|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What should we do about 'our own' terrorists?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Heck. LilBuddha is a Buddhist I assume. His/her opposition to Crusading isn't going to be based on Christian hermeneutics is it?
Actually, if I am discussing Christianity with Christians, I try my best to argue within a Christian framework. Or hermeneutics if you will.
It will make the most sense, most times.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think we have to accept that those groups come out of religious traditions (Christianity and Islam, respectively) and while we might say their interpretations of those traditions are whacked we can't deny the link.
D'accord, and that is pretty much what I said about Spong.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
More particularly what is shite is this idea that a "good Muslim" is the one who has accepted secularism rather than his religion.
No, a Muslim who has been influenced by secular humanism as regards one particular aspect of "his" religion, which is not the same as your blanket statement.
quote:
In contrast to Christians, who are obviously more civilised.
Nobody on this thread has denied that Christians have behaved as badly as, or worse than, Muslims.
quote:
I'm done talking to you.
I don't believe you.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The mistake he makes us to project it backwards into a time when that particular hermeneutic had not developed in the form he is familiar with.
No, your mistake is a conflation of the fact that the hermeneutic has always existed, albeit in an inchoate, inadequately articulated and inconsistently applied form, with the myth that it did not exist at all for much of Christianity's history.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Again, you fail to read for comprehension.
Do you actually read my posts?
Sure, they can be long and wordy, but what I actually said was that the raw material for the kind of hermeneutic you describe has existed for as long as Christianity - ie we all operate with pretty much the same source material - but the way it's been put together has varied down the years.
For some unaccountable reason you seem unprepared to accept that the hermeneutics we operate with are the sum total and result of the accumulated debates, reflections and cogitations of previous centuries.
You appear to be operating with an analogous view of hermeneutics to the view that E H Broadbent had of the Church. Everything was hunky-dory at the end of the 1st century but then it all went down hill from there until some brave souls turned things round ...
That the kind of hermeneutic you favour was some how operational in the early Church before the canon of scripture had even been agreed or ratified.
Someone in 2nd century Gaul, for instance, couldn't possibly have used your particular hermeneutic as - even if they were literate - they might only have had access to a fragment of a Gospel or Epistle and been using them alongside books that would later be determined to be pseudographical.
Of course, by Charlemagne's time the canon of scripture had been agreed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people applied the kind of hermeneutical approach that you are advocating. They clearly didn't. Nor would it have occurred to them to have done so.
The kind of approach you advocate can only apply when there are social, cultural and societal conditions in place that enable it to do so.
Those conditions did not exist in the 8th/9th centuries.
It's not as if Charlemagne read the NT and thought to himself, 'Zut alors! I want to kill those pagan Saxons but there is no verse here that says I'm allowed to do so. Nevertheless ... I will set it aside with a Gallic shrug and kill them any way ...'
That's not how these things work.
@mdjon - you are also over-simplifying things.
Pentecostals don't believe that 'anyone' who speaks in tongues are necessarily or automatically a Christian. They fully accept that there can be 'counterfeit' tongues out there, or even 'demonic' versions of the same phenomena.
Nor do RCs believe that anyone who speaks in tongues isn't necessarily a Christian. There are charismatic Catholics around who speak in tongues.
Also, in my experience, unlike particular forms of fundagelicals, RCs don't tend to go around pontificating about whether this, that or the other individual is really a Christian or not - although I am sure there are RC zealots who do ...
Anyhow, coming back to Kaplan's challenge. I would like him to prove that the kind of hermeneutic he favours was fully operational from the earliest times of the Christian Church, rather than a stand-point that gradually emerged and developed in the kind of symbiotic way I've described.
The fact is, he can't, because that's not what happened and not how these things work. The fact that he insists otherwise doesn't make it so.
The Bible isn't like one of those cornflake packets with had as kids with a model inside and printed instructions on the back telling you how to put the model together.
No, as Kaplan well knows, the process of canonisation was long and drawn out. Equally, the various hermeneutical processes didn't drop out of the fly-leaf at the back. They developed over time. They are still developing.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Heck. LilBuddha is a Buddhist I assume. His/her opposition to Crusading isn't going to be based on Christian hermeneutics is it?
Actually, if I am discussing Christianity with Christians, I try my best to argue within a Christian framework. Or hermeneutics if you will.
It will make the most sense, most times.
Sure, that makes sense. My point, though, was that none of us are operating within hermetically sealed boundaries.
There's a symbiotic thing going on.
If we talk about Christians, Muslims or Jews being influenced by secularism or liberalism, for instance, it's because there's something that can be extrapolated from the Judeo-Christian - or broader 'Abrahamic' - traditions to feed into and nurturing that.
My compost heap doesn't grow spontaneously. It's the aggregate sum of whatever we put into it.
What goes into my garden and comes out if it is inextricably linked.
In a similar way, that's how theologies and hermeneutics develop. There's the raw material - sacred texts, traditions, mythology - in the C S Lewis sense - and it all goes into the mulch as it were.
If we apply that analogy to hermeneutics, then it stands to reason that a cabbage leaf in the compost heap is going to be a fully formed and fresh one at one point, a slimy one at another and at some point part of the crumbly rich compost in a way that is indistinguishable from the potato peelings and newspaper but which, although unnoticed and seen as part of the overall background, adds something unique and cabbagey to the mix.
In the same way, I'm agreeing with Kaplan that the raw material has been there from the outset but there needed/needs to be the process of composting for it all to coalesce.
I am not propagating a 'myth' as Kaplan suggests, simply highlighting as the process of how hermeneutics develop to the extent that we become so familiar bwith them that we forget that they weren't always the same shape and texture but have been subject to pressure, squeezing, challenge, stirring and internal and external influences for 2,000 years.
That's all I'm saying and I don't see why it is so contentious, unless it undermines some kind of 'myth' Kaplan's carrying around in his head.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You appear to be operating with an analogous view of hermeneutics to the view that E H Broadbent had of the Church. Everything was hunky-dory at the end of the 1st century but then it all went down hill from there until some brave souls turned things round ...
I don't know who Broadbent is/was, but certainly the view of church history I remember hearing from the fundagelicals of my acquaintance was not so much that things went downhill, but they ran into a brick wall. That brick wall collision happened either slightly after John the Revelator died, or five minutes before the first Council of Nicea, depending on whom you ask. At any rate the first Christians were all evangelical Protestants, then evil happened and the true Evangelicals went underground while the bad icky Catholics (and Orthodox, if we get a look-in at all, which is seldom) took over.
