tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6285286571880002512..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Said on TriablogueRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13204963264551890512008-08-14T09:09:00.000-04:002008-08-14T09:09:00.000-04:00So, too, with a papal encyclical or conciliar stat...So, too, with a papal encyclical or conciliar statement. I can gather a meaning of a particular passage, but its meaning is what it is to me. It's not necessarily the meaning as the Pope, Magisterial author, or Council thought or intended.<BR/><BR/>This seems self-evident.<BR/><BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>Or, we could drop the false and one-sided, question-begging skepticism and engage in exegesis.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63827654298167821432008-08-13T21:42:00.000-04:002008-08-13T21:42:00.000-04:00Suppose I say, "te amo" means "I love you" in Span...Suppose I say, "te amo" means "I love you" in Spanish. You respond: "You cannot know what it means in Spanish. No one can." How can you substantiate that claim? If you do not know Spanish, your assertion is worthless. On the other hand, if you do know Spanish, your claim is self-refuting.<BR/><BR/>It's not that I can't know what the words themselves imply but that I can't ascertain what the speaker thinks it means.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the speaker perceives love as some sort of lusty, smothering and possessive sort of relationship . I'd have no way of knowing that from merely their words.<BR/><BR/>In that case, I certainly don't wan t their love if that's what it means.<BR/><BR/>So, too, with Scripture. I can gather a meaning of a particular passage, but its meaning is what it is to me. It's not necessarily the meaning as the author thought or intended.<BR/><BR/>This seems self-evident.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05387448864812957107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46665361342510187702008-08-13T19:19:00.000-04:002008-08-13T19:19:00.000-04:00Oh, for the Blessed Mother's sakeBlasphemy!:)<I>Oh, for the Blessed Mother's sake</I><BR/><BR/>Blasphemy!<BR/><BR/>:)Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33079246943196342522008-08-13T09:30:00.000-04:002008-08-13T09:30:00.000-04:00Like I was saying, James, you're acting like an at...Like I was saying, James, you're acting like an atheist. <BR/><BR/>Hey, maybe we've identified the next Touchstone! Let The Lofty One know!Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66186027338377800552008-08-12T22:51:00.000-04:002008-08-12T22:51:00.000-04:00James,Your objection is fallacious. In order to d...James,<BR/><BR/>Your objection is fallacious. In order to demonstrate that we cannot know what Paul meant, you have to be able to know what Paul meant. Allow me to use an example.<BR/><BR/>Suppose I say, "te amo" means "I love you" in Spanish. You respond: "You cannot know what it means in Spanish. No one can." How can you substantiate that claim? If you do not know Spanish, your assertion is worthless. On the other hand, if you do know Spanish, your claim is self-refuting.<BR/><BR/>So let us step back. Instead of Spanish, we're dealing with Koine Greek. Either it is possible to know what Paul meant by translating the Greek or you cannot substantiate that we got it wrong.<BR/><BR/>The fact of the matter is that exegesis of old texts is not any more difficult than exegeting a blog post today. Languages are based on objective reality; therefore, translations are valid. Every human experiences a great degree of similar body functions, emotions, and environments. Cultures are not as radically different as you assert. If they were, no one could ever learn a foreign language, nor could anyone ever communicate outside his own sphere.<BR/><BR/>It is therefore not enough for you to say that we <I>may</I> be mistaken about what Paul believed. You have to show us that we <I>are</I> mistaken about what Paul believed. But you cannot provide that while remaining consistent with your bias.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76449482718633848852008-08-12T22:40:00.000-04:002008-08-12T22:40:00.000-04:00You take much for granted, and you act as if a tru...<I>You take much for granted, and you act as if a true exegesis is possible. I'm not so sure. </I><BR/><BR/>Apparently, you were able to exegete my comments correctly. You didn't require a Magisterium to interpret them for you.<BR/><BR/>You're the one placing an infallibilist constraint on knowledge. Where's the supporting argument? <BR/><BR/><I>You never met St. Paul.</I><BR/><BR/>You've never met Thomas Aquinas. You've never met me. Yet you can understand me, it seems, clearly enough to respond. Yet you're claiming global skepticism. Apparently you haven't considered that your objection, if true, cuts both ways.<BR/><BR/><I>You were born in the 20th century, in a culture that was influenced by multiple religious and ethnic traditions.</I><BR/><BR/>Grammatical-historical exegesis doesn't select for a given outcome.It also makes allowances for these sorts of differences. You might want to familarize yourself with the GHM. By the way, it isn't as if the GHM is alien to Catholicism. Read a modern RC commentary.<BR/><BR/><I>How are you going to ascertain the truth of what Scripture means and what the authors intended?How are you going to grasp it? What tools are you using?</I><BR/><BR/>1. I've already answered that. When I point you to the GHM, I assume you'll know what that is. <BR/><BR/>2. Apropos 1, there are 3952 articles on this website. You can avail yourself of the archives. We don't have to reinvent the wheel for ever commenter on this blog. Read what we've written, and then come back here.<BR/><BR/>3.How do you ascertain the truth of what anybody, including yourself, writes and what the author intends?How are you going to grasp it? What tools are you using?<BR/><BR/>What's your alternative if you disagree with the GHM? I'm so tired of complaints from skeptics, POMO's, and Catholics on this issue. You complain but offer no alternative.<BR/><BR/>You chose to frame this in terms of a Church hierarchy, remember. So... <BR/><BR/>Presumably then you think the Magisterium eliminates uncertainty. Where's the supporting argument? How does that work, James? Are you infallible? Is the Magisterium more clear than Scripture?<BR/><BR/>I guess I'll have to post part of Steve's response to you in the other thread so you can figure it out:<BR/><BR/>JAMES SAID:<BR/><BR/>“So, whatever is true is true by virtue of the fact that you believe it?”<BR/><BR/>Of course, that doesn’t follow from anything I said. Try again.<BR/><BR/>“And how are we to know that you haven't been deceived or lied to, that you aren't confused or simply misinformed when formulating your theology? Why should we believe that your ‘guidance’ isn't your own ego?”<BR/><BR/>If you’re going to play the global sceptic, then you cut yourself off at the knees in the process.<BR/><BR/>“You're entitled to your opinion about what you think is the reality about your God, but I think a bit more humility is in order: the heretic and apostate labels are used a bit too easily here.”<BR/><BR/>Your mock humility is a mere pretense. You clearly have very definite views about what is true and false in religion. Try not to be such a transparent poseur.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37957759464212927522008-08-12T22:21:00.000-04:002008-08-12T22:21:00.000-04:00"Try "exegesis," as Rhology said"You take much for..."Try "exegesis," as Rhology said"<BR/><BR/>You take much for granted, and you act as if a true exegesis is possible. I'm not so sure. You never met St. Paul. You were born in the 20th century, in a culture that was influenced by multiple religious and ethnic traditions. How are you going to ascertain the truth of what Scripture means and what the authors intended? How are you going to grasp it? What tools are you using?Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05387448864812957107noreply@blogger.com