tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3328073556628490853..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Addison’s disease (Updated)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41125828361358528112017-01-28T11:57:40.161-08:002017-01-28T11:57:40.161-08:00'Yes, I called you an a-hole, because -- after...'Yes, I called you an a-hole, because -- after your persistent trolling -- that's exactly how you were coming across, and my patience is limited.'<br /><br />Nuff said, thank you. That will be all. The Proctology Dept is down there, third door on the right.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157872703645656943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39965053180115698492017-01-28T03:39:41.803-08:002017-01-28T03:39:41.803-08:00@Scott W,
Don't put quotations around somethi...@Scott W,<br /><br />Don't put quotations around something I didn't say. The misquote, <br />"have you stopped beating your wife?," is taking too far; I hope Dr. Feser can understand my frustrations with this nonsense. From one Christian to another (or one human being to another), this is taking it too far. I'm a rather large fan of both Hart and Feser, so please show some sense of humility in your response. I'm baffled, to say the least... By the way, I admit to being emotional in my original response, but I don't deserve that treatment, to say the least! <br /><br />, Cole Colenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2697678040792006882017-01-20T09:39:59.999-08:002017-01-20T09:39:59.999-08:00("aside from" s/b "aside from his s...("aside from" s/b "aside from his subsequently going on to")Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29878845243887110572017-01-20T09:30:29.646-08:002017-01-20T09:30:29.646-08:00Tony,
It would be nonsensical to pointedly refer ...Tony,<br /><br /><i>It would be nonsensical to </i>pointedly<i> refer to Scriptures as supporting evidence without pre-supposing that people should know Scripture.</i><br /><br />Exactly!Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88592392395632053032017-01-20T09:22:43.882-08:002017-01-20T09:22:43.882-08:00Dianelos,
"And, of course, I said nothing at...Dianelos,<br /><br /><i>"And, of course, I said nothing at all, either explicitly or implicitly, about seeing Christ in the gospels."<br /><br />But you did.</i><br /><br />Apparently, you confuse the goings-on in your mind with what actually transpired in reality.<br /><br /><i>Here is what you wrote...<br /><br />"If all light which is true light is (from) Christ, and DBH was enlightened with true light during his study of scripture, how could that encounter of His with Christ constitute missing out on something greater?"</i><br /><br />Yes, that is what I wrote. <br /><br />But why would you take that as my saying something about "seeing Christ in the gospels"? <br /><br />Especially since it doesn't a) specifically mention the gospels; or, b) say anything at all, either explicitly or implicitly, about "seeing Christ in [X]"?<br /><br />Scripture is not restricted to the gospels -- you do know this, right? -- so even if I was talking about seeing Christ in scripture -- which I wasn't -- why would you think that by 'scripture' the gospels necessarily were meant? Do you think that if one is going to see Christ in scripture, that such seeing can only occur in the gospels portion of scripture? I hope not. Anyway, this really isn't relevant here, since, again, I wasn't talking about seeing Christ in something, but about being enlightened by Him. ("If all light which is true light is (from) Christ, and DBH was enlightened with true light[.]")<br /><br />Perhaps you think one must see Christ in order to be enlightened by Him. If so, that might help to partly explain your confused interpretation of what I wrote.<br /><br />Certainly, one may be enlightened upon seeing Christ; but there is no reason to think that seeing Christ is a necessary prerequisite for being enlightened by Him -- just as there as there is no reason to think that seeing God is a necessary prerequisite for receiving His grace.<br /><br /><i>3) Seeing Christ is great, but reaching Christ and walking with Him is far greater.</i><br /><br />Again, I said nothing at all about seeing Christ, but about being enlightened by Him. <br /><br />Also, you'll have to explain to me -- and without resorting to or relying upon your usual propagandistic BS -- two things: <br /><br />1. how Christ might not be in the one Whom He enlightens; and, <br /><br />2. how if Christ is in the one Whom He enlightens, that one -- aside from actively rejecting Him or allowing himself to drift away from Him -- can walk without walking with Christ.