Questions Wanted. Seriously.
I need your questions on religion and the arts, religion and culture, religion and politics, comparative religion, theology and ethics, Biblical studies, philology, history, and so on. Absolutely anything you can think of; anything that has popped into your head and floated around unanswered, for any amount of time, in recent memory. The questions can be as speculative and apparently, to you, insipid, as you like. It doesn’t matter who you are, or what your own thoughts are related to those questions – though if you do have thoughts you believe could be interesting, and at least lead in potentially interesting directions, that too would be welcome. It also doesn’t matter if you think concrete answers are even possible. Just write them to me. I would greatly appreciate it.
As for Coal, I realize this has been one of my dryest months ever. Sadly I’ve been either preoccupied or had very little to talk about (publically) lately. I fully expect that to change in coming months, though I can’t positively map out a timeframe for you. My apologies to anyone who has been repeatedly confronted by a page identical to the time previous. I hope you will continue to check, at least occasionally, until things get back underway – which, eventually, they will.
njero said,
Feb 5, 21:01 #
Discuss the immaculate conception. Specifically with Protestant naysayers in mind.
I was disillusioned today by several supposedly RC sources pointing out that there is little scriptural backing for the doctrine.
On that line of thought, discuss the merits of systematic theology.
Matt said,
Feb 5, 21:08 #
I’d be interested to hear your musings on your Violence and Atonement class from last year. I need some solid answers to why pacifism isn’t the answer.
Also, where are you? We should hang out sometime!
-Matt N.
Hectora Garcia III said,
Feb 6, 14:57 #
Could God become incarnate in a cucumber? Has he?
Mike said,
Feb 6, 18:08 #
How can the Church be reunited?
“In three easy steps” if you please.
Aaron Hildebrandt said,
Feb 8, 13:35 #
John 3:16 reads:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Does “Him” refer to God or Jesus?
Also, can such discussions take place in a hot tub?
njero said,
Feb 8, 18:47 #
Sure they can. The only stipulation is that if the hot tub is temporally situated post-Fall, and in North America geographically, the occupants must not be nude.
theburdman said,
Feb 12, 11:13 #
How has Platonic idealism changed the Jewish version of God.
Maybe thats one of those questions that I don’t want an answer to.
Tartski said,
Feb 19, 22:02 #
Demonstrate how all the above questions are related, and can be solved with one unifying answer.
Oh believe me, it’s possible.
Tristan said,
Feb 20, 06:21 #
Now that’s a request!
Tristan said,
Feb 20, 19:31 #
Tartski: also, yes, it very clearly is possible – even necessary, in a sense, though I don’t much care for systematic theology these days. Actually I never have, which leads me to a recent discovery I made about myself…more on that in another entry, at another date.
Burdman: Not trying to avoid answering – only deferring temporarily – but here’s are questions for your question (which I like):
So what if it has?
put differently
If so, what does that mean say about God, history, knowledge, and revelation?
Did the Jewish version of God not change itself over time, documented right there within the Tanak and also co-temporal Jewish texts?
Aaron: I’m almost certain a quick glance at the Greek will solve the issue. I’ll get back to you on it once I’ve got my Greek bible and grammar book on hand (they’re at my folks’ place). Just nag.
Njero: am reading Dr. Perry’s book on Mary now, and will abstain conversing on that question until I’ve completed it. Perhaps Tartski could help, as he is currently teaching a course dealing with those Protestant Maryanism.
Mike. I’ll give you two paths with one step each.
Path 1: Step 1: Everyone acknowledge the authority of Peter.
Path 2: Step 1: Eschaton. Return of Christ or Desolation of the World, in which case the question will cease to matter.
~~
None of these are real answers. Just fill-in, as you may have guessed.
Hectora Garcia III said,
Feb 21, 08:47 #
What about my question?
Or is it worthy of its own topic, rather than the easy answers being peddled here?
Tristan said,
Feb 21, 20:36 #
Far from it Hector. I was simple hesitant to confess before you and the world that, yes, God has been incarnate in a cucumber. But that I made this discovery and then promptly ate it in an attempt to transcend mortal bonds and become God myself. Sadly, all I got for my pains was a tummy-ache. I hate cucumbers.
Hectora Garcia III said,
Feb 22, 08:33 #
Perhaps instead of putting as much time into side-stepping sensitive theological issues like whether God became incarnate in a cucumber, as you do misreading names (Who’s “Hector”?), you should instead go see a priest or a doctor.
theburdman said,
Feb 22, 10:40 #
Bah… you should realize that I am of course too lazy to answer my own question, which is why I decided to ask it here… its just been an idea that I’ve been toying with lately. Although you have given me some interesting food for thought.
But no… I guess my answer to the question “So what if it does?” would be that it really doesn’t. However if it is accepted that the perception of God in our religious texts has been changing over time, but at all times they still knew God, which perception is better, or in which perception do people know the most about God? If it is concluded that the perception of God is accurate at all times, then it creates a broader view and provokes the question “In what ways is God shown through other religious texts?” If the perception of God in Christian religious texts is inaccurate at some times, then a person should find the most accurate perception of God, or find that there is no way to determine which perception is the most accurate. I guess it brings me to the question “Is the Bible God’s disclosure of Himself to the world? If so, is it the best, or only?”
