Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

asaris · 11-01-2004, 01:29 PM

1. Of course one legitimates one's standpoint by looking at the source. But when this becomes legitimation too much at the expense of other denominations, it becomes bad. Let me try to make it more concrete. I'm a member of the Reformed denomination, so I believe that the teachings of the Reformed church are the closest to what the Bible teaches. This works the other way as well; because I believe the teachings of the Reformed church are the closest to what the Bible teaches, I'm a member. So to a certain extent, I would criticize RCCs and Pentecostals for departing from the teachings of scripture. But what I don't think is that the Church went horribly terribly wrong for 1500 years until John Calvin came around to straighten things out. Churches and denominations have been wrong, sometimes terribly wrong, before, and undoubtedly will be wrong again, but that sort of whole-scale, long-term wrongness just doesn't jive with what the Bible teaches about the relation b/w God and the Church.

What I also object to, along these same lines, is the sort of thinking that "My denomination is right, and all other denominations are going to hell." I think my denomination is right, and so, where other denominations disagree, they are wrong, but I think that all Christian denominations have got enough right that we all pretty much have the same proportions of saved folk.

2. The Hegelian in fact disdains tradition; the only reason to study history is to see how we got here, but since we're here, and we're the best, we can't really learn anything from the tradition. My viewpoint is that we all have our own personal blind spots, some as individuals, some as members of a certain tradition, and some as members of a certain age. So we can learn things from studying sources that are not a part of our own tradition. We both believe that there has been change; what the Hegelian thinks is that all change is progress, while I believe that, outside of limited spheres, there is no such thing as progress.

Certainly the difference is not one of where the change comes from; there are (or at least were) plenty of Hegelians who gave Hegel's philosophy a decidedly spiritualistic spin. (In constrast to Hegelians like Marx, who gave it a decidedly materialist spin).

11-01-2004, 01:29 PM	#29 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	1. Of course one legitimates one's standpoint by looking at the source. But when this becomes legitimation too much at the expense of other denominations, it becomes bad. Let me try to make it more concrete. I'm a member of the Reformed denomination, so I believe that the teachings of the Reformed church are the closest to what the Bible teaches. This works the other way as well; because I believe the teachings of the Reformed church are the closest to what the Bible teaches, I'm a member. So to a certain extent, I would criticize RCCs and Pentecostals for departing from the teachings of scripture. But what I don't think is that the Church went horribly terribly wrong for 1500 years until John Calvin came around to straighten things out. Churches and denominations have been wrong, sometimes terribly wrong, before, and undoubtedly will be wrong again, but that sort of whole-scale, long-term wrongness just doesn't jive with what the Bible teaches about the relation b/w God and the Church. What I also object to, along these same lines, is the sort of thinking that "My denomination is right, and all other denominations are going to hell." I think my denomination is right, and so, where other denominations disagree, they are wrong, but I think that all Christian denominations have got enough right that we all pretty much have the same proportions of saved folk. 2. The Hegelian in fact disdains tradition; the only reason to study history is to see how we got here, but since we're here, and we're the best, we can't really learn anything from the tradition. My viewpoint is that we all have our own personal blind spots, some as individuals, some as members of a certain tradition, and some as members of a certain age. So we can learn things from studying sources that are not a part of our own tradition. We both believe that there has been change; what the Hegelian thinks is that all change is progress, while I believe that, outside of limited spheres, there is no such thing as progress. Certainly the difference is not one of where the change comes from; there are (or at least were) plenty of Hegelians who gave Hegel's philosophy a decidedly spiritualistic spin. (In constrast to Hegelians like Marx, who gave it a decidedly materialist spin). __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche