|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Paris attacks
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eutychus, no violent interpretation of the Quran or the TaNaKh is necessary. They are full of 'redemptive' violence.
Jesus ISN'T. He's full of non-violent redemption.
It's not a matter of interpretation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus, no violent interpretation of the Quran or the TaNaKh is necessary. They are full of 'redemptive' violence.
Jesus ISN'T. He's full of non-violent redemption.
It's not a matter of interpretation.
If Jesus is full of non-violent redemption then how and why have Christian countries, and Christians themselves, carried out so much violence under the flag of redemption?
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You'll have to clarify just what you think the "problem" is
No I won't, because I am referring to the problem which raised.
If you believe that the NT does not teach religious violence, then you believe that it is has never taught YOU religious violence, and YOU are stuck with what you outlined as the problem of previous Christians who thought it did - a problem which cannot be wriggled out of by attempting to cite different hermeneutics.
If a succeeeding generation of Christians adopts yet another hermeneutic and decides that the NT does in fact require them to practise holy war, is that going to retrospectively invalidate your present position?
quote:
On what basis do you discount the Muslim scholars referenced earlier that say otherwise?
The issue is whether Islam, in contrast to the NT, countenances religious violence, and in fact no branch of Islam, not even the relatively pacifist Sufis, has ever totally eschewed holy war.
As Molopata points out, it was practised by Islam's founder, which has to count for something.
Your "Muslim scholars" at no point renounce jihad per se, but simply discuss the circumstances and manner in which it can be fought.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Apologies for confused syntax in previous post - I stuffed up the editing.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus, no violent interpretation of the Quran or the TaNaKh is necessary. They are full of 'redemptive' violence.
Jesus ISN'T. He's full of non-violent redemption.
It's not a matter of interpretation.
What Sioni said.
Clearly, some (Constantine allegedly for one...), have managed to see things otherwise.
Secondly, you and Kaplan Corday keep skipping lightly over the Old Testament, unsurprisingly because it's chock-full of violence in God's name. Of course you can argue, and I think rightly so, that "things are different now", but Christianity is a history of applying new hermeneutics onto old texts.
I agree that Jesus provides a reason par excellence for doing so, but nonetheless I think it's a bit unfair to, as it were, prohibit Muslims from developing alternative hermeneutics for their foundational texts when basically, that's what Christianity does all the time.
(I would like at some point to explore the notion of the inspiration of interpretation).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
YOU are stuck with what you outlined as the problem of previous Christians who thought it did - a problem which cannot be wriggled out of by attempting to cite different hermeneutics.
Why is this more of a problem for me than it is for you?
quote:
If a succeeeding generation of Christians adopts yet another hermeneutic and decides that the NT does in fact require them to practise holy war, is that going to retrospectively invalidate your present position?
I think we are called to do the best with the light that we have and that what subsequent generations do with the light that they have is not my responsibility. To put it another way, I think I'm right, and do my best to act in line with my convictions, but I'm not sure I'm right for all time everywhere.
quote:
The issue is whether Islam, in contrast to the NT, countenances religious violence, and in fact no branch of Islam, not even the relatively pacifist Sufis, has ever totally eschewed holy war.
As Molopata points out, it was practised by Islam's founder, which has to count for something.
Your "Muslim scholars" at no point renounce jihad per se, but simply discuss the circumstances and manner in which it can be fought.
As I understand it, part of the debate in Islam is over the extent to which there can be a hiatus from its foundational context.
(In matters unrelated to current events, I have been reading about how Islam's desert roots result, according to some, to it having difficulty in makng sense of the sea).
I think those scholars accept that jihad exists, but are trying to confine it to situations that will no longer arise in everyday life.
I think most Christians take a similar approach with regard to, say, the bloodier aspects of eschatology, although some of the more enthusiastic Israel fans appear to seriously entertain the prospect of actual, justified holy war to retake the promised land.
To summarise: I think the hermeneutical gymnastics that go on in Christianity and Islam are not so very different from one another. Clearly, there are those within Islam who do not countenance religious violence, and I refuse to pretend they don't exist; indeed, I think it's my responsibility to extend the hand of friendship to them.