I guess those are my thoughts… I don’t know very much about how God has changed in Jewish religious texts.
On another note, I think that the first thing I decided when I came to providence is that the existence, or nonexistence of God, really has very little to do with grounds for belief in Him. That’s what I always assume when I argue, and I can’t decide whether it is good or bad. It doesn’t allow for vunerablility to many arguements. And so the ultimate answer to the question “Does it matter?” is no. I don’t like answering questions that way, because its quite existential, and I find existentialism depressing.
Tristan said,
Feb 22, 18:27 #
I would say that you’re thinking about revelation and our knowledge of God wrong. There is no such thing as an “accurate” depiction of God at any time, because if he is as Christianity says he is, then he is greater than any kind of human understanding.
However, he has chosen to reveal himself to humanity in history. We cannot escape history; we cannot understand God outside of its bounds, though he is, because we are not.
So in the Bible we witness progressive revelation, culminating, so say Christians, in the revelation of God as man in Christ. That revelation is preserved most rightly in the Bible. The development of the canon is also historical, and is accomplished by the historical body of Christ on earth, the Church. Revelation is not restricted to the Bible, but that is the final testament and test as to what is valid and what is not. Throughout history, the Church very slowly refines what it knows and teaches, but by no means does it claim to have an exhaustive claim to revelation or to be the sole revelatory medium per se.
I wish I had a couple of relevant Karl Barth texts with me right now, but I don’t. Nevertheless, he argued (along with others before him) that humans have no direct access to God, since he exists outside of our spheres of understanding. Simply conceiving God as the highest thing that exists is not sufficient, because the highest thing we can conceive of is still conceivable by humans and exhaustible by our categories. It cannot be outside of history or the created order.
However, God does have perfect access to our sphere, and can accomodate himself accordingly as he chooses. Because humans are historical beings, that accomodation is partly historical in character.
From Barth himself:
“Faith is therefore invariably the recognition of our limits and the recognition of the mystery of the Word of God, the recognition that our hearing is bound to God Himself who wills to lead us now through form to content, and now through content back to form, and in both cases to Himself, who one way or the other does not give Himself into our hands, but keeps us in His hand.”
The Word of God breaks into both time and creation. But even in doing so it does not give itself over to humanity. It is a gift of God that is constantly given and must constantly be received. It is important that we recognize that God is not contained in any collection of texts, the Bible included (bibliolatry), though he is also the one who provided those texts to ground and guide our speech and knowledge of him. He also gave us the Church, though the teaching of the Church (and especially the teaching of a particular time) is not God either. He is truly there, and truly more than that at the same time.
It’s also important to note that for Barth speech about God is dangerous, but silence moreso. It’s center is in Christ, and it is there that it becomes more than mere knowledge of the intellectual kind; it is the breaking of eternity in time in the life of the believer and faithful.
And so on and so forth. I wrote a lot on this question in college, so I don’t feel like being exhaustive know (and doubt you’d want me to even if I was so inclined). But I do still enjoy talking about it.
Aaron said,
Feb 24, 09:51 #
AHEM. Can such discussions take place in a hot tub?
You can’t take a hint, can you?
Tristan said,
Feb 24, 21:48 #
They can. But someone has to drive me to said hottub and back again.
Takers?
Theburdman said,
Feb 25, 14:44 #
From the reading, describe Irenaeus’s Rule of Faith. Supplement this with a contemporary source, and an ancient source on the subject. 3-4 pages, turabian formatting.
Also, if you want to give a presentation on Acts 15 tomorow, show up at the school, and find Michael Gilmour’s acts class at 12:40. Tell them you are me.
Tristan said,
Feb 25, 19:52 #
Will you drive me to a hot tub afterward?
theburdman said,
Feb 26, 07:23 #
Well I have answered those questions sufficently enough… however I don’t think I can drive you to a hot tub immediately. In fact, not this week, nor next because its reading week and I will be in Omaha. I too am going through hot tub withdrawal, as the one in the basement of Bergen still isn’t functional, which really shouldn’t suprise me. I do wish you the best of luck in getting to a hot tub, so that you can make the most of your theological discussions =)
Ipsi said,
Feb 26, 18:53 #
I might be persuaded to come get you if cheesecake is involved. Perhaps.
Brad said,
Feb 26, 20:14 #
I want in :(
I haven’t seen you guys in ages and I’ve been so busy, I need a hot tub!
As for a question: How long did it take you to get your TESOL thingy?
Tartski said,
Mar 1, 07:53 #
I will be addressing the Mary issue on my blog in the near future.
Tartski said,
Mar 1, 09:06 #
Okay, it’s done. Come and read, tell me what you think. Or wait until you finish reading Mary for Evangelicals.
http://redhairedeagle.blogspot.com/index.html