Soteriology

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

The general consensus is that she didn't really read it. It's more like when you put the sports page in the bird cage and you play budgie bingo.....'>.......

[Marcus]

moar haet directed against Lewis..... ........

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstt ... c-s-lewis/

There really seems to be a civil war going on in the movement today, at least on PJM:

Hmmmm . . . . what's with all the attacks on Ayn Rand? There have been several here on PJM, with two up right now that I can see. Granted, Rand was a complex and problematic person, flawed, even. I don't like some of the tenets of her beliefs either. But, so what? Are we going 'small tent" here at PJM? Seriously, what the Hell is going on with PJM? Roger Simon was ousted (no one told me, I simply figured it out), the comments section has been dumbed-down and provided with a "censor" filter. Which faction of "the right" is circling its wagons here, and why? Or has PJM been taken over by something more sinister?

Related to soteriology? Read the links, read the links.......

Nuthin' new under the sun, Lizz . . Philosophical Materialism and Theism (Christianity) are mutually exclusive. Easier to piss on the messenger than to refute the message. Lewis's mind was like a steel trap . . . below is a previously unpublished photo of Lewis and someone who dared challenge his thinking:

IMG_1756.jpg (89.82 KiB) Viewed 426 times

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Grandpa used a deadfall....... a discarded door weighted with the cylinder-head from some old Chevrolet. Yet it was effective. According to my father, the rhetorical superiority of this argument against lupine scoffers was recorded on the fur that edged the outer frame of the door.........:>...........

[Ibrahim]

Those statements are either True or False, propositionally speaking.

Select one:

[1] True
[2] False
[3] Don't know/Don't have proof either way/I'll look into this one of these days

But that's the problem: if you have 40,000 manuscripts to cross-reference for the New Testament, and only 400 to relate Plato's recounting of the Socratic dialogs, how exactly do you "put that on hold"? (Unless the argument's made by Plato are really just accumulations of scribal error?) No one is withholding judgement on the Socratic dialog or it's content.

Either way, the claims have been judged --- either imminent/eminent or not worth investigation, given other evidence.

I'm not talking about judging the authenticity of the text (and the number of manuscripts would be relevant to that anyway). I'm saying that even if you accept the text as presented to you its still possible to make any number of interpretations.

Errr... like we do with Herodotus, Josephus, Tacitus, Plato...????

Like any text. Aside from various established views on the accuracy of a given historical text (e.g. Herodotus) from the point of view of literary criticism any number of interpretations or any text is possible. If you want to get really post-modernist, every reader inherently brings their own interpretation of every text no matter what. This is only upsetting/confusing to some people because we are dealing on the one hand with a religious text, and on the other with a popular author that is held in a kind of semi-religious awe by some.

[monster_gardener]

Rand reading The Abolition of Man?

I'm surprised her head didn't explode: like confronting a Vampire with a crucifix.

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Yukon.

I'm surprised her head didn't explode: like confronting a Vampire with a crucifix.

Good one!

Or go weak kneed like Rand's Sociopathic Superman Serial killer hero, William Hickman, did when confronted by the gallows for killing 12 year old Marion Parker.............

[monster_gardener]

I can see her turing into a bat in a fit of pique -- mid-reading -- and flying out the window.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Yukon.

Very Good........

[Marcus]

. . This is only upsetting/confusing to some people because we are dealing on the one hand with a religious text, . .

Lewis's claim upsets and confuses many people and not because he was and is a "popular author." Lewis's logic is impregnable.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Those statements are either True or False, propositionally speaking.

Select one:

[1] True
[2] False
[3] Don't know/Don't have proof either way/I'll look into this one of these days

But that's the problem: if you have 40,000 manuscripts to cross-reference for the New Testament, and only 400 to relate Plato's recounting of the Socratic dialogs, how exactly do you "put that on hold"? (Unless the argument's made by Plato are really just accumulations of scribal error?) No one is withholding judgement on the Socratic dialog or it's content.

Either way, the claims have been judged --- either imminent/eminent or not worth investigation, given other evidence.

I'm not talking about judging the authenticity of the text (and the number of manuscripts would be relevant to that anyway). I'm saying that even if you accept the text as presented to you its still possible to make any number of interpretations.

Errr... like we do with Herodotus, Josephus, Tacitus, Plato...????

Like any text. Aside from various established views on the accuracy of a given historical text (e.g. Herodotus) from the point of view of literary criticism any number of interpretations or any text is possible. If you want to get really post-modernist, every reader inherently brings their own interpretation of every text no matter what. This is only upsetting/confusing to some people because we are dealing on the one hand with a religious text, and on the other with a popular author that is held in a kind of semi-religious awe by some.

Sure, but in practice, no one does this. Josephus has maybe 20 manuscripts in existence, and those are 1000 years away from the source material. There's no real debate---in practice---as to what he "really" saw, ar whether he was real. Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus are roughly in the same position, but there's no real discipussion of what the Stoics "really thought."

And compared to those examples, Christianity is literally hundreds of times better/more closely documented.

[Ibrahim]

Errr... like we do with Herodotus, Josephus, Tacitus, Plato...????

Like any text. Aside from various established views on the accuracy of a given historical text (e.g. Herodotus) from the point of view of literary criticism any number of interpretations or any text is possible. If you want to get really post-modernist, every reader inherently brings their own interpretation of every text no matter what. This is only upsetting/confusing to some people because we are dealing on the one hand with a religious text, and on the other with a popular author that is held in a kind of semi-religious awe by some.

Sure, but in practice, no one does this. Josephus has maybe 20 manuscripts in existence, and those are 1000 years away from the source material. There's no real debate---in practice---as to what he "really" saw, ar whether he was real. Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus are roughly in the same position, but there's no real discipussion of what the Stoics "really thought."

And compared to those examples, Christianity is literally hundreds of times better/more closely documented.

I don't know what you mean. The number of copies of a work has nothing at all to do with its accuracy, Moreover, the factual accuracy of a work has nothing to do with its interpretation. I.e. if you believe that the Christian bible is %100 factually accurate, it still leaves room for interpretation as to what the recorded events and statements mean. This is true of any text.

[Ibrahim]

Lewis's logic is impregnable.

Do you feel the same was about racist, holocaust-denying Christian Reconstructionist R. J. Rushdoony, whom you've also quoted numerous times on this forum?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Errr... like we do with Herodotus, Josephus, Tacitus, Plato...????

Like any text. Aside from various established views on the accuracy of a given historical text (e.g. Herodotus) from the point of view of literary criticism any number of interpretations or any text is possible. If you want to get really post-modernist, every reader inherently brings their own interpretation of every text no matter what. This is only upsetting/confusing to some people because we are dealing on the one hand with a religious text, and on the other with a popular author that is held in a kind of semi-religious awe by some.

Sure, but in practice, no one does this. Josephus has maybe 20 manuscripts in existence, and those are 1000 years away from the source material. There's no real debate---in practice---as to what he "really" saw, ar whether he was real. Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus are roughly in the same position, but there's no real discipussion of what the Stoics "really thought."

And compared to those examples, Christianity is literally hundreds of times better/more closely documented.

I don't know what you mean. The number of copies of a work has nothing at all to do with its accuracy, Moreover, the factual accuracy of a work has nothing to do with its interpretation. I.e. if you believe that the Christian bible is %100 factually accurate, it still leaves room for interpretation as to what the recorded events and statements mean. This is true of any text.

Actually, the number of texts allows a greater amount of cross-referencing. It gives you the ability to work backwards and detect scribal errors, etc. The rest is whether you believe if the source texts are reliable.

And just like no one wonders what the Stoics "really" thought, no one who holds the biblical texts to be reliable is coming up odd interpretations about Christ's self identification statements. Other things, yes, or there would be no denominations.

[Yukon Cornelius]

...racist, holocaust-denying Christian Reconstructionist R. J. Rushdoony...?

You might want to source that.... Which book is that in?

[YMix]

Sure, but in practice, no one does this. Josephus has maybe 20 manuscripts in existence, and those are 1000 years away from the source material. There's no real debate---in practice---as to what he "really" saw, ar whether he was real. Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus are roughly in the same position, but there's no real discipussion of what the Stoics "really thought."

And compared to those examples, Christianity is literally hundreds of times better/more closely documented.

Doubt and debate are a function of power. Marcus Aurelius and the Stoics have none and so their works are discussed only by a small group of philosophers, historians and Latinists. Christianity is a major religion whose grasp on earthly power, prestige, influence and money has only recently been removed. With great power comes great opposition.

I.e. if you believe that the Christian bible is %100 factually accurate, it still leaves room for interpretation as to what the recorded events and statements mean. This is true of any text.

Witness our own discussion of the Parable of Talents on this forum.

[Marcus]

Lewis's logic is impregnable.

Do you feel the same was about racist, holocaust-denying Christian Reconstructionist R. J. Rushdoony, whom you've also quoted numerous times on this forum?

What's this, Ib? Are you, a Muslim, trying to play the "guilt-by-association" card?

Hoist by your own petard, Osama . .

[Ibrahim]

Lewis's logic is impregnable.

Do you feel the same was about racist, holocaust-denying Christian Reconstructionist R. J. Rushdoony, whom you've also quoted numerous times on this forum?

trying to play the "guilt-by-association" card?

You chose to quote Rushdoony to support your arguments. Obviously he is someone you agree with and were proud to identify yourself with. Are you denouncing him now?
You're probably on safer ground irrationally defending Lewis as a trolling method.

[Ibrahim]

Errr... like we do with Herodotus, Josephus, Tacitus, Plato...????

Like any text. Aside from various established views on the accuracy of a given historical text (e.g. Herodotus) from the point of view of literary criticism any number of interpretations or any text is possible. If you want to get really post-modernist, every reader inherently brings their own interpretation of every text no matter what. This is only upsetting/confusing to some people because we are dealing on the one hand with a religious text, and on the other with a popular author that is held in a kind of semi-religious awe by some.

Sure, but in practice, no one does this. Josephus has maybe 20 manuscripts in existence, and those are 1000 years away from the source material. There's no real debate---in practice---as to what he "really" saw, ar whether he was real. Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus are roughly in the same position, but there's no real discipussion of what the Stoics "really thought."

And compared to those examples, Christianity is literally hundreds of times better/more closely documented.

I don't know what you mean. The number of copies of a work has nothing at all to do with its accuracy, Moreover, the factual accuracy of a work has nothing to do with its interpretation. I.e. if you believe that the Christian bible is %100 factually accurate, it still leaves room for interpretation as to what the recorded events and statements mean. This is true of any text.

Actually, the number of texts allows a greater amount of cross-referencing. It gives you the ability to work backwards and detect scribal errors, etc. The rest is whether you believe if the source texts are reliable.

And just like no one wonders what the Stoics "really" thought, no one who holds the biblical texts to be reliable is coming up odd interpretations about Christ's self identification statements. Other things, yes, or there would be no denominations.

I still don't understand what you think this brings to bear on the dispute at hand. Even if you accept the Christian scriptures as %100 accurate you can still interpret them any way you want. People still debate what various classical philosophers thought about X, Y or Z, all you really have are mainstream interpretations or minor ones, but there is no limit on interpretations of anything.

Its a unrelated argument but the number of manuscripts proves nothing except that it was copied many times.

You might want to source that.... Which book is that in?

The Institutes of Biblical Law. Though if you're in a hurry and want to find the money quotes you can just Google his name + racism. The entire Christian Reconstructionist movement is riddled with both racism and false revisionist history. Its all a matter of degree.

[Marcus]

You chose to quote Rushdoony to support your arguments. Obviously he is someone you agree with and were proud to identify yourself with. Are you denouncing him now?
You're probably on safer ground irrationally defending Lewis as a trolling method.

Get a life. Your attempt to play the "guilt-by-association" card is pathetic, even for you.

Hoist by your own petard, Osama.

