homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » What should we do about 'our own' terrorists? (Page 17)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  ...  24  25  26 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: What should we do about 'our own' terrorists?
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But that doesn't deny moral intuition, only stresses its weakness and fallibility. If moral intuition were sufficient, we wouldn't need moral philosophy. If moral intuition were non-existent, moral philosophy would have nothing to reason about.

It depends upon what you mean by 'moral intuition'. If you give the term full weight it refers to a belief that:
moral facts are a separate category of fact from non-moral facts;
and that we sense or intuit moral facts directly without having to derive them from the non-moral facts.
There would be a reasonable analogy with colour vision, for example: while one can make educated assumptions about the colour of things one can't see, by analogy or knowledge of chemical composition, that doesn't amount to direct awareness of colour.

I don't think either of those statements are true; I don't think there are separate categories of moral and non-moral facts, and I don't think we can intuit morally relevant facts by any means other than the usual five-odd bodily senses.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10305 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So..Let me guess. This is more about a monumental lack of self awareness?

No, it's about the selective questioning of the validity of teachings that developed later in the church's history.
First I heard of that, then. Please continue.
As noted, it has been for discussed many times before. Dispensationalism, the Rapture, even the understanding of PSA prevalent among many Evangelicals.

--------------------
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: 2442 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Whereas the examples of "Christian violence" being discussed are arguably where Christians went along with and failed to challenge prevailing secular standards of moral behaviour.

I hardly see bombing abortion clinics as a secular standard of behavior.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gamaliel:
I am not defending or condoning medieval Roman Catholicism, the Inquisition or the Papal Magisterium.

All I am saying is that you can't have the Bible as a comfort-blanket as you put it without a tradition to go with it.

Our hermeneutical methods and approaches are all part and parcel of that tradition.

OK, so by tradition, you don't mean the traditions of the church that developed over the centuries? What exactly do you mean?

ISTM you simply mean the baggage everyone brings. IOW tradition is a purely subjective 'personal background radiation'? An aura we all carry which is personal and distinctive from everyone else's? I think, if this is right, that I am not dismissing 'tradition' either, because it does not preclude the possibility of God speaking to hearts, of the truth dawning on someone who seeks the Lord through the scriptures.

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

I don't think there are separate categories of moral and non-moral facts

Strictly speaking, the term moral fact is like the term clockwork orange - it is a category error.

It is impossible to derive an ought from an is, impossible to rationally or empirically demonstrate a moral proposition to be true.

As a Christian, I believe by faith in the existence of moral facts, but I can't in any sense prove them to be "facts", other than in the sense that is a fact that some people, for different reasons, believe them to be true.

Posts: 3201 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Depends how you define obsession.

I would define obsession as an irrational preoccupation with a particular subject
Such as believing that a particular Psalm was inspired by God with your particular bete noire in mind - similar to the belief of some Protestants that the Antichrist refers specifically to the pope?
Posts: 3201 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

On Kaplan's own goal charge, I'd like a referee's decision on that. I suspect a linesman would tell us that the ball didn't even cross the line let alone hit the back of the net as Kaplan fondly imagines.

No goal.Not even an open goal.

The goalie had two hands. Scripture and tradition. Both/and.

It ain't one or the other. It's both.

Yes, yes, good clean healthy fun, but you are evading the issue, which is that the preservation and transmission of the apostolic tradition was not a free for all which permitted any individual or group to interpret it in any way which suited them.
Posts: 3201 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So..Let me guess. This is more about a monumental lack of self awareness?

No, it's about the selective questioning of the validity of teachings that developed later in the church's history.
First I heard of that, then. Please continue.
As noted, it has been for discussed many times before. Dispensationalism, the Rapture, even the understanding of PSA prevalent among many Evangelicals.
So these are relvant to current discussion..how
Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The relevance is that your questioning in this thread of the validity of teachings that developed later in the church's history is undercut or made to appear selective by your dismissal of similar questioning on these teachings in other threads.

--------------------
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: 2442 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

On Kaplan's own goal charge, I'd like a referee's decision on that. I suspect a linesman would tell us that the ball didn't even cross the line let alone hit the back of the net as Kaplan fondly imagines.

No goal.Not even an open goal.

The goalie had two hands. Scripture and tradition. Both/and.

It ain't one or the other. It's both.

Yes, yes, good clean healthy fun, but you are evading the issue, which is that the preservation and transmission of the apostolic tradition was not a free for all which permitted any individual or group to interpret it in any way which suited them.
Where did I say it was?

You are the one who insists that I am making that claim.

I'm not.

What I am saying is that what became the orthodox standard to which the mainstream of Christianity adheres - at least in theory - allowed a certain degree of latitude in terms of hermeneutical approaches. Just as Judaism did and does.

Obviously, there were and are blurred edges as well as sharp ones between what might be tolerated as a 'valid' approach - there's the 'v' word again - and what was seen to topple over into Gnostic la la land or arbitrary allegorisation.

Even people who were regarded as within the pale of mainstream orthodoxy would cross those lines at times - Tertullian did, Origen did, Augustine did on some issues ...

I'm sure if we restricted our scope to subsets within Christianity bas a whole we would find similar instances. John Wesley was well within the pale in the broad trajectory of his theology, but on certain emphases he toppled over into questionable territory.

I'm not disputing that what emerged as the standard yardstick in hermeneutical terms was the grammatical-historical approach, mediated of course, by variations in terms of stress and emphasis, across the various traditions / Traditions - Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

What I am saying is that at various times, due to a combination of factors and influences, it would have been perfectly logical - but no less reprehensible - for people within the broad trajectory of mainstream Christendom to reach hermeneutical conclusions which we would deplore.

Charlemagne using his imperial authority to slaughter pagan Saxons is one instance. George Whitefield's enthusiasm for slavery as a 'civilising' force would be another.

@Jamat - no, that's not what I am saying. I am not saying that tradition is some kind of purely subjective or individualistic response - which is what I understand you to be saying here, correct me if I'm wrong.

Rather, it is a collective body of belief that we inherit and which is both shaped by the scriptures and shapes our response and approach to the scriptures.

You operate within a very conservative evangelical tradition which shapes how you interpret the scriptures.

Mousethief operates within the Orthodox Tradition which shapes how he interprets the scriptures.

What neither of you have is a Bible that exists outside of a tradition / Tradition that helps you approach and interpret it.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15404 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would define obsession as an irrational preoccupation with a particular subject

Such as believing that a particular Psalm was inspired by God with your particular bete noire in mind - similar to the belief of some Protestants that the Antichrist refers specifically to the pope?
I do not remember Fox's book saying that, although I can't check as I got the copy from the library.

That God is omniscient and in God's providence inspired the Bible to be polyvalent in meaning, so that whoever faithfully and prayerfully reads the Bible can hear it as addressing their specific situation, is a belief that has been widely held by Christians of all stripes down the ages. It may be obnoxious to secularists and liberals may want to qualify it, but I think it is fundamental to any serious doctrine of inspiration.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10305 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That God is omniscient and in God's providence inspired the Bible to be polyvalent in meaning, so that whoever faithfully and prayerfully reads the Bible can hear it as addressing their specific situation, is a belief that has been widely held by Christians of all stripes down the ages.

I need some references to this. The idea of the random Joe interpreting the Bible by himself is not an Orthodox idea, and I can't imagine it's very Catholic either. It screams "Reformation."

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I do not remember Fox's book saying that, although I can't check as I got the copy from the library.

Do you mean George Fox? If so, he fairly regularly called the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans, Baptists, other Protestants and anyone else he didn't like the Antichrist. For example here.

I haven't read much other writing from the time, but I assume that the accusation of being the Antichrist was something that was published regularly in pamphlets.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I do not remember Fox's book saying that, although I can't check as I got the copy from the library.

Do you mean George Fox?
Robin Lane Fox, the historian. Mentioned by name in Kaplan Corday's post to which I was replying.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10305 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry pardon.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That God is omniscient and in God's providence inspired the Bible to be polyvalent in meaning, so that whoever faithfully and prayerfully reads the Bible can hear it as addressing their specific situation, is a belief that has been widely held by Christians of all stripes down the ages.

