tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post9162473872469180909..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Fortune Favors the Boldbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-44672563664198615222019-05-10T00:35:19.919-07:002019-05-10T00:35:19.919-07:00Dear RMB and Bionic,
One small addition to your in...Dear RMB and Bionic,<br />One small addition to your interesting conversation. RMB wrote, "A second problem that is hinted at in this situation is how Church leadership tried to keep things hidden. They didn't want the Bible to be readable by common people. They didn't want people to be aware of valid criticisms."<br />Printing arrived in Europe just 60-70 years before the events Bionic has described. This "revolution" was a big part of the events. But beforehand to expect people to have the bible and be able to read it in any language was highly improbable. It was presumably passed to people in the oral tradition, and there are still the readings every Sunday. Thus, I think to say it was "hidden" is not accurate. That the Church did not respond to the printing revolution properly is closer to the truth as I see it.<br />Ira KatzAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38410903634211693462019-05-09T18:43:36.670-07:002019-05-09T18:43:36.670-07:00“I don't think there is a better system really...“I don't think there is a better system really.”<br /><br />Nor do I, but it is dependent on men of goodwill in the role of “expert.” Of course, if the so-called experts are NOT of good will, then it is really best that we each are left to our own reason and choosing our own counselors.<br /><br />“Ultimately my faith rests not in the Church or churches or doctrinal systems but Jesus to preserve His church on the earth.”<br /><br />As does mine. And He will raise men of good will.<br /><br />“…it points to humility and faith being prerequisites.”<br /><br />I have found it very easy to accept that the gap in the pyramid is there and will always be there. The more I have educated myself, the more I believe this to be true.<br /><br />“If not exact agreement you can get pretty close.”<br /><br />Part of my faith and humility is in accepting – in fact, embracing – that there is and will remain much that is a mystery to me.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-69448494194808005232019-05-09T08:23:59.590-07:002019-05-09T08:23:59.590-07:00About agreement on the Bible. I think most of the...About agreement on the Bible. I think most of the disagreements come not from arguing over what the Bible says but how each person approaches the Bible at a base level. The issues are Bibliology (what is the Bible) and epistemology (how do we learn from it). It is the presuppositions that are always the main issues in philosophy.<br /><br />As far as Bibliology, the Bible is self referential. You can form a view about it based on what it says. Now the issue is do you believe what it says about itself? But if you don't are you really following God? Can you be a believer in Jesus and reject His revelation? I know that doesn't solve the issue, but it points to humility and faith being prerequisites. Do we have authority over it or does its truth have authority over us?<br /><br />As far as epistemology, the question is what is the process of interpretation. There are 2 factors I think are important. Do you interpret literally or allegorically? Do you interpret by purposefully adding in your own bias, experience, philosophy or do you do your best to take what is their in the text and extract it out? That doesn't mean you can remove your own perspective and experience. It doesn't mean those things can't help you understand the Bible better. However, it does mean that you start by simply trying to understand what it says and what the author intended it to mean. Rationally, using a literal interpretation is the best approach. By literally, I mean using grammar, original definitions of words, acknowledging differences in literary genre between sections. This sounds really complicated. It can be. But a lot of it is common sense. That doesn't mean everyone will agree. But talking through any epistemological differences helps you understand where the other person is coming from and can lead to acceptance of variability where the specific issue isn't central to the gospel.<br /><br />Usually disagreements revolve around using one group of verses to understand a topic while the other group has another. Sometimes the solution is to compare the verses and base your views on both groups. If not exact agreement you can get pretty close. It is harder to get agreement when one or both parties is trying to adhere to a doctrinal system. In those cases they will be opposed to including the other verses because their is an authority telling them not to.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-78434542793525288142019-05-09T07:36:27.375-07:002019-05-09T07:36:27.375-07:00I recognize the dilemma between giving people free...I recognize the dilemma between giving people freedom to come to their own understanding on subjects and needing some group of experts to explain what people should think on that subject. It is true of the Bible and everything else really. I agree their needs to be experts that can be guides to everyone else. But they have to be accountable to other experts and to insightful novices. Today the local church still does provide that guidance. There are different views but at least a person can look at those different views and make a choice about which one does the best job of explaining what the Bible says and means. I don't think there is a better system really. People are always involved so having one monolithic organization will lead to abuse of power.