Bet you didn’t hear about this Terri Schiavo-like case in Arizona
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.
95 comments | 
| 
|
Jacobse | Sanctity of Life, Terri Schiavo |
An important thing to keep in mind when reading this, is that the type of brain injury suffered by Mr. Ramirez is completely different from that suffered by Terri Schiavo. Ramirez had a traumatic brain injury, that can result in bruising, swelling, and internal bleeding of the brain. Terri Schiavo had an anoxic brain injury, which in her case resulted in significant loss of brain tissue. In Schiavo’s case around half the brain was destroyed through oxygen deprivation. In that regard the two cases are very different.
Jim the cause of injury is not the issue in the article.
It is the legal procedure that is the issue where there is similarity. I leave the technical aspects of the legal similarities discussion to Missourian.
Ran across this concerning the “humane” way in which Terri Schiavo was killed:
From: The Terri Schiavo Case: A Catholic Neurologist’s Perspective
Note 5. Jim writes:
Pump enough morphine into someone and any kind of death is “painless”. But this does not justify all manner of death. Read on.
Not correct. Terri needed morphine to blunt the pain of her dehydration. If she was “insensate” and “unconcious” (a claim denied by eyewitnesses), the morphine would not have been necessary.
Further, it appears you have not been around many people who have died. I have. Some patients choose to stop eating and drinking usually in cases where one or more of the major organs have already started a slow shutdown phase (entered into a stage of dying). In those cases simple hydration, like ice chips, or a small sponge to moisten the lips and mouth are appropriate. This is what many of the quotes you cite seem to be referring to.
However, you are making the case that Terri Schiavo’s forced dehydration is similar to those people who have already entered the stage of dying. But Terri Schiavo was not dying. She was healthy, although disabled. Her dehydration was forced on her by the court, and not a response to the biological shutdown of the body. (Her body was forcibly shut down.) Arguing that morphine blunted her pain (and ignoring the savagery that the dehydration inflicted on her body), does not erase this distinction.
BTW, welcome to the Brave New World. You’ve just become an apologist for euthanasia.
God forbid that we consider the moral dimensions of the decision. Morals are such a troublesome business, especially when we need to justify an unjustifiable death. The vexing life and death questions could be so easily resolved if we could just replace “Thou shalt not kill” with “Give ‘em more morphine!”
Hey, if they can’t feel it, it’s not really killing — right?
Fr. Hans writes: “Pump enough morphine into someone and any kind of death is “painless”. ”
Well, there are other kinds of pain. After a while morphine can cause hallucinations and paranoia.
Fr. Hans: “Further, it appears you have not been around many people who have died.”
Have not been around many. But my own mother died from dehydration during a terminal illness. I am not unfamiliar with the effects.
Fr. Hans: “Terri needed morphine to blunt the pain of her dehydration. If she was “insensate” and “unconcious” (a claim denied by eyewitnesses), the morphine would not have been necessary.”
It’s not clear to me whether she was given morphine or not. I have heard that she was given morphine, but the pathology lab report found no trace of opioids. So I don’t know how to reconcile those two things. I don’t know how quickly morphine becomes undetectable. I don’t know how much, if any, she received, or when it may have been discontinued.
The mere fact that she received morphine, if she did, does not mean that she felt any pain. The attending physician may have given an order for it just as part of a standard palliative care protocol, whether or not there was any evidence she was in pain. It is also used to improve breathing. This is not an unusual thing. Towards the end of life many patients cannot communicate or exhibit any sign of discomfort. Administering morphine can be given just as part of standard end of life care. (So says my spouse, RN, BSN, MN in gerontological nursing with focus on pain management, charge nurse.)
Fr. Hans: “BTW, welcome to the Brave New World. You’ve just become an apologist for euthanasia.”
Not at all. Please, let’s maintain some distinctions. Let’s assume that you’re completely right — that Terri was not in a PVS, and that she wanted to be maintained in any condition, PVS, coma, or whatever, for as long as humanly possible. In other words, for the sake of argument I’ll grant to you all that. What that would mean is not that Terri was euthanized, but that medical interventions were improperly discontinued. It would mean that terrible mistakes were made, both in diagnosis and treatment. It may mean that there were serious flaws in the process. But it wouldn’t be euthanasia.
On the other hand, if Judge Greer got it right — she was in a PVS and would not have wanted to be maintained like that (as the great majority of people would not), then medical interventions were properly withdrawn. And that would not be euthanasia. In either case, no euthanasia.
But see, when you use the “E” word, you weaken your own argument. A more extreme argument is always harder to defend, and can overshadow and obscure other more legitimate points, and certainly the Schiavo case presents us with a number of legitimate concerns. Just my personal opinion, for what it’s worth. I’m trying to help you out here.
Fr. Hans: “God forbid that we consider the moral dimensions of the decision.”
I’m all in favor of considering the moral dimensions, and the more the better. But in ANY and EVERY similar situation, the important thing is to GET THE BASIC FACTS RIGHT. (Sorry about shouting, but this is a really crucial point.) Many in the religious right are outraged over the outcome. Fair enough. But when they don’t pay attention to the basic facts of the case, they undermine their own arguments. People say, if they can’t get the basic facts right, why should I give credibility to their interpretation of the facts?
Jim writes
There was no problem with the diagnosis. Over 40 medical professionals testified that Terri was not in a PVS. The Judge in this case for some reason decided to listen to the 3 who said that she was in a PVS and not listen to 40. Reference to the treatment, the husband denied all treatment for his wife. He even denied dental care for her. Unfortunately Terri loss several of her teeth in the process. The major flaw in the process is having a case decided by a judge (who is not a doctor) where he never personal saw Terri even though he had the authority to do so. On the other side, Senator Bill Frist stated that Terri is not in a PVS and he is a renowned heart surgeon (medical doctor) by viewing the videos of her. But the critics of Senator Bill Frist said “How can the Senator state that Terri is not in a PVS when he never saw her?” But they unfortunately do not ask the same question concerning the Judge in this matter and the Judge is not even trained in the medical field. So how can the Judge rule that Terri is in a PVS when the Judge never saw Terri to make such a judgement?
Here is one situation where Christopher is correct. There is no reason to endlessly debate secularists about Terry Schiavo, they will never agree. What I would like to see is a serious discussion from an Orthodox anthropology (that means Dean will have to remain a lurker) as to what is going on and how to handle it. How to handle the obsfucation of many doctors during the terminal phase of life as well.
Michael writes: “Here is one situation where Christopher is correct. There is no reason to endlessly debate secularists about Terry Schiavo, they will never agree. What I would like to see is a serious discussion from an Orthodox anthropology (that means Dean will have to remain a lurker) as to what is going on and how to handle it.”
Ok, here’s an idea. Why not have certain threads that are “free-for-all,” and other threads that are “by invitation only.” Just identify up front what kind of thread it is so everyone knows
I personaly would be very interested to see a purely Orthodox discussion of the Schiavo situation, unburdened, as it would be, by any reference to any of the legal or other documents in the case. I think it sounds like a great idea.
BTW, welcome to the Brave New World. You’ve just become an apologist for euthanasia.
He has been an apologist for euthanasia since I have been reading this blog. It is entirely consistent with his neo-pagan world view, which boils down life and death to the pleasure vs. pain dialectic. Since he would find it “painful” to live as a disabled person, he is quite naturally supportive of euthanasia, abortion, etc. This is why it is entirely inconsistent that this ‘death eater’ argue with Orthodox people – there is no common ground in which to “debate”, “discuss”, etc. IF the death eaters would discuss premises (in this case anthropology) then they could possibly discuss things (really, they would only be asking questions for points of clarification, as they would not really be able to say much as they hold to a contrary anthropology)…
There is no reason to endlessly debate secularists about Terry Schiavo, they will never agree.
Exactly. No common ground, nothing on which to stand on to agree upon higher things. Fr. Jacobse argues really well for the proposition that liberalism/secularism arises form within Christian (i.e. western) culture. I wonder if this issue reveals a critical break – once you deny Christian anthropology (i.e. the soul, etc.) are you now so far from western culture that you are no longer part of it. I wonder if modernism/secularism is now part of a ‘hedonistic culture’ which is now a clean break from western culture. Perhaps this new break occurs when the modernist accepts neo-epicurean physics/metaphysics, and it’s consequences for morality (i.e. in the neo-epicurean world view, only pain vs. pleasure can be a ground for morality)…
I personally would be very interested to see a purely Orthodox discussion of the Schiavo situation
Why? You have no interest in it (and have said as much) except as a crucible to sharpen your own world view on. Why not simply read the many articles posted on this web site, or read the many books discussed on this web site, or pick up a basic catechism (I like Carlton’s “The Faith” but there are others)? Why would you use a blog as a starting point to delve into something like Orthodoxy? Would it not be better to start with God, prayer, fasting, etc. and what those mean, than a rather convoluted “response to the issue of the day”?
Note 14. Christopher writes:
These are very good, and in some cases, very powerful ideas that need more examination. As the cause for the secular blindness however, I think it is more fundamental: a lack of courage.
Look at the secular arguments (not here necessarily but elsewhere) that justify the killing of Terri Schiavo, or abortion, or any other culture of death issue. You just don’t find reasons that support her killing that rise above emotive gesticulation. No effort is made to engage the broader cultural ramifications of a capital sentence for a non-criminal, the erosion of an ethic of life (the abortion, infanticide, euthanasia slippery slope), the rigorous activism of disabled people against Schiavo-like euthanasia (and the condescension of non-disabled people towards them), etc. Even the best Jim can muster is “that’s what the court decided so it must be correct” — as if that settles all objections.
I think secular liberals are deathly afraid of being labelled religious fanatics. The stridency of the secular left is, in a large part, the way they keep their own in line.
Christopher: While I have not followed this case closely enough to intelligently comment on it, I do have a question (as I don’t know the Orthodox opinion).
- How many testimonies would be deemed necessary to determine that someone is in a PVS?
- Should it be determined that they are, is it considered permissible to withhold feeding tubes from them?
- If it is not permissible to withhold such life-sustaining medical care and should the family be unable to sustain this care due to financial or other considerations, on whom does this financial responsibility fall?
Again, I’m not giving an opinion on this, although I am sympathetic towards both sides: the Schiavo family for having lost a daughter and to Michael for possibly having unjust accusations leveled against him.
- How many testimonies would be deemed necessary to determine that someone is in a PVS?
Who cares? It’s a rhetorical question
, so I tell you who, the modernist/secular left, because to a modernist to be alive means certain things. A person is not a person until a certain state of consciousness is able to be demonstrated. To a modern, the person named “Terry” IS her brain, and not only that, she is her brain at a certain level of “function”. Thus, a child in the womb is not really a person because he can not demonstrate consciousness (to the modern). The same for Terry, because according to some (but not others) she could not demonstrate a certain level of being a human (in the modernist definition).
To the Christian, a definition of “PVS” does not really matter, in the sense that we do not define what it means to be human the same way a modernist does. For example, we recognize the soul, God’s Spirit breathed into us, etc.. Interestingly, we recognize the physical even MORE than the modern, as we understand we are a dust/Spirit creation. This leads us to recognize that we are more (far more) than our brains, our “consciousness” as defined by Freud/Jung etc.
So you see, we really approach these matters from a completely different vantage. This is what Michael and I are referring to when we use the term “anthropology”.
The modern, rightly afraid (very very afraid – if his anthropology is true) of being in PVS (or having ALS, or all sorts of other dread neurological conditions) reacts consistently, in that he would rather die – thus he projects onto Terry his dread fear. It never occurs to him that Terry might have been a person still, and serving her family and God in her role as “disabled” person. Sometimes, a person’s role in this fallen world is NOT to serve, but to be served.
To the modern, Terry was in “pain” because she was not a “functioning brain”. To the Christian, Terry was serving God, and is a martyr.
So the Culture of Death can talk about “PVS” until the cows come home, it simply does not matter. What matters is which anthropology is real, accurate. Our we materialistic biochemistry evolved from the soup through the eons, or are we children of God?
note 16:
No effort is made to engage the broader cultural ramifications of a capital sentence for a non-criminal, the erosion of an ethic of life (the abortion, infanticide, euthanasia slippery slope), the rigorous activism of disabled people against Schiavo-like euthanasia (and the condescension of non-disabled people towards them), etc.
Could it be that no effort is made because it is assumed? Their thinking goes like this:
“Of course, we gave up the “demon haunted world” long ago. Of course we are a strange material phenomena, a hairless ape. Morality is what we make it. How did our Robed Masters put it, “the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence”. So OF COURSE we don’t have to speak to the western/Christian “moral” objections? That “slippery slope” is of the demon haunted world. We are on a new plain. We have straighten that slope and are dealing with our own slopes, like the fear of “poverty”, and the fear of PVS, etc.”
In other words, for a significant minority, maybe even a majority, they have already made the switch from western man to “modern” man. They don’t engage the “erosion of an ethic of life” because it’s not even part of their world view, thus it simply does not arise as a concern…
Here’s a suggestion. If you want to know more about the case, start with the actual case record.
Right. Ignore what Fr. Jacobse says and pay attention only to the culture of death.
But it was before the Schiavo case became famous, back when there were just three ordinary people trying to deal with an impossible and unthinkable situation.
“Impossible” and “unthinkable” only to a modern, in that pain=bad, and brain=person. Come to my wife’s wing of the rehab hospital, where the “impossible” and “unthinkable” is a day in and day out occurrence, and where by the Grace of God Christians get by pretty well.
Instead, look at the humans. Get a sense of what Michael Schiavo is all about, and who he is as a person. Look at Michael’s perception of the Schindlers as persons.
Right. Remember what a person is to a modernist, and cling to that as if your very life dependant upon it. Don’t open yourself up to a different experience of what a person is. Don’t see the real conflict; differing conceptions of what a person is – cling tightly to the Michael’s culture of death – ignore the Shcindlers who were clinging to a culture of life. Make sure you stay a death eater.
What I came away with was an impression of three people who were overwhelmed with a tragic situation. ….There’s a whole human drama here, one that you don’t get if you if you look at this only in terms of the debate.
Right. At the end however, after you have been effected and affected by the tragedy of this fallen world, just be sure that you side with the culture of death and defend the killing of Terri. After all, it is a mere human drama – God, if He exists, would surely “understand” we had to kill Terri.
These are real people here — not symbols, not worldviews, not ideologies. And it’s the actual people who are typically missing in action in this whole discussion.
Are you INSANE??? What have we been talking about!?!? Are you Jim, a REAL PERSON??? Actually, to you, Terri was not a real person. Just like she was not to Michael, who put the date of her accident as the date of her death on her tombstone, instead of the date her (and the State) killed her.
The real question is this: Is a modernist; the death eaters like Jim, are the real people? Can a person who has taken on such a truncated, materialistic anthropology be a real person? Not really, because they can not recognize the real person in their neighbor, thus they end up sacrificing them upon a bloody altar that goes by the name of “PVS”, “consciousness”, and the like. We, here at OrthodoxyToday, talk about the REAL PERSON who Terri is, and how she was killed, and Jim misses what is right in front of him for what, several years now?? Can someone who can not see what is right in front of them a REAL PERSON?? Fortunately, for you Jim, we Christians can see you even though you can not see yourself – and thus we would never sacrifice you on the bloody altar that you would have sacrificed yourself on…
Note 18: I’ll tell you why I hesitate to speak about this case, though: it seems to require not only a certain degree of medical knowledge about PVS and the brain (which I don’t have), but we must also be required to form opinions on the intentions and truthfulness of statements by Michael Schiavo as well as those of Terri’s parents and the physicians. This is no easy task, given that we are miles and miles away and are so far removed from the actual incidents in question. I will probably be only to provide a very rough “feel” for what I read.
The other thing that bothers me is how the people involved in this case have become abstractions for various causes, whether it’s the pro-life side or the “death with dignity” side. I recall reading one blog that went on and on about this case and how an injustice was being committed. Later on in this same blog, he speaks about his brother who passed away but who was not a “born again believer”. What struck me was how he could muster such empathy for a woman he never met or knew, yet he could summon little more than a “ho hum” over the thought of a blood relative languishing in Hades because he didn’t share his beliefs. It seemed so incomprehensible to me. Why the concern for one and not the other?
I’ll just say I respect the Orthodox commitment to protecting life, and I appreciate the ethic of this desire to protect it unconditionally. Ask me again were I to (God forbid) end up in something like Terri’s situation, and my feelings might be different. I would hope not.
Christopher, you are correct. Modernists/secularists have no conception of personhood. They cannot as they have denied the reality of the transcendent except as poetic fancy or ephemeral feelings. Therefore despite their insistence on empirical “facts” all dissolves into nothingness, as there is no real substance. Once the transcendent, eternal source of our personhood is denied, our very existence is denied.
Lacking any substance, the human being becomes only one piece in the “means of production” one step on the evolutionary ladder to be used and thrown away as needed. Yet so many modernists have the temerity to call Christians harsh, unforgiving and cruel and they never seem to apply their own anthropology to themselves.
These are real people here — not symbols, not worldviews, not ideologies. And it’s the actual people who are typically missing in action in this whole discussion.
The more I think about it, the more, the more this statement reveals why Jim and Dean are Trolls. They may really be unwitting Trolls, but Trolls nonetheless. You see, to Jim, because we don’t talk about human beings in hiscontext, from his worldview, all we do here at OrthdoxyToday is talk about real people, suffering people like Terri, her parents, Michael, and others as if they are pawns in our “ideology”. He just can’t imaginea world other than how he sees it. He is stuck in stuck in his “worldview”, in that Christians are mere ideologs.
Jim, that makes you dimwitted. Even when I was a modernist/secularist I recognized that others had worldviews that could not be reduced to my own. You however, have Trolled through years here at OrthodoxyToday and still don’t have a single clue as to what Orthodoxy/Christianity is. Jim, how long must we suffer you lack of wit?? The other Orthodox here believe they are following our Lords command to continue presenting the Gospel to you until one day, God willing, a light comes on. I on the other hand, thing Saint Benedict might be on to something, in that he would find “two stout monks” to escort you to the door. In other words, God has a different plan for your wit (and lack thereof)…
note 23, James says:
The other thing that bothers me is how the people involved in this case have become abstractions for various causes,
Wrong. To both the death eaters and Christian’s, anthropology is not a “abstraction”, it is a deep understanding, the deepest, of what we are and how we are to live. It is not a light “cause”, for either “side”. Don’t get caught up in the political trappings of the media and our political life.
I recall reading one blog that went on and on about this case and how an injustice was being committed. Later on in this same blog, he speaks about his brother who passed away but who was not a “born again believer”.
Do us Orthodox a favor: Grab Jim, and take your complaints about “fundamentalists” and other truncated Christians elsewhere. Orthodoxy does NOT = fundamentalism. Christianity does NOT = fundamentalism. Repeat after me “Orthodoxy does NOT = fundamentalism. The culture of life does NOT = fundamentalism”.
“Ask me again were I to (God forbid) end up in something like Terri’s situation, and my feelings might be different. I would hope not.”
As a modernist, your “feelings” would be different. As a modernist, you are rightly afraid (deathly afraid) of PVS, ALS, “ending up in Terri’s situation”, etc. You DO NOT HAVE FAITH in anything beyond the ghostly phenomenon of “consciousness” from a chemical brain, thus be honest with us and yourself and just say you would choose death – as you believe you would already be dead. You would have the date of your death stamped upon your tombstone the same as Michael did on Terri’s: the date of your accident, not the date when he killed her.
Be honest JamesK, YOU HAVE NO FAITH!
Christopher, no, I don’t have your sort of faith. I’m fine with that. I don’t presume to suggest that someone is suffering from cancer, AIDS, starvation or any of the other endless problems facing humanity “according to God’s will”. I don’t know God’s will. Do you? I can only hope you don’t offer these encouraging platitudes to people who are actually suffering with them.
These medical and ethical issues are not cut and dried. If you suffer a bacterial infection in the hospital, is it God’s will for you to die from that infection, or is it His will that you be treated for it? If He wanted you to live through it, why allow the infection in the first place? Does this mean that every medical advancement must be used as it becomes available? What if we learn how to extend life indefinitely? Must such means be used? So everything man creates part of God’s will? Does this include only “helpful” things like vaccines or does it include the atom bomb as well?