I need some references to this. The idea of the random Joe interpreting the Bible by himself is not an Orthodox idea, and I can't imagine it's very Catholic either. It screams "Reformation."
Careful there. I can't speak for Lutherans, Anglicans or Anabaptists, but Calvin and the Reformed confessions explicitly reject individual interpretation.

That said, I think there can be two things at issue: authoritative interpretation and personal understanding. The former, we would say, can only be done by the church as community. But within that framework, individuals can read Scripture and find meaning—not necessarily contemplated by the authoritative interpretation but not inconsistent with it either—that speaks to their own needs and circumstances. I took that to be what Dafyd is talking about.

--------------------
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: 2442 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That God is omniscient and in God's providence inspired the Bible to be polyvalent in meaning, so that whoever faithfully and prayerfully reads the Bible can hear it as addressing their specific situation, is a belief that has been widely held by Christians of all stripes down the ages.

I need some references to this. The idea of the random Joe interpreting the Bible by himself is not an Orthodox idea, and I can't imagine it's very Catholic either. It screams "Reformation."
Maybe I'm overgeneralising. Also even though I used the word 'reading' as if I were talking about some random Joe reading by himself I was thinking as much about someone preaching from the text which is the Augustinian context.
But am I right to think that historically most Orthodox theologians would not have found it as insane of Augustine as Kaplan Corday does to say while preaching that the Psalm he was expounding was speaking to the situation of their congregation?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10305 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea of the random Joe interpreting the Bible by himself is not an Orthodox idea, and I can't imagine it's very Catholic either. It screams "Reformation."

Serious question: Would Orthodox Christians hold any mid-week meetings that might parallel what a Protestant would call a mid-week bible study? Or sit and read the scriptures and think "That seems to be speaking to me."?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure about the second part of your question, but I have come across Orthodox parishes which hold mid-week Bible study type sessions from time to time and there's also a study course called The Way which is rather like an Orthodox version of the Alpha course.

Incidentally, whenever I've attended an Orthodox study or an RC lectio-divina session during Lent, I've always found them sticking more closely to the text than some evangelical Bible studies I've been involved with in the past.

Sure, they introduce iconography, Patristic material and words from their hymnody into the equation - all part and parcel of Tradition, but as far as the text itself goes their approach doesn't strike me as that dissimilar to anything you might find in a decent Protestant Bible study.

Of course, aspects of their typology differs from Protestant approaches, various incidents and verses from the OT applied to the Virgin Mary for instance - such the Burning Bush in Exodus.

But as far as their approach to the Gospels and Epistles go, it seems very familiar to this Protestant ... Although it's obviously less Augustinian in tone of course.

Short answer to the first question, 'Yes.'

I don't know about the second, but I don't get the impression that they'd tend to go in for the pietistic 'God said this to me through that verse,' thing which tends to be a feature of some forms of evangelicalism. Some may do, for all I know, or else couch it in somewhat different terms. They do seem to talk about a sense of God's providence and guidance but not in the kind of language you find among some evangelicals and Pentecostals.

My overall impression is that they are more guarded and cautious when dealing with such things. It's not that they don't believe these things can happen, rather they are wary of people getting puffed up with funny ideas and personal illuminism.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15404 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea of the random Joe interpreting the Bible by himself is not an Orthodox idea, and I can't imagine it's very Catholic either. It screams "Reformation."

Serious question: Would Orthodox Christians hold any mid-week meetings that might parallel what a Protestant would call a mid-week bible study? Or sit and read the scriptures and think "That seems to be speaking to me."?
Before you thought a passage of scripture was "speaking to you" you would run it by your priest or abbot/abbess.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I am saying is that what became the orthodox standard to which the mainstream of Christianity adheres - at least in theory - allowed a certain degree of latitude in terms of hermeneutical approaches.

You are being very broadbrush.

Yes, of course there was and is "a certain degree of latitude", but that does not mean there are no boundaries (even if the boundary is more of a wideish DMZ rather than a single fence or wall).

A proposition such as "the NT teaches that Christians should use the state to kill all heathen and heretics" is not hermeneutically valid and is outside that boundary.

quote:
Even people who were regarded as within the pale of mainstream orthodoxy would cross those lines at times - Tertullian did, Origen did, Augustine did on some issues ...

