Comments for Theology for the Masses http://www.masstheology.com Conversations in Theology and its interaction with Culture Sat, 10 May 2008 17:58:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 Comment on Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia by Ellen http://www.masstheology.com/2007/09/21/toward-an-egalitarian-ecclesia-post-16/#comment-6191 Ellen Sun, 04 May 2008 22:45:27 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/09/21/toward-an-egalitarian-ecclesia-post-16/#comment-6191 Thanks for stopping by (I always like it when the trackbacks work as planned...) Thanks for stopping by (I always like it when the trackbacks work as planned…)

]]> Comment on Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia by Tom 1st http://www.masstheology.com/2007/09/21/toward-an-egalitarian-ecclesia-post-16/#comment-6190 Tom 1st Sun, 04 May 2008 21:41:37 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/09/21/toward-an-egalitarian-ecclesia-post-16/#comment-6190 Hey, if anyon'es interested, the person who cited this post above has an excellent criticism of one of my points here. She demonstrates that I overstated the point, more exactly. I don't think this ruins my argument exactly, but I think it challenges my provided reason why authentein came to be translated just as 'authority.' Well worth the read! Hey, if anyon’es interested, the person who cited this post above has an excellent criticism of one of my points here. She demonstrates that I overstated the point, more exactly.

I don’t think this ruins my argument exactly, but I think it challenges my provided reason why authentein came to be translated just as ‘authority.’

Well worth the read!

]]> Comment on Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia by MzEllen & Co. » Also “Overheard” in the BlogWorld… http://www.masstheology.com/2007/09/21/toward-an-egalitarian-ecclesia-post-16/#comment-6189 MzEllen & Co. » Also “Overheard” in the BlogWorld… Sun, 04 May 2008 18:54:18 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/09/21/toward-an-egalitarian-ecclesia-post-16/#comment-6189 [...] Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia at Theology for the Masses (writing of 1 Timothy 2:12): Interestingly enough, the history of [...] […] Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia at Theology for the Masses (writing of 1 Timothy 2:12): Interestingly enough, the history of […]

]]> Comment on Original Sin in “There Will Be Blood” by E. I. Sanchez http://www.masstheology.com/2008/05/01/original-sin-in-there-will-be-blood/#comment-6188 E. I. Sanchez Thu, 01 May 2008 22:48:22 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/?p=539#comment-6188 Great Post. I am also fascinated by all the glimpses we get at Original Sin & Human Depravity through film. Atonement had a similar undertone. although I haven't seen the movie, <a href="http://www.thechristianalert.org/index.php/2008/02/11/rambototaldepravity?blog=5" rel="nofollow">Rambo</a> is supposed to give us another glimpse. Most recently, I had blogged about an <a href="http://www.thechristianalert.org/index.php/2008/04/22/men-are-fools-series-part-2?blog=5" rel="nofollow">AT&T TV Commercial</a> that is a perfect example of the depravity of men. We're mean. I haven't seen TWBB and I'm looking forward to it via Netflix (long wait!)... Edgar. Great Post. I am also fascinated by all the glimpses we get at Original Sin & Human Depravity through film.

Atonement had a similar undertone. although I haven’t seen the movie, Rambo is supposed to give us another glimpse.

Most recently, I had blogged about an AT&T TV Commercial that is a perfect example of the depravity of men. We’re mean.

I haven’t seen TWBB and I’m looking forward to it via Netflix (long wait!)…

Edgar.

