tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post7491466133523456053..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: The Gospel TodayKen Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-68550184269451281162011-09-26T11:57:56.044-04:002011-09-26T11:57:56.044-04:00Scott F,
Yes, let's do "wrap it up"!...Scott F,<br />Yes, let's do "wrap it up"! Not sounding too much like a philosopher, there, are you? <br /><br />Pragmatic "needs" are at hand, so let's get going with "crucifying Jesus", and "creating Paul" so the personal, social and global world can be saved!<br /><br /> Forget that "Jesus" is a human being, too! No, his life is only useful for historicizing 'the gospel" for today, so those "chosen" to be philosophers can use others "chosen" to be "Jesus" or "Paul"! <br /><br />Scientists have "useful functions" to bring in the funds, as their very purpose is pragmatic application of the philosopher's theory.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-28453038501945601882011-09-26T11:43:51.304-04:002011-09-26T11:43:51.304-04:00Especially in light of the rise of Wrightianism, d...Especially in light of the rise of Wrightianism, do you plan to address the Kingdom of God more explicitly when addressing God's and Jesus' kingship? It might be a nice way to wrap up the personal, social and global aspects of the Gospel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-82710674938292901402011-09-26T06:11:59.500-04:002011-09-26T06:11:59.500-04:00FrGregACCA,
How can anyone think they can underst...FrGregACCA,<br /><br />How can anyone think they can understand anything about "the personal" when it comes to "the Gospel"? "The Gospel" hides, or covers over reality, as it makes for a transcendent, or "special realm" or "special revelation"!<br /><br />It makes personal claims about "God" that aren't rational only "by faith".<br /><br />This was the point I was makng about "dogmatism", and even theology in general!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-17734561545435332112011-09-26T05:34:36.729-04:002011-09-26T05:34:36.729-04:00Ken,
Are you looking for human experimentation, in...Ken,<br />Are you looking for human experimentation, in finishing out how you might flesh out such a subject?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-15025582465141669472011-09-26T00:46:49.177-04:002011-09-26T00:46:49.177-04:00FrGreg, I don't know if the flesh I put on it ...FrGreg, I don't know if the flesh I put on it did what you were looking for, but it is finished ;-)Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-53061198550916287632011-09-25T20:32:03.054-04:002011-09-25T20:32:03.054-04:00FrGregACCA,
Your rendition sounds like intersubjec...FrGregACCA,<br />Your rendition sounds like intersubjectivity. The Eastern view of "faith", as personal revelation, not rationalized theology. Karth Barth was good at such dogmatic theology. Faith witout reason is irrational action via Kiergegaard. Martydom as a means of promoting the Church's vision. I don't think that we should be promoting irratonality, in today's climate of relgous zealotry1Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-1861552795572949322011-09-25T20:16:31.297-04:002011-09-25T20:16:31.297-04:00Obviously, I can't argue with any of that, Ken...Obviously, I can't argue with any of that, Ken, but in reading this piece, I am left wondering: how does this apply to ME? How is this is "good news" to ME and those closest to me?<br /><br />If this question occurs to me in reading this, I know it will also come up for others, especially those who do not know theatre from theology.<br /><br />I hope that you will address this in a future post.FrGregACCAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00368463715994694203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-1483996560173707442011-09-25T19:18:36.490-04:002011-09-25T19:18:36.490-04:00Your scenario here is an eschatology of John Wesle...Your scenario here is an eschatology of John Wesley, which is a specified vision for a particular denomination. (wasn't Bence's dissertation along those lines?) It's political vision plays into Islam's vision for the world, a transcendental KING ruling over subjects via an "eldership" (or magisterium under the Divine Command Theory).<br /><br /> Historicizing texts into a "gospel frame", which the Hebrew "tradition" would render the social conditioning of said "subjects" (or discipleship plans of conformity!)<br /><br /> MEN are the ones that make pragmatic plans! Weren't those plans laid out by a group you referred to in another post during "coffee breaks"?<br /><br />Socializing economic policy is a view for NGOs or NPOs, but that is not what the American vision is about, is it? But, it could be useful for those promoting a certain vision for the world.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com