Something which I have more than once in this discussion explicitly recognised.
Posts: 3201 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gamaliel: @Jamat - no, that's not what I am saying. I am not saying that tradition is some kind of purely subjective or individualistic response - which is what I understand you to be saying here, correct me if I'm wrong.

Rather, it is a collective body of belief that we inherit and which is both shaped by the scriptures and shapes our response and approach to the scriptures.

All of which adds up to a kind of amorphous vagueness. What things do you consider reside within this collective body of belief?
What about the perpetual virginity of Mary for instance? which is (probably) part of what you would consider handed down tradition, but which one can argue is specifically denied in the gospels.

I bring that up only because ISTM that when you use the word tradition, you are avoiding specifics except when happily 'informing' me what mine is.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What about the perpetual virginity of Mary for instance? which is (probably) part of what you would consider handed down tradition, but which one can argue is specifically denied in the gospels.

One could. But one would be wrong. One can argue a lot of things are denied in the gospels that aren't. Or things are in the gospels that aren't.

That's what Tradition is for.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: @Jamat - no, that's not what I am saying. I am not saying that tradition is some kind of purely subjective or individualistic response - which is what I understand you to be saying here, correct me if I'm wrong.

Rather, it is a collective body of belief that we inherit and which is both shaped by the scriptures and shapes our response and approach to the scriptures.

All of which adds up to a kind of amorphous vagueness. What things do you consider reside within this collective body of belief?
What about the perpetual virginity of Mary for instance? which is (probably) part of what you would consider handed down tradition, but which one can argue is specifically denied in the gospels.

I bring that up only because ISTM that when you use the word tradition, you are avoiding specifics except when happily 'informing' me what mine is.

No you can't.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16582 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

A proposition such as "the NT teaches that Christians should use the state to kill all heathen and heretics" is not hermeneutically valid and is outside that boundary.

Bullshit. Are you ever going to give reasoning for this false statement beyond simply repeating it?

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, I'm sorry but I don't accept that what I am proposing is an 'amorphous vagueness' (contra Jamat) nor lacking in boundaries (contra Kaplan Corday).

Granted, my concept of tradition is fluffier and more woolly than Mousethief's Big T Tradition or the RC equivalent.

But that doesn't make it an amorphous mush nor so lacking in boundaries and so broad-brush as to be of no practical use.

There's a balance somewhere between ratcheting things up to such an extent that they become a strait-jacket - which is, I'm afraid what I consider RC Tradition to have become - with them painting themselves into a corner with issues like Papal Infallibility ...

The Orthodox corset seems laced up rather tightly to me, too ... but not to the extent that it's almost impossible to breathe.

The issue I have with the whole conservative evangelical fixation with inerrancy and infallibility and so on is that it is highly selective ... the bits they like and approve of become infallible and inerrant ... and those parts that don't fit their nice, neat schema they either ignore or pretend that they fit ...

But I know I'm being very broad-brush there and that not all conservative evangelicals tighten the straps so firmly that they almost asphyxiate themselves ...

Perhaps I do need to tighten things up lest I trip over on my own trailing laces. But there's a balance between tripping over on the one hand and effectively garroting oneself with one's own interpretative boot-straps on the other.

My mixed metaphors abound but still ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15404 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Meanwhile, once again Kaplan, please read for comprehension.

I am not saying that the NT exhorts rulers to kill all heathens and heretics.

I very much doubt that even Charlemagne believed that either - in such bald terms, but was reacting to circumstances.

Faced with recalcitrant pagans in annexed Saxony who had led a rebellion against him, he ordered some 4,500 to be executed - the Massacre of Verden. He then decreed that all Saxons who subsequently refused baptism be put to death - although there doesn't seem to be any evidence as to whether or not this was enforced. I suspect most of the Saxons complied anyway as the threat was there ...

All very reprehensible. But comparable, I submit, to the massacres Cromwell carried out at Drogheda and Wexford.

I have never said that the NT decrees any such thing.

