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 19)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  24  25  26 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: What should we do about 'our own' terrorists?
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Besides (and another thing ...) If you are going to play the Godwin card, a sure sign that you are losing the argument, then it could be said that what makes the Nazi atrocities even more obscene - if that were possible - is that the came as some kind of degenerate Romantic post - and anti - Enlightenment impulse that dredged back into the darker waters of Europe's past.

They would have been obscene at any time, of course, but coming after increased pluralism, improvements in health and social welfare and the other more positive benefits of 'progress' (and I'm aware that's a loaded term) then arguably that takes them to an even higher level of obscenity - if such a thing can be graded on those terms.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
G. You can't get that he won't get it.

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

Posts: 17009 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 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:
You admit that Charlemagne and others were mistaken in theory and practice, and that there were historical reasons for that - so far, so good - but you won't take the next unavoidable step and say they were wrong, not just in our terms, but in what they should have realised were their own.

In any area where there is genuine objective knowledge to be had, and therefore genuine progress to be made in understanding, there is no conflict between judging an action both absolutely in comparison to what would be good overall and relative to the knowledge and circumstances available to the agent at the time of acting.

On a neo-Aristotelian account of ethics, ethics is both a skill and a theoretical enquiry. That means that there are three aspects to ethical judgement: what someone did, what it was best and right for that someone to do considered absolutely, and what could reasonably have been expected of that someone given their previous development in that skill or the course of the enquiry so far.

So Bobby Fisher might be judged the greatest chess player in the history of the game even if many of today's grandmasters could beat him, just because it is from Fisher's innovations in tactics and strategy that today's grandmasters have learnt to play chess better than Fisher could.

To say that ethical statements are objectively true or false or right or wrong is to say that their truth and falsehood cannot be reduced to the best available judgement of the ethical agents who make them. To identify the best available judgement of an ethical agent with the absolute right or truth of the matter is therefore implicitly to abandon objectivity of ethical statements.

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

Posts: 10424 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Stir-RUTH man! I take it all back, me comment 5 minutes ago on the Social Progressive thread. That last paragraphic peak requires oxygen for me. I'll have a go at deconstructing it for plebs on the basecamp bus like meself.

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

Posts: 17009 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's possibly worth reflecting on why this argument is important. It's not as if anyone really wants to persuade conservative evangelicals that genocide is consistent with their religious and hermeneutical commitments.

What I'm trying to argue is not that genocide is consistent with the Bible but that it is not simple nor easy to show that genocide is consistent with the Bible. There is no simple refutation of the point that no reader competent in the grammatical-historical method could possibly reject.

There are three consequences:
First, that one ought to be cautious about asserting that violence is consistent with other people's Scriptures. If one is tempted to say that
quote:
a case for religious violence can be legitimately made from the Koran, though not all Muslims do, and those who do, don't necessarily obey it (out of cowardice, common decency or whatever)
then one should be aware that one's ground may be just the same as that of the Muslim who says the reverse about the Bible. Exegetical humility about other people's traditions, especially when one is making contrasts with one's own, is in order.

Secondly, the realisation that other people for what they took to be good reasons justified things from the Bible that we now see were unjustified ought to awaken us to the possibility that we may be in the same position. Even if we have what we take to be good reasons to read the Bible in a certain way we ought to be aware that we may still be wrong. If we think that the only way to justify what we consider ethically unconscionable things is to make clear and simple errors of interpretation we can convince ourselves that we can't be justifying anything unconscionable ourselves.

Thirdly, and most theoretical, I don't believe the Christian hermeneutic is purely grammatical-historical. The Christian hermeneutic is Christocentric and requires the interpreter to be prayerful and charitable. It's been a longstanding theme of Christian hermeneutics that the reader who has sinful habits will be unable to read the Bible in the spirit of charity in which it discloses its true meaning. Thus a reader who has been brought up in habits of avarice (or of sinful contempt for created goods) will be unable to correctly interpret passages of the Bible that deal with money and the use of created goods. While use of grammatical-historical methods may raise questions about such readings they cannot decisively convince the reader of their sin.

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

Posts: 10424 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Oddly enough, I do have a NT, but there is no way I would have been aware that it contained Romans 13 if you hadn't been kind enough to link it.

But apparently you don't own an Old Testament. For some reason you seem to reject anything there as invalid, even if backed up by the New Testament. For example, the slaughter of wrongdoing Baal worshipers backing up Paul's support of state violence against wrongdoers.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Let's see now:

Paul says that rulers bear the sword in order to deal with those who do wrong.

Practising any religion other than Christianity is wrong.

Ergo, Paul is exhorting rulers to kill all heretics and heathen.

Works for me - it's a watertight case.

No doubt you'll get captious carpers who want to argue that Paul is referring to ordinary law and order; that he couldn't be referring to the use of religious violence in support of Christianity when he commends rulers, because no ruler at the time was practising it; and that there is not the remotest hint of condoning governmental pro-Christian religious violence as a means of propagating the faith in the words of Christ, or anyone else in the NT.

Does Paul make a distinction between "ordinary" wrongdoing and "extraordinary" wrongdoing? If he does, I'm not aware of it. State punishment of religious malefactors was fairly commonplace in Paul's day.

The fact that no ruler at the time was a practicing Christian is only relevant if we conclude that Paul opposed the idea of Christians serving in government, something else for which there is no (as far as I can tell) scriptural basis either.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10506 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Dafyd. It's me I'm sure but should [not] be there: "What I'm trying to argue is not that genocide is consistent with the Bible but that it is not simple nor easy to show that genocide is [not] consistent with the Bible."?

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

Posts: 17009 | 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 
Is it a case of what they 'should have realised', Kaplan or what they 'could have realised'?

If Charlemagne and others 'should' have realised that the NT doesn't sanction religiously-motivated violence - and they wouldn't have separated out the religious realm from the secular in the way we tend to do today - then what 'could' they have done about it?

Over on the Kerygmania thread on Romans 13 hatless has dismissed the possibility of the verses in question being Pauline. He suggests that they were a later addition to the text on the grounds that they don't sound Pauline to him and also because he doesn't like them.

Rightly or wrongly, I submit that he doesn't like them because they can easily be used to justify state-sponsored violence of one form or other - including, presumably, religiously motivated state-sponsored violence in settings where that might be expected to be 'the norm' - as it would have been in Charlemagne's time.

I like what Dafyd has said.

It's not as if anyone here wants evangelicals - or anyone else - to embrace the possibility of using scriptural texts to justify violent oppression of religious minorities or heretics.

All we are saying is that if one is of a mind to do that and if one lived in a society where there was the expectation that the ruler set the religious polity for the territory itself, then that would probably be the default position. That was the default position for centuries. It took years and years and years for it to shift.

I don't 'get' why you don't 'get' it.

Nor do I 'get' why you keep arguing a case that is so palpably unhistorical that it belongs in the Museum of Palpably Unhistorical Curiosities.

Nor do I understand why some of the more evangelical posters here are arguing in a sphincter-clenchingly anal way that suggests that they were apprenticed to Tight Arse and Gradgrind.

Or why they are posting in so fuckingly binary a way as to imply that they are employees of the Fuckingly Binary Manufacturing Company Inc of No Nuance Ville, Binary County, Minnesota.

No, I don't believe the NT teaches or endorses genocide, religious oppression or anything of the kind.

That might not have been so apparently self-evident to Charlemagne, to the Crusaders, to Cromwell to anyone else who operated with a different kind of world-view to the one we are operating with.

It's less 'should they have realised' given the 'plain meaning of the NT', more a case of 'could they have realised' when they were reading the NT in the light of the particular circumstances, conditions and influences they were influenced by.

There's no Godwin's Law thing to bring in there.

Contextualise your history, unclench your sphincters, resign from that company in Minnesota and wake up and smell the coffee.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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 Martin60:
@Dafyd. It's me I'm sure but should [not] be there: "What I'm trying to argue is not that genocide is consistent with the Bible but that it is not simple nor easy to show that genocide is [not] consistent with the Bible."?

You are correct. The second 'consistent' should be 'inconsistent'.

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

Posts: 10424 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 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 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All we are saying is, like it or not, Christians are capable of some pretty heavy and unjustifiable shit.

And they are capable of justifying it (to their own satisfaction) from the Bible.
And the aroma of the coffee wafting into the room says that Mousethief is on the money.

They are capable of justifying it to what?

Gamaliel's satisfaction?

Kaplan's satisfaction?

Mr Cheesy's satisfaction?

Jamat's satisfaction?

Mousethief's own satisfaction?

No.

'To their OWN satisfaction.'

That might be the missing piece of the jig-saw here. I don't know.

Like it or not, Christians are perfectly capable of committing some pretty hefty heavy shit and of using the scriptures to do so.

That doesn't mean they are right to do so.

Of course not.

It's simply saying that they can and do, and that they did.

That neither impugns the NT nor its authors, nor does it relativise the whole thing either.

Get over it already. Here's a cup of coffee. Smell it. Taste it. Allow it to relax your screwed tight sphincters. You'll feel the better for it.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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: All we are saying is that if one is of a mind to do that and if one lived in a society where there was the expectation that the ruler set the religious polity for the territory itself, then that would probably be the default position. That was the default position for centuries. It took years and years and years for it to shift
And 'all we are saying...', begs the question of how it could possibly rely on any justification from the New Testament.

It can only do so if you eliminate all objectivity and all commonsense and pretty well all context from your reading of it thus merely creating a pretext to somehow justify the position that Christianity can somehow be seen as inherently able to justify enforcement of itself by military or political means.

Can't be done.

Posts: 2986 | 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 
'...is give peace a chance'.

[ 12. August 2017, 17:46: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

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

Posts: 17009 | 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 
It can and it has. I have demonstrated how. It depends on having a medieval mindset.

Try to pay attention Jamat.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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 Jamat:
And 'all we are saying...', begs the question of how it could possibly rely on any justification from the New Testament.

No, no it does not. Here is your huge gaping blind spot. It is a problem for justification from the New Testament given YOUR exegetical principles. But not given theirs. You see yourself as coming to the text with "objectivity and commonsense." So did they.

"But they were wrong!" you cry. Yes, I see them as being wrong also. I do think our exegesis here is more objectively valid than theirs. But they don't have our exegesis, they only had theirs.

Our descendants may look back and see us as just as heinously wrong on the dead horse issues of our day as we see Charlemagne wrong about this. Exegetical frameworks change and evolve.

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63203 | 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 
But Mousethief, they did have the same exegetical methods as us ...

Kaplan says so ...

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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 
Mind you, it makes you realise how bad things have got on this thread when it's the Orthodox who are talking about evolution and change ...

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It can and it has. I have demonstrated how. It depends on having a medieval mindset.

Try to pay attention Jamat.

You really do have a blind spot.
There is no connection between having a medieval mindset, (which incidentally Is no excuse more than having any other flavoured mindset. God cuts through cultures with his word and his spirit and the thing called conscience cannot be turned off by culture,) and what the NT states. Assuming they could read it or wanted to, conquerors find no justification for their actions there.

--------------------
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: 2986 | 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:
'...is give peace a chance'.

What did I say about dead horses?..Junior hosting off.

--------------------
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: 2986 | 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 
Yes, God's word speaks to us but in the context of our culture and milieu.

It took centuries for people to move away from ideas about imposing or defending a particular, unified belief system on society at large. I would argue that the Gospel helped that process, but these things don't happen overnight.

Christianity arrived in these islands some time during the early centuries of the Christian era but it didn't achieve full critical mass until around the 7th century - and even then it was necessarily expressed in terms that fitted the culture and society of that time. We do the same now, only in our case we don't go round imposing our faith by force because that's no longer how we see these things.

I'm not the one with the blind-spot here.

You seem to find it impossible to comprehend that other people in other generations didn't necessarily understand these things in the same way that you or I do. We think the way we do because of centuries of accumulated debates, disagreements, development and change.

None of this happens in a vacuum. Not for you, not for me, not for anyone else.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. When? At a particular time and in a particular place, in a particular context. The scriptures come to us in particular times, places and contexts. We all see in part and prophesy in part. But we still see.

How come slavery wasn't abolished until comparatively recently?

How come Cromwell didn't seem to find it incompatible with his faith to see the destruction of his enemies as providential?

You keep banging on and on and on about how the scriptures can't possibly be used to justify such things when it pretty clear from history that they have. That doesn't make it right, of course. But in order for any of us to understand Romans 13 in the way you or I or Kaplan understand it requires the necessary conditions for us to do so.

Those conditions weren't there in the 8th century.

You may as well complain that the monks on Lindisfarne didn't hold a Billy Graham style rally instead of courting the favour of the Northumbrian kings to further their mission.

Yes, they were counter-cultural to some extent, St Aidan is said to have given a horse the king gave him to a poor man. St Cuthbert famously stood in the freezing North Sea reciting the Psalms.

Yet as far as their missionary methods went, they could only operate within the thought-patterns of their time. Same applies to you and me.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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 Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It can and it has. I have demonstrated how. It depends on having a medieval mindset.

Try to pay attention Jamat.

You really do have a blind spot.
Um, yeah.

quote:
There is no connection between having a medieval mindset ... and what the NT states.
This is the huge blind spot of the 21st century American Evangelicalism. We don't have direct access to what the NT states. Nobody does. Each of us brings our exegetical framework to the text, and we read it through that as if through spectacles. It is on this point that trying to discuss the Bible with Evangelicals founders. "We have the bare meaning of Scripture; you all have interpretations," they believe. And it's daft.

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63203 | 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 
It's so ingrained that Jamat doesn't even realise he's doing it.

'But they had the NT in the 8th century. That means they should have interpreted it the same way as I do.'

Kaplan's arguments look more sophisticated at first sight but they bear little more scrutiny either.

I really don't know what to say or do next. Jamat doesn't understand. I think Kaplan does but for whatever reason doesn't seem to want to back down and see sense.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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: 'But they had the NT in the 8th century. That means they should have interpreted it the same way as I do.'

Not at all. What I would suggest is that interpretation is not the issue at all here. You are so focused on the difference culture makes that you totally ignore the way the exact same motives and impulses operate through all ages. Charlemagne had a conscience and also all the desire for power of any dictatorial leader. What he did was human. It was not Christian. It can not be sheeted home to Jesus' teaching.
Posts: 2986 | 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:
Gamaliel: You keep banging on and on and on about how the scriptures can't possibly be used to justify such things when it pretty clear from history that they have
What clear from history is that people then as now used lots of excuses and justifications for unjust actions. IMV, this does not come under the definition of hermeneutics.

--------------------
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: 2986 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been through this before with Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism. Lots of people will insist that you "can't" justify this that or the other from the Bible, furiously ignoring the fact that people already HAVE.

Whether it's RIGHT to justify this that or the other from the Bible is not the same question.

And it seems many people are incapable of grasping the disconnect between focusing on what HAS been justified in the name of Islam while insisting that for Christianity we must only look at what it is RIGHT to justify.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18148 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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:
Orfeo: I've been through this before with Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism. Lots of people will insist that you "can't" justify this that or the other from the Bible, furiously ignoring the fact that people already HAVE.

The fact that they claim to have done this, if in fact they have, does not mean that the Bible is their justification. Mostly this is self deception. They simply claimed something was done for God that was on their own selfish, worldly, agenda.

--------------------
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: 2986 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The fact that they claim to have done this, if in fact they have, does not mean that the Bible is their justification. Mostly this is self deception. They simply claimed something was done for God that was on their own selfish, worldly, agenda.

Isn't that equivalence a form of Bibliolatry?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10506 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 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 
The point I'm making, Jamat is that it IS about hermeneutics as whatever hermeneutic schema we use it's inevitably conditioned by a whole range of factors - cultural, educational, which particular Christian traditions we've been exposed to ...

You seem to believe that we can disaggregate our hermeneutic from our context. We can't.

Acknowledging that in no way diminishes the authority of the scriptures, nor justifies or condones abusive actions such as those of Charlemagne or Cromwell or you or I on an off day - for all of us fall short of the ideal - even if we don't go round putting people to the sword in the mistaken belief that we have some kind of providential warrant or right to do so.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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 : You seem to believe that we can disaggregate our hermeneutic from our context. We can't.

And you want to describe zeitgeist as a hermeneutic. That is what doesn't work. Can a 'hermeneutic' be unconsciously employed? To be a hermeneutic in the sense that I understand it, you'd have to show that specific reasons for actions were genuinely motivated by Biblical convictions and not just by the culture of the day or by Biblical 'justifications' ie cynically using the text.

--------------------
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: 2986 | 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 
Consciously or otherwise, we are influy by the zeitgeist and that, among other things, shapes which hermeneutical models we use.

Charlemagne was shaped by his zeitgeist.

We are shaped by ours.

It shapes what we have for breakfast as well as however might approach and understand the scriptures.

Besides, you seem to want to reduce everything to sitting down with a Bible.

There's more to everyone's faith than Bible study. Besides, it's anachronistic to expect people in the 8th century to have done that in the way we do - not that they didn't study the Bible in those days, monks and theologians did, of course, but they didn't come at it in the way you or I might. They came at it in an early medieval way.

We come at it in a 21st century way drawing on all the influences and developments that have shaped that. You come at it wearing conservative evangelical specs. Mousethief is wearing Orthodox specs. We are all wearing specs.

So, no, we can't disaggregate our hermeneutic from our particular tradition or context. No-one ever has. No-one ever will. I can't see why there's a problem with that. It doesn't reduce everything to a mush of relativity. It simply acknowledges the way things work.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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: so, no, we can't disaggregate our hermeneutic from our particular tradition or context. No-one ever has. No-one ever will. I can't see why there's a problem with that
That is why I think you have a blind spot. You are mixing disparate things. Hermeneutics, to me is about finding the word of truth which necessarily is going to transcend the current wisdom. It will do this because God is always outside of the zeitgeist.
Posts: 2986 | 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 orfeo:
And it seems many people are incapable of grasping the disconnect between focusing on what HAS been justified in the name of Islam while insisting that for Christianity we must only look at what it is RIGHT to justify.

As I pointed out upthread, a genuine case can be made both for and against religious violence from the Koran, and there are Muslims on both sides, but no genuine case can be made for religious violence from the NT.
Posts: 3238 | 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:
I'm more than happy to acknowledge that Charlemagne and others 'should' have realised that what they did was wrong

No-one - not me, anyway -is arguing that there were not cogent cultural reasons for the way Christians got things wrong in the past,.

No doubt future generations will nail the cultural reasons for the ways we Christians are getting some things wrong now.

But if wrong is wrong (and you yourself admit that Christian religious violence was wrong) then it can't be rationalised away by resort to historical relativism which, deny it as often and as prolixly and hyperbolically as you like, is effectively what you are doing.

Posts: 3238 | 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:
Besides (and another thing ...) If you are going to play the Godwin card, a sure sign that you are losing the argument, then it could be said that what makes the Nazi atrocities even more obscene - if that were possible - is that the came as some kind of degenerate Romantic post - and anti - Enlightenment impulse that dredged back into the darker waters of Europe's past.

They would have been obscene at any time, of course, but coming after increased pluralism, improvements in health and social welfare and the other more positive benefits of 'progress' (and I'm aware that's a loaded term) then arguably that takes them to an even higher level of obscenity - if such a thing can be graded on those terms.

By the same reasoning, Charlemagne had innumerable precedents in the lives of Christians who lived before him, and did not indulge in the slaughter of heretics and the heathen, for abstaining from the practice himself.

So did Cromwell, whom you cite ad infinitum.

It is sheer unmitigated, unhistorical bullshit to pretend that there was such a monolithic, continuous and hermetically sealed-off tradition of Christian religious violence from the NT onward, that figures such as Charlemagne were incapable of thinking outside it.

Posts: 3238 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  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:
As I pointed out upthread, a genuine case can be made both for and against religious violence from the Koran, and there are Muslims on both sides, but no genuine case can be made for religious violence from the NT.

What are your qualifications for saying this about the Qur'an? How much do you know about Islamic jurisprudence?
I would guess that a Muslim who knows as little about the Bible as you know about the Qur'an could make out a case for religious violence from the Bible easily.

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

Posts: 10424 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 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 
God transcends the zeitgeist, Jamat. We don't.

We see 'in part' until the Parousia.

We do see, though and we see enough to recognise that state-sponsored religious violence is unacceptable. We can see that because we live now and not in the time of Charlemagne.

@Kaplan. What do I need to do to get you to read for comprehension? I did not say that there was a single, mono-fucking-lithic interpretative framework in place from the end of the 1st century to the time of Charlemagne that made religiously motivated violence justifiable.

All I am saying, if you bothered to take your head out of your arse and read my posts properly, is that there are/were times when conditions conspire to make that possible and when it does, the perpetrators, be they Charlemagne, the Crusaders or Cromwell - whom I only include to show our friend Jamat that these things aren't restricted to his standard bete-noir of Roman Catholics - see no reason not to believe that they are acting in accordance with divine fiat.

It's appalling. But it has happened.

The point about our hermeneutic being shaped and influenced by our zeitgeist has been amply made on your own posts. Your example of Augustine's arbitrary allegorising for instance and his reaction / over-reaction to the Donatists.

Had Augustine lived in another era he probably wouldn't have allegorised so freely nor would the Donatist issue been a factor. Something else would have been a factor.

You are also still accusing me of seeking to justify religious violence. I'm not. Far from it. Stop making baseless accusations.

Listen, I can understand why you might want to assert that the Quran is genuinely capable of justifying religious violence and that the Christian scriptures aren't.

But again, that's binary-ville territory, Binary Ville, Northern Territory, north west of Alice Springs ...

People have understood Romans 13 in a way that would include state-sanctioned imposition and defence of a unified, corporate religious affiliation.

Why? Not because the NT 'teaches' such s thing but because they lived in societies which wouldn't have expected anything else.

Same with slavery.

It's you who are being unhistorical, not me. Unhistorical Ville, Queensland, somewhere in the rain forest north east of Cairns.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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 
Reading for comprehension would be welcome in your case too, Jamat.

I am not saying that the zeitgeist is a hermeneutic.

I am simply saying that it helps shape and inform our hermeneutic.

Can you not see the difference?

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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 
@Kaplan, I would submit that the reason nobody previously acted as Charlemagne did with the Saxons is that the conditions to facilitate such an action did not exist - although there were some presaging precedents in the way the later Roman emperors enforced religious uniformity.

Who was Charlemagne? Effectively a barbarian king (Frankish) with pretensions to revive Western Roman Empire with all that entailed from the perspective of his contemporaries - ie these things are to be achieved by force.

That was the context. I suspect he'd have felt very guilty had he committed sodomy or adultery or any other big sins from the perspective of his times - but he probably wouldn't have felt a great deal of compunction about executing people he considered to be rebels nor if imposing his own religion on others, by force if necessary. We don't like it and even Big T Tradition distances itself from such things these days - although that could change if right-wing hardliners had their way ...

So no, it is worthy of condemnation on all counts.

The context helps us to understand but not condone.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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 
The thing is that if one is working within a paradigm, within a mindset, within a worldview and within a hermeneutic, it is extremely hard to see outside of it. It isn't good enough to simply state "oh well they ought to have been able to see that this was wrong", when they clearly didn't. It's a childish way to understand history to suggest that people in the past did things because they were stupid.

The naysayers are also downplaying the power of perception. I was thinking today that there is quite a difference between those who drive on the road in cars and those who drive on a motorbike. The same problems look different to the person who has a different perception and it is quite hard to learn to appreciate another perception. A person who has only ever been in a car isn't necessarily going to do well on the road on a motorbike.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10327 | 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 
Yes, exactly.

Except the naysayers here aren't saying that people in previous generations were stupid. They are saying that what the Bible says is so obvious that you must either be wicked and evil or else to deliberately shut down your ability to understand it correctly in order to understand it differently or overlook the clarity of its teaching.

But your car and motorbike analogy still holds as they lack the imagination to perceive how the world might look from a different perspective.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Do the fascist Christians to a man (like most fascists) who descended on Charlottesville think for one moment that in the bowels of Christ they might be mistaken? Did the 10,000 strong overwhelmingly Christian mob who lynched Jesse Washington? Did any of these good, God fearin', Sunday-go-to-meetin' folk question their hermeneutic?

[ 13. August 2017, 13:00: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

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

Posts: 17009 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Orfeo: I've been through this before with Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism. Lots of people will insist that you "can't" justify this that or the other from the Bible, furiously ignoring the fact that people already HAVE.

The fact that they claim to have done this, if in fact they have, does not mean that the Bible is their justification. Mostly this is self deception. They simply claimed something was done for God that was on their own selfish, worldly, agenda.
It feels like you read my post, yet decided to completely ignore its meaning and carry out exactly the same mismatch of concepts I was describing.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18148 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And it seems many people are incapable of grasping the disconnect between focusing on what HAS been justified in the name of Islam while insisting that for Christianity we must only look at what it is RIGHT to justify.

As I pointed out upthread, a genuine case can be made both for and against religious violence from the Koran, and there are Muslims on both sides, but no genuine case can be made for religious violence from the NT.
And you too. Do you not get that your own assessment of whether the case is genuine is completely beside the point I was making?

I specifically comment on Christians only looking at whether it is right to justify violence from the Bible... and you go ahead and answer that question by saying no, it's not right.

And yet, people go ahead and do it anyway despite the fact that you, Kaplan Corday, say it is not right to do so. Your objection completely fails to restrain Christian terrorists from justifying themselves by reference to the Bible. Your power of persuasion mysteriously fails.

What are you going to do about it?

[ 13. August 2017, 13:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18148 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 orfeo:


What are you going to do about it?

He's just going to state the same stock phrase again, as if adding zero to zero enough times eventually makes 1.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10327 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And it seems many people are incapable of grasping the disconnect between focusing on what HAS been justified in the name of Islam while insisting that for Christianity we must only look at what it is RIGHT to justify.

As I pointed out upthread, a genuine case can be made both for and against religious violence from the Koran, and there are Muslims on both sides, but no genuine case can be made for religious violence from the NT.
No - both the Qur'an and the NT can be (mis)interpreted to command violence.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23075 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 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 
Apropos of the Big T Tradition angle on all of this, I've noticed that the Orthodox tend to be very critical of Charlemagne's actions too and maintain that violent enforcement of religious uniformity was never part of their own Tradition ... Although most of them will hold up their hands and acknowledge that it has been ...

Interestingly enough, perhaps, I've seen Orthodox online calling for their bishops to be more vocal in their condemnation of white-supremacy in the wake of the Charlottesville violence.

Others have cited instances of Orthodoxen who have been excommunicated for holding such views.

I'm not surprised the picture is mixed. I'd imagine it's always been that way.

To say that bozos like Charlemagne and the 'Confederate' activists of Charlottesville presumably thought / think that their actions are commensurate with the Gospel by no means undermines the NT in anyway.

Neither does recognising and acknowledging that we all approach the scriptures wearing specs.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Orfeo: I've been through this before with Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism. Lots of people will insist that you "can't" justify this that or the other from the Bible, furiously ignoring the fact that people already HAVE.

The fact that they claim to have done this, if in fact they have, does not mean that the Bible is their justification. Mostly this is self deception. They simply claimed something was done for God that was on their own selfish, worldly, agenda.
It feels like you read my post, yet decided to completely ignore its meaning and carry out exactly the same mismatch of concepts I was describing.
No, you are saying that atrocities have, historically been justified by the Bible. I said such justifications were hypocritical and bogus. Hitler's rationale for the 'final solution' for instance.
Are you now going to insist that if some idiot claimed a Biblical rationale for the moon being made of green cheese, that he would be following genuine hermeneutics?

Posts: 2986 | 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 
Jamat, as far as I can remember, there are no references to cheese of any colour in the Bible, but there are plenty of references to violence, even in the NT.

Posters have already gone to considerable lengths to explain how, given certain approaches and mind-sets, people could and would have understood these things differently in times past.

You don't appear to have read them and, if you have, you don't appear to be able to understand.

Yes, I'd agree it was a misinterpretation on their part. No-one is saying otherwise.

I think mr cheesy's analogy about cars and motorcycles is pertinent here.

I once knew an RC priest who observed to me that whilst he admired a lot of Protestant biblical scholarship, he couldn't understand how or why Protestants didn't understand the sacraments in the same way as the RCC. To him it seemed completely obvious and completely biblical to understand the sacraments / ordinances in an RC way.

Why was that?

Because he was RC.

He was riding a motorcycle, say, and not a car. Someone on a pushbike, driving a car or riding on the top deck of a double-decker bus, would undoubtedly see the same stretch of road differently and their own particular travel experience would be of a different order.

That's the point I'm making. Someone on the same stretch of road would 'interpret' that road according to the vehicle or mode of transport they were using. It's the same with 'tradition' and the same with hermeneutics.

I can't see how I could make the point any clearer. I also can't understand how you can keep missing the point completely.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15529 | 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 orfeo:
And yet, people go ahead and do it anyway despite the fact that you, Kaplan Corday, say it is not right to do so.

No, people go ahead and derive religious violence from the NT by either deliberately ignoring what it says, or using a shitty eisegetical approach to find what they have put there themselves.

On the other hand, acceptable exegesis can extract both religious violence and its opposite from the Koran.

Posts: 3238 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It's a childish way to understand history to suggest that people in the past did things because they were stupid.

Stupidity?

On the contrary, it can require extremely acute casuistry to get around something as obvious as the absence of any approval of religious violence in the NT.

quote:
I was thinking today that there is quite a difference between those who drive on the road in cars and those who drive on a motorbike.
Obviously a deep thinker.

Seriously, that is possibly the tritest analogy I have ever come across ( and yes, I have driven both cars and motor bikes).

Posts: 3238 | 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:
I suspect he'd have felt very guilty had he committed adultery

Seems unlikely in view of his record in this department.
Posts: 3238 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  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