Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Amen. Excellent quote. That Augustine...such a liberal. ;)

What I find hilarious about fundies is their complete lack of knowledge even about the doctrine they're supposedly out to conserve. All available evidence demonstrates they've never understood total depravity, for example.
 

Whether you like Jim Wallis or not, I find this quote by him apropos.

If you are looking for the truth, you better be ready to change your mind.
 

Except, of course, St. Augustine was a Catholic, and they aren't really Christians ;)

Also, he had a child out of wedlock, that he ditched. He never confessed Jesus Christ as his personal lord and savior. He didn't speak out against the holocaust of unborn babies (I think he might have said a thing or two about the whole same-sex thing, as sex-besotted as he was, but I'm not sure). He never endorsed Ronald Reagan for President. All of these things count against taking him seriously as a Christian.
 

My, what sarcasm, Geoff!

And fundies completely lack a knowledge of the doctrine of total depravity? Promise me you didn't write that with a straight face.

What? You can't be serious.
 

Great quote nonetheless, ER. Thanks for sharing.


[ebptroyh]
 

Let's see what is the Saint A saying?
Consulting Phillip I perceive he meant this:
God is ineffable.
You can't get there from here.
Know yourself.
 

Phillip may have misled me so I look further and consulted Heidegger for his take on this.

"Here Augustine gives us the hybrid text shared by so many Christians. A form of reflection and prayer, of thinking and salvation unified in a common project of transformation, a clear hybrid mixture of reason and will, thought and tears, intellection and occultism at the service of a particular human vision limited by its own failure at mastering the technologies of imagining and those humble virtues of imitating the perfect act with others. The only transcendence in this text lies in the hope of immortality, a hope that becomes hopeless in the face of empirical evidence. The conditions for the kind of knowledge that Augustine proposes disappear with death through the disintegration of those same faculties and the conditions for their operations. And yet this hybrid text has survived in Christianity as a "habit of mind" for those philosophers that take philosophy as a project of salvation, where "to save is to redirect essence with the aim of making it reappear, for the first time, in the manner that is proper to itself" (Heidegger, 1958).

Now that clarifies a whole bunch of things.
 

"doctrine of total depravity"
"original sin"
"fall from grace"

My little ole Christian denomination doesn't hold those doctrines. I've looked them up in the Bible. They don't actually seem to be there, unless you use yoga to diagram the sentences.
Where do they first show up anyhow?
 

GREAT questions. They "show up" nowhere; they are fairly radical interpretations, I think ... not even interpretations: they are constructs based on constructs based on constructs: the worst form of doctrine, in other words.
 

EL: It was Alan, not Geoffrey, who dissed fundies' grasp of total depravity.
 

ER,

I'd seriously recommend not going to Neil's site anymore. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

A self-amusing brick wall.

It's futile and unproductive, and it's just a matter of time before he calls you a "stalker" (it's happened before).

You've got better fish to fry.
 

LOL, Teresa, I agree. I prolly shouldn'ta poked at him with this post, but I was bored. He and the one called Bubba showed their black hearts to me the last time I actually engaged 'em. I don't plan to again. Don't plan to.

But, I might "slip" as our 12-stepping brethren say. But, I don't plan to do much beyond pointing 'em out as the half-assed self-idolators and confused followers of J that they seem to be. But then, I remain fairly befuddled myself, so, hey, whatever.

As I pointed out over a cigar and some drinks tonight with a good friend, the Body of Christ has all its parts for good reasons, includin' the asshole(s).
 

I know ER. I was lumping two responses into one comment. I just thought Geoffrey's comment was rather humorous... I wasn't dissing him at all. Nor Alan for that matter.

Moving on...

DrLobojo, am I to assume then that if a doctrine is not spelled out in the Bible, in no uncertain terms, then as far as you're concerned it doesn't exist? Can nothing then be implied? Are there no doctrines in Bible that are logically implied?

What about the Calvinist doctrine of Election? It's not spelled out but a lot of people subscribe to it. What about praying to Mary? It's not in the bible, but a lot of people subscribe to it. What about the doctrine of Confession as practiced by the Catholics? What about the doctrine of Immaculate Conception? --Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on Catholics and Calvinists; that's not my intention here.

I agree that the Church has strayed from the truth, but aren't some doctrines true whether they're spelled out or not? As it happens, I disagree with every example I mentioned in my previous paragraph. Not trying to be argumentative... just curious about where you're coming from.
 

And I'm curious, ER... just what did you find so offensive about Neil's post?
 

