NY Teacher wrote:
> "Larry Swain" <giles.RemoveThis@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:cbKdndXcn4tKginVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>NY Teacher wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Swain" <giles.RemoveThis@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ToCdnTihYPTMUS_VnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>NY Teacher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Larry Swain" <giles.RemoveThis@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:NOKdnTib3-CWrS_VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>NY Teacher wrote:
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Still waiting.......
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On what? Learning to not be an insulting, arrogant prick?
>>>>
>>>>ON you backing up your claims. By the way, one wonders why I'm arrogant
>>>>speaking about something in which I have a level of expertise, but you're
>>>>speaking on a subject that you're depending on what you think you
>>>>remember being told by someone thirty years ago, but that isn't
>>>>arrogance? Who is more arrogant then? In my book it would be the person
>>>>speaking on memories and unsubstantiated conversations rather than
>>>>someone with a certifiable level of expertise. Just me though,
>>>>undoubtedly you're the sort to ask medical advice from your plumber who
>>>>had surgery once, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>You are arrogant in believing that you have the *ONLY* valid
>>>interpretation of Tolkien,
>>
>>Nope, been involved in many discussions here where I've been proven
>>wrong and have learned a great deal from those I've argued with. Read
>>many good books and articles on Tolkien from many different perspectives
>>too.
>>
>
>
> Then there's hope you may go back to such open-minded ways.
I've never left them. Just because I said that your pet idea doesn't
fly is no reason to assume I'm not open minded or in believing I have
the only valid interpretations. That's why we discuss things on here.
>
>
>
>> and *ALL* the answers in regards to an ideology as complex
>>
>>>(socially, culturally, geographically and temporally) as Catholicism.
>>
>>Oh certainly not *ALL*, not even close, just more than you since I'm not
>>trying to remember what someone told me 30 years ago, and actually have
>>done a bit of research into Tolkien's Catholicism and its influence on
>>his scholarship and fiction.
>>
>
>
> Another form of arrogance is to assume you know something,
But I'm not assuming that I know it. I DO know it. Other people who
know it test me on my knowledge of knowing it and have given their
collective imprimatur saying I know it.
like that you
> know more than someone else based on 1 thing they said or wrote.
What else is there to go on? Present some evidence that you do.
>
>
>> I
>>
>>>already conceded your level of expertise in regards to medieval
>>>catholicism,
>>
>>You did? Where? I must have missed it.
>
>
> No surprise, you seem to miss quite a lot.
Ah, no quote or citation of concession, I note, so probably doesn't
exist, at least not in rabt.
>
>
>>>and already pointed out your failings in regards to modern.
>>
>>Again, where? Because I didn't consider the possibility that in some
>>parishes in the US, widowers are being accepted as priests? Hardly much
>>of a failing, and certainly not on topic.
>
>
> It is on topic for this topic, and is certainly a failing.
How so? I never made a claim to knowing everything and this didn't
occur to me, nor should it have since its a rather unique situation. I
then also admitted I hadn't thought of it. Not sure how we can get a
"failing" out of that. But I know it makes you feel good to think so.
How small or
> large is irrelevent. How arrogant of you, again, to dismiss your own faults
> as minor and enlarge those of others.
How is not thinking of an extremely unique ordination situation a fault?
And where have I enlarged yours? Or is the shoe really on the other
foot==you are enlarging mine and minimizing your own, but trying not to
let anyone see that strategy?
>
>
>
>> My claim that I
>>
>>>repeatedly tried to tie teh argument into Tolkien can be found in between
>>>those timeframes...i posited that Tolkien's catholicism was possibly not
>>>the same as Rome's,
>>
>>As I quoted you saying before, you said that Tolkien's catholicism WAS
>>LIKELY not the same, that's not just a possibility, but a likelihood. I
>>asked for evidence, you've given none.
>
>
> And neither have you.
Actually I have, I pointed to the catechisms, the church fathers, and
Biblical examples.
My statement was based on logic -
Fallacious logic, yes, the use of a fallacy makes the argument an
invalid one.
since every other
> time and culture modifies catholicism *in some way*, it is likely that the
> catholicism of Tolkien's England was also *in some way* different.
Much depends on what you mean by "catholicism" that can be altered. But
the problem doesn't lie there so much as you jumped from this general
truth to the specific suggestion that therefore Tolkien's ideas about
the Bible were also *in some way* different than the church's. Sorry,
fallacious.
