GOPUSA | Rachel Alexander June 27, 2007
Don’t expect to find this miraculous story in the pages of the New York Times or featured on CNN, because it would undermine their pro-euthanasia political agenda. In Arizona, a woman had doctors remove food, water, and medicine life support from her husband, Jesse Ramirez, a few days after he entered a coma due to a car rollover accident on May 30. Ramirez, a Gulf War veteran, and his wife had been arguing in the car over a cell phone number of another man that Ramirez found in her cell phone when the rollover happened. Ramirez suffered a broken neck, fractured skull and face, punctured lung and broken ribs. Only 10 days after the accident, his wife instructed doctors to remove all life support from him. His family objected and the Alliance Defense Fund filed an emergency motion with the court on their behalf. Maricopa County Superior court Judge Paul Katz wisely ordered on June 13 that Ramirez be put back on life support and assigned a guardian ad litem as his advocate while the legal arguments were sorted out. Ramirez’s wife responded by petitioning the court again asking to remove him from life support.
Three weeks after the accident, Ramirez regained consciousness, and is now shaking his head and answering yes and no to questions. This miraculous recovery reinforces the importance of using caution when taking incapacitated relatives off life support. In too many cases, it is impossible to determine when or if someone in a coma will come out of it. Had Jesse been removed from life support on June 9 as his wife requested, he would have been dead within a few days of starvation and dehydration. Because of their tumultuous marriage, his wife was not in the best position to make a determination as to whether he should continue on life support. His aunt has said that she suspects his wife was trying to get rid of him. Ramirez had long suspected that his wife was having extra-marital affairs on him.
In life or death situations like this, where a spouse may not have the best interests of an incapacitated person at heart, the interests of other family members in preserving life need to be taken into consideration. Too bad this was not done with Terri Schiavo. We will never know whether she would have ever fully recovered, and even if she hadn’t and the quality of her life remained at the level of a mentally impaired person (which brings up the separate but equally troubling issue of whether it is acceptable to kill someone because they are mentally impaired), the decision to remove her life support should never have been left to her spouse who did not have her best interests at heart.
__________________
Man Wakes From “Terminal Coma”
After Rebecca Ramirez asked doctors and nurses to remove her husband Jesse’s feeding tubes, his family and friends rushed to get an emergency order to reinstate the treatment. Jesse Ramirez, Jr. and his wife Rebecca were in a car accident on May 30 which resulted in minor injuries for Rebecca, but major health issues for Jesse. He went into a coma.
Doctors found that he sustained brain injuries, bringing about his loss of consciousness. A court battle ensued for rights to his medical care. The move by Rebecca Ramirez to take out his feeding and hydration tubes prompted his family to move more quickly to change guardian rights. Tuesday, June 26, Judge Paul Katz reversed his wife’s request to remove the tubes and elected a more objective guardian.
As his wife was trying to pull the plug on his life, Jesse Ramirez was fighting to stay alive. Just eighteen days after his wife gave that order to the doctors, Jesse pulled out of his coma. Today, he sits up in his hospital bed and communicates with visitors just as any other patient would. His family said that he attempts to mouth words and gives the thumbs-up sign. He also gives them hugs and kisses.
Such a miraculous story reminds us of the miracle of life. It reveals the truth that no man can really know God’s timing. The Bible states that it is appointed unto man once to die. With that in mind, the reversal is also a challenge to us all–we only have one life to live.
Missourian, I was not asking for any kind of response but I appreciate your thoughts. It is not surprising to me that someone is indimidated by the Church. She is different. The ethnic pride gets out of hand, triumphalism is present. I can still remember the first time I entered an Orthodox Church, the icon of The Theotokos above the altar blew me away. Besides, we are talking about meeting God, not dealing with the legal system. That is always intimidating.
No one can live up to the the demands of really being Orthodox, if we could then we wouldn’t need Jesus Christ and the folks here we think are wrong wouldn’t be. I’m sure you’ve read prayers of the saints that reflect that.
The Orthodox community in the KC area is quite diverse. I have a few friends there on the KS side and, if you want I’d be glad to give you a few names.
I’d also love to have you as my guest at my home parish in Wichita, St. George Cathedral if you can make it down some time. Our 74th annual Big Dinner is October 13-14. We used to call it the Lebanese Dinner. While the menu hasn’t changed, and we are still clearly Lebanese as a parish, we simply have stopped making a point of it. I have a friend up in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The Orthodox parish there is not Greek, but they have a Greek festival every year because it is so much fun and attractive to a lot of people.
The real point, however, is not converting to Orthodoxy (that’s a lifetime project anyway), although that might happen or it might not. However, it is evident to me that you have an approach that has a flavor of Orthodoxy about it (right belief, right understanding). Whether that can be noursihed and enhanced in the RCC only you can judge.
If I can be of any help, let me know.
Note 49. Missourian writes:
Here’s how I handled that when I first started (over twenty years ago!): sit in the back and watch the gia-gias (Yi-yahs — Grandmothers). There a native logic to it all that you pick up just by doing it — when to cross yourself, when to bow, etc., and it is a lot looser than it first appears. In fact, no body really notices how you worship, especially if you sit in the back.
Also, there is a basic structure to the Liturgy as well. Most everything leading up to the Creed is derived from Temple worship, although Christianized of course. A lot of petitions dealing with mercy, repentence, God’s favor, etc. After the Creed the Eucharist half starts (this first started in the “house churches” when Christian Jews went to temple and then their homes to partake of the Eucharist). There the tone and nature of the petitions change. Once the Eucharist is completed, the Liturgy essentially shuts down.
If it’s a healthy church, you will be welcomed. Not all Orthodox churches are healthy, unfortunately. The people welcoming you, if they have been Orthodox all their lives, will have no idea of this “foreign” feeling you might have. They just want to welcome you. Just accept their hospitality. If you are welcomed by someone who has already “crossed the Bosphorus”, they will be able to understand the feelings of dislocation you might be experiencing.
What you probably will experience, despite the unfamiliarity of it all, is a sense of holiness — nothing earth shattering, no trumpets blowing, no streams of light from heaven (in fact in many cases the Orthodox are not as respectful as they should be during worship) — that is almost tangible. Just be present in a quiet way and you will do fine.
Note 51. Michael writes:
Yes, I had the same experience. In fact, the first time I saw the icon (the “Platytera” it is called), it offended me — yes, offended. But, I also had enough experience with flaky Christianity (good people, bad ideas) that I knew maybe the problem was mine, and not the Church’s. It had been around a lot longer than I had been I figured. Turned out I got that one right. Still, it took three years of soul searching and figuring things out before I decided to convert.
Missourian, St. George in Wichita is a very good parish. Take Michael up on his offer if you are so inclined.
If you want to know what Orthodoxy is like, simply reflect on the treatment you and others have been given here at the hands of the most vigilant of the Orthodox participants….. Either way today’s posts have been an education in Orthodoxy. Perhaps this was the Orthodoxy 101 that everyone keeps talking about.
Is this the temper tauntram before the realization that you HAVE been behaving like a selfish, introverted teenager (um, I mean neo-pagan) all along?
If only! I predict you will still be complaining about Christian’s being Christian’s six months from now…
It sounds to me like the Orthodox here want an opportunity to dwell fully in the love they have one for another, without distraction and disputation. I, for one, am curious to see what that looks like.
Fr. Jacobse, this is exactly the sort of flame bait you should simply delete…
I think I’ll take Scott up on his invitation to take a vacation and leave the commentary to the home team.
It is interesting to read Missourian’s most recent post in this thread. A while back, I was in a quite similar situation. At that point, I joined a confessional Lutheran congregation, a home for which I remain grateful.
When I did that, I took a pause from commenting here — a pause that feels appropriate again. Best regards folks, and my best wishes to the home team.
Michael Bauman writes: “I’ll give you the credit of at least taking the time to read about Orthodoxy. But you also know that your statement is simply not true. I expect more from you than that.”
Michael, I’ve been on internet discussion mailing lists and blogs for years. (Even a list for fountain pen collectors, of which I am one.) Some cyber-places are nice, some aren’t, most are somewhere in between. Years ago, before he started this site, Fr. Hans and I were on an internet list comprised of mostly fundamentalist Christians. People used to say terrible things about Fr. Hans, tearing him a new orifice on a daily basis. I came to his defense. He knows what I’m talking about.
I don’t really care what people say about me or others on these lists. I only ask one thing: Own it. (As Phil said in a different context here.) Yes, own it. If you (not you personally Michael, but the “generic you”) want to insult and call names and in general roast the skin off of others, great, do your thing. But don’t come back later and say “oh, that’s not really what we’re all about. We’re really great people, a real loving community.”
The last few weeks one poster here has done little but deride and insult and attack others with everything short of profanity, in a stated attempt to drive people away from posting. The people who were targeted were nice people, polite, thoughtful, respectful, though with opinions different from most here, but willing to expose their opinions and questions to legitimate criticism. All were here with the express permission of the blog owner. Terms such as heretic, secularist, troll, faithless, and so on were thrown around freely. What did he call me today? Dimwit?
During that time I don’t recall very much effort on the part of others to call for an end to that behavior. Nobody told him to stop, that he was a bad example, that he was misrepresenting the faith. Indeed, some agreed with him. He attacked and sniped with impunity.
So at this point please don’t say that my advice to JamesK is not true. If Orthodox Christians want others to embrace Orthodoxy, then they need to embody Orthodoxy. The New Testament teaches that believers are the body of Christ on earth. If people can’t get Orthodoxy from the lives of Orthodox believers, they’re not going to get it from a book. So own it. But if you think insulting and attacking nice people is wrong, please speak up. As you know, I’ve been around here for several years, and I respect you, even when I disagree with you. You can be a force for good, more than you know.
Scott writes: “It’s summertime and the livin’ is easy . . . ”
You’re right. It is summer, and a good time to think about new things. I grew up with classical music, and became an Ok pianist. (Bach rules.) The last ten years I have studied flamenco guitar and continue to do so — Paco de Lucia, Tomatito, Vicente Amigo, I love them all but am unworthy to carry their guitar cases. The last year my musical interests have expanded, and I’ve been listening to a lot of metal/goth metal music, European bands such as Lacuna Coil and Porcupine Tree. The emotion and energy appeal to me, even as some of the lyrics are . . . not my point of view. Recently I bought a Fender Strat, vintage 1970, customized with the wide Stevie Ray Vaughan-style frets. So I need some time to pursue both flamenco and metal. (My nemesis Christopher will love that. More ammunition to use against me, as if more were needed. Christopher, you go! Use me as you will.) Yes, summer is a good time. Thanks for pointing that out.
Scott: ” . . . why don’t you guys agree to take a two or three month break from OT? Get outdoors, get some sun, relax!”
Dude, I don’t know you but you are polite, you are considerate. Accordingly, your wish is my command. I’m outa here until September. I’ll read, but posting — forget about it.
Scot: “I’m nobody to request it . . . ”
No, you are The Man.
Scott: “You might find answers to some of your questions by simply observing the behavior of the home team in your absence.”
I’m all ears, so to speak. Thanks for posting. See you in September. Best wishes to all — even my nemesis.
Augie writes: “I think I’ll take Scott up on his invitation to take a vacation and leave the commentary to the home team.”
I’m with you.
Christopher writes: “Fr. Jacobse, this is exactly the sort of flame bait you should simply delete . . . . blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”
What’s that noise? Did someone hear some kind of noise?
If anyone wants to contact me I’m at
siguiriya
at
comcast
dot
net.
Mr. Holman, and Augie,
Thanks for your support. Here’s my forecast:
Without the need to constantly dispute the non-orthodox, The love which is so obvious in the home team will flow toward one another. Look at the last few posts! As I read Michael’s and Missourian’s messages, tears came.
Fr. Hans speaks of 90,000 hits now, but without the energy drained by disputation, those hits will multiply like loaves and fishes.
If all exoterics will abstain we will see a feast of charity, and 500,000 hits per month on OT by this fall. This will provide the support needed for OT to become a self-sufficient ministry!
And so, disputants, please, let it be!
Orthodox, greet now one another with a holy kiss!
Jim, you have posted on this blog more than any other single participant except Fr. Hans. Many of your posts have been uncomplimentary to Chrisitans and the Christian tradition. For the most part, you have been treated with decency and respect. Yet you continue to deny the substance and reality of Christianity in post after post. I think that Christopher is over the top but some of what he says has merit.
You have complained repeatedly in the past that the Orthodox are not for anything, just against. Yet when Fr. Hans and others have attempted to explicate what we are for, it is sloughed off as inconsequential and without substance or reality if not outright insulted. I think I ran out of cheeks to turn.
That you would leave, if you are leaving, with the tired old rant which demands fidelity to a high level of assumed Chrisitan behavior while at the same time denying the reality of Jesus Christ is a level of intellectual and spiritual dishonesty I did not expect from you.
You know that the Orthodox Church is full of jerks and I’m probably one of them. If the jerks weren’t in the Church, she wouldn’t be doing her job since all the perfect people like Stephen simply are too evolved to be in such a stupid place.
We jerks don’t prove a thing one way or the other. It is the saints that are the proof, but of course in your world, they are just deluded.
Michael, I’ve been posting here for what, four years? Something like that. In any venue I look to the stated rules, if any, or to clues from the list or blog owner, for what is appropriate to post.
During my entire participation here I have never had a post rejected by the blog owner, never been told by him to tone it down, never been told to post less, never been told that the content of what I posted was inappropriate. After a few years of that one gets the impression that the blog owner is looking for a variety of opinion, looking for the rough-and-tumble of discussion, looking to have opinions from people like Dean, JamesK, me, and others in the mix.
With his constant stream of personal attack and insult, Christopher changed all that. You say that “for the most part, you have been treated with decency and respect.” Yes, that’s quite true, but that ended a few weeks ago when Christopher’s entry marked the beginning of a new and very nasty era. While Christopher went on his rampage, his co-religionists were largely silent, perhaps because he was articulating things that they felt but had not expressed.
I think what has happened the last few weeks is that a long-term misunderstanding has surfaced. People such as Dean, Phil, JamesK, others, and myself thought that we were part of the discussions here. I think we’ve come to understand that we’re not, that our opinions were never really welcome, at best only tolerated, at worst resented. In that sense Christopher’s attacks were useful (in the same way that a chain saw is both useful and destructive) in bringing these resentments to the surface.
At this point I think I need to conclude my participation here, and other trolls, materialists, secularists, atheists, liberals, leftists, hedonists, dimwits, and death-eaters in the “barely tolerated” category may also want to consider doing that.
Today is Independence Day, and in honor of that I grant to you all independence — from me. It’s been . . . interesting.
Upstream, Michael used a key word: “assumption”.
Many of Michael’s, Christopher’s and (to a lesser degree, Missourian’s) posts start from the assumption that Orthodoxy contains the fullest revelation of Truth. Besides posing difficulties to those of us who have not made that leap yet, this seems a momentously large assumption, especially given the very articulate warnings posed by other denominations and religions. They all promise the same eternal, fiery pain for those who fail to toe the theological line.
This is why people like myself try to investigate these various competing claims before hopping in headlong into a path of faith. Better safe than sorry. After all, those Chick tracts can be quite persuasive, despite their lack of sophistication.
So here I come upon an Orthodoxy site that seems to support a little more analysis and debate than some other Christian sites tolerate. What’s it all about? Do these people actually have a lock on the Truth, unlike the other several billion people claiming the same thing? So questions are asked. Now, you can all eloquently defend why Islam, Calvinism, even Roman Catholicism and other faiths are “blasphemous”, “heretical”, “errant” and so forth, but when queried as to how you know what you claim to know in terms of whatever it is you believe, the room falls silent.
The problem is that we don’t seem to be permitted to analyze your beliefs using the very same methods of analysis used to determine that these other ideologies are false. For example: Missourian lectured extensively on the atrocities of the Koran. When I point out that almost the identical acts occurred in the Old Testament, I’m told I am taking “potshots”. Likewise, while the amazing witness and testimony of the early saints “proves” the truth of Christianity to some here, the goodness and charity of believers of others faiths (or no faith) is irrelevant in terms of the truth to their beliefs. Unfortunately, the fact that Islam is repugnant to our modern minds does not make it false, and the goodness of the Christian saints does not make Christianity true.
So again, how do you know what you know? Before taking this step into Orthodoxy, was an exhaustive Scriptural analysis done? Were the competing claims of Mormonism or Islam studied? Did everyone learn Greek and Aramaic so they could better interpret the various Scripture passages whose meanings have been argued and fought over for the last 2,000 years? Were all of the Church fathers read? What about the simple historicity of Christ’s life? Did you look into the Book of Mormon? Why or why not? If you found its claims “unreasonable”, then on what basis did you determine that the claims of orthodox Christianity were?
It does not good to tell me to read this or that as if I’ve already made the decisions you have. This is why we keep talking in circles.
If this forum is truly meant to be a “members only” club as Christopher suggests, then no, I have no business being here, and I’ll refrain from posting. It’s just that I was under the impression that dissent and questioning (without a guarantee of accepting the answers) was permitted.
Note 50, Jim, did you ever defend another person from unfair attacks?
Jim, you are not a victim. You could have simply ignored Christopher and added your posts wherever and whenever you wanted. You were a secure participant here and you have always known that.
Apparently, we now learn that other posters were supposed to read every post, evaluate the tone and quality and intervene in your personal behalf, even though the blog is owned/operated by Fr. Jacobse. When did you ever intervene against unfair or ad hominen attacks on behalf of another individual on the board? Certainly in the course of four years there must have been some instances of unfair, ad hominen attacks.
Please bring it to my attention, so that my understanding of the issue can be clarified if it is in error.
“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.”
-King David
Dear Mr. Holman,
I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings. If I did, forgive me. It’s just that OT seems like such a special place, a place that is yearning to be filled with the love of these brethern one for another.