What I have said, if you'd bothered to read my posts properly, is that given the circumstances - a theocratic Dark Age king trying to establish an empire - it is easy to see how the Pauline comments about the legitimate use of force by civil powers could have been cited or invoked by Charlemagne's contemporaries to justify vengeance or punishment on the rebellious Saxons.

As a ruler he was not 'wielding the sword for nothing.'

Please do try to read for comprehension. I have asked you very politely several times. Each time you have completely ignored my request and continued to reply with binary comments that demonstrate that you have either misunderstood or refused to understand what I am actually trying to say.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15404 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
A proposition such as "the NT teaches that Christians should use the state to kill all heathen and heretics" is not hermeneutically valid and is outside that boundary.

Firstly the NT teaches that the Old Testament is authoritative except where superseded, or rather, except where clarified by the New Testament. The principle that the OT is only authoritative where the NT restates it is not Christian. The restriction of your argument to the NT seems curiously ad hoc.
If you have ever addressed this in the course of this thread I have missed it.

Secondly you admit that the NT can be read to justify just war. But the NT does not anywhere offer non-tautologous criteria for differentiating between just and unjust war.

As such, while justifying persecution or crusades from the NT is I believe a wrong interpretation I do not think we can say it is as obviously wrong as you do. Really objecting to it depends more largely on fleshing out broader concepts of love and justice than on attention to the letter of the NT.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10305 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Dafyd: .. the NT teaches that the Old Testament is authoritative except where superseded, or rather, except where clarified by the New Testament. The principle that the OT is only authoritative where the NT restates it is not Christian. The restriction of your argument to the NT seems curiously ad hoc
It is only ad hoc if you ignore well understood interpretive standards otherwise it is far from ad hoc.

Personally, I think a main principle involved is not to do with restatement though that does occur, but to see the OT as clarified and amplified by the NT.

For instance, the NT teaches justification by faith, supported by Paul quoting a verse from Psalms viz: 'The just shall live by his faith'. Paul here is pointing out faith was always necessary in the OT, thus explaining that in committing to keep the Torah, one was balancing out the idea of whether it was the assiduous keeping of the law that mattered, or the heart attitude behind this intention, the desire to live a godly life.

To say, though, that marrying multiple wives was OK in the OT so it is OK in the NT as Mormons would like to do, is actually contradicted in the NT by both the Lord and Paul. In the beginning, it was clear God gave the man a wife not wives. Paul enjoins a man to love his wife, not his wives and in the great metaphor, the Lord has one bride, not multiple brides. Seeing it this way is not ad hoc but just a matter of understanding and applying a genuine hermeneutical principle.

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which is what?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16582 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What Dafyd said. He's spot-on.

It's one thing to say that the NT justifies the concept of a 'just war', quite another to actually define what the criteria for such a thing actually is. Augustine made some attempts to do so.

His criteria and presumably Charlemagne's criteria and the Crusaders' criteria, are all going to differ from ours.

Why? Because we all live at different times and have different socio-cultural influences and values.

Also, there's no set of NT proof-texts that settle the matter for us. We have to work these things out for ourselves, drawing on the spirit rather than the letter, of the overall tenor and thrust of the NT as we understand it.

Same as the slavery thing. The NT doesn't 'condemn' slavery - although 'slave traders' are listed by Paul among those who 'will not inherit the kingdom of God'.

By the same token, whilst he clearly felt it was a good thing if slaves could obtain their freedom, he didn't condemn the institution of slavery as such either ... as a 1st century Jew he accepted the status quo in that respect.

I've come across white-supremacist Southern US fundamentalists on-line who insist that slavery was fine and that the 'godly' Southern plantation owners had every right to own slaves and that the naughty Northern States had no right to interfere ...

There'd be no point proof-texting with these people because there ain't any proof-texts that settle the matter one way or t'other. We have to work these things out for ourselves, based on the overall thrust and tenor of the NT and our own understandings of it ... which are, by the very nature of things, largely going to be shaped by whatever the influences have been on our own spiritual formation.

So, no, nobody here is going to make out a case that it's ok to have multiple wives because OT Patriarch's did so ...

