You’d Think I’d Have Learned My Lesson Last Time ….

Comments

15 responses to “You’d Think I’d Have Learned My Lesson Last Time ….”

1. 

   2006-07-25

   bls

   Condolences. I gave that place up long ago; it’s my least favorite web address.

   Reply
2. 

   2006-07-25

   David Huff

   …a smug, insular group of people — implacably certain of their own rightness, gleefully hurling insults at an invited guest who held other views
   (said in his best imitation of an agitated Englishman sputtering into his moustache) What’s this ?! Good lord, I’m shocked, SHOCKED that the commenters on Pontifications would react this way! (/sputtering)
   bls, yeah – they even make (some of) the commenters on Kendall’s blog look semi-reasonable…

   Reply
3. 

   2006-07-26

   The Rev. Catherine Windsor

   Hey QC, I can relate. Regardless of how tactful and considerate I am on some of these “other” blogs, they always manage to make themselves unwelcome on mine. Yes, I think it is time for some moderating. After all, as Elizabeth Kaeton+ said on her blog, “it’s my living room” and you control who goes in and out. These “reasserters” whether Episcopalian, Catholic or otherwise, need to mind their manners, IF they have them.
   More power to ya, QC.
   Catherine+

   Reply
4. 

   2006-07-26

   Wayne

   DC,
   To quote an eminement 20th century theologion: I feel your pain. I’ve looked at the discussion over there and this looks like the same old thing that I mentioned last week – “circling the wagons”.
   The conclusion I’m coming to is that, no matter what the discussion is ostensibly about, the _real_ message from many trads is: Ya’ll don’t belong here (where “here” is anywhere near Christianity).
   I’ve seen this line of attack from the Pontificator (“It’s hard to understand, though, why anyone who has chosen empiricism as his epistemological framework would have much use for Christianity or any other religion.”) and Derek and several other people who seem decent and well-meaning.
   When they are cornered or the house of cards starts to shake, the final argument always seems to be “Why do you even call yourself a Christian?”
   It’s troubling. I have this wild idea that we can rescue Christianity from fundamentalism and actually make it relevant for the 21st century, but some days I have my doubts 😉
   Take care,
   Wayne

   Reply
5. 

   2006-07-26

   currahee

   From the reasserter perspective empirical inquiry is a pointless, counterproductive exercise. Any Christianity that seeks a via media embracing empiricism is a path away from God.
   Paraphrasing: The Lord’s Truth has been captured. The historic faith and the tomes of theology that supports it are sufficient for salvation. We’ve all been insufficiently instructed in this body of knowledge – repentance begins with acknowledging this. So shut up and kneel.
   Fr. Al’s right about the liturgy, though.

   Reply
6. 

   2006-07-26

   Wayne

   “The historic faith and the tomes of theology that supports it are sufficient for salvation”
   And you know this how?

   Reply
7. 

   2006-07-26

   Wayne

   The last post was a joke for DC’s amusement. Sorry, I couldn’t resist 😉

   Reply
8. 

   2006-07-26

   D. C.

   I picked up on that, and was flattered that — or at least so I thought — other people were starting to ask my Favorite Theological Question #1 (which is a layman’s translation of “objection, your honor: assumes facts not in evidence”).

   Reply
9. 

