Re: Archbishop criticizes Israel for "safrificing innocent civilians"
- From: Matthew Johnson <matthew_member@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:30:30 GMT
In article <LJ7Gg.3673$jX.988@trndny06>, lsenders@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
Matthew Johnson wrote:
In article <m6wEg.37211$hH1.25099@trnddc08>, lsenders@xxxxxxxxxxx
says...
You like to take pot shots at dispensationalism and millennialism,
but you never present anything pro or con to relevant points. Why
is that?
Because dividing into "pro or con" is a really poor way to approach
any topic. If you had gone to a -respectable- seminary AND done
well there, you would know this. NO respectable seminary teaches a
"pro and con" system of hermeneutics!
Oh! I guess you decide what is "respectable" and what is not.
You did the same thing. But when I do it, you howl and complain. Is
that what they taught you at seminary, Loren? If so, that should be
proof enough that it was not a respectable seminary. For that is NOT
discussion, it is NOT critical thinking. And if that is not what they
taught you, then what IS your excuse?
Of every seminary I've been in relationship, either directly or
indirectly through friends, acquaintences, and journals,
You call reading a journal from a seminary "being in relationship"
with it? What presumption!
all have a doctrinal statement
Yeah, I have seen those "doctrinal statements". They ALL display a
deep ignorance of the history of doctrine and dogma -- as anyone does
who substitues his own "doctrinal statement" for the Nicene Creed.
The statement may shock and anger you, but even the _thought_ of
substituting their own "doctrinal statement" for the Nicene Creed
shows that deep ignorance.
and all require at least one -college level- paper to be written
concerning that statement, both from the pro and the con perspective.
Heck, even in bible school, it was required to write papers, pro &
con for transubstantiation and pro & con for consubstantiation.
But "writing pro & con for transubstantiation and pro & con for
consubstantiation" is an exercise in vanity. For just by _saying_
'pro' for consubstantiation, you distort the reality of the case
severely. It is almost as bad as asking for pro and con for the
statement "2+2=4".
Not to mention that BOTH terms, 'transubstantiation' and
'consubstantiation' presume an Aristotelean or Scholastic viewpoint,
and the overwhelming majority of "Bible school" students know next to
nothing about either of these. So they are in NO position to write
about trans/consubstantiation intelligently, "_judging_ by weighing
evidence pro and con" as they write.
And that Loren, is the problem with your beloved "pro and con". You
_talk_ about discussing it, but the only form of 'discussion you ever
practice is the worthless form.
Even at that entry level, we are taught to develope a studied
appreciatation of doctrinal issue from both sides of the table.
That only proves that you have a knack for picking bad seminaries for
your 'relationships'. For there is a world of a difference between
your petty "from the pro and the con perspective" and the much more
insightful dictum of Adler, "_judging_ by _weighing evidence_ pro and
con".
And that difference _is_ the difference between your mockery of
reasoning and genuine critical thinking.
BTW, "dispensationlism and millennialism" are not "system of
hermeneutics."
Did I say they were? NO. You are shadow-boxing again. That is NOT
"informed theological debate".
They certainly have a defined hermeneutic -the historical/grammatical
model- but it is wrong to phrase you objection as such.
No, it is not.
Again, you are shooting from the hip and I hate to be the one who has
to constantly point it out to you, but you're shooting blanks.
Simply repeating that over and over does not make it any more true,
Loren. All it accomplishes is expose you for resorting to cheap tricks
to steal credibility you never really earn.
Of course, in reality, after your shameless making excuses for the
heinous deeds of Israel in destroying Lebanon's infrastructure and
destroying homes of so many innocent civilians -- all for a military
goal they failed to achieve anyway --, you should not have any
credibility left anyway.
But of course, I know that you are not the only one in this NG who
fails to apply basic critical thinking skills to assessing the
disastrous results of UR support for Israeli audacity. And that is why
I welcome Steve's post announcing the declaration of the Archbishop of
Athens condeming Israel.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Help with Septuagint and Vulgate to Isaiah 42:5
- Next by Date: Re: The Bible
- Previous by thread: Re: Archbishop criticizes Israel for "safrificing innocent civilians"
- Next by thread: Re: Archbishop criticizes Israel for "safrificing innocent civilians"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