Nobody here, I presume, would make out a case for slavery either - not because there's a set of texts that settle the matter one way or t'other - but because, by and large, we're a fairly liberal bunch and not ultra-conservative white-supremacists from Texas or Alabama.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15404 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:


To say, though, that marrying multiple wives was OK in the OT so it is OK in the NT as Mormons would like to do, is actually contradicted in the NT by both the Lord and Paul. In the beginning, it was clear God gave the man a wife not wives. Paul enjoins a man to love his wife, not his wives and in the great metaphor, the Lord has one bride, not multiple brides. Seeing it this way is not ad hoc but just a matter of understanding and applying a genuine hermeneutical principle.

In the beginning apparently nobody wore clothing. I take it that this isn't something you think it relevant to your situation.

This isn't logic, this is just stoopid.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Be fair, mr cheesy, Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve made clothing out of skins ...

So that settles it, using a Jamat-ian hermeneutical principle.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15404 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Be fair, mr cheesy, Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve made clothing out of skins ...

No, initially they didn't have clothing. I was listening that week in Sunday School.

quote:
So that settles it, using a Jamat-ian hermeneutical principle.
No it doesn't - he's saying "the best" is the earliest, and the earliest is nudity. Therefore he should be either nude or wanting to be nude.

Of course there is a secondary issue in that if there were only one-man-and-one-woman then at some point in the early generations there must have been some... I'm sure you get the picture. I don't think anyone seriously is suggesting that this is supposed to be a model for everyone else for the rest of time.

This whole "earlier is better" project is BS.

[ 07. August 2017, 14:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thing is, plenty of people play the 'earlier is better' card to some extent or other.

The RCs and the Orthodox by saying, 'Look, we were here first ...'

Conservative evangelicals do it by fondly imagining everything to have been settled by AD 60 or by AD 90 or whenever it is they think it was ...

Like as if everyone was walking around with a complete NT, a Strong's Concordance and a full set of IVP study-aids before the close of the 1st century and before those nasty Catholics and Orthodox got hold of everything and ruined it by introducing metropolitan bishops and departing from 'the plain meaning of scripture' ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15404 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Be fair, mr cheesy, Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve made clothing out of skins ...

No, initially they didn't have clothing. I was listening that week in Sunday School.
And A&E made clothing out of leaves. It was God who made the clothing out of skins. I read that part at University.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, and as I was always taught in evangelical circles, typologically it showed that blood-sacrifice was required from the outset ... and that God himself would ultimately pay the required price ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15404 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gamaliel: What Dafyd said. He's spot-on
What he said is not what is claimed,ie
quote:
The principle that the OT is only authoritative where the NT restates it is not Christian
While the NT does restate things, this is not a principle of hermeneutics.
There are many things that are authoritative in the OT that the NT does not restate.

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Like rainbows?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16582 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gamaliel: No, I'm sorry but I don't accept that what I am proposing is an 'amorphous vagueness' (contra Jamat) nor lacking in boundaries (contra Kaplan Corday).

Granted, my concept of tradition is fluffier and more woolly than Mousethief's Big T Tradition or the RC equivalent.

But that doesn't make it an amorphous mush nor so lacking in boundaries and so broad-brush as to be of no practical use.

But you use the term tradition as if it is somehow self evident what it is, without ever mentioning any of the specific beliefs that it must include that you think are true.


Are there any?

I mentioned the perpetual virginity of Mary. Would you include that in the body of church hand-me-downs you commit to?
What about 'holy water' we always had some in the house in a little container below a crucifix. Is that, in your view part of a valid body of legitimate truth?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like rainbows?

Hi Martin, you gotta admit they are beautiful.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Define tradition?

Well, a good definition from a Big T direction came from Jaroslav Pelikan, a Lutheran turned Orthodox:

'Tradition is the living faith of the dead, Traditionalism the dead faith of the living.'

Essentially, of course, it's what's been handed down and it's what provides the lens or frameworks we use to assess and interpret things.

Hence the idea that scripture interprets scripture, for instance, is a Protestant tradition. It's an idea that is applied to the scriptures through a particular frame work or lens. If you wear a different set of specs then things don't necessarily look the same.

