|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Great Christian thinkers
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
On 'Prayer for the day' this morning, Monday, BBC Radio 4 at 05:43, the speaker started by saying that on this day in 189?, one of the greatest christian thinkers of all time, John Henry Newman, ...'. I turned off at that point, but I've been thinking since then: what is the difference in general terms between a great christian thinker, and, say, philosophical thinkers, scientific thinkers, etc?
Now, you may think that, as an atheist, why am I asking this question?! But I'm wearing an 'enquiring minds want to know' hat; and this is the place where I have confidence in finding very interesting answers. So I do hope you don't mind my posing the question! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
By saying that someone is a great Christian thinker, you typically mean that what they are doing their great thinking about is strongly influenced by and/or related to being Christian. It's not enough to be both a Christian and a great thinker, one must significantly have to do with the other.
Werner Heisenberg, for example, was clearly a great thinker as physicist. He was also a dedicated Lutheran Christian, who publicly talked about the relationship between his science and his faith. But he was no great Christian thinker, or at least is not recognised as such so far, since his great thoughts advanced the understanding of physics not of Christianity.
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Do you mean- did the speaker mean- thinkers who happen to be Christians, or thinkers who think through a Christian paradigm (as one might speak of, say, a Marxist or liberal thinker)? If the latter, I would say that was the distinguishing mark- one whose thinking is based on the assumption, or at least incorporates the idea, that Christianity, in some form, has an explanatory or interpretive value, or reflects some truth about the world.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Assuming you mean what IngoB and Albertus think you mean, I'd suggest Dallas Willard without a moment's hesitation. C.S. Lewis as well maybe...?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
J. H. Newman was one of the greatest Christian thinkers of his time.
I think he was the greatest of the 19th century (whose name is widely known). His intellectual rigour and integrity are inspiring. He pursued the truth, as he perceived it, no matter what the cost. His sermons are beautifully crafted theological miniatures and still have the power to humble and surprise.
When his intellectual integrity led him from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, he went. And it's to the shame of the Anglican Church that I don't think we ever took to heart his critique of us.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
what is the difference in general terms between a great christian thinker, and, say, philosophical thinkers, scientific thinkers, etc?
No difference. Just different fields of contribution.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
When his intellectual integrity led him from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, he went. And it's to the shame of the Anglican Church that I don't think we ever took to heart his critique of us.
What was his critique of us?
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Almost any field will have great thinkers of their time. Newman wouldn't jump to my mind precisely because his crossing the Tiber calls into question the quality of his thinking. I wouldn't deny he was a force to be reckoned with, but his conclusions were certainly questionable.
Others that come more readily to mind would be Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Menno Simmons, C.H. Spurgeon, Karl Barth and I think Tom Wright might well be one of the recent thinkers who could be added to that illustrious group.
Of course, anyone's choice will be influenced by those they've been exposed to, what tradition (if any) one belongs to.
Though, of course, one needn't agree wholly with them to have due respect for them.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
When his intellectual integrity led him from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, he went. And it's to the shame of the Anglican Church that I don't think we ever took to heart his critique of us.
What was his critique of us?
This'll have to be a brief, broad-brush sketch, and is also partly my interpretation of how I read Newman. For more of the story, go to his Apologia pro Vita Sua. (The title's Latin, but the book is in English!)
During his Tractarian period, it was Newman's hope to demonstrate that the Church of England possessed continuity with Patristic Christianity, and, to an extent, with pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism. This continuity was what allowed the Church of England to call itself "Catholic".
Some people take Tract 90 as the high-water mark of this project. In that work, he sought to reconcile the 39 Articles of Faith with mainline Catholic teaching. (Personally, I think he massively over-pitches his argument and loses credibility. There are bits of Tract 90 that to me begin to look like desperation - and suggest that he was beginning to lose confidence in his own argument.) However, around that time he also began to have doubts about the Church of England as an institution. I think his biggest problem was the CofE's relationship with the State, and it's primarily this point that I would describe as the core of his critique of Anglicanism. In the Apologia he describes looking back on the CofE - with a rare and disappointing hint of bitterness - as "a mere national institution". I think that perception was one of the prime factors that convinced him that he belonged elsewhere.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Many thanks for the responses and sorry I had to go out unexpectedly this morning , so couldnt be here to see them sooner. I'll have a proper read this afternoon.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
'Thinker' is an interesting term. I think it corresponds to 'public intellectual', but sounds less pretentious. It implies less formality and involvement in the academic process than philosopher or economist or theologian; but more intellectual rigour than a newspaper columnist.
'Christian thinker': well, it could mean, a thinker who is Christian, or a thinker who thinks from the Christian tradition, or a thinker who thinks primarily on behalf of other Christians, or a thinker who thinks from the Christian tradition about Christianity.
If you think much of Dawkins' thinking (when he isn't talking about biology) you could call him an atheist thinker. I think that even were one inclined to call Dawkins a thinker one wouldn't call him a thinker at all when he's doing actual academic scientific work, though one might do it when he's doing public understanding of science. If you're thinking within an actual discipline, you're not a thinker - a thinker is primarily directed at the public.
John Gray is perhaps a more unqualified example of an atheist thinker.
In so far as philosophical or scientific thinkers are genuine categories, I doubt they and Christian thinker are exclusive categories.
I suppose the work of Newman that most qualifies him as a Christian thinker would be the Idea of a University, which I believe was a major influence on the philosophy behind university education in England at least, until Thatcher and Blair.
[ 11. August 2014, 17:39: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I suppose one of the problems of giving people a title including the word ‘great’ is that it is often applied after the person has died! My task for the week will be to look up all the people who have been mentioned here, and learn more about their thinking. The phrase, great Christian thinkers’ is one I don’t remember coming across before, so it caught my attention.
I wonder how the thinkers themselves assessed their influence for good.
[ 11. August 2014, 17:57: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
From the liberal camp, Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich and John Macquarrie are good candidates.
Popularizers like Richard Holloway and John Shelby Spong are thinkers in different sense, in their application of their wide pastoral experience. (Another popularizer, John Robinson, was of course a scholar in his own right.)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Tangent alert: was the primary difficulty or problem that. Newman had in his Tractarian project that he was trying to reconcile the CofE of the 39 Articles with Patristic and Pre-Reformation Christianity? IOW, his starting place was impossible. The 39 can only be reconciled with the historic Church by twisting some of them all up in a way that just isn't congruent with "original intent". ISTM that the project only has some chance of success when the 39 are cast aside and the historic continuity of the CofE and Anglicanism with the Patristic Church is defended on the basis of more organic grounds. This seems easier to do today in TEC, where the 39 have never had authoritative standing and have now been relegated to the status of mere "historical documents", and where catholic Eucharistic theology has been in semi-official ascendency for a century or more.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Almost any field will have great thinkers of their time. Newman wouldn't jump to my mind precisely because his crossing the Tiber calls into question the quality of his thinking. I wouldn't deny he was a force to be reckoned with, but his conclusions were certainly questionable.
This argument seems close-minded and a bit arrogant, IME.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
I would consider T.S.Eliot's later poetry examples of considerable Christian thought.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
On 'Prayer for the day' this morning, Monday, BBC Radio 4 at 05:43, the speaker started by saying that on this day in 189?, one of the greatest christian thinkers of all time, John Henry Newman, ...'. I turned off at that point, but I've been thinking since then: what is the difference in general terms between a great christian thinker, and, say, philosophical thinkers, scientific thinkers, etc?
Now, you may think that, as an atheist, why am I asking this question?! But I'm wearing an 'enquiring minds want to know' hat; and this is the place where I have confidence in finding very interesting answers. So I do hope you don't mind my posing the question!
t's not an uncommon expression to describe somebody as an atheist thinker or a Christian or Jewish thinker surely, its self-explanatory terminology. If you google it you find lots of information, so what's really at the heart of bringing the issue here, it must be more than just definitional? I do admit to being a bit defensive when somebody who appears to sit within the Dawkins school of atheism asks such a question, I expect their assumption is "Christian thinker" is an oxymoron.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Kierkegaard and of course travelling back through history Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Almost any field will have great thinkers of their time. Newman wouldn't jump to my mind precisely because his crossing the Tiber calls into question the quality of his thinking.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Oh wait, were you serious?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
Some people have great thoughts but don't live long enough to become 'public intellectuals'.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It's not an uncommon expression to describe somebody as an atheist thinker or a Christian or Jewish thinker surely, its self-explanatory terminology. If you google it you find lots of information, so what's really at the heart of bringing the issue here, it must be more than just definitional? I do admit to being a bit defensive when somebody who appears to sit within the Dawkins school of atheism asks such a question, I expect their assumption is "Christian thinker" is an oxymoron.
