The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The number of church going probably did. 50 years of bad catechesis will do that. Many stop attending as soon as the child gets confirmed (middle school age). Why bother? The ideas of sin and its consequences are missing from the "Church of Nice".

Yea - I'm old school.

In "A Secular Age," Charles Taylor posits three senses in which modernity has become more secular: (1) disentanglement of state with religion, (2) lessening of popular observance of ritual and catechism, and (3) faith as one existential option of many rather than an all-encompassing reality. He makes the point that's it's really only Europe and the Anglophone world that have become secularized. In particular, the Islamic world is still non-secular in all three senses. The US he picks out as an interesting case where religiosity in sense (2) is famously high, despite the severance of (3) and the foundational rejection of (1). (I haven't gotten to his comments on China yet.)

I've always found a certain strangeness in the apparent delight some "old school" observers have with coarseness and punishment as if these are definitional of "real" faith. P. J. O'Rourke once wrote something atypically ham-fisted that new age religions were "for people too weak and cowardly for real religion." I guess there's merit in the idea that faith is a bedrock that you don't reject just because it's hard or inconvenient, but that's a long way from apparently glorying in harshness and punitive excess as "extra strength God."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Yup, we all just reject reality. Who needs it, eh?

If you believe the earth is 6000 years old, you have made a deliberate choice to reject reality, yes.

There actually is another choice: Aquinas split truth in two and took both roads. I'm just starting a biography of Michael Oakeshott and it appears he did something similar. I'm not sure whether that sort of split personality is healthy, but it solves the problem.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

If you believe the earth is 6000 years old, you have made a deliberate choice to reject reality, yes.

When have I ever said that? I think there are some significant problems with the 6000 year old theory and so do many other evangelicals. But, hey, stereotype away.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Bernard Cardinal Law is a pariah in Rome. At the recent conclave he always dined alone. Now that he's 80+, no more conclaves for him. The good thing is when he dies, he faces Christ, renders a full accounting of his life and receives judgment for his life's actions. Not being a party to the process, I don't know what will happen, but I would not want to be in his shoes. I even doubt he will be buried on these shores.

As it is, outside of a pound of flesh, what purpose will a trial give?

1) Justice. Something he's escaped thus far aside from your good point that he'll presumably get what's coming to him eventually. The victims deserve it. If you were in any other profession: running a camp, or daycare, or a school, where not only did you know your employees were molesting kids and you did nothing about it, but you actively participated in a coverup - they'd lock you up and throw away the key. Law should be defrocked and stand trial.

2) No one is above the law. Sends the right message to any other official more concerned about their press clippings than their calling. Getting a cushy Vatican job as punishment isn't exactly a deterrent.

3) The church "gets it". Coddling him wreaks of an attitude that the church need not answer to the people its supposed to serve.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

When have I ever said that? I think there are some significant problems with the 6000 year old theory and so do many other evangelicals. But, hey, stereotype away.

I thought evangelicals were a superset of Biblical literalists? Is that not so?

BTW, based on our conversations I have always assumed you were a Thomist. Show's what I know.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I thought evangelicals were a superset of Biblical literalists? Is that not so?

BTW, based on our conversations I have always assumed you were a Thomist. Show's what I know.

I don't even know what a Thomist is, so I can't say whether I'm one or not!

 

[joecct]

I don't even know what a Thomist is, so I can't say whether I'm one or not!

St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I don't even know what a Thomist is, so I can't say whether I'm one or not!

Here.

In short, I had you pegged as old school Roman Catholic with a serious and formalized emphasis on rational bases for faith that still rejects pure empiricism. Basically, Scholasticism was an early empiricist project that tried to find an empirical foundation for Christian doctrine independent from scripture. Aquinas said that was wrong and reason has an upper limit above which is scripture and faith. This two-piston tension between reason and faith basically drives the history of Christianity and lies behind all the battles within Christianity from the Council of Chalcedon to the Council of Trent and everything in between.

If the Augsburg Confession's more your thing, that falls right in line as well.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Here.

In short, I had you pegged as old school Roman Catholic with a serious and formalized emphasis on rational bases for faith that still rejects pure empiricism. Basically, Scholasticism was an early empiricist project that tried to find an empirical foundation for Christian doctrine independent from scripture. Aquinas said that was wrong and reason has an upper limit above which is scripture and faith. This two-piston tension between reason and faith basically drives the history of Christianity and lies behind all the battles within Christianity from the Council of Chalcedon to the Council of Trent and everything in between.

If the Augsburg Confession's more your thing, that falls right in line as well.

I'm not Catholic, never have been, and am for the most part not that familiar with theological discussions amongst Catholics. I honestly don't have a school of thought that I neatly fall into as far as I know. I guess I'm a Grayist!

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Gandalf!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Cross-posted this issue in the "science roundup" thread too, seems to overlap both.

Communities across the country are grappling with a surge in drone use that’s raising safety and privacy concerns—and thorny legal questions—about a slice of sky officials have largely disregarded.

State and local police say complaints are soaring about drones flying above homes, crowds and crime scenes. At least 17 states, meanwhile, have passed laws to restrict how law enforcement and private citizens use the devices....

few have paid much attention to the airspace within a few hundred feet above the ground. Since 1930, planes have been largely restricted from flying below 500 feet, leaving lower altitudes mostly to birds, kites, model planes and, in some cases, helicopters.

....

[Proposed federal] rules [for commercial use of drones] don’t address private use by individuals, where some of the most vexing issues lie, such as how to prevent people from using drones to spy into neighbors’ windows, or flying them into manned aircraft. Those issues are falling into a regulatory no-man’s land.

The Federal Aviation Administration ... says that state and local authorities can’t regulate drone flights because it is the sole regulator of the airspace.

Northampton, Mass., has challenged the FAA with a resolution declaring that local landowners control the 500 feet above their property. The town cites a 1946 Supreme Court ruling, in a case involving North Carolina chicken farmers angry about flights overhead, that landowners have “exclusive control over the immediate reaches” above their land.

Many attorneys have cited that 1946 case as a looming dilemma for regulators and the drone industry. They say it poses tough legal questions, such as where does “navigable airspace” begin and the control of property owners end?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I'm not Catholic, never have been, and am for the most part not that familiar with theological discussions amongst Catholics. I honestly don't have a school of thought that I neatly fall into as far as I know. I guess I'm a Grayist!

High level Catholic theological discussions are awesome, because once you get beyond the catechism it becomes apparent very quickly that everybody has a different perspective on everything from ridiculous arcana right down to bedrock ontology. Part of it is just sheer longevity: Catholicism has been knee-deep in top flight philosophy for 1500 years, and every significant western philosophical argument from 500 to about 1800 was nigh on incomprehensible without a grounding in Catholic doctrine and history.

Also: everybody has an ax to grind with everybody else. Putting a Jesuit, a Domincan, and a Franciscan intellectual in a room is basically a steel cage match with scripture and scholastic history instead of breakaway chairs. It must be ten times more interesting if you actually believe in the Invisible Man stuff, but even a hard core atheist can spend a lifetime enjoying intellectual gymnastics at that level.

I still think you'd make a great Thomist, or a Neo-Thomist at any rate. Maybe if I can rack up one conversion the Lord'll go easy on me. Salvation by good works, baby!

 

[joecct]

High level Catholic theological discussions are awesome, because once you get beyond the catechism it becomes apparent very quickly that everybody has a different perspective on everything from ridiculous arcana right down to bedrock ontology. Part of it is just sheer longevity: Catholicism has been knee-deep in top flight philosophy for 1500 years, and every significant western philosophical argument from 500 to about 1800 was nigh on incomprehensible without a grounding in Catholic doctrine and history.

Also: everybody has an ax to grind with everybody else. Putting a Jesuit, a Domincan, and a Franciscan intellectual in a room is basically a steel cage match with scripture and scholastic history instead of breakaway chairs. It must be ten times more interesting if you actually believe in the Invisible Man stuff, but even a hard core atheist can spend a lifetime enjoying intellectual gymnastics at that level.

I still think you'd make a great Thomist, or a Neo-Thomist at any rate. Maybe if I can rack up one conversion the Lord'll go easy on me. Salvation by good works, baby!

Which is why I enjoyed the writings of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

High level Catholic theological discussions are awesome, because once you get beyond the catechism it becomes apparent very quickly that everybody has a different perspective on everything from ridiculous arcana right down to bedrock ontology. Part of it is just sheer longevity: Catholicism has been knee-deep in top flight philosophy for 1500 years, and every significant western philosophical argument from 500 to about 1800 was nigh on incomprehensible without a grounding in Catholic doctrine and history.

Also: everybody has an ax to grind with everybody else. Putting a Jesuit, a Domincan, and a Franciscan intellectual in a room is basically a steel cage match with scripture and scholastic history instead of breakaway chairs. It must be ten times more interesting if you actually believe in the Invisible Man stuff, but even a hard core atheist can spend a lifetime enjoying intellectual gymnastics at that level.

I still think you'd make a great Thomist, or a Neo-Thomist at any rate. Maybe if I can rack up one conversion the Lord'll go easy on me. Salvation by good works, baby!

I guess part of it is what a person enjoys. I've never been one to get into theological debates and all that type of stuff. Nothing against those that do or enjoy it, but it's just not my cup of tea. To me theology is one aspect of being a Christian and it's good to know what you believe and have reasons why, but it's not an end goal of any sort in my mind. Having to have an explanation for every last thing that could be questioned just isn't something on my to do list.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I guess part of it is what a person enjoys. I've never been one to get into theological debates and all that type of stuff. Nothing against those that do or enjoy it, but it's just not my cup of tea. To me theology is one aspect of being a Christian and it's good to know what you believe and have reasons why, but it's not an end goal of any sort in my mind. Having to have an explanation for every last thing that could be questioned just isn't something on my to do list.

I understand this perspective. My dad was the very model of the modern seminarian on debating the ins and outs of theological finery, while my mom is a "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" Catholic. They both found peace in their faith in their own ways. I personally never feel the need to intellectually justify atheism: it seems "obvious" to me. But the waxing and waning of evergreen theological debates, particular in the Good Olde Days when literal matters of life and death hung in the balance, is fascinating in the way learning the rules to a new game is. "Arguendo x, then..." FTW.

What in your mind is the distinction between mainline and evangelical Christian? I thought it was Biblical literalism, but that seems to be in error. Is there a bright line, or is this a spectrum? And why is mainline dying?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I understand this perspective. My dad was the very model of the modern seminarian on debating the ins and outs of theological finery, while my mom is a "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" Catholic. They both found peace in their faith in their own ways. I personally never feel the need to intellectually justify atheism: it seems "obvious" to me. But the waxing and waning of evergreen theological debates, particular in the Good Olde Days when literal matters of life and death hung in the balance, is fascinating in the way learning the rules to a new game is. "Arguendo x, then..." FTW.

What in your mind is the distinction between mainline and evangelical Christian? I thought it was Biblical literalism, but that seems to be in error. Is there a bright line, or is this a spectrum? And why is mainline dying?

I really tried to read this to the tune of, "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I really tried to read this to the tune of, "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General"

If I had more time I'd have given it the full meter.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I understand this perspective. My dad was the very model of the modern seminarian on debating the ins and outs of theological finery, while my mom is a "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" Catholic. They both found peace in their faith in their own ways. I personally never feel the need to intellectually justify atheism: it seems "obvious" to me. But the waxing and waning of evergreen theological debates, particular in the Good Olde Days when literal matters of life and death hung in the balance, is fascinating in the way learning the rules to a new game is. "Arguendo x, then..." FTW.

What in your mind is the distinction between mainline and evangelical Christian? I thought it was Biblical literalism, but that seems to be in error. Is there a bright line, or is this a spectrum? And why is mainline dying?

Mainline is easier to define as I'd say it mainly is a number of the large protestant denominations that have been around for a long while and have generally drifted toward more and more liberal perspectives on a variety of issues. Folks like the large Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian denominations. I guess the Southern Baptists could be considered a mainline denomination, but they have gone down a different track than these others, not generally moving toward more liberal positions on issues. Evangelicals are harder to define, as there are all sorts of church groups with different at least somewhat different views on some things. I'd say they generally tack more conservative than most mainline churches and have more emphasis on sharing the gospel. Bible literalism is certainly in the mix also, but I think Bible literalism can mean different things to different folks, and you can throw the inerrancy of the Bible into that discussion. As with anything, I think literalism can be taken to silly extremes. The Bible is a story spanning thousands of years and is full of all sorts of people. Obviously (to me) literalism doesn't mean that when Levi and Simeon killed an entire city of people in vengeance, that's what we're to do also. So, yes, there certainly is a spectrum. In many ways a label like evangelical isn't really helpful because we have such a broad spectrum of Christian belief and practice across groups and individuals and most don't neatly fit into a given defined box.

I think fundamentally (pun intended!) the mainline groups are dying for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I think they've strayed from the roots of what caused them to grow into large denominations that had millions of members, which I'd say generally happens to most groups of any sort over time. They've been around a long time and mostly appeal to older generations and often seem more interested in weighing in on social/political issues than focusing on the good news of the gospel of Christ and having a dynamic and living relationship with the God they worship. Don't get me wrong, Christian groups can and should be a force for good in society and help engage those who struggle in life, but that should be the fruit coming out of what they believe, not just what they believe (not sure if I said that one well). Evangelical groups tend to be more active and dynamic and passionate about their beliefs and hew closer to traditional Christian beliefs, rather than bending to the ebb and flow of what society in general thinks is right or wrong as the mainline groups tend to do. I've heard it said that mainline groups in many ways aren't that different than other social clubs like the Elks or Shriners or whatever and if that's the case, why have the Christian layer on top instead of just being part of one of those social organizations.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Mainline is easier to define as I'd say it mainly is a number of the large protestant denominations that have been around for a long while and have generally drifted toward more and more liberal perspectives on a variety of issues. Folks like the large Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian denominations. I guess the Southern Baptists could be considered a mainline denomination, but they have gone down a different track than these others, not generally moving toward more liberal positions on issues. Evangelicals are harder to define, as there are all sorts of church groups with different at least somewhat different views on some things. I'd say they generally tack more conservative than most mainline churches and have more emphasis on sharing the gospel. Bible literalism is certainly in the mix also, but I think Bible literalism can mean different things to different folks, and you can throw the inerrancy of the Bible into that discussion. As with anything, I think literalism can be taken to silly extremes. The Bible is a story spanning thousands of years and is full of all sorts of people. Obviously (to me) literalism doesn't mean that when Levi and Simeon killed an entire city of people in vengeance, that's what we're to do also. So, yes, there certainly is a spectrum. In many ways a label like evangelical isn't really helpful because we have such a broad spectrum of Christian belief and practice across groups and individuals and most don't neatly fit into a given defined box.

I think fundamentally (pun intended!) the mainline groups are dying for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I think they've strayed from the roots of what caused them to grow into large denominations that had millions of members, which I'd say generally happens to most groups of any sort over time. They've been around a long time and mostly appeal to older generations and often seem more interested in weighing in on social/political issues than focusing on the good news of the gospel of Christ and having a dynamic and living relationship with the God they worship. Don't get me wrong, Christian groups can and should be a force for good in society and help engage those who struggle in life, but that should be the fruit coming out of what they believe, not just what they believe (not sure if I said that one well). Evangelical groups tend to be more active and dynamic and passionate about their beliefs and hew closer to traditional Christian beliefs, rather than bending to the ebb and flow of what society in general thinks is right or wrong as the mainline groups tend to do. I've heard it said that mainline groups in many ways aren't that different than other social clubs like the Elks or Shriners or whatever and if that's the case, why have the Christian layer on top instead of just being part of one of those social organizations.

Interesting. Thank you.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting article about Scalia visiting Arizona and how he's in the Court's minority so much. Just goes to show how liberal the court is becoming!

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/the_valley/westvalley/article_07bb749b-36c7-51a1-8fbe-0619f10c1583.html