On the perpetual virginity of Mary, there's been a thread on that recently. That might help outline the arguments for and against.

It's an example of how our respective traditions shape how we approach things, of course. If you're asking what my own views are on the matter, well, it depends on how we approach it doesn't it? If I were to swap my Protestant specs for RC or Orthodox ones then I'd see things differently to how I see them now, just as you did when you exchanged your cradle Catholic specs for a pair of conservative Protestant ones.

The same applies to holy water, of course. If you are a member of a tradition that insists on having a specific chapter and verse reference for each and every practice that takes place in church then no, you're not going to be into holy water. If, however, you are involved in a Tradition that doesn't expect everything to be backed up by specific references but which believes that the tenor of scripture points to physical objects and elements being channels of divine grace - such as Peter's shadow or Paul's handkerchief, then you might think differently.

That's one of the points I'm trying to make. It's a fairly obvious one.

I'm not out to demonstrate the or defend the validity or otherwise of individual traditions. I'm simply saying that we all have them and they inform the way we see things.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15404 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One definition (although that's really to strong a term, I think) of tradition is, "Tradition is the vote we give our ancestors in our current-day religion."

Both Mary and Holy Water are essentially the same principle -- can things become and remain holy, and become a secondary source of holiness, passing on God's holiness to others/other things?

Protestants would say no. Catholics and Orthodox would say yes. Once you have that category it just becomes a matter of what things fall into it.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's what Tradition is for.

Which one?
Posts: 3201 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One's own, of course.

Same as in small t tradition ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15404 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

A proposition such as "the NT teaches that Christians should use the state to kill all heathen and heretics" is not hermeneutically valid and is outside that boundary.

Bullshit. Are you ever going to give reasoning for this false statement beyond simply repeating it?
What's bullshit is pretending that there is a skerrick of justification for such a proposition in the NT.
Posts: 3201 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Firstly the NT teaches that the Old Testament is authoritative except where superseded, or rather, except where clarified by the New Testament.

Which is what I have stated a number of times in this discussion, and which rules out any Christian justification for religious genocide a la Joshua.
Posts: 3201 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gamaliel: What there was instead was a sense of a unifying body of core doctrines agreed upon by a particular community of faith. Of course, there were blurred edges, variations, but essentially it was a community and text thing, a community tradition and text thing ...

Which is what we have everywhere, of course. It's a community and text thing whether we are talking about Rome, the Orthodox, the Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists or a store-front church in the Southern United States.

It's not the community without the text nor the text without the community.

OK, then, you say here there are core doctrines in your concept of tradition but not even once, have you intimated what any of them are. If you expect to convince then you should have a few of these at your finger tips.

What do you think about baptismal regeneration. Is that in your grab bag?

It is pretty meaningless to cite the ubiquitous nature of tradition without any identification of content. FWIW I do not disagree with the fact that no one exists with out a background of preconceptions but you seem to use this as either a reason to say everything is questionable or, on the other hand, that whatever anyone says about anything Christian cannot be questioned, as their tradition, whatever it might be, validates it.

[ 08. August 2017, 06:41: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I am not saying that the NT exhorts rulers to kill all heathens and heretics.

I am quite aware of that.

And I am quite aware that Christian leaders such as Charlemagne (and Cromwell) might well have used creatively pragmatic ("valid" in the descriptive rather than prescriptive sense of that ambiguous term) interpretations of the Bible to justify religious violence.

And aware that we need to remember that very thing, as we try to get inside the heads of our ancestors and attempt to assess their motivation.

I dare say Charlemagne might have used Joshua to justify his slaughter of the heathen Saxons - and Solomon to justify his multiple wives and concubines.

In either case, sincere or not, he would have been wrong

quote:
I have never said that the NT decrees any such thing.
Once again, I realise that, and I am sorry if I have carelessly and inadvertently suggested otherwise.

Besides, if you did believe it, a person of your integrity would have been bound to act on on it, and I am sure that would have made the headlines even over here on the other side of the world.

[ 08. August 2017, 06:43: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posts: 3201 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like rainbows?

Hi Martin, you gotta admit they are beautiful.
Authoritatively so.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16582 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  ...  24  25  26 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools