tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post1735670692039272997..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: False DichotomiesBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35038780118343806012009-12-09T15:02:00.415-07:002009-12-09T15:02:00.415-07:00I've always thought of Theology as a variant o...<i>I've always thought of Theology as a variant of religious philosophy.</i><br /><br />Makes sense. You start out with fundamental assertions, then figger out the ramifications.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80734957683302273712009-12-09T14:36:57.031-07:002009-12-09T14:36:57.031-07:00I've always thought of Theology as a variant o...I've always thought of Theology as a variant of religious philosophy.<br /><br />Mainly because I apply the term "study" to phenomena that are observable ... which excludes all supernatural phenomena (for me).bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56248542071078735842009-12-09T13:33:53.834-07:002009-12-09T13:33:53.834-07:00I don't think we can "know God", as ...I don't think we can "know God", as this is delusion, projection and wish fulfillment. But, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, either.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75951894355318683342009-12-09T13:30:57.979-07:002009-12-09T13:30:57.979-07:00KOI,
Yes, theology is the "study of God"...KOI,<br /><br />Yes, theology is the "study of God", as if we can "study God".....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84179528007132783232009-12-09T12:15:15.139-07:002009-12-09T12:15:15.139-07:00Theology is really the study of God.Theology is really the study of God.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82924430875740308132009-12-09T07:41:04.666-07:002009-12-09T07:41:04.666-07:00Tom,
I will write on my blog site more about my be...Tom,<br />I will write on my blog site more about my belief concerning individuals and groups, which includes the church.<br /><br />So, when it comes to religious philosophy, there is NONE....so, I question the validity of theology itself....and when you say "the Word", I get very queasy. I don't consider myself an evangelical and wonder if I even want to consider myself a Christian.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85252446732584671552009-12-09T01:01:50.233-07:002009-12-09T01:01:50.233-07:00This is "redeeming" philosophy to serve ...<i>This is "redeeming" philosophy to serve the church.</i><br /><br /><br />You're getting on the right track here, Angie. The beauty of Aquinas is not in that making philosophy safe for Christianity by "Christianizing" it, but that he made Christianity safe for philosophy, and the entry/re-entry of reason.<br /><br />"Redeeming" it, as you put it. Think about it, that your problem with "Christianity" is with those who rejected man's God-given ability to reason, and you don't have to write every comment with those jerks in mind. They were into power, not truth or the beauty of the Word.<br /><br />Just a thought.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52005813419789830572009-12-08T21:07:37.657-07:002009-12-08T21:07:37.657-07:00Jonathan Rowe said...
Gregg (after Mark Noll I be...Jonathan Rowe said... <br />Gregg (after Mark Noll I believe) terms that part of the great “importing” of non-Christian ideas into “Christian theology,” part of the dynamic of presenting something that is not authentically “Christian” as so.<br /><br />This is "redeeming" philosophy to serve the church. This has always happened, when science has challenged the church's testimony. So, the French Revolution didn't use "right reason", but created another religious tradition.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15636613680829233062009-12-08T16:05:19.506-07:002009-12-08T16:05:19.506-07:00This is what "God" meant to Revolutionar...This is what "God" meant to Revolutionary France:<br /><br />http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/cult_of_the_supreme_being/<br /><br />Quite an eye-opener.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54812151128257602512009-12-08T14:22:09.017-07:002009-12-08T14:22:09.017-07:00Tom,
Natural law was Aristotle's view of &quo...Tom,<br /><br />Natural law was Aristotle's view of "nature". The Catholic church holds to this view, traditionally.<br /><br />I haven't read much on the French Revolution, but, the revolutionaries in France had the church AND the monarchy to deal with. Our Founders had a "distant government", as a 'monarchy, but didn't have a "STATE" SAnctioned Church....<br /><br />We should want reform, as I believe that revolution in our country is a little mis-guided as we have a Constitution to "appeal to".Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5644490379597074772009-12-08T13:16:32.648-07:002009-12-08T13:16:32.648-07:00That's not how the Founders saw it. They say ...That's not how the Founders saw it. They say repeatedly that self-governance cannot work unless each man conducts himself within the bounds of natural law.<br /><br />Defying natural law carries its own practical punishments, and doesn't require a God-as-cop with lighting bolts. What classical and Founding era political philosophy fears most is anarchy.<br /><br />Which is what they got in the French Revolution.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19616182847172262862009-12-08T07:09:37.970-07:002009-12-08T07:09:37.970-07:00Tom,
Today's politial religious view in Americ...Tom,<br />Today's politial religious view in America doesn't allow liberty or diversity, because their political views have been identified with God. Therefore, God isn't granting "liberty", but demanding conformity.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29702015123212694482009-12-08T06:51:54.582-07:002009-12-08T06:51:54.582-07:00I meself don't approach that question here. A...I meself don't approach that question here. Above my pay grade.<br /><br /><i>And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? </i><br /><br /><i>That's</i> the real question.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52553106145556948192009-12-07T18:47:21.464-07:002009-12-07T18:47:21.464-07:00The REAL question is God "self-existant"...The REAL question is God "self-existant", or is he a social contructive myth?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3325473148020422882009-12-07T18:45:27.347-07:002009-12-07T18:45:27.347-07:00bpabbott,'
You begin with man or anthropology,...bpabbott,'<br />You begin with man or anthropology, or social construction (the disciplines), whereas, Tom/KOI seems to want to posit "God" or "nature" or "natural law" (theology/tradition/philosophy).Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27243120509355115182009-12-07T18:38:39.106-07:002009-12-07T18:38:39.106-07:00Ok, I understand your theological postion, i.e. th...Ok, I understand your theological postion, i.e. that the indivual has worth because he is made in the image of God. And in my limited theological knowledge I agree that man being created in God's image is Judeo-Christian.<br /><br />But I still don't see <i>the worth of the individual</i> as <i>originating</i> with Christianity.<br /><br />Perhaps, the difference in our perspectives is, in part, because I see religion as a manifestation of human society. Thus, those societies which value individuals would embrace theology that does so also.<br /><br />Anyway, I understand how you came to your conclusion and appreciate your efforts in explaining.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84149199012661680952009-12-07T18:22:28.021-07:002009-12-07T18:22:28.021-07:00Ben,
I am more talking about the worth of the ind...Ben,<br /><br />I am more talking about the worth of the individual because he is made in the image of GOD. This is uniquely Christian.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-532082487952890442009-12-07T17:57:42.147-07:002009-12-07T17:57:42.147-07:00Tom,
Good points!
I agree that The DoI didn'...Tom,<br /><br />Good points!<br /><br />I agree that The DoI didn't claim we <i>know</i> "these truths to be self-evident". My understanding is that his use of the word "hold" is synonymous with "believe" … although "we <i>hold</i> these truths to be self-evident…" is a firmer statement than "we <i>believe</i> these truths to be self-evident…".<br /><br />With regards to modern life providing society the privilege of valuing the individual, I am in agreement. I also agree that it was Christian society that led the way to valuing the individual.<br /><br />However, I don't see how it is proper to conclude that the idea of worth of the individual comes from Christianity.<br /><br />In other words, the position that the worth of the individual originates from Christianity is far from <i>self-evident</i> to me ;-)<br /><br />p.s. How's that for a Pandora's Box 8-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89831368000505885492009-12-07T17:31:02.963-07:002009-12-07T17:31:02.963-07:00King,
Regarding Paine,
You seem to have misunder...King,<br /><br />Regarding Paine,<br /><br />You seem to have misunderstood me. The words I provided were those of Paine himself. I made no comment, or interpretation, regarding Paine's theological position.<br /><br />Regarding your comment, I agree completely that he was a deist who <i>hated</i> organized religion with its human authorities.<br /><br />I certainly do not see Paine as an atheist. Anyone those thinks so hasn't read the passage below from the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/reason/singlehtml.htm" rel="nofollow">Age of Reason</a>.<br /><br />"<i>As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism — a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.<br /><br />The effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside down, and representing it in reverse, and among the revolutions it has thus magically produced, it has made a revolution in theology.<br /><br />That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.</i>"<br /><br />I included more than necessary for my comment because I like that Paine associates <i>natural</i> philosophy with science … I've always thought of Christianity as a <i>supernatural</i> philosophy, which I realize isn't generally an acceptable qualification (today or during the founding), but it suits me because I prefer a clear separation of the natural and supernatural.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36725491045299891922009-12-07T17:23:07.324-07:002009-12-07T17:23:07.324-07:00King,
Regarding the worth of the individual ...
...King,<br /><br />Regarding the <i>worth of the individual</i> ...<br /><br />If this has nothing to do with religion, but has to do with <i>right reason</i>, then how is the <i>self-evident</i> value of the worth of the individual of religious origin?<br /><br />I'd be more accepting of the idea that Christian societies led the way to applying <i>right reason</i> in the examination of religious claims. But I don't think that implies that all the many things reason has discovered are subsequently of Christian origin.<br /><br />I'm not saying that Christian societies didn't embrace it, or that Christianity is incongruent with it, but I don't see why Christianity earns credit <i>the worth of the individual</i>, or anything else that is <i>self-evident</i>.<br /><br />Am I missing some point of fact, or are was at an impasse of perspectives?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34764086174352586172009-12-06T22:47:39.789-07:002009-12-06T22:47:39.789-07:00JRB writes:
I mention Cyrus and Aristotle in the...JRB writes:<br /><br /><i><br />I mention Cyrus and Aristotle in the context of an early, nascent natural/human rights tradition.</i><br /><br />Jimmiraybob, surely you're aware that the Old Testament exalts Cyrus the Great of Persia [who conquered and subsumed the Babylonian Empire] as one of the absolutely coolest dudes in human history, sending captive Israel back to their homeland, with their religion to reestablish. [And arguably, monotheistically, as opposed to their god being simply the strongest of many others.]<br /><br />Well quoted, sir.<br /><br />And may I add---along Thomistic lines---that the Golden Age of Islam called Aristotle the "First Teacher."<br /><br />[al-Farabi, c. 900 AD, the Muslim polymath, was the "Second Teacher."<br /><br />http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1158321478684&pagename=Zone-English-HealthScience%2FHSELayout]<br /><br />And Aquinas, in all his writings, refers to Aristotle as "the philosopher."<br /><br />Y'know, JRB, every once in awhile, I think we're getting somewhere around here. But classical "natural right" in contrast to "natural rights" via "natural law" are different things. In 2009, it's an indistinguishable soup. I assure you, Kant is not Aristotle, and especially not Farabi.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24529497770325644182009-12-06T22:32:46.095-07:002009-12-06T22:32:46.095-07:00I have set you up to make your case Tom. The floor...<i>I have set you up to make your case Tom. The floor is yours because you know more about this than I do.</i><br /><br />Thx, King. It's just that I prefer people think for themselves. I try to tickle the ticklable, is all. Jonathan's been trying to draw me out this weekend too, mebbe. I dunno if anyone's noticed [certainly not Lindsey, who hates my guts], but I don't write on our mainpage all that much. I prefer our comments boxes, where we discuss everything together. Debate just becomes bloodsport and the truth is always the victim.<br /><br />But thx, man. I appreciate what you're trying to do. I'm just not a Sarah Palin or a Barack Obama. Not a Jonathan Edwards or a Thomas Paine either. That's for other people, and God bless 'em.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85511686106606112042009-12-06T22:00:56.150-07:002009-12-06T22:00:56.150-07:00KOI - Can you cite Hindu, Pagan, and Islamic sourc...KOI - <i>Can you cite Hindu, Pagan, and Islamic sources that cite the worth of the individual?</i> <br /><br />In the comments for the Saturday, <br /><i>Socrates, Alvin Toffler, and Attempting to Catch the Wave</i><br /><br />I mention Cyrus and Aristotle in the context of an early, nascent natural/human rights tradition. At least in recognizing the intrinsic worth of the individual in the context of the political group. And I'm particularly interested in any replies to the Aristotle question I posed.<br /><br />It certainly has been lively this weekend.<br /><br />In an earlier conversation (at Ed's place) I provided links to several sources that provided a start to answering the question. <br /><br />I'm self employed and my work load for this month and into next has exploded (and no, I'm not Santa Claus), but I'll look into this and try to put together a reply (although I suspect a lot of info is readily available on line.)jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53727553722127699302009-12-06T21:14:34.277-07:002009-12-06T21:14:34.277-07:00Tom stated:
"We can debate the answers, as t...Tom stated:<br /><br />"We can debate the answers, as they did, but we must return to the proper questions!'<br /><br />We are almost ready I think JRB responded to my challenge and refined my first question. I went ahead and posted it on the main page. <br /><br />I have set you up to make your case Tom. The floor is yours because you know more about this than I do. I think what you have to say is crucial and hopefully we can work on getting a wider audience.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82614852557417894562009-12-06T21:02:27.329-07:002009-12-06T21:02:27.329-07:00Regarding the authority of the Founders....
I don...Regarding the authority of the Founders....<br /><br />I don't think pro-Founding Father conservatives are saying that the Founders are always right. But they are saying that the Founders, by virtue of their wisdom, courage, vision, and POSITION as, well, Founders should be given a unique place of respect. <br /><br />We should listen to the Founders with more respect than we would, say, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.com