I don't think it's my call to decide whether that makes them "bad Muslims". Peace-loving Islamic hermeneutics may indeed be doomed to failure, but in view of our bloody Church history I think we should at least give them the chance to try within contemporary secular society. Not doing so simply provides fuel for the hermeneutics of violence - on both sides.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eutychus, er, what's the TaNaKh? Jesus came in to a culture of extreme redemptive violence and ... redeemed it of VIOLENCE.
And well done for tacitly acknowledging the fundamental, integral violence of the Quran and therefore Islam.
What Islam needs is Jesus. He'll do the same for them what He did for Judaism. They won't get another messiah. And they need Him in US. That's the deal. There is no other. Unless we wait for His return in a hundred ... thousand years.
The fact that NOBODY listens, NOBODY wants to hear, including you still I recall from postings at the time of Charlie Hebdo, and me for nearly 60 years until the face of Christ staring at me from the cross confronted me thanks to the Holy Spirit working His ineffable way with Brian McLaren and Rob Bell and many others and me therefore in that quantum tunnelling effect He seems to have, is obvious.
You, of all people, cannot hear? Will not? It's too simple? I'm not sure what Kaplan Corday's problem is, if he has one; one sidedly banging on at Islam's inseparable violence? Which is part of the problem. If that's the perception. But he's a GOOD MAN. Like you Eutychus. He balks at our responsibility for the culture of violence? Then that's part of the problem too.
I am NOT - not a good man and not Islamophobic, unless you show me where I'm blind to it. I acknowledge OUR violence, we people of the Book. Jesus IS the answer to that. For everyone. Always has been.
Make it so. THAT'S our job. In and by the Spirit.
[ 19. November 2015, 09:25: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
This is a really odd argument - which seems to amount to "Islam is violence and Christianity is peace, therefore the solution is for Muslims to become Christians".
The stories of Mohammed and Jesus Christ are different. Well done for noticing.
But it doesn't follow that having scriptures which are about violence leads inevitably to violence nor that having scriptures modelling peace lead to peace.
Martin, what are you talking about. I don't suppose you even agree with yourself if you stop to read what you've written.
The fact is that all religious scriptures are open to interpretation and reinterpretation. A model of Jesus Christ does not lead everyone to being an absolute pacifist (of course not) and the model of Mohammed (or even Moses, of course) does not lead everyone to being a mad suicide bomber.
The absolute bullshit of this is that anyone can claim the "correct" reading of their own scriptures would inevitably lead to peace whilst at the same time disallowing believers of other religions to say the same about their scriptures.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
ALL is violence, the New Testament writers included, except Jesus. There is NONE in Him.
Simple mate.
When are we actually going to try it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus, er, what's the TaNaKh?
Tanakh is an acronym for entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures—Torah, Nevi'im ("Prophets"), and Ketuvim ("Writings").
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Boogie? I've read that three times now and I'm none the wiser. Any chance of a paraphrase or a bit of commentary?
The good deed and the evil deed cannot be equal. Repel (the evil) with one which is better (the good). Then he, between whom and you there was enmity (the enemy), will become as though he was a close friend.
Cheers - got that now.
@Eutychus - Explaining would have been fine.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Secondly, you and Kaplan Corday keep skipping lightly over the Old Testament, unsurprisingly because it's chock-full of violence in God's name. Of course you can argue, and I think rightly so, that "things are different now", but Christianity is a history of applying new hermeneutics onto old texts.
As is Judaism, starting from the OT alone, so yes the particular level of foundational violence indicated in the text is not necessarily indicative of the type of hermeneutic which then ends up being applied to that text hundreds of years later.
I think people who are arguing that the text itself necessarily leads to a particular hermeneutic need to be able to deal with this counter argument.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
@Truman White: my apologies.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus, er, what's the TaNaKh? Jesus came in to a culture of extreme redemptive violence and ... redeemed it of VIOLENCE.