]]> Comment on An interesting quote… by Honzo http://www.masstheology.com/2008/04/24/an-interesting-quote/#comment-6185 Honzo Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:52:44 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/?p=538#comment-6185 Well, those are two very different types of violence. I am much more prone to do violence to a text because I simply do not have nearly as many opportunities to do violence to people than texts (I am working on picking apart two texts right now as major projects). With that said, sometimes texts are our only artifacts of vanished peoples. To do what is being called violence (and I need a good definition, because as is, I think it is a vague, loaded term that is more often used as a tool of rhetoric than anything else) to a text erases or changes what we know and think and remember about a real people group. Lastly, how in the world are we defining violence? I like the following definition of violence when talking about people: <blockquote>An action is violent when it intentionally does something that denies the image of God present in a person.</blockquote> I like this definition because it stresses the intentionality of violence and bypasses the physicality hang-up that most people have. What do you mean when you talk about violence towards a text? Well, those are two very different types of violence. I am much more prone to do violence to a text because I simply do not have nearly as many opportunities to do violence to people than texts (I am working on picking apart two texts right now as major projects).

With that said, sometimes texts are our only artifacts of vanished peoples. To do what is being called violence (and I need a good definition, because as is, I think it is a vague, loaded term that is more often used as a tool of rhetoric than anything else) to a text erases or changes what we know and think and remember about a real people group.

Lastly, how in the world are we defining violence? I like the following definition of violence when talking about people:

An action is violent when it intentionally does something that denies the image of God present in a person.

I like this definition because it stresses the intentionality of violence and bypasses the physicality hang-up that most people have.

What do you mean when you talk about violence towards a text?

]]> Comment on Will This Hold Water? by Honzo http://www.masstheology.com/2008/04/18/will-this-hold-water/#comment-6184 Honzo Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:58:43 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/?p=533#comment-6184 I like this approach. You are approaching them as a person who subscribes to a set of texts and they subscribe to that text and another one. Working off of that shared connection, you are more than warranted to say their additional text does not align and is excluded by your shared text. What I would warn against as a weak point in all of this is the need for known and verified and consistent systems. Look at the Muslim and Jewish critique of Christianity - the absurdity of the trinity; look at the arminian critique of cavlinism - the absurdity of a denial of free will. Demanding unified, coherent, fully knowable systems is dangerous because it opens you up to that same standard. Think about all the times you and brad have appealed to the mysteries to explain contradictions in system components. I like this approach. You are approaching them as a person who subscribes to a set of texts and they subscribe to that text and another one. Working off of that shared connection, you are more than warranted to say their additional text does not align and is excluded by your shared text.

What I would warn against as a weak point in all of this is the need for known and verified and consistent systems. Look at the Muslim and Jewish critique of Christianity - the absurdity of the trinity; look at the arminian critique of cavlinism - the absurdity of a denial of free will. Demanding unified, coherent, fully knowable systems is dangerous because it opens you up to that same standard. Think about all the times you and brad have appealed to the mysteries to explain contradictions in system components.

]]> Comment on Convo on Luke 11:2 by Honzo http://www.masstheology.com/2008/04/13/convo-on-luke-112/#comment-6183 Honzo Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:48:30 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/?p=529#comment-6183 I am just naming it and claiming it! I am just naming it and claiming it!

]]> Comment on Toothless Lizards Full of Madness by Hank http://www.masstheology.com/2008/04/16/dismissive-judgment-of-the-day/#comment-6182 Hank Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:52:50 +0000 1127146782#comment-6182 While I don't deny the literary connections made by Luke with Paul and the suffering servant of Isaiah, they are not as strong as the connections made with Jesus. Going back to the baptism scene and Jesus applying Isaiah 61:1 to himself makes the connection explicit, not just inferred. Also, how is it that Paul was "crushed by the Lord" and like the lamb? Also, one can infer that Israel and Isaiah himself are the servant as well from loose connections like Paul's. Also, on what grounds can one say that Luke is "incredibly uncomfortable" with atonement theology? How can one reach that conclusion just because it isn't a prominent theme in his gospel? That seems reaching too much. Can you also go a little bit more in depth by what you mean when you say, "Luke presents Jesus' primary 'atoning'...work as done in heaven rather than on the cross"? In Acts, the suffering and death of Jesus wasn't only an example to be followed, it was also proclaimed. Is this not one of the primary points in Peter and Paul's sermons in Acts 2, 3, 13 etc.? While I don’t deny the literary connections made by Luke with Paul and the suffering servant of Isaiah, they are not as strong as the connections made with Jesus. Going back to the baptism scene and Jesus applying Isaiah 61:1 to himself makes the connection explicit, not just inferred. Also, how is it that Paul was “crushed by the Lord” and like the lamb? Also, one can infer that Israel and Isaiah himself are the servant as well from loose connections like Paul’s.

