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 | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Almost thou persuadest me (to the Roman Catholic Church) (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Almost thou persuadest me (to the Roman Catholic Church)
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, EE, it doesn't answer my question, because one could equally say that an argument from scripture is simply an argument from authority - the authority of scripture.

It cuts both ways.

You might not believe that the RCs and the Orthodox don't have reason on their side, but they would argue otherwise. They would argue that it is completely reasonable to trust the authority of Tradition, just as you would argue that it is perfectly reasonable to trust the authority of scripture.

Both are arguments from authority.

In which case, by your logic, both are equally absurd. You can't have it both ways.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The idea of turning the principle of "freedom of thought", "critical thinking" and 'logic' into just another 'tradition' is a new one on me, I must admit. It doesn't sound like there's much mileage in what looks suspiciously like sleight of hand.

It's a bit like two professors who disagree on the moral character of, say, Richard III. One says he was a rogue and the other says he was, well, pretty OK. Neither of them present any evidence to support their contentions, except that the former claims to have more authority, being the son, grandson and great-grandson of historians, and therefore standing in a "historians succession" and coming from a University (Oxford) that has greater pedigree and longevity than the Uni of the other professor (Leicester, say).

So a student listens to these two who simply say: "You have to believe what I say because I'm a professor, and you are just a little whippersnapper who should know his place". But the awkward little sod won't shut up and he dares to continue to ask for... gasp!... evidence!

Both professors turn on the unwashed presumptuous little urchin and say: "How dare you impose your tradition of demanding evidence on US!!!"

Yeah. Right.

Whatta joke!

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
No, EE, it doesn't answer my question, because one could equally say that an argument from scripture is simply an argument from authority - the authority of scripture.

It cuts both ways.

You might not believe that the RCs and the Orthodox don't have reason on their side, but they would argue otherwise. They would argue that it is completely reasonable to trust the authority of Tradition, just as you would argue that it is perfectly reasonable to trust the authority of scripture.

Both are arguments from authority.

In which case, by your logic, both are equally absurd. You can't have it both ways.

This is a category error.

Scripture can be evaluated logically. There is such a thing as "rightly dividing the word of truth". I am not talking about 'proof texts', but understanding.

Then you may say that RCC Tradition can be evaluated. True. And the conclusion I have drawn is that certain aspects of it are not true. I don't say that because I have a personal grudge against the Roman Catholic Church (and, in fact, I would love to be able to agree with them, to be honest).

An argument from authority based on the Bible would say that "such and such is the case simply because the Bible says so". Many thoroughly illogical and perverse ideas are justified on that basis (double predestination, for instance). That is not my approach. I look at the idea on its own merits and ask whether it actually makes sense. That is not basing my view on an argument from authority.

So your attempt to put a critical reading of Scripture in the same category as an uncritical submission to Tradition, is deeply flawed.

[ 06. June 2014, 21:11: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | 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 
No, it's nothing at all like that, EE.

We are all 'arguing from authority' - you, me, everyone else here.

It's simply that our arguments run along somewhat different lines.

The RC and Orthodox one would run something like the following:

'I trust Tradition because those nice people behind Tradition brought me the Holy Scriptures which tell me of Christ - and more than that, they actually convey means and methods that bring me close to Christ. Therefore I find their testimony trustworthy.'

The Protestant line on the other hand would run along something of the following lines:

'I trust the scriptures and submit to their authority because I believe them to the be the inspired word of God and therefore trustworthy.'

Both are faith positions. Both are arguments from authority. Both draw on reason.

From an RC and Orthodox perspective it makes rational sense to trust Tradition and the Church.

From a Protestant perspective, less so.

Both are arguments from authority, both are faith positions. I don't see any way around that. This doesn't undermine the truth of either of them necessarily but it is simply to acknowledge that this is what we are dealing with here.

You don't find the RC/Orthodox positions to be rational on the basis of what? Your belief that they aren't rational.

Your evidence is simply your own reason. You don't have any external evidence to draw on at all.

On one line of argument we could take you are effectively saying that the final judge and arbiter in any of these matters is EE. It is EE who decides what is rational and what isn't, it is EE who determines what should be accepted and what shouldn't.