   2006-07-26

   Anonymous

   While I don’t necessarily agree with your positions either on evil or traditionalists or empiricism, but not sure I differ either….I just fairly I haven’t followed them. I suspect that I’m probably more in the P’s detractors camp if I read this blow-up…but I don’t have that much patience or free time. Instead, the reason I’m writing is to share the commiseraton in that I do agree that charity is called for….and that traditionalists seem to fall into a trap on this that inevitably does their cause (which is usually mine as well – and who knows, maybe yours, too) no particular favors. I tend to think they have a compelling faith and cause: the challene isn’t whether traditionalism will triumph – it always does in the end – but what the traditions will look like when they do. 🙂 That said, I am a tremendous fan of Thomas Oden’s “Rebirth of Orthodoxy”.
   That said, I agree that there at times seems a sense that sometimes the “contributors” zeal on P’s site, in trying to one-up each other go beyond the line. My experience is that P himself waltzes up to the line, smiles at it, and steps back. I think this is true as well for many, many others there as well. Most of these folks though are trained in pastoral care or teaching – and understand the process of challenge and nurture as distinct from “winning” debate points.
   Unfortunately, the anonymity of the internet also fosters the less charitable, less encouraging posts that one probably wouldn’t hear in most face-to-face encounters simply because it is hard to separate the idea from the author. But the merit of the site’s objective is precisely this I think in that the expectation is for ideas to stand completely on their own presentation as well as together with the collective deposit of faith. In this, the apostolic churches are advantaged in that this is their bailiwick: this is their authority, and they are playing on home turf.
   That said, anyone with kids knows, win the argument good for you, but sometimes you win even more by losing. As someone wiser tha I put it: “Argue your faith forcefully….sometimes, even use words.” Problem is…this isn’t the objective of the site…and many of us neglect that to our peril. I am sorry you were roughed up…been there, felt that, too.
   Were the site mine, I would prefer it to reflect my old Logic professor’s dictum that before attacking an argument – any argument, the debater first had to strengthen every aspect of their target’s thesis in order to make it as strong as possible. Then and only then would he have been charitable enough that points he/she would proceed to make in attacking the thesis would really be worthy of note. Yet that would be a pretty boring exercise to listen to…and not one that fits the internet entertainment and rough-and-tumble ethic. William F. Buckley used to practice this discipline in his better days and to the utter exhaustion and exasperation of both his friends and foes. So there you are. I still follow the site, but I follow far more that proceed to share insights of the Fathers rather argue contemporary viewpoints on contemporary issues. Personally, given contemporary translations, I find the limitations of even the Reformers tend to be somewhat of limited and unoriginal interest by comparison.

   Reply
10. 

    2006-07-26

    anonymous

    I had a number of typos and missed words…but whatever. You can probably figure it out, and I can’t rightly edit here. Sorry ’bout that.

    Reply
11. 

    2006-07-26

    Al Kimel

    D.C., I confess that I was surprised that you wandered back into the arena after getting mauled so badly several months ago. And each time you have felt it necessary to write a piece bad-mouth the folks that comment there. And quite frankly, I think that’s just bad form and childish.
    Each time you visit Pontifications you find yourself completely out of your league. We have some pretty sharp cookes that read and comment upon Pontifications, and they have a low tolerance for fools, dolts, and nincompoops—and lawyers. If you had come in with some real questions and a willingness to learn, you would have received a different reception, and you might have learned something in the process. Instead, you come in with your frankly silly theories on hearsay and a reconstructed Jesus that everyone would have found boring. The arguments you wrote in the combox were like throwing raw meat to a bunch of sharks.
    The folks who consistently comment there usually have advanced degrees in philosophy, history, and theology. Your background in law and litigation is absolutely worthless in this forum.
    These guys know you don’t know what you’re talking about. They know that your acquaintance with philosophical, historical, theological, and biblical literature is extremely limited and minimal. They know that a person spouting your ideas wouldn’t last a week in the rigors of a doctoral program. But here you are, stepping on to their turf and expecting them to take you seriously.
    But that’s not going to happen not only because you don’t know what you’re talking about, but because you still claim the name of Christian. For two years now you have been aggressively attacking and ridiculing classical Christianity. To put it bluntly, you’re a heretic, and so you must expect to be treated like one.
    The sad part, D.C. is you do not recognize how overmatched you are at Pontifications. And so you get trounced and then come back home whining and complaining how mean everyone was to you. Oh c’mon. Next time, don’t wander too far away from home.

    Reply
12. 

    2006-07-27

    Wayne

    I have finally seen the light and had a revelation of the true words of Jesus on the mount. The Q source got it all wrong, here is the divinely corrected version revealed to me:
    
    Blessed are those with advanced degrees in philosophy, history and theology for theirs is the kingdom of God.
    Blessed are those who bloviate upon the depth of the great certainty of their theological knowledge, for they shall see God.
    Blessed are you when you revile and curse others who disagree with NT Wright, for great is your reward in heaven.
    
    The revelation hath ended. Peace be upon you.

    Reply
13. 