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25785963717888813892017-01-20T08:44:41.056-08:002017-01-20T08:44:41.056-08:00Among the many things Christ does ask of us in the...<i>Among the many things Christ does ask of us in the gospels He never mentions the study of scripture</i> <br /><br />Among the many things that Christ does ask of us is to believe that He is the Messiah. Which He provides supporting evidence for, by (among other things) repeatedly REFERRING to Scriptures: "Scripture saith that"...and so on. It would be nonsensical to <i>pointedly</i> refer to Scriptures as supporting evidence without pre-supposing that people should know Scripture. <br /><br /><i>Sometimes He explicitly contradicted scripture</i> <br /><br />No, he didn't. That's bullsh hogwash. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42220934485534231982017-01-20T08:30:53.483-08:002017-01-20T08:30:53.483-08:00And somehow he had to find a use for the letter he...<i>And somehow he had to find a use for the letter he had written. Burrowing in the telephone directory he found a Frau Louisa Altman, write out the address by hand and sent her his composition.</i> <br /><br />That, Glenn, is a classic. Thank you. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67910012194322667372017-01-20T03:25:13.291-08:002017-01-20T03:25:13.291-08:00Glenn,
”And, of course, I said nothing at all, e...Glenn, <br /><br /><i>”And, of course, I said nothing at all, either explicitly or implicitly, about seeing Christ in the gospels.”</i> <br /><br />But you did. Here is what you wrote (and I tried to answer, since I thought it was the gist of your previous comment):<br /><br /><i>”If all light which is true light is (from) Christ, and DBH was enlightened with true light during his study of scripture, how could that encounter of His with Christ constitute missing out on something greater?”</i><br /><br />My answer in short was: <br /><br />1) One does indeed see the true light who is Christ in the gospels (which are the heart of the scripture).<br /><br />2) One doesn't see Christ only in the gospels, but in all that is good in creation (for all goodness is grounded in Christ).<br /><br />3) Seeing Christ is great, but reaching Christ and walking with Him is far greater.<br /><br />I am sorry communication is so hard, but I trust you agree at least with 1) and 3) above, which I think constitute a direct answer to your question. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63159111340482039602017-01-19T09:39:33.476-08:002017-01-19T09:39:33.476-08:00Dianelos,
...Now, one can of course see Christ in...Dianelos,<br /><br /><i>...Now, one can of course see Christ in the gospels...</i><br /><br />And, of course, I said nothing at all, either explicitly or implicitly, about seeing Christ in the gospels. But save your comment; you may one day encounter something said by someone to which it is actually relevant.<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />I can't say why, or maybe I'd rather not, but your comments frequently call to mind the following from Nabokov's The Defence:<br /><br />It was during these first days of married life that Luzhin visited his father-in-law's office. His father-in-law was dictating something, but the typewriter stuck to its own version -- repeating the word 'tot' in a rapid chatter with something like the following intonation: tot Hottentot tot tot tot do not totter -- and then something would move across with a bang. His father-in-law showed him sheafs of forms, account books with Z-shaped lines on the pages, books with little windows on their spines, the monstrously thick tomes of Commercial Germany, and a calculating machine, very clever and quite tame. However, Luzhin liked Tot-tot best of all, the words spilling swiftly out onto the paper, the wonderful evenness of the lilac lines — and several copies at the same time. 'I wonder if I took... One needs to know,' he said, and his father-in-law nodded approvingly and the typewriter appeared in Luzhin's study. It was proposed to him that one of the office employees come and explain how to use it, but he refused, replying that he would learn on his own. And so it was: he fairly quickly made out its construction, learned to put in the ribbon and roll in the sheet of paper, and made friends with all the little levers. It proved to be more difficult to remember the distribution of the letters, the typing went very slowly; there was none of Tot-tot's rapid chatter and for some reason -- from the very first day -- the exclamation mark dogged him -- it leapt out in the most unexpected places. At first he copied out half a column from a German newspaper, and then