See what chris stiles said.
quote:
And well done for tacitly acknowledging the fundamental, integral violence of the Quran and therefore Islam.
I really don't think that's a judgement call I can make. It leads some to violence, but then again so does Christianity, Old and New Testaments.
quote:
What Islam needs is Jesus (...)
You, of all people, cannot hear?
I'm playing a long game ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
First off, I don't think Islam needs Jesus, I think people need Jesus: all of us, as you say.
The question to my mind is: starting from where we are now, what is the best way of giving people (particularly Muslims, if you like) an opportunity to encounter Jesus?
My answer to this, from where I'm sitting, is:
(i) to pray and act for the peace of the city - which translates into lobbying and acting in favour of multi-faith secularity instead of secularism (the other alternatives as I seem them are either to attempt to proscribe religion altogether, or I suppose try for a "Christian" state again...).
Yes that means giving Islam a place along with everyone else, but I honestly think that's the best option on the table right now, and it's one for which I can produce what I feel to be a coherent theological argument.
I would rather a few "God-fearers" of any stripe than a whole horde of rabid secularists. And it gives lots more of room for the Church to demonstrate God's love and preach the Gospel.
Islam might have a challenge on its hands to modernize: in the meantime, let's see if the Church can rise to the challenge of "walking in God's love and giving it away".
(ii) trying my best to exemplify the values of the Kingdom of God at the most basic, day-to-day level of my life with the pepole I meet.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re interpreting scriptures:
ISTM that goes with any revealed religion, scripture, tradition--you're stuck with the revelation, and have to make some sort of sense of it.
And it's not just "People of the Book" religions. Gandhi had that problem regarding a violent passage in his scriptures.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye. Gracious too. Most.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
You don´t see any muslim nation with total religious freedom. Even the most "secular" islamic nations, like Turkey or Indonesia, would be considered terribly opressive in terms of religion by western standards.
You find very few nations with "total religious freedom" - at the extremes no nation would permit religion that involved human sacrifice, even animal sacrifice would be too far for most.
I know a couple of Christians from Indonesia working here. From what I gather, major religions enjoy protection under Indonesian law, though minority and sectarian religions are not generally tolerated. So, you're OK in Indonesia as a Lutheran, Methodist or Catholic. But, Mormons or JWs can find themselves in trouble. Indonesian law prohibits "questioning a major religion" with potential lengthy imprisonment, which generally works as a universal blasphemy law.
Reading this immediately brought to mind that Germany bans the Church of Scientology.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is a really odd argument - which seems to amount to "Islam is violence and Christianity is peace, therefore the solution is for Muslims to become Christians".
I doubt very much whether you think that it
"seems to amount to" any such thing.
Your "really odd argument" is nothing more than a contrived caricature, or travesty, for polemical purposes.
1. Suggesting that Islam - on the basis of Muhammed's example. the weight of relevant suras in the Koran, and the preponderance of interpretation and practice over Islam's history- permits jihad," is not the same as saying "Islam is violence".
2. Suggesting that the NT does not on any reasonable interpretation sanction holy war, or crusade, does not rule out the possibility of Christian support for coercion in law enforcement, or even for just war, so is not the same thing as saying "Christianity is peace".
3. I know of no-one who has ever said that if all Muslims became Christians there would be world peace. Have you?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
YOU are stuck with what you outlined as the problem of previous Christians who thought it did - a problem which cannot be wriggled out of by attempting to cite different hermeneutics.
Why is this more of a problem for me than it is for you?
Because your hermeneutical relativism requires you to believe one thing, but simultaneously hold that other Christians in the past were right to believe(and that possibly Christians in the future will be justified in believing) something which you know to be manifestly untrue, ie that Christ meant us to use means such as imprisonment, torture and execution to punish and prevent unbelief and heresy, and enforce conversions.
Sometimes hermeneutical considerations are relevant, and sometimes they are not.
For example, I am a Nicene Christian, but can understand Arius's position.
