Comments for Fallen Into Knowledge

Comment on Toward a Political Theology of the Neighbor by d. w. horstkoetter

d. w. horstkoetter — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:13:21 +0000

John, Christianity is a bit more complex and ambiguous than you give it credit for.

The world process as completely integrated, after all, is part of creation. All sentient beings (particularly human beings), while may be part other, are also a part of creation, if not made in the image of God. And God as completely other? Well there’s a bad reading of Barth (assuming you’ve read Barth), because while God is other, God is continually in love with her creation and he continually acts in her creation’s history out of a steadfast love.

I don’t think wrapping up theological statements in a sectarian jargon is going to help your case if you don’t have an accurate reading of theology.

Comment on Music Meme by david horstkoetter

david horstkoetter — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:06:23 +0000

Nono nooo noo, no. You misunderstood me. I figured you knew more about musical bands than I. Don’t worry, especially after this list, I know you don’t have refined music tastes. Then again theres quite a bit of overlap, or very easily could’ve been overlap in the lists, so who am I to speak?

Comment on The Scariest Monster is the One You Can’t See by John

John — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:06:54 +0000

The REAL master signifier is hell deep fear.
Fear of the presumed other with which you are always at war, despite or contrary to all of your self-serving god-ideas and theologies, or more accurately towers of babble/babel.

Comment on Toward a Political Theology of the Neighbor by John

John — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:00:58 +0000

“Where there is an other fear spontaneously arises”. A phrase from one of the Upanishads

All others are thus your enemy and you are thus always at war with all others including Real God, The Divine Conscious Light

Christianity is based on the “other” at three levels, and is thus saturated with fear and inevitable conflict.

God as comletely other. God is thus your enemy and not your refuge.
The world process as completely other. Hence the Western/Christian project to conquer nature.
All sentient beings, including humans as other. Western his-story (in particular) is saturated with violence which has always been justified with appeals to the collective tribal or ethnic deity

Also any “religion” that claims to possess the one “true” faith/way/revelaton has effectively declared war wth all other religions and cultures. And will use whatever means it can to “convert” everyone else. Both Islam & Christianity specialise in his would be would be essentially totalitarian world conquering power seeking meme.

Comment on A Different Take on Inerrancy by bobby grow

bobby grow — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:19:05 +0000

Hey Chris,

nice piece. I think the language of inerrrancy certainly is defensive . . . and its origin and context bear witness to that. I’ve come to the conclusion, that as far as articulating a “positive” Christian bibliology, inerrancy just won’t do—just as “higher criticism” won’t do. When it comes to “defensive apologetics,” I have no problem using the language of inerrancy. So we probably agree on this.

Comment on Race and Politics: Using Theological Language for Nationalist Ends by adamsteward

adamsteward — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:52:01 +0000

Hey Chris. I completely agree with your analysis. Obama’s rhetorical skills truly are refreshing. I feel like I have to criticize him for believing in America. However, even though it is clear to me that the America he believes in doesn’t exist, I still would welcome his vision as president over any of the other candidates right now. Still, we have to be clear as Christians in affirming that even a state as noble as that envisioned by Obama cannot save us.

Also, by exchanging the narrative of American prosperity for the narrative of the Cross, Obama truly does repudiate Reverend Wright and any narrative of human fallenness which can only be reconciled at the foot of the Cross

Well put.

Comment on A Different Take on Inerrancy by chris_layton

chris_layton — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:32:05 +0000

A thought, Ben:
From what vantage point do we “slice and dice” the text? What authorizes us to make some “slices” and not others? Where does that set of guidelines derive? If we find that the frameworks that guide the textual criticism work such that the text is rendered less-than Scripture, and hence, not normative then the perspective that the critic is taking is as an outsider to the Christian community (for whom the bible is Normative). This is, I think, the power of that last idea from Schmitt: if we find ourself in a position whereby the text does not have the last word, it is then not sovereign - not normative, and this ceases to be scripture for us. its in that case that this “Normative” language can functionally replace the inerrancy language. This is not going to work for apologetic tasks - but then again the inerrancy tact didn’t either.

Comment on A Different Take on Inerrancy by Ben

Ben — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:06:13 +0000

I agree that the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy is immature. Once you start talking about original autographs you have lost any practicality. I like the appeal to Scripture as our greatest authority or what is ‘normative’ for our community. This works great for theology but it makes things tougher in biblical studies because you have to deal with those that want to slice and dice the Bible and claim some sections more authoritative than others. I’m not sure what to do on that point.

Comment on Iraq Memorial by chris_layton

chris_layton — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:12:12 +0000

It seems that it has sparked a response in you, Robert.

A couple of thoughts:

1. This is a public demonstration, not an argument; as such it has goals and criteria for “success” than does an argument. One of the things it is not susceptible to is non-sequiter. A demonstration is not crafted to convince but to heighten awareness, or at most to assert something. Statements are not susceptible to fallacy, only arguments are.

2. As a statement, this doesn’t even depend on the numbers being absolutely correct. The power of the statement lies in the relationship between the white and red flags. There is no doubt that the number of American deaths are miniscule compared to the number of non-American deaths in Iraq. There is further no doubt about the fact that only a small percentage of those who have died do to violence or disease stemming from the near-total collapse of public services in Iraq deserved such a death. Here I will assert something: those non-American deaths were just as tragic as the American ones. There have been studies done, actually, by reputable academic institutions (I am thinking of the one done about a year ago by Johns Hopkins in particular), which have estimated the Iraqi deaths, and the estimates have been very high, and in each case the institution doing the study said that the estimates themselves were conservative.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

3. “peoples natural aversion to war and death” Indeed! But that’s just it, war and death are bad. Its not as though we should put our emotions away and reason ourselves into the position that war is a good thing! Its not. Involving people’s emotions in this truth is not “preying.” And people did emotionally respond to this display, the park blocks around PSU were noticeably quieter. I don’t imagine that people’s minds were changed by the display, but I for one was reminded of the huge cost of this folly, and reminded in a way that numbers on paper cannot convey. Yes this display was directed at the emotions, but to be emotionally engaged another’s death is not just human but in fact ethical.

Comment on Confession by Mindy Durias

Mindy Durias — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:18:00 +0000

Love love this book! and remember the final chapter on confession well your post compels me to pull the book out and re-read it again and again.