What objective standard or 'evidence' do you have to reject these other faith claims other than the fact that you don't yourself except them.

You have marshalled no evidence one way or another.

You are arguing from authority in the same way as the RCs or the Orthodox are. Only, for whatever reason, you don't appear to grasp that fact.

Your interpretation is an interpretation just as much as anyone else's is. Whether it be the RCs, the Orthodox or Joseph Smith's. Obviously, your views are nowhere near as whacky and un-mainstream as Joseph Smith's - far from it - but you are still making a judgement call based on your own perception of reality.

Of course, you can do no other - as neither can I. But in terms of hard evidence there is no more evidence to support your contentions than there is to support those made by the RCs and the Orthodox.

All are based on interpretations and on arguments from authority. There is no way around that. I happen to believe that the core principles and beliefs that we all agree on and which we share with the RCs and Orthodox are true. I have reasons for doing so - but ultimately it is a faith position - one I have had to take a step of faith in order to adopt. I can't 'prove' it in a laboratory. But I believe it to be so.

IngoB and Mousethief can't prove their views in a laboratory but they believe them to be so. And they use reason to argue their case. It's simply that their reason leads them to adopt different conclusions to yours.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have given my reasons to support my point of view. I don't accept yours.

Make of that what you will.

I believe in objective truth.

You clearly do not (because if you did you would accept that it is possible to attain to a knowledge of the truth).

For you every spiritual idea is equally valid. For me, that is absurd.

It's as simple as that.

There is nothing more to say.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | 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 
Fine - except I do believe in objective truth and I don't believe that all spiritual claims are equally valid.

I'm simply suggesting that IngoB and Mousethief are using similar critical faculties and similar exercises of faith to reach the conclusions that they have reached.

It isn't any more true to say of them that they have switched off their brains and simply gone with what Tradition tells them to believe than it would be true to say that you have done the same in the particular direction you have gone down.

That's not to say that their arguments are any better or worse than yours.

I really don't understand why you have such a problem with accepting that people can reach different conclusions to those you have reached without having somehow lobotomised themselves.

Believe you me, I'm not out to pick a fight. I fully accept that you would love to agree with them but find it impossible to do so because of the conclusions you've reached.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that you are apparently appropriating to yourself the ability to discern what's right and wrong whilst denying them the same freedom - or so it seems to me. I've not phrased that very well but it's late and I'm tired and need to prepare some things for stuff I've got to do tomorrow.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that you are a 'spiritual fascist' or anything of the kind - but if you are to lay claim to having reason and rationality on your side then I can't see how you can deny IngoB and Mousethief the same.

They have both given reasons for why they trust Tradition in the same way as you have given reasons why you trust the scriptures. They would also claim to trust the scriptures - but they would see Tradition as 'the scriptures properly understood' - that's what they would consider 'rightly dividing the word of truth'.

I'm simply suggesting that there are different paradigms at work here and if any of us are going to understand one another we need to get to grips with what these actually entail instead of lobbing caricatured hand-grenades at each other ...

'You are some kind of fundie Bible-basher ...'

Or, 'You aren't using reason, you are simply going on what Tradition tells you ...'

We could decline one of those verbs again:

'I use reason and rationality to come to my conclusions.'

'You don't use reason and rationality and simply use arguments from authority and switch off your brains. It's obvious because you don't agree with me.'

Can you not see what I'm trying to get at?

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sigh. Gamaliel. You are felling ... feeling your way VERY well. Even though I am obviously of a post everything tradition and post wine, I WANT to understand how Tradition came about and how it is accepted, to empathise with those accept it. EE. I agree. But not with YOU as always. You're right, but form dominates, swamps substance. Reason and petulance are a bad rhetorical combination.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This is a category error.

Scripture can be evaluated logically. There is such a thing as "rightly dividing the word of truth". I am not talking about 'proof texts', but understanding.

. . . An argument from authority based on the Bible would say that "such and such is the case simply because the Bible says so". Many thoroughly illogical and perverse ideas are justified on that basis (double predestination, for instance). That is not my approach. I look at the idea on its own merits and ask whether it actually makes sense. That is not basing my view on an argument from authority.