(Once while teaching an introductory survey course in Church History, I got a student to do a presentation on Arius, and a very deep and perplexed silence fell over the class as they read over the list of Arius's proof texts, which he had run off and handed out to them!)
On the other hand, if I might be permitted a gross but pertinent example, suppose that an apologist for paedophilia used the example of Christ's picking up the children to bless them as an argument for their position.
No-one in their right mind would start mumbling about hermeneutics, but would instantly call it out as bullshit, and that is what I am doing with the idea that Christ just might, on certain interpretations, have meant us to physically bludgeon people into the Kingdom.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Because your hermeneutical relativism requires you to believe one thing, but simultaneously hold that other Christians in the past were right to believe(and that possibly Christians in the future will be justified in believing) something which you know to be manifestly untrue
I have never said our forebears were "right to believe" x or y.
I can, however, believe that some sincerely thought they were right in such beliefs, in much the same way as I have little doubt that some Christians sincerely believed that, say, slavery was divinely ordained, and they had a well-developed hermeneutic to support their position.
So I think there is room for "more light to break forth from God's word". If that's "hermeneutical relativism" so be it, but I tend to think we wouldn't have had, say, the Reformation without it.
quote:
Sometimes hermeneutical considerations are relevant, and sometimes they are not.
I just can't share your apparent absolute certainty that you can definitively tell the difference.
In my experience, dismissing a hermeneutic as "obvious bullshit" that "no-one in their right mind" would countenance is the first step towards neglecting to work out just why it's "obvious bullshit" - and thus running the risk of believing what will become to be seen, subsequently, as, well, obvious bullshit. I'm sure a lot of Jesus' hearers thought that what he said was "obvious bullshit" (a number of examples spring to mind); but it wasn't.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nick baby, I was being ironic. I know full well what TaNaKh means. Why would I have used a term I didn't understand? That I had introduced? I was countering Eutychus' incorrect point that I was ignoring its violence. I fully pre-empted that.
We - and by that I mean youse guys - Eutychus, Sioni and Gamaliel I reckon for a start; are dabbling in pragmatism, are at the edge, as Eutychus said about an implicitly 'eirenic' hermeneutic not applying in all circumstances. Jesus runs out for us all. We are ALL left feeling, 'Surely not THAT far, THIS far. There are limits!'. No there aren't. Not in Jesus' life.
And Justin, Andrew and George have ALL failed way before them.
Eutychus, YOU are the best I've seen. Better than them as a Christian leader in this regard. Outside the emergent church. But why do I need to see what chris said? I had already. I doesn't answer my point to you in the slightest.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
According to a book I'm reading,* until the 18 century, writers did not associate the character of Hamlet with indecision. This seems so alien to the common narrative we learn about Shakespeare's prince that it is hard to understand. Apparently before an influential critic of the time wrote about Ham's "irresolution", which it was said "formed so marked a part" of his (H's) character, the normal way of reading the play was that he (H) was a bold, reasonable man making hard choices in a totally unreasonable situation.
I'm no friend of Shakespeare plays, but is there any performance of Hamlet today that does not emphasise his tortured doubts? We seem to accept this almost universally and without question - but how would we actually know whether the interpretation we hold 500 years later is more (or less) of the mind of the Bard than the one held 100 years later? Is, in fact, our understanding of Hamlet more related to the developing social understanding our ourselves than any closer relationship we have with the text or the mind of the balding poet from Stratford?
Or perhaps more importantly - were the previous generations who read Shakespeare "wrong" to read the play differently? How are we making that judgement?
We can fling around big words like "hermeneutical", but the long-and-short of it is that we believe we have the "right" reading of scripture and those people in the past who acted differently were "wrong" - they didn't properly read the text, they were not seeped within the whole message of the scriptures, etc and so on.
This is clearly not about relativism. That's to misunderstand what is being said - namely that a reasonable person in the past given the information that they had could have reasonably come to a different conclusion to the one we all (I think) accept today. It is clearly not just that they were "unreasonable" and therefore read crusades into the scriptural text that could not be supported by it.
