it's His followers I could live without - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-08-2006, 11:30 PM   #346
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 11:04 AM
I'll be completely ignored with this, but what the hell.

Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Quite simply - there is the way things ought to be (Kingdom of God), and the way things are (the World).
My question has nothing to do with sex, but I'll ask it anyway, and it's a real question, not a set-up.

According to you, why did God create the world and humans?
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-08-2006, 11:58 PM   #347
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:04 PM
In my opinion - to reflect back His love.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 01:53 AM   #348
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ZeroDude
Do I need to cite sources?

In regards to ‘sin’, I do believe that one has to take into account the fact that morality is often a subjective and culturally manipulated concept. So, to be honest, in my opinion, a lot of the more inter or intra-personal issues such as one’s sexuality should never be subjected to the same strict western, pseudo Judaeo-Christian morality system as murder, which in most historical cases, outside of sacramental sacrifices or other religious contexts, is, and has been, universally frowned upon.

Nevertheless, the above due to its admittedly flaccid nature, doesn’t hold water once people question said moral subjectivity beyond human reason. A response concerning the ethical or moral beliefs of a mass murderer would be expected in an attempt to undermine such comparatively rational thoughts.

Then again, if one equated the actions of a homosexual to those of a murderer, I wouldn’t hesitate in suggesting that such a person requires professional help.
I encourage you to read the entire Book of Romans. Even if you are a non-believer - it will certainly shed some more light on what I have written here. And you will also that certain posters here purposely leave themselves in the dark and deceive others in order to justify their own behavior.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:09 AM   #349
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Well actually that's up to debate, yes the command was made prior, according to Genesis, but many don't believe there's any evidence of sex prior to the fall.
If you assume that sex is a post-fall activity, then you wind up falling into the same lot with ultra-conservative Christians who believe sex is solely for procreation and any enjoyment thereof is sinful. But if all things were created to be enjoyed if received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4), and sex did exist in the Garden (and there's no evidence that it didn't), then you open a whole different can of worms in terms of the role of sex in humanity's created state.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:11 AM   #350
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


Such things as "context," "interpretation," and "intention" are considered irrelevant to the printed word.
This is a lie. A flat out lie. You are either completely ignorant about this or you are purposely deceiving people. Every class of interpretation that I’ve taken deals with all 3 items you have mentioned – almost to the point of exhaustion.

I suggest you go to a conservative seminary and take a Biblical Interpretation class and THEN see if you can honestly come here and say these things. There are many people at these seminaries filled with love and are EXTREMELY intelligent. Like you, they want to improve the world. I don’t expect you to agree with everything we say, but I expect you to be honest.

I’m surprised the moderators didn’t mention something about this quote. You apparently have free reign here because your views are seen as "progressive" and "beautiful" - but the truth is: you are deceiving people. And I feel I should call that out until I am banned.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:27 AM   #351
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


If you assume that sex is a post-fall activity, then you wind up falling into the same lot with ultra-conservative Christians who believe sex is solely for procreation and any enjoyment thereof is sinful. But if all things were created to be enjoyed if received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4), and sex did exist in the Garden (and there's no evidence that it didn't), then you open a whole different can of worms in terms of the role of sex in humanity's created state.
Well you missed my point of saying I don't take Genesis and much of OT literally.

But for those who do, the first conception DID take place after the fall, there is no evidence when sex occured, but with the logic of AEON's post every conception was wrong...,as he put it.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:33 AM   #352
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
In my opinion - to reflect back His love.

If that's the case what a pathetic being it must be.

Think about it. Wouldn't you consider a person who had a child so that the child would love it (the parent) pathetic? I sure do. And if a person is pathetic for doing it, a god sure the hell is even more.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:48 AM   #353
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


This is a lie. A flat out lie. You are either completely ignorant about this or you are purposely deceiving people. Every class of interpretation that I’ve taken deals with all 3 items you have mentioned – almost to the point of exhaustion.



I realize you aren't done with your seminary classes, but I've already seen many of your post that ignore context.

