Re: Daniel's Champion
Oct 07, 1995 12:09 PM
by Arthur Paul Patterson
I agree with a lot of what you have to say to Daniel but there are few
points in your posting that puzzles and concerns me.
> Well, perhaps you'd like an
> oportunity. Here it is. ONE RULE! You must argue your
> case based on documented references which are NOT based on
> IMAGINATION, ILLUSION, OR PURE SPECULATION! Because some
> 'Primate' said something yesterday doesn't count. You have
> to thin for yourself, and back your arguments.
I understand where you are coming from. In fact, Eldon tried to get Hendrik
to express his own opinion untethered to his Fundamentalist worldview. I am
not sure that it is unfair. I think that Daniel has made a choice very
specifically not to trust personal religious experience, or human reason. I
think that his position is a tautology but it is the way he thinks. So I
don't know about the netiquette of asking him to think in another manner.
My problemwith Daniel is not that he speaks from a small stream of
Christian tradition called fundmentalism but that he does so in the
language of spiritual terrorism, that is with threats and insults. As for
content of what he believes I am perfectly ok with his holding those views
in a gracious manner.
> I've had a belly full about the way you have responded to
> him. Although he
> may have come on a little strong regarding his faith, he
> has not deserved the battering he's received. However,
> James, how would you like to discuss Scripture with me?
Art: I think that Marc may be suggesting is that you have swallowed the
Shadow of Daniel and are nailing him in the way he thinks he is nailing
those pagan theosophists. I think the tone of your post may have sounded
somewhat paternalistic as you wrote back to Daniel. I must confess I know
how hard it is not to get paternal with Fundies:) They are a great target
because they are in many ways fairly black and white in their perspectives
and those of us who consider ourselves at a more progressed stage of moral
or spiritual development can get pretty huffy with them.
It might be that your use of the Blavasky material cause the language to be
skewed this way. It was an account of a trip up the Nile with a Fundy
wanting to convert the pagans. Blavatsky may have been toying with the poor
sot.But I don't think it is good to toy with Fundamentalists. I believe in
respecting them for what their desire to move spiritually, even if the
beliefs and interpretations they hold seem simplistic, and sometimes
Marc: > Let's begin by discussing Christian.
> Contrary to what others might think, the Christian faith
> is NOT a blind faith. This view implies intellectual suicide on the part
> of the Christian. Personally, my heart cannot rejoice in
> what my heart rejects. They were created to work in
> harmony, not dichotomy. Hence the command to
> "Love the Lord your God with ALL your HEART, and with all
> your soul, AND with ALL your MIND."
> Matt. 22:37
I would wonder what Marc means by "blind" faith. Faith is not, under any
understanding of the word, direct empirical knowledge that is scientific.
Faith is a position of trust and trust requires a bit of darkness and
vulnerability at least. It could be a leap into the light or a leap into
the dark but that depends on the personality and temperament of the seeker.
For instance as I do my spiritual travelling I feel that many times I take
wild leaps into the dark in the trust that I will be caught by something
greater than myself. Others take a more reasoned approach but we all have
different approaches to our beliefs. I am much more interested in what
approach we take to the Work, the Task , the Faith than I am the content
that we think makes up the faith.
>And it goes on....and on...(I won't repeat it unless requested)
I would like to see what Marc said. If I read the address properly Marc may
be affiliated with Biola which is a Evangelical College in California.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application