Perhaps it is selfish of me, but like the anointing of Aaron, I think an anointing will come upon OT if there is unity here, and I dearly want to see such a thing happen.
I believe if the other outsiders will also refrain from posting for a while we will see the true love of God manifest among these special people, the only people with a true apostolic link to Jesus.
JamesK, a small part of my intellectual journey
JamesK, you have actually been supplied this information quite a few times but it is like bouncing a ball against a wall. I will provide you with a summary of my path to the decision that Orthodoxy contains the truth.
I am in my mid-50’s and I own several English translations of the Christian Bible. I understand that there is a difference in the literature that different Christian bodies accept as part of the Canon. I have read the Bible quite a few times, I have lost count of how many.
I have also read books on the history of the development of the Canon.
I understand that there exists various original scrolls or writings which in some case parallel or overlap with what Americans generally consider to be the Christian Bible.
I understand that the Gospels, in general, where set down after Christ’s death.
Many people think they can surprise me with the asssertion that parts of the New Testament were not committed to writing until after Christ’s death. It doesn’t surprise me.
I have always been a fan of classical history and every bona fide classical historian will tell you that there exists plenty of legitimate, standard historical evidence that a preacher by the name of Jesus existed in the reign of Herod and that said preacher was executed in Roman style.
If you are sincerely interested in this topic, there are libraries full of books on how the Bible came into being, including books by secular historians and archaelogists.
What effort have YOU put into tackling this literature?a
2) Were the competing claims of Mormonism and Islam studied.
Yes, JamesK, I have surveyed the Book of Mormon and I have read very reputable analysis of the archaeological facts surrounding the Book of Mormon. It’s legitimacy can easily be disproved. There is a very large literature out there on this topic.
What effort have YOU put into tacking that literature?
As to Islam, I own a 6 volume copy of the Hadith, it cost me $200.00 I own a copy of the most widely recognized statement of Sunni Muslim Law called “Reliance of the Traveler.” I own a copy of the biography of Mohammed revered by orthodox Muslims as the authoritative, if not sacred.
These are the highlights of my Islamic library.
Which of these books have you read?
I have read many books on Islam, both the theology and its political history for it is a political movement. I have worked on a daily basis with Muslims and have had polite discussions with them regarding their Faith.
What effort have YOU put into tackling that literature.
I have also read extensively about Buddhism and Hinduism. I have worked closely with Hindus and Buddhists at various times. I cannot claim to be a scholar, but, I have done serious reading regarding these philosophical and religious systems. I actually have a fair amount of respect for some aspects of Buddhism and I have high regard for classical Chinese culture. In the end I found Buddhism lacking and unsatisfactory and basically false as it lacks Christ.
What effort have YOU put into tacking that literature?
Until the 1960’s, no person could consider themselves educated unless they had studied some Greek and some Latin, so that they could read the foundational literature of Western civilization. It was the Cultural Left that agitated for the removal of these subjects from the curriculum. Are you old enough to reminder “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ” has got to go” This was chanted by student protestors at Standford in the 1960’s.
I have read study Bibles that give the Greek text next to the English text. I have attended Churches where the pastor DID study Greek and Aramaic and was able to refer to the original languages in his sermons and classes. Most
Christians dig down to the Greek when seriously studying theological issues.
Virtually every Christian denomination requires its seminarians to learn these languages so that they can explicate the Scriptures in detail when that is appropriate.
How much effort have YOU made in tacking this literature?
No, I have read excerpts from the Church Father’s.
How much effort have YOU made in tackling this literature
As noted earlier, I have been a fan of classical history since I was 8 years old. Every legitimate and recognized Classical scholar agrees that a preacher by the name of Jesus existed and that the preacher was executed by the Romans. Paul is a real historical figure. There is plenty of archaeological and literary documentation of the activities of the early Christians. Where do you think the catacombs in Rome came from?
On what basis did you decide that the claims of Orthodox Christianity were true?
As a life-long amateur student of the classical period, I am convinced that there is ample, independent evidence of Jesus’ life. There is a mountain of independent evidence about the activities of the first Christians, including Paul.
JamesK, being the young person you are, you don’t want to hear that for the most part older people know more about life than younger people. Young people hate that assertions, it really annoys them.
I have practiced law for nearly 30 years. I have listened to the troubles of hundreds of clients. I could write a book on “trouble.” Every blinking kind of trouble: crime, divorce, depression, finances, career, …… The list could go on and on and on. I have also read the Bible and I can tell you that God’s law’s hold true. I can see the effects in people’s lives of violating God’s laws.
I could recite hundreds of case histories from my client’s lives and from my life. How much time do you have? Would you read it thoughtfully?
Now, no one completely complies with all of God’s laws and even the Godly among us have trouble in their lives. But, for most Americans, most of the trouble in our lives is a result, not of simple bad fortune, but our own disobedience to God’s laws. Like the laws of gravity, God’s laws do not have to be enforced they just hold true.
Now, I could go one for many, many pages of all the instances in my plus 50 year old life in which I have seen that God’s laws hold true, but, there are not enough pages in this blog for that.
I could also tell you of instances in which God clearly manifested Himself to me, a totally unmerited gift. But, I could base my faith on my study, my life experience and my observations without the blessing of God’s direct manifestation. In fact, I was a confirmed believer, long before God gave me that unmerited gift.
I can tell you more, would you really listen and think about it?
My question to you, JamesK, is when you do invest some of your time into looking at the existing literature on these various topics. If you doubt the legitimacy and authority of the Scriptures, fine, go ahead and read the literature about how Scripture came to be collected as Canon. I don’t think you have done that heavy lifting, but, you demand that others do that heavy lifting and condense it into 5 sentence that can be read in 3 minutes.
Our souls are at state, JamesK, whether you choose to believe it or not. Truth doesn’t depend on us, or our frame of mind.
JamesK, will you answer the same questions?
I put a fair amount of time into trying to answer your questions. I could elaborate a great deal more, many many pages of material.
Well you do me the courtesy of grappling with the extensive literature that is out there?
Will you answer the same questions?
For starters, have you seriously studied the Scripture with an open mind?
Can you explain why many of the most brilliant people our civilization has produced have been Christian? Pascal was a blazing intellect he believed,
why?
Can you explain why a woman would give up a husband, home and comfort and go to the poorest place on earth and care for the dying? What atheist has done this? What motivated Mother Theresa to live such a “poor” life.
Why did she always radiate joy?
May you should do some reading, thinking and answer some questions.
Missourian writes: “You were a secure participant here and you have always known that.”
“Secure” is different from “welcome.” I don’t want to be insulted every day, nor do I want to offend others. It’s not a matter of being a victim, but of coming to a recent understanding that I don’t belong here. You could say that I’ve come to understand that on this issue, Christopher is right. Others in a similar situation are free to follow my example, or not.
Perhaps you missed it, but my email address is at the end of #57. l’m happy to converse through email if anyone wants to contact me. Other than tying up loose ends, I have no plans to post here. Best wishes.
Terms such as heretic, secularist, troll, faithless, and so on were thrown around freely. What did he call me today? Dimwit?
Heretic is a technical term, though I don’t always use it correctly. The fact that you would be “offended” by the term even though you are an self admitted pagan is silly
Secularist is what you are, as is Dean, and others. To complain about the term is silly. “Own it” as you say
Troll is what you do when you complain to Christians about their right use of terms like heretic, secularists, faithless, etc. It is you trying to impose your un-Christian thought unto an explicitly Christian forum.
Faithless is what you are, explicitly so. “own it”, as you say.
Dimwit is self explanatory. To come to a Christian forum, and explicitly pronounce yourself as faithless, pagan, etc., and then turn around and claim these terms are “attacks” is either a sign of lack of wit, or a Trollish maneuver designed to deflect criticism.
During that time I don’t recall very much effort on the part of others to call for an end to that behavior.
Your behavior is what in question. I am simply saying what others have said in a more direct manner (“over the top” as Michael would say). Your stated reasons for directly arguing, not accepting Christian explications and discussion, continuing to assert standard pagan and secularist concepts over and over and over again, claiming ill will on Christians who post here, is the issue. Your inability (what is it, after 4 years) to even admit a single orthodox “ground of discussion” as Michael put it, is the problem. Even if we admit a certain lack of wit on yours, Deans, and others part, we still have to question your stubborn insistence on your way even after being asked nicely over and over and over to LISTEN
Nobody told him to stop, that he was a bad example, that he was misrepresenting the faith.
And perhaps this is the crux of it for you and other modernist Trolls here: Why does not Christopher conform to that ultra-patient, put up with anything, let me walk all over the premises and spirit of a Christian blog. Are not Christians supposed to simply put up with anything, “turn the other cheek”, and all that? 🙂 🙂
People such as Dean, Phil, JamesK, others, and myself thought that we were part of the discussions here.
Nope, you display no willingness to LISTEN to another perspective – you are rarely “part of the discussion”, you simply assert the same tired secularist world view over and over and over again. You don’t “discuss” anything, you “debate” in the lowest form, simply to “win” an “argument”. You actually often complain and assert ill will on the part of Christians when they assert a Christian response and world view. Fr Jacobse, Michael, and others believe this is not intentional on your part. I believe it is, in that adults usually have basic social skills, such that when asked nicely to LISTEN they either do, or if they can not (for whatever reason) they realize that they “don’t get it” and gracefully back off to try to learn something.
