a particular set of beliefs (dogmas).
Very good, Grasshopper.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Actually it was the Gentile who was supposed to be standing on one leg
OK, that makes a lot more sense. I guess what PaulTH* wrote could mean that, though to me it still sounds more like the Rabbi was standing on one leg in his paraphrase.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
and Shammai who reacted in the way you suggest, IngoB.
Good on Shammai.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
The story appears to be from Folio 31a of the Tractate Shabbath of the Babylonian Talmud:
quote:
On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.12 When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour:13 that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.'
And good on Hillel, too, for that crucial last half-sentence which didn't make it into PaulTH*'s paraphrase...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I'm sorry if I misquoted the Rabbi Hillel bit, it's many years since I read it, but the idea is there. Of course I believe in the Bible's overall message of our journey from the slavery of sin and attachment to the world, to the liberation of God's Promised Land, and the means which God has provided for us to achive this. It is necessary to have the faith to make this other wordly journey which often goes against our animal instincts of survival. Yet I still believe that it's making the journey which saves, rather than just believing in it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jesus saves.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus saves.
In so many ways. He actually runs the bank. He is The Lifeguard. He plays goal on The Best Team. He lets the pope and a few other wirms* run things though.
*wirm: white intellectual rich man
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Actually it was the Gentile who was supposed to be standing on one leg
OK, that makes a lot more sense. I guess what PaulTH* wrote could mean that, though to me it still sounds more like the Rabbi was standing on one leg in his paraphrase.
In a way I think it would make more sense - and be fairer - for the Gentile to challenge the Rabbi to stand on one leg, as you originally thought. It sounds like the Gentile is clearly expecting the task to be impossible (or at least very hard), so why trust him to be honest about how long he can really stand on one leg? (Not that he's seriously suggesting the trial, but I think the attempt at mockery would have had a better chance if he hadn't obviously combined the element of "Ha! You're so long-winded!" with "And I'm a dick!") quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
and Shammai who reacted in the way you suggest, IngoB.
Good on Shammai.
These pictures of a stout, 523 mm long royal Egyptian cubit suggest something quite suitable for administering a carefully measured beatdown.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus saves.
From what? And perhaps more importantly: To what?
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
doctrine: 1. a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group
I see doctrine as wider than just a set of beliefs. The etymology comes from the Latin decere (be fitting) and its causative doctore (to make to appear right / fitting). We get the words 'doctor' and 'decent' from these roots too.
Doctrine isn't some abstract set of beliefs - it's teachings that fit, that sit right. That's what I find in the teachings of Jesus. They make sense to my soul, even when they're on the surface counter-intuitive. They heal and they challenge. Doctrine and faith are much more closely entwined than we might believe. It's not that doctrine speaks to the head and faith speaks to the heart. Doctrine is only doctrine if it impacts our gut as well as our brain. Like the sermon on the mount does.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus saves.
From what? And perhaps more importantly: To what?
GG
And who is Jesus?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus saves.
From what? And perhaps more importantly: To what?
GG
And who is Jesus?
To complete the set:
Who does Jesus save?
How does Jesus save?
Why does Jesus save?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
From: Meaningless suffering ending in oblivion. To: eternal significance.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
goperryrevs wrote:- quote:
I see doctrine as wider than just a set of beliefs. The etymology comes from the Latin decere (be fitting) and its causative doctore (to make to appear right / fitting). We get the words 'doctor' and 'decent' from these roots too.
erm - I think you just conflated two verbs there. Decere (to be fitting) and docere (to teach), from which we get "doctor", "doctrine" etc.
I like your second paragraph notwithstanding that!
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Boogie quote:
"The fewer things people are willing to die or kill for, the better."
While I agree that "the fewer things people are willing to kill for, the better", and that "the fewer things people have to die for, the better", surely the proposition that 'the fewer things people are willing to die for, the better" requires some clarification. After all, are not Christians called upon "to take up your cross and follow me"?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In a way I think it would make more sense - and be fairer - for the Gentile to challenge the Rabbi to stand on one leg, as you originally thought. It sounds like the Gentile is clearly expecting the task to be impossible (or at least very hard), so why trust him to be honest about how long he can really stand on one leg? (Not that he's seriously suggesting the trial, but I think the attempt at mockery would have had a better chance if he hadn't obviously combined the element of "Ha! You're so long-winded!" with "And I'm a dick!")
According to a well-known explanation of this story in the Kli Yakar (a sixteenth-century commentary by Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz), the would-be proselyte was entirely sincere, despite his apparent willingness to suggest that the Torah could be boiled down to a couple of sentences. The interpretation it suggests is that the Gentile, being elderly, was aware that his time for learning Torah had passed, and therefore wanted to know the fundamental thread that tied its endless complexity together.
By the way, in modern Hebrew (and Yiddish), the expression על רגל אחת ("on one foot") is used to mean something like "in a nutshell."
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And although I enjoyed Kevin Smith's film, the essential message (It doesn't matter what you believe, just believe in *something*) is banal and stupid. What if you choose to believe in the innate superiority of the German nation?
"I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
[ 09. November 2014, 22:00: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In a way I think it would make more sense - and be fairer - for the Gentile to challenge the Rabbi to stand on one leg, as you originally thought. It sounds like the Gentile is clearly expecting the task to be impossible (or at least very hard), so why trust him to be honest about how long he can really stand on one leg? (Not that he's seriously suggesting the trial, but I think the attempt at mockery would have had a better chance if he hadn't obviously combined the element of "Ha! You're so long-winded!" with "And I'm a dick!")