I linked to that post because it was the post that up at the time. My comment wasn't directed at that post. It was directed at all self-satisfied know-it-all, worshipers of false certainty who think they have the only answers. Neil came to mind. You might say it's Neil I find offensive.

Re, "the Church has strayed from the truth ..."

Yes. Here it is. Ready?

Love God. Love neighbor as yourself. That's IT.

Implication: Jesus pointed to God as the object of our worship. Some, but not all, of his early, but not earliest, followers, pointed to Jesus himself as the object of worship; some Scripture, but not all, reflects this.

Who you gonna believe? Jesus? Or his followers? Who you gonna worship? Jesus? Or God?

And yep, I've done torn off the pop-top on a whole new can of christological worms. "Jesus is God" is just too simple. It itself is an interpretation based on some, but not all, of Scripture.
 

Is the doctrine of total depravity spelled out word for word in the Bible? No. That's why it's called "doctrine" and not "scripture." ;)

Church doctrine is like a scientific model. No, it isn't really "there" in the sense that it's spelled out in bullet points on a giant celestial Powerpoint presentation. However, it can be rationally deduced, logically argued, and reasonably discussed & debated. (And I'd wager that the Holy Spirit has a roll in that discernment too.) One can even honestly, faithfully, and prayerfully disagree with it, making a different reasonable, rational, logical argument based on precisely the same facts. (eg. Wesleyan vs. Calvinist views of unlimited vs. limited atonement.)

Nowhere in nature is the law of gravity "spelled out" as a curvature in space time around objects. That's a model. Should we not believe it because it's only a model and not written on a great stone tablet somewhere? No, of course not. I don't recall ever seeing Shrodinger's equation written on the side of an atom. Should we not use it as an elegant mathematical atomic model? No, of course not. Nor should we take as gospel truth because ... it's just a model. (Oh, and by the way, you'll notice all sorts of people lived their lives just without even understanding our models of gravity or atoms. Apparently, one can know nothing about that particular scientific law, and yet remain firmly stuck to the ground and able to brew beer -- an important point that shouldn't be ignored.)

That doesn't mean, as the fundies accuse (in their complete and utter lack of nuance) that I'm saying there is no truth, or that my truth is different from your truth, or some other drunken philosophy graduate student postmodern nonsense. It means that, the Truth is out there, but that our understandings are just models. Perhaps some of those models are very accurate and precise, but they're still imperfect (total depravity, again.) Some of them may be waaaay off base.

ELAshley, yes, I not only wrote with a straight face, that fundies don't understand Total Depravity, I actually meant it, though I should narrow that to only that large group of fundies with whom I've come in contact. No doubt, they can say the words. But if they actually understood such things, they'd spend a little less time being so sure that they understand God's Truth completely and perfectly. Then perhaps they'd realize that disagreements with them do not automatically mean one disagrees with God.
 

BTW, since a picture is worth a thousand words, if you'd rather not read through all that, just take a look at this:

http://www.atelier-aaa.com/images/2006_livre_Magritte/Rene_Magritte-La_trahison_des_images-1300px.jpg

Which pretty much summarizes what I just said about both scientific models and church doctrine. :)
 

ELA asked:

"DrLobojo, am I to assume then that if a doctrine is not spelled out in the Bible, in no uncertain terms, then as far as you're concerned it doesn't exist?"

Of course it exist doctrines are man made intreptations. But in general I would say that doctrines that are held by many parts of the "churches" are unescessary if not wrong or perhaps even antichristian. If they are not "spelled out in the Bible"

"Can nothing then be implied? Are there no doctrines in Bible that are logically implied?"

God can't be explicit? God can not be plain? (Except of course for the mystery teachings mentioned in the gospels and by Paul.) There may be stuff in the Pope's private Library Vault that would undergird some Church Doctrines, if so to those I can not speak.

"What about the Calvinist doctrine of Election? It's not spelled out but a lot of people subscribe to it."

To me "Election" is a false doctrine and goes against understanding of Grace and Logos.


"What about praying to Mary? It's not in the bible, but a lot of people subscribe to it."
Now that is a simple one, No!
Unless of course you intend to move back past the Aryan invasion and pray to Isis, Kore, and the Magna Maters of creation. Also note historically that such doctrine came out of the Dark Ages when illiteracy riegned and images took back over the minds of men. The greatest of these was the Mother and holy son. Isis reborn, dark Kore taken from hidden cellers, Apollo turning back to Gaie.