Interpretation will always be up for question, and I do hope conservative seminary schools and theologians pay attention to all texts and information out there...

But intention is one where I completely agree with Melon. Almost all seminary classes I've taken eliminate intention. Almost all accept the text to be purely from God's mouth. So if Paul had a personal agenda it was completely ignored.

So a complete lie? No.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:54 AM   #354
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:04 PM
I've been following the posts on this thread for a couple of days now, weighing the various arguments back and forth, trying to get a sense of the patterns of reasoning that are going on from both sides of the issue.

As I see it, I'm not sure that either side of the scholarly interpretation of the references to homosexuality in the Bible can be considered totally free of bias.

After all, conservative theologians have an interest in reinforcing conservative views about theology, especially in todays overheated religious climate where many conservatives feel desperate to hold back the tide of homosexual "agenda" that they perceive to be sweeping through society, and what seems to be a cataclysmic decimation of the nation's moral fabric. Now more than ever conservative scholars will certainly have an "agenda" as well in preserving a particular interpretation of Paul's writings.

Likewise, of course liberal theologians seeking to provide scriptural support for gay relationships will also tend to interpret the scriptures in their favor as well.

And secular scholars, who don't consider the Bible to be inspired may also be biased towards demonstrating its invalidity as anything more than a religo-cultural collection of stories.

So all sides can hurl accusations of "bias" but frankly I think bias is true for everyone.

A couple of points I wanted to address: I think Melon's point about the various genetic anomalies is a good point. Aeon argues--and I'd agree with him--these anomalies (people born with both sets of genitalia etc) were not part of God's "original plan" but he did not address the far more difficult issue. How does he as a conservative Christian relate to that person. Now, I know you'd "love them" and all that, but what would you advise them to do? Pick a gender? Would you "eyeball" them and tell them which gender they were? The hard and fast rules that one wants to apply are going to run into serious difficulty here. Unless of course, you choose to accept that person is not REQUIRED to somehow change.

I also wonder how much the resistance to entertaining the possiblity that God might allow for homosexuality and gay marriage has to do with the sense that if the "whole world is going this way" then going in the same direction MUST be wrong.

I wonder how much the resistance to entertaining the possiblity that God might allow for homosexuality and gay marriage has to do with the fact that a heterosexual finds homosexuality personally repellant and "weird" and can't see how God would make allowances for something so foreign.

I wonder how much the resistance to entertaining the possibility that God might allow for homosexuality and gay marriage has to do with the need for certainity, for KNOWING that I'm right. If I can't read Corinthians and know what it means about homosexuality--something that seems so obvious to me--at face value then what can I really, truly know about what the Bible says or what God is all about.

I wonder how much the resistance to entertaining the possiblity that God might allow for homosexuality and gay marriage stems from the belief that all gay people just "want to do what they want to do" and have no desire to live holy lives, that any argument for gay rights is an argument for license.


I wonder how much the resistance to entertaining the possiblity that God might allow for homosexuality and gay marriage is a the combination of all of the above, combining and engergizing one another to create a perfect storm of unwillingness to see another possibility.

I think Aeon and co., with all due respect, should be wondering these things too.

There's a lot at stake here. And with all that at stake, it seems the opponents of gay marriage have just as much of a need for their point of view to be right as the advocates do.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 03:13 AM   #355
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


This is a lie. A flat out lie. You are either completely ignorant about this or you are purposely deceiving people. Every class of interpretation that I’ve taken deals with all 3 items you have mentioned – almost to the point of exhaustion.

I suggest you go to a conservative seminary and take a Biblical Interpretation class and THEN see if you can honestly come here and say these things. There are many people at these seminaries filled with love and are EXTREMELY intelligent. Like you, they want to improve the world. I don’t expect you to agree with everything we say, but I expect you to be honest.

I’m surprised the moderators didn’t mention something about this quote. You apparently have free reign here because your views are seen as "progressive" and "beautiful" - but the truth is: you are deceiving people. And I feel I should call that out until I am banned.
I don't like that you keep aiming comments at Melon as though he is deceiving us to agree with him. I would appreciate that you direct your posts to all that believe homosexuality is not sinful as we are all debating this and to aim your comments at Melon is unfair.

