From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 12:02:32 GMT
Hi Wim,
The more I think about the Iraq situation, the less convinced I am that
there is a 'right' answer - there is only a balance of risks, and I am in no
position to second-guess those who are making the decisions. Yet I do find
most of the arguments put forward by the 'anti-war' lobby (especially the
French government) to be without merit (I've made a first attempt at listing
them at http://www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/Thoughts_on_Iraq.htm which is very
much a work-in-progress. You'll recognise almost the entire second half).
I would except from that general criticism your argument (in part):
> 'Much more inspections -as France has proposed-, backed (yes) by UN (not
> mainly USA) forces is the way
> to go now, I think. Keeping a closer watch on the Iraq regime might even
be
> used to ensure that the imports which are allowed benefit the population
(as
> intended) and not only the regime. To help the regime accept (by playing
on
> their pretence to be serving the interests of the population) the
sanctions
> could be gradually lifted (lessening the suffering of the population) the
> more external checks the regime accepts on its operation.'
I think that a) inspections are not the issue and b) there is a good
humanitarian case for intervention (as with Kosovo). However, were it the
case that this was done via UN forces, led by determined UN leadership, and
with consequent massive reinvestment etc, that would undoubtedly be better
than the present proposal. I just don't think it is an option - perhaps it
is something which grass roots pressure could make into an option in the
(very) long run, but it isn't available now. It is a pragmatic decision -
all I think I can do is pray that the leaders are open to divine guidance
(whether they call it that or not).
So enough about Iraq.
On doctrinal questions, first a quote from my favourite philosopher: "I
believe that one of the things Christianity says is that sound doctrines are
all useless, that you have to change your life (or the direction of your
life)...the point is that a sound doctrine need not take hold of you, you
can follow it as you would a doctor's prescription. But here you need
something to move you and turn you in a new direction". In other words
Christianity is all about 'metanoia' - repent, turn your heart towards a
different goal. Doctrines are the static latches of intellectual
abstractions from the religious life. That is their use and their
limitation. Another quote, from Thomas a Kempis, which I like: "Of what use
is it to discourse learnedly on the Trinity, if you lack humility and
therefore displease the Trinity?" (Note to DMB if he's reading, I don't
agree with your other priest friend's rendering of metanoia - it's the word
Jesus uses when he says 'Repent')
Which is all a way of saying that I don't think there's an ultimate
disagreement between us on doctrine, even if I see it as more socially
useful than you.
> Your Christian doctrine of the Fall seems to emphasize the
'predestination'
> element. Isn't that a Protestant doctrine rather than a doctrine shared by
> Christians generally?
I must have been particularly obscure if that was the impression you
gained - it's the precise opposite of what I actually believe. My
understanding of the Fall is simply that we have to endure 'forced choices'
where neither choice is righteous - hence a language about justified. We
still have the choice between good and evil, it's just that it's a question
of more or less, not absolutes. My understanding of grace is 100%
Protestant - but then I see that as Patristic as well, and only corrupted
after the 12th C in Latin Christianity.
> Well, maybe you shouldn't give 'sin' such a heavy negative moral charge
> either in order to see the parallel. Can't we just see sin as a wrong
> choice?
Is the weight (in your view) on the *identification* with static patterns?
If so, I think I would agree with you.
> I hope you don't mean 'be perfect' in the sense of 'submit to God' to
imply
> that a return to paradise is possible? Doesn't the story of the Fall imply
> that we've got to choose ourselves and that we CAN judge good and evil
> ourselves without God having to take us by the hand at each step? Jesus
> simplified the whole detailed Jewish law for us into 'love God and love
your
> neighbor as yourself'; the moral details are up to us to fill in.
We don't return to paradise, but we are (can hope to be) redeemed. The
fruits of redemption are freedom from the law, ie from any static social
pattern, and openness to God. Of course, I would say that following God
means affirming static social patterns (and static intellectual patterns)
*in their place*. Something I've been musing on: we don't see the need to
abandon the biological level in order to preserve the higher levels - we
don't stop eating for example. I would view the various social level
elements, of myth, ritual, symbolism etc in the same way. We need to feed
our social level static patterns just as much as we need to feed our
biological level static patterns, even if fourth level insights change their
shape (and motivation). I'd be interested to know if you thought that
analogy had merit.
> I don't know what you meant with:
> 'So actually any form of description of your nature ("being pacifist") is
> mistaken, because necessarily static? You are simply yourself, not to be
put
> in a box, or kept within a mythos/logos pattern?'
> I DID describe myself as a pacifist, only not a principled one. It is not
my
> 'nature', whatever that might be, but partly a choice-in-the-moment, which
> could be different in the future, (DQ) and partly past experience (sq).
> I don't know what you mean with 'being kept within a mythos/logos
pattern'.
I was wanting to bring out the difference between any description -
necessarily static - and your pursuit of DQ (and therefore the essential
inadequacy of such static descriptions (mythos/logos pattern)).
> Is this really so difficult? DQ creates new patterns of value. Degeneracy
> means falling back in old ones. It only requires recognizing 'new' and
> 'old'. This may cause us some problems if we are not clear about what is a
> pattern of value and mix up 'patterns of values' and 'things' (objects and
> subjects that are elements of several patterns of values at the same
time).
> A 'thing' that is an element of a new combination of several old patterns
of
> values is still degenerate.
> A new (DQ created) pattern of value may be new only in the sense of a
> 're-invented' wheel, however. In that case the static quality of the
pattern
> for the re-inventor is affirmed and the pattern gets a wider scope.
Are you claiming that there is an equivalence between 'new' and 'quality',
such that the new is necessarily good? If so, I think there is quite a big
disagreement lurking here....
> I didn't reply to the 'Todd Beamer' example, because I don't know what
> happened in that plane. That makes it a bit difficult for me to imagine
how
> I would have acted and judge his actions. If you would like me to, you
will
> have to tell me a bit more about what happened in that plane.
What happened on that plane is not known for sure, but the point was the
decision to 'Let's roll'. There's quite a bit about Todd Beamer on the
internet. Try http://www.beamerfoundation.org/flight_93.html and
http://www.danford.net/beamer.htm .
> Do I equate God with Dynamic Quality? Maybe with 'divine guidance'. Maybe
> better with Quality, indeed. If we remember we are talking in metaphor,
> 'equating' may not be the proper term anyway. Metaphors always are limited
> in their applicability.
Agreed.
> You asked whether Quakers are Trinitarian.... Individual Quakers are free
to consider
> themselves Christian or not; most do (like me), some don't and a lot
> wouldn't be recognized as such by more doctrinal Christians (like you).
As I said above, I'd say I would sit quite lightly to the idea that
doctrines are essential.
> Does that mean that using whips against those you disagree with is part of
> Christian teaching??? It just exemplifies for me that Jesus was a man and
no
> 100% saint (let alone 100% divine, even though contemporaries recognized
God
> in him).
Whereas that *certainly* disqualifies you as 'Orthodox'. Doesn't mean you're
wrong though, of course!
> I may have missed your explanation why Christianity does not entail
> non-violence. Can you point me to where you did?
Purely as part of the consequences of forced choices. Violence (coercion) is
always wrong, but it is sometimes justified. It was the whole point of my
'Fall' discussion.
> If the Sermon on the Mount (with 'love thine enemies') is part of the core
> of Christian teaching, I am intrigued what else could be in that core
> according to you that might explain 'love' to imply violence at times.
If there comes to be a conflict between love thy neighbour and love thine
enemy, which way do you choose?
With friendly greetings to you too,
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 12:00:51 GMT