pratumlatum's Xanga

Mechanical Authority

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:40:50 GMT

Viewing authority and infallibility in an automatic, mechanical way is lazy thinking. As such, it usually creates more problems than it solves. Searching for a perfectly clear answer sometimes muddies the waters more than ever.

Apostolic Succession is the best example I can think of. From what I can tell, it seems to be a strange, almost mechanical transferral of authority and power, via the sacrament of “the laying on of hands.” And then you know who's in charge. No need to think about it any further. See what I mean? Lazy thinking.

But of course, it doesn't really solve anything. Questions start arising immediately. Who really has Apostolic Succession? How do you verify or deny somebody's claim when they trace back their authority to an Apostle? And if you were ordained by an apostate Bishop, does that count? Can a Bishop ever “lose” his authority? What if a Bishop converts to Protestantism; does he carry his “apostolic succession” over with him? etc. Attempts to define authority mechanically never succeed; instead, they create a complicated and confusing machine.

Likewise, the Ecumenical Councils have authority, but that doesn't mean they're perfect. That is to say, the Ecumenical Councils are right because they're right, not because they're Ecumenical. Yes, I recite the Nicene Creed, and I believe every word. But Presbyters are not guaranteed infallibility simply by gathering together in large numbers. Debates over the 7th Ecumenical Council would be a lot simpler if people granted this.

Not even the Bible is mechanically inspired. It has numerous typos, and textual variants. Lazy thinking dictates a simple, clear-cut theory: every word in the Bible is perfect...verbatim. Well, if that's your theory, you're going to have endless arguments about textual variants, and you won't get anywhere. In your quest for an absolute solution, you won't find any solution at all.

N.T. Wright on god

Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:35:52 GMT

Interesting excerpt from page xiv of the preface to The New Testament and the People of God:

“Second, [in this book] I have frequently used 'god' instead of 'God'. This is not a printer's error, nor is it a deliberate irreverence; rather the opposite, in fact. The modern usage, without the article and with a capital, seems to me actually dangerous. This usage, which sometimes amounts to regarding 'God' as the proper name of the Deity, rather than as essentially a common noun, implies that all users of the word are monotheists and, within that, that all monotheists believe in the same god. Both these propositions seem to me self-evidently untrue. It may or may not be true that any worship of any god is translated by some mysterious grace into worship of one god who actually exists, and who happens to be the only god. That is believed by some students of religion. It is not, however, believed by very many practitioners of the mainline monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) or of the non-monotheistic ones (Hinduism, Buddhism and their cognates). Certainly the Jews and Christians of the first century did not believe it.”

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:44:56 GMT

Moralism: defining "good" merely as "the opposite of evil."

It's all relative

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:13:57 GMT

1. Truth is absolute.

2. But whenever truth is communicated, it is communicated relatively.

3. Therefore, in a more practical sense, all truth is relative.

Persecuting the Church

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:59:17 GMT

Exodus 1:12, 'But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel.'

Exegesis and Eisegesis

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:13:00 GMT

Both are unavoidable. And that's okay.

I submit that nothing in the Bible can be understood without imputation, without eisegesis of some kind. Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, but what is a lion? How do you understand the Hebrew or Greek languages? Is applying St. Paul's teachings to the 21st century a way of 'adding meaning' to the text? Meaning that wasn't originally there?

Likewise, if we are reading the Bible, we are always exegeting and 'taking stuff out.' We are certainly talking about Jesus being the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, about St. Paul's teachings, and perhaps we are even talking about them in Hebrew and Greek.

In fact, I submit that *all* books are this way. They are conversations. Exegesis is impossible without eisegesis, and eisegesis is impossible without exegesis. It's much more useful instead to ask, are we imputing something we shouldn't? Are we extracting something that isn't there?

I'll have some blood, please...

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:07:37 GMT

After Noah gets off the ark, God gives him the animals in a way he hadn't previously. Noah is growing up; he has more responsibilities now. The fear and dread of you will now be in the animals' hearts; just as I have given you the plants I have now given you the animals. Go ahead and eat the animals, but don't take their blood--that's where the life is. And don't take man's blood either. No animal or man should ever take a man's blood. For his blood I will require a reckoning.

I believe there is some sort of connection between taking an animal's blood and taking a man's blood. The parallels are too obvious.

This is fascinating: we are allowed to eat animals, but not take their blood. And don't take man's blood either. Perhaps there is a distinction between 'eating' an animal and 'murdering' an animal. Or perhaps not. In any case, why do these two principles apparently go together?

Notice that when God speaks of the great wickedness over the face of the earth, he explicitly says that He wishes to destroy all animals as well. The animals are ours; they are part of our household. When our household is judged, that includes the animals. When we are redeemed, so are they. God tells Noah in the same breath that now he can eat animals and execute murderers. But murderers shouldn't exist. Therefore, eventually execution of murderers shouldn't exist. And perhaps we shouldn't eat animals either, eventually.

Mother!

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:19:17 GMT

Initially we know Adam's wife only as 'the woman.' When the serpent deceives her, God pronounces a curse on the woman: painful, difficult childbirth. Immediately after hearing this curse, Adam names his wife 'Eve,' the life-giver, for she will be the mother of all living. It is as if Adam suddenly realizes that his wife will give birth to children -- an event he had perhaps not considered up to that time.

Shepherd Wolves

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:13:46 GMT

Last night Timothy brought over the 'Planet Earth' documentary put on by the BBC and a half dozen of us enjoyed watching it. Glorious video; I recommend it to anyone and everyone.

Again and again, we saw herds of ruminating animals: caribou, gazelle, mountain goats, etc. Each animal had its own predator: wolves, wild dogs, mountain lions, etc. The drama of the chase formed a big part of the documentary. Isaiah says the lion and wolf will eat grass and lie down with the calf and lamb. No more predators.

And what if...

What if wolves belong with sheep? What if mountain goats need mountain lions? Think about it. Sheep dogs are redeemed wolves. What if the wolf was created to shepherd and guide sheep? What if cheetahs were meant to be miniature stewards and care givers of the African plains? Wolves will remain *different* from sheep, even though both will be herbivores eventually. Giant herds need guardians and stewards, even in the wild. What if these 'predators' today are meant to help us later?

Egypt

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:44:18 GMT

Xanga is rapidly becoming a desert. Posting on here is now almost like talking to nobody, I think. But not quite. It's still a public blog, and therefore still forces me to organize my thoughts somewhat.

Why did the Ancient Egyptians become so powerful so quickly after the flood? And why did they retain that power for so long? Why was their culture so stable and uniform (relatively speaking) for nearly three thousand years? And while we're at it, why did the Mesopotamians develop their civilization a lil' bit faster than the Egyptians? And why didn't the Mesopotamians last as long?

I don't know. But I have some ideas.

Ancient Egypt was rich in a wide variety of natural resources. In fact, it was nearly self-sufficient. Ancient Egyptians had food, metal, fiber, clay, paper, stone, etc. They probably didn't need to trade much, and therefore weren't very dependent upon surrounding nations. That's an excellent recipe for a quick, dominating civilization.

Perhaps the potentially lessened emphasis on importation in Egypt helped preserve their 'national identity.' Importing another nation's goods usually means importing their culture to a certain extent. But Egypt already had nearly everything it needed. I suppose more 'tribute' is always nice...but maybe that's different.

Due to its geographic location and obvious (initial) agricultural fertility, Mesopotamia was probably the location of the first real post-Flood civilization. But it didn't remain fertile. They treated their land like they treated their slaves, and eventually the land grew tired of it. Poor agricultural practices turned Mesopotamia into a desert. Egyptians, on ther other hand, didn't have to play by the same agricultural rules as those silly Mesopotatmians. The Nile flooded the Egyptians' fields annually, depositing rich, eroded soil from far upstream. Egyptians could rape their land and get away with it, because they were benefiting from the destruction of land upstream (probably destruction by natural causes, but destruction nonetheless). Land in Egypt along the Nile continued to stay fertile into modern times until they built that dang dam. (Get it? Dang dam. Aha. Ha.)