Either
> attack the logic
I did that, back when you first presented it and again above.
or provide specific examples to disprove it.
And did that too.
Either way,
> the onus is on you.
Um, no....the onus is on the one who asserts the proposition. You
asserted the likelihood that Tolkien's Catholicism differed, but have
not shown how or in what ways. It doesn't naturally follow from a
proposition that is questionable anyway.
>
>
>> gave reasons for that likelihood,
>>
>>A fallacious one.
>
>
> Prove it.
Done already.
>
>> and welcomed *discussion*
>>
>>>on that idea...
>>
>>Which you were presented with.
>
>
> No, you presented hubris and insult.
Neither one.
>
>
>>but was meant with your response that I needed to prove the
>>
>>>ideologies dissimilar...you missed the point then, just like you miss the
>>>point now.
>>
>>I see. So we can use any old thought that comes to mind and expect it
>>to be welcomed, eh, even if off topic, erroneous, and fallacious?
>
>
> I suppose netiquette would say no, but grow up.
I've grown up quite well thank you. You presented an idea, I showed why
it doesn't work, you got angry and have spent loads of time creating
posts that only attack me. Even if I did insult you (which I would say
I didn't at first), I didn't compose long messages of insults. You did.
What if I responded in kind?
If you don't think the
> discussion is on topic, ignore it.
Wait, aren't you the one who's been screaming "Don't tell me what to
do?" So I can't say to you to not post off topic responses to my
messages, but you can not only post off topic at will and tell me to
ignore it? Talk about growing up, son. No, really, listen to
yourself...and ask why you're so peeved that I asked you not to respond
with off topic responses when responding to me. What's the deal?
If you must reply, get off your high
> horse about topicality, because by responding you have added to it.
Wow, and you accuse me of hubris! You'll note however that I didn't
"add to it", but turned the discussion back to Tolkien, such as in this
exchange:
You: "> 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.
Me: 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."
Again,
> you arrogance: Its okay for Larry Swain to discuss things off-topic, but
> not for anyone else.
Discuss things off topic all you like, I may even join in. I simply
asked that you take it to a new thread. I certainly never said that you
shouldn't engage in off topic posts. You seem to have read that into
it, oh and said something churlish and puerile "don't tell me what to
do". How like a 6 year old can you get? Oh wait, I forgot, this was all
about me....you're completely innocent, the victim of a mean ol'
arrogant prick, right?
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Start with Dale
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.
>>>>
>>>>You should, and I think it would probably tell you that taking threads
>>>>off topic and then claiming that its ok and then changing your tune again
>>>>claiming that your off topic posts were really on topic is probably not
>>>>the way to win friends and influence people,
>>>
>>>
>>>It's part of the curriculum I teach and, unless there is a new printing,
>>>has nothing to do with usenet threads.
>>
>>Indeed, it doesn't, and one wonders why you brought it up in the first
>>place.
>
>
> Because you obviously need it.
Why how magnanimous of you! Caring for my welfare! Interesting though
that such careful thought for my well being is couched in what you would
call an insult. Now above you excoriate me for this perceived insult,
and yet you feel free to offer your own. Isn't that hypocrisy?
>
>
>> Again, wrap your medieval mind around
>>
>>>this while you continue doing Saint Vitus' dance with your member: I
>>>followed a natural flow of the thread, attempted to bring it back to
>>>Tolkien, then got caught responding to you.
>>
>>Liar.
>
>
> Right back at you.
How childish. But I haven't lied about anything. ON the other hand,
below you admit your lie when you confess that you went off topic in
your responses to me.
>
> If you reread our exchange you kept making points about your
>
>>opinions that had nothing to do with Tolkien. I kept encouraging you to
>>keep it on topic and you justified your off topic responses by pointing
>>to thread drift as being acceptable.
>
>
> I have re-read our exchange, and the thread that it grew out of...until you
> got involved, I kept discussing Tolkien.
And one wonders why you began to go off topic there...I certainly
wasn't, and if you reread the exchange you'll note that you went off
topic before I assessed your attentiveness in school.
>
>
>> My mistake, I should never have
>>
>>>gotten into a pissing contest with a person holding a PhD in piss.
>>
>>Didn't want a pissing contest, I'd win.
>
>
> Obviously, you have a lot of experience...
No, just a lot of ability.
>
> I wanted you to stay on topic
>
>>and wanted then what I want now: substantiation for your categorical
>>statements. If you can not provide them, simply apologize.
>
>
> No need to provide anything, since - once again - i was making a statement
> based on logic. Prove the logic wrong, or provide evidence to the contrary.
ALready done.
>
>
>
>> By the
>>
>>>way, the planet is not flat and the sun does not circle the Earth.
>>
>>You've mastered the obvious, good for you.
>
>
> Have you, master of medievalism?
I've certainly mastered the obvious in that this whole, long,
sad discussion is now all about your wounded pride and not about the topic.
I've also mastered the obvious in that medieval thinkers did not think
the planet was flat, and that the belief in the sun's rotation around
the earth was obvious to them based on observation, and was as much
theological as scientific--a view imitated by Tolkien btw.
>
>
>>>
>>>and when
>>>
>>>
>>>>corrected degrading into personal attacks probably doesn't help either.
>>>>Now, care to substantiate your claims either from the text or get your
>>>>father in law on here, or care to apologize? I'll take either one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You began the personal attacks, and I have responded in kind.
>>
>>No, I simply remarked that apparently you weren't paying attention in
>>class.
>
>
> An insult.
I suppose if all those who competed at the recent Olympics in judged
events were judged not to have earned gold medals can be said to have
been insulted by those judges, then I suppose I insulted you.
Otherwise, it was simply an assessment. You could choose to prove the
assessment incorrect by impressing us with your detailed knowledge of
the subject, but I've found that usually those who can't do that write
long diatribes like this.
>
> You took umbrage at an assessment of your remembering something
>
>>from 30 years ago. You further attempted to chuff up your position and
>>your member by appealing to nuns and your father in law, and when
>>challenged that these sources perhaps are not the best, you went off.
>
>
> An insult to them, as well.
Not really, because the issue wasn't really about them per se, but
rather about second and third hand reporting about what they allegedly
said.
Sorry, but I will take the theology of a priest
> and nuns over some ivory-towered almost-PhD in an obscure tangential field.
TSK TSK TSK TSK, all that research to come up with quotes against me and
yet you missed the essentials. The field is certainly not obscure, and
what I do isn't tangential, particularly if we're discussing views of
the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church in England that influenced
Tolkien...which we were. Or I was, as I made clear.
>
>
>
>> Childish,
>>
>>>yes, but normal. I will not drag my father-in-law into this any further,
>>
>>Most likely because contrary to your claim, he does not hold the opinion
>>of God's involvement in the NT vs. the OT that you do. Confirmation
>>enough.
>
>
> Yet he does.
Says you.
Would you, in my shoes, provide his personal information over
> the usenet, in the day and age of identity theft? If you would, then you
> are proiven to be a fool as well as an arrogant prick.
Ah yes....taking the high road, eh? You could have done as I suggested
when I first brought it up: invite him to take part on here for the
purposes of discussion. Alternatively, you could use my email address
above: tis a real email address. Or you could have asked me for an
email address at which he could contact me. By the way, since you
didn't think of these things, do these count as failings on your part?
Just wondering.......
If not, then we need
> to agree that there is nothing I can do to prove his veracity. You can
> either then accept what I say (impossible for you based upon your obviously
> closed mind) or not, and move on.
You apparently haven't been around these groups long. Nobody gets away
with "you'll just have to take my word for it". There have been long
discussions citing minutiae in Tolkien's works, letters, and scholarship
to prove a point....and not even always by me. Sorry, you'll have to do
better than "cause someone told me and you'll just have to accept that
its true."
>
>
>
>>as
>>
>>>there would be no way to prove his veracity, and no way to overcome your
>>>arrogance. He told me in several lengthy discussions that catholicism
>>>views god's interventions in the NT (and since) to be more subtle, less
>>>overt, less extraordinary and yet - and here is the miracle of it all -
>>>more effective.
>>
>>Which of course is wrong, as a detailed comparison between them shows.
>
>
> In your opinion.
In my considered, educated, informed opinion. Hey, I have an idea,
there are several email lists to which I belong that are populated by
and for scholars of Biblical Studies from all faith stripes. Let's take
it there and see what they say. We can even ask the moderators to let
us do a poll....what do you say? Crosstalk, Biblical Studies, B-Latin,
Ancient Near East are all at Yahoo as is E-Matthew, B-Hebrew, B-Greek,
Gospel of Mark, Corpus Paulum, are all at Ibiblio...take your pick or
suggest one of your own.
>
>
>>The Incarnation and Resurrection are subtle and less extraordinary?
>>Raising the dead is subtle and less extraordinary? Feeding 5000 people
>>with a loaf of bread and a couple fish is subtle and less extraordinary?
>>Healing lepers and other illnesses with just a word, sometimes not even
>>having to be present, and doing so in public is more subtle and less
>>extraordinary? Choirs of angels filling the sky on a night is more
>>subtle and less extraordinary? The Day of Pentecost is more subtle and
>>less extraordinary? Walking on water (and I don't mean on snow and ice)
>>is more subtle and less extraordinary? Turning jugs of water from the
>>well into some pretty kick ass wine is more subtle and less
>>extraordinary? Delivering a man sentenced to die locked in a prison by
>>sending an angel is more subtle and less extraordinary? Being bitten by
>>a poisonous snake and living to tell the tale without medical treatment
>>of any kind is more subtle and less extraordinary? Methinks thou dost
>>protest too much.
>
>
> Compared to: the seven plagues,
there were ten, actually, and yes, compared to those, since 9 of them
were nature miracles as many of those in the NT are. But you might take
a look at this book in the NT called Revelation which promises that God
will in fact do far more than the mere ten plagues and a couple wars.
Since its in the NT, it counts.
changing everyone's language,
indeed, and answered in the Day of Pentecost where Babel is reversed.
the
> destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,
to paraphrase an argument you use below: a couple small towns in an
obscure part of the world whose destruction is otherwise not recorded.
Yeah, considering the lightning storms a couple weeks ago and the damage
they caused, I'd have to say curing disease and raising the dead
counters the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
the Flood,
the promised destruction by fire?
directly providing the 10
> commandments, etc.?
Mount Transfiguration, Paul's conversion on the Damascus Road, speaking
to crowds of people gathered at the Jordan....
>
> YES, everything you listed would *today* be seen as extraordinary.
So raising the dead was hum drum in the Bible days, eh? Huh.
Today,
> god seems content to show up on pancakes and tortillas and grilled cheese
> sandwiches. BUT, compare your list to what he did in the OT, and it is much
> more subtle: Turn someone to a pillar of salt or drown the world because
> you're pissed and you will get lots of attention
So these garnered God more attention than raising the dead, healing a
man at a long distance by just his word, making the lame walk....
(some real, mostly feigned,
> probably); make a whole lot of bread appear out of one loaf and soemone will
> be impressed, sure, but worshipful???
they wanted to make him a king! "This is truly the Prophet who is to
come into the world." Who worshipped God after Sodom and Gomorrah who
wasn't already worshipping him?
>
> I return your thoughts in spades...I think you are so insecure in your own
> faith and scholarship that you protest too much.
Nice try. I'm quite confidence in my scholarship, and you are not a
judge of my faith, not unless you have a good deal more hubris than you
ascribe to me!
>
>>Even the few examples of events in the Christian OT that do not have
>>direct analogues in the NT are balanced by the events in the NT that do
>>not have direct analogues in the OT.
>>
>> A Jesuit friend of mine loves the move "The Sant Claus" because
>>
>>>one elf responds to the statement "I'll believe it when I see it," with
>>>the philosophical "You've got that backwards."
>>
>>Yes, a take off of Anselm of Canterbury's famous dictum from Cur Deus
>>Homo: I believe that I may understand. IE, I see it when I believe it.
>
>
> I already accepted your level of knowledge in medieval matters.
Indeed, just sharing information.
>
>
>>
>> I once asked him why he liked
>>
>>>that so much, and he launched into a lengthy discussion of how the NT god
>>>saught faith spawned by free will, not faith spawned by flashy displays
>>>of god-like power.
>>
>>Rather like the "OT god"....who sought faith spawned by free will in
>>that place....what was it called? Oh yes, EDEN....faith spawned by free
>>will is what the story is all about!
>
>
> Free will in Eden...haven't talked to anyone about that before.
Really? Interesting, its one of the central questions of Christian
theology. One of the classic works is by Augustine, On the Free Choice
of the Will. Of course, for the most part Augustine is addressing the
question from a philosophical view, but he nonetheless does mention Adam
and Eve.