Many of Michael’s, Christopher’s and (to a lesser degree, Missourian’s) posts start from the assumption that Orthodoxy contains the fullest revelation of Truth.
True! Now, WHY would we believe that? Good question! However, not one easily answered in a few sentences – check out a basic catechism
They all promise the same eternal, fiery pain for those who fail to toe the theological line.
Uh oh, your slipping into your reactionary, anti-calvinistic, all Christians must be “fundamentalists” thinking again…
but when queried as to how you know what you claim to know in terms of whatever it is you believe, the room falls silent
Now your just lying. Why, on this very thread, Fr. Jacobse, Michael, Missourian, myself all explicated a basic Orthodox anthropology, and how we use that anthropology to defend the life of, and condemn the death of Terri. We explained how this view of man is different than the secularist, materialistic anthropology that was almost exclusively used to defend the state execution of Terri. We might not have done the best job of it, but it is right there in black and white.
When asked (over and over and over) to defend/expand upon this anthropology, we patiently explained we can’t summarize it very well in a blog, and all four of us posted links to further essay’s and commentaries, some written by Saints, who we are confident would do a better job than us in explaining basic (and advanced) Christian anthropology.
So, the question now is, why did you miss the obvious? By missing the obvious many times, and then returning (yet again) and accusing us of not defending the Faith (which we did), does that make you a Troll? I argue it does.
Missourian lectured extensively on the atrocities of the Koran. When I point out that almost the identical acts occurred in the Old Testament, I’m told I am taking “potshots”.
You left out the most important part. AFTER being explained the difference between the “atrocities”, both in quality and quantity (but most important quality), and after you stubbornly restate the same tired argument, then (and only then) are you accurately described as taking potshots.
Unfortunately, the fact that Islam is repugnant to our modern minds does not make it false, and the goodness of the Christian saints does not make Christianity true.
Hey, something new here! You are correct on a purely logicalplain. Luckily for us, God has designed us and the universe in such a way that logic is not the only reality (Spock not withstanding :). Thus, when we recoil from the innate violence of Islam, and when our hearts are attracted to beauty, such as the innate beauty of the Saints, then this too is True and something other than logic is guiding us to a reality that is more than pure logic. Truth is more than logic (though it contains the fullness of right logic therein). So the question is, how does one incorporate not only the Truth of logic, the Truth of beauty (and Hope, and Love, etc.) into ones personal Truth.
So again, how do you know what you know? Before taking this step into Orthodoxy, was an exhaustive Scriptural analysis done? Were the competing claims of Mormonism or Islam studied? Did everyone learn Greek and Aramaic so they could better interpret the various Scripture passages whose meanings have been argued and fought over for the last 2,000 years? Were all of the Church fathers read? What about the simple historicity of Christ’s life? Did you look into the Book of Mormon? Why or why not? If you found its claims “unreasonable”, then on what basis did you determine that the claims of orthodox Christianity were?
Nope. Can’t all be done in a lifetime – and Thank God! What a boring, ugly way to find God and His Truth! Luckily for us, God has a better Way for us to follow than the shallow “logic” of the fallen human mind.
It does not good to tell me to read this or that as if I’ve already made the decisions you have. This is why we keep talking in circles.
Not really. You keep talking in circles because the map of your mind, of your logic, of your decision making process when it comes to the deep things of your life – like the question “which of these competing claims is the truth” – is a circle itself. You can’t escape the circle of logic if logic is all there is. You can’t escape materialism if materialism is all there is. You need a paradigm shift, a new map. You keep returning to the same map and wondering why it can’t show you the way from point “A” (your doubts and questions about the truth) and wondering why it can’t show you the way to point “B” (the truth). Problem is, the legend of your map is not marked as “The way to the truth”. I can’t tell you what it is marked as, because that is a really personal thing. But what I can tell you, based on what you are telling me, is that the map is inadequate and you need to put it down.
If this forum is truly meant to be a “members only” club as Christopher suggests, then no, I have no business being here, and I’ll refrain from posting. It’s just that I was under the impression that dissent and questioning (without a guarantee of accepting the answers) was permitted.
That is not what I am suggesting. Well, I would suggest that the way you use the term “dissent” might be problematic. What I am suggesting is that certain posters have gotten into the habit of
a) not LISTENING when they do pose legitimate questions
b) asking the same question over and over and over and over because of not LISTENING
c) asserting ill-will on the part of Christian’s when they either do not accept or do not understand Christian things
d) because they have not been able to LISTEN, then simply posting their own modern world view over and over and over and over so that they can “sharpen” it against Christians. Jim explicitly said this is what he does, Dean does this but I don’t believe he has admitted to it.
e) due to the above four factors, they have wittingly or unwittingly become Trolls – and actually have the nerve to complain about it – Jim accuses us of unChristian charity even though he explicitly denies the real existence of Christian charity!
Heretic, heretical, and heresy all have different conontations. A heretic strictly speaking is someone who the Church has called to repentence and who has refused to repent of incorrect belief. IMO if one has never been in the Church, one cannot be a heretic.
A heresy is a belief or system of beliefs that the Church has declared as untrue.
Heretical is any belief that partakes of a heresy. For instance to assert any form of dualism is to assert an heretical belief. To assert that Jesus Christ is not fully man and fully God is to assert an heretical belief.
IMO however, such language can only be properly applied to someone who is in the Church or seeking entrance to the Church.
Perhaps the biggest failure I see from self-styled atheists, agonistics, secularists, etc. is the failure to recognize that the Orthodox Church is not the Roman Catholic Church and is not Protestant. Many of the attitudes and attacks and even simple questions, don’t apply. We do not look at sin in the same way, generally as do our western counterparts.
Ecclesially we are different. Soteriologically we are different. Often from an anthropological standpoint we are different.
Some issues are, from an Orthodox perspective settled and there is absolutely no question within the Church about them: Abortion, Euthanasia, Homosexual behavior are three that I can think of off the top of my head. There can be real pastoral questions about how to deal with Orthodox who engage in any of these. To “debate” with an Orthodox believer the rightness or wrongness of any of these is simply silly. One can reasonably ask why but to continually assert on an Orthodox blog that we are wrong is not only silly, but rude.
One can properly have genuine discussion about how and to what extent Orthodox belief is, can be, should be reflected in law and culture. One can have genuine discussion on the consequences of allowing or disallowing certain behaviors, but again to continually assert that Christian belief is wrong derails any discussion of consequence.
The attitude being expressed by Jim, Scott, JamesK, as they trumpet their good-byes is one of a secular triumphalism. “I always knew Christians were hypocritical, unthinking, intolerant bigots. This proves it.” All it proves, if it proves anything is the inability/unwillingness of those opposed to Chrisitanity to deal with it in other than a dismissive manner.
Whether you like it or not, the Orthodox Church is the living expression of 2000 years of unbroken spiritual and intellectual effort that has remained essentially unchanged despite concentrated attempts to destroy her. The people, high and low, known and unknown, who have participated in the effort are of the highest caliber one can imagine. Rich, poor, sophisticated and simple it is an amazing array of witnesses. Only the Catholic Church has anything remotely similar to offer.
It is simple malice to proclaim the untruth and poverty of the entire Church just because one person made you a little mad. An anger that is probably fake to begin with.
My invitation to Missourian is open to all, just be cognizant of the sign that is over each entrance into our Holy Temple: Enter with Reverance. It is both a reminder to the faithful and a warning to those who might not be yet faithful that you are about to come into the presence of the Living God. One can either open one’s heart to His love and be drawn, as C.S. Lewis said, “higher up and further in” or reject it with a hardened heart and continue to dwell in darkness and slavery.
It is difficult to even attempt to live a life of repentance and failure is a constant companion, but for those who are mere spectators to sit and throw stones at those in the arena who are failing while at the same time refusing to even acknowledge those who throughout the ages have by the Grace of God, won the battle displays a smallness and meaness for which I have no words.
If you want to be a Monday Morning, armchair quarterback, that’s your choice but if you decide to enter the game, come ahead.
Note 61, This is for You JamesK: Part I
JamesK, a small part of my intellectual journey
JamesK, you have actually been supplied this information quite a few times but it is like bouncing a ball against a wall. I will provide you with a summary of my path to the decision that Orthodoxy contains the truth.
1) Did I do an “exhaustive Scriptural analysis?”
I am in my mid-50’s and I own several English translations of the Christian Bible. I understand that there is a difference in the literature that different Christian bodies accept as part of the Canon. I have read the Bible quite a few times, I have lost count of how many.
I have also read books on the history of the development of the Canon.
I understand that there exists various original scrolls or writings which in some case parallel or overlap with what Americans generally consider to be the Christian Bible.
I understand that the Gospels, in general, where set down after Christ’s death.
Many people think they can surprise me with the asssertion that parts of the New Testament were not committed to writing until after Christ’s death. It doesn’t surprise me.
I have always been a fan of classical history and every bona fide classical historian will tell you that there exists plenty of legitimate, standard historical evidence that a preacher by the name of Jesus existed in the reign of Herod and that said preacher was executed in Roman style.
If you are sincerely interested in this topic, there are libraries full of books on how the Bible came into being, including books by secular historians and archaelogists.
What effort have YOU put into tackling this literature?
.
Yes, JamesK, I have surveyed the Book of Mormon and I have read very reputable analysis of the archaeological facts surrounding the Book of Mormon. It’s legitimacy can easily be disproved. There is a very large literature out there on this topic.
What effort have YOU put into tacking that literature?
As to Islam, I own a 6 volume copy of the Hadith, it cost me $200.00 I own a copy of the most widely recognized statement of Sunni Muslim Law called “Reliance of the Traveler.” I own a copy of the biography of Mohammed revered by orthodox Muslims as the authoritative, if not sacred.
These are the highlights of my Islamic library, I have many more titles in it.
Which of these books have you read?
I have read many books on Islam, both the theology and its political history for it is a political movement. I have worked on a daily basis with Muslims and have had polite discussions with them regarding their Faith.
What effort have YOU put into tackling that literature.
I have also read extensively about Buddhism and Hinduism. I have worked closely with Hindus and Buddhists at various times. I cannot claim to be a scholar, but, I have done serious reading regarding these philosophical and religious systems. I actually have a fair amount of respect for some aspects of Buddhism and I have high regard for classical Chinese culture. In the end I found Buddhism lacking and unsatisfactory and basically false as it lacks Christ.
What effort have YOU put into tacking that literature?
See the next note for continuation as Part II.
Note 61, This is for you JamesK, Part II
JamesK, being the young person you are, you don’t want to hear that for the most part older people know more about life than younger people. Young people hate that assertions, it really annoys them.
I have practiced law for nearly 30 years. I have listened to the troubles of hundreds of clients. I could write a book on “trouble.” Every blinking kind of trouble: crime, divorce, depression, finances, career, …… The list could go on and on and on. I have also read the Bible and I can tell you that God’s law’s hold true. I can see the effects in people’s lives of violating God’s laws.
I could recite hundreds of case histories from my client’s lives and from my life. How much time do you have? Would you read it thoughtfully?
Now, no one completely complies with all of God’s laws and even the Godly among us have trouble in their lives. But, for most Americans, most of the trouble in our lives is a result, not of simple bad fortune, but our own disobedience to God’s laws. Like the laws of gravity, God’s laws do not have to be enforced they just hold true.
Now, I could go one for many, many pages of all the instances in my plus 50 year old life in which I have seen that God’s laws hold true, but, there are not enough pages in this blog for that.
I could also tell you of instances in which God clearly manifested Himself to me, a totally unmerited gift. But, I could base my faith on my study, my life experience and my observations without the blessing of God’s direct manifestation. In fact, I was a confirmed believer, long before God gave me that unmerited gift.
I can tell you more, would you really listen and think about it?
My question to you, JamesK, is when you do invest some of your time into looking at the existing literature on these various topics. If you doubt the legitimacy and authority of the Scriptures, fine, go ahead and read the literature about how Scripture came to be collected as Canon. I don’t think you have done that heavy lifting, but, you demand that others do that heavy lifting and condense it into 5 sentence that can be read in 3 minutes.
Our souls are at state, JamesK, whether you choose to believe it or not. Truth doesn’t depend on us, or our frame of mind.
Michael writes: “The attitude being expressed by Jim, Scott, JamesK, as they trumpet their good-byes is one of a secular triumphalism. ‘I always knew Christians were hypocritical, unthinking, intolerant bigots. This proves it.'”
Michael, I don’t feel that way at all. If I did I never would have spent a minute here.
But look — realistically, there is a big difference between me and many others who post here. For Orthodox Christians a large number of issues are simply closed, beyond all debate and discussion. For me, nothing is closed, and everything is open to discussion. That is a basic conflict.
To be honest, the discussion here is usually of higher quality than many venues in which I have participated. Even so, there is always the basic conflict, and that has become increasingly apparent to me.
I have no grudges. The people here have been patient with me. I have learned much, even as I have disagreed with the very people from whom I have learned. You are one of those people. To the best of my ability I have tried to post material that was substantive and factual. These posts were often not well-received.
In recent weeks I have often been disappointed in discussions, and have found personal attacks irritating. I do not blame any person, but attribute that to the basic conflict to which I referred earlier. I have often disagreed with Christopher, especially with the manner in which he expressed his concerns, but have come to conclude that he is basically correct. I do not belong here.
As I mentioned before, I posted my email address at the end of #57. If anyone wants to contact me privately, feel free to do so. If Fr. Hans wants to invite me to post something here on a particular topic, I would be happy to do so, on an “invitation only” basis.
Best wishes.
“The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.”
-King Solomon
Michael,
Nabal has left the building, and I think that others here who were given to doubtful disputations now realize that it is hard for them to kick against the pricks.
If this is so, isn’t it appropriate for you to eschew contention, and instead espouse charity?
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
You were on a wonderful course with Missourian, a meek sister seeking to inherit the earth. Forget the disputers! Think on that which is good and the latter rain will fall, OT will blossom into Beulah, and the heathen will be shamefaced.
Those who are reprobate cannot change, and they are gone. Forget them and get on with the Father’s business!
Michael writes: “To “debate” with an Orthodox believer the rightness or wrongness of any of these is simply silly. One can reasonably ask why but to continually assert on an Orthodox blog that we are wrong is not only silly, but rude.”
I think this statement expresses the root of the problems that several of us experienced here.
Is Orthodoxy Today in fact an “Orthodox blog?” If it is, then indeed, a number of issues are closed, and as you say, any “debate” is silly and rude. And I would add pointless and a waste of everyone’s time.
Is Orthodoxy Today not an “Orthodox blog?” If not, then all issues are open, the Orthodox point of view would have to be defended the same as any other point of view, and the purpose of the blog would primarily be to have such debates.
The problem that I, and I think others, have had here, is that we never know “which” Orthodoxy Today this is. Am I posting on the “orthodox Orthodoxy Today,” or am I posting on the “Open Debate Orthodoxy Tolday?” One minute the blog is one thing. The next minute it is another thing.
So Fr. Hans posts something on, say, homosexuality. Various people start discussing, some Orthodox, some not. It looks like a discussion. It feels like a discussion. Then one of the Orthodox participants says “why are you posting this on an Orthodox blog?” To a non-Orthodox participant, this feels like bait-and-switch. You think you’re having a discussion on an open issue, but then you find out that it really isn’t open at all. To the non-Orthodox, it feels we’re playing in a rigged game, with the outcome predetermined even before anyone walked on to the field.
Likewise with name-calling and personal attacks. If the point of the blog is to have actual discussions, then name-calling and insults should be forbidden. If these aren’t open discussions, then that should be stated up front, and none of the people who are called names or insulted will even post here in the first place.
Likewise with the use of evidence and argument. Recently Fr. Hans posted a link to a video of David Gibbs talking about the Schiavo case. He said some things that completely contradicted everything in the case record. I pointed that out, quoting chapter and verse from the case record. The problem is that, here, for all practical purposes, the Schiavo case is a closed issue, and any facts, research, or argument on the other side is totally and completely irrelevant.
What I don’t understand is that if all of these issues are closed, and only foregone conclusions are allowed, why even post the articles? If the statements of the Schindler’s attorney cannot be called into question, if the entire existing case record cannot be used in any way to determine the veracity of his statements, then why even post the link in a blog to begin with? What is there to “discuss?” What could possibly be “debated?” Nothing.
Going forward, for the sake of others who might consider posting here, I would urge Fr. Hans to decide what kind of venue this is supposed to be. Is it an Orthodox venue, with the important issues already closed and decided, with articles posted for the purpose of informing Orthodox believers of the latest news? Or is it a venue in which the Orthodox position is the starting point for discussion, but all issues are open, no conclusions are foregone, and main purpose is truly open debate? It has to be one or the other. It cannot be both. I would urge the remaining non-Orthdodox or “Orthodox but unpopular” participants to get an answer to that question before posting anything here.
Note 74, JimH, Set up your own blog and establish the rules that suit you.
Again, Jim, you are not a victim.
Nobody owes you anything.
It is presumptuous for you to make demands on Fr. Jacobse regarding his blog. He doesn’t owe you anything. Set up your own blog and establish the rules that suit you.
By the way, I knew you weren’t leaving, you get too much attention here.
Missourian wrote:
You’re a much better than I am. When dealing with the book of Mormon I have to side with Twain and conclude the book is a useful cure for insomnia.
Mark Twain, Roughing It — “All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the ‘elect’ have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so ‘slow,’ so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.
“The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel — half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern — which was about every sentence or two — he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as ‘exceeding sore,’ ‘and it came to pass,’ etc., and made things satisfactory again. ‘And it came to pass’ was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.”