Also, on what grounds can one say that Luke is “incredibly uncomfortable” with atonement theology? How can one reach that conclusion just because it isn’t a prominent theme in his gospel? That seems reaching too much.

Can you also go a little bit more in depth by what you mean when you say, “Luke presents Jesus’ primary ‘atoning’…work as done in heaven rather than on the cross”?

In Acts, the suffering and death of Jesus wasn’t only an example to be followed, it was also proclaimed. Is this not one of the primary points in Peter and Paul’s sermons in Acts 2, 3, 13 etc.?

]]> Comment on Convo on Luke 11:2 by Hank http://www.masstheology.com/2008/04/13/convo-on-luke-112/#comment-6181 Hank Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:27:17 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/?p=529#comment-6181 I know there has been some time since this was posted but I have thought about bringing out the imperative force. I was referring to the imperatives directed towards πάτερ in the prayer, not the command that Jesus gives his disciples. I was thinking something more forceful like this: "Father, make your name holy, make your kingdom come." The terms "let" or "may" seems to me like giving the Holy One of Israel, the one referred to as "I am he" permission to do something when he says in Isaiah that when he acts none can stay his hand (Isaiah 43:13). My own difficulty with this is now it sounds like one is bossing the same God around, telling him what to do. It's a double-edge sword that I'm not likely to follow in translation, though I might bring out the force when I preach it. I know there has been some time since this was posted but I have thought about bringing out the imperative force. I was referring to the imperatives directed towards πάτερ in the prayer, not the command that Jesus gives his disciples. I was thinking something more forceful like this: “Father, make your name holy, make your kingdom come.” The terms “let” or “may” seems to me like giving the Holy One of Israel, the one referred to as “I am he” permission to do something when he says in Isaiah that when he acts none can stay his hand (Isaiah 43:13). My own difficulty with this is now it sounds like one is bossing the same God around, telling him what to do. It’s a double-edge sword that I’m not likely to follow in translation, though I might bring out the force when I preach it.

]]> Comment on A Formal Definition of Postmodernism by Travis http://www.masstheology.com/2008/04/16/a-formal-defintion-of-postmodernism/#comment-6180 Travis Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:14:54 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/?p=530#comment-6180 Cheapham, I want to say sorry as well. I wrote my reply very quickly, and I can see how some things I said came off as if I was writing off some of your responses. I did not intend to do this at all, and I sympathize with what you wrote. I also realize that the list I have given is not the complete view and context of what Plantinga is saying. Please do not take his evaluation of PoMo to be exhaustive and true in all cases; Plantinga himself says this as well. It is a generalization yes. Is it an over-generalization? I hope not and think not. I think we can at least agree that points (3), (5), (6), (7), and (9) are fair to PoMo. I will address some of your stuff on Derrida and Plantinga's proper function account of warrant later. In Him, Travis Cheapham,

I want to say sorry as well. I wrote my reply very quickly, and I can see how some things I said came off as if I was writing off some of your responses. I did not intend to do this at all, and I sympathize with what you wrote. I also realize that the list I have given is not the complete view and context of what Plantinga is saying. Please do not take his evaluation of PoMo to be exhaustive and true in all cases; Plantinga himself says this as well. It is a generalization yes. Is it an over-generalization? I hope not and think not. I think we can at least agree that points (3), (5), (6), (7), and (9) are fair to PoMo. I will address some of your stuff on Derrida and Plantinga’s proper function account of warrant later.

In Him,

Travis

]]>