composed a thing or two himself. A brief little note took shape with the following contents: 'You are wanted on a charge of murder. Today is November 27th. Murder and arson. Good day, dear Madam. Now when you are needed, dear, exclamation mark, where are you? The body has been found. Dear Madam! Today the police will come!!' Luzhin read this over several times, reinserted the sheet and, groping for the right letters, typed out, somewhat jumpily, the signature: 'Abbé Busoni.' At this point he grew bored, the thing was going too slowly. And somehow he had to find a use for the letter he had written. Burrowing in the telephone directory he found a Frau Louisa Altman, write out the address by hand and sent her his composition.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8896150849544439732017-01-19T03:17:04.854-08:002017-01-19T03:17:04.854-08:00Glenn,
When one gets lost in the dark, seeing th...Glenn, <br /><br />When one gets lost in the dark, seeing the light of home is a great thing. But reaching home by that light is much greater, for then one dwells in it. Seeing the light is the promise, reaching the light is the fulfillment. Seeing Christ is like being thirsty and finding a well, repenting is like drinking of its water. <br /><br />No matter how great a blessing it is to meet Christ, to walk with Christ is immeasurably greater. The former is seeing the truth, the latter is joining it. The former is realizing how much our creator loves us, the latter is partaking in that love, being filled with it, becoming a fountain of it. The former is easy and pleasant, the latter requires a lot of faith and much effort. One fears heaven, for to go there one must overcome oneself. And it's not always that those who most clearly see the light will reach it. Consider the celebrated Moses who led his people to the promised land, but he only saw it from afar whereas his humble followers reached it and lived there. <br /><br />Now, one can of course see Christ in the gospels. The curious thing is not all who read the gospels see Him. It is this kind of thing that I suppose moves people to think that God gives grace to some but not to others. I'd rather think some are simply more fortunate than others in that they recognize Christ when they see Him. I am reminded of the learned scribes and Pharisees who actually met Christ in the flesh and still, in all their knowledge they were so fool that they didn't recognize Him – perhaps the simple-minded and child-like are the fortunate ones. For Christ is not really hidden, but is everywhere. Perhaps “hidden in plain view” is the expression. So one sees Christ in religious texts and indeed in the religious impulse of all humanity. One sees Christ in the beauty of nature, and in the meaning of art, or in the joy of mystical experience. One powerfully sees Christ in the kindness of others, and in their courage and happiness. Most powerfully one meets Christ when one cares for others - in how it is to do a good deed, no matter how small, when it is moved by charity. By doing good deeds the vision of Christ becomes deeper because by doing what He asks of us one comes closer to Him. Perhaps there are many ways to follow Christ, but doing good work is certainly the central one. For the soul's charity cannot be hidden but expresses itself in good work, and grows by it. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14475902755474488902017-01-18T12:28:43.396-08:002017-01-18T12:28:43.396-08:00Dianelos,
On the other hand, yes I think he is mi...Dianelos,<br /><br /><i>On the other hand, yes I think he is missing out on something greater.</i><br /><br />Above you made a point about how Christ is still teaching, albeit through the spirit. <br /><br />Isn't it possible that Christ was teaching David Bentley Hart through his spirit while he, the latter, was studying scripture <br /><br />Perhaps not the whole while, but at least during some part of it? <br /><br />If all light which is true light is (from) Christ, and DBH was enlightened with true light during his study of scripture, how could that encounter of His with Christ constitute missing out on something greater? <br /><br />I don't know that DBH was enlightened with true light during his study of scripture, of course. <br /><br />But I also don't know how you could be so certain that he wasn't.<br /><br /><i>And I would bet he knows this.</i><br /><br />Well, he might not. Why not go tell him, just to make sure?Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57118115750342198922017-01-18T10:59:41.451-08:002017-01-18T10:59:41.451-08:00@ Glenn,
