tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post3535611384187909516..comments2023-11-05T03:56:30.685-08:00Comments on The Worrywart: Childish Things-Idiotic VoicesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-78914854262370249952010-06-28T21:02:23.144-07:002010-06-28T21:02:23.144-07:00Clearly it is impossible to cover every important ...Clearly it is impossible to cover every important Christian figure in a few paragraphs. I just played with a few people and at the end spoke specifically against them. I do weigh and judge the words of different people individually and as such find some far more valuable then others. But the overall conclusion that faith and reason cannot ultimately co-exist in Christianity is one I stand by. Both the Russian and Eastern Orthodox churches are different in many ways but the shared centuries in the beginning including most of the church fathers and the shared scriptures ultimately end up leading to similar conclusions concerning faith and reason. Faith ultimately trumps reason every time, even if one is willing to acknowledge reason on some level. At best reason is the little sister of faith only to be used when it is helpful to what faith has already decided you must believe. <br /><br />I would add that there isn’t and can’t be any “unified” correct interpretation of either the scriptures or the early church fathers rather there can only be interpretation of individual and often contradictory people and ideas. And that is one reason why history has unfolded as it has and why the conflicts will always remain and that is why I am sure someone could pull out multiple quotes that would oppose the one’s I am critiquing. But concerning the Anglican Church I would say that even without a unified correct interpretation of all the scriptures or church fathers I believe they would have difficultly justifying their braid as anything remotely close to what any of the biblical authors or church fathers believed. <br /><br />I do realize this piece was more aggressive than usual (you should have seen the stuff I cut) but I admit I am getting tired of trying to pretend that the history of the Church is due simply to misinterpretation. At some point you have to look at the fruit and judge the tree. As always thanks for reading and sharing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10155314394083789255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-10006972642791948522010-06-28T19:52:43.443-07:002010-06-28T19:52:43.443-07:00Z - it's interesting to me the specific church...Z - it's interesting to me the specific church fathers you discuss. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (and Russian) churches have followed very different paths, theologically, from those followers of Luther or Loyola. Take the Eastern Orthodox Church, for example - they believe in corporal (rather than individual) salvation, in the power of icons and in praying to saints, and that "faith is a constant dialogue with doubt," all of which would be considered blasphemous to a Lutheran. The Russian Orthodox Church believes it is the sole (remaining) carrier of "true" Christianity. So to judge all of Christianity by the works of only a few (no matter how prominent) isn't entirely fair.<br />However, I do understand and sympathize with your 'fear.' I, too, have never really liked Augustine or Paul, and find that I often cannot agree with them. And both misinterpretation and correct interpretation of the works of the early Church have shaped Christianity as it is today. This is where I think the Episcopalian/Anglican church has a good stance: it's known as the "braid" - Scripture, Tradition, Reason. All three must play equal and complimentary parts in Christianity.nuclear.kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218956177203199577noreply@blogger.com