Kevin's Watch

I think many understand you. It's just that that isn't equal to agreement.

Fist and Faith wrote:I think many understand you. It's just that that isn't equal to agreement.

If they did, Fist, they would engage the thoughts. Very often the thoughts remain unengaged. Understanding means being able to restate what a person's idea is.

Christianity has undergone a progress of increasing fragmentation over time; nobody addresses that - that it was essentially one unified thing a thousand years ago and today we see dozens of major denominations - a recent concept in history - and thousands of "independent churches", something alien to the ancient understanding, where independence was the opposite of communion and meant schism, not freedom. Nobody addresses that; they always talk about what they see today.

If we do not know the history of a thing we do not understand it now, even if we are looking at it. It'd be like a Russian claiming to understand the US without knowing about our colonization, the Revolution and Civil Wars, westward expansion, etc. Heck, he wouldn't even be able to explain why we happen to speak English, how we came to have racial unrest/problems or why the US and France historically have always had good relations. So it is with Church history.

To agree or disagree successfully, one must display knowledge of a thing, including its history. The US has not always been a superpower, and neither has being a Christian always meant any individual wearing the label and having his own opinions. Historically, and still in the traditional denominations, it is something you are received into after some kind of catechesis, where you agree to accept the traditional teachings of that Church. The purely modern idea of Christians "voting" on the morality of a thing is alien to everything that the Christian faith ever meant - and that's not even open for disagreement, because it is a fact, not an opinion.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:I think many understand you. It's just that that isn't equal to agreement.

If they did, Fist, they would engage the thoughts. Very often the thoughts remain unengaged.

I often read a post and understand it, but don't feel the need to reply.

rusmeister wrote:Understanding means being able to restate what a person's idea is.

This is certainly the funniest post so far this year! Coming from the guy who nearly alyays flat-out refuses to restate what Chesterton, Lewis, and the OC say?!? Man, that is beyond priceless! (Now's the part where you tell me it's ok when you refuse, because...)

I just think calling your site "sex in Christ" is just asking for myriads amount of misinterpretation.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Understanding means being able to restate what a person's idea is.

This is certainly the funniest post so far this year! Coming from the guy who nearly alyays flat-out refuses to restate what Chesterton, Lewis, and the OC say?!? Man, that is beyond priceless! (Now's the part where you tell me it's ok when you refuse, because...)

What the people I quote say is generally clear. What you have asked for is summaries in a few words, leaving out all of the graspable ideas in the longer texts - the conclusions minus the means by which they were reached. It is not that the texts are so difficult; it's just that you don't want to read and consider them. I put in a bite-sized paragraph that says it all and still you do not engage the thoughts.

Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram:
"The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more
and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's
opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters;
his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and
explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object,
the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost.
Everything matters--except everything.

What needs restatement here? In short, it says that we are to focus on all the myriad details of life and to leave out the thing that puts them into a single whole picture - a world view, a life philosophy, a religion.
Behold, it is restated! I can do it. Why can't you? (Beyond saying that "It's bad") This directly addresses false ideas like "keep the religion out of politics", and can be re-expressed as the treatment of the whole as merely one of the myriad parts.

Right now I've reached a new level of difficulty in GKC - "The New Jerusalem" is a notebook he wrote more for himself, rather than a journalistic expose for others, written at the very end of his life and height of his maturity, I am back to my first experiences of GKC of crawling at a snail's pace through the book - yet, I find when I go slowly, as with those first experiences of GKC, that I CAN understand him. The ideas are deep and three-dimensional, and again, I am awestruck at how he is able to express them.

I'd give an example - and restate it, but I'm already tired.

rusmeister wrote:...and neither has being a Christian always meant any individual wearing the label and having his own opinions. Historically, and still in the traditional denominations, it is something you are received into after some kind of catechesis, where you agree to accept the traditional teachings of that Church. The purely modern idea of Christians "voting" on the morality of a thing is alien to everything that the Christian faith ever meant - and that's not even open for disagreement, because it is a fact, not an opinion.

For what is bolded - it may be a well-regarded opinion upheld by tradition, and held to be universally true by its church members, but that does not make it a fact, Mr. Wizard, no matter how strongly worded your solipsism is.

But this is the message underpinning your 'come and see' slogan -- whenever we are ready to have our opinions handed to us from on high, that's when we will finally be ready to consult the one true faith, and pick up our gratis Borg headgear.
When I want to read the codex on exactly how to live my life, I will. I know exactly where it is located now. For now, however, I will steer clear. Thanksbye.