Re: [XTalk] Supernatural?
- At 07:36 AM 2/27/2003 +0000, Mike Grondin wrote:
>... I had forgotten about the evolution of public schools,Mike,
>but it's undeniable that pretty much everything that's now secular
>originally arose under the aegis of religion. In the distant past,
>even so "pure" a field of study as mathematics was considered to
>belong to the realm of the mystical. We've evolved somewhat since
>then, and in fact I perceive the (eventual) separation of secular
>from faith-based history to be a matter of evolution as well.
The reason I brought this up was that you were examining the foundational
mission statements of institutions of higher learning as if they
represented some sinister plot to delude their students. If you look at the
original mission statement of Harvard University, I think you'll find
something similar. So now that you're crediting public schools with having
"evolved," I trust that you will stop citing old mission statements as
evidence of current corrupt purposes.
>... I thought we agreed that impartiality should be reached for, even ifOK
>not ever grasped.
> > I think that in historical Jesus study, *no one* comes without an agenda.By "agenda" I meant certain presuppositions which not only shape what data
>My first response to this would be to say that there's agendas and
>there's AGENDAS. But it might be more productive to ask what you
>mean by an "agenda"? (I have a vague idea, but vague ideas lead to
>vague conclusions, so let's be clear about this.)
we would accept, and what methodologies are acceptable, but also the
conclusions that we might find acceptable. So, for example, one person's
agenda might rule out any finding that there is a God in heaven and that
s/he has intervened in history in a way that contravened "natural law."
Consequently, any data, method or conclusions that allowed for that
possibility is one that would be automatically reject without bothering to
consider. I use this only as an example to clarify what I mean by "agenda."
> > [some good stuff left out]Thanks for giving me credit for good stuff. <g>
> > Our recent differences rest on your categorical assertion that aBut this rests on the assumption that explanation *must* be based on "laws"
> > methodology for dealing with spiritual matters is *impossible*
> > and therefore one wastes one's time in the attempt. You seem quite
> > adamant about this. I am not so sure that such a methodology is
> > impossible, and am willing to waste my time in the attempt to
> > discover what such a methodology would be like.
>I think I was suitably careful to state that my belief that such a
>methodology is logically impossible was based on the usual
>definition of the "supernatural" as (1) being essentially separate
>from the natural world and (2) being essentially unpredictable
of some kind, for which you claim the mantle of "logic." Actually, your
stance differs only in small ways from that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who
seems to have shared your concern for logic-- but his cosmology happened to
be different from yours.
>But history is littered with the corpses of mistakenSee? Your metaphysics requires that explanation be based on "laws". This is
>concepts. If one accepts, for example, that "spiritual forces"
>might actually be some kind of energy phenomenon that can be evoked
>under the right (mental?) conditions, then "spirit" will turn out
>to be a natural force obeying laws as yet unknown to us.
certainly a very important class of explanation, but it is not the only
one. Furthermore, you also presume, I think, a certain kind of law, ruling
out other kinds of laws that you probably would not even consider as laws
>So I don'tI don't think so. But we are headed in the direction of metaphysics here.
>say unconditionally that your quest is Quixotic, but it does seems
>to me that the assumption that "spirit" is "supernatural" (in the
>sense of 1 and 2 above) rules out any methodology a priori, and
>would therefore have to be abandoned as logically incompatible with
>any such quest.
Eric Eve has intervened and contributed much to this debate. I have a few
points to pick with him, but generally consider his contributions
- Don't know what to do with Lev 11 on Locusts - certainly interesting.
Manna in the wilderness certainly must be related somehow to the honey JB
eats. And, yes, this is not incompatible with the angelomorphic interp. of
the honey given that the Israelites ate the "bread of angels" in the
wilderness (Ps 78:25, and cf. the use of Ezek 16 for Passover in rabbinic
On all this there are helpful references in: D. Goodman, "Do Angels Eat?,"
JJS 37 (1986) 160-70.
On 11/3/03 1:07 pm, "Horace Jeffery Hodges" <jefferyhodges@...> wrote:
> Mike inquired about the locusts and wild honey that
> John the Baptist is reported to have eaten.
> Wouldn't the initial significance of this be that it
> recalls the covenant time of the desert wanderings of
> the Israelites? John the Baptist, after all, calls for
> covenant renewal, doesn't he?
> As I recall, the locust was acceptable as a kosher
> food, unlike other creeping things. Leviticus 11:10
> (or 10:11?) describes this. (I'm not near a Bible at
> the moment and cannot check.) Is this exception a
> significant point?
> At any rate, a reference to the time of the covenant
> doesn't exclude angelomorphic aspects, of course.
> Jeffery Hodges
> Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
> Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
> 447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
> Yangsandong 411
> South Korea
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: email@example.com
> List managers may be contacted directly at: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/