[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

re: Healthy agnosticism

> > Heck, I think we see evidence of that sort of in-fighting (except it
> > isn't "in-fighting" to the people who think that the other group
> > belongs on the "outside") in Paul's epistles . . .
>
> Oh, absolutely.  The book of Acts tries to cover it up, a bit, but it's
> *all* over the letter to the Galatians.

Definitely.  It's fun to compare Acts and the letters of Paul, for those
moments when the two overlap positively, but there are some interesting
tensions there too.  I must admit, for a long time now, I've been partial
to the reconstruction of church history seen in the 1981 TV-movie _Peter
and Paul_ (starring Robert Foxworth and Anthony Hopkins, respectively, in
the title roles), in which the men James sends to Antioch in Acts 15 are
the very same men that cause all the problems there in Galatians 2.

> And it's *exactly* this question of "in-fighting" vs. "outside" that I
> was trying to get at with my (admittedly) long-winded letter.  With both
> sides claiming to be "in", and no falsifiable test to be performed, how
> can you determine who is "objectively right"?

The question for me is what a term like "Christian" is supposed to mean in
the first place -- if it doesn't have *some* inherent meaning, then it
becomes whatever people want it to mean, which is everything and nothing.

> > I am tempted to say, at least, that the *fact* of the resurrection is
> > an essential part of Christianity, however one interprets it.
>
> I would also be so tempted, but I would feel compelled to point out that
> it's a long way from saying "a fact y is an essential part of x" to
> saying "x *is* something universal, constant, and objective".

Right.

> I would further claim that anything objective is by definition
> meaningless, since we impart meaning to objective facts, rendering them
> subjective via an active and interactive hermeneutical process we call
> understanding (and memory, for that matter).

Yet another reason why I prefer "inter-subjectivity" to "objectivity".  I
would even go so far as to claim that this is one of the advantages of
having a doctrine like the Trinity -- where the "objective" God turns out
to have "inter-subjective" qualities even within his own person(s).

> I will see Memento as soon as I get the chance.  And dude, you still
> have to read _Flicker_!

I hang my head in shame.  :)

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
      Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
References: