LifeSiteNews.com Meg Jalsevac November 14, 2006
Touted as pro-life and pro-family moderate who values his Catholic faith.
Within 24 hours of winning the bitter Pennsylvanian Senate race against incumbent Republican Rick Santorum, Democrat Senator-elect Bob Casey, Jr. let his real agendas show through. Citizenlink.org has reported that, the very day after the election, Casey announced that he would work in support of legislation to increase the scope of federal hate crimes law to encompass sexual orientation and gender identity as a victim group.
Casey was chosen by the Democratic party to run against Santorum because of his supposedly moderate Democratic views. Throughout the election race, Casey’s campaign touted him as a pro-life and pro-family moderate candidate who valued his Catholic faith.
However, Casey was immediately and unabashedly backed in his election bid by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a pro-gay activist group. On the HRC website, it claims “HRC flexed its political muscle and launched an extensive and strategic campaign in partnership with local organizations that resulted in a clear victory for fair-minded candidate Casey.”
According to the website, HRC raised over $375,000 for Casey’s campaign. It also claims that it supplied 4 office staffers and hundreds of volunteers to encourage Pennsylvanians to vote.
Casey thanked HRC the day after the election saying, “HRC got behind my campaign early and has been a tremendous help. I look forward to working with HRC’s incredible staff and membership, especially to advance hate-crimes legislation in the Senate.” In several election surveys Casey admitted that he opposed gay marriage but that he would support homosexual unions.
In October of last year, Casey was quoted in The Philadelphia Jewish Voice as saying “I don’t support gay marriage, but I also don’t support a constitutional amendment banning it. That would be tremendously divisive. However, I do support same sex unions that would give gay couples all the rights, privileges and protections of marriage.”
Casey also admitted in similar surveys that he would support legislation that would increase penalties for crimes committed against an individual because of their sexual orientation.
Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, said, “It didn’t take long for his true colors to show throw. Too Many Pennsylvanians were misled and misinformed by Mr. Casey’s campaign rhetoric.”
Adding sexual orientation verbage to hate-crime legislation is a threat to the First Amendment rights of all Americans who oppose homosexuality. Gramley said, “Right here in Pennsylvania we know what hate- crimes legislation that includes ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ can mean to Christians. In 2004 we witnessed 11 Christians being arrested and charged with a hate crime for simply reading Scripture and singing choruses at a homosexual event.”
The event that Gramley referred to happened in October 2004 when 11 Christian protestors were arrested and held in jail for 21 hours on various charges. The protesters were protesting OutFest, a homosexual festival held in Philadelphia. The protesters were swarmed by members of a homosexual group but only the Christian protesters were taken into custody by police.
Soon after the event, it surfaced that the homosexual group had planned their actions well before the actual event. The coordinator of the homosexual event said “It’s our event, and we’re not going to permit vendors or community groups that conflict with the theme of the event.” He also publicly admitted that their actions infringed on the First Amendment rights of the Christians. No charges were brought against any of the homosexual individuals.
Santorum, decisively beaten by a 20% margin by Casey, was nationally renowned for his conservative views, especially on issues of life and family. He had previously voted against legislation that had attempted to include sexual orientation under the hate-crime umbrella.
Too late, Pennsylvania voters are finding out the hard way that Senator-elect Casey’s actions will speak much louder than his words.
Phil, I’m simply saying that belief is not subject to rationalism. Not all of the beliefs I mentioned can be true. They could all be false. One can examine the foundations for belief and the internal consistency. It will always be a matter of faith. Once one takes the step of faith, there can be rational and irrational responses. No one can prove that God does not exist either, but if He does not it seems to me to be irrational to stenously object to expressions of faith in God.
Before I became Christian, it simply was obvious to me that if God does exisit, Christianity is the best expression of faith. Christianity offered the best answer to my fundamnental questions–why evil and what to do about it? Once I accepted the Christian answer, the rest has been seeking a deeping understanding of my faith both from a rational evaluation of doctrine and being open to experience of the divine in my life.
One believes what one chooses to believe, one should attempt to act in concert with those beliefs. Belief and consistent appliction of said belief has consequences. The consequenesce of the beliefs I mentioned seem destructive to me especially when placed into the broader context of the traditions from which they spring.
The major criticism Chrisitianity receives comes from the failure of Christians to act like Christians while with every other faith, the criticisms come from application of the belief.
The consequences of rationalistic materialism is that no one else or nothing else matters except for oneself. It is also a denial of the obvious ontological and existential experience each of us has as human beings.
Note 99. Which terms are loaded? I’m not sure what terms you mean and why they are loaded.
No offense Phil, but a problem in this discussion is that you haven’t thought that deeply about the issues. Look, a common misconception people hold is that they are the originator of their own ideas and beliefs. Take for example your comment “…it doesn’t necessarily follow that such disbelief can only arise in a theistic culture”. I don’t think you understand what “theistic culture” means here.