I would add to your educated comments that to even be considered educated in English Literature meant completion of Anglo-Saxon (Old/Middle English) language courses. (Could you imagine how drab Lord of the Rings would have been if Tolkien had not studied Anglo-Saxon language and literature?)
I’m not quite old enough to remember the Stanford chant (despite having spent my youth just south of Palo Alto and “the farm”. But I do recall the Black Panthers in Berkeley.). But as a consequence of that chant when I entered university the changes to higher education had begun. I did well my first years. At the time I was like many college students today who are deceived into thinking that they are receiving the best higher education has to provide. Then, thankfully, I had the opportunity to study overseas where Stanford’s chant hadn’t reached yet. There I realized I was a dullard and how much I had missed in my earlier years in school. I had to “unlearn” bad ideas. Plus, learn concepts and ideas about western civilization that should have been presented to me in my freshman year (if not earlier) as part of the general education program. It was after being made aware of these failings in my undergraduate studies, that when I went on to graduate school I ensured I went to a school that still retained a classical model and emphasized languages in the curriculum.
I agree with Pelikan (and other writers) about the decline of the university. To me anyone who has gone through an American university in the past 10 to 15 years has been cheated of an education. What is generally taught today is not clear thinking, but rather mimicry and regurgitation of propaganda material presented by the professors. And critical analysis is replaced with emotional appeal.
As you’ve pointed out (many times) JamesK is a victim of this travesty of modern education. He has many times in his writings shown the lack of depth and experience about the subject matter, but because he “feels” he understands he dares to publicly expose his educational failings across the Internet (I would add he is not alone in this hubris).
You’re absolutely correct unless there is time spent in the material, or as you state “the heavy lifting” is done, there cannot be full comprehension of that material. Understanding Christian teachings fully is more than a three second sound-byte or reading the latest pop theology, mass marketed book.
JamesK, I put some work into answering you, will you respond?
JamesK, you advanced a very long list of questions. All of the questions were quite deep, I gave a decent shot at answering them. Each question touched on topics that have a large literature. What effort have YOU put into addressing that literature?
I still submit that your long laundry list of complex questions is, in fact, a dodge. You are trying to argue that the questions are so big and so deep that they are unanswerable, so “Why try?.” They aren’t that deep.
Challenge. Pick one Gospel (Matthew, Luke, Mark or John) read it over the course of 3 days with an open mind. You will find that Christ’s teachings are direct and understandable by anyone with average mental ability. You don’t need to be a classical scholar to understand Christ’s teaching.
JBL, JamesK, Scholarship is fine, but, not a prerequisite to faith
I don’t want to lose sight of a larger point. JamesK trots out a laundry list academic question. He seems to imply that no thinking person could accept the Christian faith without spending a lifetime in scholarly persuits.
I would like to redirect the conversation to the fact that Christ’s teachings in the New Testament are couched in the clearest and most comprehensible terms. If you have the mental ability and education needed to read standard English you can read the Gospel.
So, it is not “defense” to God’s calling to say that you couldn’t respond because you weren’t a classical scholar.
Missourian, I appreciate the input. I will give you a brief synopsis if what I’ve encountered (part I):
I attended a Jesuit high school, so I was exposed to the standard Catholic theology and issues of doctrine, although I suppose the Jesuits would be considered “too liberal” by most here. They were humble, generous good men, though, and I believe they had a positive influence on me personally.
While in college, I explored further by reading the books of the mystics (John of the Cross, Ignatius, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila) as well as spirituality (Thomas Merton) and apologetics (C.S. Lewis). While attending IVCF (Intervarsity Christian Fellowship) in college, I was exposed to a slightly different take on these issues, mostly by writers such as Sproul, Spurgeon and some of the popular apologetics (Josh McDowell). Many of the fellow IVCF participants held some hostility towards Catholicism, believing it to be idolatrous, so that association did not last long. I attended daily Mass for about a year and a half, started a “Catholic Club” of sorts where we discussed Scripture, Catholic theology, etc. We made several trips to a Trappist abbey for extended stays. Upon recommendation from my then spiritual advisor, I was accepted into the Missionaries of Charity in Los Angeles as a “live-in visitor” (which is similar to the Aspirancy stage of becoming a missionary). I’m telling you these things only to underscore my sincerity of dedication on these topics.
Since then, I’ve tried to expose myself to a far wider range of understanding about various issues from as broad of sources as possible. What intrigued me is that some of the most learned scholars on the formation of Scripture are now “ex believers” (Bart Ehrman comes to mind). Obviously, not everyone comes to the same conclusions about these things. I’ve also been reading extensive Protestant theology as well. If my previous understanding of spirituality is as incorrect as these guys say it is, I want to know!
My studies in Islam have not been extensive, although I do read various blogs by current and former Muslims to get a feel for what they believe.
***
I’m derided and jeered at here for my “educational failings”. Yet, men who have immersed their entire lives in these subjects and who have come to conclusions that are different are often dismissed with little more than a simple scoff. Ehrman spent nearly 25 years studying the formation of Scripture, yet someone (probably Christopher) asked why I bother reading the writings of an “apostate”. This isn’t hubris? I am expected to listen and heed the advice of the “more learned”, but when expertise is presented on any given subject by someone whose “worldview” doesn’t match the view of those here, it’s mocked and thrown out the window before it’s even read. This doesn’t seem consistent.
Note 78: You’re right. People don’t necessarily come to the faith by force of reason or clever argument. For some, it’s a powerful religious “experience”. Others feel compelled out of tradition. I don’t say this to demean it. However, I’m personally aware of how I came to believe what I believe (now and past). Whatever it was that pulled me into deeper into the Catholic faith could have been based on personal fancy as well as a true “spiritual calling”. Thus, I am completely willing to hold these beliefs up to scrutiny and discard them if necessary. While this is no easy task (and is sometimes painful), I don’t see what good it does to hold onto my beliefs as infallible just because they are mine.
Missourian writes: “It is presumptuous for you to make demands on Fr. Jacobse regarding his blog.”
Uh . . . . isn’t that exactly what Christopher has been doing for the last few weeks? Speaking of which, if Fr. Hans is running the blog, then he needs to run the blog. If Christopher is running the blog then Fr. Hans should let everyone know that. Again, one way or the other, but not both.
Missourian: “He doesn’t owe you anything. Set up your own blog and establish the rules that suit you.”
If a blog owner doesn’t want chaos, then he needs to be clear about the rules and let people know exactly what kind of blog this is. I’m not telling him WHAT the rules should be. I’m saying that whatever the rules are, those should be clear to potential participants. People shouldn’t have to guess. If certain principles or topics cannot be questioned, great, let everyone know that. If all issues are open for debate, great, then personal attacks and insults against those who do debate shouldn’t be allowed. One way or the other, but not both.
Missourian: “By the way, I knew you weren’t leaving, you get too much attention here.”
Oh, I’m leaving. I’m just doing some final housekeeping. One of the reasons I’m leaving is comments like the one you just made. Why say something like that? What’s the point? As I said before, there is a difference between being a “secure” participant here and a “welcome” participant. Comments like yours make it very clear that I’m not welcome, whatever the rules might be. So I get the picture, Ok? Message received and understood.
Personally, I think that Fr. Hans should make this a strictly conservative and Orthodox blog. That will clear up all the problems, eliminate the non-conservatives and non-Orthodox, and then the home team can have the field to themselves. Of course, it will be like playing football with only one team on the field, but that makes it easier to score touchdowns. Maybe I’ll stand outside the fence once in a while and see what one-sided football looks like. Touchdown! Touchdown! And again! Great team, unstoppable.
JamesK, Note 61 Stay on topic: How do I know what I know?
Here is the start of our discussion:
Please read this next comment carefully and focus, because I doubt that I will address this topic with you again.
You claim that
This is false, my response showed that I have thought about Christianity in
the same manner as I have examined any other body of ideas. You simply cannot maintain that, with respect to me, Missourian, I have not subjected Christianity to the same tests that I subject other bodies of ideas.
You claim that
This is factually false and it shows that you haven’t actually read and thought about what I have written. Here is a very important matter in which you have shown that you simply have not been paying attention. This is why I am on the border of simply not responding to you further because you didn’t read what I wrote before and I am tired of repeating myself. However, for the sake of goodwill I will give you the 6 sentence reponse.
Many people claim equivalency between violence in the Bible and the Koran.
Here is the difference. In the Old Testament the Israelites were directed to wage war, on one occaision, against one people that had offended God with their gross sins. There does not exist a blanket command to go forther and conquer all the world militarily. The Koran, the Sunnah and the Hadith DO CONTAIN A BLANKET, UNQUALIFIED COMMAND TO CONQUER THE WORLD MILITARILY FOR ALLAH. My proof” a quote from the Islamic encyclopedia endorsed by the greatest Sunni scholars at Al-Azhar as follows:
Page 369-370 Reliance of the Traveller, Amana Publications, Beltsville, MD,
Revised Edition, 1994. Read this book to examine the full barbarity of Islam, it is there organized by topic, translated into English and parallel Arabic and approved by Al-Azhar as a faithful translation. Again, JamesK, read something yourself.
This is just a short excerpt, however, if you get a copy of the book, you can see pages and pages and pages of teachings that Muslims are to conquer the world for Islam. Every Muslim know this and they laugh at those who think that this is not orthodox Sunni (and Shii’a) teaching.
Please note that it is not a proper response to claim that I took the summary of the Islamic teaching on jihad “out of context.” The context is very clear, it goes on for pages and pages and pages (which frankly I doubt you would read if I reproduced that here)
Additionally, the history of Islam is one of nearly non-stop conquest conducted under the banner of Islam to further the territorial power of the Ummah. Everyone encountered by the Muslim armies either converted to Islam, or was made into a second-class citizen and lived under daily humiliation or was sold into slavery. Again, JamesK, have you every read any history of the Muslim world? YOu seem oblivous of these historical facts.
In your second paragraph, I answered your question of “how do you know what you know is true?” I said that my lifelong intellectual inquiry conducted in an intellectual manner convinced me. I answer detailed questions.
The critique in your original comment in Note 61 does not hold water and I have demonstrated that as well as a person can in a blog setting.
Note 81, Not your house to keep
As I said, the presumption is that this blog is a “house” that requires your “housekeeping.” The blog belongs to Fr. Jacobse. You are free to start your own blog and set it up according to your rules.
Stay or go as you please.
You are not a victim.
You have every thing you need to defend your ideas if you choose to do so.
Just like everybody else does.
Again, stay or go as you please.
Note 81, Jim H, you are Larry David and this is a Seinfled routine, isn’t it?
I am sorry that I missed the point, Larry. The Jim Holman dramatic departure script is brilliant!!! Could have been a Seinfeld routine.
What intrigued me is that some of the most learned scholars on the formation of Scripture are now “ex believers” (Bart Ehrman comes to mind).
&
Yet, men who have immersed their entire lives in these subjects and who have come to conclusions that are different are often dismissed with little more than a simple scoff. Ehrman spent nearly 25 years studying the formation of Scripture, yet someone (probably Christopher) asked why I bother reading the writings of an “apostate”.
Your looking at this “scientifically” – Faith (and God himself) is not found “scientifically”, at least not as a modern defines “science” (which is reduced to senses/material only). God is not a “thing”, God is a person. Just like Terri. If Terri the “thing” had such and such diagnosis, such and such percent loss of brain matter, etc. it does not matter. Before Terri the “thing” was (and is – still is even now) Terri the person.
Should it surprise you that men who “study” Scripture the “thing” come to different “conclusions” about Scripture the “Truth”?? One can be a babe about Scripture the “thing” and be a Saint about Scripture the “Truth”. Similarly, one can be the wisest about Scripture the “thing” and ignorant, apostate, etc. about Scripture the “Truth”.
For some, it’s a powerful religious “experience”. Others feel compelled out of tradition. I don’t say this to demean it.
More importantly, some come to the Faith because it is True, whether they understand it in part to a greater or lesser degree in it’s “thingness” ( and the this and that facts about this thing). Those who have an “experience” (usually described in sentimental terms) are lost unless they experience the Truth. Those who are “compelled” by “tradition” (and here you mean rather unthinking acceptance of family/village thought forms) are lost unless the Truth is in them.
Thus, I am completely willing to hold these beliefs up to scrutiny and discard them if necessary. While this is no easy task (and is sometimes painful), I don’t see what good it does to hold onto my beliefs as infallible just because they are mine.
I appreciate your sincerity here. However, you can’t keep exposing the ground you are standing on to dialectics. At the bottom of all dialectic, all thought, all “belief” (but interestingly not Truth because Truth the thing is more than a thing because He is a Person) is faith in something. For example, modern man has absolute, unquestioning faith in the material – his neo-epicurean understanding of physics and metaphysics. As soon as he exposes this belief to dialectical reasoning, he ends up a “post-modern”, something closer to Nietzsche. The Christian stands on his “faith” in the non-eternity of matter/energy – that it was created, the reality of a moral order that transcends the material, that Truth is more than a thing, etc.
You should subject some things to dialectical reasoning, but not everything, because then dialectical reasoning itself is deconstructed. I would suggest that you should not be impressed by the fact that some men can decide for/against Truth even when they are life lone experts on the thingness (the “facts” surrounding it: the who, what, when, how, etc.) of Scripture…
JamesK, there is a lag between reading and posting
Longer posts apparently get held up for moderator review, so some of my posts may not reflect what you wrote most recently.
Robert Spencer has a new book coming out comparing Christianity and Islam. He tackles the most commonly used retort about the violence in Islam, that is, to claim that Christian Scriptures sanction the same. It is available for purchase on Amazon and it will ship in August.
Let me explain something else about the Reliance of the Traveller. This book takes all of the Islamic sources of divine law and direction: Koran, Sunnah and Hadith and reconciles them and sets the ideas out in encyclopedic form.
Given this form, there is no context issue as there may be in the Koran, since the Koran reflects events occuring at different times.
As to the Koran, Islamic apologists frequently quote from the early sections which were abrogated by the later sections and they don’t bother to explain that to naive Westerners. They are engaging in a form of direct lying and they don’t even try that hard to cover it up. We ARE being lied to.
I would suggest taking the Reliance of the Traveler into an ecumenical outreach and asking the imam about death for apostates and wife-beating and see how he responds to quotations from the most widely recognized source of Islamic law. Interesting I’ll bet.
JamesK,
One of the major problems with dialectic reasoning is its very form. It frequently assumes a dichotomy where the Church sees an antinomy or a unity that has been distorted by sin. When limited to the material, a dialectic approach is valid to a point. However, attempting to extend the dialect approach into matters of ontology is destructive and will always result in untruth because dualism is the result.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, for a Christian, any form of dualism is heretical. Unfortunately, Augustine and those that followed in the west did a real successful job of re-introducing dualism to the western church. IMO Augustine never overcame his dualistic Manichaeism. If, as Nancy L stated James, you believe that man is half good, half bad you are partaking of a rudimentary form of Manichaeism. Unfortunately, such dualism is endemic in western Christianity thanks to the influence of Augustine. The secularization of the west has deepened the dualism.
Doubt is a powerful tool for spiritual growth, but one doubt’s oneself, not God. The five rules of spiritual warfare in traditional Christianity are:
1. Never rely on yourself in anything
2. Have a daring trust in God
3. Strive without ceasing
4. Remain constantly in prayer
5. Regular attendance on the Holy Eucharist
This is our common Christian heritage and struggle. Dialectic rationalism within an essentially dualistic framework makes such struggle impossible since there is no reason for it.
One can approach the faith through reading about it or worshipping within it. The only way that the reading really comes to life, however, is through worship. As the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom describes it: a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise; thine own of thine own we offer unto Thee.
Of course the ultimate statement: “Unless you eat of my Body and drink of my Blood, you have no life in you” John 6:53. (Read the whole of John 6 for more context)
I’ll say it again, the Incarnation did away with all dichotomies. Evil has no real substance as it is just a negation of God.
Once the Incarnation is rejected (outright or through philosophical manipulation), man becomes capable of all kind of depravity through the application of our “reason”.
A quote for all the empiricists out there:
“Facts, how facts obscure truth; I may be silly, in fact I’m off my head, but I never could believe in that man—what’s his name, in those capital stories?—Sherlock Holmes. Every detail points to something, certainly; but generally to the wrong thing. Facts point in all directions it seems to me, like the thousands of twigs on a tree. It’s only the life of the tree that has unity and goes up—only the green blood that springs, like a fountain, at the stars.” G.K. Chesterton, “The Club of Queer Trades”
As Christopher points out the modern mind has lost, or rather set out to destroy, the sacred in everything, especially in man. The sacred identity that makes each created thing what it is. That which we have that is unique, the breath of God, a living soul must be destoyed above all and man reduced to less than a creature. We must become a mere by-product.
Missourian wrote:
It was never my contention that scholarship was a prerequisite to faith. My issue is the pretense of scholarship to form obtuse religious arguments.
I would simplify it more by saying if you can hear you can understand the Gospel.
I must have missed that argument. I’ll have to go back and re-read previous posts. But you’re right there is no “defense” or “excuse” to a non-reponse to God because of a lack of intellectual capability or edcuational skills.
For the record, I am neither a materialist nor a dualist, and there is no fear of me becoming a Muslim, I can assure you. What I actually said to Nancy was that man was “part good, part bad”, simply meaning that he is capable of both.
Here’s the thing: even if we agree on our anthropologies (that God is God, man is sinful and Christ is the Truth), there’s a huge leap between acknowledging that simple and pure doctrine and the whole host of moral and theological “extras” that come with either Catholicism or Orthodoxy (although Orthodoxy is admittedly pared down in that sense).
From there, where does one go? What is sin? What is “love”, for that matter? After all, to “love God and one’s neighbor” hangs all of the Law and the prophets.
I have to refer again to Catholicism as that is my frame of reference. I don’t see how we start from our base assumptions and end with the moral doctrine of say, natural family planning, which insists that a woman with a medical condition whose life would be at risk should she become pregnant must not use artificial contraception. If that is true, why bother taking antiobiotics for an illness since, after all, if God didn’t want one to get ill, He wouldn’t have allowed the infection in the first place (and some Christians to this day refrain from medical treatment of any kind). One should allow “nature” (or God’s will) to take its natural course. Such thinking doesn’t naturally follow (to me) from our anthropology of God-Christ-Man.
Take the Church’s understanding of obedience within its structures: perhaps if there had been a little more defiance of the Church’s orders and of the superiors’ recommendations, fewer children may have ended up involved in the abuse scandal that occurred.
I understand the Church’s guidelines and its reasoning behind them. It seems, however, that I am not permitted to view them just as “guidelines” or as “ideals” but as absolutes which cannot, under any circumstances, be rejected. I either take the whole kit and kaboodle or none of it.
I’m not so certain that Orthodoxy is much different. I either buy the whole thing or none of it, lest I be deemed “wayward”. This includes both moral and theological issues, of course. So, I am forced to either be honest to my conscience and beliefs, or I can submit entirely to some “other” structure. At least this is what seems to be expected.
It seems some ease this tension by deeming those who disagree as “outside the Tradition”. Thus, Glen and Jim’s opposition to the Iraq conflict, even as they quote the Church fathers and those within the Orthodox tradition, is somehow “outside of it”.
Note 89, JamesK, scholarship and comments
JamesK, I think one of the problems that any commenter runs into is that virtually all the topics discussed on this blog are, by their nature, deep. A serious reply could require repairing to a library, doing some serious research and composing a lengthy reply. Obviously, I haven’t done that for most of my comments. So I am sure that I let the quality of my comments slip quite a bit and I should apply higher standards to my own contributions.
As to acceptance of religious doctrine, you wrote:
My understanding is that the role of private judgment varies from religious tradition to religious tradition. You know more about Roman Catholicism than I do, but, I understand that private judgment is rejected, except for the individual judgment required to agree to convert to Roman Catholicism. Various schools of Protestantism accept varying degrees of private judgment.
To me the difficulty with private judgment is obvious, new Protestant churches spring up daily and it is almost impossible for anyone other than a full-time scholar to investigate and address every theological issue. I have also noticed that as I have matured (somewhat I hope) doctrines which seemed wrongheaded, now make sense to me, which indicates that there exists a wisdom in Christian teaching which rises above the wisdom of individuals.
JamesK says:
Here’s the thing: even if we agree on our anthropologies (that God is God, man is sinful and Christ is the Truth), there’s a huge leap between acknowledging that simple and pure doctrine and the whole host of moral and theological “extras” that come with either Catholicism or Orthodoxy (although Orthodoxy is admittedly pared down in that sense).
Not true. Notice the Orthodox here have been saying it is really quite the opposite. Here is what David Hart (the Orthodoxy lay theologian I linked to above) has to say about John Paul’s II “Theology of the Body”:
To ask what the legacy of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body might be for future debates in bioethics is implicitly to ask what relevance it has for current debates in bioethics. And this creates something of a problem, because there is a real sense in which it has none at all—at least, if by “relevance” one means discrete logical propositions or policy recommendations that might be extracted from the larger context of John Paul’s teachings so as to “advance the conversation” or “suggest a middle course” or “clarify ethical ambiguities.” Simply said, the book does not offer arguments, or propositions, or (thank God) “suggestions.” Rather, it enunciates with extraordinary fullness a complete vision of the spiritual and corporeal life of the human being; that vision is a self-sufficient totality, which one is free to embrace or reject as a whole. To one who holds to John Paul’s Christian understanding of the body, and so believes that each human being, from the very first moment of existence, emerges from and is called towards eternity, there are no negotiable or even very perplexing issues regarding our moral obligations before the mystery of life.
You can read the rest here:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/hart.htm
In other words, it’s really not all that complicated. Take the case of Terri for instance. Whether she had this or that “diagnoses” is beside the point – what was more important was her person – her true humanity.
I understand the Church’s guidelines and its reasoning behind them. It seems, however, that I am not permitted to view them just as “guidelines” or as “ideals” but as absolutes which cannot, under any circumstances, be rejected. I either take the whole kit and kaboodle or none of it.
Well yes, it is “self-sufficient totality”, so you can’t reject it without rejecting the whole. Thus, you can’t expose it to dialectical reasoning and subsume it as an “ideal” under a larger, more pressing “reality” of “the real world” or “my tragic circumstances”, etc. However, it already includes prudential reasoning within it, so what’s the problem? Perhaps one should not tinker with principles but instead work on the prudential application of those principles. It is a modern habit, to always tinker with principles. That is why modern man ends up with no principles, except the crudest pain vs. pleasure, etc.
It seems some ease this tension by deeming those who disagree as “outside the Tradition”. Thus, Glen and Jim’s opposition to the Iraq conflict, even as they quote the Church fathers and those within the Orthodox tradition, is somehow “outside of it”.
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that Glenn is a wayward Orthodox because he objects to the war? Are you saying that myself, or any other regular Orthodox poster said he was not Orthodox because he objects to the war? We did not say that (not intentionally). We may have disagreed upon how to prudentially apply the Orthodox Just War tradition to this particular war. I think you are confusing questioning principles WITH prudential reasoning on how to apply those principles. These are two different things. And yes, Jim is outside the Tradition and traditional Christianity (self-admittedly so) so his quotes of Scripture, Fathers, etc. tend to be incorrect. Often they are an attempt to server modernistic principles, which of course they never do/did…
My understanding is that the role of private judgment varies from religious tradition to religious tradition. You know more about Roman Catholicism than I do, but, I understand that private judgment is rejected, except for the individual judgment required to agree to convert to Roman Catholicism.
Missourian,
I am no expert either, but I understand Catholic doctrine explicates prudential reasoning to a great degree. In fact, the more intelligent/reasonable Catholics who oppose the Iraq war for example, say that it does not meet Just War doctrine, based on any reasonable prudential argument. In a sense, prudential reasoning is a larger, richer, and deeper concept than “private judgment”…
Note 92, Christopher
This is a big topic and I am only slightly acquainted with it. I tend to see Faith as having a deeply spiritual center which is surrounded with more and more mundane matters as you move away from the center. It is my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church defines all important spiritual matters as part of it Magisterium and considers itself led by the Holy Spirit.
As you travel farther and farther away from the core Faith, more mundane matters arise and room for disagreement occurs with the Church.
However, I understand the mindset is that a true R.C. must accept the idea that the R.C. teaches Truth which the individual accepts. Period. The individual does not assert his right to test the teachings of the Church against his private reason or standards. This is about all I know and I would invite JamesK to add further refinement to the idea.
natural family planning, which insists that a woman with a medical condition whose life would be at risk should she become pregnant must not use artificial contraception. If that is true, why bother taking antibiotics for an illness since, after all, if God didn’t want one to get ill, He wouldn’t have allowed the infection in the first place (and some Christians to this day refrain from medical treatment of any kind).
I wanted to speak to this too. Why is it that the modern mind gets so hung up on lifeboat ethics?
First, natural family planning works – just as well as the pill or other methods, IF you follow it correctly. I have the benefit of having a wife who is a physician, but lay persons can educate themselves and it will work. The problem is it is slightly more involved than popping a pill. I have extended family, who like my wife and I, have used this method for years with complete success.
Second, if a women has risk, she will be at risk no matter what form of birth control she uses.
Third, what’s the Catholic doctrine have to do with the radical protestants who refuse medical treatment? The two are not the same.
This “women at risk” is used SO much to justify all sorts of horrors, including the “right” to kill your unborn child. JamesK, I can’t tell the differences between you and a modernist/materialist when you get hung up on this sort of thinking…
http://www.amazon.com/Doors-Sea-Where-Was-Tsunami/dp/0802829767
Christopher
I read the other link to David B Hart in First Things. I regret to say I was disappointed, yet I understand he writes here for a magazine format. Please, does the Doors of the Sea reason, or better, Teach — as though from the ‘oracles’ of God? The ‘utterances’ of God [St Peter’s phrase] — ?
I beg your pardon, but it is slim pickings in pop-Orthodoxy, to find this. I do not mean “pop Orthodoxy” to be derogatory, and perhaps should not use the phrase. A similar question then is, do you know of a treatment on the Problem of Evil amongst the Church Fathers which is something of a comprehensive teaching from the Word of God? What is the Doors of the Sea about? Does he represent the fathers of the Church?
Also, I do not have a problem with putting things on the bottom shelf for beginners to begin to grapple with things. So, I’m not completely down on popular-Orthodoxy. But I do not think this means you must ignore the Scriptures to make things entry level — does it? I liked the stress here recently that children can understand the words of our Lord.
Thank you
– Also, I agree with you, many
questions from Faithless people
revolve around a challenge that Christians
can claim God is completely good. Both these
and Faithful wrestle with God!
– Also, the Muslim answer, “Allah wills it – end of
story – next question”, if this is indeed their approach,
is completely Dis-Satisfying.