It is historical fiction of a high order. It is grossly absurd.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It'd be quite interesting to see what a group did with the NT who had no exposure to all of our history and preconceptions.
I think it wouldn't be too extreme to imagine them going for mass murder, mass suicide, or going for some other kind of weird and extreme fundamentalism.
It is pretty unlikely that it'd naturally turn into Evangelicalism, in my opinion. Because that faith needs such a lot of extra biblical supporting information and ideas.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ...
It depends on the context in which these putative believers found themselves, mr cheesy.
The NT was written in the context of a group that developed and separated from an existing religion - Judaism.
So it would have been impossible for the first believers to have acted as if it had parachuted in from the skies without any context.
Of course, if your scenario panned out in a completely different context then the results would have been different - but not necessarily as lethal as you suggest.
Back in my GLE days there were all sorts of stories of unreached tribes who'd apparently had visions or dreams which instructed them in some of the salient points of the Christian faith before the missionaries arrived.
There was even one story I heard of how Protestant missionaries apparently found a 'church' operating in Korea when they first arrived because a few pages of the NT had been washed ashore from a ship-wreck ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I take these stories with a pinch of salt.
There are similar ones in RC and Orthodox missiology, but there is seems to be more a case that the missionaries encountered practices that they could point to and adapt to suit their message - rather like the Apostle Paul in the Areopagus and the statue 'to an Unknown God.'
I suspect there's been a degree of embellishment in the RC / Orthodox missiological accounts too, just as there has been in Protestant ones.
However ...
On the Broadbent thing, I suspect Kaplan will accuse me of making yet another sly dig at evangelicalism or The Brethren - as Broadbent believed that the Brethren were the apogee of Christian development and a return to NT Christianity ...
Before he does so, I'd like to point out that I was using his approach as an analogy and not intending to get into a critique of restorationist / independent evangelical ecclesiology.
My point is simply that hermeneutical systems didn't arrive ready-shrink wrapped as special attachments to copies of the Bible circulating around the early Church - as we all know, most churches wouldn't have had the 'full set' of the NT books for many years.
Rather, hermeneutical systems developed in response to controversies and through discussion and debate.
Consequently, it's completely impossible for them to have existed in their current form five minutes after the ink was dry on the final section of St John's manuscript for Revelations.
Obviously, I'm being somewhat flippant and possibly doing Kaplan a disservice.
If I have done, then it's only a slight disservice as he clearly doesn't read my posts closely enough to grasp what I'm actually saying and not what he thinks I'm saying.
For someone who prides himself on a 'sound exegesis' his capacity for close reading seems somewhat limited.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It'd be quite interesting to see what a group did with the NT who had no exposure to all of our history and preconceptions.
I think it wouldn't be too extreme to imagine them going for mass murder, mass suicide, or going for some other kind of weird and extreme fundamentalism.
It is pretty unlikely that it'd naturally turn into Evangelicalism, in my opinion. Because that faith needs such a lot of extra biblical supporting information and ideas.
By the same token, one could say that it wouldn't naturally turn into Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy either.
Which, of course it wouldn't - because whatever Christian tradition we belong to, ALL of them have developed with a lot of extra biblical supporting information and ideas.
The difference is that the RCs and Orthodox readily acknowledge that and indeed celebrate that fact.
They don't try to pretend otherwise.
Unlike some types of evangelical Protestant.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It'd be quite interesting to see what a group did with the NT who had no exposure to all of our history and preconceptions.
I think it wouldn't be too extreme to imagine them going for mass murder, mass suicide, or going for some other kind of weird and extreme fundamentalism.
It is pretty unlikely that it'd naturally turn into Evangelicalism, in my opinion. Because that faith needs such a lot of extra biblical supporting information and ideas.
Exactly, it's all about what we bring to the party. Ian Banks' Transition explores this brilliantly.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The difference is that the RCs and Orthodox readily acknowledge that and indeed celebrate that fact.
They don't try to pretend otherwise.
Unlike some types of evangelical Protestant.
No, but that's partly due to a difference in worldview. The RC and Orthodox understand the faith to be more than just what an intelligent person could derive from the scriptures.
Evangelicals often like to pretend the opposite: the faith is simply what a stupid person would accept if they were isolated in a room with only a bible. Of course that's complete nonsense.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Mind you, here aboard Ship, Lamb Chopped claimed to have arrived at an understanding of the Trinity and other key Christian doctrines and emphases through shutting herself away in a closet (literally) with only the Bible and God the Holy Spirit for company ...
Much as I admire her, I don't believe her for one minute. I think she was reading her own subsequent reading, insights and understanding gleaned from being part of a church back into her initial experience.
I'm by no means suggesting she is being disingenuous or misleading. Far from it. I simply believe that she is interpreting her initial encounters with the scriptures retrospectively through her subsequent growth/development.
But that's another matter ...
I can't remember where I've come across the following, but I have heard of a short-story in which someone goes to a remote or cut-off tribe and relates to them the Christian faith - only for the tribes people to obligingly crucify them thinking that this is the right thing to do to please the stranger ...
However we cut it, we are all of us 'socialised' into our particular understandings of the Gospel and we all of us use hermeneutical systems which developed gradually over time.
What certainly isn't the case is that we are operating with ready-made systems that dropped out of the box like a free-gift in a cornflake packet.
I'm not suggesting that Kaplan considers that to be the case. I'm cutting him more slack than that, but I am accusing him of a lack of close reading of what I have actually been saying and of jumping to conclusions in assuming that what is so 'obvious' to him as a 21st century believer influenced by the Reformation, Enlightenment - and yes, secularism - as well as centuries of pre-Reformation and pre-Enlightenment theological thought - wasn't necessarily so obvious to people in past generations who didn't use the same approach as he does.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mind you, here aboard Ship, Lamb Chopped claimed to have arrived at an understanding of the Trinity and other key Christian doctrines and emphases through shutting herself away in a closet (literally) with only the Bible and God the Holy Spirit for company ...
Much as I admire her, I don't believe her for one minute. I think she was reading her own subsequent reading, insights and understanding gleaned from being part of a church back into her initial experience.
Nope. I believe that's a private delusion which in time has become the story upon which she has hung her whole life.
But, y'know, we all do that. I guess most of us have stories which are in slightly less day-glo colours, but I think we all basically choose stories as part of our identity.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, although I think 'delusion' is too strong a word for what we are talking about here.
It's more a case, I would suggest, of choosing an interpretative framework or lens through which we evaluate our past experiences.
There's been some interesting work done on oral-history interviews with WW1 veterans which showed how their attitudes to the conflict changed over time, from the 1920s to the 1960s. The anti-War sentiments tended to creep in later, partly, it would seem from the 'Oh What a Lovely War!' zeitgeist of popular culture.
I think you can see something similar in evangelical testimonies. People are 'trained' / conditioned to interpret their spiritual experiences through the lens of an evangelical paradigm - and the more the conversion stories are exchanged and repeated the more that paradigm is reinforced.
That's not to dismiss or deny the reality of the actual conversions, it's simply to state - yet again - that we are all wearing spectacles of one form or other.
The particular prescription that Kaplan has for his lenses developed over time - just like any other prescription.
I can't for the life of me imagine why he doesn't see this himself. It's as plain as the spectacles on the end of my nose.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mind you, here aboard Ship, Lamb Chopped claimed to have arrived at an understanding of the Trinity and other key Christian doctrines and emphases through shutting herself away in a closet (literally) with only the Bible and God the Holy Spirit for company ...
Much as I admire her, I don't believe her for one minute. I think she was reading her own subsequent reading, insights and understanding gleaned from being part of a church back into her initial experience.
I'm by no means suggesting she is being disingenuous or misleading. Far from it. I simply believe that she is interpreting her initial encounters with the scriptures retrospectively through her subsequent growth/development.
But that's another matter ...
I can't remember where I've come across the following, but I have heard of a short-story in which someone goes to a remote or cut-off tribe and relates to them the Christian faith - only for the tribes people to obligingly crucify them thinking that this is the right thing to do to please the stranger ...
However we cut it, we are all of us 'socialised' into our particular understandings of the Gospel and we all of us use hermeneutical systems which developed gradually over time.
What certainly isn't the case is that we are operating with ready-made systems that dropped out of the box like a free-gift in a cornflake packet.
I'm not suggesting that Kaplan considers that to be the case. I'm cutting him more slack than that, but I am accusing him of a lack of close reading of what I have actually been saying and of jumping to conclusions in assuming that what is so 'obvious' to him as a 21st century believer influenced by the Reformation, Enlightenment - and yes, secularism - as well as centuries of pre-Reformation and pre-Enlightenment theological thought - wasn't necessarily so obvious to people in past generations who didn't use the same approach as he does.
Not a closet, dude. A bathroom (loo, to you folks overseas). Get it straight.
And as for your ridiculous contention--
I could bring you real-life witnesses, including my old confirmation instructor V. M. who suffered mightily at my hands, as I eyed him suspiciously every week, just waiting for him to slip up on his doctrine.* (Why, yes, I was an obnoxious** new convert--how did you guess?)
I bring him up because he can testify (I believe he's still living) that I had a mature understanding of the outline of all the basic doctrines, because that is what I was using to decide whether he was a false teacher or not (sorry, Pastor M!). Duh. If your contention is true, it would have been impossible for me to judge whether he was a false teacher or not. One can only compare two sets of doctrine if one actually HAS two sets to compare. There was the systematic set of doctrine*** he was teaching, and there was the set I walked in with--derived from late night readings in the loo. Got it?
Bear in mind that at this time I was still attempting to hide my conversion from my mother. It was she who drop-kicked me into the class (being under the mistaken impression it was a simple youth Bible study), not I who volunteered. None of us attended church, and we kids were yet unbaptized. You can judge by that just how much Christian training went on in my home.
After a couple years of this eagle-eyed comparison, I lightened up and agreed to join the Lutheran church. I thank God that we lived by the Lutheran church and not the Mormon church on the other side of town--my mother chose purely based on what was nearest.
* For those who wonder, I caught him in exactly one error, and it wasn't doctrinal, though I was too immature to realize that fact at the time--he said something about the flood lasting seven days. Yeah, of course I made myself a pain in the ass and jumped all over him. I was an idiot, okay? Looking back, I give him major credit for putting up with me and even rewarding my prickly, geeky doctrinal stance (I've got a minor award from that class tucked away somewhere).
** I had had very little contact at all with Christian communities prior to winding up in his classroom, and was just as phobic as you might imagine someone converted in a loo, in near-total isolation, to be.
*** Lest you try to wriggle out of it by imagining that the confirmation class was less than complete in its presentation of doctrine, Kelly can testify that LCMS confirmation classes tend toward the very rigorous--you don't get out of Luther's Small Catechism without full exposure to all the basic tenets of Christianity. And I was and remain a geek in all areas of my life. Lutheranism is geeky. What a surprise, I know.
ETA: Why in the hell do you say you admire me? I had nothing to do with this. Give it to the Holy Spirit, who watches over God's word and brings it to fruit, even in the life of a pain in the ass.
[ 25. July 2017, 21:39: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope. I believe that's a private delusion which in time has become the story upon which she has hung her whole life.
But, y'know, we all do that. I guess most of us have stories which are in slightly less day-glo colours, but I think we all basically choose stories as part of our identity.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Well, if it's a delusion, I'm perfectly happy with it. Though I can't see how you would know.
Remind me some day to tell you a miracle story or two from our ministry, so you can have more to disbelieve.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I admire your faith is what I meant.
Also, I don't doubt that you've seen some marvellous and miraculous stuff in your life/ministry.
Nor do I doubt that you'd be able to correct that fella on how long the Flood lasted and other details after a few weeks shut in the bogs (I was polite with my jokey use of the word 'closet' so will use some UK vernacular).
But sorry, I don't believe that you emerged from the lavs with a fully-orbed, creedally exact understanding of the finer points of Christian doctrine. Sorry, but there it is.
That said, I don't doubt that through the mysterious workings of Providence you had a profound and life-changing encounter with the Living God in the lavs.
Priscilla and Aquila had to explain 'The ways of God more accurately' to Apollos. We all need each other. That's how we learn.
I'm not for a moment doubting the reality of your conversion but neither do I believe that if we stuck someone in the John with only the Bible for company they'd come out spouting Nicene-Chalcedonian formularies.
Don't get me wrong, God moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform ...