But you're skipping over the fundamental question: Before you get to the step of "rightly dividing the word of truth," on what basis do you accept Scripture as "the word of truth" at all? On what basis do you consider the Bible to be a more authoritative witness to truth than, say, the writings of Greek philosophers?

[ 06. June 2014, 22:05: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Nick, that's partly what I was getting at.

I'm sure EE can give us a reason for that belief.

Just as IngoB and Mousethief can give us reasons for theirs.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
The issue is that you are apparently appropriating to yourself the ability to discern what's right and wrong whilst denying them the same freedom - or so it seems to me. I've not phrased that very well but it's late and I'm tired and need to prepare some things for stuff I've got to do tomorrow.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that you are a 'spiritual fascist' or anything of the kind - but if you are to lay claim to having reason and rationality on your side then I can't see how you can deny IngoB and Mousethief the same.

Dear IngoB and mousethief,

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but could I just ask a personal question?

Are you both grown men, able to stand on your own two feet?

You see, my problem is that I think you actually are, but your self-appointed guardian and protector seems to think otherwise. Apparently I am denying you something, because of my grave sin of thinking for myself. Apparently I have a superpower which enables me to screw with your minds when I engage my own. I never knew I had this ability. It has actually come as quite a shock to me, and it'll take me a while to come to terms with it.

Do please clarify this.

I am sure my initial suspicion was correct...

Kind regards,

EE

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Are you both grown men, able to stand on your own two feet?

Nope, not me. I'm a brainwashed slave of tradition. I haven't had a rational thought in about a decade. And I understand as objective truth whatever my ecclesial overlords dictate. Sorry to disappoint.
...
Damn. I really shouldn't have talked to you without asking Rome for permission first. There will be beatings, mark my words, there will be beatings. But now you must excuse me - I have to carefully tear these pages out of a bible to have a neat pile of toilet paper available, for whenever our Lord Bishop returns from raping helpless infants in the orphanage. Every word of scripture is useful in that way, you know?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't stop smiling IngoB. You have winning ways DESPITE yourself. Whereas EE, I shake my head.

God surely has a Jesuitical sense of humour.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
BWA HA HA HAA!!
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Well, does God tell us to do something and then expect us to do it in our own natural strength, kicking and screaming?

Philippians 2:13 suggests a different approach: "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure"

God's work in us transforms and reorients our will.

Sometimes. And no, of course He doesn't expect us to do things on our own, without Him. But I feel obliged to see your Philippians, and raise you a Jonah, whose response to being given instructions was to run as fast as he could the other way, whereupon God grabs him, slaps him around the head a few times, and says "I gave you a job to do."

We don't see God working in Jonah's heart to persuade him that Nineveh would be the ideal destination for a short vacation and a spot of light preaching - we see Him giving instructions.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB -

No, no, no. It's not Rome you need to worry about. Apparently it's little old ME!

Yesterday evening I learnt the shocking truth that I am allegedly 'denying' you and mousethief something or other, due to my insistence on committing the despicable sin of "thinking for myself" and daring to have a point of view (gasp!)!

As I said in my previous post, I am sure that you and mousethief are well able to stand on your own two feet, but it seems (according to one particular contributor) that I have this ability to deny other people the freedom to think for themselves, when I "appropriate to myself the ability to discern what is right and wrong"!! Apparently this appropriation denies you and our Orthodox pal the same freedom!

But, hey, I am relieved that this accusation is a load of bollocks, as your sarky reply makes clear.

I feel a burden rolled off my back...

Biohazard: you can now stop shaking your head.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

And after that little bit of fun, perhaps everybody would like to take extra special care to keep this Purgatorial from now on.

/hosting

[ 07. June 2014, 06:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm good with that.

Perhaps EE might like to start the ball rolling by answering Nick Tamen's* questions above.

That, I think, could go a long way to helping me understand why EE thinks, after all the counter-arguments put to him, he has "demonstrated" that the passage of scripture in question points conclusively away from the PV of the BVM. Beats the living crap out of me.

*Whose handle puts me firmly in mind of the motto of the Church of Scotland (no doubt intentionally).