”I ask you again: Where in the gospels d...@ Glenn,<br /><br /><i>”I ask you again: Where in the gospels does He tell us to forsake the study of scripture?”</i><br /><br />Nowhere. But three facts remain: 1) Among the many things Christ does ask of us in the gospels He never mentions the study of scripture, and He never Himself wrote down a word - which kind of proves that He didn't consider the written word particularly important, 2) Those who did consider the written word particularly important, did study it a lot, and thought of themselves as the keepers of the truth and of tradition where precisely the people who feared Christ and moved to have Him executed. They had trouble understanding that the truth *is* Christ; Pilate suffered from the same kind of confusion. 3) In a particularly important and relevant passage at the end of John, we find Christ telling the church that He had so far revealed only the truth it could bear and that much more would be revealed later by the Spirit. John, the earliest and possibly the greatest theologian of Christianity was a humble person who knew his limitations. Those who try their hand at theology should not forget this. <br /><br /><i>”Also, since it came up recently, do you think perhaps David Bentley Hart was wasting his time studying scripture as much as he did in preparation for his new book?”</i><br /><br />I don't really know Hart enough to form an opinion. I have read and enjoyed his “Atheist Delusions”, feel kind of tickled that he is an Eastern Orthodox and kind of pleased that (as I have found out through this blog) he is a universalist, and have bought his “The Experience of God” mainly because I liked the title, but have not read it yet. Still from the very vague idea I have of him I suspect that he uses scripture like a painter uses colors or a poet uses pictures. Or rather like a cook uses food. Which is perhaps the best use one can make of the written tradition. <br /><br /><i>”Or, if not wasting his time, then simply missing out on something greater?”</i><br /><br />No, I don't think he is wasting his time. As I said I understand the great value and central position of the written text in our tradition. I have much profited from it myself. And the church needs and will always need scholars. And needs theologians of all kinds who leave us with texts that point towards the glory of God. On the other hand, yes I think he is missing out on something greater. And I would bet he knows this. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62430657922295583652017-01-18T08:57:09.507-08:002017-01-18T08:57:09.507-08:00
Oh shoot! @Dr. Hart and Dr. Feser,
East versus...<br />Oh shoot! @Dr. Hart and Dr. Feser,<br /><br /><br />East versus West!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13200873236465393082017-01-17T12:22:38.852-08:002017-01-17T12:22:38.852-08:00Dianelos,
I ask you again: Where in the gospels d...Dianelos,<br /><br />I ask you again: Where in the gospels does He tell us to forsake the study of scripture?<br /><br />Also, since it came up recently, do you think perhaps David Bentley Hart was wasting his time studying scripture as much as he did in preparation for his new book? Or, if not wasting his time, then simply missing out on something greater?Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89792884852760852042017-01-17T10:29:15.185-08:002017-01-17T10:29:15.185-08:00@ Glenn,
As a wandering teacher in first century...@ Glenn, <br /><br />As a wandering teacher in first century Palestine, Christ naturally enough quoted from scripture. My point is that He never asked people to study scripture. Sometimes He explicitly contradicted scripture showing that the source of truth is beyond the written text, namely Himself. He never wrote down a single word Himself. <br /><br />Now contrast this with the many Christians who instead of doing what Christ actually asks pass their lives studying texts. I am not saying that reading (or writing) are worthless actions, I am saying that they miss on something greater. <br /><br />Finally, as a matter of fact Christian theology has grown through the centuries far beyond the NT, no matter the effort some people put in discovering seeds of that new knowledge in the ancient texts. Which proves that Christ is still teaching, albeit through the Spirit (which nicely fits with John 16, 12-13). It would be interesting some time down the road to discuss how in the human condition the presence of Christ and of the Spirit are different. (Incidentally I tend to interpret the Spirit here or the Comforter in a similar passage as the Holy Spirit, the third hypostasis of God. But another understanding is that Christ will not be with us in the flesh but in the spirit, which is better since it's for ever. I wonder what people think about this question.) Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29340385948422851482017-01-17T09:58:46.257-08:002017-01-17T09:58:46.257-08:00Carrying over this combox the discussion going on ...Carrying over this combox the discussion going on in the previous one, I'd like to call the attention of Catholics to the hypothetical possibility of "natura pura", since it allows a more precise understanding of the issue. The term refers to the non-factual case of God not infusing man with sanctifying grace and charity, either originally or after the Fall as the result of Christ's redemption, and consequently not ordering man to the Beatific Vision after death, but to a state of everlasting natural happiness ("ENH"), a kind of Abraham's bossom of infinite duration.<br /><br />That "natura pura" is a valid hypothetical possibility was explicitely affirmed by Catholic pontifical magisterium, most recently by Pius XII in Humani Generis:<br /><br />"Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the Beatific Vision."<br /><br />In the hypothetical "natura pura" case, the definitive state of a man after death would be either ENH or hell, depending on whether he was oriented toward God or not at the time of his death, with the possibility of a transient state of purgatory before reaching ENH. But in this hypothetical case, the orientation toward God would be purely natural, since nobody, either before or after the Fall, would be infused with the supernatural virtue of charity.<br /><br />Now, in the actual case God does not allow a "middle way" of a purely natural orientation toward God resulting in a purely natural everlasting happiness. Instead, a man is either supernaturally oriented toward God by having been infused with sanctifying grace and charity, in which case he goes to the Beatific Vision after death, or is not, in which case he goes to hell. <br /><br />The point of mentioning the "natura pura" case is to show that the orientation toward God, or lack thereof, is always the decisive issue that determines the definitive state of a man after death. <br /><br />Notably, St. Thomas Aquinas, when discussing the case of a NON-baptized child reaching the age of reason, states that the ("actual grace"-assisted) orientation towards God of such a child (who presumably has no idea of the ordinary means that God has disposed for insufing us with grace and charity, i.e. baptism) will suffice for God to infuse him with sanctifying grace:<br /><br />"But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. <b>And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin:</b> whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do." (ST I-II, q.89, a.6, Resp.)<br />Benevolent speculatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52493928324664896852017-01-17T08:57:06.010-08:002017-01-17T08:57:06.010-08:00Dianelos,
if I am not mistaken Christ in the gosp...Dianelos,<br /><br /><i>if I am not mistaken Christ in the gospels tells over and over many things that we should do, but not once asks us to study scripture.</i><br /><br />Yeah, so? Where in the gospels does He tell us to forsake the study of scripture?<br /><br />o <i>Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures...</i> Matt. 21:42 [1]<br /><br />o <i>Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures...</i> Matt. 22:29 [2]Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31680368438359885172017-01-17T00:46:17.960-08:002017-01-17T00:46:17.960-08:00@ Don Jindra,
If God wanted us to be clear and ce...@ Don Jindra,<br /><br />If God wanted us to be clear and certain about the truth then God would have done it so – do we agree on this? God on the contrary made the human condition such that clarity and certainty are not given (John Hick's theodicy explains why). In any case it's clear enough that God wants us to find the truth. Scripture, tradition, church, theology, mysticism, monasticism, contemplation, prayer – all are there to show us the direction towards the truth. But since Christ *is* the truth, one finds (knows) truth only to the degree one meets Christ. And the way to meet Christ is of course to follow His way by doing what He asks of us. Finally, if I am not mistaken Christ in the gospels tells over and over many things that we should do, but not once asks us to study scripture. So, clearly, it's not like Christ considered the study of texts to be particularly important let alone necessary for repentance. <br /><br />I became a, let's say, self aware Christian when I first read the gospels, so it's not like I ignore the value of scripture. But scripture is only an entry-point, a stepping stone. Those who spend their lives studying texts waste their lives. The world of the spirit – the living presence of Christ – is much much larger than that. To confuse the Bible with the Word of God, is to make for oneself an idol, albeit one made of paper and ink. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65081354780624542942017-01-16T20:53:55.262-08:002017-01-16T20:53:55.262-08:00Tony,
