Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

I wonder what it would look like if we did a fMRI study of the authors of that Emory study.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rich Blinne
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: Ted Davis ; asa@lists.calvin.edu ; Janice Matchett
  Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:50 PM
  Subject: Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

    From: Janice Matchett
    To: George Murphy ; Ted Davis ; asa@lists.calvin.edu
    Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:29 AM
    Subject: Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

     
    At 11:22 AM 3/3/2006, George Murphy wrote:

      It might be worth noting that with respect to many issues orthodox Christian teaching is a matter of staying on the road (if not exactly in the middle) rather than falling off on one side or another. Christology depends on avoiding both docetism & adoptionism, the Trinity requires avoiding both tritheism & modalism, &c. "Having the courage of your convictions" can sometimes mean emphasizing one aspect of the truth at the expense of others & ending up in heresy.
       
      Shalom
      George
      http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

    ### The only ones who are destined to "fall off the road into the ditch" are the ones who aren't on God's right hand". :) ~ Janice

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: Janice Matchett

        To: Ted Davis ; asa@lists.calvin.edu

        Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:38 AM

        Subject: Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

        At 09:50 AM 3/3/2006, Ted Davis wrote:

          [snip] "...I offer it as an apology (in the older meaning of that word) for staking out a middle position on ..." [snip]

          Harvard-Bound? Chin Up by David Brooks [snip]

        ## Those who stake out a "middle position" on the highway get no respect and usually do wind up getting run over by those who have the courage of their convictions who are "going somewhere" on the left or the right of them.

        Here's another great article David Brooks wrote over a year ago. He talks about these "people who have the courage of their convictions" on both sides. You may want to post it on the wall, too. [snip]
  Let's deal with what Mr. Brooks just wrote:

    Read Plato's "Gorgias." As Robert George of Princeton observes, "The
    explicit point of the dialogue is to demonstrate the superiority of
    philosophy (the quest for wisdom and truth) to rhetoric (the art of
    persuasion in the cause of victory). At a deeper level, it teaches that
    the worldly honors that one may win by being a good speaker can all too easily
    erode one's devotion to truth -- a devotion that is critical to our
    integrity as persons. So rhetorical skills are dangerous, potentially
    soul-imperiling, gifts." Explains everything you need to know about
    politics and punditry.

  I'll take the ancient Christian via media approach to seeking truth any day over modern extremist rhetoric. Remember Judas betrayed Jesus in part because Jesus did not have enough "courage of his convictions" and thus didn't seek to overthrow the Romans. Justifying extreme partisan rhetoric is not only not Christian but it is not scientific either. A recent Emory University study shows extreme partisans do not exercise the rational part of their brains.

   
Received on Sat Mar 4 15:00:46 2006