[ 07. June 2014, 07:32: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht
But I feel obliged to see your Philippians, and raise you a Jonah, whose response to being given instructions was to run as fast as he could the other way, whereupon God grabs him, slaps him around the head a few times, and says "I gave you a job to do."

And I will raise you a New Covenant, a hand that beats the Old.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Even though I am obviously of a post everything tradition and post wine, I WANT to understand how Tradition came about and how it is accepted, to empathise with those accept it.

You are very kind Martin. I'm not so.

I just think we all tie ourselves in knots to justify what we instinctively believe. It's just that some tie bigger, more complicated, more inpenetrable knots than others. Some rely on tradition or scholars to do a lot of it for them. Other's, like EE, like to do it for themselves.

Each to their own - but all is justification in the end. It's what we do and how we treat people that matters, not how we expalin it imo.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen
But you're skipping over the fundamental question: Before you get to the step of "rightly dividing the word of truth," on what basis do you accept Scripture as "the word of truth" at all? On what basis do you consider the Bible to be a more authoritative witness to truth than, say, the writings of Greek philosophers?

As I am out "on the road" at the moment, and therefore reliant on snatching moments to type on my phone, I can't give much of an answer now, other than to say that the basic world view presented in the Bible is, in my view, more coherent with what I see of reality than that of its rivals.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | 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 
I will keep it as Purgatorial as I can - although I'm sorely tempted not to.

The day EE actually does think for himself and not within the confines of his own stultefyingly fundamentalist tradition is the day I'll get out the champagne.

Until then, I'll continue to insist that he is no more free of tradition than the RCs and the Orthodox are. He's simply operating from a different tradition than they are and one which, it seems to me, actually offers a lot less wriggle-room than his own position which is more of a strait-jacket than he currently perceives it to be.

But ice can thaw.


[Votive]

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The idea of turning the principle of "freedom of thought", "critical thinking" and 'logic' into just another 'tradition' is a new one on me, I must admit. It doesn't sound like there's much mileage in what looks suspiciously like sleight of hand.

It's a bit like two professors who disagree on the moral character of, say, Richard III. One says he was a rogue and the other says he was, well, pretty OK. Neither of them present any evidence to support their contentions, except that the former claims to have more authority, being the son, grandson and great-grandson of historians, and therefore standing in a "historians succession" and coming from a University (Oxford) that has greater pedigree and longevity than the Uni of the other professor (Leicester, say).

So a student listens to these two who simply say: "You have to believe what I say because I'm a professor, and you are just a little whippersnapper who should know his place". But the awkward little sod won't shut up and he dares to continue to ask for... gasp!... evidence!

Both professors turn on the unwashed presumptuous little urchin and say: "How dare you impose your tradition of demanding evidence on US!!!"

Yeah. Right.

Whatta joke!

You obviously don't know what tradition is. Neither is it possible, it seems, for you to understand that on the same authority you accept the scriptures, we accept tradition (to which the scriptures belong).

It seems that EE's "logic" cannot be wrong because, it seems, it comes directly from God (or so he would have us believe).

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, it's 50:50 then?

The post hoc because, because, becauses are as valid as their absence? TO ALIENATE.

The becauses evolved in the tumult of the second century. Their justification now as then (but NOT the same stream twice) is the assumption that they are the outworking of the Holy Spirit after the canonical - forensic first and second order - record ceased.

More than happy for that to be true for others AS LONG as they are not used to arbitrarily alienate. Which is impossible due to the placist power struggle that created them: the double arrogation of Peter.

So they are. THAT is the crux. That the arbitrarily alienated must bear. Alienation that is constantly justified here. A demand of obeisance twice removed.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Hot and Hormonal]

Whoops, should have said 'offers a lot more wriggle room'.

Whatever the case, the fact remains that we are all interpreting scripture through the lens of one tradition or other. Some of us just haven't realised that yet and fondly imagine that we are using impeccable and unassailable reason when really we are relying on arguments from authority just as much - or even more so - than those we oppose.

Funny that.

Of course, EE - and anyone else - is entitled to their opinion. Of course they are. I'm not denying freedom of speech or thought.

What I am questioning is EE's insistence that whatever position he articulates on the Ship is somehow based on sounder reasoning and more impeccable logic than anyone else's. Because it doesn't.

