www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Irrelevant comparison. Technology is neutral.
Yes, Usual -- that was exactly what I said, and meant.
That's not what you said. I also doubt it's what you meant.
To oppose
the use of technology for inappropriate or negative ends -- such
as close-confinement farming -- does not mean one opposes all use
of technology, or is a "Luddite".
In many instances it is Luddite.
Is your definition of "luddite" like your definition of "pagan"? How are you defining Luddite here?
Technology is a hope for the future, a possible means of creating a cleaner, less destructive, world, and a means of coming to understand the world around us better.
That's better, now you sound like an ADM commercial.
Do you disagree? If I say technology can be misused, you call me a Luddite; if I say technology can be used well, you say it's like a ADM commercial. What I'm saying is -- technology is neutral in itself. High tech does not = more valuable culture.
Technology, such as the study of genetics, has enabled us to see
just how close we actually are to other species, for example -- the
90+ per cent of genes we share with chimpanzees, the 50+ per cent we
share even with chickens.
And of what benefit was that?
It reinforced our common-sense observation that non-humans and humans are not different in kind, only in degree. Every scientific advance in zoology and ethology advances the AR argument that animals are similar enough to human animals that they deserve similar consideration. Linzey's observation that they share the same "breath" and are part of the same covenant with God echoes this with a theological argument from the Christian perspective. I find this heartening evidence that science and faith are not in conflict, but advance toward the same truth from different directions.
Technology provides knowledge and power, and knowledge and power can always be used for either good or evil.
Lack of knowledge can also be misused for evil purposes. Technology in and of itself is neutral.
Likewise, humans have not changed that much because of technology.
Why should we? We leap evolutionary hurdles thanks to technology.
The concerns of an Australian aboriginal tribesman or an
Ancestral Puebloan or a citizen of ancient Rome were not different
in kind from the concerns of a modern person at a computer keyboard.
We are still what we have always been -- human beings. So insights
from cultures with lower technological levels may still speak to us
today, and, as I say, the works of Sophocles may be more valuable to
us than Jerry Springer,
That's hardly a fair comparison.
or the worldview of a Navajo traditionalist
more meaningful than the latest effusion from Fox News.
You don't even watch it, so stop spewing your vitriol.
Actually, I do watch it, and my partner watches it. We believe in knowing our enemy....
The position of women or the poor was not always worse in such cultures either.
It was usually.
If we look back, for example, to the position of Mohammed's wife, it was better than the position of women under the Taliban, although the Taliban have much more modern technology (if not as good as American).
The Taliban are full-fledged Luddites; maybe you didn't know that.
But they were indeed a higher technology culture than that of the Prophet's day.
I would suggest here C.S. Lewis's _Abolition of Man_, if you haven't read it.
I'm surprised you recommend this one given it's objective moralism.
I'm very much a believer in objective morality, and in the reality of natural law, because I am a believer in the objective reality of God, and I believe He is the source of morality, ethics, and rights. I believe that every culture and every person responds to that reality. But no person, and no culture -- not even the authors of the Christian Bible -- sees the full reality, or responds perfectly to that reality. Lewis also points out that every age and culture has its own particular blindnesses and assumptions, and that one of the major values of studying history and literature with an open mind and a receptiveness to the truths seen by other times and cultures (and a clearer understanding of _their_ cultural biases from the vantage point of our own time) is understanding our own biases and countering them.
Codes of ethics speak to universal truths, but the human experience is not monolithic even intra-culturally.
I've
just said that a high level of technology in itself does not make a
culture's ideas more or less valuable. Since you hold to a literalist
interpretation of the bible,
Where have I said what I believe?
Where you claimed the bible could not be illuminated by the Holy Spirit or our interpretation of the text change over time.
I think you better go back and read what I actually wrote before you stick words like THOSE in my mouth. I think I only took exception to your statement that the Holy Spirit was behind your church's radical and novel interpretations of Scripture. Your positions (AR, homosexuality) are *not* an evolution of various interpretations, they are *novel*
one must dismiss Scripture altogether (e.g., Hyland's redactions, dismissing all of the Pauline references to homosexuality, Jude 7, etc.).
Ipse Dixit, Usual
That's not ipse dixit. Your profound mischaracterizations of my hermeneutic are ipse dixit. Go find the quotes which led you to believe that I'm (a) flat earth material, (b) fundamentalist, or (c) inflexible in interpretations. Just because I disagree (vehemently!) with some of the ones you've put forward doesn't mean I disagree with all other interpretations.
-- I disagree, and so do many other people with professional theological training.
