kmoney

Evening Count...:e4e:

I'm just getting by at the minute...how about things yourself?

:e4e:

lain:

:chuckle:

I'm doing alright, reading some driving theory Another driving lesson on monday.

You?

:e4e:

:mock: Djoker

I understand, that's fine. I framed it in a way that excluded Trad and TH at the end of that post. My initial question to you wasn't about Trad or TH, but there was some use in your bringing them in for clarification of views. Presumably at this point they are no longer necessary to the conversation.

Short road trip. :e4e:

You know, I was thinking of making a new thread for this topic, but for now I am going to move it into the thread. Maybe a new thread can be made once an entirely new theme emerges. It's just too much for visitor messages. We could also move to pms but this way Trad and TH can chime in if they want. :e4e: (I will be out for the weekend)

:chuckle: I think your first paragraph was fairly accurate. In fact I think it gets at the issue better than the questions I asked. :thumb:

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure they are talking past each other (though it may be the case that TH is talking past Trad--in his last few posts he mistakenly claimed that Trad believes all sin must be legislated). TH presumably believes that rights are man-made by a kind of social contract, which would certainly contradict Trad's position. So I guess I'll ask, why do you think they're talking past each other (or, why do you think Trad is talking past TH)? TH has to decide whether the law is unjust, at which point Trad's principles and theory become important.

:chuckle: I had thought about Francis, but not Benedict. I'm sure that has never happened before.

You could come at it by asking, "Is TH's predicament legitimate?" According to Trad's understanding of the relation of law and morality, it isn't. According to TH's, it is. After Trad pointed out the disanalogy between the Klan demonstration, you could ask, "Should the state be able to explicitly sanction evil acts?" It would be a long conversation with deep historical roots, but it's interesting.

Cool, how is that devotional going for you? :e4e:

http://www.jasonbachcartoons.com/catholic-18.html :chuckle:

I was bummed that Federer lost. I missed sets 3 and 4, I should go back and watch 4. I actually didn't think either one played too great in the first two sets. It seemed like they were lost, not won. :chuckle:

Regarding Paul, I think we are all on the same page. I might nitpick with Sela about whether the OT can contradict the new, but there's no need. I'm curious what you think about the topic of my thread about TH's views. Did you understand the discussion between Trad and TH on rights etc.? What is your opinion?

Started reading Tolstoy's book by the way, finished the first chapter. Seems quite interesting.

They managed to stop Frank after they deployed a police helicopter as well as caltrops lain:

Weekend was good. Attended my friends wedding, was quite the party. The party after was at a lovely hotel down by the fjord, delicious food and drink and great people.

I'm about to leave for my first driving lesson now. I'm a bit worried, because Frank is putting on this old school bowl helmet and leather racing goggles... :noid:

They way I personally would go about it, is reading prophecies and apocalyptic texts (in the case of Daniel) historically. Historically speaking such prophecies and apocalyptic texts is not about some distant future, but rather a particular (divine if you want) perspective on events that are current to the author. However, as a Christian I see Christ as being the true revelation, and I think that warrants a second understanding of Old Testament scriptures, in fact I think it is necessary if Christianity is to be coherent. This reading has very little to do with the historical meaning of the texts. This means that I would for example reject literal reading of violent commands, because I think they are wholly inconsistent with the teachings of Christ.

So, settled with the insurance companies after H&G celebrated 4th of July? lain:

No fancy moves for you?

Lager! and moonshine. Now that's a party.

:chuckle: I heard a few sparklers going off in the neighborhood, but nothing that went BOOM! although I've heard those before too. People always find a way, no matter how oppressive the regime.

I'm glad you had a good weekend.

I generally agree that there are multiple meanings in scripture, a form of sensus plenior. My question was meant first and foremost as an opener to a critique of literalist approaches to scripture, I think the very way Old Testament passages are used in the New Testament prevents a consistent literalist approach to scripture.
When they say that Paul would fail a course in the Old Testament they are of course saying that in light of how an academic course in Old Testament texts tend to work today, they read the texts within their own immediate historical and cultural context using a variety of approaches (Historical-critical is really an umbrella term for a variety of approaches.

:e4e:

:chuckle: Now that's funny... I wasn't expecting that comeback. :chuckle:

Hope the birthday party goes well. Maybe they'll serve lager.

Well, we have the official ones we can watch, just can't buy our own. I'm so used to not being able to buy any that I forget other counties/states can. You can always hear a few going off that people get in Mexico or somewhere else, though.

Part 2:

The literal reading tells us what the author intended, and this is where historical methods are useful. But if the writing is inspired, then God is also the author, and God is also trying to tell us something. Denying any meaning transcending the literal is denying inspiration, which many of the scholars do.

Furthermore, it's just silly to say that Paul would have failed an OT class because he gives the spiritual sense of scripture. Christians up and down the centuries would find this absurd. Given what we know about Paul's training, he would have done very well in an OT class. The error is thinking that the only meaning of scripture is the historical. That has never been held by any large number of Christians prior to the Enlightenment. There are many Protestants such as Greg Boyd who agree with Catholics on this topic but call it TIS, or the Theological Interpretation of Scripture.

:e4e:

Part 1:

They said that Paul would never have passed an Old Testament class today, because he ignores the context of the scriptures he cites.

I've been wanting to comment on this, but wasn't able to watch the video until today.

This sort of thing is becoming a fairly significant problem today (Historical Critical Method as the sole interpretation of scripture). Ratzinger's later writings, such as Jesus of Nazareth, explicitly reject this sort of thing, not least of all because that sort of move doesn't even exist until the Enlightenment. In Catholicism we understand there to be multiple senses of scripture, which are broadly broken down into literal and spiritual.

Fro-yo. It's fro-yo. lain:

Good, that's very reassuring.

C'mon, admit it. You know it was so bad it was funny... :chuckle:

Why aren't you thrilled about it? I have a short school week too, so I'm happy about that. No plans at the moment, though it could change by the time Friday rolls around. And fireworks are illegal in our county, so no, unfortunately not. Bummer.

Of course my frozen yogurt doesn't sound bad. :mmph:

I don't know... are secrets safe with you? :think:

Which was the lager of the four?

You too.