[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] New comment on Ideas Have Consequences, citation #1.
Matthew LaPine has left a new comment on your post "Ideas Have Consequences, citation #1":
I'm not sure that we can discount what one says simply because he is an unbeliever.
Completely agree.
Daniel and Jesse, the topic debated here is really old. I've read just enough of Elliot and Weaver to be familiar with their argumentation. I am working my way through Weaver. But by no means do I consider myself to be an expert here. I do plan to pursue this topic with more intensity this summer. The issue for me is this: if one holds to Platonic ideals it is very difficult to justify difference. In the Bible, I see a Christian church (and kingdom) which at some level celebrates it. My suspicion then is that we misunderstand the ideal. Weaver's ideal, or Plato's ideal is in reality one step removed from actuality. God is the objective truth. God is the basis for all language and meaning, and without him we all languish in a postmodern "ooze" (pun intended). And we only understand God from his revelation. In the Old Testament we did see forms specified for worship (for example). In the new testament it seems the criteria has shifted to spirit and truth. The Old Testament was culturally centered on the Jewish people (see Samaritan-Jewish controversy), the New homogenized. You look at Revelation, and you see worship from "every tribe and tongue." Why is diversity preserved? My attempt at an answer is that within the nature of God there is a measure of diversity (creativity perhaps?). While I will not say that all cultures are created equal and that all are basically good, I do think there are elements of goodness in all of them. They each have an allusive relationship to the nature of the objective, God himself. I think you'll find something like this in Harold Best, from Wheaton (and who knows if he's a believer... ;) ).
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/haroldbest/diversity.html
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 12:50 PM
I'm not sure that we can discount what one says simply because he is an unbeliever.
Completely agree.
Daniel and Jesse, the topic debated here is really old. I've read just enough of Elliot and Weaver to be familiar with their argumentation. I am working my way through Weaver. But by no means do I consider myself to be an expert here. I do plan to pursue this topic with more intensity this summer. The issue for me is this: if one holds to Platonic ideals it is very difficult to justify difference. In the Bible, I see a Christian church (and kingdom) which at some level celebrates it. My suspicion then is that we misunderstand the ideal. Weaver's ideal, or Plato's ideal is in reality one step removed from actuality. God is the objective truth. God is the basis for all language and meaning, and without him we all languish in a postmodern "ooze" (pun intended). And we only understand God from his revelation. In the Old Testament we did see forms specified for worship (for example). In the new testament it seems the criteria has shifted to spirit and truth. The Old Testament was culturally centered on the Jewish people (see Samaritan-Jewish controversy), the New homogenized. You look at Revelation, and you see worship from "every tribe and tongue." Why is diversity preserved? My attempt at an answer is that within the nature of God there is a measure of diversity (creativity perhaps?). While I will not say that all cultures are created equal and that all are basically good, I do think there are elements of goodness in all of them. They each have an allusive relationship to the nature of the objective, God himself. I think you'll find something like this in Harold Best, from Wheaton (and who knows if he's a believer... ;) ).
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/haroldbest/diversity.html
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 12:50 PM
posted by Matthew LaPine at
12:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home