Your appeal is based on a combination of logical fallacies of appealing to authority and popularity. Many more people with "professional theological training" will disagree with you than agree with you. FWIW, my training was also "professional" at an accredited seminary. I just wasn't in the M.Div. program itself, though I've completed about 80% of the coursework for it.
If the Holy Spirit was "behind" Jesus's radical reinterpretation of the tradition in the church of His day, and behind Paul's radical outreach to the Gentiles, I see no reason the Holy Spirit might not be behind the ECUSA's modern outreach to gays and Linzey's outreach to non-human animals.
Non sequitur. Christ's work was accompanied by signs and wonders, as were those of the Apostles. Where are yours? Where are Linzeys?
My objections to you analogy are predicated on continua -- and in the case of Jesus, the continuum starts in Genesis when God promises a redeemer and continues through all the covenants. Jesus wasn't a radical messiah, but the promised messiah. Prophets had written that his own people would not recognize him or accept him. The people were expecting their "king" to deliver them from temporal bondage. They were outraged when he only offered them deliverence from eternal bondage.
Which confirms what I said. In retrospect, later Christian writers saw the Old Testament as foretelling Christ. In every generation, someone will claim the Biblical prophecies pointing to the "end time" are happening NOW. Both may or may not be correct. But the people of the time (most of them) did not recognize Jesus as the Christ. Prophecy only becomes obvious in hindsight, and prophecy is often mistaken by later generations.
I don't, and cannot, accept that the Holy Spirit would lead the church to do a 180-degree turn on various issues -- which is what your position on homosexuality and Linzey's on AR would require. There is no continuum in church history for this stuff,
Of course, Linzey and others argue otherwise. That is why I mentioned the Celtic tradition and the many saints who stressed the value of animals. You just dismiss anything which doesn't fit _your_ branch of tradition as "pagan". It's not -- it's just a different tradition. People said the same about Christians who opposed slavery -- that there was no continuum in church history for opposing it. We're seeing traditions being rediscovered, such as the new emphasis on walking the Labyrinth. It has pre-Christian roots, it is found at Chartres cathedral, and it is being reexamined today in light of modern culture. My own priest is leading a pilgrimage to mystical sites in Ireland next year, and I'm hoping to go. Ever since I wrote a paper on the Synod of Whitby in college, the isolated medieval Celtic church has interested me.
and it's deeply offensive when people ascribe their whims as works or movements of the Spirit.
In making such claims, you and your church have *much* more in common with modern Pentecostals than with historic Christianity. The only difference is the Pentecostals use certain Scriptures to support their practice, while you dismiss the Scriptures (almost?) completely to come up with your novel teachings.
You'll
see Jesus saying, "You have heard it said...but I say to you" several
times.
Was he actually *changing* anything or was he merely drawing the holiness of God into much sharper focus?
I would say the same is true of my positions on AR and gay equality in the church. It is not changing anything; it is expanding.
One last thing. Jesus said in that same sermon (Sermon on the Mount):
Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from
the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever
breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others
to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But
whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called
greatest in the kingdom of heaven
Are you teaching the commandments or breaking them? Are you (as Paul wrote) preaching Christ crucified or Christ the animal liberator?
Teaching the commandments, I believe. Christ crucified died for ALL creation, not just for humans. Our commandment is to love one another, to minister to the "least of these", to exercise stewardship of God's creation.
Concern evolves, reaching outward to the "marginals".
Show me where Jesus condoned sin or trivialized sinful behavior in reaching out to sinners.
But He differentiated between the letter of the law and the spirit, and the bible talks about pulling one's animal out of a pit even on the Sabbath. The Sabbath (and the law -- and Law -- were made for man (and woman, and animal), not man for the Sabbath. The whole passage about the dream of the unclean animals is about going beyond the letter and reaching out to the spirit; the arguments about whether Christians had to be circumcised and follow the Jewish codes to be Christians is the same thing. Even the fierce arguments about including the Gospel of John with its strong Greek echoes in the Canon is a part of the same thing -- moving beyond the limited cultural biases of one's time and place, expanding understanding.
but even then my point will stand. Jesus forgave the adultress and told her to sin "no more."
It was the "marginals" who were the main focus of Jesus's attention -- and the "marginals" today are often the gays and the animals.
Your interpretations are disingenuous. Salvation is for all.
But you have to admit Jesus often stressed the poor and socially marginalized in His ministry.
Jesus was not an animal liberator, nor was he a homosexual activist.
But modern ARAs and gay activists can be doing His work in the world today.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