I've met people who have been converted to Christ through cultic literature and who, somehow, recognised that it was otherwise wonky and sought out a more orthodox (small o) setting.
I once met an Orthodox monk who'd been converted from agnosticism by a striking encounter with an icon of the Theotokos and Christ-child in a Russian museum.
I don't doubt these things happen.
But 'spiritual formation' happens in a group context, by and large. Most of us are socialised into the Kingdom.
--------------------
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
Re-reading your account, I suspect there's an element of confirmation-bias going on and that the interaction between the catechist and yourself was more symbiotic than either of you realised at the time.
Again, that doesn't obviate your experience nor does it preclude your gaining a shed-load of Bible knowledge from your time stuck in the lavatory.
Heck, I used to be able to reel off and recite whole chunks of scripture and was generally reckoned to be 'a man of the word, mighty in the scriptures' in the somewhat narrow circles in which I moved.
Looking back, I knew hardly anything at all for all I could cite chapter and verse. They doesn't mean I hadn't encountered God. That doesn't mean I wasn't led in some way by the Spirit of Truth. I somehow instinctively knew that I should gravitate towards Trinitarianism and not go off to join the JWs or what-have-you.
I'd suggest that it's all but impossible to pinpoint the precise moment when one became more fully aware of this, that or the other aspect of Christian truth.
Rather, it's a cumulative thing and the speed and intensity of that will vary according to circumstances. If you're stuck in a lav with a Bible for hours at a a stretch then it's likely to be more intense than it is for someone brought up in Sunday school, say.
Besides, knowing how long the Ark was afloat or how many Philistines Shamgar slew with an ox-goad or whatever it was - I've forgotten already - isn't the same as trying to suss out whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, say or whether soteriology is monergistic or synergistic or whether Christ is somehow present in the Eucharist or ...
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But sorry, I don't believe that you emerged from the lavs with a fully-orbed, creedally exact understanding of the finer points of Christian doctrine. Sorry, but there it is.
Well, none of us grow up context free - and there are all sorts of bits of cultural Trappings that are influenced by Christianity that the average person brings to play. I'd be more impressed if this happened to someone born in Tibet in the 13th century.
That said it largely doesn't matter, the question is whether if not such a thing is normative, which of course it isn't.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mind you, here aboard Ship, Lamb Chopped claimed to have arrived at an understanding of the Trinity and other key Christian doctrines and emphases through shutting herself away in a closet (literally) with only the Bible and God the Holy Spirit for company ...
Much as I admire her, I don't believe her for one minute. I think she was reading her own subsequent reading, insights and understanding gleaned from being part of a church back into her initial experience.
Nope. I believe that's a private delusion which in time has become the story upon which she has hung her whole life.
But, y'know, we all do that. I guess most of us have stories which are in slightly less day-glo colours, but I think we all basically choose stories as part of our identity.
Mine all feel as if they've been blown to bits. None of my stories work, except as stories, the same for all other's. I've still got one coincidence that won't go away, that can only be rationalized as forgetting all the thousands of lottery tickets that didn't win and never forgetting the winning one. I want to believe the miracles testified to me personally from darkest Africa, which have far more appeal than LC's toilet epiphany, but they are just desperate confirmation bias, like my random win. And KC's Cheshire hermeneutic. Which I'd love to be real too. But it isn't. It's ALL delusional; pareidolia. Seeing what isn't there.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I admire your faith is what I meant.
No reason. This happened to me, I didn't cause it. I was a nobody hiding in a bathroom, and this is what happened. Who I am at core hasn't changed much. I just make it out of the bathroom a bit more often.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... But sorry, I don't believe that you emerged from the lavs with a fully-orbed, creedally exact understanding of the finer points of Christian doctrine. Sorry, but there it is.
Well, first of all, it really doesn't matter if you believe me or not. I'd probably feel some mild chagrin if I weren't still high from finding out my kid doesn't have melanoma, but that's about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not for a moment doubting the reality of your conversion but neither do I believe that if we stuck someone in the John with only the Bible for company they'd come out spouting Nicene-Chalcedonian formularies.
You seem to have correct doctrine and understanding confused with doctrinal terminology. I did not "come out spouting Nicene-Chalcedonian formularies"--when asked, I explained things in the language I'd learned from the Bible. I tend to do that anyway, rather than getting into Substance and Persons and "in majesty coequal," even today. And I distinctly remember learning the technical theological terms "state of humiliation" and "state of exaltation" and thinking, "Oh, so that's what it's called." I had the content, but not the terminology. Which seems perfectly plausible to me. But then, it happened to me, and it didn't happen to you. So there's no reason really you should believe me.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Don't get me wrong, God moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform ...
I've met people who have been converted to Christ through cultic literature and who, somehow, recognised that it was otherwise wonky and sought out a more orthodox (small o) setting.
I once met an Orthodox monk who'd been converted from agnosticism by a striking encounter with an icon of the Theotokos and Christ-child in a Russian museum.
I don't doubt these things happen.
Of course these things happen. We also have people who show up in church because they've been told to come in a dream. Augustine's conversion process came to a head when he heard the voice of a child saying "Take it up; read it." I've known God to use JRR Tolkien references. He's very unscrupulous. And he doesn't give a rat's ass what we think of his methods.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But 'spiritual formation' happens in a group context, by and large. Most of us are socialised into the Kingdom.
I'll take your word for it. Why not? I never claimed my experience was normative or even common. It's just one of those freaky things God does sometimes.
And when it comes to the lavs, or Martin's "toilet epiphany," you might consider the criterion of embarrassment when attempting to determine how much weight to give my testimony. There aren't a whole lot of people eager to testify that they came to faith sitting on the john.
[ 26. July 2017, 01:22: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Now here you bring up a wholly different and more important point.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That doesn't mean I wasn't led in some way by the Spirit of Truth. I somehow instinctively knew that I should gravitate towards Trinitarianism and not go off to join the JWs or what-have-you....
Besides, knowing how long the Ark was afloat or how many Philistines Shamgar slew with an ox-goad or whatever it was - I've forgotten already - isn't the same as trying to suss out whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, say or whether soteriology is monergistic or synergistic or whether Christ is somehow present in the Eucharist or ...
Your first quoted paragraph here deals with what I would call the work of the Holy Spirit. And his work is precisely to lead us into all truth (and to head us off the wrong turnings--not that we always listen). This work happens most commonly through what Lutherans call Word and Sacrament. In my own case, it was wholly Word and no Sacrament, as I didn't receive baptism till shortly before my confirmation.
This is all that I am claiming--that the Holy Spirit worked through God's Word to give me an orthodox and basic systemic understanding of orthodox trinitarian Christian faith. Which is no surprise since it all derives from the Scriptures if you dig back far enough. Steep yourself in the Scriptures, be desperate enough (and thus willing to listen), and God can do this kind of thing. I'm not the first and I won't be the last. (Heck, PAUL seems to have had a somewhat similar experience out in the deserts of Arabia.)
The listening is probably important, though. I happened to be at a very vulnerable and needy point in my life with basically no support whatsoever. God can do a lot with that. Maybe more than he can or will do with people in more comfortable circumstances.
You mention a couple examples of specifics I'd like to take up. Monergism vs. synergism--I won't quote the prooftexts here, but they exist, as I have no doubt you know. I was totally primed for Lutheran monergism, not only by the Scripture but by my own neediness and desperation. So this was a no-brainer.
Christ in the Eucharist--well, you probably won't believe this either, but I know of two people who were theologically naive on this subject--they knew only the Scripture--and both of them came to the Real Presence position as soon as they were asked what they made of the passage. And no leading questions, either. It appeared to be the default. For what it's worth. I would not be astonished to hear that someone else in the same position spoke differently. Still, I found it interesting.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, if it's a delusion, I'm perfectly happy with it. Though I can't see how you would know.
Good for you. Doesn't change the fact for me that it is a clear delusion.
quote:
Remind me some day to tell you a miracle story or two from our ministry, so you can have more to disbelieve.
Don't bother.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, mr cheesy, I find that rather perfunctory and dismissive. For my own part, I'm perfectly willing to accept that Lamb Chopped came to faith sitting on the John.
Why not?
I'm also perfectly prepared to accept that she gained a broad grasp of orthodox theology from her close Bible reading.
Nevertheless, I'm afraid I also believe there's a lot of 'back-filling' and some redaction going on - not consciously or deliberately mind ...
We all do it. If I were to share 'my testimony' now it'd sound somewhat different and a lot less dramatic than it would have done had you heard me as a 25 year old.
If you read Wesley's Journals you can see shifts of emphasis and all manner of undercurrents in the way he framed and described his own conversion.
I wouldn't want to start filleting things up and saying that I find 60% of Lamb Chopped's story credible but remain sceptical of the remaining 40% or anything like that.
All I am saying is that there was further input into Augustine than 'Tolle, lege', even though that may have been the catalyst, that even Apollos required further instruction and that whilst people may have dreams or prompts or whatever else, that's only part of the story.
I've met a Quaker lady who says she instantly knew that God was real during a near death experience in a car crash. When she emerged from the wreckage she determined to seek out more about the God she felt she'd encountered during the smash.
She knew little about churches and was sceptical of them, so her atheist father suggested she try the Society of Friends as he'd heard good things about them.
Fine. If we were to evaluate that in historic creedal terms we may find it wanting - what? No firm stance on the Trinity, Deity of Christ? No sacraments or ordinances. Apostolic Succession ... [Delete as appropriate and feel free to add whatever other issues you might deem important]
But that was how it was for her.
I'm not for a moment dismissing Lamb Chopped's experience, simply suggesting that the way we frame our narratives about such things also depends to a large extent to the traditions we find ourselves in.
Lamb Chopped is glad she didn't end up in the Mormons. I would hazard a guess that had she done so - heaven forbid - she would now be framing aspects of her on-the -john experience within the context of Mormon teachings rather than what came raw and apparently unmediated from the pages of the Bible.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QB] Sorry, mr cheesy, I find that rather perfunctory and dismissive.
<snip>
Lamb Chopped is glad she didn't end up in the Mormons. I would hazard a guess that had she done so - heaven forbid - she would now be framing aspects of her on-the -john experience within the context of Mormon teachings rather than what came raw and apparently unmediated from the pages of the Bible.
Well I've heard all kinds of claims of magical happenings from various different religions. This just sounds like all the others. The most natural explanation is framing of what happened after the event.
Otherwise we are left with a problem: if God is prepared to miraculously give someone a fully worked out Lutheran theology, why doesn't he do that to everyone else?
I don't believe in that, I don't believe that this happened. No big deal, plenty of people tell me things I don't believe.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If one puts up ANY claim to personal divine intervention here in this maieutic environment, it cannot survive. I had an epiphany last week; a penny dropped. Steve Chalke is right that none of the alleged NT 'gay clobber' (... queer bashing) passages have anything to do with non-heterosexual pair bonding. I'm very grateful for God's provision in that. It was against my will, as I saw the argument initially as liberalism back projected and that Paul couldn't transcend his homophobic culture. Then Steve laughed at the risibility of normal non-heterosexual bonding being included in the litany of depraved abuse of sex-crazed power condemned by Paul. And I felt it. Holy laughter? No.
If claims of the HS' intervention on the toilet are true, then they must be made for everything. For every penny dropping as well as being spent. In all our rituals.
But that isn't acceptable is it? To those who make claims? It's only true as long as the really real miracles, which cannot be revealed to infidels, are believed.
Why am I thinking of my Hanafi Deobandi Sunni Muslim neighbours? One of whom, a couple of streets away, is one of the most influential men in the world in the third order of magnitude.
Because of the OP.
Because we need a better hermeneutic, story.
And there can't be one.
That would be a really real miracle.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, all that raises the issue of theodicy of course.
Why was I born in a Christianised culture with opportunities to be exposed to the Gospel and not in some animist, Hindu, Islamic or Buddhist / Whatever Else culture where I didn't have such opportunities readily available?
We could on and on and round and round in circles on all that sort of thing.
My point to Lamb Chopped isn't that her conversion experience on the john didn't happen - rather that how she has framed it subsequently owes a great deal to the meta-narratives of the particular group she then joined - in this case, the Lutherans.
Had she joined the Mormons she would interpret her experience through a Mormon lens not a Lutheran one.
That's all.
Seems an unexceptionable point to make.
It's not an unrelated point to the one I've been trying to make to Kaplan Corday - namely, that it isn't that the raw materials for his particular hermeneutic didn't exist back in the 3rd, 4th, 8th, 9th or whatever-th centuries, it's simply that those raw materials weren't necessarily put together in the way he is used to.
That's all.
Again, I don't see what is so contentious about that as straightforward observation and engagement with any of the sub-apostolic and Patristic texts - however cursorily - reveals that these folk weren't operating with the same suppositions and frameworks that we are. That doesn't mean that there aren't overlaps and parallels, that we are dealing with a completely different religion. No, of course we aren't.
But we are dealing with people who lived and operated in a very different context to our own and who reached very different conclusions on some issues that we would confronted with the same raw material.
That's all.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Yes, but I'd go further and say that it is really, really, really hard to see the world outside of the hermeneutic, worldview and/or frame that we find ourselves in.
Even if we reject the faith where we developed those ideas, we still tend to operate within the parameters of the frame.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The particular prescription that Kaplan has for his lenses developed over time - just like any other prescription.
But it didn't emerge ex nihilo, but was there from the very beginning in a simple form which has been refined over two millennia.
Yes, of course this hermeneutic was often misapplied, or corrupted, or ignored, or simply got wrong, because of cultural and other factors, but that does not mean that it is fundamentally incorrect, or merely historically relative.
You can't avoid admitting that the approach to Scripture (even before it was canonised) had to involve a predominantly a historical-grammatical approach (because any subjective or "Gnostic" alternative, eg allegorical, would render the communal sharing of it impossible, then, and for us centuries later); you can't avoid admitting that Christianity involves dealing with the OT in the light of the NT; and you have admitted that actions such as crusading religious violence cannot be condoned from the NT.
You have painted yourself into a corner and (to change metaphorical horses in midstream) you are forced to say more and more in a vain attempt to extricate yourself.
And not only that, but when all else fails you resort to the obligatory but irrelevant ad hominem anti-Brethren swipe.
Broadbent, for fuck's sake!
We have discussed him before, you know quite well that I have no time for his thesis, but you can't resist it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
you can't avoid admitting that Christianity involves dealing with the OT in the light of the NT; and you have admitted that actions such as crusading religious violence cannot be condoned from the NT.
No, he has said he doesn't believe religious violence is a correct interpretation of the NT, he hasn't made a blanket statement that it is obvious it cannot be condoned. Obviously it can be.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Doesn't change the fact for me that it is a clear delusion.
What's a "fact for me". Facts that need qualification tend to be less factual, and those relative to individuals might be quite alternately factual.
I think you can say that based on your world view your conclusion is that it must be a delusion, I don't think you can go further than that.
(PS, Gamaliel I was talking about some RCs/pentecostals not all).
[ 26. July 2017, 09:34: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What's a "fact for me". Facts that need qualification tend to be less factual, and those relative to individuals might be quite alternately factual.
I think you can say that based on your world view your conclusion is that it must be a delusion, I don't think you can go further than that.
Well I think it is stronger than that - I have reasons to believe this doesn't happen.
I'm prevaricating a bit because I also know that it is possible to make the argument that nothing can ever be proven. And I don't have all of the information of course.
But from what I do know, and from other information I believe is true, and from the worldview within which I operate, and from the theological hermeneutic that I accept, and so on - then for me it is a fact.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The particular prescription that Kaplan has for his lenses developed over time - just like any other prescription.
But it didn't emerge ex nihilo, but was there from the very beginning in a simple form which has been refined over two millennia.
Yes, of course this hermeneutic was often misapplied, or corrupted, or ignored, or simply got wrong, because of cultural and other factors, but that does not mean that it is fundamentally incorrect, or merely historically relative.
You can't avoid admitting that the approach to Scripture (even before it was canonised) had to involve a predominantly a historical-grammatical approach (because any subjective or "Gnostic" alternative, eg allegorical, would render the communal sharing of it impossible, then, and for us centuries later); you can't avoid admitting that Christianity involves dealing with the OT in the light of the NT; and you have admitted that actions such as crusading religious violence cannot be condoned from the NT.
You have painted yourself into a corner and (to change metaphorical horses in midstream) you are forced to say more and more in a vain attempt to extricate yourself.
And not only that, but when all else fails you resort to the obligatory but irrelevant ad hominem anti-Brethren swipe.
Broadbent, for fuck's sake!
We have discussed him before, you know quite well that I have no time for his thesis, but you can't resist it.
Again, you fail to read for comprehension.
I have never said that these things emerge ex nihilo. I am saying the opposite.
It's not me who is painting himself into a corner. You are.
I'm not 'avoiding admitting' anything. There is no avoidance whatsoever in anything I have written.
Again, do you actually read my posts?
Let's get this straight.
Read.my.fucking.posts.
Then you would see:
- That I acknowledge - not 'avoid accepting' - that the raw materials for the kind of approach you describe were there from the outset. I have said so again and again. You have ignored that.
- I have maintained, in keeping with the historical evidence, that a range of hermeneutical approaches existed in the early Church - some more allegorical in tone, others closer to the historical-grammatical approach and what gradually emerged was a kind of fusion/compromise if you will, between the two.
- I haven't 'admitted' as if it were against my will that the OT should be read in the light of the OT. That was clearly the case when the Gospels and other NT documents were being written - because they interpreted OT prophecies and so forth in a typological and Christological way and applied them to contemporary events ...
The issue there, of course, is whether they were adopting a hermeneutic that we'd recognise in the way they did this ... I suspect their methods wouldn't pass muster in contemporary seminaries of any stripe.
- If I've engaged in an anti-Brethren swipe it's because, rightly or wrongly, I consider your approach to be analogous to theirs. If it isn't, then I apologise. If it is, then if the cap fits ...
So, sorry Kaplan, no dice. I have not painted myself into a corner. You have.
@mdijon - point accepted about some Penties and some RCs.
--------------------
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
Just in case any further clarification is required:
I am not simply saying that 'this hermeneutic was often misapplied, or corrupted, or ignored, or simply got wrong, because of cultural and other factors.'
Nor am I saying that it is 'fundamentally incorrect'.
What I am saying is that a hermeneutical framework is by its very nature determined by cultural and other factors. How can it possibly be otherwise?
How can an interpretative or hermeneutical approach of any kind - be it to the scriptures, be it to the 18th century novel, be it to the plays of Shakespeare, the films of Andrei Tarkovsky or the paintings of Reubens or Picasso - be developed in any other way than by a complex web of socio-cultural and other factors?
A system of exchange - whether in financial currency terms - or in terms of language and understanding can only operate within a framework that is shaped and defined by cultural factors.