According to a well-known explanation of this story in the Kli Yakar (a sixteenth-century commentary by Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz), the would-be proselyte was entirely sincere, despite his apparent willingness to suggest that the Torah could be boiled down to a couple of sentences. The interpretation it suggests is that the Gentile, being elderly, was aware that his time for learning Torah had passed, and therefore wanted to know the fundamental thread that tied its endless complexity together.
By the way, in modern Hebrew (and Yiddish), the expression על רגל אחת ("on one foot") is used to mean something like "in a nutshell."
Interesting! Though if the Gentile is assumed to be sincere and elderly, Shammai's response seems even more excessively hostile.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
goperryrevs wrote:- quote:
I see doctrine as wider than just a set of beliefs. The etymology comes from the Latin decere (be fitting) and its causative doctore (to make to appear right / fitting). We get the words 'doctor' and 'decent' from these roots too.
erm - I think you just conflated two verbs there. Decere (to be fitting) and docere (to teach), from which we get "doctor", "doctrine" etc.
I like your second paragraph notwithstanding that!
Yeah, they're two different verbs, but from the same root (docere came from decere). From this etymology site:
quote:
This comes from docere `to show, teach;' interestingly, docere originally meant `to make [something] appear right.' It came from decere `to be seemly, fitting.'
...
It is interesting to note that docere/decere came from the Indo-European base *dok-/*dek-, which also gave us Greek dokein `seem, think,' the source of such English words as dogma, orthodox, and paradox.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
An unpleasant trait in a person is to be dogmatic.
Can one stick by one's dogma and be undogmatic?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Good question. I'm drawn to a vivid NT illustration.
In 1 Cor 15 in the preamble to v20, Paul argues, persuasively, that if Christ is not risen our preaching is useless and we are to be pitied above all others.
But then he answers his own argument by the emphatic statement "But NOW (Gr nyni - an emphatic 'now', rendered in modern translations as 'indeed') is Christ risen". Something echoed in Easter services all over the world.
Now of course he has earlier appealed to the statements of witnesses. But I think the statement is classically dogmatic. This is essential. Believe this, believe this account of the withesses - or it all collapses. As you can see from this argument.
Now I am personally clear that Paul is right here. I believe him. I accept that the Resurrection created the Church, rather than the other way round. I suppose you might argue that I hold a dogmatic view of this aspect of history. I think you would be right to do that. Even if I allow for the possibility of this central 'now' acquiring some legendary aspects through time, essentially I am convinced that the witness of the church conveys the central truth. Christ is risen indeed and I hold that to be essential.
Now you may differ, of course, and I will always hear you out. But don't expect me to budge!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
An unpleasant trait in a person is to be dogmatic.
Can one stick by one's dogma and be undogmatic?
The vernacular of dogmatic implies inflexibility, hard-headedness and heartedness and is usually associated with being a dick.
It is quite possible IMO to stick by one's dogma and not be a dick.
Gentleness is a fruit of the Spirit.
The context is important too IMO.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I see doctrine as wider than just a set of beliefs. The etymology comes from the Latin decere (be fitting) and its causative doctore (to make to appear right / fitting). We get the words 'doctor' and 'decent' from these roots too.
Doctrine isn't some abstract set of beliefs - it's teachings that fit, that sit right. That's what I find in the teachings of Jesus. They make sense to my soul, even when they're on the surface counter-intuitive. They heal and they challenge. Doctrine and faith are much more closely entwined than we might believe. It's not that doctrine speaks to the head and faith speaks to the heart. Doctrine is only doctrine if it impacts our gut as well as our brain. Like the sermon on the mount does.
Thank you for that interesting and thoughtful, and wise, reply.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I am clear sighted and firm minded.
You can be a bit stubborn at times.
He or she over there is a bigot.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Motylos
Apprentice
# 18216
|
Posted
The plumb line of doctrine seems to hang over words such as ‘orthodox’, ‘catholic’, and other such descriptions used from the time of the church councils to define who was ‘in’ and who was ‘out’ in terms of belonging to the imperial (Roman) Church. You might well have been ‘in’ on the opening day but be ‘‘out’ a day or so later. I think this was an imperial agenda which harmed the Church, because it defined faith by a set of temporal (chronologically) tenets fixed in a philosophical mindset of the contemporary culture. It meant a legacy that has lasted of Christians condemning Christians. This pursuit of orthodoxy and catholicity has divided and broken the Church century after century and is a far distance spiritually and emotionally from most people’s Christian faith.
--------------------
“Too often we assume that the light on the wall is god, but the light is not the goal of the search, it is the result of the search.”
G’Kar, ‘Meditations on the Abyss’
Posts: 31 | From: Kernow | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Motylos:
The plumb line of doctrine seems to hang over words such as ‘orthodox’, ‘catholic’, and other such descriptions used from the time of the church councils to define who was ‘in’ and who was ‘out’ in terms of belonging to the imperial (Roman) Church. You might well have been ‘in’ on the opening day but be ‘‘out’ a day or so later. I think this was an imperial agenda which harmed the Church, because it defined faith by a set of temporal (chronologically) tenets fixed in a philosophical mindset of the contemporary culture. It meant a legacy that has lasted of Christians condemning Christians. This pursuit of orthodoxy and catholicity has divided and broken the Church century after century and is a far distance spiritually and emotionally from most people’s Christian faith.
It could as easily be viewed as a legacy of Christians condemning heresy, and rather than the division and breaking of the Church, the source of its preservation over the centuries. Perhaps someone else can point me to the great growth and cultural influence those churches wield who have abandoned any attempt at orthodoxy. I'll wait patiently.
If orthodoxy is a far distance spiritually and emotionally from most people's Christian faith, then 1) it's a good thing for them that there is grace and 2) they might expend some effort in catching up.
It's not as though the concept of heresy was invented at Nicaea, and the Arian controversy was by no means the first to have disturbed the Church. Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