Why don’t you talk it over with Him (you seem to have a direct line) and get back to us with the answers.
(You know, I’m beginning to wonder if you aren’t the troll by trying to make Orthodox believers look snippy and reactionary.)
JamesK writes: “These medical and ethical issues are not cut and dried.”
James, I gotta tell you, resistance is futile. Once you get on his bad side, it’s all over. His stated intent is to get rid of all those who do not meet his theological standards. You are apparently one of those people. He, in his infinite wisdom, has already concluded that you have no faith. That’s his way of pronouncing a death sentence as far as your participation on the blog.
He will put a negative spin on everything you say. He won’t actually discuss any issue but will only discuss you and your countless theological defects. And short of adhering 100 percent to his view of the party line, there’s nothing you can do, no argument you can make. If you don’t believe me, trying reasoning with him, see what happens.
Note 27 We, including JamesK, know what we need to know about God’s will
I do not have all the answers to the deep theological questions and I never will know all the answers. I can’t reconcile all the various parts of Scripture, but I know what I need to know about God’s will.
JamesK, you have set up a false challenge. You state that until and unless we can explain all the mysteries of life we cannot know God’s will. We can and we do. So do you, JamesK, you know what you need to know about God’s will. It is written on your heart and you can read it in simple language in the Gospel
From its tone and its placement in the mini-essay, JamesK, appears to believe that he has scored a terrific rhetorical point. He claims:
I posit just the opposite. We are aware of God’s will in at least two ways, if not many more I haven’t discovered yet. God has placed a glimmer of light in our hearts that we generally call “a conscience” JamesK, if someone offered you the ownership of a top of the line Mercedes if you were willing to kill a toddler (assume you would not be caught and prosecuted) I am sure you would say no. It would be your conscience that is stopping you. You would not sacrifice a human life for the sake of ownership of an inaminate object.
We also know God’s will because he sent his Son to earth. His Son assumed our form and lived life as we live it. His Son had a earthly mother and father. His Son probably helped doing chores around the house. His Son went to Temple with his parents and heard Scripture taught. His Son ate with us and walked with us and cryed with us. He taught us in simple yet deeply profound parables that all could understand.
Read one Gospel with an open mind and tell me what you think. You probably won’t do it because you know that your conscience will respond to the Gospel and you might have to change your ways of thinking and acting.
What more could God do to communicate with us than send His Son to live and die among us? If you don’t respond to this, you will respond to nothing
can anyone detect the writer’s exposure to the lost art of old-fashioned Methodist preaching. Too bad that art is nearly dead.
If you don’t believe me, trying reasoning with him, see what happens.
EXACTLY! You are starting to get it! I don’t buy your premises, I don’t buy your world view about what the world is, what man is, who God is, etc. Thus I don’t reason on your terms – your world view. The hard part for you is, you can’t see another side – thus it is you who don’t “reason” – instead you keep throwing up your neo-pagan world view and declaring ill-will upon those who don’t come to your conclusions, or question the “reasons” you choose to post at a site called “OrthodoxyToday”.
Now, the question is, do you have enough wit to realize just how corrosive your “participation” is? Can you find the common decency to “participate” in a way that contributes (to something called “Orthodoxy” – look it up to see what it means), or will you continue being selfish?
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Romans 1:18-23
JamesK
If you want to read more about the case read the book called Our Fight4Terri by Cheryl Ford RN and Dr J. E. Craddock (ISBN: 1412061407). There is actually court documents in the book concerning Terri Schiavo.
Note 30: I’m not talking about ethics, Missourian. I’m talking about God’s will as revealed in the events of life. Christopher conveniently ignored my questions (yet again).
- When someone dies of starvation somewhere (in the U.S., in Uganda … wherever) .. is it God’s will that they starved to death, or did someone neglect their God-given duty to assist them?
- When a child develops leukemia, is it God’s will that “nature run its course” as it would had man not developed treatments for it, or is it God’s will that we take all sorts of measures to treat it and keep them alive and healthy as long as possible? Before you answer, consider whether this ethical responsibility is there should the family be insured and/or have the financial means to provide care or not. If they don’t, on whom does this ethical responsibility fall?
- When that tsunami ripped through Indonesia and killed over 100,000 people, would you tell the families of the victims “Chin up! It’s all God’s will. That child’s corpse floating in the water there is there to teach us all a good lesson about the ineffable nature of God’s love”?
Christopher seems to have the answers for these. I’m still waiting.
Note 28: Ugh. I feel the love, believe me. I’ll take the response here to be “Sit down and shut up! Quit asking questions!!”, so I’ll retreat for the time being.
Have a great holiday, folks.
post 30 & 32:
What is written, what is Revealed, James (or really, his modernistic upbringing reinforced by his modernistic “church” – he is an Episcopalian) has hardened his heart to. What is written, what is Revealed has been reduced to sociology, biblical “criticism”, and the like. After all, Paul was just a prisoner of his times, right? How else could he have gotten it so wrong on women, gays, etc.?
To James, his gospel is:
If we don’t know God’s will (this is a truism to him) then how can we “judge” a mother who chooses to kill the child in her womb, after all she is an ‘impoverished single mother’? How can we “judge” a Michael who hoodwinks the state in killing his former wife? If we don’t know, we don’t know, and then things get complicated – too complicated. Better to be “loving” and “forgiving” no matter which road they choose.