<br /><br />My meta-point was even with the unified Church making pronouncements on orthodoxy, that didn't eliminate people coming to their own ideas about things. What they believed in some ways was dictated by Church experts but in many ways they mixed that in with their own reasoning about life and experiences. But it was based mostly in ignorance of what the Bible said. This is a problem, because there are promises in the Bible itself that the Holy Spirit is a teacher. Him teaching you presupposes you can read the Bible for yourself. Of course that also means that people will be wrong about what they believe. The promise isn't that the Holy Spirit will communicate unequivocally and people will understand perfectly. But that is the process described in the Bible for people to grow in faith and Christian maturity.<br /><br />But the Church of Luther's day didn't allow that process to happen, as imperfect and fractious as it will inevitably be. They sought to keep people in ignorance. And to keep them in ignorance the Church had to murder people.<br /><br />Once Luther understood their was a problem he started looking for other areas where official Church doctrine was based on tradition and not Bible. He found that fundamental teachings on salvation were off. He went overboard with rhetoric but I do believe salvation was at stake.<br /><br />I think Christianity lasts as long as 1 local church continues in the orthodox faith, imperfectly. I also believe while we should have seminaries, pastors, professors, churches, denominations, associations, focused on doing our best to carry the torch to the next generation of Christians, it is ultimately God who will preserve the Church. Ultimately my faith rests not in the Church or churches or doctrinal systems but Jesus to preserve His church on the earth.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-24062331782787092952019-05-09T05:15:27.489-07:002019-05-09T05:15:27.489-07:00And, yet, the Word of God, Gospel of Jesus Christ,...And, yet, the Word of God, Gospel of Jesus Christ, is not to be denied to those Jesus came to save. Whether it is heard or read.<br /><br />Revelation 10: 9 So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, “Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but ‘in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.’[a]” 10 I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. 11 Then I was told, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”<br /><br />So it is with being saved and freed from sin to slavery. "Ignorance is bliss" it is said. It is a joy to be rescued but having eyes opened to this world system is a bitter sight.<br /><br />"With great power comes great responsibility."<br /><br />"There is no human solution to the human condition." Quoting me.<br /><br />And the struggle will continue until Jesus' return.JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-62663194025595610652019-05-09T05:02:14.958-07:002019-05-09T05:02:14.958-07:00Part two:
I also hold similar views to yours rega...Part two:<br /><br />I also hold similar views to yours regarding the Church at the time: a desire to hold power at the expense of holding truth.<br /><br />I return to my questions / reasons for diving into this book, from my first post:<br /><br />• If the decentralized governance of the medieval period offered reasonably libertarian law, it will be helpful to understand why this crumbled.<br /><br />• It is worth understanding the costs and benefits to entrenched power in the face of criticism.<br /><br />• In a most divisive circumstance, how effective was the decentralized nature of early sixteenth century Europe? How beneficial?<br /><br />• Was such a division of Christendom inevitable, given the realities of the time?<br /><br />I think all of this is part of the discussion – including points you have raised and points I hope to address through this work.<br /><br />“My further comment is that Libertarians should at least in some way identify with Luther. He is the Mises to Pope Leo's Keynes. He is the Lysander Spooner to Pope Leo's Hamilton.” “Last, I do think most people can agree on what Scripture says.”<br /><br />RMB, I want to consider these two comments together. Let me try this: “I do think most people can agree on what the non-aggression principle says.” We know how this sentence doesn’t ring true, given the reality of debates / discussions / views all held in the name of the non-aggression principle. Yet compared to Scripture, the NAP is child’s play – the simplest concept I can imagine. <br /><br />Most people – left to their own reason – will never agree on what Scripture says. Libertarians cannot and will not do it with the NAP; how can it be done with something infinitely richer, vibrant, complex?<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-62494087962918394962019-05-09T05:01:06.698-07:002019-05-09T05:01:06.698-07:00RMB, A very thoughtful comment. Thank you. I rep...RMB, A very thoughtful comment. Thank you. I reply in two parts.<br /><br />“Didn't each person need to understand the Bible as best he could?”<br /><br />I struggle so much with this. No matter my work on tradition and culture, I have vast amounts of “Enlightenment” ground in me: “Individual reason is the answer to everything.” But is it so? We lean on experts for understanding many things. Whatever any of us believe is proper Biblical interpretation, I think we must all admit that it is a) complicated, and b) individual passages can be seen as contradictory to other individual passages. Are we each capable of sorting this out properly?