[Yukon Cornelius]

The Institutes of Biblical Law....

Um, I've read it -- have a copy sitting on a shelf in the next room. Must have missed the part where he denied the holocaust.

(Also, how do you know that I didn't know Dr. Rushdoony personally?)

[Yukon Cornelius]

...Even if you accept the Christian scriptures as %100 accurate you can still interpret them any way you want...

No, acceptance of 100% accuracy already implies a certain hermeneutical approach --- there's no free lunch here, either.

[Ibrahim]

You chose to quote Rushdoony to support your arguments. Obviously he is someone you agree with and were proud to identify yourself with. Are you denouncing him now?
You're probably on safer ground irrationally defending Lewis as a trolling method.

Get a life. Your attempt to play the "guilt-by-association" card is pathetic, even for you.

So do you repudiate Rushdoony? If you can't answer this question go back to the Lewis trolling.


You're in no position to judge others after your conduct in this thread. Trolling, lying, hypocrisy, and ad hominem, all because people don't agree with C.S. Lewis. Its baffling.

[Marcus]

You chose to quote Rushdoony to support your arguments. Obviously he is someone you agree with and were proud to identify yourself with. Are you denouncing him now?
You're probably on safer ground irrationally defending Lewis as a trolling method.

Get a life. Your attempt to play the "guilt-by-association" card is pathetic, even for you.

So do you repudiate Rushdoony? If you can't answer this question go back to the Lewis trolling.
You're in no position to judge others after your conduct in this thread. Trolling, lying, hypocrisy, and ad hominem, all because people don't agree with C.S. Lewis. Its baffling.

Nice try, Ib, but like my dad used to say, "That's all a steer can do." Figured you's still be picking feathers out of your teeth.

Be careful the next time you want to play the "guilt-by-association" card. Hoist by your own petard, Osama.

[Ibrahim]

The Institutes of Biblical Law....

Um, I've read it -- have a copy sitting on a shelf in the next room. Must have missed the part where he denied the holocaust.

Do you want just the Holocaust-related material, or the racist stuff as well? Like most Christian Reconstructionists, Rushdoony is about justification rather than out-and-out denial. He argues that the casualty figured are greatly inflated, citing Rassinier in preference to the conventional accounts of the Holocaust agreed upon by countless scholars who study the subject professionally. So he's absolved Nazi Germany of some 4+ million murders, and what remains he argues are mostly the result of epidemics. Run that by the Shoah Foundation and see what they make of his theories.

Beyond that his defense of slavery and opposition to interracial marriage mark him out as some kind of immoral ghoul. So if you want to stand fast on the Holocaust stuff there's still lots of material to work with.

(Also, how do you know that I didn't know Dr. Rushdoony personally?)

Doesn't make a difference.

[Ibrahim]

You chose to quote Rushdoony to support your arguments. Obviously he is someone you agree with and were proud to identify yourself with. Are you denouncing him now?
You're probably on safer ground irrationally defending Lewis as a trolling method.

Get a life. Your attempt to play the "guilt-by-association" card is pathetic, even for you.

So do you repudiate Rushdoony? If you can't answer this question go back to the Lewis trolling.
You're in no position to judge others after your conduct in this thread. Trolling, lying, hypocrisy, and ad hominem, all because people don't agree with C.S. Lewis. Its baffling.

Nice try, Ib,

You don't even try to refute anything I say because you know its all true. You're all bluster and lies, in defense of other lies no less. I can't do much for a fundamentally immoral person.

[Yukon Cornelius]

What would be embarrassing, Ibrahim, is to play the Rushdoony card on someone who knew him for many years, read most of his books, and had listened to literally HUNDREDS of hours of sermons and lectures.

If that person was myself, I would probably have plumbed the dastardly depths of his holocaust denying racism by now.

[Ibrahim]

...Even if you accept the Christian scriptures as %100 accurate you can still interpret them any way you want...

No, acceptance of 100% accuracy already implies a certain hermeneutical approach

That is incorrect. It could be the result of a confessional approach, or it could be a position taken for the purposes of literary analysis.