"What about the doctrine of Confession as practiced by the Catholics?"

Not as practice by the Catholics whic requires an intercessor in the form of a priest et.al.. I beleive in the Priesthood of the Believer and direct confession to God without any intermediator, be that priest, saint, or mother of God. Also I beleve that Grace is not purchased one sin at a time.

"What about the doctrine of Immaculate Conception?"
The IC is of course renounced by the Roman Church, but even so it was a conumdrum construct to support of the doctrines that were built on sand.

--Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on Catholics and Calvinists; that's not my intention here.

"I agree that the Church has strayed from the truth, but aren't some doctrines true whether they're spelled out or not?"

Ah, that depends on what the doctrine is and is suposed to be for and what "Is" is.


"As it happens, I disagree with every example I mentioned in my previous paragraph."

I am so suprised at that.

"Not trying to be argumentative... just curious about where you're coming from."

Well, if you are serious ask me about some of the doctrines you do hold to be true.
Also I hold that the Bible has been tampered with over time by people with good intentions but evil results. (see LDS, JW,Post Niecean Fathers,Dark Ages scribes, Roman Government bueraucrats, Henery the VIII etc.) So I am cautious of doctrines that seem to be contradictory to the main themes and purpose set out in the scripture. Oh, yes, the "Old Testament" doesn't really have much to do with the New Testament except maybe in Mathew and other intentionally pro-Hebrew entries.
 

What an interesting conversation. You are my hero, ER. Truly. I need to figure out how to do this . . .

Alan, you write the following:
"That doesn't mean, as the fundies accuse (in their complete and utter lack of nuance) that I'm saying there is no truth, or that my truth is different from your truth, or some other drunken philosophy graduate student postmodern nonsense."

As a former sober philosophy post-grad, who holds accepts these very things you are stepping on my toes. Ah, well. . .

I like the discussion of the nature of doctrine. I think this is a good, even necessary, discussion. I like Alan's comparison of doctrine to the mathematical description of gravity. Gravity is, but we can only grasp it as a description of the curvature of space-time, distorted by mass - all in a precise mathematical formula. Is gravity that formula? Obviously not. Is God "the Trinity"? I really don't know, but believe the doctrine tells us something about how God acts, which tells us something about who (if such a pronoun can be used in reference to God) God is. I think we make a category mistake when we see, in either scripture or doctrine, something fundamentally essential, some grasp of transcendence, rather than a wrestling with the wonder that is our understanding of God and God' desire to be in relationship with us.

I think that doctrine, and the theological task, are important. I do not believe they capture anything other than fleeting glimpses of anything essential about God, beyond our own, very limited, ability to render sensible and coherent what is, in the end, ineffable and, at its heart, unbelievable. To imagine that we stand, or more correctly, lie prostrate at the foot of the throne of the Creator of the universe, summoned not because of any merits we have, but because of God's bottomless desire for us, to be with and for us . . . those words diminish what is in fact something literally beyond human comprehension.

Kind of like how General Relativity diminishes the reality of gravity, if you just sit and consider the formulae.
 

"As a former sober philosophy post-grad, who holds accepts these very things you are stepping on my toes. Ah, well. . ."

Oops, my bad. ;) I just can't get over the notion that the truth statement "There is no truth" reminds me of how Captain Kirk defeats those androids on Star Trek. "Malfunction! Malfunction! Illogical!"

But that's an argument for another day. :)
 

Re, "You are my hero, ER. Truly. I need to figure out how to do this . . ."

Hoot.

Just figure out what kind of meat you like; go visit other blogs with the same meat, but seasoned differently; cook for about three years; stir constantly; draw off the fat; and throw bits of it on the fire pretty regulaarly.
 

Yes, certainty in religion is very inportant. Little quote to prove it (guess who?):

"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure?

...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."
 

Don't know. Who?
 

Adolph Hitler - Mein Kampf.

:-)

Sorry, I just HAD to. No internet critique of an idea is complete without a gratuitious Hitler referance, right?

:-)

Sorry. My weird sense of the absurd is showing again.
 

Hot damn! First spontaneous expression of Godwin's law on this blog! :-) LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Godwin's_law
 

Really? Are you serious? I'm the first to trip the Godwin trigger over here?

I feel so SPECIAL! :-)

But seriously, some people are comforted by certanty, and if those who crave certainty and claim it for themselves can find a way to not harm others through badgering and bludgeouning...What do I have to say about it?

When its used as a political weapon, or to harm others I feel less sanguine about it.