Into the Wardrobe

Sorry, Rus,

I'll answer the rest of your post too (and Gameld's), but probably not till Sunday. Right now I'm off to see The Dark Knight--woot!--and by the time that's over, and I get some real work done, it'll be the Sabbath...and I try to at least limit my computer time after candlelighting

Shabbat shalom,

Rose

Good Sabbath Rose.

- Dan -

Hi JR!
The serious posts always require more brain power from my low-watt unit and so, take more time… :)

Trying to directly tackle your concern about good religious people – good actions, etc. I would say that it seems to me that you are operating within a dichotomy that has as its base the individual’s understanding of faith, rather than the faith itself – that you only see faith as something that individuals understand and interpret on their own – that a faith does not exist independently of individual worshipers. Is this the case? Because I see the Orthodox Faith as standing independently regardless of which way people go with it – people who submit themselves at all times (or at least as often as they can) in humility will produce what you think of as “good religious people”; people who decide for themselves without asking what the Church teaches, who, because of their faith in individualism refuse to submit to something that is also collective and demands submission in communion, and so come up with their own teachings based on their own interpretations will be “the bad religious people”.

From that standpoint, the bad thing is the insistence on one’s own interpretation, which is awfully close to the idea that my reason is the highest authority available for determining what faith is, which is opposed to the idea of submitting myself to a higher authority.

So it seems that I largely agree with you, except where you may differ from me on the question of submission.

I’m afraid there’s not a lot I can say to your second post, except to say that it is a personal statement of faith which I hold to be not the Truth. There is a lot of truth in your beliefs, though. The idea of common morals, and of all people being in need of improvement (although not the idea that all faiths need ‘improvement’ – if they are untrue they need to change to conform to the Truth). It is also true that we, as individuals, do not have all the truth. Indeed, the truth is not in us at all.

The image of Christ is the image of God, so yes; we all need to be made over into His image. I do agree completely that the individual is incapable of determining what that image is on his own. Without the revelation and guidance of something bigger, longer-lived and wiser than any one person, we cannot hope to find Truth – in the end, it must be revealed to us.

On each point we must admit that someone is right and someone is wrong. This is the trouble with pluralism – it tries to nod its head amiably at mutually exclusive propositions. It means peace at the price of truth. (Matt 10:34) That what you believe must not really matter, that the words and ideas are not worth fighting over, let alone dying for. (What would the martyrs, the greatest saints, say to that?)

On politics vs religion – my question which one is the ultimate determiner of the other? To me it is self-evident that politics must proceed from one’s ultimate philosophy or faith – if you don’t agree, I don’t see how we can discuss it. My point is that many people do use their political ideas to determine what they believe, rather than proceeding from what their faith teaches them, and this is putting the cart before the horse.

On your point in your other post about individualism, I largely agree – but the enormous error of the West is in placing the headship on individualism. The danger of putting the individual first, from the Christian standpoint, is pride. What I want, what I think, what I believe.