The Honey Bee Inn

Full Version: hey
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hey guys.

Will join you at the meet-up if you fix a date.

I'm now a post-grad student at Oxford.
haha, hicky's ACTUALLY at oxford now!

what u study?
Hix more like dix
It's a Masters' degree in 19th century literature, but I suppose I spend most of my time reading about other subjects. theology etc.
i have been very interested in theology (especially the history of theology/doctrine) and biblical scholarship lately. do you have opinions, or are familiar with, nt wright and the 'new perspective on paul' in general? and are you still an orthodox catholic?
I don't know NT Wright. That sounds interesting, I'll have to look into it. I've been reading a lot of Paul recently.

I'm a lot less orthodox - I'm probably about as marginal as you can get now while still being a "catholic". I'm strongly considering a move to the Eastern Orthodox church. Or Jainism. I'm definitely a Christian, at least, for what it's worth.

I like Franciscan theology like Duns Scotus and Bonaventure, and Christian anarchist thought etc. But I suppose I cling to the idea that the Magisterium matters in some way, that all of humankind is connected in bonds of love rather than economic bonds, and that Christ reveals himself in different ways and in separate fragments to members of the "church" rather than to individual people who make their own doctrines and thought-systems. So I remain a Catholic...
One thing I've always liked about Paul is that he clearly institutes a hierarchy while basically denying that it has any actual temporal value. The hierarchy is there to "steward the mysteries" etc. Which is totally not or cannot be the modern papacy, but nevermind. Clearly something has gone pretty deeply wrong in Christian thinking and we need to go back to Patristics, as in the first Patristics.
What's your theology, God?
i think eastern orthodoxy is closer to genuine christianity; latin christianity had a major departure with augustine, or at least the influence of augustine. calvinism is just hyper-augustinianism and was probably a necessary consequence of the latin current of christianity.

i don't have a theology myself. i think it's all maybe unknowable. before you try to profess a theology i think you have to come to a good understanding of paul, the original and most important theologian, and i think we're only just getting started with having any idea what he was actually talking about. the traditional interpretations are all wrong, but eastern orthodox gets it less wrong than roman catholicism, which gets it less wrong than protestantism, which gets it WAY wrong. all i can say is i believe that the incarnation of God as Jesus was responsible for the moral betterment of humanity that took place from the ancient world until now, and beyond that i don't think if anything is knowable, and that every traditional theology or current of christian thought is deeply flawed and demonstrably wrong in too many ways to take it too seriously, so you should maybe just go with what "feels right" to you as far as what genre of christianity you like.

i like catholicism but the problem is it makes too many truth-claims that happen to be not true. like that it never contradictions its infallible teachings on matters of "faith and morals," which it in fact has done any number of times, in meaningful ways. and that the thomist philosophical basis of its ethical teachings actually do necessity a literal-historic reading of genesis.
wait you actually believe that, not only is there a god, but he was incarnated as jesus?
pretty surprising tbh, i knew you were a theist on some level but i didnt expect even that much reverence to traditional christian theology
Staunch atheist, cosmic nihilist here. I think I would be a great Protestant though.
the latin church has this frustrating habit of containing everything in these convenient self-evident syllogisms that put Christianity in this overly hyper-rational box.

I think Aquinas is more interesting than people give him credit for, though. Not least for Catholic social teaching, which remains interesting and relevant. Who would have known the phrase "common good" - basically a cornerstone of modern socialism - is a Thomist idea? He also has some rather interesting passages on pre-Christian ritual.

It's something to do with how the Latin theologians have been interpreted and used, and how much power the papacy has come to occupy. Perhaps. But of course, "apophatic" or "mystical" theology in the Early Church was in Latin.

I agree that Protestantism seems to get things a little mixed up. I think because it misses the whole importance of ecclesiology, which is so obviously an emphasis in Paul that you really can't ignore it.
god damn look how fucking lame some of you have become
*puts on Fedora*

THE GOD OF THE BIBLE ISN'T EVEN MONOTHEIST



yeah kibry i have a pretty extensive knowledge of secular biblical scholarship.
(05-22-2018, 07:07 AM)Hicky1 Wrote: [ -> ]the latin church has this frustrating habit of containing everything in these convenient self-evident syllogisms that put Christianity in this overly hyper-rational box.

I think Aquinas is more interesting than people give him credit for, though. Not least for Catholic social teaching, which remains interesting and relevant. Who would have known the phrase "common good" - basically a cornerstone of modern socialism - is a Thomist idea? He also has some rather interesting passages on pre-Christian ritual.

It's something to do with how the Latin theologians have been interpreted and used, and how much power the papacy has come to occupy. Perhaps. But of course, "apophatic" or "mystical" theology in the Early Church was in Latin.

I agree that Protestantism seems to get things a little mixed up. I think because it misses the whole importance of ecclesiology, which is so obviously an emphasis in Paul that you really can't ignore it.

in what sense do you think ecclesiology was important to paul? i don't see it as being too important to understanding paul, since i think it's clear he thought jesus was coming back very soon, within the lifetime of the large majority of current living christians, so groups just needed to stay together and get along and long-term organizational issues weren't really relevant to him.
I suppose I meant that in Paul there is a specific idea of the invisible, unified Church that Protestants often neglect the importance of, not necessarily the visible, organisational "church". It's a distinction that matters a lot
i don't know, the idea of an 'invisible church' is very protestant, specifically very calvinist; the emphasis on belief by faith alone rather than participation in the formal sacraments is, of course, protestant and based on the idea of a visible church rather than a visible structure, and of course especially lends itself to predestinarian protestantism. that the church *isn't* invisible is very important to catholicism, and eastern orthodoxy.
I suppose I more see the idea of the "church" in Paul as a harmony of the visible and invisible church, with the visible church as only ever a prefiguring of the invisible church. But the "church" - or at least the "visible" church - ordered the Pauline epistles and composed the Bible.

It's in the Nicene Creed - "I believe in God... maker of heaven and earth / of all things visible and invisible". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_invisible. It's in Augustine as well and his interpretations of the Epistles. I guess the Protestant idea was that the Catholic church was just the "visible church" and we need to enter into a solely invisible church type reality, and that the church is ONLY mystical and not both mystical and visible. For example, the "sacred mysteries" are something performed by the visible church, and only "work" if they're performed by the visible church, but the emphasis is their invisible reality
But yeah an emphasis on the invisible church ALONE is a Protestant/Calvinist idea. I suppose the two weren't really separated in Paul's time. It's all these distinctions that have got us into our current mess

Ephesians 1: 15-23: "And he has put al things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all."

I guess there's no separation of the idea of the institutional and mystical, visionary church - the mystical embrace of all humanity - in Scripture like this: they're one and the same