Anda di halaman 1dari 4


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

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

johnboy.philothea quote: Originally posted by pop-pop: Many Blue-meme clan Im 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 Im 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

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).