NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat..

Just so NY Teacher can not accuse me of hypocrisy, I start a new thread
to further discuss the issue.

NY Teacher wrote:
> "Larry Swain" <giles DeleteThis @poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:zNOdnQf4Fq9hBjLVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>NY Teacher wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Swain" <giles DeleteThis @poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:daidneKO49WAETDVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>NY Teacher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Larry Swain" <giles DeleteThis @poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:_cidnSHIe94-qzHVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clams Canino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Larry Swain" <giles DeleteThis @poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rather than a difference between "OT" and NT, its more a difference
>>>>>>>>between God as presented in the Bible, directly involved in human
>>>>>>>>affairs, and God as known in the Christian Ages, less directly
>>>>>>>>involved
>>>>>>>>and working through the paraclete and the church.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't think it's an "iether/or" - more like a "yes, that as
well".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-W
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As pointed out, the Incarnation rather makes the claim that NT
does not
>>>>>>show God directly involved in human affairs a false claim.
Difficult
>>>>>>to imagine God more directly involved than to become human himself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How about becoming human himself, then doing grand-sale ostentatious
>>>>>miracles like he was known for? That would certainly be more
directly
>>>>>involved. Or, how about becoming a human in a time or place that
would
>>>>>make his actions be more noticeable...as Weber says, "why'd you
choose
>>>>>such a backwards time and such a strange land?"
>>>>
>>>>And as Christians have pointed out for centuries, it was the
perfect time
>>>>for the spread of Christianity.
>>>
>>>
>>>Faulty logic. It may have been a better time somewhere else or some
>>>other time. That it succeeded when it did and where it did is not
>>>sufficient to say it was the "perfect time" for it.
>>
>>Perhaps, but entirely immaterial to the discussion, since the point once
>>again is what would have influenced Tolkien to write things as he did.
>>Your problems with the logic of a conservative Christian position held
>>for centuries doesn't matter to that issue.
>>
>
>
> Nor did I say that it was, I was merely responding to an argument made.

I didn't make an argument. I reported one, one that would have and did
influence Tolkien. Read a little wider in the Inklings writings and
you'll find this idea expressed in many places; read even wider in
Christian thought and you'll find it everywhere.

>
>
>>If you want to discuss Christianity, start a new thread.
>
>
> Please do not try to tell me what to do.

OOO, snarkiness. I will tell you "what to do", its called Netiquette,
it used to be observed.

This thread began witha tie-in to
> Tolkien,

More than a "tie-in", it started as an ON TOPIC (i. e. Tolkien) thread.

and like many threads, perhaps nearly all, has taken a life of its
> own with many branching and tangential arguments.

Thread drift happens. But that doesn't mean that we should encourage it
to happen, or deliberately and intentionally cause it to happen. This
thread has certainly drifted, but other than your own comments has
remained on topic.

This is merely one of
> them.

The only person that I see who is guilty of off topic thread drift in
this particular topic is you, at least before I moved it to a new
thread. The issue to which I responded was
misunderstanding of the "god's involvement" in the OT and NT of the
Christians as a possible influence on Tolkien. Any further debate about
your upbringing or what you think of certain positions taken by the type
of Christianity that influenced Tolkien is off topic. I'm not
interested in off topic discussions about Christian positions.

>>>
>>>>>It is clear that you and I need to agree to disagree. I think God
was
>>>>>far more subtle in the NT.
>>>>
>>>>You may think that, that's fine, and I wouldn't disagree. However,
we're
>>>>not talking about what you and I think, but rather the impact of a
>>>>certain kind of thought on Tolkien. Christianity, particularly
>>>>conservative Roman Catholic Christianity, would strongly and stoutly
>>>>disagree with your assessment. And *THAT* is what's important since
>>>>*THAT* is what would have influenced Tolkien, far more in fact than
your
>>>>(or my own) assessment.
>>>
>>>
>>>My knowledge of Catholic dogma is fairly strong for a layman, but I
have
>>>never heard it stated or written that God was more active or
involved in
>>>the NT. In fact, my own religious instruction of my youth (taught by
>>>nuns, no less) stated that God was more directly involved in the OT.
>>
>>I can't help it if you were taught incorrectly or weren't paying
>>particular attention that day.
>>
>
>
> Wow, getting pretty insulting there.

