richardMdBorn wrote:All in good time sir. You will note that most of my couple of posts have on this thread have responded to Roger. I'm trying to limit my time on the MB but intend to reply to the rest of your quote sometime this week. The passage reminds me in its jargon to another Marxist I read in a history class in the 1970s.
To be a fundamentalist is to deny the inherent uncertainty of language. and instead see all meaning circumscribed by a well-defined set of scripture.
Does Eagleton think that his own meaning here is unclear? Is this passage subject to the inherent uncertainty of language?
Yes, of course, to both answers. To a Marxist, meaning is contextual.
Comments like Quote: Yesterday's victims of the literal Bible were blacks, while today's victims are homosexuals. Fundamentalism always has a victim. do not inspire confidence in Spong’s historical knowledge or objectivity. Evangelicals led the fight against the slave trade (Wilberforce, etc,). What has Spong done that is in any way comparable? And black churches tend to be theologically conservative. Maybe they know something Spong doesn’t about the power of the gospel to transform lives. And Eagleton’s comment that
Why do you connect "Fundamentalism" to "Evangelical"? Seems a person can be either OR both OR neither and yet be a good-doing person; Christian or not? Why do You have such a distortion of Spong's advocations? Peace, justice, equality, good physical--mental--and spiritual health? Is it his stance on gender equality that disturbes you most?
I think Runtu makes a very valid point. I don't like the suggestion of "staw men". It smacks of condescension, academic hair-splitting, silly evasions and dazzling with slieght-of-mind stuff. Ya know what i mean?
Do you agree with any of Spong's sentiments? If any, which? Warm regards, Roger
Comments like Quote: Yesterday's victims of the literal Bible were blacks, while today's victims are homosexuals. Fundamentalism always has a victim. do not inspire confidence in Spong’s historical knowledge or objectivity. Evangelicals led the fight against the slave trade (Wilberforce, etc,). What has Spong done that is in any way comparable? And black churches tend to be theologically conservative. Maybe they know something Spong doesn’t about the power of the gospel to transform lives. And Eagleton’s comment that
Why do you connect "Fundamentalism" to "Evangelical"? Seems a person can be either OR both OR neither and yet be a good-doing person; Christian or not? Why do You have such a distortion of Spong's advocations? Peace, justice, equality, good physical--mental--and spiritual health? Is it his stance on gender equality that disturbes you most?
I think Runtu makes a very valid point. I don't like the suggestion of "staw men". It smacks of condescension, academic hair-splitting, silly evasions and dazzling with slieght-of-mind stuff. Ya know what I mean?
Do you agree with any of Spong's sentiments? If any, which? Warm regards, Roger
For the record, I don't have anything against fundamentalists or Evangelicals. My sole interest here is in Eagleton's idea that fundamentalists believe that there is an inherent meaning in the written Word. Specifically, I find it fascinating that in some respects, Mormonism implicitly rejects this belief. Other than that, I don't really have much of an opinion about fundamentalists, at least no more than I have about any other religious group.
Fortigurn wrote:Yes. But sacrifice does lead to both peace and to God. You could rephrase 'sacrifice' as 'self-restraint' if you wish. You could, but I'd try to be more specific. "Self-restraint" runs a pretty varied gamut--from resisting chocolate cake, to not pulling a trigger... "Sacrifice" to me results in more dire effects--positive or negative...
Self-restraint is sacrifice. You can't restrain yourself without sacrificing something.
I see. An irregular verb. I'm forthright, (candid, honest) you are dogmatic, (forceful, over bearing, doctinaire) he is an aggressive fanatic (end justifies means, violent probabilities) . The difference is all in the point of view. And in one's vocabulary range and choice...
I'm not sure if you understood what I was getting at there, but that doesn't matter.
Self inflicted/chosen impotence?
If you call overturning the slave trade and establishing conscientious objection laws without political activism 'impotence', then yes, I suppose so.
Thanks Fort, for Wikki. It helped me understand where you are now. How did you get there?
I was raised a Christadelphian. My father was an atheist, but converted in his early 20s. My mother was already a Christadelphian when she met my father.
Seems to have some of the best, and some of the worst Bible extractions basing their dogma, IMSCO. Similar in many/some ways to Jehovah Witness, Mormonism and other well intended Christian sects.