I will have
> to reflect on it some more and re-read the text, but my gut reaction is that
> free will was what the serpent was offering...
That's an interesting reading and I think fraught with problems. For
one thing, if Adam and Eve did not have the free will to either obey or
disobey God's command, that means that God willed them to take the fruit
and be disobedient, and therefore sin is God's fault. It would also
mean that if faith in God is a choice, then faith as an exercise of free
will (I believe so that I may understand) is therefore a result of
original sin (since it requires free will, what the serpent offered.)
and if so, that would have
> very big theological ramifications. But, like I said, I need to reflect on
> that some and talk to some people.
>
>
>
>>
>> That matches up with what the nuns taught me way back when,
>>
>>>matches up with what I heard from my parish priest this Sunday when I
>>>stopped to talk to him after mass, was a lecture topic when I took "Bible
>>>as Literature" as an undergrad, and seems to be understood as a concept
>>>by everyone *except you.*
>>
>><sarcasm>Well, I must be stupid then when I don't teach such an idea in
>>my Bible as Literature classes or when I teach history of biblical
>>exegesis. Thanks for setting me straight.</sarcasm>
>
>
> never said you were stupid, thank you. And a Bible as Lit class can't cover
> everything that the Bible touches on, obviously.
But a Sunday sermon can? Your "Bible as Literature can?
Besides, I was refering to
> a theological interpretation of the Bible as presented by those
> individuals...Bible as Lit and Biblical Exegesis would only barely touch on
> that, if at all.
Anything I say you will take as a put down, so I will say nothing........
>
>
>>
>> It is clearly an idea that Tolkien would
>>
>>>intellectually consider, if not agree with. That is what makes you an
>>>arrogant prick.
>>
>>Proof? None? Huh, well then, t'would seem to poor arrogant me that the
>>arrogant one is he who proclaims something as a truth without any
>>evidence other than his own authoritative voice. Worse that when asked
>>for substantiation of claims, the one in question goes off on long
>>personal attacks.
>
>
> Personal attacks were begun by you, I only retaliated in kind.
Not really, I only assessed your memory of things related after 30
years. Call it an insult if you like, but as I've said before, I've not
even begun to insult you.
As I said,
> the proof in this case would be in the negative...so provide some...
But I'm not the one asserting that your reading of the Bible is one that
would occur to Tolkien. You are.
>
>
>
>>Problem is of course that "I believe that I may understand" or the
>>notion of faith vs. "flashy displays of godlike power" aren't what
>>you've been claiming re: Tolkien. You've been claiming that there's a
>>dichotomy between God's involvement in human affairs in the Christian OT
>>and the NT, the latter being "more subtle" and "less extraordinary."
>
>
> That was only the start of my argument...
> I also said that I noticed that the Valar, in my opinion, were more subtle
> and less extraordinary in their dealings with Sauron than they were with
> Melkor.
And I addressed that as well.
> Then, I asked for opinions as to whether or not this was intentional,
> unintentional, or some other option.
and I replied, so sorry you didn't get the accolades you apparently
think you deserve.
>
> Rather than engage in a discussion on the question, you attacked my
> supposition about God's involvement (fair enough).
I didn't attack anything. I did point out that the supposition on which
the question is based is erroneous.
When I responded, you
> attacked my knowledge and me.
The former, but not the latter. And I attacked your knowledge simply
because you assured us that because of what you remember the nuns
teaching you or what you think you've understood from conversations with
someone are sufficient to carry the day. They aren't.
You even went so far as to start a new
> thread, this one, specifically attacking me.
I started this thread when you accused me of hypocrisy for answering you
.. Don't like it? Don't accuse me of hypocrisy. Now you have both a
new thread and a personal attack, just to make your prophecy self
fulfilling.
Besides, you could have changed the subject line at any time, as I've
done above.
>
>>>I questioned, whether Tolkien intentionally followed a similar path in
>>>regards to the Valar and their intercessions in Middle Earth. Rather
>>>than engage in a civil discussion, you got your panties in a bunch and
>>>started insulting people.
>>
>>
>>Really?
>
>
>
> yep.
Don't recall doing either one. So since when have you been checking out
my panties? You know I like the cute lacey ones.
>
>
>>My first response to you on 8/19:
>>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.
>>
>>What was insulting about that? No bunched panties there.