I think one of the reasons the phrase 'great Christian thinkers' caught my attention was the word 'great'. I googled 'great atheist thinkers', but none of the links used the word 'great'. There were no links to 'great x, y, z thinkers' either. I assure you that my OP does not have anything cynical about it! I have a lot of respect for posters here and their extensive knowledge of the subjects in Purgatory. and I learn a lot.
Thank you for the suggested names to look up.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think one of the reasons the phrase 'great Christian thinkers' caught my attention was the word 'great'. I googled 'great atheist thinkers', but none of the links used the word 'great'.
Yes, atheists tend to use words like "bright" or "free-thinking" or "rational." Same diff.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'Thinker' is an interesting term. I think it corresponds to 'public intellectual', but sounds less pretentious.
That whole post of yours was most interesting; thank you.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bene Gesserit
Shipmate
# 14718
|
Posted
Watchman Nee? I haven't read any of his stuff in donkeys' years but when I was a teenager his writing seemed very deep.
--------------------
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus
Posts: 405 | From: Flatlands of the East | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There were no links to 'great x, y, z thinkers' either.
There is a distinction between 'being good at thinking about X' and 'being good at doing X'. A lot of actors seem surprisingly unthoughtful about their craft but do it superbly. On the other hand some subjects demand, primarily, thought: philosophy or mathematics for example. Their subject is thinking. You could however be a great Christian without being a great thinker.
Whether you read any theology or not, I'd recommend Richard Holloway's "Leaving Alexandria". It's the usual story: kid from working class slum becomes Bishop of Edinburgh and then resigns. Well not that usual I guess.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bene Gesserit:
Watchman Nee? I haven't read any of his stuff in donkeys' years but when I was a teenager his writing seemed very deep.
Many teenagers think Ayn Rand is really deep.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
I am tempted to name Martin Buber as a great Christian thinker, despite his being Jewish rather than Christian. I think - like Gandhi - his influence goes well beyond the religious community with which he was associated.
And, of course, Gandhi himself, for similar reasons.
So perhaps they rate as great religious thinkers in a more generic sense - and available to Christians for that reason.
I remember CS Lewis pausing in one of his books to note briefly "Buber is so good".
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Wikkipedia has been very helpful - and I have enjoyed looking up all the names and reading a little about each one mentioned. I can seee there is plenty more for me to read and think about. However, I think I'm going to be a bit busy for the next week or so, as even though my aortic valve replacement really gave me a whole new lease of life, the right carotid artery has become somewhat furred up and, after a couple of brief but noticeable warning symptoms, the NHS have decided to sort me out ! Well, tap dancing starts again in a few weeks, so I've got to be fit for that!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
I am tempted to name Martin Buber as a great Christian thinker, despite his being Jewish rather than Christian. I think - like Gandhi - his influence goes well beyond the religious community with which he was associated.
And, of course, Gandhi himself, for similar reasons.
I think this is (1) cultural/religious appropriation and thus morally indefensible, and (2) twisting the meaning of the term. Great Christian Thinkers ought to be Christians. It's what the term means. Sure there are great thinkers who are not Christians. They would fall under the term Great Thinkers. The "Christian" has to mean something other than "Christians could learn something from them." That is true of virtually all Great Thinkers (I'm having a hard time thinking of a Great Thinker who isn't a Christian and from whom Christians couldn't learn at least a little something.)
But even though we (meaning we people who refer to ourselves as Christians) bicker about the meaning of the term, it is unwise and rude to apply it to someone who does not, and indeed would probably be averse to applying it to themselves (as we know Ghandi was).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Almost any field will have great thinkers of their time. Newman wouldn't jump to my mind precisely because his crossing the Tiber calls into question the quality of his thinking. I wouldn't deny he was a force to be reckoned with, but his conclusions were certainly questionable.
There's something that seems off about this, and not just because I'm Catholic. I was at a talk L.T. Johnson (who happens to also be Catholic) gave once and he made a remark along the following lines: "Even though Tillich was right about more things, there's no question that Barth was the greater mind."
I happen to agree entirely with Johnson. I don't put this forward to discuss those particular convictions, but that my evaluation of someone as a "Christian thinker" is pretty disconnected from how many of their conclusions I think are right. This would be very different from my evaluation of someone, say, as a "mathematical thinker."
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I agree with Mousethief about the appropriation, was trying to think how I would say it but MT did it better than I could.
Susan Doris, hope the NHS sorts you out appropriately and quickly.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
I am tempted to name Martin Buber as a great Christian thinker, despite his being Jewish rather than Christian. I think - like Gandhi - his influence goes well beyond the religious community with which he was associated.
And, of course, Gandhi himself, for similar reasons.
I think this is (1) cultural/religious appropriation and thus morally indefensible, and (2) twisting the meaning of the term. Great Christian Thinkers ought to be Christians. It's what the term means. Sure there are great thinkers who are not Christians. They would fall under the term Great Thinkers. The "Christian" has to mean something other than "Christians could learn something from them." That is true of virtually all Great Thinkers (I'm having a hard time thinking of a Great Thinker who isn't a Christian and from whom Christians couldn't learn at least a little something.)
But even though we (meaning we people who refer to ourselves as Christians) bicker about the meaning of the term, it is unwise and rude to apply it to someone who does not, and indeed would probably be averse to applying it to themselves (as we know Ghandi was).
Please also quote my final paragraph - otherwise you are distorting my post:
quote:
MSHB also wrote:
So perhaps they rate as great religious thinkers in a more generic sense - and available to Christians for that reason.
(my emphases)
You see, I revised my train of thought and classified them as "religious" - the "available to Christians" clause would also apply equally well as "available to Muslims", "available to Buddhists", etc.
I have often given fellow Christians books about Buber. We are allowed to read him.
Leaving out the final paragraph distorted what I wrote. It is selective quoting.
I began with "I am tempted ..." (note: not committed) - I was thinking out aloud - and ended up with "So ... they are great *religious* thinkers". But you stopped at the initial temptation and didn't quote the conclusion.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
I think what I am trying to point out is expressed well in this quote:
quote:
http://www.gratefulness.org/giftpeople/martin_buber.htm:
Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher and theologian, was one of the great religious thinkers of the twentieth century. Among Jewish thinkers he had a particular impact on many Christians, stimulating an appreciation for the Jewish origins of Christianity.
Buber was not only a great Jewish thinker (and there have been quite a number of these), and a great religious thinker (he was, after all, a professor of comparative religion, and even wrote some passages about Buddhism and about classical Greek religion), but also he has had a significant impact specifically on a number of Christian theologians. The connection between Buber and Christianity is more than just "Christians can read him with profit".
quote:
same page: Among modern Jewish religious thinkers, none had so great an impact on Christian theology as Martin Buber.
To address the point of the thread:
If someone who identifies as an atheist wanted to read great Christian thinkers, and was willing to broaden that scope to include great religious thinkers in general (in this instance, I am referring specifically to people who have been influential beyond their own religious community, and who have been influential with many Christians), then I think Buber and Gandhi would be worthwhile suggestions for that person to read.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Leaving out the final paragraph distorted what I wrote. It is selective quoting.
No. Let's get over this absurd notion. It leads to people quoting entire gigantic nested passages and adding a single line to the end. I don't have to quote everything you wrote. If I left out something you wrote in my reasoning, then point it out to me. I really don't have to quote what you wrote at all; I could write "MSHB in his post of 17:25 said blah blah blah". The quoting thing is an easy way to show what I'm responding to. But the idea that somebody has to quote an entire post or they are "distorting" what you wrote is absurd. Tell me I missed something. Tell me I overlooked something. Tell me I need to take into account what came after the bit that I quoted.
But don't tell me I'm "distorting" what you wrote. That's BS.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Great Christian Thinkers ought to be Christians. It's what the term means. Sure there are great thinkers who are not Christians. They would fall under the term Great Thinkers. The "Christian" has to mean something other than "Christians could learn something from them." That is true of virtually all Great Thinkers (I'm having a hard time thinking of a Great Thinker who isn't a Christian and from whom Christians couldn't learn at least a little something.)
Sorry to sound a bit cynical. 'Great Thinker' means either 'someone who does it for the speaker', or sometime 'somebody the speaker wants you to think they've actually read'. 'Overrated Thinker' means 'someone other people go on and on about who doesn't do it for the speaker'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Leaving out the final paragraph distorted what I wrote. It is selective quoting.
No. Let's get over this absurd notion. It leads to people quoting entire gigantic nested passages and adding a single line to the end. I don't have to quote everything you wrote. If I left out something you wrote in my reasoning, then point it out to me. I really don't have to quote what you wrote at all; I could write "MSHB in his post of 17:25 said blah blah blah". The quoting thing is an easy way to show what I'm responding to. But the idea that somebody has to quote an entire post or they are "distorting" what you wrote is absurd. Tell me I missed something. Tell me I overlooked something. Tell me I need to take into account what came after the bit that I quoted.
But don't tell me I'm "distorting" what you wrote. That's BS.
The issue is not the physical quoting of text.
If I say "I am tempted to think A ... (hmmm, thinks more) ... so maybe I'll think B", it is selective to quote "I am tempted to think A" and then criticise A as though that were my decided position. To do so ignores my actual conclusion B: it ignores the progression of my thought. You quoted A, you failed to quote B.
I did not maintain that Buber is a Christian thinker. I explicitly said I was tempted to maintain that, but then I actually proposed that he was a great religious thinker in the generic sense - and "for that reason" he was available to Christians: we actually read him as a great generic religious thinker, not as a Christian thinker.
The improper temptation was avoided, there was no actual decision to name Buber as a Christian thinker, no appropriation.
[ 14. August 2014, 14:40: Message edited by: MSHB ]
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
The issue is not the physical quoting of text.
Then why did you make that an issue?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
WTH: I'll go with Rush Limbaugh.
I once heard him say his Christian faith is 'profound'. Personally I'm in no position to argue. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
And when you listen to him trying to tune out the bombast you do hear glimmers of someone who has been there and done that and lived to tell about it, with an enthusiasm few could continue to muster had they achieved what he has.
(Probably the most important thing for his critics to recognize is he is arguably one of the best marketers extant.)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
(Probably the most important thing for his critics to recognize is he is arguably one of the best marketers extant.)
Is he? He is losing advertisers faster than he can count his illegal pain pills.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is he? He is losing advertisers faster than he can count his illegal pain pills.
You're responding to him. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
And I suppose he's somehow managed to provide for his familial obligations.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is he? He is losing advertisers faster than he can count his illegal pain pills.
You're responding to him.
And I suppose he's somehow managed to provide for his familial obligations.
One needn't be one of the best marketers extant to have these things true of him.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One needn't be one of the best marketers extant to have these things true of him.
Fair enough.
But I thought you were intent on trashing Rush?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One needn't be one of the best marketers extant to have these things true of him.
Fair enough.
But I thought you were intent on trashing Rush?
I was intent on calling out a grossly absurd claim.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
WTH: I'll go with Rush Limbaugh.
I once heard him say his Christian faith is 'profound'.
I'm subjected to three hours a day of Lush Rimbaugh, and I've never heard him refer to his faith as "Christian"; never heard him reference Christ; never heard him reference the teachings of Christ, the apostles, or the fathers; and I've never heard him discuss spirituality at all.
The only references I've heard him make to Christianity at all are the power of the Con Evo voting block and how Pope Francis is a (evil, implied) socialist.
I can't for the life of my understand how you'd define him as a "christian thinker" much less adorned with the adjective "great".
Care to clarify, Moron?
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm puzzled by the direction this thread is going in. I've never heard of Rush Limbaugh. Looking him up on Wikipaedia, he appears to be rather a loud mouthed chat show commentator. Leaving aside the Christian question, is that likely to mean he's likely to be a 'Great Thinker'?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've never heard of Rush Limbaugh.
OMG you're lucky.
I'm sorry, but is he really truly being seriously suggested as a ... hell, as a "thinker," much less great or Christian?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm puzzled by the direction this thread is going in. I've never heard of Rush Limbaugh. Looking him up on Wikipaedia, he appears to be rather a loud mouthed chat show commentator. Leaving aside the Christian question, is that likely to mean he's likely to be a 'Great Thinker'?
Mr. Limbaugh is not a (great) thinker.
But he provides what (in 2012) 15M listeners wanted to hear.
He's just big business, pandering to people who like to think themselves decent, or even Christian, without having to act decent or Christian, see examples provided by ChastMastr.
He is just another example of your financially successful corrupt tvangelist, propagandist "news" channels like Fox News, etc.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
