A Response to Class Discussion
In class today, someone mentioned that, although at first glance it appears that Augustine embraced Christianity because of its uncertainty, he went on to the defend the truthfulness of Christianity in many other books. I was glad this was brought up, because I think it is a good example of being able to make an out of context passgae say whatever we want it to say.
I don't necessarily disagree with Anderson's claim that St. Augustine embraced the multiplicity of the Bible, but I would put it somewhat differently. I would say that there are some things that the Bible makes abundantly clear. As Anderson so aptly mentioned, it is important to interpret the unclear passages of the Bible by using the passages that cannot be mistaken. The most important commandent is to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. It's hard to mistake Jesus' meaning here. He's talking about what is most important in life. Of course the Bible is unclear in parts, but let's not disregard the whole thing as unintelligable because of difficult passages. And, as a we see from Augustine's later writer, he is not afraid to voice his opinions about the truth and validity of the Bible.
Another thing that caught my attention in class was Anderson's claim that Christian fundamentalist students will probably leave the class without their fundamentalism. He said that perhaps students will learn not to read the Bible literally anymore. I respect the fact that the Professor Anderson wants to change our presuppositions about the Bible, and that he wants to help us to identify our biases and opinions. However, I have a hard time with his statement; firstly because he also mentioned the importance of actually making a choice and taking a stand for what we believe. Isn't this what fundamentalists have done? Shouldn't we at least appreciate that in an uncertain world, they have taken a stand for what the consider to be of ultimate value? Secondly, I'm not sure what robbing students of their ideals has to do with this class in any way.
That sounded harsher than I meant it to sound. What I'm really trying to say is that if we can provide good reason to believe what we believe, then I think our beliefs hold importance and value. Of course I understand that as a teacher, Anderson cannot keep things objective. But on the other hand, it seems rather harsh to aim fire at fundamentalists who have beliefs that are based on the (in my opinion) clearer passages of the Bible.
I know that in many ways Professor Anderson is providing an opportunity for people of all beliefs to dialogue with one another (and I'm thankful in many ways for the openness of this class).But I think that if we are going to give deference to all viewpoints, then we shouldn't exclude the fundamentalists, and their literal take on what the Bible has to say.
I don't necessarily disagree with Anderson's claim that St. Augustine embraced the multiplicity of the Bible, but I would put it somewhat differently. I would say that there are some things that the Bible makes abundantly clear. As Anderson so aptly mentioned, it is important to interpret the unclear passages of the Bible by using the passages that cannot be mistaken. The most important commandent is to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. It's hard to mistake Jesus' meaning here. He's talking about what is most important in life. Of course the Bible is unclear in parts, but let's not disregard the whole thing as unintelligable because of difficult passages. And, as a we see from Augustine's later writer, he is not afraid to voice his opinions about the truth and validity of the Bible.
Another thing that caught my attention in class was Anderson's claim that Christian fundamentalist students will probably leave the class without their fundamentalism. He said that perhaps students will learn not to read the Bible literally anymore. I respect the fact that the Professor Anderson wants to change our presuppositions about the Bible, and that he wants to help us to identify our biases and opinions. However, I have a hard time with his statement; firstly because he also mentioned the importance of actually making a choice and taking a stand for what we believe. Isn't this what fundamentalists have done? Shouldn't we at least appreciate that in an uncertain world, they have taken a stand for what the consider to be of ultimate value? Secondly, I'm not sure what robbing students of their ideals has to do with this class in any way.
That sounded harsher than I meant it to sound. What I'm really trying to say is that if we can provide good reason to believe what we believe, then I think our beliefs hold importance and value. Of course I understand that as a teacher, Anderson cannot keep things objective. But on the other hand, it seems rather harsh to aim fire at fundamentalists who have beliefs that are based on the (in my opinion) clearer passages of the Bible.
I know that in many ways Professor Anderson is providing an opportunity for people of all beliefs to dialogue with one another (and I'm thankful in many ways for the openness of this class).But I think that if we are going to give deference to all viewpoints, then we shouldn't exclude the fundamentalists, and their literal take on what the Bible has to say.
posted by Christine at 10:09 PM
1 Comments:
My comment on the later blog fits here.
What you're assuming here is that "truth" is a certain kind of truth and that to resist that notion of truth is to be wishy washy. Heck no.
You're being a rationalist, just as Augustine was when he was a Manichee.
What I hear here is a 21st century rationalist making objectivist assumptions. That's a pretty good thing to be aware of.
And watch in chapters 5 and 6: we do take stands and we have to take stands. It's just that we don't do the judging of what is right for others. God does. In a way what i'm saying is: let's stop worrying so much about other people's salvation and worry more about our own.
And: we don't know the truth. The truth knows us.
Not: objective versus subjective. That's the old language. It's too simple, and it isn't true.
Post a Comment
<< Home