I like "conscientious-objection"--"no central authority/autonomy"--"no trinity"... I do not like their: "Patriarchial stance", Messianic belief, Bible inerrancy, Baptism as powerful beyond an initiative symbol...
I didn't see 'Patriarchal stance' anywhere there, or 'Baptism as powerful beyond an initiative symbol'.
Having said that, I 'think' IF/WHEN we set aside our theological disputes, and ecclesiatic egotisms to concentate on Jesusism, and his Social gospel, as it is suggested in HIS "Two New Commandments", "Grace & Salvation" will be reunderstood AND applied here-and-now to benefit mortality...
I don't think that the message of Christ was simply a 'social gospel'. I believe it has a strong moral element. That's usually the part people want to throw out first.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Roger Why do you connect "Fundamentalism" to "Evangelical"?
Richard Spong appears to use them almost interchangeably. Note your quote from him:
“Driven by these defeats, fundamentalism retreated from mainline churches into rural and small town America, especially but not exclusively in the South, and developed denominations that featured congregational control with little loyalty to a national headquarters. Building their own seminaries the more sophisticated of them sought to escape the image of fundamentalism, which was in some circles identified with closed-minded ignorance, by calling themselves 'evangelicals.' Evangelical Christianity thrived in this relatively unchallenged rural or Southern atmosphere and began to dominate those regions.”
Perhaps you should ask that question of Spong.
Some jokes are:
A fundamentalist is an evangelical with guts.
A fundamentalist is an evangelical without friends.
IFCA stands for I fight Christians anywhere.
I agree that they are different. The NAE National Association of Evangelicals was founded in 1942. Evangelicals in general are less separatist than fundamentalists.
Roger Why do You have such a distortion of Spong's advocations?
Richard Spong asserted that “Yesterday's victims of the literal Bible were blacks, while today's victims are homosexuals. Fundamentalism always has a victim.” Do you agree with Spong. If so, please support your position. Do you see why I consider Spong’s assertion to be objectionable.
Roger I think Runtu makes a very valid point. I don't like the suggestion of "staw men". It smacks of condescension, academic hair-splitting, silly evasions and dazzling with slieght-of-mind stuff. Ya know what I mean?
Richard My comment was
“I think that it's useful to define what evangelicals mean by inerrancy. Otherwise, we may be dealing with strawmen (which I think is the case with the two quotes at the start of this thread).”
What do you find offensive in my comment. Socrates in many of Plato’s dialogs speaks at length about the importance of defining terms. There are few things worse than wasting a lot of time in a discussion only to find that the two people were using different definitions of words.
richardMdBorn wrote:All in good time sir. You will note that most of my couple of posts have on this thread have responded to Roger. I'm trying to limit my time on the MB but intend to reply to the rest of your quote sometime this week. The passage reminds me in its jargon to another Marxist I read in a history class in the 1970s.
To be a fundamentalist is to deny the inherent uncertainty of language. and instead see all meaning circumscribed by a well-defined set of scripture.
Does Eagleton think that his own meaning here is unclear? Is this passage subject to the inherent uncertainty of language?
Yes, of course, to both answers. To a Marxist, meaning is contextual.
But he wrote of the inherent uncertainty of language. Does that apply to his own statement? If so, how can we ever know if what he meant was.
A) Language is inherently uncertain.
B) Language is not inherently uncertain.
Don’t you see that A is internally inconsistent.
Last edited by Dr Moore on Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Roger Peace, justice, equality, good physical--mental--and spiritual health? Is it his stance on gender equality that disturbes you most?
Richard My objections to Spong are primarily religious in nature. A story from John Train’s Remarkable Tales may be of interest. When Cardinal Richelieu died, the pope was quiet for a long time. He said, “If there is a God, Cardinal Richelieu has a lot to answer for. On the other hand, if there is not God, he has done quite well.”
If there is no God, Spong’s approach would be of interest even though I think some of his ideas are wrong. But since I believe that there is a God who will judge us, Spong’s approach is completely inadequate in my opinion.
richardMdBorn wrote:But he wrote of the inherent uncertainty of language. Does that apply to his own statement? If so, how can we ever know if what he meant was.
A) Language is inherently uncertain. B) Language is not inherently uncertain.
Don’t you see that A is internally inconsistent.
Uncertain does not mean indecipherable. Context is everything. The meaning of language is not an all-or-nothing proposition.