    2006-07-27

    D. C.

    1. Al, I readily concede that I’m out of my league at Pontifications, in about the same way I would be if I were at an astrologers’ convention.
    As I said last time, it’s as though you and your friends are insisting that the universe is ruled by space-traveling housecats, and you want everyone to completely reorient their lives around that “fact.” I happen to ask, how do y’all account for some inconvenient evidence that doesn’t fit with your claims — in this case, the well-known problems associated with oral tradition, along with possible alternative explanations for the reported phenomena. You guys respond that you’re the experts, and that I shouldn’t be asking these questions until I master the disciplines by which you’ve supposedly proved your case.
    You’re not going to make many evangelism “sales” that way, at least not to people who feel they have a responsibility to try to think for themselves. No, I don’t have y’all’s “expertise” — and until you and your friends can satisfactorily answer my questions, which aren’t at all unreasonable, I’m not likely to invest any time trying to acquire it.
    In that regard, I’m not unlike many of the souls whom you claim to be interested in evangelizing. The church wrings its collective hands about the fact that much of Europe is now essentially non-Christian; that there seems to be an inverse correlation between religious belief and educational level; and that Islam is growing so rapidly. That shouldn’t really be a huge surprise.
    2. Concerning law and litigators: as I noted last time, when responsible people want to know what really happened at “street level,” it’s the litigators — not historians, theologians, logicians, epistemologists, etc. — whom they call in to pin down who said what and who did what. Traditionalist Christian theology is grounded entirely on just such claims, that supposedly certain street-level things really did happen 2,000 years ago. Litigation expertise is clearly relevant. Yet you and your friends act as though those having such expertise must keep silent unless they agree with you.
    It’s as though a folk healer were trying to figure out what’s wrong with a sick child. The healer has already treated the child with herbs; the child has shown some improvement, but is still sick. A passing gerontologist [a physician who specializes in the elderly] notices that the child has blue lips and fingernails. She points out that these symptoms are consistent with heart problems, and suggests that the healer consider consulting a cardiologist. The healer is proud of his expertise; his track record in treating patients is far from perfect, but he’s not without past success. He responds angrily that pediatrics isn’t the gerontologist’s field; he says he has things well under control, and that the gerontologist should butt out until she has become competent in the techniques of herbal treatment. Tell me, which of them has the child’s interests at heart?
    3. One of my personal mottos is, “face the facts.” Entirely apart from the natural-selection implications, to do otherwise is to reject the world that God actually created, and instead to try to live in a world created by one’s imagination. I don’t see that you and your friends are facing the facts that undermine your theological claims. Your epistemological emperor has no clothes, or at least no pants, but y’all don’t seem to see that.
    4. As I pointed out on your blog, you can be sure that I’m not the only one asking these inconvenient questions. Presumably you guys want to be effective in evangelizing to such questioners — including not least our young people. But instead y’all seem more interested in ostentatiously shaking the dust from your feet. I suspect you’d do better to focus more on figuring out how to “make the sale” to people who try to think for themselves, and less on congratulating yourselves about the elaborate beauty of your theories.
    5. I think Wayne got it right in his comment above: You guys sense that your house of cards is getting shakier and shakier, so you’re circling the wagons.
    6. I’m reluctantly concluding that there’s no point in our continuing to converse. THe worldviews and methods by which we approach the underlying questions are too irreconcilable, and too many of your friends seem incapable of discussing those subjects without reflexively switching to attack mode, which you evidently approve.
    Time will eventually tell which of us has the better perspective. (Note that I don’t say “time will tell which of us is right,” because the right answer might well be something else entirely.) As I said in the main posting, enjoy your new “neighborhood.”

    Reply
14. 

    2006-07-27

    bls

    What’s interesting about Kimel’s post above is that it really does demonstrate the tactics of a typical bully, somebody out to ridicule people he regards to be weaker than he is. What’s most amazing to me is that he seems to get great satisfaction out of doing this to laypeople – a safe target, I suppose – and then feigns surprise when they come to respond.
    Words fail, really. Which, honestly, is a good thing, since I have a few very choice ones in mind.
    Take a look in the mirror, sometime, Al.

    Reply
15. 

    2006-08-01

    vynette

    It was a sore point with the religious establishment in Jerusalem that Jesus was not one of them – not one of the select community of scholars.
    Certain sectors of the present religious establishment display the same contemptuous attitudes towards the ‘unschooled’ as did their forefathers.
    “The Jews therefore marveled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?”
    John 7:15

    Reply