Interesting analogy. Whether inspired by Go...Tony,<br /><br />Interesting analogy. Whether inspired by God or not, the authors of the Bible were the original collectors of the evidence. But they went further and issued findings. When we disagree on what those findings are, in effect, we're re-opening the case. Doing so implies their work -- their judgment -- was either insufficient, vague or inconclusive in some way. I say judgment because we're not merely taking a fresh look at the forensic evidence. The assumption is that the ancients already solved the case to their satisfaction. They went past "what happened." It's us who, collectively, aren't satisfied and squabble. We put ourselves in a position to judge, not them, but what they left us. Maybe it's because their text is hard for us to understand today. Or maybe it was poorly written. Or maybe... just maybe... -- I'll offer two alternatives:<br /><br />Maybe the authors fully understood the text was meant as a salutary tale, like when we tell children with a winking eye that Santa will leave coal in their stocking if they don't behave.<br /><br />Or maybe the authors meant to be vague, even challenging, like one of Jesus' parables, or like Jacob wrestling with God. It's the wrestling itself that builds character, and that's what they hoped for. It's a rejection of Islamic-like submission.<br /><br />Or maybe not. But I try to think the best of people.<br /><br />I never claimed I care what the Bible says about an afterlife. I do care about what passes for truth. Just to circle back, you say "history and language and science are useful analytical aids to interpreting the Bible, but they still cannot tell us what the Bible means in the absence of the actual biblical passages themselves." I say the biblical passages themselves often become irrelevant under the weight of those analytical tools as well as personal preferences. When that happens there is a de facto higher judgment taking place. It doesn't matter that those tools are outside ourselves. The decision to use them and which tools to use and how they're used is certainly within us.<br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53149834585338279822017-01-16T12:38:21.536-08:002017-01-16T12:38:21.536-08:00Hello Andrew,
Damn! That's fantastic! And t...Hello Andrew,<br /><br />Damn! That's fantastic! And think of the David Bowie Photoshop possibilities! Why didn't I think of it?<br /><br />Alas, it would no doubt come across as rather inflammatory, especially for readers who are either not familiar with the song or inclined to take mere playful punning too seriously. So, I think I will have to suppress my urge not to let a good gag go to waste...Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15858234139099544782017-01-16T12:09:50.090-08:002017-01-16T12:09:50.090-08:00I've missed your Harty criticisms. I've be...I've missed your Harty criticisms. I've been wondering for the past year when I could expect "Hart's Filthy Lesson."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08964398048283535279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17060171104018401892017-01-16T09:42:08.299-08:002017-01-16T09:42:08.299-08:00Skyliner wrote:
Nice Boards reference; that's...Skyliner wrote:<br /><br /><i>Nice Boards reference; that's where I got my pseudonym!</i><br /><br />Gee, and all this time I thought it was Charlie Barnet:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsDXnYKkdqwEdward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47591074788711511952017-01-16T07:56:50.519-08:002017-01-16T07:56:50.519-08:00Nevertheless, even a materialist can read a text a...<i>Nevertheless, even a materialist can read a text and interpret the author's intent.</i> <br /><br />Whether THERE IS an eternal damnation to hell is a different question than whether the Bible reports that there is such a thing. To one who doesn't believe in the Bible as a testament to spiritual truths, the independence of these two questions ought to be easy and clear. A person suggesting "there is an eternal damnation because the Bible says there is" could theoretically be wrong even when he <i>correctly</i> says "the Bible says there is". In fact, one might suppose that a materialist atheist should have a kind of non-biased view of whether the Bible intends to point to an eternal damnation, or whether it points rather to an eternal heaven for all persons, since in his view BOTH views are completely wrong. It should be no skin off your nose, DJ, whether the Bible really does mean there is such a thing as final damnation. So do you have a POV on which thesis is what is in the Bible?Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77157691467951856742017-01-16T07:55:58.803-08:002017-01-16T07:55:58.803-08:00But the Bible itself does not seem to supply all t...<i>But the Bible itself does not seem to supply all the tools for making that decision. At least, historically that's hard to deny. If I have to invoke extra-biblical sources (Zmirak's brimstone smell test) to decide among several interpretations, then the extra-biblical tools are a higher form of judgment. </i> <br /><br />DJ, I don't think that follows. Let us admit and accept that it is possible to arrive at two opposed views of hell / eternal damnation from the Bible, it still is right that <br /><br /><i>When only one side can be correct,</i> <br /><br />as you say. Given that, it is indeed reasonable to bring to the table (of interpreting) all the tools one can bring to bear, including extra-biblical history, languages, science, etc. While these are useful tools, they do not constitute a "higher form of judgment", they are simply <i>part of the mix</i> of how to arrive at the right interpretation. To take an analogy: a detective has to figure out what happened at a muddled crime scene. He will bring to bear many different analytical tools, including the art of interviewing witnesses, biology (blood analysis), geometry (angles of view, etc), psychology, and other sciences. But these sciences do not constitute a higher form of judgment than the actual data present at the scene. The actual drops of blood, the actual impressions in the mud, the actual arrangement of furniture and walls and windows, these are not a <i>lower</i> form of understanding of "what happened" than biology, geometry, and psychology. All of them, rolled together with reason and judgment is what brings us as close as possible to the right understanding of "what happened". The biology and geometry are theoretical principles, but they need data upon which to operate. So also, history and language and science are useful analytical aids to interpreting the Bible, but they still cannot tell us what the Bible means <i>in the absence of the actual biblical passages themselves</i>. <br /><br />And at the same time, if the Bible has an internal meaning independently of what some 21st century person believes about it, that meaning has to be consistent with itself. And so any and all interpretive models are subject to the "higher" standard of "is it consistent with itself" across all of the data? But this is not a standard OUTSIDE of the Bible, it is internal. <br /><br />Finally, while I don't exactly cotton to Zmirak's description, I think you do him a slight injustice to suggest that the "smell test" is a standard consisting simply of something "found within oneself" that could be performed even without using the Bible. Obviously, the "smell test" has to be performed ON SOMETHING, which is different from consulting "what do I feel". More importantly, the "smell test", like the sense of smell itself, often involves an apprehension of truth that is quite valid and real and perceptive of "what is" that arises from outside oneself; the reason we use the sense of smell for this metaphor is that, unlike sight, it is an apprehension that is <i>very difficult to put into words clearly</i>. Driving in the country, you smell a skunk, quite strongly. Your observation is quite correct and certain. Can you <i>describe</i> the smell, and how you IDENTIFY that it really is a skunk? The fact that this truth apprehended is difficult to put into words doesn't mean that it is based on a <i>standard</i> that is "found within oneself" as if few others would be likely to agree that "oh, yes, that is the smell of a skunk". Indeed, all science rests on observations, which JUST IS the report of the senses to a person, found to be reliable because it is highly repeatable. Well, we cannot suggest that the senses are unreliable standards that are "found within oneself" and still put stock in science.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91464598634679856242017-01-16T06:11:33.085-08:002017-01-16T06:11:33.085-08:00Hey Anonymous,
Nice Boards reference; that's ...Hey Anonymous,<br /><br />Nice Boards reference; that's where I got my pseudonym! And, their "Palace Posy" actually does come to my own mind whenever I think about eschatology . . .<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />SkylinerSkylinernoreply@blogger.com