peripeteia

Hello Doc..

Interesting way of fragmenting my statements and then refuting them..Or was your intention merely to maintain the integrity of your critique..But let me humor you a little..What exactly can you find fallacious in my ideas? Provide some examples please..




But of course your probably going to follow Tommy here and 5 posts later rehash the same pathetic comments.. I believe the ‘gentleman’ mentioned ‘verbal diarrhea’..

Cipher Girl

Well, I for one tend to write clearly and not leave my reader trying to guess my meaning. I also address my point directly and leave out as much extraneous material as possible. Why should I have to "extrapolate your intentions" from your writing? Can't you write in such a way so your reader can easily get your message without having to wade through a lot of verbal efluvium. Sure it floats to the top and gets noticed, but is it good?

Sorry, I'm not much of a literature buff. I do like some poetry. And it has been over 20 years since I've been in a philosophy class. The class gave me the impression that a lot of philosophers simply spend a lot of time and energy making simple concepts overly complicated. That is probably why I ended up in mathematics, where simpler is better.

Doctor X

Some make it very easy.

My intention remains to demonstrate the failings, some malevolent unfortunately, in the discourse.

The individual is directed to my previous posts. Commencement of reading there should answer the questions . . . or he can continue:

Poisoning the Well

Indeed, quite easy.

and the individual has create quite an impressive amount of it certainly.

To demonstrate that such constructive criticism does not depend on who makes the analysis, I must direct attention to other poster's observations, including the most recent offering from Cipher Girl.

--J.D.

peripeteia

Mageth and King Rat..


Both of you reject my Postmarxist example because you believe its off the topic..But I only brought it up to present a principle and not as a premise..Nothing is as nice and tidy as you both wish it..Tell me can you so separate the negatives from the positives of the religion and somehow assume that one counterbalances the other—especially in your favor..The biases are specifically that..To deconstruct your stand a little farther..By delimiting Christianity the way you do, ignores the overdetermination of its multivariance..In other words Christianity is never limited to the categories widely accepted as constituting it..Look at its history and the various sects, systems, and denominations comprising it..

Let me give you both a little history lesson regarding your taken for granted typology of christainity..

First remember that in antiquity there were three main regions which held dominance over Christendom: Asia, Syria, and Rome..These areas developed their own distinct slants on the bible in fact they also had their own version of the lords prayer..Also a fact which is precluded from most theologies is the time before the canonization of scripture..This is important for those who tend to assume that the bible is and always was the foundation for ‘historic christianity’.Remember that the movement for canonization barely started around 170-200ce with the ‘Muratorian Canon’.This is somewhat like our bible but contained several apocryphal books: Wisdom of Solomon and Apocalypse of Peter [while excluding 1?2 Peter, Hebrews, and 3 John].It was only in 393ce with the council of Carthage which finally consolidated and established the bible as we know it including the common order of the books.One last thing..All the various councils[I mention these because creeds were often established in councils and/or synods] were also based on the region thus ironically there s a common strand connecting those taking place in the E and those taking place in the W..Big irreconcilable differences..Ex separation of church and Emperor, Trinity and the ontology of God, the role of Bishops and Presbyters, and even who can hold and even legitimize a council…Now what is important is that each region had their own popular figures who established their own cult standing[essentially the routinization of charisma]. Ex. In Asia you had Polycarp and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis and Cerinthus..Last thing is that most of the councils were convened by bishops and kings who held to certain vested interests [you should read some literature on it its quite interesting]. Ex.Constantine who called a general council in Nicaea[325ce]..He was not only a blatant anti Semite and murdering bastard who wanted only his throne but pushed to change the Easter date to 14 Nisan..Or another is the council of Sardica[342/43] which was not only a big elaborate affair that included around 400 bishops strutting their stuff but was permeated from beginning to end with factionalism and name calling and not a little damning ..I could go on and mention much more. The funny thing is that an ongoing joke is if Christendom can go for more then 30 years without having a general council to try to work out some bright idea..Sometimes two councils are required for the same thing and during the same time [[the twin councils of Arminum and Seleuda held in 360 with the brilliant plan of establishing the creeds of Christendom]..

You might also want to amuse yourself and look at the books that were used and held as divine in creating the creeds..For example in Syria there were 4 books in general circulation: Didache, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Thomas, and letters of Ignatius..Rome loved its 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas..

A general point and one that not only staves the claims of one ‘historical christianity’ but repudiates the simplistic notion of the revelatory character inherent in credal development has to do with communities. As early as the middle of the third century, communities entextualized their statements of beliefs in credal forms; combining the christiological affirmations of the ‘rule of faith’ with the formal interrogations put forth to the converts during baptism..

Heres something else to think about: the predominating influence upon Christianity and its apologetics within the first several centuries is the acute Hellenization of the ‘empire’ [starting around 135ce]..Alongside this development is the polarization—in Rome—between the orthodox [Polycarp, Justin,Hegesippus, and Aviricius Marcellus to name a few] and the nonorthodox [Cerdo,marcion, and Valentinus]..The attributing factors underscoring the agendas of these groups are: defending against Jewish hostility, Roman persecution, and protecting and insulating themselves against heterodox movements [Gnosticism], while attempting to set up a gentile Christianity and maintaining a clear balance between old Israel, Greek philosophy, and their relations with the Roman authorities..

It is abundantly clear that within the first three centuries Christianity was quite Platonistic..Take two of its luminaries: Origen[185-253] and Clement[190-203], who was so infatuated with Plato that he believed Plato’s city is a copy of the heavenly city of God and saw philosophy as a gift and among the good things of providence..Read his stuff and you see how much he quoted the classics..

I apologize for dragging on but you must realize that Christians and nontheologians use tradition and time to establish a certain level of legitimacy for their wares[they either use the diachronic nature of its history to either refute it or legitimize it—something which is attempted here] thus I tried to just present stuff from the first several centuries..I wont burden you with later developments..whether it’s the council of Trent[16 century] or Vatican 2[1962-5] or if you hate these because they are Catholic, lets present the Westminister confession[creed coming out of the Westminister Assembly-1642/48] so popular to our evangelicals and Presbyterians..This creed was intended to repudiate Elizabeth’s pathetic attempts for reconciliation..Her via media [Thirty-nine Articles written in 1563] was adopted by the Anglicans and later J.H. Newman of the Oxford movement, asserted, that it was completely a Catholic document[when he converted to RC]..

You should read Helmut Koester, W.H.C. Frend, and J. Stevenson for a lot of this information..Their works are quite scholarly and used at most credible universities and seminaries here and in continental Europe..

Why did I mention all this? Simply because when nontheologians talk about christainity they refer to a caricature which discounts its diversity and historical variance..Tell me please, were the Donatists, Ebionites, Montanists, and Gnostics any less ‘Christian’? Or do you believe that Christianity is solely and completely constituted by Fundamentalists and Evangelicals?

Recently iv been doing some studying in the theology of the Eastern Orthodox church..Would you throw them also in your ‘stake burning’ and ‘soul thrashing’ revisioning of Christianity? I don’t recall this group having a bleak and ‘inhumane’ lineage.. But of course I dtand to be corrected…

Of course the ‘gentlemanly’ Doctor will probably rehash his crap again and bring out some esoteric exercises in symbolics but oh well..

peripeteia

Hello Cipher Girl!!

Ironically I was in a similar situation over a decade ago when I first started university..I meant to go into mechanical engineering with a full scholarship at one of the best schools in the west coast but I was enjoying myself more in the humanities and decided to switch..

Yes philosophers do have that tendency..I fully agree..Sad state don’t you think?

Doctor X

The individual shovels excrement and becomes upset because other recognize that he does not smell like a rose.

Most ironic.

I must apologize if my attempts to aquaint him seems "esoteric"--must be the polysyllables.

Nevertheless, revelation of the malignant intent behind his missives--self-stimulation rather than enlightenment--proves most instructive on how to avoid such error.

For:

. . . whilst I do not pretend to write for either Mageth or Rattus Rex, I have yet to notice them arguing against recognition of the many forms of what--for want of a better term--is early Christianity, nor do I recall them denying these groups the title.

However, I have noticed that certain fundamentalists and evangelicals have made this error.

The post from Cipher Girl apparently passed unread.

Unfortunate.

--J.D.

wade-w

This has gotten completely out of hand. My request to get this thread back on topic was ignored, as was another moderator's multiple edits.

I am closing this thread down now.