The rest of us, it seems to me, will generally acknowledge that and when we do defer to some kind of higher authority - whatever that might be - we gladly acknowledge this to be the case.

I wouldn't mind if EE couched his assertions in their proper context - that he had arrived at his conclusions through a combination of factors including scripture, reason, tradition and experience. Fine. But it's the way he insists that he has arrived at them by some kind of irrefutable logic that baffles me - because this clearly isn't the case and I don't understand why he has to continually bolster his own views by constantly appealing to that.

Unless he feels under threat in some way.

[Big Grin] [Biased]

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wish I could understand your posts, Martin, but I can't make head nor tail of them.

[ 07. June 2014, 09:11: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[Hot and Hormonal]

Whoops, should have said 'offers a lot more wriggle room'.

Whatever the case, the fact remains that we are all interpreting scripture through the lens of one tradition or other. Some of us just haven't realised that yet and fondly imagine that we are using impeccable and unassailable reason when really we are relying on arguments from authority just as much - or even more so - than those we oppose.

Funny that.

Of course, EE - and anyone else - is entitled to their opinion. Of course they are. I'm not denying freedom of speech or thought.

What I am questioning is EE's insistence that whatever position he articulates on the Ship is somehow based on sounder reasoning and more impeccable logic than anyone else's. Because it doesn't.

The rest of us, it seems to me, will generally acknowledge that and when we do defer to some kind of higher authority - whatever that might be - we gladly acknowledge this to be the case.

I wouldn't mind if EE couched his assertions in their proper context - that he had arrived at his conclusions through a combination of factors including scripture, reason, tradition and experience. Fine. But it's the way he insists that he has arrived at them by some kind of irrefutable logic that baffles me - because this clearly isn't the case and I don't understand why he has to continually bolster his own views by constantly appealing to that.

Unless he feels under threat in some way.

[Big Grin] [Biased]

Exactly.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I will keep it as Purgatorial as I can - although I'm sorely tempted not to.

Gamaliel, it is not a question of keeping it as Purgatorial as you can, it is a question of obeying the Commandments, Guidelines, and Crew.

You are already on Admin notice and have received multiple hostly warnings, including one just a few posts up. It may have escaped your attention that RooK has been reading this thread, as evidenced by him posting on it. Your behaviour may be construed as egging others over the edge. I strongly advise you to cease and desist. Again. Now.

/hosting

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We all of us, all of us ... I repeat all of us, read and interpret scripture within some kind of interpretative framework provided by our tradition. That applies whether we are Big T, small t or any points in between.

Agreed. And it seems to me that while many who count themselves Protestant recognise that, the opposite point of view - that Scripture always has a plain meaning that is accessibly to all - is recognisably Protestant, a pitfall into which Protestants in particular are prone to wander. Whatever name you give to those who preach "plain meaning", they come across as pretending, self-deceived, unaware of their own process.

On the other side of the room, a similar phenomenon applies. Catholics who claim to revere both Scripture and Tradition yet always resolve any tension between them in favour of Tradition come across as pretending (to a respect for Scripture that in practice they don't have) and self-deceived, blind to their own process.

Reason in the narrow sense is a process of arguing from premises to conclusion. It needs premises or axioms to start from. Reason on its own tells us nothing.

In our early-post-modern age, I think we all struggle to discern what are the truths that are above culture, by which different cultures can legitimately be judged and found wanting,and which are different equally-valid cultural ways of looking at the world. Like you, I believe the former category to be non-empty

Is big-T Tradition the denial of any standard by which one's own (in this case) religious culture can be judged ?

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Boogie, I beg to differ. I am NOT kind at all. I aspire to be, want to be. As do you as you demonstrate. In the face - Ad Orientem - of the structural unkindness of Tradition and worse in its defenders AND attackers.

Apologetics NEVER convince anyone. They are a crutch for those who believe already.

The only thing that works is what you identified. Loving one another, validating one another, respecting one another MORE highly than ourselves regardless of our two a penny beliefs.

Kyrie elieson.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Perhaps EE might like to start the ball rolling by answering Nick Tamen's* questions above.