Religious belief is the ground of culture. Culture is the living expression of the religious imagination of a people. There is no way to escape this. Thus, even if a people were to reject God and become completely atheistic so to speak, this is still a religious view. Culture will change if atheism takes root in the culture, but the interplay between religion and culture is still in effect. Not accepting this point does not nullify it. Some things are true even if we hold that they are not true.
(Sometimes disbelief is the only defense against truth. This kind of disbelief however, does not prove the truth to be a lie. It only blinds us to the truth. Some truth is so powerful that only the willful acceptance of a counter-truth — a lie — can displace it, in which case our blindness transforms into delusion.)
So to say that a culture is “theistic” (or in the case of a-theism, monotheistic), is to say that the culture was shaped by a monotheistic religious imagination. It does not say that a majority of people in the culture today necessary believe in a mono-theistic God, but that in the past they did to the extent that it shaped the culture and thus today shapes the counter-culture of those who reject the past culture. Put it this way: a son who rejects his father ends up growing up in the counter image of his father. He is still shaped by father but becomes a mirror-opposite of sorts and is still as bound to his father as a devoted son would be. This too, is unavoidable.
You didn’t reject these gods. They were rejected for you by people long since gone. They were displaced by faith in the God of Abraham.
Note 100.
Harris might, but his children will most likely call themselves “Muslim” in a generation or two if his ideas take hold. His distancing from religion in other words, is a luxury only Judeo-Christian culture affords.
Note 96 – Phil,
Michael is an Orthodox Christian. He does not reason on the same materialist presuppositions as you do, so no he is not saying that these other belief systems are “provable” or “unprovable”, or that one “unprovable” assumption needs to be weighed against another. Why don’t you try reading about Orthodoxy (or Christianity for that matter)? There are plenty links on the main page of this web site…
Religious belief is the ground of culture. Culture is the living expression of the religious imagination of a people. There is no way to escape this.
However, the modernist truly does believe himself as something set apart. He believes that, at least in his rational/thoughts he can reason apart from his culture. This is why he does not believe he has a religion. This lack of recognition leads him to be in many ways unconscious of himself and others, which in turn is the reason why he comes across as a fundamentalist of sorts…
Note 104.
Michael was applying a criteria, albeit unstated, to other religious beliefs and arriving at the conclusion that those who live by them are insane. The process of “weighing” was inherent in Note 92, I did not introduce that materialist presupposition.
Note 105. Yes. The strength of invective against Christian fundamentalists by materialists has often struck me as a contra-indicator, a bit of “thou doth protest too much”. The materialist side proves itself more intolerant than the Christian fundamentalist side, IMO. You see it in the attempts to legislate hate crime laws, which, as we have discussed, are a not so veiled attempt to control thought. You also see it in the attempts to obliderate the cultural memory of Christianity through the removal of Christian symbols from public places. It’s like the old Soviet trick of airbrushing fallen Communists from the pictorial (and thus historical) record.
They weren’t rejected “for” me. They were rejected “before” me. The fact that we agree with some of our predecessors does not diminish that the choice is ours to make.
Every day, people around the world choose to believe something their predecessors weighed and found ludicrous. History and culture might influence our choice, but it’s strange to suggest they make it for us.
The problem with your definition of culture is that none of us is actually a member of a single homogenous culture, but of many interlocking cultures. It’s accurate to say that much of American culture was shaped by members of monotheistic religions, but also by Hollywood movies, by great works of literature, and by legends of criminals and war heroes. Some Americans are direct descendants of the founding fathers, yes, but still more of us stem from families of immigrants. If a culture’s origins are the source of the label “monotheistic,” then it depends where you define the origin. Yes, a monotheistic culture, by and large, begat our modern pluralistic culture. But pantheistic cultures begat the monotheistic cultures.
Note 108. Phil writes:
“For” or “before”, it’s a distinction without a difference. As for choice, well sure, but only to a point. Choice really isn’t the focus here; the ideas informing the choices are.
Your ideas about what constitute culture are flat; very one dimensional. I think this is because you elevate “choice” as the determinant, the engine, that drives culture when in fact it is something else entirely. Ideas drive culture, and the most powerful ideas are religious, that is, transcendent, in nature. They bridge the known and unknown (think poetry and literature here), the sacred and mundane.
In your flat view, culture is perceived as consisting of competing currents with no current possessing any greater inherent meaning or value than any other. To the measure that one current is valued over another depends solely on whether it was chosen over the others but its value, to the extent it has any, must always remain subjective. This is why you can put Hollywood movies into the same category as literature for example (or your argument upstream that sodomy is morally equivalent to going to Temple). Call this the cultural decay of moral relativism.