If who you are was the subject of the debate, you would be a little testy at times too - and I would hope that as a loving Christian - you could understand this. The people that don't believe Melon to be a sinner because he is homosexual also believe that he isn't choosing to be homosexual. Step back and try to look at this issue as though he doesn't have a choice and think of how you would feel.

I find it hard to swallow that conservative Christians could work to the point of exhaustion to interpret the Bible and still not see how condemning homosexuals is wrong. I am not at all accusing you of lying, I'm just surprised I guess. Your side of the debate seems so learned and literal, not debated to exhaustion. Try as I may to look through your eyes, to argue this over and over and to insult Melon by accusing him of "deceiving" people is just not someone that is filled with love in my point of view.

There is no way that you will be able to convince people here to stop believing that Melon is an equal person in all ways. You can share your denomination’s belief that he is a sinner and argue your denomination’s interpretation to the end, but no one that believes Melon has no choice is going to step back and say "oh you are right - Melon IS a sinner".

There is a population of homosexuals that will eventually have equal rights. Woman now have equal rights and people of different races now have equal rights (in America). The only path forward in humanity is to view all people as one. I’m sure while the rights were given to Woman and the rights were given to people of different races, there were groups of people like you arguing it to the end – but now they would be viewed as racists or sexists. In the name of love, please realize that your arguments aren’t going to make our world a better place. I pray that you can see this.
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 03:19 AM   #356
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 03:04 PM
Good post maycocksean!
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 06:51 AM   #357
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Not all people choose to sin. Some don't even know what sin is, yet that doesn't mean they don't sin.
Even the best Christian has sin somewhere in their heart in my opinion. Even those that claim to be sanctified that I have met in my life. If we have no sin, we have no need for Christ. This does not mean I am saying go out and sin, that is a whole nother topic.

Some people don't know what sin is....and they do sin.

Sin as defined by you and I and our Christian tradition?

I am not sure I follow your logic.



If we are talking thinking of sinning, for some it is a major victory on a daily basis to not act on sinful desires. Isn't that why Christ is necessary, because there are thoughts we harbor, desires we have thought, that need cleansing?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 08:22 AM   #358
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
I’m surprised the moderators didn’t mention something about this quote. You apparently have free reign here because your views are seen as "progressive" and "beautiful" - but the truth is: you are deceiving people. And I feel I should call that out until I am banned.
AEON, you plunged into FYM headfirst and running from the moment you hit the ground back in June, and you made exactly the same boast at the time--that you expected to be banned for what you have to say. I was angered that you said it at the time and I am angered that you are saying it now. We do not ban people based on their views. So long as you continue to express yourself reasonably civilly and without obvious intent to create outrage for its own sake, as you almost unfailingly do, there is no chance of your being banned. I have privately contacted several members (of various political persuasions--you not being one of them) concerning their behavior during my time as moderator, but the only time I've ever asked Sicy to ban anyone or even considered it was when I recognized someone as an alter for a permanently banned member known for his extremely vulgar personal attacks on others. The thought of having you banned has never even crossed my mind, and I have no idea why you think it would. I don't understand what you think this place is or how it works that you would suspect or anticipate anything like that, and frankly, I'm not sure I want to.

My memory is far from perfect, but I can only recall one occasion on which I've directly intervened to call one of your statements unacceptable. That doesn't mean I've always and everywhere thought everything else you said was expressed in the most constructive manner possible, but then the same is true for anyone I've ever directly called on anything. If I got into intervening every time anyone said anything that struck me as rude, condescending, insulting or potentially inflammatory, then virtually everyone in here, alleged ideological "allies" included, would be ready to throttle me for interminable lecturesomeness in short order. We don't ban people based on personalities either, so if someone tends to be sharp-tongued, mocking, hyperdefensive or simply boorish, then so be it--as long as they don't regularly cross the line into personal attacks which myself or other mods consider overt violations of forum rules. Obviously that is a judgment call and at the end of the day all we can draw on is a combination of reasoning, estimation of intent, observed reactions of others and the benefit of the doubt. There is no way to completely rule out misreads, oversights or bias in this and if you feel that is chronically happening, the appropriate response is to contact the relevant mod privately so that we can work with you and any other applicable members on the issue. You have never done this, nor has anyone else ever privately complained to me about you, and while obviously I would not make it public if that did happen, you can bet any relevant members would be hearing from me privately about it. As it stands, all I am operating from right now is my own assessment of your interactions with others based on what I can see in everyone's posts as I understand them.

When I close a thread (or intervene to threaten doing so) I will often make nonspecific suggestions as to what people in general could do to make the discussion more productive in my opinion. While I appreciate it greatly when people seem to take these suggestions to heart, and do my best to follow everything I say myself, at the end of the day they are just that--suggestions, not do-this-or-else commands I can have anyone banned for not following. Short of bracketing anything more "threatening" than this with "Please note--explicit rule violation notice!" or something comparably patronizing and ludicrous, I don't know how I could make the distinction any clearer than that.

Obviously there is a lot of deep-seated and mutual distrust of motives between you and melon, some of which extends to others on both "sides." I do not enjoy observing this dynamic at all, but I do understand why it exists in both cases, and there is really very little I can do about it. On occasion I have and will close threads for no other reason than that I feel one such instance of an argument has become so bruising as to destabilize social relations in the forum altogether. I really loathe doing that and turn to it only as a last resort, because it inevitably undercuts the role of this forum as a place to discuss issues and controversies that are, like it or not, out there and salient. Nonetheless, my feelings about this place as a social environment in its own right are strong enough that I will do it if I feel that line has been crossed. Since most people on both sides in this thread are still talking and still behaving reasonably civilly in my estimation at this point, I am not prepared to do so right now, even though in truth I would strongly prefer that everyone collectively gave this topic a rest for a while. But that much is not up to me. All I can ask--request--is that baseline respect that everyone involved is articulating their true reasoning in good faith, and be engaged accordingly, be collectively maintained. And that we all remain open in principle to calling a truce if unmistakable lines in the sand have been reached. Because at the end of the day this is just a message board and a place to enjoy debate and discussion, you know? FYM is not a cosmic battleground between good and evil.

I'm not trying to single you out, AEON, and virtually all of what I've just said could be and in fact is directed to everyone in here. And I did consider simply dispatching all of this to you via PM instead. But since you've specifically intimated that I and perhaps other moderators are somehow guided in all this by ethically corrupt motives based on what you perceive as ideological affinities, I felt that I had to respond publically. I do not agree with all your reasoning on this issue, nor I do agree with all of melon's, but even if I did in either case, it would be irrelevant to what I consider socially impermissible as a moderator. I hold both of you in very high regard and as I already explained, do not enjoy watching the obvious if understandable distrust that is there--from either end, to the extent that I can imaginarily put myself in either. But, again, this much is simply not up to me.

If anyone wants to pursue the question of how I handle all this further then please contact me privately about it. And if you are not satisfied with my response after approaching me privately then please take that up with Sicy.

~ Peace
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 08:37 AM   #359
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
This is a lie. A flat out lie. You are either completely ignorant about this or you are purposely deceiving people. Every class of interpretation that I’ve taken deals with all 3 items you have mentioned – almost to the point of exhaustion.

I suggest you go to a conservative seminary and take a Biblical Interpretation class and THEN see if you can honestly come here and say these things. There are many people at these seminaries filled with love and are EXTREMELY intelligent. Like you, they want to improve the world. I don’t expect you to agree with everything we say, but I expect you to be honest.
I don't know whether to pity you or not, because you don't even seem to know what "essentialism" is. I didn't need to go to the seminary to learn this; this was taught to everyone in my high school religion classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

Quote:
In philosophy, essentialism is the view, that, for any specific kind of entity it is at least theoretically possible to specify a finite list of characteristics —all of which any entity must have to belong to the group defined. This view is contrasted with non-essentialism which states that for any given entity there are no specified traits which that entity must have in order to be defined as that entity.

...

Essentialism in ethics is claiming that some things are wrong in an absolute sense, for example murder breaks a universal, objective and natural moral law and not merely an adventitious, socially or ethically constructed one.

...

An essence characterizes a substance or a form, in the sense of the Forms or Ideas in Platonic realism. It is permanent, unalterable, and eternal; and present in every possible world. Classical humanism has an essentialist conception of the human being, which means that it believes in an eternal and unchangeable human nature.
Am I somehow misrepresenting your basic philosophy here? This seems to fit the bill of every one of your religious arguments here, and you've quite ardently argued that there's universal "absolute truth." And where do you think that comes from? Essentialism. You are a textbook essentialist, based on everything that you've written here.

Biblical essentialism, by extension, looks at the printed word, and if you believe that the Bible says "Thou shalt not bear false witness," lying in every and all circumstances, no matter what the intention, is a sin. If the Bible says that there was a global flood and Noah put polar bears and penguins in his Ark from the hot sands of Mesopotamia, then Noah did just that. "Context," "interpretation," and "intention" are considered irrelevant to the printed word.

Tell me how I'm contradicting anything that you've said here. You've refused to entertain any of my Biblical scholarship, and I've long believed its because of your hardline essentialist philosophy when it comes to religion. My larger criticism of essentialism, in general, is that it eventually becomes less about the "printed word" and more about the "traditional (mis)interpretation."

As for the idea that your religious studies contain "context," "interpretation," and "intention," who's the one being lied to? Me? Or you? Because every religious stance you've given me has fallen under elementary Biblical fundamentalism. Nothing that you've stated to me, in all the months that you've been here, has been a surprise, and I'm not a seminarian. Has your seminary studies contradicted anything that your average self-ordained fundamentalist preacher couldn't have come up with himself?

Perhaps I'm being unduly harsh with my last paragraph here, and, for that, I apologize. It is less my intention to insult your religious vocation, and more my intention to illustrate a point in postmodernist/Marxist philosophy:

Just because you believe that you've been taught "context," "interpretation," and "intention" doesn't mean that you have; and, in contrast, all you may have been given is an overly complicated superstructure that encourages the exact opposite.

Quote:
I’m surprised the moderators didn’t mention something about this quote. You apparently have free reign here because your views are seen as "progressive" and "beautiful" - but the truth is: you are deceiving people. And I feel I should call that out until I am banned.
In fact, the funny thing about all of this is that I appear to be more educated about conservative Christianity than you are about mainline/liberal Christianity. I say this, because you'd realize that my belief system is nothing radical and revolutionary. I reject essentialism, yes, but I consider myself more of a personalist, which flourished in 20th century religion.

Quote:
Personalism finds a primacy in the ethical or moral realm. Thus, for example, in dealing with environmental issues, for personalism morality and what we owe to others take precedence to questions of utility. In political contexts, persons and their lifeworlds take precedence to systems or structures. In psychology and cognitive science, personal levels of explanation take precedence over subpersonal categories. Ontologically and epistemologically, personal or "moral" categories are irreducible to impersonal systems, or subpersonal processes. Personalism is thus an attempt, in an age of increasing depersonalization, to defend both the concept and the reality of persons.
And this philosophy isn't strictly liberal or conservative. Pope John Paul II is considered an ardent personalist within the traditionalist realm; I just happen to disagree with most of his conclusions regarding social morality.

So I hate to break it to you. Not everyone who disagrees with you is looking to deceive you and everyone else. I just happen to be a much more confident and assertive liberal Christian than you might have ever encountered. For instance, the Episcopal Church shows an interesting dichotomy that illustrates my point well. Liberal Episcopalians have been trying to bend over backwards and compromise to prevent a conservative schism, whereas conservative Episcopalians have been doing nothing but threatening to leave and refusing to compromise. I'm just more apt to refuse to compromise and say, "Good riddance!"

I'm surprised you haven't called me a "false prophet" yet. I find that when I have exhausted conservative Christians here that they start calling me that in frustration. Nice try.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 09:40 AM   #360
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


I don't know whether to pity you or not, because you don't even seem to know what "essentialism" is. I didn't need to go to the seminary to learn this; this was taught to everyone in my high school religion classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism



Am I somehow misrepresenting your basic philosophy here? This seems to fit the bill of every one of your religious arguments here, and you've quite ardently argued that there's universal "absolute truth." And where do you think that comes from? Essentialism. You are a textbook essentialist, based on everything that you've written here.

Biblical essentialism, by extension, looks at the printed word, and if you believe that the Bible says "Thou shalt not bear false witness," lying in every and all circumstances, no matter what the intention, is a sin. If the Bible says that there was a global flood and Noah put polar bears and penguins in his Ark from the hot sands of Mesopotamia, then Noah did just that. "Context," "interpretation," and "intention" are considered irrelevant to the printed word.

Tell me how I'm contradicting anything that you've said here. You've refused to entertain any of my Biblical scholarship, and I've long believed its because of your hardline essentialist philosophy when it comes to religion. My larger criticism of essentialism, in general, is that it eventually becomes less about the "printed word" and more about the "traditional (mis)interpretation."

As for the idea that your religious studies contain "context," "interpretation," and "intention," who's the one being lied to? Me? Or you? Because every religious stance you've given me has fallen under elementary Biblical fundamentalism. Nothing that you've stated to me, in all the months that you've been here, has been a surprise, and I'm not a seminarian. Has your seminary studies contradicted anything that your average self-ordained fundamentalist preacher couldn't have come up with himself?

Perhaps I'm being unduly harsh with my last paragraph here, and, for that, I apologize. It is less my intention to insult your religious vocation, and more my intention to illustrate a point in postmodernist/Marxist philosophy:

Just because you believe that you've been taught "context," "interpretation," and "intention" doesn't mean that you have; and, in contrast, all you may have been given is an overly complicated superstructure that encourages the exact opposite.



In fact, the funny thing about all of this is that I appear to be more educated about conservative Christianity than you are about mainline/liberal Christianity. I say this, because you'd realize that my belief system is nothing radical and revolutionary. I reject essentialism, yes, but I consider myself more of a personalist, which flourished in 20th century religion.



And this philosophy isn't strictly liberal or conservative. Pope John Paul II is considered an ardent personalist within the traditionalist realm; I just happen to disagree with most of his conclusions regarding social morality.

So I hate to break it to you. Not everyone who disagrees with you is looking to deceive you and everyone else. I just happen to be a much more confident and assertive liberal Christian than you might have ever encountered. For instance, the Episcopal Church shows an interesting dichotomy that illustrates my point well. Liberal Episcopalians have been trying to bend over backwards and compromise to prevent a conservative schism, whereas conservative Episcopalians have been doing nothing but threatening to leave and refusing to compromise. I'm just more apt to refuse to compromise and say, "Good riddance!"

I'm surprised you haven't called me a "false prophet" yet. I find that when I have exhausted conservative Christians here that they start calling me that in frustration. Nice try.
You said "Such things as "context," "interpretation “and” intention" are considered irrelevant to the printed word."

This is what I have taken issue with. Essentialist or non-essentialist – this is false.

You have impeccable wikipedia knowledge and cut and paste skills. That's great. It obviously serves you well in FYM. You can learn much from there apparently. I also find it a convenient place to look up a quick historical fact or definition of a school of thought.

However, shocking as it may seem, there is a difference between seminary and Catholic High School religion classes (I also went to Catholic High School).

Also, if I wrote a paper and I did not address context, interpretation, and intention – and also cite the sources that support my assertions – I would get a failing grade on that paper. It is that simple.

The ironic part in all of this is that I believe your argument fails to adhere to these very three principles…
went to Catholic High School)
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com