[RD] Ask a Theologian V
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
By tunnel vision do you mean, there is only one thing that makes a true believer instead of each human doing right in their own eyes? Mathew 7:13. I am not sure that I was taught that it is only in God's hands, but after observing a huge chunk of humanity, who are content in making it through life on their own, it is all of humanity that lends to that notion, and not just a group of modern fundamentalist.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
What is lutheranism?
what makes it distinct?
Both from catholisism and other kinds of protestanitsm (not that I know much about what makes those distinct except for the predestination thing in calvinism)
what makes it distinct?
Both from catholisism and other kinds of protestanitsm (not that I know much about what makes those distinct except for the predestination thing in calvinism)
Just a "bit" of tunnel vision? Sounds like an understatement.
Quoting scripture in answer to many, many questions might be perceived as "tunnel vision" by some. those with tunnel vision have a very narrow perspective on life and limit their choices on how to see the world.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Scripture is just another source, but the definition of fundamental incorporates going back to the source as opposed to adding thousands of other human experiences into the mix. If a human has the same experience as the original source, even though it may be unique to them, there is still a connection with the original and that more than one human can experience the same phenomenon.
That is not tunnel vision when thousands of humans experience the same thing. What is "tunnel vision" is when only a percentage of humans experience a phenomenon, and the rest of humanity for some reason or other are not able to. I am not sure if humans can take the blame either. Humans don't make universal laws, they are just subjected to them. That is why I used the verse I did. There are humans who claim there are no rules and no rule maker, just whatever happens happens.
No. Tunnel vision is not about how many people see things in a particular way. It is about how broad a perspective an individual has. Many people may have tunnel vision, but they each may see things differently.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Having tunnel vision is not just a personal phenomenon. It is the basis of forming social groups as well, but I think we are saying the same thing.
Yes, often individuals who have similar tunnel vision parameters will cluster together. Duke basketball fans are very much that way. Carolina fans, however, take a much broader perspective when assessing teams and choose the best team every time. 
_random_
Jewel Runner
Donald Trump was mocked recently for a speech at Liberty University where he said "Two Corinthians" instead of "Second Corinthians." But while most people concluded he couldn't even be bothered to feign biblical literacy and one of the foremost institutions of Christian conservatism, I was pretty sure I'd heard, like, bishops and theologians use the same baffling construction referring to numbered books of the Bible. And thinking on it, all of them were British. So is this a legit dialectical difference? If so, do you know how it developed? Or why Donald Trump, a Presbetyrian from Queens, might have embraced the British version?
I've never heard that it's a UK-US difference. It certainly sounds much more normal to me to say "Two Corinthians". "Second Corinthians" has a somehow old-fashioned sound to it. In many ways US English is quite old-fashioned, and I'm sure this is particularly the case with religious things, so perhaps "Second Corinthians" is more common in the US.
Examples how some Catholics use it:
Don't know if there are rules like, use numbers for informal and the word for formal.
I would suggest it might depend on how it reads, like in political speeches.
Think I've heard both styles in mass.
and further down is this http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=9669204&postcount=11
Don't know if there are rules like, use numbers for informal and the word for formal.
I would suggest it might depend on how it reads, like in political speeches.
Think I've heard both styles in mass.
I thought it was '2 Kings' in short, but 'Second Book of Kings' or 'First Letter to the Corinthians' in full. Mind you, most of the people inclined to quote the Bible do it in full.
Plotinus: I noticed you've done a few posts on the heresies of the late Roman Empire: quite by chance, I came across some reading on those the other week. There seems to be quite a lot of disagreement about how far the theology 'mattered' versus other issues that were at stake - in the book I was reading, for example, the author argued that the Donatists were 'really' looking for African independence (or at least to assert themselves as proud Africans) and using the arguments about the place of baptism and the legitimacy of a certain set of bishops as convenient ideas to rally around. As a theologian, I'd be interested in your take on the matter - how far do you think most of the people engaged in theological controversies at the time were really talking about theology? More broadly, I suppose, do you generally take religious arguments at 'face value', or look for something working underneath them?
Plotinus: I noticed you've done a few posts on the heresies of the late Roman Empire: quite by chance, I came across some reading on those the other week. There seems to be quite a lot of disagreement about how far the theology 'mattered' versus other issues that were at stake - in the book I was reading, for example, the author argued that the Donatists were 'really' looking for African independence (or at least to assert themselves as proud Africans) and using the arguments about the place of baptism and the legitimacy of a certain set of bishops as convenient ideas to rally around. As a theologian, I'd be interested in your take on the matter - how far do you think most of the people engaged in theological controversies at the time were really talking about theology? More broadly, I suppose, do you generally take religious arguments at 'face value', or look for something working underneath them?
Is that an observation from personal experience or based on any statistical research?
Actually you're quoting a Protestant.
I would say that the short style (2 Cor.) is rather indicative of very frequent Bible reading than the opposite. (So the conclusion in the Trump example seems rather indicative as one made by not so frequent Bible readers.)
Yes, because it was the OP of the thread and if you read on the Catholics seem to follow the 2 Cor. bit rather than Second Cor.
Have heard both styles used all over Christianity.
Based on the fact that I've never been given chapter and verse on the Bible except in Church, where it's usually 'the reading is taken from the first letter of Paul to Corinthians' and so on.
That's called personal experience.
Which sounds perfectly logical. I don't really think there is an essential difference between the two. But it seems like a typical hairsplitting Christian issue. Maybe one day it can become a true schism and advance theology one more step further.
Which sounds perfectly logical. I don't really think there is an essential difference between the two. But it seems like a typical hairsplitting Christian issue. Maybe one day it can become a true schism and advance theology one more step further.
Well that was a bit of a gap. I apologise for that, as usual!
This is a very complex question that's really impossible to answer with any sureness, because it involves reading between the lines and guessing at people's motives. My instinct is to think that when people make interpretations of the kind you mention - where supposedly theological disagreements are really about politics - they are being anachronistic and failing to appreciate how differently people in the past thought. It's easy for us to understand why the Donatists might have cared about African nationalism (or something like that) - it's not easy for us to understand why they might have cared about who got ordained by which bishops and what that meant about ecclesiastical purity. But that's because we're modern secular people.
Another classic example is the dispute between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, which is often held up as an example of a political dispute masquerading as a theological one. But while there certainly were political and personal elements to this (both of them strike me as quite unpleasant people), that doesn't mean that there weren't genuine theological differences at stake, which these people took very seriously. Contrast that to the dispute a generation earlier between Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, where supposed theological differences about Origenism really were just masking personal issues - and this became clear as the case developed and Theophilus stopped talking about Origen altogether and found other reasons to have John deposed.
So I would be inclined to tend to take these things at face value unless there's good reason not to, on the understanding that there's often more to it than just face value. But that may be partly because I think in terms of ideas and philosophies rather than people and politics. Plus, I'd say that one can't really make sweeping statements about this kind of thing in general. Each case should be taken individually.
The Donatist case is especially awkward because it certainly did have political elements (resentment of the emperor) as well as, I think, genuine theological concerns - the latter had already surfaced in other disputes, such as with the Novatianists, so I think it's fair to say they were important to people. But even worse, Donatism was also an organistional schism. Indeed that's what it mainly was, especially in the later stages. I think that often when a church has split like that the schism retains a sort of momentum even long after anyone can remember what it was about in the first place. The Meletian schism at Antioch in the fourth century was like that. Or in modern times you might think of the split between Anglicans and Methodists, who are indistinguishable from each other. I'm sure that after a generation or two there were plenty of Donatists who knew or cared almost nothing about what had happened during the Decian persecution - which was when the whole thing began - and were Donatists simply because that's what they were.
This is a very complex question that's really impossible to answer with any sureness, because it involves reading between the lines and guessing at people's motives. My instinct is to think that when people make interpretations of the kind you mention - where supposedly theological disagreements are really about politics - they are being anachronistic and failing to appreciate how differently people in the past thought. It's easy for us to understand why the Donatists might have cared about African nationalism (or something like that) - it's not easy for us to understand why they might have cared about who got ordained by which bishops and what that meant about ecclesiastical purity. But that's because we're modern secular people.
Another classic example is the dispute between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, which is often held up as an example of a political dispute masquerading as a theological one. But while there certainly were political and personal elements to this (both of them strike me as quite unpleasant people), that doesn't mean that there weren't genuine theological differences at stake, which these people took very seriously. Contrast that to the dispute a generation earlier between Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, where supposed theological differences about Origenism really were just masking personal issues - and this became clear as the case developed and Theophilus stopped talking about Origen altogether and found other reasons to have John deposed.
So I would be inclined to tend to take these things at face value unless there's good reason not to, on the understanding that there's often more to it than just face value. But that may be partly because I think in terms of ideas and philosophies rather than people and politics. Plus, I'd say that one can't really make sweeping statements about this kind of thing in general. Each case should be taken individually.
The Donatist case is especially awkward because it certainly did have political elements (resentment of the emperor) as well as, I think, genuine theological concerns - the latter had already surfaced in other disputes, such as with the Novatianists, so I think it's fair to say they were important to people. But even worse, Donatism was also an organistional schism. Indeed that's what it mainly was, especially in the later stages. I think that often when a church has split like that the schism retains a sort of momentum even long after anyone can remember what it was about in the first place. The Meletian schism at Antioch in the fourth century was like that. Or in modern times you might think of the split between Anglicans and Methodists, who are indistinguishable from each other. I'm sure that after a generation or two there were plenty of Donatists who knew or cared almost nothing about what had happened during the Decian persecution - which was when the whole thing began - and were Donatists simply because that's what they were.