Consequently you confuse the elements that currently have the greatest influence in the culture with those that have greater meaning and value (again, Hollywood over literature). Meaning doesn’t really matter here, influence does. Society is a supermarket and the cultural choices have no greater significance than, say, choosing between Crest or Colgate when you need some toothpaste.
In reality culture is driven by narrative because only narrative reaches into the deeper places where meaning, beauty, coherence, purpose — all the constituents that shape a living culture — rests. You would dispute this, but that’s because the narrative you believe is the one that says no binding narrative exists.
I think you impose hierarchy where I wrote a list–I didn’t rank elements that influence culture, I just listed a few examples.
That analogy was meant to illustrate that separating “homosexual behavior” from “homosexual persons” is in many ways an unfair distinction, just as separating “Jewish persons” from “Jewish rituals” would be. It’s often spoken as a defense, by a speaker who is making the point, “I don’t hate these people, I just hate their actions.” Since being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion, the analogy works. There _are_ Jews who don’t go to temple, but if I say that I only have a problem with the ones who do, I’m still being intolerant and arrogant–I’m saying that it’s my right to decide whether other people should go to Temple.
Beyond that, though, I suppose if you define “refusal to judge” two activities as deeming them equal, then you’re accurate.
I think we’re blurring the line between individual and group behavior. We can predict that a group, for example, that is exposed to a message a certain number of times will exhibit a particular behavior at a rate of X percent. So we can do a rough calculation that airing a certain number of “Wear your seatbelt!” ads will result in a particular increase in overall seatbelt-wearing. Perhaps then, choice is an illusion: I might decide, per inoculation theory, that I’m not going to wear my durn seatbelt, but the tide of the community, the beliefs of the community (and hence, the culture) are a function of myriad individual choices over which no particular person has control.
Your explanation of culture seems consistent with meme theory, the idea that the most powerful ideas propogate themselves. I’m not sure that’s intentional, since previous posts have not exactly painted you a Darwinist, but the idea that powerful narratives persist because of innate elements that appeal to us makes a lot of sense. So, for example, religions that forbid birth control are likely to have more followers in ten generations than religions that permit it. Perhaps it’s not coincidence that the Jesus story has been passed on for generations and crossed numerous national boundaries; it is a compelling narrative, and many modern stories which have achieved the status of cultural phenomena contain elements of it. Symbolic death and subsequent rebirth is a staple of fantasy, science fiction, adventure, and other stories.
This should not be read as disproof of Jesus’ resurrection. One could argue, for example, that God created us with a desire to learn and transmit the Gospels, so that when His son came, it would resonate with us.
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that, in your job, you have to do a lot of inferral about people’s background and inner feelings based on the statements they make. That probably works well for you, but in terms of a blog discussion I’m finding it creates difficulties– I keep wanting to respond to misconceptions about my own beliefs and worldview, instead of actually responding in a linear way to statements that were actually made.
I’m more accustomed to discussion styles where, if participants hold two different positions, they look for the flaws in the position being taken, not in the person or his background.
Phil, the primary flaws in your discussion are your premises that stemsfrom what appears to be both materialism and egalitarianism. Neither of these philosphical views are compatible with Christianity. Those adhering to these beliefs while in power have done great harm to their own citizens and the world as both require the forceful repression of human beings to be implemented. Both are negative philosphies that postulate neither meaning nor purpose to life and are therefore fundamentally nihlilistic.
While many people have been harmed in the name of Christ over the last 2000 years, the rulers and others who have done so have been in violation of the principals of Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and the testimony of the saints.
It is exceptionally difficult to have any type of discussion when there is such a wide divergence of philosphical views, especially when one of the parties (you in this case) wants to carry on as if the divergence was either not there or did not matter.
Phil:
Fr. Stephen Freeman on his blog says, in part:
(emphasis mine).
Also Phil, being a priest in the Church is not a profession in the worldly understanding of a profession. Being a priest is a calling to serve God in a special and unique manner. Being an Orthodox Chrisitan is to unite oneself with the revealed Trinity by His Grace and within the Church herself (or at least make the attempt). It is the most intimate and personal act imaginable. I am still struggling to even touch the hem of Jesus’ robe
However, as one makes the attempt, one begins to think in different ways, perceive in different ways, act in different ways. It is the hope of Fr. Hans that as more and more people make the attempt, there will be a positive effect upon the culture at large because it is faith lived that forms culture. It is faith lived that forms community. It is faith lived that forms all human relationships. That is why it matters what one’s faith, what one’s belief is. One’s whole being is involved, not just the brain.
Real discussion involves the ability to share more than just mental gymnastics, but is predicated upon both the willingness and the ability of all parties engaged to understand the other, at least on some level. You have shown no such ability. That is not surprising given your truncated view of human nature.
Phil writes: “I’m more accustomed to discussion styles where, if participants hold two different positions, they look for the flaws in the position being taken, not in the person or his background.”
Phil, I also am an “outsider” here, and here are some of my observations.
A particular issue here is that Eastern Orthodoxy does not have a strong philosophical tradition. EO believers are not trying to prove the existence of God, show how evil is compatible with the existence of God, or develop nuanced philosophical ethical arguments. They don’t have, as far as I can tell, people who know very much about modern biblical criticism. The kinds of religious discussions that would usually happen on a religious blog either don’t happen here, or don’t work very well here.
In my experience Eastern Orthodoxy is not philosophical but existential in nature. The term that always comes to mind in this regard is “gestalt.” As the dictionary says, “a pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.”
I have spent several years trying to understand the Eastern Orthodox gestalt, perhaps with partial success. The problem for the outsider in discussions with EO believers is that you really can’t just focus on a single element. For example, the EO view of homosexuality is tied in with the EO view of the body, with the nature of man, with the relationship between God and man, with the sacrament of marriage, etc., etc.
So the outsider tries to have a discussion on one aspect of Eastern Orthodox belief, and before you know it you’re arguing with the whole gestalt and accused of being a materialist, secularist, or modernist — which seem to be shorthand ways of saying that you don’t get the gestalt.
As the Greek poet said, the fox knows many small things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. In this venue the outsiders are the foxes, the EO believers the hedgehogs.
But there are problems for the EO believer as well. The believer wants to have an effect in the larger society, and so he goes out with his tightly-wrapped, all-connnected gestalt, into a world that is analytical, particular, and sceptical. In other words, the hedgehog goes out into a world of foxes.
But the problem is that the believer has to engage with outsiders at the analytical and philosopical level, but his main tool is non-analytical and non-philosophical. And it often just doesn’t work very well. I saw that in particular in the many Terri Schiavo discussions that occurred here. Many here understood little about medical ethics. They didn’t understand the concept of patient autonomy — the foundational concept of modern medical ethics — and when they understood it they disagreed with it. They disagreed with the legal system. They disagreed with the diagnosis. They disagreed with everything. But at the same time they were virtually incapable of offering any specific changes to the process. They just knew that they didn’t like the outcome.
I think this blog is an attempt at trying to explore some of the societal implications of the Eastern Orthodox gestalt. The problem is that if the EO believers want to have an effect on the larger society, they have to be able to discuss their religious ideas and the implications of those ideas in an analytical and philosophical way. In other words, the hedgehog has to operate like a fox. So far I have not see much willingness to do that. Quite the contrary, the occasional fox that wanders into this venue is criticized for not thinking like a hedgehog.
Jim, you are partially correct. The Orthodox approach is not thinking about God philosphically. Rather by submitting to His love and Grace in the Church to come into union with Him. We don’t talk philosophy but a personal encounter with the living God. Those who only wish to engage in philosophical debates will always be frustrated as Barlaam was with St. Gregory of Palamas. The Church herself is a living mystery of the Holy Spirit. One that can only be entered into in love, not taken with force.
You are therefore wrong to assert that we have to become just like everybody else in order to have an effect on the culture. IMO the reason we have not had more of an effect is because we are already too much like everybody else. Among other things, we mis-translate our own language in order to have it “understood” by the western analytical mind. When we do that, the analytical minds start spinning and out pops “oh, they are really just like us” as a mantra of self-protection. Sometimes that is what happens anyway despite our best efforts.
The point is that the extreme to which the west has gone with its dialectic rationalism is poisonous to the soul and to civilization. The Christian understanding in the west has been distorted by the analytics to the point of lapsing into dogmatic heresies. Despite genuine desire for Christ, the Christian west long ago abandoned teaching or facilitating the encounter with the living God in the Church and replaced it with thinking about Him inside our own heads so God becomes whatever we want Him to be. We have created Him in our own image instead of allowing His image in us to become evident.
The Orthodox Church is the antidote to the analytic poison, but if one refuses to admit that one is poisoned or would rather imbibe the poison than the antidote????
Everything about man and our interaction with each other is inter-related because we are all inter-related in Christ because of His Incarnation. From a theological/spiritual understanding, it is simply wrong to attempt to extract one set of behaviors and consider them independently of our fundamental nature as human beings and our need for redemption.
Some definitions might be in order however:
Materialist: one who believes that the visible material world is all there is. This is far different from understanding the ability of the material world to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
Rationalist: one who believes that the unaided human mind is sufficient in and of itself to understand life. This is far different than using our rational faculty to apprend a little of how God acts and the nature of the material world so that we can effectively exercise our stewardship.
Modernist: Throw in utilitarian ethics and relativism with the other two.
