Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,030
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 19, 2020 8:35:15 GMT -8
It’s hard to say. I think first and foremost it’s about arrogance, about the idea that one is smarter than all who came before. The opportunity for the acid drip is there in any system, whether political, religious, business, or sports institutions. No set of ideas or beliefs can encompass everything (at least where deceitful and limited humans are concerned). There is no perfect. There is just good structure in which people of good will can operate productively and morally. And, God knows, there’s enough in Catholicism, Protestantism, or Judaism to allow one to take use a fire hose for their acid drip if they choose to do so. At the end of the day, I don’t believe most of these acid-drip socialists are particularly caring about others. I think they care most about their own grievances (whatever they are) and their own status. In the case of the fake pope, Francis, I think you can make a case that they have a plan for undermining the faith. For the outliers like Hart, I’m not sure. But I believe that the addictive drug of being seen as a “do-gooder” is overwhelming for some. We can certainly have an honest exchange about what hell is, if it exists, who goes there, for how long, etc. I have no problem with someone pointing out the obvious absurdity that technicalities (such as missing a Sacrament) or even suicide would be punished by an all-loving God with eternal punishment. This is on the face of things nonsensical. And it’s more than fair to say that the idea of hell is very useful for the church hierarchy. That it is quite a source of power over the masses. So (and here my logic can get squishy), it’s been my experience to notice that many Catholics have a difficult time looking straight into the eyes of these paradoxes. So what they will often do instead is a sideways glance at the edges. Instead of facing the gist of things boldly, they squish and moosh around the edges when all the while they really want to scream “I hate you, I hate you, I hate you” like a petulant child to a father or mother who seems too stern. In the case of Hart, if he is indeed socialist as is indicated in the comments section, then that shows very bad judgment to begin with.
But at the end of the day, universalism is a doctrine under which the Church itself is no longer needed. So connect the dots as you will to what motivates someone.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 19, 2020 13:53:12 GMT -8
According to Wikipedia, Hart identifies himself as a Democratic Socialist. In other words, someone who is willing to bend the truth for political and/or other reasons.
To give an idea of the inherent dishonesty of Democratic Socialists, see the quote from Wikipedia which was clearly written by a Democratic Socialist.
This quote is very revealing on at least two levels.
1) It denies obvious truths about "socialism" as it has been practiced in the past. The Soviet Union was run by the Communists, who were called Bolsheviks before they called themselves commies. The Bolsheviks were originally called the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.
2) Implicit in this denial is the idea that "we just haven't gotten it right yet. We only need to apply socialism in the correct way and everything will be hunky-dory." That old dishonest leftist meme has lost its allure to most of mankind.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,030
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 19, 2020 15:49:54 GMT -8
I’m not going to take up the whole debate on socialism. But if one has at least a cursory understanding of world history, one should be embarrassed to be a “democratic socialist” or any other kind of socialist. You can call it “democratic gonorrhea” but it’s still gonorrhea.
Catholicism is completely infused with “democratic socialism” at the moment — a concept that is further laundered from the truth of things via another tricky term: social justice.
Of course, reasonable people could have an intelligent debate about where the boundary should be on both private and public powers. But socialists are not reasonable people. They tend to believe a whole smorgasbord of hobgoblin things to justify themselves as world-savers….and thus perhaps it’s no surprise that the tend to ruin whatever it is that they touch.
Again, this has nothing to do, per se, with whether or not hell exists or is eternal for some. It’s just that it’s nice to know people’s biases because that tells you a bit about all the stuff they reject out of hand and at least some of the hobgoblins they believe.
At the end of the day, it’s as simple and clear as the one commenter wrote:
I still tend toward the stern parent regarding the concept of hell. It’s better to scare them into good behavior whatever one’s ultimate intentions might be.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 19, 2020 16:29:20 GMT -8
The link is to another piece, by McClymond, which takes apart David Bentley Hart's reasoning and would also indicate the man acts in something less than a Christian way. Given his universalist belief, this might be expected because what the hell does it matter how one acts? All God's children going to heaven in any case. That included everyone!
To me, Hart would appear to have Gnostic tendencies which are often present in those who think themselves just so much smarter than everyone else. That they spin their webs out of nothing never seems to occur to them.
Hart traveled from High Church Anglicanism to Eastern Orthodoxy. I suspect his journey will take him to something like Unitarianism, whence he will land at the end-station "Agnostic Junction." He may even end up at "Atheist Platform."
As presented in this piece, Hart's thought process is not terribly sophisticated. I have thought about virtually everything mentioned, and I am no theologian.
People like Hart seem to believe they have the right to understand and know everything about the mysteries of God. I tend to side with Dennis Prager's view on belief. There is a lot in Christianity which is not said or seems somewhat off-base to me, but I am not arrogant enough to think that just because I think a religious tenet sounds odd, that I am right and have the answer to all questions.
Hart is a perfect example of why one should shy away from theologians. They may be smart and they may study diligently, but in the end, they don't have any more info than the rest of us, if we do a little research.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,030
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 19, 2020 21:58:27 GMT -8
Here are a couple good observations from that article: Another good bit: Here’s an interesting bit from Hart: Although I don’t carry the obvious emotional baggage that Hart does (I’m saying because the root causes are so different, it’s perhaps just an accident of convergence), but I agree with the above. I’ve always had a problem with Original Sin, where all the suffering in the world is placed upon the choices of man. We (or at least some) are daily faced with impossible choices...or at least imperfect choices. We’re the guys put inside this ant farm. We didn’t write the rules. But reality is complicated. Taken reality as a given, only a light thinker could believe: It’s “God made me do it” instead of “The devil made me do it.” I’m not convinced that everything bad people do is God’s fault. And I’m not sure a careful thinker could ever write such gibberish as: And here’s where I step back and state what should be the obvious: Religion is not mathematics. I don’t think by way of purely argument-of-rules or argument-of-bible-passages that you can come to firm conclusions about these subjects.
At the end of the day, perhaps the most important bible passage is “You will know them by their fruits.” How many angels can dance on the head of pin is of no importance compared to how you treat your fellow man. So although I do find the misadventures of people who purport to be serious thinkers to be interesting, I don’t think this is like a chess game where you can checkmate your opponent with the right sentence or paragraph.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,030
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 19, 2020 22:05:19 GMT -8
I think that's a very good point, Mr. Kung.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,030
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 20, 2020 8:21:12 GMT -8
I think it’s reasonable to look out at the world and not see a particularly moral universe. We can choose to make it so, but nature does very much appear to be red in tooth and claw.
But that is an interesting point made by McClymond. I think his analysis throughout is clear and leads me to see that Hart’s change isn’t one driven by a theological necessity but a social or political one.
What we’re seeing is the back-filling going as someone is changing (or has changed) peer group affiliation. Clearly this is a man who runs in circles now where it is an embarrassing notion to have a God of judgment.
Whereas we can have (I’m quite sure) a discussion here about the complexities and difficulties of proposing that this is a moral universe, despite the abundance of evil, we can do so out of common sense observation and reasonable analysis. We’re not, that is, using such arguments as a smokescreen to basically buddy up with the Left where Hart can now point to his book and say to his red-diaper-doper-baby colleagues “See! I’m one of you, not one of those embarrassing, throwback Neanderthals.”
To me, that is clearly what is going on.
|
|