>>
>>My second response to you is here:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/browse_thread/thread/77cca6a1449539d0/9df583db3b0a3f3c?show_docid=9df583db3b0a3f3c
>>
>>Again, where's the insult?
>>
>>Here's the third, responding after you assured us all that you knew the
>>facts cause some nuns told it to you 30 years ago in middle America:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/browse_thread/thread/77cca6a1449539d0/0bc176fb9066efcf
>>
>>No insult there either. Oh sure, you took offense at a comment, but you
>>taking offense and my offering insult are not the same thing.
>>
>>You have yet to answer the issue I keep putting before you: substantiate
>>the claim. Better had you spent your energies on doing some reading in
>>the Bible, Christian thought, and Tolkien to prove me wrong rather than
>>going off on a lengthy personal attack. Or you could apologize.
>>
>
>
> The insult began with "I can't help it if you were taught incorrectly or
> weren't paying particular attention that day."
Still not an insult....and that didn't come until the third message.
You were already quite testy before that.
> Minor, yes, but an insult none-the-less. Especially from someone with
> scholarly ambitions.
What does assessing your attentiveness in class, something I do
everyday, have to do with an insult?
> Now, you insult me by telling me to read the Bible or Christian theology or
> Tolkien. Again, if something doesn't match your views, you assume it to be
> worthless.
No, I didn't insult you, nor did I "tell" you anything if by "tell" you
mean "instruct, order, command". I did make a comparison: A is better
than B, this is better than that. If you wish to maintain that your
time was better spent venting your spleen with this screed and the one
you posted to alt.fan.tolkien than in looking into the suggested texts,
I suppose that is your affair, but I frankly don't think you can really
intellectually sustain such a position, and even less so morally.
> I have already addressed your calls for "substantiating" the claim.
Not really: you've offered an argument that I've pointed out multiple
times now is fallacious.
I have
> offered discussions with learned authorities,
Uh no....you offered at best memories of discussions with nuns from when
you were at best in high school, a Catholic priest who's training in
seminary amounts to a few classes (not denigrating, just observing) in
Bible and church thought, and later trot out your Bible as Lit course
which of course was much more informative than the yearly course I
teach--the learner is always more knowledgeable than the teacher, right?
you have ignored them because
> I will not give names on an open forum.
>
> In regards to apologies, the floor is open for you to begin. Show yourself
> to not be an arrogant prick by apologizing for insulting me and for having a
> closed mind.
Ok, I'm sorry you participated in this discussion and can't seem to
leave it alone and have now done much worse than I ever did.
>
>
>> Not surprising, considering your past. Remember this?
>>
>>>""Clearly, you want the world to view all things Tolkien as only Larry
>>>Swain would have them be." Arrogance. and a history of it.
>>
>>Indeed I do. It was a comment by Michael Martinez. Perhaps you should
>>ask some folk around these groups about MM before you take his comments
>>about me too seriously. MM and I have long buried the hatchet, and even
>>at the time had you read the thread you'll have noted that I had positive
>>things to say about MM. But you didn't bother to read....too eager to
>>find dirt on me.
>
>
> I'd hardly call it dirt, just an example of continuing behavior.
Hmmm, really? Ironic thing is,you've now established a history of
undesrireable continuing behavior.....
>
>
>
>>>I pity the poor saps who listen to you defend your dissertation...it will
>>>be a long night of "Larry Swain knows All."
>>
>>Well, at least on the topic of the dissertation, I do, which is kinda the
>>point of doing the exercise, to know more than anyone else in the world
>>regarding the topic on which you are writing some 500 pages. I'm sure the
>>internationally recognized group of scholars on my committee will no doubt
>>appreciate your comments, especially characterizing them as "saps."
>
>
> Agreed on the topic of the dissertion. My apologies to your committee
> members.
>
>
>
>> But, I pity any students you may
>>
>>>eventually have, especially those who want to learn by questioning.
>>
>>You could benefit from my classes.
>
>
> Highly doubtful.
Not really, you seem truly in need of some instruction.
I have taken Bible as lit already, and graduate level
> courses in theology on a not-for-credit basis.
Seems to me that a refresher is in order....
medievalism interests me
> only so much as how it's misconstrued as the "dark ages," and people were
> actally quite sophisticated and often enlightened.
now there's the best thing you've said yet.
If NYS gave more
> curricular freedom to its social studies teachers, I would spend more than 1
> day on the middle ages, but alas, thats all the time that can be alloted.
Dashed Regents Exams--amazing though that you have time to teach
Carnegie (whose advice you've certainly ignored here, regardless of what
you think of me), but not enough time to talk more about late antiquity
or the medieval....
> I've been teaching in higher
>
>>education for 12 years, and teaching at lower levels far longer. I've won
>>awards, and have students take other classes and change majors because of
>>classes they've taken with me. Where have you offered any "questions?"
>>Your one question was addressed, you said I was wrong because some nuns
>>told you something different 30 years ago, and then that your
>>father-in-law told you, and now some claim about a Bible as Lit
>>course...and I have pointed out that these sources need to be
>>investigated, but they can not be whereas the writings of Tolkien can be,
>>the Bible can be, Catholic writers can be.
>
>
> Agreed that in a discussion, the credentials of so-called experts need to be
> investigated. Would you like me to give you my father-in-laws phone number?
> Sorry, I am not willing to do that. Are you willing to put your phone
> number out in the open for him to call you? Do you want to see the syllabus
> for my Bible as Lit course?
Sure, why not? Course, no matter how good the course or the teacher, it
does little to prove the student absorbed the lessons well.
>
>
>>So let's start with a puzzle: how is how Abraham came to have faith
>>different than what happens in the NT? In fact, Abraham believes, does he
>>not, without seeing any miracles whatsoever, no flash, no show, no voice
>>out of the heavens (it doesn't say HOW God spoke to him, unlike say the
>>Sinai experience).
>
>
> The miracle of Isaac's birth at Sarah's great age?
Which according to the narrative is something Abraham was promised and
in which he believed and hoped for YEARS before it occurred. That, dear
boy, is called FAITH.
How about being led to
> Canaan?
"Led" by whom? Look again at the text--there's a significant gap
between "leave your family and your home" and "to the land that I will
show you"....there's nothing there about being led there...he had to
have faith to get up off his duff, pack his bags and head out with
nothing more than a promise in his head. (see Hebrews 11:
You must admit you are engaged in sophistry when you say no voice
> out of the heavens...Abraham STILL heard God's voice.
No sophistry. Jesuitical perhaps, but not sophistry. Was the voice
external or internal? Text doesn't say. Usually a theophanic
appearence is noted, there is none there.
>
>
> On the other hand, none of Jesus' disciples
>
>>believe WITHOUT SEEING HIS RESURRECTED BODY, they believe because they do
>>see, prompting Jesus to say "Blessed are those who believe and do not
>>see." So how is it that you can claim that the NT is more subtle and less
>>flashy?
>
>
> Appearing to a small band in an isolated part of an empire is, to me, not
> very flashy.
Wow, the central event of Christianity isn't flashy enough for you.
High standards indeed....wonder what your vaunted father in law the
Father would think of your disparagement of the central event in
Christianity.
Compare it to what god could have done to get his point across
> regarding Jesus: levelled a city? killed off the first born sons of all of
> Jesus' persecutors?
Ah, but all that was never done to "get a point across" in the OT
either. And would it have gotten a point across?
Opened up the heavens and let forth an angelic concert
> that all the world (or at least the Roman world) could see?
And you accuse me of arrogance....yet you're questioning how God chose
to do things. Fascinating irony there.
Is resurrection
> and appearance before people a miracle? Of course, and its "showy," too.
> But compared to how God could have done it, compared to actions in the OT,
> its mellow and subtle. It is part of the miracle that it worked,
> nonetheless.
Well, there's no convincing a fool.
>
> Reminds me of a joke my old pastor once said...Why was God so full of fire
> and brimstone in the OT, and preachign love and forgiveness in the NT?
> Well, everyone mellows after having a kid.
>
> Corny joke, but its what I've been saying...and asking if Tolkien paralleled
> it.
Except that the joke and the perspective on which it is based is a
misconception of what is going on. God is just as full of love and
forgiveness in the OT as he in the NT and performs or promises to
perform just as many, and in fact even more, devastating things in the
NT as he does in the OT. Tolkien was no fool and a very careful reader.
Furthermore, that teaching that you refer to is a modern one, invented
originally by Protestants and imported into Catholicism in the days
after Vatican II, and so has nothing to do with what the Bible actually
says, much less what Tolkien learned as a boy or came to believe later.
>> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
