19 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2019
    1. Rather I mean that most of us would find Christians truly cast in the New Testament mold fairly obnoxious: civically reprobate, ideologically unsound, economically destructive, politically irresponsible, socially discreditable, and really just a bit indecent.

      The last qualification tickles me. I am a little curious about what made them "ideologically unsound."

  2. Feb 2019
  3. Jan 2019
    1. We regularly, in the interests of Plato-worship, disembody language and reason, with the narrow-mindedness Mark Johnson points out in an important recent book, The Body in the Mindl3 Our persistent evasion of the "Q" question makes for a great deal of self-centered, self-serving preaching and a great deal of self-satisfied practice. We do sometimes follow that master of contemptuous, self-satisfied self-absorp-tion, the Platonic Socrates, closely indeed.

      This reminds me of Albert Camus' thoughts on absurdity, and what James Cone says in his book Black Theology and Black Power: "All aspects of this society have participated in the act of enslaving blacks, extinguishing Indians, and annihilating all who question white society's right to decide who is human....Absurdity arises as the black man seeks to understand his place in the white world. The black man does not view himself as absurd; he views himself as human. But as he meets the white world and its values, he is confronted with an almighty No and is defined as a thing. This produces the absurdity."

  4. Aug 2018
  5. Apr 2017
    1. We would be left floundering in conflicting nonsensical schemes if we accepted all the views that we can't really disprove.

      Booth quotes Russell a lot, so I'll link Russell's teapot here. Basically, maybe there's a teapot orbiting the Earth? But if a believer in that teapot was trying to persuade someone to believe in the teapot, the burden of proof is to prove it, not disprove it.

  6. Mar 2017
    1. There is no reason at all not to steal that discourse from men .... Besides, that doesn't mean anything; we don't steal anything at all-we are within the same cultural system.

      Clément's making a move similar to St. Augustine and the Spoils of Egypt, which allows Christians to make use of Pagan rhetorical traditions, because there's no reason not to take them, but more importantly, Rhetoric doesn't belong to them.

  7. Feb 2017
    1. that two-thirds of the teach-ers in these schools are women; that nearly three-fourths of our church members are women; that through the modern Sunday-school women have already become the theological teachers of the future church; and that, per mntra, out of about sixty thousand persons in our penitentiaries fifty-five thousand are men; that whiskey, beer, and tobacco to the amount of fifteen millions of dol-lars worth per year arc consumed almost wholly by men;

      Women are much more saintly and spirited than a vast majority of men, so why can't they be the clerics?

      Reminds me a lot of Stewart's argument for greater female participation in the Church, despite St. Paul's often-referenced passage. I do think it's funny just how much power this one passage has, and how it is so often either challenged or cited by Christian feminists or Christian traditionalists, respectively.

      On a side note, I also find it a source of pride that it was through Christian theoretical rhetoric that women began the push for greater equality and independence.


      I'm a big fan of this argument matrix thing here. By sandwiching other scripture between two Paul quotes, it's not like it's just pitting one quote against another and declaring them contradictory. Which is vital, because Willard, like just about everyone we're reading this week and the last, do want to uphold the spiritual authority of the bible. It tries to show it in a process, shifting from the contradictory to the reconciliation--it shows that there's more going on.

    3. to furnish unleavened bread, or a pas-lor who provides it,

      I know a Servite nun who's working to make rice communion available for people with Celiac's. There's a lot of surprisingly unwavering literalists that spring up on the assumption that you can't change any part of the ritual, even if it's already been removed from its original style.

    1. Junia

      Huh, wow, when I made my last post, I really thought the Junia Controversy was a much more recent issue in exegesis.

    2. carried out to the leuer in other respects

      "Marge, just about everything is a sin. You ever sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."

    3. Paul's prohibition against women speaking in church:

      1 Cor. 14:34-35, specifically. However, in Romans (Paul's final epistle), 16:7, he addresses Junias as an "outstanding apostle." Junias is not a historical name, so it's believed to be a later edit of Junia, which is a woman's name. So there's quite a bit of uncertainty and ambiguity of how gender roles in the early churches were handled, and what Paul's exact feelings on the matter were.

    4. There seemed no logical reason why they might not be touched by the 1-loly Spirit just as men were-no one would want to say that such action was beyond God's power

      Relevant to Astell, which not only says it's theologically appropriate for women to be rhetors, but one of the key elements of good preaching is something not specific to a gender. It's also an argument I still hear as part of the movement to ordain women in the Catholic Church.

    1. hostility to the ministry of women is as bitter as was that of Rabbi Eliezer

      Rabbi Eliezer has the best talmudic story, and everyone should read it. The short of it is, there's a dispute about the cleanliness of ovens, and R. Eliezer is on one side and the rest of the court is against him. He works three miracles, up to and including calling down the voice of God, and R. Joshua actually manages to stump God through knowledge of the law, and God has to back down.

      But he story really gets great is because he refuses to incline to the majority, the council excommunicates him. They take incredible care to break the news gently and respectfully, and, because of their courtesy, his fury is only so great to destroy a third of the crops and incinerating only the people within eyesight.

      He was also a super-conservative voice at the time who had a lot of other important moments (and the referenced low opinion of women), but really, when you've got a story where God gets outflanked and a guy gets so mad his eyes incinerate people, I am going to turn to that story.

    1. Move

      To me, what's interesting with this subdivision is how it allows for incomplete rhetoric, arguments that engage or achieve less than all four ends. Campbell looks at it linearly, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. Moving someone without informing or pleasing them in particular--you get the results, but it's not in a necessarily lasting way. St. Augustine (I will never stop citing Augustine) warned against oration that gains applause, but doesn't move the listeners' hearts towards the right end.

    1. the high eloquence which I have last mentioned, is always the offspring of passion.

      I'd like to connect this with my earlier comment on movies whose enthusiasm outstrips their ability. The quality of passion is a hard thing to pin down--St. Augustine argues that a preacher driven by true faith will outstrip the best educated orator, but at the same time, makes allowances that you can't expect that of everyone, even people who do have true faith. This arrangement also means this section is in immediate parallel with Blair's notion that oratorical skill is inherent and natural, and the real rhetoric was in our hearts all along. I'm pretty suspicious of this as a method of teaching rhetoric, but, at the same time, I can't deny that sometime someone actually does pull off "true of heart" oratorical skill. Nothing technically amazing, but delivered like a champ because they believed in their cause.

  8. Jul 2016
  9. Oct 2015
    1. This is surprising, not least because it could be argued that the foundation of social science itself rests on the response to various religious crises which prompted the production of increasingly secular and societal remedies for what had once been considered theological and metaphysical con- cerns: as Comte explained, theology's 'treatment of moral problems [is] exceedingly imperfect, given its inability . .. to deal with practical life' (cited in Lane 2004, 5). Hence, his 'system of positive polity'

      Is this saying theology is just talk? Just fluff essentially? That is does not allow for proper action in response to social or religious societies issues?