1. johnboy.philothea
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
I'm also not seeing an either/or situation with respect to
Original Sin and our teleological striving toward the future,
either. We would probably experience this without Original
Sin, as it seems to be an intrinsic dynamic of the human
spirit. And as for an ontological rupture, there are
differences between how Catholics and some Protestant groups
understand this, with Catholics speaking of a wounding moreso
than a complete rupture.
To my understanding, the doctrine of the Fall/Original Sin
is an essential of Christian faith. While it may well be true
that God would have become incarnate even had there been no
fall, that's not been the situation for humans on this planet.
The operating system upgrade that the Incarnation would have
effected needs be accompanied by some anti-viral cleansing if
it is to be effected, and it seems the traditional teachings
have recognized that.
Right, there is no either/or involved in considering the
ontological and teleological aspects of the human condition
per se. What I was suggesting, though, is that those aspects
may very well apply in an either/or fashion to the different
categories (neediness vs sinfulness) of the human condition.
For example, even if our sins (past AND present) result in
some ontological rupture or wounding, need they necessarily
also account for our radical neediness, which might otherwise
be accounted for in teleological terms?
So, WHAT the doctrine is getting at --- our radical neediness
& that we sin --- is essential. THAT the Incarnation meets
those needs and reconciles our relationships is also
essential. As I said, though, the literalistic accounts of
past events regarding some of the HOWs and WHYs are not
essential. For example, one might ask, was human reality ever
truly edenic? Is that what the Fall necessarily entails? And,
of course, substitutionary atonement, for example, is also not
essential.
27 January 2012, 12:36 PM
johnboy.philothea
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:JB, this was pertaining to "the
Father and I are one." I never said nor implied that the
tradition's ontological affirmations rested on this verse
alone. I was objecting to CB's contention that it's not
intended to indicate an exclusive kind of unity between Jesus
and the Father, and I think she's wrong.
But that's exactly why Cynthia's alternate interpretation of
1

2. that verse need not be taken as necessarily obfuscating the
ontological meaning of Jesus's "the Father and I are One." ?
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:This statement by Jesus in John
is congruent with John 1's affirmation that "in the beginning
was the Word. . . the Word was with God . . . the Word was God
. . . the Word became Flesh." John's high Christology is very
clear that Jesus is God, and there are other passages that
point this out as well (Jn 12:45, 5:19, 3:13, 8:58). This is
not so much the conclusion of metaphysical reasoning as a
theological expression of the faith of the community. I don't
know what "reasonable minority views" you're referring to,
here, so perhaps you can clarify when you have time. They
certainly haven't found much traction in the Church. To me,
the burden of proof lies on CB and anyone else who maintains
that Jesus wasn't really indicating a special, "exclusive"
unity with the Father that he enjoyed.
Jesus' place in the Trinity is not in dispute? Regarding the
interpretation of John 10:30, as with most Bible verses,
exegetes struggle with interpretation from several angles
(hence my reference to minority views referred to exegetical
matters). In this particular case, Calvin most quickly comes
to mind. One might check out the different commentaries.
From Bracken's discussion, the John 10:30 take away was the
moral union within a community and the bond of love which can
unite human beings with one another and with the triune God.
From Cynthia's discussion: "There is no separation between
humans and God because of this mutual interabiding which
expresses the indivisible reality of divine love."
Perhaps Cynthia did intend this in as heterodox a manner as
you received it? I can't make that case though from what I've
read.
27 January 2012, 01:17 PM
johnboy.philothea
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop:And in 389 of the CoCC one
reads: "The church .. knows very well that we cannot tamper
with the revelation of original sin without undermining the
mystery of Christ"
You seem to be tampering. Your 'mining', after all is said
and done, seems an undermining.
pop-pop, perhaps my recent follow-up comments re: original sin
shed some light on your questions? If not, please feel free to
inquire further.
27 January 2012, 01:48 PM
2

3. johnboy.philothea
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop: Many Blue-meme clan I’m
thinking believe in a supernatural dimension of evil. Have you
moved on in this regard? I realize that this too is a “Not
all” kind of thing, but I’m asking where you now stand (or
have spelunked to).
If, by supernatural evil, you mean a demon, I would not
consider that an essential belief of Christianity. But neither
do I consider belief in demons to be unreasonable. Scott Peck
certainly raised my own sneaking suspicions regarding the
devil. This interview with Fr Benedict Groeschel is also
interesting (and he is a sober, serious, intelligent and holy
man). In my view, if the devil as construct is not literally
true, arguably, it nevertheless remains, in some ways, a
useful construct. At the same time, if it is indeed true,
arguably, it also remains, in some ways, an overused (too
often misapplied) construct. [I realize that I didn't answer
where I stand.]
27 January 2012, 01:58 PM
johnboy.philothea
quote:
Originally posted by Derek:Even the Jesus Seminar thinks
the last two-thirds of the saying she quotes (at the top of
that chapter) doesn't come from the real Jesus.
But that's not a criterion for the "authenticity" of any
Gospel?
27 January 2012, 02:20 PM
johnboy.philothea
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Perez: The thing I like most
about Bourgeault'a writing is her subject; awareness, prayer,
self-reflection and a blend of epistemology and ontology she
calls wisdom (my perspective). She's not a Christian
apologist. But she has definite opinions. She doesn't write
about systematic theology. But her writing is consistent and
comprehensive.
Kevin, it is good to see you here, my friend. Well said,
regarding Cynthia.
It does seem to me that, as Phil characterized it, she's
needlessly pitting sophiology and soteriology against each
other. And this may come from too severe a critique by her of
the West, in general. To some extent, this is also reminiscent
of (and not wholly unrelated to) the old alternating over- and
3

4. under-emphases on justification and sanctification. That
aside, her exposition of sophiology is splendid. She doesn't
claim to demonstrate that Jesus was not celibate only that it
would not matter either in the way or to the extent that so
many seem to imagine (preoccupied as they've been with pelvic
Christianity).
4