From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:13:39 GMT
Summary: so?

In article <1992Sep10.001715.14897@morrow.stanford.edu>,
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

> 	I find it hard to accept that Christians are silent on this
> matter even though there is no explicit Scriptural citation: "The

Well, of *course* Christians are not "silent" -- it is human nature
to utter noises in answer to questions, whether the questions are
well-posed or not and whether the answers are meaningful, or based
on anything but random firing of neurons or not.  This behaviour is,
so far as I can see, shared equally by Buddhists, by Jews, by Muslims,
by Greek Philosophers, by Roman (and Americanm, and British, and French
and ...) politicians, by atheists and just about any other classifi-
cation you care to name.

What is a refreshing relief is people with a hard-earned expertise in
some matter, who will candidly *refuse* to offer "answers" to questions
when they don't *have* any.  Not so strangely, these same circumspect
experts *do* tend to run off at the mouth about matters in which they
*are* ignorant :-)  Such is human nature.

> It would be refreshing to know that
> Christian doctrine gives no answer and that to supply one oversteps
> the bounds of prudant theology.

Well, it *is* possible to study prudent theology, you know, and not
take one's impressions of the field from a combination of television
and one's own Sunday School (note that Sunday Schools are almost always
taught by reluctant parents taking their turn at communal babysitting
-- theological qualifications other than no evidence of rank heresy
are not much in evidence.)

> 	But he did so while at the same time calling himself a
> Christian, or at least a Theist, and without support. Is he not

And *I* say many things, often with a nearby explicit statement that
I am a Christian.  I even "draw conclusions" (not necessarily with
rigorous logic) from matters that I take to be sound Christian
doctrine -- but that does not make my conclusions any kind of state-
ment of "Christian opinion" other than my own and such people as may
happen to think as I do.  Unlike *some* of the fundagelicals, most
Christians are quite able to distinguish their *own* orientation and
perspective *within* Christianity from the religion itself and what
it does (and does not) demand.

Sure, lots of little kids are told by their parents -- to keep them
quiet, I guess -- that God always has a "reason" for things (most
notably for nasty things that the kids would like to do without.) I
would hope that an adult, at least, could distinguish between social
control of children and matters of theology (though I acknowledge
that some "religious Christians" *do* seem to have trouble making any
such distinction.  I merely observe that that is *their* problem,
and their kids'.)

Some theologians of an Aristotelian/Thomist bent may have an agenda
"explaining" things with God as the _telos_, the Final Cause, to which
all is addressed.  Such a doctrine *could* lead to Lionel's response
-- but the answer is a pagan/atheist Greek one, shoehorned with little
excuse but intellectual fashion onto medieval Catholic theology.
Lionel's answer, if honestly categorized, is Christian in the same
way the Christmas trees are -- by arbitrary borrowing to meet some
people's preferences.

> a Christian? Did he not imply that the answer grew out of his
> religious convictions? How can you argue that you are correct
> and he is not in asking and answering the question?

Speaking as one historically informed about Christian doctrine, I
say that Lionel's statement is NOT part of doctrine, now or at
any time in the past.  If Lionel thinks otherwise, well he also
has bizarre notions about what evolutionary biology teaches --
why do you think his Christianity is any more correct?  Sure, he
has probably heard other Christians *tell* him this (neither of us
is likely to consider him capable of original thought) -- so?

> 	Are you telling me that I am grasping such suggested answers
> out of thin air, that there is no basis for a Christian having given
> them as an answer, and that they were never given as an answer by
> Christians? I think that they were, and that they may not be in
> fashion is something that needs explaining.

OK; explain why the Romance of the Rose is out of fashion.  There are
just as much fashions in "popular religion" as there are in literature.
How otherwise, for a human social endeavor?

There are also, however, certain matters of doctrine that while they
too exhibit a glacially-paced modification (with occasional quick change
as in the issue of slavery, or of usury) have a basically fixed state-
ment within the individual Christian traditions.  Most of the "change"
is exhibited by fragmentation, rather than by any kind of universal
adoption of new against old -- thus, Catholic doctrine DOES differ from
Eastern Christian doctrine, in a gradually accumulating difference over
a millenium or so, and "generic" Protestant doctrine in Europe and 
America differs from both (some by deliberate rejection of Catholic
doctrine.)

However, the vast majority of what Christians say at any time, whether
well-informed or not, does NOT form anything resembling an authoritative
position, even for their own sects, let alone for other Christians.  If
that were not true, then the neo-Darwinian synthesis -- often urged by
Christians --  would be doctrine (and I assure you that it is not, any
more than Lionel's pious guff about purpose is.)
 
> 	If Lionel overstepps his bounds as a Christian in making such
> claims, then he is in the company of lots of other people who call

He doesn't "overstep" a god-damned thing, in offering an opinion.  You
are not, I hope, going to say he may not post one?  However, if *he*
(or, as seems more to be the case in this instance, *you*) claims that
his answer is some sort of Christian "verity" he is merely being absurd.

In my liturgy as an Episcopalian, I repeat at Sunday Mass the congrega-
tion's response to the celebrant:

	Celeb: "Let us give thanks to God."
	Cong.: "It is right and good to give God thanks and praise."

This is not "doctrine" but part of a rite in the form of a dialogue.
One *may* perhaps infer doctrinal positions from this -- that it is
in some way part of what is expected ("right") and fulfilling ("good")
for humanity to worship God ("give God thanks and praise.")  Fine --
but the "overstepping" comes if one makes a claim that "The purpose
of humankind is to do this" -- the liturgy does not say so, the Bible
does not say so, the (authoritative) Church does not say so.  If some
Christians want to *infer* such a thing, that's their business.

I have no objection to Lionel offering his opinion.  But what strikes
me is YOUR apparently malicious desire to use ANYTHING some Christian
says as a bludgeon to beat on your internal demon of a generic Christian.

> themselves Christians who similarly overstep bounds. How do right-
> thinking people, who know the limits to Christianity, inform these
> other Christians that they are wrong? Is there anything to prevent
> the error from repeating itself over and over? I think not.

Why is it an error for a Christian to offer an opinion?  even if other
Christians would offer different, contradictory, or NO opinions?  Again,
what's YOUR problem, Bruce?  If it should happen that some Christians
offer (maybe vehemently) opinions that you dislike, or find egregiously
stupid, or tending to viciousness, you are free to oppose these any way
you like -- politically, for example, when vicious opinions like Creat-
ionism intrude on reluctant nonjurors.  But neither I nor any other
Christian on the face of this planet (save possibly the bishops :-))
have any responsibility for, or obligation to ride herd on, the opinions
of other Christians.  If scientists are not to be held hostage to axe-
grinding scientists (e.g. Hoyle on the mostly-innocuous side, or Shockley
for something more nasty in implications), why are Christians hostages
to what YOU dislike in SOME turkey's opinions?

Your rhetoric in this group constantly tends to urge that all Christians
are guilty by association with any damn thing that bothers you in the
postings of some Christian idiot to talk.origins.  Why?
-- 
Michael L. Siemon			"I know of nothing -- I suspect
					not even death -- that is so fixed
mls@usl.com				in the present tense as love."
standard disclaimer					-- Jess Anderson