It is to say that being scholarly, and devout and intelligent and devoted to the NT is not necessarily leading one to decry a certain behaviour. Similarly being those things to the Koran does not necessarily lead to violence.
We can indeed call previous hermeneutical views utter bullshit. Of course we can. But why then can't a Muslim call the hermeneutical view that calls their religion one of violence bullshit? Why are they not allowed to reinterpret and reassess the very basis of what their faith is about?
* Schultz, K (2010) Being Wrong Portabello Books pp 170-4
[ 20. November 2015, 07:33: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We - and by that I mean youse guys - Eutychus, Sioni and Gamaliel I reckon for a start; are dabbling in pragmatism, are at the edge, as Eutychus said about an implicitly 'eirenic' hermeneutic not applying in all circumstances. Jesus runs out for us all. We are ALL left feeling, 'Surely not THAT far, THIS far. There are limits!'. No there aren't. Not in Jesus' life.
And Justin, Andrew and George have ALL failed way before them.
Or maybe, in fact, you are wrong. Maybe in rejecting Just War, you've ignored the important principle of protection for the innocent, of using the best tools you have to try to defeat the darkness.
As I've said before, I'm practically speaking a pacifist, but your constant citing of Andrew White, Justin Welby and Pope Francis is getting pretty wearing.
You don't agree with their theological view. OK Martin, we get it. Move on and tell someone who hasn't already heard your rants a million times before.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mr cheesy--
IIRC, the Koran is supposed to have been dictated directly to Mohammed. Don't remember if by God or Gabriel or who.
If I've got that right and it's basic to Islam, then it corresponds to fundamentalist Christian beliefs: sola scriptura (scripture is the only authority, other than God); infallible; inerrant in the original manuscripts; directly inspired and even dictated by God; and basically a user's manual. And Nasty Outcomes are promised by God if you change "one jot or tittle" of what God said, and even worse if you teach your changes.
I grew up in a little fundamentalist church--not the foaming at the mouth kind; but very studious; and the pastor often gave very long sermons, stepping through a passage one original-language word at a time.
In that part of the Christian spectrum, you just don't go messing with the Book. So I can empathize with people of other faiths not wanting to mess with their books.
And if you pick at a loose thread hanging from a sweater, you might unravel the whole thing.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Right, but there are ways to understand Islam which do not involve unravelling the whole thing.
For example this whole concept of "Jihad". I've had a lot of conversations with Muslims who tell me that this is to be translated as "struggle" - and that the message they get is not about violence at all but something loosely aligned with the Christian concept of a spiritual struggle "against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces".
In my view there is very little difference between the range of Christian views on violence and the range of Muslim views on violence.
The only difference is that there appear at the moment to be a larger number of people who read a justification for extreme violence from the Koran (leading to both the emergence of IS, the terrible Saudi regime and the acts of brutality in places like Bangladesh) than from the bible (leading to murders of doctors in abortion clinics).
I can't see any reason to suppose that either of those extremes are really to be regarded as normal.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I have started a separate thread on "the inspiration of interpretation" here.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Probably time to nip over to Euthychus's thread about interpretation - but just one observation before I do so ...
'Hermeneutical relativism' - can anyone here, anyone, honestly, honestly, honestly cross their heart and hope to die, say that they are not themselves some kind of hermeneutical relativist.
We are ALL hermeneutical relativists.
The only choice we have, it seems to me, is to acknowledge the extent to which we are.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The irony in your Arius example, of course, Kaplan Corday, is that some of the Church Fathers accused Arius and other heretics of effectively adopting a 'sola scriptura' approach - although they didn't frame it in those terms of course ...
Early on there was the development of the idea of the apostolic deposit and tradition - later to develop into Big T Tradition - being the antidote to heretical proof-texting.
What those who opposed Arius were concerned about - and yes, it was a close-run thing - was the cherry-picking use of proof-texts outwith the overall thrust of tradition. But you knew that anyway ...
It is a conundrum that those of us who sit outside Big T Tradition but who remain Nicene-Chalcedonian in our creedal understandings have to resolve in some way or other. I'm not sure I have ... but you may have settled the issue in your own mind.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... (In matters unrelated to current events, I have been reading about how Islam's desert roots result, according to some, to it having difficulty in makng sense of the sea). ...
Probably a tangent, and I've no idea what the source of this might be, but I suspect it's portentous nonsense, the sort of thing a person who has been told to produce 500 words when he or she realises the magazine goes to bed in an hour's time and they can't think of anything.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
This academic essay suggests that the above is not just a late-Friday idea dreamed up by a lazy journalist.
(also, I should note, that this scholar thinks it is complete nonsense.)
[ 20. November 2015, 16:39: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Cheesy wrote:
quote:
According to a book I'm reading,* until the 18 century, writers did not associate the character of Hamlet with indecision. This seems so alien to the common narrative we learn about Shakespeare's prince that it is hard to understand. Apparently before an influential critic of the time wrote about Ham's "irresolution", which it was said "formed so marked a part" of his (H's) character, the normal way of reading the play was that he (H) was a bold, reasonable man making hard choices in a totally unreasonable situation.
Well, just as an example, at one point, Hamlet has the opportunity to off Claudius, but elects not to do so because Claudius is in the middle of prayer, and Hamlet thinks this means his soul would go to heaven, and Hamlet prefers that he go to Hell.
That's always struck me as the sort of excuse you make when you're trying to avoid doing something you know you should do, and are grasping about for any rationale. Furthermore, it is implied immediately afterwards that Claudius' prayers were insincere, and hence he probably could have been sent straight to Hell by a thrust of Hamlet's dagger.
Mind you, if Hamlet didn't know that the prayer was impotent, then refraining from the attack might be a logical choice. I'd be interested to know if it was widely believed in Shakespeare's day that dying during prayer would send you straight to Heaven.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Also Hamlet has no difficulty with being brisk and decisive when offing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Boom, they're outa there, no shilly-shallying.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This academic essay suggests that the above is not just a late-Friday idea dreamed up by a lazy journalist
The reference I was citing is in this 2002 article (translation mine): quote:
Islam came from the desert and (...) its entire relationship with the environment is characterized by its origins
It was also discarded by the article I was translating, but noted as widespread in academic circles.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Rant eh mr cheesy? Projection calling the pot black. It was worth getting you to proclaim just war. You're not alone. Eutychus appears to twist in the wind on that. You don't.
There is NO just war in Christ. Time we tried it. I.e. NO war. NO Christian justification of war. NO Christian participation in war. NONE. Let's try that again. For the first time in 1700 Constantinian years.
It conquered the most powerful empire the Earth had ever seen at the time.
[ 20. November 2015, 22:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
For the first time in 1700 Constantinian years.
It conquered the most powerful empire the Earth had ever seen at the time.
"Twist in the wind" eh Martin?
If by that you mean that I can't make up my mind about the concept of just war, then yes.
But, as thrashed out ad nauseam here before, today, for better or worse, is not 1700 years ago.
Unlike then, we have nation states, Christians in positions of political responsibility, and so forth. As then, we have Scriptures that talk about the authorities bearing the sword, of which our interpretation varies, in large part with the times.
I think the "absolute Christian" answer to questions like these competes with the "Christian engaged in society" and "Judeo-Christian heritage" ones. Life is about muddling through taking all three into consideration.
[ 21. November 2015, 06:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's not as harsh as it looks Eutychus. It's harsher. It's CERTAINLY not an insult. You are a good man. I LOOK to you. Not Justin, Andrew and George. Believe me. You're our man on the ground. In the air. Feet on the ground. And off. Again. Twist in the wind means to be hung old style, lynched, not dropped, alive, conscious, in agnony, writhing. You're me up there, out there, I'm in my arm chair.
You're the best there is mate. I couldn't do it. There is NO judgement and NO criticism of you. But. And, your last paragraph says it all. You twist in the wind for us.
How are we to be as wise as serpents? HARMLESS as doves? How are we NOT to inwardly applaud airstrikes, outwardly praise heroic tooled up cops when doing the common sense thing of taking them for granted as part of the inevitable outworking of this? That tars you with my brush. You may well agonize over it all.
This week, because of Paris, I WAS putting myself in the place of a decision maker trying to be eirenic, like Jezza. The closest I've got to it was being foreman on a jury in a nasty case. It haunts me 20 years later.
I CAN see me saying, 'Make it so.' based on consensus. And even when being looked to alone. I came across an account in a novel recently (can't remember which!): There's a suspect in a capital situation. A truly loving, faithful colleague utterly KNOWS his innocence. Their senior KNOWINGLY asks the colleague to build the best case against the suspect, so that he, the senior, can make the right decision. The colleague is MOST convincing. A superb example of how we can all act with faith and integrity and men die. Forsythe rightly called it the Devil's Alternative.
God help us all as we twist in the wind.
Is the ONLY way out not to take part? Been there. Last night I had to escort a violent irrational man out of the building, behind a woman, and keep my hands in my pockets while he ramped himself up on the door to smash my face in. So no, one has to take part. Scary as it is.
God bless you Eutychus. It would be my privilege to sit by your side and nod. Say aye. But we MUST agonize this out. Is the compulsion.
[ 21. November 2015, 10:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
one has to take part. Scary as it is.
I might be tempted to take that as my sig, if I may.
You attribute much agonizing to me, probably accurately so, but wasn't it you talking about projection just now? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Don't tell me you're not agonizing too.
I think part of the, er, Christian way through is
a) recognizing that on the engagement/separation scale, different Christians legitimately put the cursor at different places. This fact is both our great strength and our Achilles' heel. The more we recognize it, the more it becomes a strength.
b) taking a stand out there in the world which is consistent both with our individual conscience and our recognized role.
At an utterly basic, individual level, we are called to love our neighbour and our enemy and the outcomes should be pretty self-evident (which is not to say easy).
The more one has a public role engaging a constituency, the more complicated it gets.
I'm signatory to a declaration to be read out tonight at an inter-faith gathering. I thought carefully about the capacity/ies in which I signed it, and those in which I didn't sign it, if that makes sense.
(For instance, I did not sign it in any capacity representing evangelical leaders in the city, which I could have done pretty legitimately, becaue I know many of them disagree deeply with ecumenical, let alone inter-faith initiatives).
[ 21. November 2015, 10:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Could we hear what the Statement says, please? It could be helpful. (PM me if you prefer).
And I share your agonising - as my congregation well know.
[ 21. November 2015, 11:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm VERY moved mate. Most. God bless you again. It would be an honour and if you could respond as Baptist says, ... stone me weeping ... please do.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Long Mars.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Not sure where's the best place for this, but:
"Saudi Arabia creates Islamic bloc to fight terror groups" (Yahoo). It's a long article, and I've only skimmed it, but might be worth discussion.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In theory, a military alliance of islmaic nations to counter islamic terrorists makes a lot of sense. But, whether it works in practice is another question. And, since I can't see how conventional military action can counter terrorism another conventional military force on the table will make very little difference.
What is needed is non-military (or, minimal military) actions - intelligence sharing, identifying and closing funding routes and arms supplies, an ideological offensive. This alliance should allow improved intelligence sharing. But, whether other aspects of the required actions will be forthcoming is questionable.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's just sectarianism. A clash of fundamentalisms, of eschatologies.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re eschatologies (from whatever religion), apocalypses, and possibilities that go bump in the night:
Maybe we can just skip them? As Joshua, the computer, said in "War Games": "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
The reality is, we have to play nicely with those who don't. Starting with the majority of Christian, who don't.
Christianity was a puritanical doomsday cult for its first century after all. Whence the Crusades. Including our current one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Vladimir Putin professes himself to be a Christian.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
But like the vast majority of those who do, he fundamentally, definitively, isn't.
--------------------
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
Depending on the formula you accept, he definitely is. All you do is ask, and you get your ticket to heaven.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And bomb who you please.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