Perhaps that’s why James keeps coming here – he keeps throwing up his quivering, nihilistic “christianity” against the wall of Faith and the Church and wondering why it doesn’t stick.
Take Einstein’s advice James: insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Instead, try learning a bit about Orthodoxy and what the Faith really is…
Reasoning requires at least an understanding of the fundamental assumptions from which logic is built. Christopher and I have repeatedly call upon folks on this site with whom we disagree to state the anthropolical assumptions and we have been greeted with a vast silence.
Is your idea of reasoning really that unless we adopt your anthropological understanding which you refuse to state, that we are not reasoning?
Orthodox thought flows from worship of the living God. A worship made possible by the innate knowledge of Him which was placed in us at our creation. A knowledge strengthened by the kenotic act of His Incarnation. If you refuse to acknowledge these profound realities even as possibilities then you are incapable of understanding Orthodox thought. It is not hard, it is quite simple (not simplistic). Jim is the only one who has been somewhat honest as he has repeatedly acknowledged that he cannot penetrate Orthodox thought no matter how much he studies about it. Nor does he acknowledge the eternal and transcendent as anything other than myth and poetry.
Reasoning requires dealing with someone on their ground. This is supposed to be Orthodox ground as Christopher has repeatedly said. If you want to argue with Orthodoxy and continue to protest about everything which the Church has taught and demonstrated for 2000 years, what is the point?
If however, you choose to open you mind to the wisdom of the Church no matter how poorly it is expressed here, that could be a delightful experience for all of us even if no one changes their minds.
One of the major differences that separates Orthodox Christianity from heterodox Christianity is the willingness to entain questions. We are able to do so becuase the Church has the answers. However, if one questions in cynical doubt as Zacharias then silence may be the best response. Whereas if one questions with an open heart wanting to know the answer as the Blessed Theotokos, then learning is possible.
Many many arguments for the secularist worldview have been tried and rejected here, none of them are sufficient. The moral and social questions considered here are all fundamentally anthropological in nature. Yet it seems as if the interchanges always slip into invective of one kind or another. IMO that is due to the intransigence of those who disagree. The simple refusal to consider what the Church says about the nature of man vs what the modern world says about that same nature.
If you don’t buy the wisdom of the Church, that is your perogative, but don’t knock until you’ve actually tried it, at least in thought.
Christopher conveniently ignored my questions (yet again).
I will continue to “ignore” them, because they are poor questions (ignorant, really, as in un-aware), and do not contribute in the slightest to Orthodoxy and her relation to the culture. They are catechism 101 questions, best answered by going to Church (a real church, not an Episcopalian “church”). You, who have no Faith, want me to explain (in modernist terms no less) the Faith in a 3 paragraph blog post? Lazy on your part really – OOORRRRRRR, intentionally trollish, in that behind your “questions” is really a rhetorical gesture designed to “win” an “debate” with Traditional Christians. If you are actually interested in Christianity, follow Missourian’s and Michaels (and Fr. Jacobse – in fact, probably every Traditional Christian you have ever met) and actually open yourself up to the Faith.
Let me indulge you and respond to:
- When that tsunami ripped through Indonesia and killed over 100,000 people, would you tell the families of the victims “Chin up! It’s all God’s will. That child’s corpse floating in the water there is there to teach us all a good lesson about the ineffable nature of God’s love”?
Let me say, “there you go again”
Again (it’s a really consistent pattern on your part) you confuse Orthodoxy and Christianity with some sort of hyper Calvinistic, hyper protestant “fundamentalism”. Do yourself a favor (if you won’t do it for me 
and actually LEARN what the Orthodox response to Evil is. David Hart’s book is an excellent place to start. And no, you won’t learn it here on a blog. A blog can’t function like that. Perhaps Fr. Jacobse can write out a nice little sermonette, but at best it can only point you in the right direction…
———————————–
1991 we were catechumens.
One day during that time – I read the St Paul Pioneer Press. And was frightened. The short story was about an Orthodox Priest in Pennsylvania. He murdered his wife.
She had Alzheimers. He said: “GOD left her to burn down like a candle. He did not help her. I loved her all my life. She was a good woman!”
The man was beside himself and the Master Fencer got through — got through — got through — touche. Even to one who prayed orthodox prayers a lifetime.
I do not know of Schiavo’s prayers. I do not see a tender heart. He said, “When is that [derogatory term] gonna die.” This reveals the extent of his human-diseased heart. Where is repentance? I hope there is, because eternity doesn’t end
Where is an exceeding, far-surpassing-anything, extent of love seen? Only the LORD Jesus Christ — who became a worm [Psalm 22] — that a priest, a Schiavo, that myself might be granted *true humanity.*
I am a prayer counselor, and I hear it maybe not daily….but weekly. “I’m through with God. God doesn’t hear a thing I say. I’ve been praying for years. I care more about *my dog* than God ever cared about me.”
And Job’s wife lost, faith. “Curse God – and die.” You’re already dead. What are you waiting for, Job?
Notes 30 and 33, Not letting you off the hook, JamesK, you know God’s will
You asked about God’s Will. You stated:
My answer was restated here because you ignored the point by referring to my comment as merely a question of “ethics.” You response was nothing more than a dodge and not an effective or valid one at that.
Yes, I know enough of God’s will to honor Him and follow his uncomplicated guidance for my life. The Gospel taught in the New Testament is accessible to virtually everyone. Christ explains clearly and simply what our ultimate goal in life should be and how to behave. You know this too, although you deny that knowledge. We will be held accountable for this knowledge.
Do I have answers to all of the deep spiritual questions? No. Do I have answers to all of the questions about reconciling various parts of the Holy Scritures? No, I am insufficiently learned, however, there are those who are learned and you can learn from them if you read a book by them. The answers to some questions will be beyond even the very learned because we are finite and He is infinite. I detect no evidence that you have even tried to engage the real scholars available out there on the various topics you raise.
This ties back to a comment that I have made to you many, many times.
That comment is “read a book.” The questions that you want to discuss touch on deep topics. You want to theorize about Constitutional law but you have shown ZERO ACTUAL knowledge of Constitutional theory or history. Constitutional theory is a recognized line of study. There are any number of learned people who have written histories and books on the topic. Your comments on constitutional law showed that you have hever given any of those writers (of whatever school of thought) any time.
On the problem of evil: It is a major stumbling block for the modern mind. I found this online by David Hart:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=166
I believe this article and responses to it is what prompted him to write his book length treatment…
Note 37, Christopher re JamesK
I think your response is parallel to mine in a lot of ways. I don’t want to be unkind but honestly, JamesK, needs to read a book.
There are many fine authors that provide explanations of Orthodoxy. Various authors write on differing degrees of depth from introductory to advanced.
JamesK comments simply do not refect any exposure to serious religious thought.
I don’t know what he believes or whether he believes anything but he seems to be obsessed with the straw man of Christian fundamentalism which turns out to be a fiction promoted by atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins.
Both Hitchens and Dawkins egregiously distort traditional Christianity. But, whatever. I have previously expressed a desire to classify James K as a troll and ignore him. I am applying that policy to constitutional discussions because he simply refused to address the true state of scholarship in Constitutional history or theory. He hadn’t read anything and he expected me to summarized Constitutional law arguments in three simple sentences.
Can’t be done, neither can it be done for Christianity.
JamesK,
your questions about God’s will are Christianity 101 at least as far as Orthodox are concerned: Sin is the cause of suffering and death. Sometimes that is a person’s personal sin, but more often it is the fact that we live in a fallen state. Which is why we Orthodox put so much stress on repentance, almsgiving, prayer, fasting, control of the passions, not trusting in one’s own reasoning.
Again this is Christian anthropology. It is an understanding Missourian has although she claims not to be Orthodox and Dean does not, even though he is apparently a life-long Greek Orthodox.
The most common response to any attempt here to apply Orthodox Christian Anthropology to the issues has been outrage and all kinds of statements that such an approach is not “fair” , not “just”, it is “cruel”, it ignores the “facts” etc., etc. Need I point out that such response is not the height of reason? What is wrong with just saying, “I don’t understand?”
The problem with learning about a different reality than one’s own, is that if requires change. Since I’ve been there done that with virtually all of the attempts to answer these questions other than Orthodoxy, they have no attraction for me at all. They have proven to be vain imaginings at best, demonically (yes Virginia, there really are demons, it is not just a metaphor) destructive at worst. When I realized that the Church’s wisdom was so far above anything I was capable of and that I had found elsewhere, I had to enter because I am concerned with finding the truth.
Jim realizes the difference and refuses to make the step (or so he has said) because Orthodoxy is not modern. DUH, that’s the whole point! It is not “conservative” or “liberal” or “libertarian” either. It does not fit into any man-made category. The Church is the nexus in which all false dictomies created by our confused and darkened minds are resolved. It is the meeting place of heaven and earth, temporal and eternal, man and God.
That is not saying that all Orthodox are perfect or that any of us this side of sainthood is a particularly good example of the hope of the Church. Our minds and hearts still suffer from the same effects of sin as everyone elses. But the Church has the anwers, the antidote, and the healing for anyone who will come in. Read Rev 22:17.
God’s will is simple, come into communion with Him. Anything that gets in the way of the communion should be put aside.
I think Christopher’s point is that as long as we engage in doubtful disputations (which we are commanded NOT to do by St. Paul), we cannot explore proper ways for acting together from an Orthodox foundation.
I am going to try a method recommended by Fr. Seraphim Rose of blessed memory: Don’t argue, make your statements as clear and concise and as truthful as possible ant let God take care of the rest. If there are honest questions, respond to them. Otherwise, be silent. There is certainly no profit in continuing to say the same thing over and over again to the same people who refuse to listen or engage with anything other than doubt, rancor or vitriol.
So to JamesK, Jim, Phil, Stephen, and regretfully Dean often, from an Orthodox Christian perspective you are simply wrong. Nothing you can say will change that. Your argument is not with Fr. Hans or me or any other person. It is with the 2000 year old + Tradition of the Orthodox Church which includes the Holy Scripture and the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ. Who do you think is going to prevail?
Michael:
Not actually vast silence, forgive me.
Michael, James wrote that man is half good and half bad. This is his assumption re: who is man?
For God, he stated that the celestial realm shows we can’t comprehend all. This is a strong statement for transcendence. Maybe even apophatic theology.
But he denies the Bible reveals God to be *matched* to what should be that goodness seen.
Please! forgive me for not going back
to quote directly. Thanks.
Nancy, obviously I missed those references.
Man half good half bad. That is a form of neo-platonic dualism that is not compatible with Christianity.
As the article on St. Gregory Palamas that I linked to in my discussion with Dean on Islam points out apophaticism can be so extreme as to become a form of agnosticism.
Of course the Orthodox approach is that man, the image and likeness of God, was created, in God’s words, “very good”. However meant to mature in perfection as we communed with God, a path we chose not to take. Therefore the image is still there, but the likeness has been tarnished, destorted and darkened by sin resulting in death and corruption in ourselves and the rest of creation.
The transcendence referred to seems to me to be so transcendent as to leave us alone to our own devices, constantly having to choose between the half good and the half bad. It is a classic description of man in our fallen state with a knowledge of good and evil in disobedience to God thinking that we are as gods ourselves without Him.
But it is at least a start and does explain a lot about many of JamesK’s posts especially his recent insistence that God’s will is unknowable and therefore all of our decisions are realtive and individual in nature.
His view ignores fundamental Christian understanding, yet rather than attempting grasp the Christian precepts, he just throws up his hands and says IMPOSSIBLE!. That is not reasoning.
James, does Nancy’s summary accurately depict your understanding?
Here’s that Palamas link again
JamesK writes: “I feel the love, believe me. I’ll take the response here to be “Sit down and shut up! Quit asking questions!!”, so I’ll retreat for the time being.”
You have been given a lot of advice on how to check out the Orthodox church, what essays to read, what books to read, etc.
I have some very simple advice. 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. After all, as we are continually reminded, this is Orthodoxy Today. And indeed it is. And you know the tree by its fruit. So ask yourself this: would I want to be like those who patrol the perimeter of Orthodoxy Today, keeping it safe from contamination? If so, go for it. If not, stay outside the fence and look in. Either way today’s posts have been an education in Orthodoxy. Perhaps this was the Orthodoxy 101 that everyone keeps talking about.
Ah yes, the famous “If you were really a Christian you’d do….(fill my needs the way I want them to be filled when I want them to be filled).
Jim, surely you know that the most common place to come across such sour grapes is from folks wanting a hand out for “food” when their “food” happens to be alcohol or other drugs.
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.
Note 43, Michael, I can’t claim to be Orthodox
Over the last five years my theological viewpoint has changed quite a bit. I went through a renewed interest in religion and looked again at the church my parents raised me in— the United Methodist Church. Although it contains many fine individuals, it tolerates egregious heresy of the most rank kind and seems to be rudderless. There are those in the UMC who believe that they can pull the UMC back towards more traditional Christianity. Best wishes to them, I think it is a lost cause. I think the root problem of the UMC is really the root problem of Protestantism. So I have rejected Protestanism. Christianity needs a Tradition maintained by the Church as a whole across the generations. I have rejected what R.C’s call “private judgment.”
So where am I? Tiber or Bosphorus (spelling?) Which to swim? I have been reading about both traditions. I am drawn more to Orthodoxy but I am somewhat hesitant since it is the least familiar. I grew up with many Roman Catholics. I have visited their churchs on various occaisions such as funerals and weddings and Roman Catholicism is more familiar than Orthodoxy and it has less ethnic baggage.
A wonderful local Greek Orthodox Church holds a very popular Greek festival every year. The Church members hand out buttons that say “Greek for a day.” They mean well but since they are Americans of Greek descent people tend to interpret “Greek” as ethnic Greek rather literally. It can be offputting for non-Greeks. I fully understand that something more important than social discomfort is involved here but when you add utter unfamiliarity with the liturgy and the proper responses expected from the worshippers it is a little
intimidating. O.K. I shouldn’t let it intimidate me, I can feel your response coming across the internet. Sheesh, slap forehead, I am an attorney and I shouldn’t be shy for Pete’s sake. So there you go.
I also don’t think I could live up to the demands of Orthodoxy. I am in the same position as Woody Allen who said that he wouldn’t want to join any club that would have him as a member.
I am in flux.
So I don’t really have a reasoned argument which of two traditions is theologicall correct. I can’t really settle in my mind the filioque dispute or the issue of whether there should be a Bishop of Rome with authority over other Christians. I understand there are other differences of great import.
Greater minds than mind have grappled with these things and I don’t see myself resolving the problemd in my lifetime.
Sorry I can’t give a more satisfying answer.
JamesK, Jim, Phil, Stephen, Dean, and any other OT exoterics:
Boys, I have a suggestion. It’s summertime and the livin’ is easy, why don’t you guys agree to take a two or three month break from OT? Get outdoors, get some sun, relax!
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.
I’m nobody to request it, but would you consider abstaining from posting for a while? You might find answers to some of your questions by simply observing the behavior of the home team in your absence.
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.
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
No, I have read excerpts from the Church Fathers.
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?
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.
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.
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…