The whole point I am making is that our particular cultural milieu 'allows' us to take the kind of view we take towards religiously motivated or state-sponsored violence with a religious tinge in a way that wouldn't necessarily have been the case in the 8th/9th centuries.
It isn't that Charlemagne and his contemporaries deliberately overlooked particular verses or NT emphases, rather that their particular worldview constrained and shaped their approach in the way our paradigm shapes ours.
So, for instance, our particular approach - right across the board, tends to be rather more personal and more individualistic than it would have been for previous generations. That doesn't mean that people in Augustine's time or Charlemagne's time were incapable of individuality or a personal response - simply that the over-arching paradigm they operated within was less individualised than ours.
On the cultural relativity issue, I'm not saying that these things are 'merely culturally relative,' any more than C S Lewis's and Richard Baxter's 'Mere Christianity' were actually 'mere' in any way either ...
Nothing is 'mere'.
We are large, we contain multitudes.
It's another of my both/and and not only but also things.
Hermeneutics is certainly culturally and historically relative, but it is not merely culturally and historically relative. There is more we can say about it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Otherwise we are left with a problem: if God is prepared to miraculously give someone a fully worked out Lutheran theology, why doesn't he do that to everyone else?
Because God does not see us as all alike; he knows that what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Because God does not see us as all alike; he knows that what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another.
Moo
That makes no sense. These things aren't about the arrangement of the chairs or the timing of services. LC's witness is that she worked out the truth of theology on her own by the inspiration of the HS.
Unless somehow you think that God is going around telling different people different answers to the same question, there is no way to square that circle.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It also raises issues such as:
- Does God favour Lutheran theology over against RC theology, say or Presbyterian theology?
- Or isn't he bothered and happy that the Quaker lady's near-death experience led her to joining the Society of Friends or that Lamb Chopped's mum chose to send her to the nearest Lutheran Church rather than the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints on t'other side of town?
- Or that the nominally Orthodox agnostic who had a striking encounter with the icon in a Russian museum went on to become an Orthodox monk rather than, say, gravitating towards Protestantism and putting his icons in the cupboard or into a jumble sale instead?
Or is it more of a case, as Mousethief has suggested, that the good Lord gives us the brains to work these things out for ourselves?
Which could be construed as overly Pelagian of course ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Or is it, rather, a case of seeing all these things as mysteriously contributing in some way to the overall scheme of things?
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unless somehow you think that God is going around telling different people different answers to the same question, there is no way to square that circle.
I don't think that God gives different answers to the same question. I think people are asking different questions, and he gives an appropriate answer to each.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Incidentally, whilst I don't doubt Lamb Chopped's conversion experience and that aspects of her Bible reading on the john correlated with what she later heard in the Lutheran Bible class - which only stands to reason as they were both dealing with the same texts - I very much doubt that she absorbed a fully realised and worked-out Lutheran theology from her time on the john.
Lutherans have presumably been thrashing out their theology for the last 500 years.
5 minutes, 5 days, 5 months, 5 years sat on the john with an open Bible isn't going to replicate half a millenium of theological tussle and debate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Lamb Chopped is glad she didn't end up in the Mormons. I would hazard a guess that had she done so - heaven forbid - she would now be framing aspects of her on-the -john experience within the context of Mormon teachings rather than what came raw and apparently unmediated from the pages of the Bible.
Oh hell no.
My big concern was that I would have been causing a ruckus--either there, by contradicting crap, or at home, by refusing to go. And I hate conflict and making a scene.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Because God does not see us as all alike; he knows that what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another.
Moo
That makes no sense. These things aren't about the arrangement of the chairs or the timing of services. LC's witness is that she worked out the truth of theology on her own by the inspiration of the HS.
Unless somehow you think that God is going around telling different people different answers to the same question, there is no way to square that circle.
Language. I didn't "work it out." I'd be some sort of theo-genius to do that. I read it. The Holy Spirit did what he generally does if he finds someone messed up enough to let him.
I can see perfectly how he might choose to do that in and through community for other people, even most people. That was not an option for me at that time and place. Should he, then, have left me completely abandoned?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Language. I didn't "work it out." I'd be some sort of theo-genius to do that. I read it. The Holy Spirit did what he generally does if he finds someone messed up enough to let him.
Maybe I misunderstood the story, but I understood it to mean that you read the scriptures and came away with Lutheran theology.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Incidentally, whilst I don't doubt Lamb Chopped's conversion experience and that aspects of her Bible reading on the john correlated with what she later heard in the Lutheran Bible class - which only stands to reason as they were both dealing with the same texts - I very much doubt that she absorbed a fully realised and worked-out Lutheran theology from her time on the john.
Lutherans have presumably been thrashing out their theology for the last 500 years.
5 minutes, 5 days, 5 months, 5 years sat on the john with an open Bible isn't going to replicate half a millenium of theological tussle and debate.
Here's where you go wrong. Lutheran theology (at least of the branch of Lutheranism I come from) was basically done and dusted on the basics back in the sixteenth century. After that look for some adjustments on issues of Christian life like dancing, life insurance, etc. but not doctrine. We're dinosaurs in the LCMS.
It's one reason my doctoral advisor at a Jesuit university had great fun pulling my tail--he said, "I've never met a sixteenth century Lutheran before." And his specialty was in Thomas More, so ...
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Language. I didn't "work it out." I'd be some sort of theo-genius to do that. I read it. The Holy Spirit did what he generally does if he finds someone messed up enough to let him.
Maybe I misunderstood the story, but I understood it to mean that you read the scriptures and came away with Lutheran theology.
I came away with "mere Christianity." As for Lutheran theology -- well, IMHO it varies from "mere Christianity" mainly in flavoring and chosen emphases (justification by grace, emphasis on the Scripture, monergism, Real Presence). Of course, it's obvious I'd say that, for who doesn't choose their church based on getting as close to the truth as possible?
me, anyway.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It also raises issues such as:
- Does God favour Lutheran theology over against RC theology, say or Presbyterian theology?
You seem to think there is a huge difference. We all have and say the Nicene Creed, and it is doctrines on that level that I'm addressing.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- Or isn't he bothered and happy that the Quaker lady's near-death experience led her to joining the Society of Friends or that Lamb Chopped's mum chose to send her to the nearest Lutheran Church rather than the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints on t'other side of town?
I know very litle about Quakerism so won't comment. I am very grateful not to be in a cult (LDS), even if the most successful of American cults.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- Or that the nominally Orthodox agnostic who had a striking encounter with the icon in a Russian museum went on to become an Orthodox monk rather than, say, gravitating towards Protestantism and putting his icons in the cupboard or into a jumble sale instead?
Again, this is not a case of vastly different doctrine. The flavor is very very different--but vestments and liturgical style and the use of art (or not, or differently) and a tendency to emphasize the lives of the saints--this is not doctrine in the strict sense. It's the flavoring, the atmosphere, the markers on a given church that show the cultural matrix from which it has emerged. In the LCMS those would include organ music, a Bible study hour, vestments, lots of congregational singing, and a fondness for brats and beer. That's all just trappings, not doctrine.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Or is it more of a case, as Mousethief has suggested, that the good Lord gives us the brains to work these things out for ourselves?
You're asking for a general principle by which the Holy Spirit shall be expected to proceed. I'm not giving you that. I'm only reporting how he dealt with a single individual in a very fucked up and highly unusual situation 40 years ago. I put my example forward purely as a disproof of the idea that EVERYBODY without exception gets their Christian training in the way you appear to prefer it, in a community.
I am one who did not. God did something different that time. Deal with it. (And why should you care anyway?)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's not a case of what I prefer, it's a case of how these things generally happen - ie in community.
It happened that way for you too, to a certain extent. You didn't say sat on the lav. You subsequently attended a Lutheran church and underwent a process of catechesis.
That doesn't mean that you hadn't already grasped elements of it all before you did so nor that you had absolutely no inkling whatsover of what they were going to teach. Sat on the john with an open Bible for some considerable length of time would certainly prepare you for that, as well as creating the risk of haemorrhoids ...
Heck, we can even see 'community' in action in the early days - way back in Acts of the Apostles. The Ethiopian Eunuch needed Philip the Evangelist to come along and explain Isaiah 53 to him as he was trundling along in his chariot.
That doesn't mean that God the Holy Spirit runs on tram-lines. Heck, he interrupted Peter's sermon in the household of Cornelius ...
Not that it's got anything to do with me, granted, but I suspect what happened is that you picked up sufficient from your Bible reading on the bog to take you so far into the catechetical process ... and the 'blanks' and details were filled in for you after that as you continued to engage with Christian community.
I 'date' my conversion from a particular Sunday afternoon in a poky bedroom in a student back-to-back in Leeds - although looking back I'm not so inclined to pin it down quite so definitely as I would have been in my GLE days.
Yes, I was on my own - although my pals were in the house - and no, I wasn't attached to any particular church - although I did have input from Christians in a remote-ish kind of way.
I then sought out churches and Christian student organisations in order to find out more.
So no, I'm not being as dismissive of your experience as it may sound.
I'm simply using it as an example in my discussion with Kaplan about the development of hermeneutics. It may not have been a good example to choose as it's very personal to you and it's understandable that you aren't going to take too kindly to people picking away at it and trying to analyse it.
Anyhow, on the monergism thing ... we pays our money and we takes our choice with that one. RCs and Orthodox would presumably claim that the scriptures clearly teach a synergist approach ...
I'm sure the Orthodox wouldn't consider their faith to be Lutheranism with knobs on either - a few extra pieces of window-dressing a bit more bling. I'm sure Mousethief would have something to say about that.
That said, unless they were insufferable zealots they would generally acknowledge the overlaps at the 'mere Christianity' level.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It also raises issues such as:
- Does God favour Lutheran theology over against RC theology, say or Presbyterian theology?
You seem to think there is a huge difference. We all have and say the Nicene Creed, and it is doctrines on that level that I'm addressing.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- Or isn't he bothered and happy that the Quaker lady's near-death experience led her to joining the Society of Friends or that Lamb Chopped's mum chose to send her to the nearest Lutheran Church rather than the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints on t'other side of town?
I know very litle about Quakerism so won't comment. I am very grateful not to be in a cult (LDS), even if the most successful of American cults.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- Or that the nominally Orthodox agnostic who had a striking encounter with the icon in a Russian museum went on to become an Orthodox monk rather than, say, gravitating towards Protestantism and putting his icons in the cupboard or into a jumble sale instead?
Again, this is not a case of vastly different doctrine. The flavor is very very different--but vestments and liturgical style and the use of art (or not, or differently) and a tendency to emphasize the lives of the saints--this is not doctrine in the strict sense. It's the flavoring, the atmosphere, the markers on a given church that show the cultural matrix from which it has emerged. In the LCMS those would include organ music, a Bible study hour, vestments, lots of congregational singing, and a fondness for brats and beer. That's all just trappings, not doctrine.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Or is it more of a case, as Mousethief has suggested, that the good Lord gives us the brains to work these things out for ourselves?
You're asking for a general principle by which the Holy Spirit shall be expected to proceed. I'm not giving you that. I'm only reporting how he dealt with a single individual in a very fucked up and highly unusual situation 40 years ago. I put my example forward purely as a disproof of the idea that EVERYBODY without exception gets their Christian training in the way you appear to prefer it, in a community.
I am one who did not. God did something different that time. Deal with it. (And why should you care anyway?)
For community read culture. There are no exceptions. None. Ever. Including Jesus.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am one who did not. God did something different that time. Deal with it. (And why should you care anyway?)
As I said above, your experience - take it or leave it - isn't normative, so I'm not sure why it's relevant to this discussion.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry Chris, it was my fault. I introduced it as an example by way of illustration. I wasn't really wanting to get into the detailed ins-and-outs of Lamb Chopped's 'testimony' (as it were) - although I can see how it was bound to get the reaction it did.
My point was that whilst we may certainly get a grasp of the overall trajectory and shape of Christian belief from the scriptures themselves, how we interpret and apply it is inevitably shaped by whatever culture and tradition we have or become part of.
I agree with mr cheesy that it is hard, if not almost impossible, to entirely shrug off the patterns and thought-forms we bring to the table.
George MacCleod, founder of the Iona Community, once quipped that Calvinism was like a virus, you never really get over it.
It's a bit like the 'once a Catholic' thing, I suppose.
But there we go ... I feel we're getting nowhere here when people find it hard to accept that a hermeneutic develops and is shaped by a whole range of influences and doesn't drop down from heaven ready-made ...
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