<br /><br />Individuals act and reason, but it is institutions that last. Why would we not lean on experts here – and given that only one interpretation of Scripture can be “right” (not to say that man will ever fully discover this), why would we not lean on an institution for this expertise?<br /><br />Without the institution that was the Church, in what form would Christianity “last”? I don’t speak of the political governance issues that have been my focus at this blog, but “Christianity.” With everyone free to make their own interpretation, we can say with certainty that all interpretations but one are wrong (and likely all are wrong on some aspect). Does this matter for salvation? This is where my code word “resurrection” comes in, I guess. Maybe it doesn’t matter as long as we focus on the resurrection. But even here, I cannot say that all interpretations that incorporate resurrection are right.<br /><br />None of this is to say that I believe the Church at the time acted honorably or Biblically – let’s just say that I don’t believe that the Church acted in a Christian manner. But I cannot really say that Luther did either, although sooner or later a “Luther” was going to come to the scene and shake things up.<br /><br />My views are similar to yours regarding Luther. I think if the Church addressed him seriously things could have turned out differently. I think Luther’s anger and aggression came to the fore only after he felt rebuffed – he felt that his issues were not dealt with Scripturally.<br /><br />I think we can all understand this, in various aspects of life. If I have a legitimate concern and I am dismissed without the facts of the concern being addressed, my spine only grows stronger and I become more convinced that “I must be right, because they are afraid to address my points.” If I feel strongly enough about something in such a situation, I could easily become intransigent – even (intellectually) aggressive and obnoxious. As Luther truly believed salvation was at stake, his intransigence is understandable.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-5227816693403632422019-05-08T19:31:24.850-07:002019-05-08T19:31:24.850-07:00"Individual man had freedom to make of Christ..."Individual man had freedom to make of Christianity whatever he desired."<br /><br />This I think is the key statement of the article. The question is, was it ever not the reality? Didn't each person need to understand the Bible as best he could? The Catholic church before the Reformation and still now has a large amount of doctrinal variability even with the effort to dictate orthodoxy. Luther's initial criticisms weren't allowed because they mostly attacked the prerogative of the rulers not because he was somehow contradicting Scripture or even some fundamental doctrine.<br /><br />Luther was right to challenge the use of Aquinas or church teaching over Scripture. If Church doctrine was based on a reasonable interpretation of Scripture they would have had no problem meeting his request, even if Luther didn't agree with them. They didn't which says a lot. Jesus himself had similar disputes with the Pharisees of His day. One example is in Matthew 15:1-7<br /><br />"1 Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” 3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you"<br /><br />Luther clearly saw that some Church doctrine was not built on the word of God but on traditions of men. It shouldn't be hard starting from Scripture to understand that penance, indulgence, and corrupting greed are not things that belong in the church. But Aquinas said...<br /><br />A second problem that is hinted at in this situation is how Church leadership tried to keep things hidden. They didn't want the Bible to be readable by common people. They didn't want people to be aware of valid criticisms. Quite simply the Catholic church leaders did not want to be held accountable in any way. Centralized power with no accountability is very bad thing.<br /><br />My further comment is that Libertarians should at least in some way identify with Luther. He is the Mises to Pope Leo's Keynes. He is the Lysander Spooner to Pope Leo's Hamilton.<br /><br />The Catholic church killed Huss. They deceived him and murdered him. They did the same thing to William Tyndale for translating the Bible into English. They based some interpretations on the Latin translation even where it was shown inaccurate by the manuscripts in the original languages. They as an organization had (and have) a lot to answer for.<br /><br />But I do get it. Luther was an asshole. He really was. He didn't play well with Pope Leo and he didn't play well with Zwingli or Calvin either. Didn't mean he was wrong though.<br /><br />Last, I do think most people can agree on what Scripture says. There are parts which are difficult to interpret. We all have ideas and approaches to understanding that appeal to us more than others. But if you focus on what is written, think reasonably about things, and be aware of your own fallibility, disagreements can be held to the margins or agreed that the Scripture is vague enough to allow for variability. But that is how individuals relate to each other not how central authorities of powerful organizations with no accountability relate to individuals.RMBnoreply@blogger.com