Where? Below I refer you to the catechism on the testaments, something
you seem unaware of contending that Tolkien knew or believed something
different anyway. Such lack of awareness of what the catechism says
doesn't indicate that your knowledge of Catholic dogma is fairly strong
for a layman. Just an observation.

Perhaps if I were to get my
> father-in-law, a Roman Catholic Priest to post his thoughts - which
match up
> nicely with what I have written, based on a discussion I had with him
> yesterday - here you'd say he wasn't paying attention either?

Well, first, if he's your "father-in-law", he's either an ex-priest as
you should know were you as up on Catholic dogma as you claim, or he
was trained and married as a Protestant and later converted, and so most
likely a North American too trained at the earliest in the 60s, not
quite the sort of source I'd look to for information on Catholic dogma.
But bring him on, real names please so we can check the credentials and
all, be more than heppy to set you both straight simultaneously.
>
>
>>>Granted, Catholic teachings for Prof. Tolkien were probably
significantly
>>>different than mine (growing up in 1970's middle-class America)...but
>>>changing dogma is an argument for another time.
>>
>>I think you, or your nuns, confused content with "involvement," since
any
>>reader of the Christian holy texts may observe that outside of the
gospels
>>and acts of the apostles there is no narrative, only didactic
epistles and
>>the apocalypse, in contrast to the large narrative sections of the
>>Christian Old Testament that even if we ignored the other texts in said
>>collection, would be far longer than that NT by itself.
>
>
> No such confusion. God's level of involvement is up for debate, even
among
> peiople of the same church.

Evidence? Specific citations, please, no generalities. Besides, we
aren't talking about "people of the same church" and what they may
think, but what actually is in the text.

Are you purposefulyl trying to obfuscate the
> matter by changing it to the literary style of the OT and NT?

Since the "literary style" is the vehicle of the content, such a
differentiation between the two is silly, to discuss one is to discuss
the other. The question of "content" is a basic literary question.


Or are you
> just ignoring your own advise to start a new thread?

Sure, I've started a new thread, just with you in mind.

>
>>Difference in content might suggest to those wishing to be modern or to
>>the careless reader that the Christian NT shows God less involved,
but the
>>opposite is the case, whether it be discussions of the persecuted church
>>and martyrdom or the end of history, the Christian NT shows the hand of
>>God in human affairs every bit as much as the Christian Old Testament
>>does.
>
>
> In your opinion.

More than my opinion, and far beyond mere opinion. Read the text.
Compare Creation in the first chapter with destruction and new creation
in the last chapter of the NT. Compare the Flood and the Tower of Babel
with Pentecost. Compare the Exodus with the Incarnation and
Resurrection. Compare Isaac's birth with John the Baptist. Compare God
raising up judges to lead Israel with God rescuing Peter from prison, or
Paul from a snake. Compare water from a rock with wine from water.
Compare parting the Red Sea with Stilling the Storm and Sea. Compare
the sending of prophets with every believer having the "word of the
Lord." Everywhere you look in the NT is God's involvement, from grand
gestures of control over nature to individual miracles. All you have to
do is look. Don't get confused that because there's more of the
Christian OT than of the NT that that indicates more of God's
involvement in human affairs.

Perhaps also in Tolkien's opinion, which was why I raised
> the question.

And answered.....

>
>
>
>>Whether you agree or disagree (or for that matter, whether I do) is
>>immaterial. What matters is that this is out of the RC catechism, and
>>this idea can be traced all the way back to the 3rd century in Christian
>>thought. And it is this which influenced Tolkien, not a middle America
>>Catholic education in the 70s.
>
>
> Hmmm...rather than stating a historical origin to the third century,
perhaps
> you could just show Catholic ideology in England during Tolkien's time?

You don't know? And btw, I did. Perhaps you missed "And it is this
which influenced Tolkien...."



> Catholic ideology is subject to national, geographic and temporal
influences
> which would indicate that Tolkien's catholicism, even if deemed
> "conservative," likely did not match up exactly with Rome's.


Not on key doctrines. Even more, since you've raised it, how about some
evidence then that Tolkien (whom I remind you was largely raised by Fr.
Francis, an RC priest attached to the Birmingham Oratory, who trained in
the 19th century) Catholicism was sufficiently different as to give him
ideas more akin to your reading of the Bible than the Church's.

Or would you
> rather insult me again?

I haven't insulted you. If anything I've said you've taken as an
insult, I can only assure you that it wasn't. If you want me to begin
to insult you just so that you may see the difference, let me know.
Happy to oblige.

"Larry Swain" <giles RemoveThis @poetic.com> wrote in message
news:-sidnU6Ts8F1EC3VnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Just so NY Teacher can not accuse me of hypocrisy, I start a new thread to
> further discuss the issue.
>
> NY Teacher wrote:
> > "Larry Swain" <giles RemoveThis @poetic.com> wrote in message
> > news:zNOdnQf4Fq9hBjLVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> >>NY Teacher wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Larry Swain" <giles RemoveThis @poetic.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:daidneKO49WAETDVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>NY Teacher wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Larry Swain" <giles RemoveThis @poetic.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:_cidnSHIe94-qzHVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Clams Canino wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Larry Swain" <giles RemoveThis @poetic.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Rather than a difference between "OT" and NT, its more a
> >>>>>>>>difference
> >>>>>>>>between God as presented in the Bible, directly involved in human
> >>>>>>>>affairs, and God as known in the Christian Ages, less directly
> >>>>>>>>involved
> >>>>>>>>and working through the paraclete and the church.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I don't think it's an "iether/or" - more like a "yes, that as
> well".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>-W
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>As pointed out, the Incarnation rather makes the claim that NT
> does not
> >>>>>>show God directly involved in human affairs a false claim.
> Difficult
> >>>>>>to imagine God more directly involved than to become human himself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How about becoming human himself, then doing grand-sale ostentatious
> >>>>>miracles like he was known for? That would certainly be more
> directly
> >>>>>involved. Or, how about becoming a human in a time or place that
> would
> >>>>>make his actions be more noticeable...as Weber says, "why'd you
> choose
> >>>>>such a backwards time and such a strange land?"
> >>>>
> >>>>And as Christians have pointed out for centuries, it was the
> perfect time
> >>>>for the spread of Christianity.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Faulty logic. It may have been a better time somewhere else or some
> >>>other time. That it succeeded when it did and where it did is not
> >>>sufficient to say it was the "perfect time" for it.
> >>
> >>Perhaps, but entirely immaterial to the discussion, since the point once
> >>again is what would have influenced Tolkien to write things as he did.
> >>Your problems with the logic of a conservative Christian position held
> >>for centuries doesn't matter to that issue.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Nor did I say that it was, I was merely responding to an argument made.
>
> I didn't make an argument. I reported one, one that would have and did
> influence Tolkien. Read a little wider in the Inklings writings and
> you'll find this idea expressed in many places; read even wider in
> Christian thought and you'll find it everywhere.
>
> >
> >
> >>If you want to discuss Christianity, start a new thread.
> >
> >
> > Please do not try to tell me what to do.
>
> OOO, snarkiness. I will tell you "what to do", its called Netiquette,
> it used to be observed.
>
> This thread began witha tie-in to
> > Tolkien,
>
> More than a "tie-in", it started as an ON TOPIC (i. e. Tolkien) thread.
>
> and like many threads, perhaps nearly all, has taken a life of its
> > own with many branching and tangential arguments.
>
> Thread drift happens. But that doesn't mean that we should encourage it
> to happen, or deliberately and intentionally cause it to happen. This
> thread has certainly drifted, but other than your own comments has
> remained on topic.
>
> This is merely one of
> > them.
>
> The only person that I see who is guilty of off topic thread drift in
> this particular topic is you, at least before I moved it to a new thread.
> The issue to which I responded was
> misunderstanding of the "god's involvement" in the OT and NT of the
> Christians as a possible influence on Tolkien. Any further debate about
> your upbringing or what you think of certain positions taken by the type
> of Christianity that influenced Tolkien is off topic. I'm not
> interested in off topic discussions about Christian positions.
>
> >>>
> >>>>>It is clear that you and I need to agree to disagree. I think God
> was
> >>>>>far more subtle in the NT.
> >>>>
> >>>>You may think that, that's fine, and I wouldn't disagree. However,
> we're
> >>>>not talking about what you and I think, but rather the impact of a
> >>>>certain kind of thought on Tolkien. Christianity, particularly
> >>>>conservative Roman Catholic Christianity, would strongly and stoutly
> >>>>disagree with your assessment. And *THAT* is what's important since
> >>>>*THAT* is what would have influenced Tolkien, far more in fact than
> your
> >>>>(or my own) assessment.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>My knowledge of Catholic dogma is fairly strong for a layman, but I
> have
> >>>never heard it stated or written that God was more active or
> involved in
> >>>the NT. In fact, my own religious instruction of my youth (taught by
> >>>nuns, no less) stated that God was more directly involved in the OT.
> >>
> >>I can't help it if you were taught incorrectly or weren't paying
> >>particular attention that day.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Wow, getting pretty insulting there.
>
> Where? Below I refer you to the catechism on the testaments, something
> you seem unaware of contending that Tolkien knew or believed something
> different anyway. Such lack of awareness of what the catechism says
> doesn't indicate that your knowledge of Catholic dogma is fairly strong
> for a layman. Just an observation.
>
> Perhaps if I were to get my
> > father-in-law, a Roman Catholic Priest to post his thoughts - which
> match up
> > nicely with what I have written, based on a discussion I had with him
> > yesterday - here you'd say he wasn't paying attention either?
>
> Well, first, if he's your "father-in-law", he's either an ex-priest as
> you should know were you as up on Catholic dogma as you claim, or he
> was trained and married as a Protestant and later converted, and so most
> likely a North American too trained at the earliest in the 60s, not
> quite the sort of source I'd look to for information on Catholic dogma.
> But bring him on, real names please so we can check the credentials and
> all, be more than heppy to set you both straight simultaneously.
> >
> >
> >>>Granted, Catholic teachings for Prof. Tolkien were probably
> significantly
> >>>different than mine (growing up in 1970's middle-class America)...but
> >>>changing dogma is an argument for another time.
> >>
> >>I think you, or your nuns, confused content with "involvement," since
> any
> >>reader of the Christian holy texts may observe that outside of the
> gospels
> >>and acts of the apostles there is no narrative, only didactic
> epistles and
> >>the apocalypse, in contrast to the large narrative sections of the
> >>Christian Old Testament that even if we ignored the other texts in said
> >>collection, would be far longer than that NT by itself.
> >
> >
> > No such confusion. God's level of involvement is up for debate, even
> among
> > peiople of the same church.
>
> Evidence? Specific citations, please, no generalities. Besides, we
> aren't talking about "people of the same church" and what they may think,
> but what actually is in the text.
>
> Are you purposefulyl trying to obfuscate the
> > matter by changing it to the literary style of the OT and NT?
>
> Since the "literary style" is the vehicle of the content, such a
> differentiation between the two is silly, to discuss one is to discuss
> the other. The question of "content" is a basic literary question.
>
>
> Or are you
> > just ignoring your own advise to start a new thread?
>
> Sure, I've started a new thread, just with you in mind.
>
> >
> >>Difference in content might suggest to those wishing to be modern or to
> >>the careless reader that the Christian NT shows God less involved,
> but the
> >>opposite is the case, whether it be discussions of the persecuted church
> >>and martyrdom or the end of history, the Christian NT shows the hand of
> >>God in human affairs every bit as much as the Christian Old Testament
> >>does.
> >
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> More than my opinion, and far beyond mere opinion. Read the text. Compare
> Creation in the first chapter with destruction and new creation in the
> last chapter of the NT. Compare the Flood and the Tower of Babel with
> Pentecost. Compare the Exodus with the Incarnation and Resurrection.
> Compare Isaac's birth with John the Baptist. Compare God raising up
> judges to lead Israel with God rescuing Peter from prison, or Paul from a
> snake. Compare water from a rock with wine from water. Compare parting
> the Red Sea with Stilling the Storm and Sea. Compare the sending of
> prophets with every believer having the "word of the Lord." Everywhere
> you look in the NT is God's involvement, from grand gestures of control
> over nature to individual miracles. All you have to do is look. Don't
> get confused that because there's more of the Christian OT than of the NT
> that that indicates more of God's involvement in human affairs.
>
> Perhaps also in Tolkien's opinion, which was why I raised
> > the question.
>
> And answered.....
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Whether you agree or disagree (or for that matter, whether I do) is
> >>immaterial. What matters is that this is out of the RC catechism, and
> >>this idea can be traced all the way back to the 3rd century in Christian
> >>thought. And it is this which influenced Tolkien, not a middle America
> >>Catholic education in the 70s.
> >
> >
> > Hmmm...rather than stating a historical origin to the third century,
> perhaps
> > you could just show Catholic ideology in England during Tolkien's time?
>
> You don't know? And btw, I did. Perhaps you missed "And it is this which
> influenced Tolkien...."
>
>
>
> > Catholic ideology is subject to national, geographic and temporal
> influences
> > which would indicate that Tolkien's catholicism, even if deemed
> > "conservative," likely did not match up exactly with Rome's.
>
>
> Not on key doctrines. Even more, since you've raised it, how about some
> evidence then that Tolkien (whom I remind you was largely raised by Fr.
> Francis, an RC priest attached to the Birmingham Oratory, who trained in
> the 19th century) Catholicism was sufficiently different as to give him
> ideas more akin to your reading of the Bible than the Church's.
>
> Or would you
> > rather insult me again?
>
> I haven't insulted you. If anything I've said you've taken as an insult,
> I can only assure you that it wasn't. If you want me to begin to insult
> you just so that you may see the difference, let me know. Happy to oblige.


1. You lecture on "netiquette," and top post...hilarious.
2. I never said that Tokien's catholicism was sufficiently different from
Rome's, but in the quest for knowledge I raised the possibility.
3. Yes, you are very insulting. If you don't realize that, then I pity
your "friends" who put up with you.
4. You say "I'm not interested in off topic discussions about Christian
positions." but continue to post them...
5. As proof of your lack of Catholic Dogma, I point out your statement: "
Well, first, if he's your "father-in-law", he's either an ex-priest as you
should know were you as up on Catholic dogma as you claim, or he was trained
and married as a Protestant and later converted, and so most likely a North
American too trained at the earliest in the 60s, not quite the sort of
source I'd look to for information on Catholic dogma." Actually, he entered
the seminary, left it and got married, then was allowed to re-join after his
wife died some 30 years later. Your knowledge is obviously inversely
related to your tact and knowledge.
6. Congratulations, you have made me waste more of my time than you
deserve. I posited a correlation between the actions of the Valar and God,
responded in (i hope) polite fashion in an effort to gain insight, and was
drawn into this argument by your (faulty) knowledge. I repeatedly tried to
bring the discussion back to Tolkien after your comments. I even suggested
that we agree to disagree. I was met with the supposedly not-insulting "I
can't help it if you were taught incorrectly or weren't paying particular
attention that day." I now see that you are arguing that
your ideas are "More than my opinion, and far beyond mere opinion," implying
that you hold the sole valid interpretation of the bible. Your arrogance is
astounding, and points to you being far beyond reasonable discussion. As
such, with this sentence, I am done responding to you.