The refusal to look up and even consider the Theandropos makes Orthodox Chrisitanity always confusing. It may very well be a mistake to even try to engage in this sort of “discourse” because the foundation is simply not there to even begin to communicate. Certainly if someone is openly distainful of Christ, there could be great harm done.
I for one am working hard to not play on the same distrorted, truncated field as rationalists and philosophisers do but am seeking to unite my self with Christ in repentance, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving thereby allowing God the renew and transfigure my whole being. I do a really poor job, but I’ll keep trying as long as I am able. I’d love to have your company.
Michael writes: “You are therefore wrong to assert that we have to become just like everybody else in order to have an effect on the culture.”
What I mean is this: as I understand it, the main point of a blog such as this is to bring the insights of Orthodoxy to bear on various social issues, especially issues about which there is some controversy. In order to be of any significant influence in the larger world, the Orthodox response to these issues has to be comprehensible to people who are operating outside of the Orthodox gestalt. It’s not enough for the Orthodox believer to say “sorry dude, your concerns are irrelevant because you don’t have my worldview.” When I read Phil’s posts I see someone who is sincere, thoughtful, polite, and trying to engage the people here in honest discussion.
Michael: “The point is that the extreme to which the west has gone with its dialectic rationalism is poisonous to the soul and to civilization.”
I think the issue is not rationality per se. One of the main characteristics of modernity is the prevalence of scepticism, and the view that knowledge is contingent and temporary. This view of knowledge affects how we view science, history, mathematics, medicine, economics, and virtually everything else, including religion. Ultimately, it is not rationality that is the problem, but the uncertainty and changeability of knowledge. We are all creatures of modernity. I mean, when you hear a scientist hold forth on particle physics, you don’t assume that he is describing the world in terms of eternal and unchanging truth. You assume that he is giving you the best information at that time, and that at best, he is offering a model of how things are. You assume that next year or next week the best information may lead to very different conclusions.
Likewise in religion. When I read the latest book by a scholar of the gospels, I assume that the scholar is offering an historical reconstruction that is subject to change. At the same time, I understand that the gospels express enduring spiritual and metaphysical truths that have to be experienced and understood in a mystical and non-rational sense.
The problem I have with Orthodoxy is that it switches between the mystical and rational — and doesn’t seem to understand that it is doing so. When I read the story of the Virgin Birth, I understand that the story expresses an important spiritual truth — a truth that operates at a much deeper level than the merely rational level. At the same time I would be unable to say that the Virgin Birth is historical — that the best evidence demonstrates that it is an historical event. Even the texts themselves do not unambiguously support the historicicty of the story. (For example, the Virgin Birth is not even mentioned in the letters of Paul.)
So on the one hand Orthodoxy talks about the mystery of the Virgin Birth. On the other hand, if one points out that the historical evidence is inadequate to demonstrate its historicity, the Orthodox believer insists that it IS historical — even as the evidence — what little there is — does not support that conclusion. And then, in the Old Testament, the Orthodox position changes. I don’t know any Orthodox believer who asserts that the earth is only 6,000 years old, or that all the species of animals were really loaded into a large wooden boat in order to escape a flood. Rather, these stories are understood in a mythical and spiritual sense, as they should be.
But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that it’s all mystery and non-rationality — and then assert that certain events are true in a rational, propositional sense — especially when the evidence doesn’t support that. By insisting on the actual historicity of certain events, the Orthodox essentially force outsiders into a rational mode. I’m happy to remain in the mystical and spiritual arena, but when someone says “you have to believe that these things are real, historical events,” I am forced into an historical and logical mode — whether or not I want to be.
Michael: “I’d love to have your company.”
Michael, you seem like a great guy and I wouldn’t mind being there with you. The Catholic mystic Thomas Merton understood that there is a difference between theological doubt and intellectual difficulty. The Church and a lot of other people would be a lot happier if the Orthodox church also understood that. I think the issue is whether there is room in the Orthodox church for people who, for better or worse, are creatures of the modern age, and who understand the spiritual vision of Christianity but are unable to affirm the historicity of certain events, — or whether the church simply has no room for those people.
Note 113. Jim writes:
Not correct. A top American bioethicist is Orthodox Christian.
H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. at Rice University.
H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. Philsophy Department, Rice University.
His most quoted work is “The Foundation of Bioethics“, Oxford University Press.
Another name you will be hearing in a few years is Fr. John Schroedel, currently working on his Ph.D. thesis in bioethics under Dr. Leon Kass at the University of Chicago.
About Kass:
Looks like Fr. Schroedel has a good teacher.
One more note. Dr. Kass (himself an observant Jew) has said he is waiting for the Orthodox contribution to develop (it will) because Orthodox Christianity has the most complete anthropology of any religion or philosophical system. If this sounds triumphalistic, it’s only because we aren’t aware of Dr. Kass’ credentials in making such a statement.
Note 115: “The problem I have with Orthodoxy is that it switches between the mystical and rational — and doesn’t seem to understand that it is doing so. When I read the story of the Virgin Birth, I understand that the story expresses an important spiritual truth — a truth that operates at a much deeper level than the merely rational level. At the same time I would be unable to say that the Virgin Birth is historical — that the best evidence demonstrates that it is an historical event. Even the texts themselves do not unambiguously support the historicicty of the story. (For example, the Virgin Birth is not even mentioned in the letters of Paul.)”
Your criticism of Orthodoxy applies just as well to many evangelical Protestant churches and to the Roman Catholics. Many of them don’t believe the earth must be literally 6,000 years old, yet just about all of them affirm the Virgin Birth. You can rest assured that the Orthodox are fully aware that they (and Catholics and a lot of Protestants) speak of the Virgin Birth (and many other supernatural events) as a mystical, spiritual event and also proclaim it as a historic event.
I personally believe the Virgin Birth is logical given certain assumptions. I also believe that the even atheist materialists, if thinking deeply enough, must make at least one assumption that cannot be proved, that defies rationality, and that cannot be supported by any strong evidence.
I am led to ask, why must we prove something true (or produce strong material evidence) to validly believe something actually happened?
I would also ask why it bothers you that St. Paul doesn’t mention the Virgin Birth? Was the Bible meant to be an exhaustive history of everything that happened in the life of Christ, or a precise manual that would unambiguously settle every doctrinal question? Must each author in the New Testament comment on the Virgin Birth (or any other proposition) in order for it to be true?
Note 115: “But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that it’s all mystery and non-rationality — and then assert that certain events are true in a rational, propositional sense — especially when the evidence doesn’t support that.”
I don’t think the Orthodox Church asserts that everything is all mystery and non-rationality. It certainly doesn’t claim that everything in the Old Testament is myth and everything in the New Testament is literal. Granted, determining which passages are literal and which are not literal without reference to the tradition of the Church will result in various interpretations by various interpreters. That is one of the reasons for the apostolic tradition of the Church.
Jim, I said “The point is that the extreme to which the west has gone with its dialectic rationalism is poisonous to the soul and to civilization.”
You replied, part; “I think the issue is not rationality…”
Right, it is not rationality, but rationalism. There is a vast difference. Rationalism takes a useful, important, but limited tool of man’s intellect and turns it into an entire anthropology, even cosmology. DesCartes dictum, “I think therefore I am” being a notorious example. Scepticism is the result of a the rationalistic application of what I call dialectic dualism to theology in such a way that the living reality of the Incarnate God is pushed off into an unapproachable heaven. Thus the foundation for true rationality (the Truth) is denied. The creation is divided and separated artificially where there is no division, no separation. Your continued opposition of the mystical with the historical is a perfect example. You have created a false dicotomy which the Incarnational thinking of the Church does not recognize. Once God became man, the historical became mystical and the mystical, historical. What you see as an inconsistency worthy of John Kerry is really an expression of the Church’s knowledge of the Incarnation, the union of the uncreated with the created, not in an amophous way, but in an intimate and personal way since God is person (three persons in loving community actually).
Jim, Christ’s call to the Church is to all of us. Of course there is room for you–but you will be changed if you take your place. God is not transitional, we are, but by taking on our nature, He grants us the grace of His unchageableness.
When I was first approaching the Church, my sponsor told me that the Church was an inexhaustible storehouse of answers, of knowledge. Still in my sceptical state, but polite, I nodded my head and said, “OK”. Inwardly, I said, “yeah, right”. I have found since that my sponsor drastically understated the reality.
When I say that there are certain things someone outside the Church is incapable of understanding, I don’t say that with arrogance or condesention, it is simply the way it is. There is some knowledge that is impossible to come to until one enters the Church and the embrace of the Holy Spirit.
If you really want answers to your questions, you have to make the step for only in uniting yourself with Christ and accepting the authority of the Holy Spirit in the Church will the truth already in your own soul be shown to you. You have to take the step that Mary did: “Let it be done unto me according to your word”
Fr. Hans writes: “Not correct. A top American bioethicist is Orthodox Christian.”
That’s good to hear. If you have time and inclination, please post some of his material here. In years past I have done some volunteer work with the Center for Ethics at a teaching hospital and medical school, and a good friend has been very active on various medical ethics committes. So I have a basic knowledge of how medical ethics plays out in the typical day-to-day issues that professionals in the field encounter.
In particular, I would be interested in his views on patient autonomy. Patient autonomy really is the guiding principle in modern medical ethics. But I’m not sure how someone in the Orthodox tradition would deal with that.
David George writes: “You can rest assured that the Orthodox are fully aware that they (and Catholics and a lot of Protestants) speak of the Virgin Birth (and many other supernatural events) as a mystical, spiritual event and also
proclaim it as a historic event.”
Yes, that is my understanding also. The particular issue I want to address is what happens when the historical evidence provides an inadequate warrant for the belief. My assumption here is that a claim of historicity means at least two things: first, that one believes that the event in question is in fact historical, and second, that there is an adequate warrant for the belief.
David George: “I personally believe the Virgin Birth is logical given certain assumptions. I also believe that the even atheist materialists, if thinking deeply enough, must make at least one assumption that cannot be proved, that
defies rationality, and that cannot be supported by any strong evidence.”
I don’t have any problem with the idea that many things defy rationality. In fact, I would say that the most important things to humans are things that cannot be rationally “proven.” Here ethics and aesthetics come readily to mind.
That said, when someone asserts the historcity of an event — any event — I expect that assertion to be founded upon compelling historical evidence. To assert that something is historical — but not on the basis of historical evidence and reasoning — would be to have a belief that is ABOUT history, but that is not an historical belief.
As you note, everyone has certain foundational beliefs that cannot be proven or supported by outsisde evidence. For example, I believe that there is an external world that exists independently of myself and my senses. I can’t prove that, nor is clear that would even count as proof. But historical beliefs are not that kind of belief, and we know what counts as historical evidence.
David George: “I am led to ask, why must we prove something true (or produce strong material evidence) to validly believe something actually happened?”
I would turn the question back to you and and ask this: outside of evidence and historical reasoning, what COULD validate a historical claim? The fact that you want it to be true? That you have a gut feeling that it’s true? That esteemed and saintly people affirm that it’s true? That it ties in nicely with other theological beliefs if it’s true? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here. If we abandon evidence and historical reasoning, then it seems to me that we have jettisoned the very criteria that can validate belief.
Another view would be to say that the historicity of the gospels, for example, is validated by revelation — that part of the revelation involves revealing that the events described in the gospels actually happened. The problem there is how to explain how it is that certain things in the gospels don’t jibe — that certain things couldn’t have been historical because the accounts are incompatible.
David George: “I would also ask why it bothers you that St. Paul doesn’t
mention the Virgin Birth?
Let me address that in another post. I think this one is getting a little long.
Note 121: “The particular issue I want to address is what happens when the historical evidence provides an inadequate warrant for the belief. ”
How many people, do you suppose, arrive at their faith through a deep study of the Gospels, apologetics, culture, philosophy, languages, etc? Not that such people don’t exist (I know for a fact they do). But I’m thinking that most do not consider themselves believers in “x” because they’ve agonized for many years over these questions or because they went on an archeological dig.
Instead, many people arrive at their faith because they had a personal religious “experience” or because it was part of their culture from birth and they accepted it as easily and without reflection as they may have done with other family traditions. Sure, people delve into these deeper questions, but it’s often done after these beliefs are already ingrained and with the intent of solidifying what they already believe.
My impression of EO is that, to a degree, this is all okay. It’s not that they wish people to live their faith in a superficial way, but rather that faith is not really something that’s arrived it through a thorough knowledge of history or even through reason. At some point, you just say, “Okay, I accept this and choose to live it.” *
IOW, reason (at least in EO theology, it seems) falls quite short and will never be a prime factor in one accepting its claims. This is only my impression, however.
*If you want to see the polar opposite of this, go here where they expend many, many pixels defending their (usually Calvinist) positions on everything under the sun. Their arguments are quite intellectual sounding and quite clever, but it’s all really done with the intent of using reason and large words to hide the fact that their theology is not rational at all (and is on occasions even diabolical).
Note 110. Phil writes:
Actually what you said was:
This is multi-culturalism. You are free to argue that you didn’t posit a moral hierarchy in your comment, but this is not the same thing as saying that multi-culturalism doesn’t have a moral dimension. It does. Multi-culturalism is morally relativistic, thus my conclusion that your offering (equating Hollywood with the great religions or example) was flat.
So homosexual orientation is synonomous with ethnicity? What happens with the Jew who is also homosexual? Does he have two ethnicities? Or do we consider Judaism to be an orientation rather than ethnicity?
You are confusing drawing the proper distinctions with being judgmental. Confuse the two and sodomy becomes morally equivalent to going to Temple — something you assert but Jews would find highly offensive. How do you reconcile offending them?
Face to face, yes; in a blog discussion, no. But there is no such thing as a “linear” statement in a discussion about culture and morals. The statements draw from a larger constellation of of ideas and their ramifications extend beyond the person expressing them. So if you make statements of this sort, expect to explain and defend them. It goes with the territory.
Note 123.
Not synonymous, analogous.
I’m prepared to defend statements. It’s the Ad Hominem attacks that I find disappointing.
Analagous, synonomous, is there any functional difference in real terms in your argument? Not really.
What Ad Hominem attacks? Where are they?
To answer this question, I’ve replaced one term with another in the following quote from you:
As you can see, the two do not mean the same thing. All things that a person “is”–right handed, gay, Jewish, lactose intolerant–might be analagous in different ways, but the traits can certainly coexist.
An Ad Hominem attack is a logical fallacy in which, during an argument, one party makes a remark not directed at the claim made by the other party, but at some aspect of the person making the claim.
On this board, this usually takes the form of inferring a person’s world view from a position that s/he has taken, and then attacking the perceived philosophical basis of the world view, instead of providing examples or arguments based on the claim that was made.
Note 79
Note 72
Note 111
The fallacy in statements like these is that they presuppose that a person who believes one thing which is consistent with a “philosophy” must therefore adhere to that philosophy in all matters, and also that all claims consistent with that philosophy must be untrue.
For example, one who believes that two classes of people should be considered equal may or may not subscribe wholeheartedly to an egalitarian worldview. But even if they do, their interpretation may differ from yours. For example, a person may be staunchly pro-life and also pro-homosexual, believing that all human beings are of value and worth protecting. It would be foolish to ignore potential areas of agreement because you believe that a person forms their beliefs for the wrong reasons.
….which returns us, circuitously, to the headline of this posting. Why should we assume that being “pro-life” and “pro-homosexual” are somehow at odds? Is there something I don’t understand about Orthodoxy which requires one to throw the baby out with the bathwater? (No pun intended.)
Note 126. Phil writes:
Well sure, but the point in question is your assertion that homosexual orientation is synonomous/analagous to ethnicity (synonomous in moral terms, analagous in rhetorical terms), a questionable assumption to say the least.
Phil, ideas don’t arise in a vacuum. You are asking that your ideas be considered in isolation, when in fact this is impossible. Ideas have consequences, different ideas have different consequences. That some of those consequences might also point at you happens because you are making the argument. There is no way to avoid this. Sometimes you just have to buckle up a bit and take some heat. It comes with the territory.
So far all I really see is that you want cultural and moral parity between homosexuality and heterosexuality. You’ve made this assertion indirectly, but haven’t addressed any points that challenge it. Nor have you given any reasons to support it.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. How can an ethnicity be moral or immoral?
Ethnicity is neither moral or immoral. Behavior is. Is this really that difficult to grasp?
Note 129.
You have clarified earlier that you use the term “homosexuality” to mean “homosexual behavior.”
But in Note 127, you said that analogizing “homosexual orientation” to ethnicity is a questionable assumption.
If an ethnicity is neither moral nor immoral, why should an orientation be weighed as such?
Phil,
An orientation is a behavior.
Not 130. It’s not. There is nothing immoral about an orientation. However, orientation and behavior are two different things, hence the question about the pedophilia.
You want to draw on the moral neutrality of orientation to remove the moral onus against homosexual behavior however, hence the parity between orientation and ethnicity. This takes you into the comparison of behaviors such as sodomy and going to temple to draw a moral equivalency between the two. The problem is that ethnicity and orientation are two different things. Ethnicity lies deeper. A Jew for example can be either homosexual or heterosexual, practicing or non-practicing.
Sexual desire is a very shaky foundation upon which to base notions of identity and personhood, simply because the desire is fluid. Left unchecked and unregulated, sexual desire can attach to almost any object for gratification (especially among men). Further, positing that homosexual desire is of the same stuff and substance as heterosexual desire attempts to place the heterosexual model of channelled and productive sexual behavior (granted, less and less heterosexuals are morally disciplined these days) into the homosexual camp. Clearly though, while many people of tolerant of homosexuals, they balk at the idea of moral and cultural parity between the two as the mounting amendments against gay marriage clearly reveal.
It’s pretty simple Phil. If we reject the historical model of one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship as the basic constituent of what creates a family, then we must accept any model that anyone deems appropriate. That’s why polyamourphous groups are clamoring for their “civil rights.” You call my criticism of the ACLU support of NAMBLA a “red herring,” but do you really think they NAMBLA and crew are not far behind? Soon you will have people championing bestiality. This is not far fetched. If people are what they feel (and sexual desire is a very strong feeling), then sooner or later anything can be justified and will be tolerated.
No one is advocating the jailing of homosexuals here. But there is no reason why society cannot (and should not) recognize homosexuality for what it is: a brokenness of sorts, one that touches a lot of people, but still something outside the bounds of healthy self-identity and adjustment. Cultural parity, while the goal of activist homosexuals, should not be granted.
Two articles to read:
Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
Understanding Homosexuality: An Orthodox Christian Perspective