MBB: Midwest Conference

[Greek Tragedy]

Hoosier Titan was a very nice lady when I met her in Appleton.  She was kind enough to get me tickets to the Lawrence/IWU game. 

When I went to the Badger game at Lambeau, Swampgoon and his brother wore their "Slapshot, Hanson" jerseys to the game.  I said I felt popular because everyone was yelling their names and actually coming up and talking to them and getting their pictures taken with them!  When I went to the Whitewater regional and the Lawrence sectional, I talked to a handful of d3hoops posters.  In the stands at the IWU game at Lawrence, Hoosier Titan turned around and yelled, while pointing at me, "Hey, that's Old School!"  Swampgoon felt the same way I did at the Badger game! lol. 

[Gregory Sager]

I think it is safe to say that Jesus was a "pick and Choose" follower of Judaism

Hardly. He was a devout Jew who didn't "pick and choose" at all, except to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate authority within the religion. Don't confuse the institutional structure of the religion (in this case, a religious structure that proved to be ephemeral) with the religion itself (which has survived in one form or another for four millennia).

capable of washing feet and trashing open prayer while at times equating the hierarchy of the Synagogue, the (popular at the time) Pharisees (an offshoot of the Hasidim-the earliest pop Judaism), and the Priests of Rome.

The Hasidim weren't the earliest popular form of Judaism; the prophetic movement of pre-Exilic Judaism, with its contrarian approach to royal rule and its covenantal appeal to the nation as a whole, was the first form of popular Judaism. The Hasidim were a post-Exilic movement.

Jesus' dealings with the Pharisees and the Sadducee-dominated Temple authorities (including the Sanhedrin) were very much within the Jewish tradition. Indeed, some biblical scholars such as E.P. Sanders have placed Jesus within the Pharisaic tradition itself, arguing that his disputational form of dialogue with them was itself indicative of that tradition. I don't buy into that, but it's an interesting theory that sheds light on just how mainstream Jesus's mode of teaching (if not the content) was in contemporary Jewish terms. And the actual content of his moral teachings as found in the Gospels resembles in many ways a mixture of the Shammai and Hillel schools of Pharasaic thought.

The ultimate message of Jesus, of course, ultimately sets him apart from Judaism. But he arrived at that message precisely through his own Jewishness (as the Davidic heir), through Jewish means (through a method of teaching, an appeal to scriptural authority, and above all a singleminded devotion to the God of Israel that were each impossible to conceive outside of Judaism), and through a life lived among Jews as a Jew. Indeed, he specifically aimed his message at his coreligionists. It would take his follower Paul of Tarsus to extend that message in large part to the Gentiles. Jesus was no more opposed to the organized religion into which he was born than Abraham Lincoln was opposed to the country into which he was born.

Gary Wills, the Northwestern U. history professor, has a new book-"What Jesus Meant"-which has a great discussion of this topic.

Ah, Gary Wills. He certainly has his merits as an expositor of American history, but as a commentator on religious matters he leaves a lot to be desired in terms of systematic coherence. If you're a fan of Wills it certainly explains why you're coming to these conclusions. It's easy for an author to expound upon Jesus as an anti-establishment figure above and against Christianity when the author professes to be a dissenting Catholic but has yet to figure out that he's really an Anglican -- or else he does realize it but won't convert and risk losing his outsider cachet. I do like some of what Wills says, particularly in terms of the so-called "hard sayings" of Jesus and their difficulty at being placed within the functional framework of institutional Christianity, but what Wills thinks is Jesus' contrarian streak actually operates very much within the tradition of that framework. It's been manifested in countless reform movements over the past 2,000 years, from the late-Roman-Era anchorites to today's Emerging Church movement. Much of the moral depth within Christianity arises from the stiff challenges that it poses to its followers, many of which spring from those Gospel "hard sayings". As Wills' favorite author G.K. Chesterton said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."

Jesuit theologian and author Edward Oakes wrote a pretty scalding critique of What Jesus Meant in the March issue of First Things that balances very nicely the largely favorable review written by Newsweek Jon Meacham in the New York Times. April, you might want to get ahold of that issue, too, as it contains an excellent soul-searching piece on your alma mater vis-a-vis the Wheaton position on Catholic faculty members. It was written by Wheaton English prof Alan Jacobs.

As far as placing Jesus within the Jewish tradition is concerned, you're much better off going to the horse's mouth and reading the work of someone such as Jacob Neusner, a scholar who writes from an explicitly Jewish perspective who ultimately rejects the claims of Jesus as Messiah but who nevertheless has no problem placing him within the Jewish tradition as manifested within first-century Roman Palestine. Neusner is quite critical of the teachings of Jesus in terms of his fidelity to the Torah in A Rabbi Talks To Jesus, but he engages him on those grounds as one Jew to another.

[hjmphelp]

Sager-I don't think you are any better off going to Neusner that to Wills to sort this out. Both are struggling with interpretation of events recorded years ago and now used as the basis for another organized sect as laid down (you correctly point this out)by Paul and other followers. It becomes a questionof who/what you are willing to believe, The Word as spoken by Jesus, the interpretation of the Word as written down in the Gospel, or further interpretation of the word by the likes of Neusner, Wills, or even Phelps and Sager for that matter? Are the recorded words of Jesus accurately reported? Who has the upper hand in this?

BTW,
i didn't say that Jesus wasn't immersed in Jewish tradition or that he didn't practice many "jewish traditions, but to say he wasn't rebellious against the organized religions of his time -including his own-denies the supposed reason for his existence, IMHO.

Gotta go to work, dangit! Maybe later in the day Sager, DHF and I can tie this to DIII Hoops and the Divine Intervention that led to Larry's demise!

[The Roop]

Could be billions and billions of reasons.

[hjmphelp]

Mr "the Roop"-
Can you do Jack Horkheimer too?

[diehardfan]

Since the existence (or not) of God is untestable, ...

Well, I don't know about that... it's testable, we just have no say over whether God decides to play along, so the lack of comprehensive and overwhelming proof doesn't mean no. Ah isn't live interesting.

Think about your statement - if God exists but chooses not to play along, the proposition is untestable.  If S/He does not exist, the proposition is untestable (because of the possiblity of #1 above).  Ergo, only persons relying on faith can be either theists or atheists.  All people who prefer human rationaliity HAVE to be agnostics.

Think about your statement...  God is not always hidden, sometimes, he chooses to reveal himself in spectacular ways. My point was that sometimes the evidence points toward yes, but the fact that there is no evidence, doesn't necessarily point toward no. Obviously this is my opinion, but I'd argue that it makes some sense too.

I don't think the undertones of what you are saying (intentionally, or unintentionally) is fair. Well respected, extremely rational minds are often deists or theists or atheists... Einstein is the obvious example on the side of deism. "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

The fact is that we are human, we are influenced by our prejudices, experiences, hopes and fears, none of us are entirely rational. And I would argue that this fact means that we are both weaker, and capable of greater things than we would be otherwise.

But that doesn't mean that we prefer not to be rational, or that there is necessarily anything in our being that opposes rationality. It has always been my study of nature and science that has caused me to believe in the necessity of the existence of something higher than myself, even when it wasn't easy or convenient, in my personal or public life, for me to believe what I do. I would simply argue that complete rationality is both impossible and insufficient.

I think perhaps Samuel Taylor Coleridge said it best, when it comes to explaining how I feel about the subject... he said, "He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all." How often has history proven that to be true!

In essence, I believe that true Christians must be lovers of Truth. An old Wheaton Philosophy professor, Arthur Holmes, wrote a book in which he coined the phrase, "...all truth is God's truth wherever it be found." This was a statement which referred to how he believed the early Church fathers felt about the issue. I don't think any statement could be more true. The things I experience and study incites an overwhelming sense of awe and wonder that continues to perpetuate and enlarge itself as I grow older. And yet I never come close to knowing all that there is to know about God's universe. The joys that come from being alive and partaking in this are unceasing and relentless. If only more who claim the name of Christ could find the joy that comes from such a life of true study and devotion to the one they claim to love and worship.

Not to embarrass him, but I think Greg is a great example of this "true Christians must be lovers of Truth" concept. From all the random facts and tidbits he's always throwing out around Posting Up, I think it's pretty obvious that he has an insatiable appetite for knowledge. 

[Pat Coleman]

From all the random facts and tidbits he's always throwing out around Posting Up, I think it's pretty obvious that he has an insatiable appetite for knowledge. 

Yes, knowledge from the sacred to the inane.

[diehardfan]

Incidentally,  while I should probably find a logical place to put this in my previous post, I'll just sort of throw this out there. I think there is often a dangerous lack of distinction in people's minds in regards to

1) being able to understand true things, by which we can live and act, and

2) complete and comprehensive Truth which is obviously unknowable to any rational person... or as I believe, unknowable here on earth in our humanity.

People of the type that I refer to, have plenty of #1, and look forward with hope to the day when we will also have #2.

[The Roop]

Mr "the Roop"-
Can you do Jack Horkheimer too?

Greetings, fellow star gazers...............

[hjmphelp]

Mr "the Roop"-

NahNahNah! Ya gotta WHISTLE IT!

[Mr. Ypsi]

April,

A very eloquent, but unconvincing, reply.

I was responding to your statement that God could choose not to play along (with human attempts to prove/disprove His existence).  If we accept that as the opening premise, my syllogism was very succinct and (I believe) irrefutable.  After all, if God has the ability to be the ultimate prankster (and an omnipotent Creator would certainly have that power), even the 'young-earth' Creationists cannot be refuted: all the plethora of evidence concerning the 4.6 billion year age of the earth, dinosaurs millions of years before man, etc., could have been 'planted' as the ultimate April Fool's joke.

Given that, either theism or atheism must both rely upon faith - rationality, per se, permits no choice but agnosticism.

[diehardfan]

I honestly have no idea what to say to that. It almost seems like you were not paying attention to your argument either, much less mine.

Your original argument (and all the other discussions thus far on the board) involve people's interactions with various belief systems and the idea of truth, a discussion for which my last post was relevant. This comment:

Given that, either theism or atheism must both rely upon faith - rationality, per se, permits no choice but agnosticism.

is barely related to the topic at all. You're talking about the belief systems themselves. Theoretical ideas can obviously be logical extremes, though in actuality they encompass a wide range of opinions which you are not allowing for. It's extremely rare, and in many cases impossible for people to be this kind of logical extreme you are asking us to take for granted.

It's almost like we were all discussing the texture of apples and oranges and you started talking about irrigation systems. The fact that you are right that drip irrigation conserves water doesn't change the fact that an apple is smooth.

There's also quite a bit of difference between 1) God choosing not to respond to human attempts to find, categorize and explain Him, attempts which can obviously be detrimental, and done out of completely wrong motives and 2) God capriciously choosing to twist things just to play with our heads. But I'm not even sure the difference is worth explaining since it is even more off topic. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

I think you are simultaneously reading too much and too little (if that is possible) into what I am saying.

IF an omnipotent Creator exists, it obviously follows that such a being COULD (for whatever reasons beyond our ken) create a universe that defies all human attempts at understanding (including said Creator's very existence).  Given that starting point, human understanding ('rationality') can clearly neither prove nor disprove the existence of a Creator.  Both atheism and theism are left then to faith.

Therefore, a purely 'rational' response can only be agnosticism.

QED

[I am in no way attempting to 'make fun' of your beliefs; merely attempting to show that they can never have a 'rational' basis (or refutation).]

[And people's interactions with the beliefs are FAITH - not rationality.  Stephen Jay Gould, while wrong on several issues, was absolutely correct that science and religion are different 'magisteria', addressing totally different issues.  Conflict occurs (properly) only when one 'magisterium' seeks to invade the turf of the other.]

[The Roop]

At the risk of involving myself in this one. I think the true answer is so far beyond human comprehension that it isn't worth arguing about.

[Mr. Ypsi]

At the risk of involving myself in this one. I think the true answer is so far beyond human comprehension that it isn't worth arguing about.

Aha, you understood!

The only purely rational response is agnosticism, but that does NOT mean it is the only reasonable HUMAN response.