. . . *Whose handle puts me firmly in mind of the motto of the Church of Scotland (no doubt intentionally).

[Biased] I've wondered at times whether anyone puts the two together. Perhaps I need a burning bush avatar.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ
Reason in the narrow sense is a process of arguing from premises to conclusion. It needs premises or axioms to start from. Reason on its own tells us nothing.

True. But the premises can be analysed logically, to judge whether they are consistent with reality. Of course, that would mean beginning with the premise that certain things exist, such as, for example, objectively valid reason (without which it is not possible to know anything), consciousness (from which flow certain implications, as Descartes noted), an external world, a moral sense, free will, an aesthetic sense and so on. Inferences can be made from the reality we experience (and 'experience' here does not imply subjectivism, in the solipsistic sense, because there are common experiences about which we can engage in dialogue and mutual description).

Yes, it is true that there are certain 'givens' in life, but these are so basic to our humanity that it would become self-refuting to doubt them. For example, one could attempt to argue that it is logical to doubt the objective validity of logic, but, of course, that would be an act of self-refutation. Likewise, one could say that we ought not to assume that there exists any kind of moral requirement, but again that would be self-refuting, because then we would need to ask why we ought to think like this.

But if you are implying that we should just accept everyone's presuppositions as equally valid, then nothing can be believed about reality at all. The reason is obvious. The atheist and the theist cannot both be right. The Christian and the Hindu cannot both be right. And so on...

So either we abandon the search for truth, thereby abandoning our minds and shrinking our consciousness in the process, or we accept that God has given us a tried and tested method to discern truth from falsehood. That method cannot be some vague notion of 'tradition', because then we would need to ask "which tradition are we supposed to blindly follow?" The only 'tradition' that is valid in our search for truth is the 'tradition' called the reality in which God has put us all - the reality made up of the 'givens' I mentioned earlier.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

But if you are implying that we should just accept everyone's presuppositions as equally valid, then nothing can be believed about reality at all. The reason is obvious. The atheist and the theist cannot both be right. The Christian and the Hindu cannot both be right. And so on...

I would say that we can. All of us have part of the truth, none of us have all of it. There are an awful lot of things which atheists say that I find far more reasonable than many theist's ideas.

When my son was at high school he was a Christian, his three best friends were Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. They all agreed they'd convert to Hinduism when the grew up because they had better parties. They spoke from experience!

(Yes, of course it was hugely limited, but I bet many here have less experience of other faiths!)

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
I would say that we can. All of us have part of the truth, none of us have all of it. There are an awful lot of things which atheists say that I find far more reasonable than many theist's ideas.

Yes, but what you are talking about is "pick and mix". That is not what I am saying.

Either "God exists" or "God does not exist". The two propositions cannot both be true.

Either Mary was a perpetual virgin or she was not. She surely could not have been both!!

And so on...

(Interestingly, by the way, "pick and mix" is the opposite of submission to a particular tradition.)

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Either "God exists" or "God does not exist". The two propositions cannot both be true.

Either Mary was a perpetual virgin or she was not. She surely could not have been both!!

And so on...


Yes - but we will never know for certain either way, this side of heaven.

So we all have to pick and mix - even if our picking and mixing is backed by amazing argument, incredible intellects, terrific theology and astoundingly compelling tradition. Because, of these kind of ideas, nothing is certain. So we live with it - the uncertainty.

There are those who need there to be a God. I am one of them. I simply can't let go of my belief in God (and I have tried)

There are those who need Mary to have been a PV - I am not one of them. It seems highly unlikely to me.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
Yes - but we will never know for certain either way, this side of heaven.

So we all have to pick and mix - even if our picking and mixing is backed by amazing argument, incredible intellects, terrific theology and astoundingly compelling tradition. Because, of these kind of ideas, nothing is certain. So we live with it - the uncertainty.

If nothing is certain, then it is rather strange that we hear talk about 'heresy' and 'error' and "false doctrines" etc. This is the kind of talk we hear from certain advocates of 'Tradition'.

Presumably there is no uncertainty in the minds of these champions of big T. Otherwise how on earth can they censure anyone for failing to believe their particular claims??

And then one has to ask what their certainty is based on. If not reason and evidence then what? The ex cathedra utterances of some exalted personage? And what if some people decide that they don't recognise that person as their particular guru? Why should they? It's just one person's insistent word against another's.

The entire psychology of unconditional submission to Tradition makes no sense to me, I'm afraid.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Either "God exists" or "God does not exist". The two propositions cannot both be true.

Either Mary was a perpetual virgin or she was not. She surely could not have been both!!

And so on...


Yes - but we will never know for certain either way, this side of heaven.

So we all have to pick and mix - even if our picking and mixing is backed by amazing argument, incredible intellects, terrific theology and astoundingly compelling tradition. Because, of these kind of ideas, nothing is certain. So we live with it - the uncertainty.

There are those who need there to be a God. I am one of them. I simply can't let go of my belief in God (and I have tried)

There are those who need Mary to have been a PV - I am not one of them. It seems highly unlikely to me.

I like this. I find the intellectual approach to religion hopeless, as it goes down too many rabbit holes. But I think there is a need in some people, which is part emotional, part aesthetic, part spiritual, for 'God' or whatever name you use.

I was walking through the shopping mall today, and heard a brief excerpt from the famous Albinoni adagio, and inside it was God. How can I explain that intellectually? Why would I bother? Incidentally, the adagio is supposed to be a hoax, but who cares?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

The entire psychology of unconditional submission to Tradition makes no sense to me, I'm afraid.

Agreed.

But reason and evidence also fall short when it comes to matters of God, as quetzalcoatl said. It still comes down to one person's insistent word against another's. If the beginning of the story is uncertain, ie the existence of God, then any reasons and evidences can be questioned and the answers fall short. But it doesn't matter! God is so much more than either, imo.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I like it too q. I acknowledge their need to exclude me on that basis.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The entire psychology of unconditional submission to Tradition makes no sense to me, I'm afraid.

I come at this as a Protestant, but it seems to me that there are two fundamental problems with this statement.

The first is the implication that those in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches who ascribe authority to Tradition—which as I understand it really means nothing more than the teachings handed down, some in writing and some orally, from the apostles and entrusted to the church—do so blindly rather than intelligently and based on reasoned decisions.

The second is avoidance of the question of how "unconditional submission" to the authority of Tradition is substantively different from "unconditional submission" to the authority of Scripture.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074

 - Posted      Profile for GCabot   Email GCabot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The entire psychology of unconditional submission to Tradition makes no sense to me, I'm afraid.

The second is avoidance of the question of how "unconditional submission" to the authority of Tradition is substantively different from "unconditional submission" to the authority of Scripture.
I believe the issue is a matter of viewpoint.

EE appears to be approaching this issue from the view that Scripture is divinely inspired, and thus worthy of unconditional submission. Tradition, would be considered a secondary, rather than primary source, and thus not authoritative enough to be unquestioned.

In contrast, the Catholic viewpoint is that Tradition is also primary source material, and is thus authoritative in interpreting Scripture. (Correct me if I am making a misstatement, since I am not RC.)

--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."

Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not quite. From an Orthodox perspective (and presumably an RC one too) Tradition is divinely inspired in the same way scripture is. Tradition isn't something separate from or adjacent to the scriptures. Tradition is the scriptures properly understood, that is, in the liturgy, the holy councils, the holy fathers and the lives of the saints. This is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen
The first is the implication that those in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches who ascribe authority to Tradition—which as I understand it really means nothing more than the teachings handed down, some in writing and some orally, from the apostles and entrusted to the church—do so blindly rather than intelligently and based on reasoned decisions.

If they accept the teachings of Tradition intelligently and based on reasoned decisions, then clearly they cannot be included among those described by my comment. And such people will be able to give good reasons why they believe what they do, and thus they would be able to defend their views without simply coming out with the bare assertion that "Tradition says so".

quote:
The second is avoidance of the question of how "unconditional submission" to the authority of Tradition is substantively different from "unconditional submission" to the authority of Scripture.
Maybe there are people who unconditionally submit to Scripture. If you read my reply to your earlier post you will see that I am not one of them.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I like it too q. I acknowledge their need to exclude me on that basis.

Who is 'they' who exclude you? I've got old and gaga now, Martin, and I see God everywhere. Religions therefore don't seem so relevant, if God is in the shopping mall and a bit of fake Albinoni.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I find the intellectual approach to religion hopeless, as it goes down too many rabbit holes. But I think there is a need in some people, which is part emotional, part aesthetic, part spiritual, for 'God' or whatever name you use.

So only atheism is intellectually sound?

Is that what you are saying?

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  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 EtymologicalEvangelical:
Maybe there are people who unconditionally submit to Scripture. If you read my reply to your earlier post you will see that I am not one of them.

EE, I'm truly trying to understand what you're saying, but I must admit, I'm having trouble. My apologies if the problem is on my end.

I am drawing a distinction between submitting to Scripture and submitting to a specific interpretation of Scripture. My understanding of what you've been saying is that Scripture is authoritative—we are not free to ignore it or discard it if we find that what it has to say to us is not to our liking—and that the task for us is to rightly understand, or "rightly divide," as you put it, what Scripture says.

It's that first part I'm getting at. It seems to me that we can only acknowledge Scripture as authoritative through faith. That the Bible is the Word of God cannot be empirically proven. We accept it because we believe it to be true or we deny it because we do not believe it to be true.

So what I'm asking is this: What is the difference between accepting, as a matter of faith, that Scripture is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and accepting, as a matter of faith, that the body of teaching called Tradition (of which Scripture is part) is the result the Holy Spirit's activity in the church?

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So what I'm asking is this: What is the difference between accepting, as a matter of faith, that Scripture is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and accepting, as a matter of faith, that the body of teaching called Tradition (of which Scripture is part) is the result the Holy Spirit's activity in the church?

I think I see two differences. Two people can accept Scripture as the Word of God while differing over how to interpret it on any given topic; but if someone accepts Tradition as authoritative then that requires certain beliefs / actions.

Then, what Tradition do we mean? There are several different claimed Traditions - the two big ones are obviously the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, but there are also groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses (and many smaller groups) who claim they are the 'One True Church' and their approach is authoritative.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think part of the answer here is that those proposing 'Tradition' as authority (almost) always also say that their tradition is supposed to be from the same apostles who were the source of Scripture either directly or through close associates like Luke. 'Tradition' isn't supposed therefore to positively contradict Scripture.

There is what the esteemed Gamaliel calls 'wiggle-room' here - Jesus himself often criticised very literal interpretations by his Pharisaic opponents and in effect told them to think about the purposes of the law as well as the (dumb wooden) literal meaning.

The problem comes when traditions end up defeating the original purpose, as Jesus pointed out in the episode about the 'Corban' tradition recorded in Matt 15 and Mark 13. I like the phrasing in the Berkeley version - "so you have made God's command spineless through your tradition..."

(Actually I like Berkeley quite a bit - it's an 'early modern' translation which is concerned with a bit more than just providing an 'easy' reading, and it's not afraid to use long words - I must check if I can get it on Kindle!)

Paul by the way makes both positive and negative references to traditions - check them for yourselves via a concordance.

I'm trying to prepare a post dealing with this in more detail - meanwhile, any comments on what I've said so far...?

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  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 South Coast Kevin:
I think I see two differences. Two people can accept Scripture as the Word of God while differing over how to interpret it on any given topic; but if someone accepts Tradition as authoritative then that requires certain beliefs / actions.

But both start with acts of faith, of choosing to believe, and that's what I'm getting at. Granted, what comes after that may differ.

quote:
Then, what Tradition do we mean?
I think in the context of this thread, it's clear that we mean what the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church would classify as falling within Tradition, which in each case is pretty well defined.

[ 07. June 2014, 23:56: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I find the intellectual approach to religion hopeless, as it goes down too many rabbit holes. But I think there is a need in some people, which is part emotional, part aesthetic, part spiritual, for 'God' or whatever name you use.

So only atheism is intellectually sound?

Is that what you are saying?

I'm not interested in what is intellectually sound. My experience of God is beyond certainty.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 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 
Meanwhile, what Nick Tamen said.

He's said it better than I can. So I will step back.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11 
 
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

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools