Comments for Carpe Cakem! http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem A scrapbook of thoughts on arts, culture and the Christian life. Sun, 20 May 2012 11:50:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on Who exactly did Jesus forgive while he hung on the cross? by Van Williams http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/2011/07/06/who-exactly-did-jesus-forgive-while-he-hung-on-the-cross/comment-page-1/#comment-4517 Van Williams Sun, 20 May 2012 11:50:45 +0000 http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/?p=2718#comment-4517 Exactly who Jesus was forgiving from the cross has always puzzled me. As Matthew states in the above post, the easy solution is to say the soldiers who actually nailed him to the cross and be done with it. The language of the text can support such an interpretation: "Luke 23:33-34 When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals-one on his right, the other on his left. 34 Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. NIV They (the soldiers and victims) came to the Skull and they (the soldiers) crucified them (Jesus and the criminals). Then Jesus said Father forgive them (the soldiers) because they (the soldiers) don't know what they are doing. I can see this interpretation and it may be absolutly correct. Jesus may have just been following His own teaching in Matthew 5:14. But somehow it just doesn't satisfy. The occasion is too big (the biggest in the history of the universe) and such a small interpretation seems well too small. But then forgiving everyone there regardless of whether they accept Him or not goes against the clear teaching of the Gospel "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me." So it is still a mystery to me, but I guess I'll accept the small interpretation for now untill a better big explanation comes along. Exactly who Jesus was forgiving from the cross has always puzzled me. As Matthew states in the above post, the easy solution is to say the soldiers who actually nailed him to the cross and be done with it. The language of the text can support such an interpretation: “Luke 23:33-34
When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals-one on his right, the other on his left. 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
NIV
They (the soldiers and victims) came to the Skull and they (the soldiers) crucified them (Jesus and the criminals). Then Jesus said Father forgive them (the soldiers) because they (the soldiers) don’t know what they are doing. I can see this interpretation and it may be absolutly correct. Jesus may have just been following His own teaching in Matthew 5:14. But somehow it just doesn’t satisfy.
The occasion is too big (the biggest in the history of the universe) and such a small interpretation seems well too small. But then forgiving everyone there regardless of whether they accept Him or not goes against the clear teaching of the Gospel “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me.” So it is still a mystery to me, but I guess I’ll accept the small interpretation for now untill a better big explanation comes along.

]]> Comment on What happened to the Thomistic method? by Matthew http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/2012/03/22/what-happened-to-the-thomistic-method/comment-page-1/#comment-4371 Matthew Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:58:18 +0000 http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/?p=3460#comment-4371 Ah, yes. Apathy is always #1 eh? To be completely honest, until just a very few years ago, I could not have told you the difference between Aquinas, Augustine, and Anselm. Ah, yes. Apathy is always #1 eh?

To be completely honest, until just a very few years ago, I could not have told you the difference between Aquinas, Augustine, and Anselm.

]]> Comment on What happened to the Thomistic method? by L. E. http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/2012/03/22/what-happened-to-the-thomistic-method/comment-page-1/#comment-4370 L. E. Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:49:21 +0000 http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/?p=3460#comment-4370 Thomas is probably gaining some ground, but it's hard to say how widespread the trend is. Among the general Christian population, Aquinas also suffers from a general lack of interest in church history and historical theology. Apathy is more common than hostility. Thomas is probably gaining some ground, but it’s hard to say how widespread the trend is.

Among the general Christian population, Aquinas also suffers from a general lack of interest in church history and historical theology. Apathy is more common than hostility.

]]> Comment on What happened to the Thomistic method? by Matthew http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/2012/03/22/what-happened-to-the-thomistic-method/comment-page-1/#comment-4344 Matthew Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:28:51 +0000 http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/?p=3460#comment-4344 Greetings L.E.! I was curious if a topic near to your heart might bring you out of the woodwork. :) It seems to me that in our age, Rhetoric has trumped everything. Making your opponent appear to be an idiot or a slimeball through any method possible seems to be the dominant form of discourse. It even shows up in thinly veiled fashion amongst contemporary theologians. Winning points for "our team" is paramount. Even people that, given enough time, wish to fairly represent the other's views are forced to cut their talk short to fit the medium. I'm not sure how this can improve. How does one instill a desire for more than insults? I've heard that Luther in particular really didn't like Aquanas and that sentiment has had some real staying power amongst the Reformed. I've also heard that very recently, in the just the last 10-20 years there has been a lot of renewed interest in Thomas among protestants. At least he's possibly no longer one of the bad guys. What do you think? Is that what you got in your recent seminary experience? Greetings L.E.! I was curious if a topic near to your heart might bring you out of the woodwork. :)

It seems to me that in our age, Rhetoric has trumped everything. Making your opponent appear to be an idiot or a slimeball through any method possible seems to be the dominant form of discourse. It even shows up in thinly veiled fashion amongst contemporary theologians. Winning points for “our team” is paramount. Even people that, given enough time, wish to fairly represent the other’s views are forced to cut their talk short to fit the medium. I’m not sure how this can improve. How does one instill a desire for more than insults?

I’ve heard that Luther in particular really didn’t like Aquanas and that sentiment has had some real staying power amongst the Reformed. I’ve also heard that very recently, in the just the last 10-20 years there has been a lot of renewed interest in Thomas among protestants. At least he’s possibly no longer one of the bad guys. What do you think? Is that what you got in your recent seminary experience?

]]> Comment on Units of art: Against anthologies by Matthew http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/2012/03/22/units-of-art-against-anthologies/comment-page-1/#comment-4342 Matthew Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:16:31 +0000 http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/?p=3452#comment-4342 Yes, I'm OK with springboards. The title of my post is pretty overblown. Some of my favorite artists and albums I first heard on compilation discs. The same is true, to a lesser degree with some authors. Yes, I’m OK with springboards. The title of my post is pretty overblown. Some of my favorite artists and albums I first heard on compilation discs. The same is true, to a lesser degree with some authors.

]]> Comment on What happened to the Thomistic method? by L. E. http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/2012/03/22/what-happened-to-the-thomistic-method/comment-page-1/#comment-4341 L. E. Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:07:40 +0000 http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/?p=3460#comment-4341 I'm a fan on the Thomistic method, and I generally appreciate Kreeft as well. Aquinas had a beautiful way of stating his opponents' best arguments first, and doing so with refreshing honesty and clarity. In some cases I think he states the contrary view better than they do. Not a straw man in sight. I don't pretend to solve Peter Kreeft's “mystery" of the current state of discourse, but here's my 1.5 cents worth: A) We live in an era of spin and sound bite debate: Don't even acknowledge the opposing view, or if you do, distort it terribly. Aquina's method may be forgotten, or it may be that it is simply undesired. Why would you want to be fair and complete and methodical, when you can simply be insulting? B) The Renaissance (and Enlightenment) snubbed their noses at scholasticism (the method of leaning, thought to be so outdated and medieval. Can you hear the derision in the word "medieval"?) Aquinas was lumped in with Duns Scotus and the others. C) Aquinas generally isn’t well appreciated in Protestant circles. As a Doctor of the Church, he was held in very high esteem at the time of the Reformation, so he was quoted and referenced by the Catholics. Aquinas was 300 years before the Reformation, nevertheless he was associated with Catholicism and viewed suspiciously by Protestants. Thus, he’s unnecessarily ignored in many Christian circles. If you want to quote Aquinas, you'll get a better reception if you don't say it's Aquinas. Just say, "As one Christian philosopher said..." I’m a fan on the Thomistic method, and I generally appreciate Kreeft as well. Aquinas had a beautiful way of stating his opponents’ best arguments first, and doing so with refreshing honesty and clarity. In some cases I think he states the contrary view better than they do. Not a straw man in sight.

I don’t pretend to solve Peter Kreeft’s “mystery” of the current state of discourse, but here’s my 1.5 cents worth:

A) We live in an era of spin and sound bite debate: Don’t even acknowledge the opposing view, or if you do, distort it terribly. Aquina’s method may be forgotten, or it may be that it is simply undesired. Why would you want to be fair and complete and methodical, when you can simply be insulting?

B) The Renaissance (and Enlightenment) snubbed their noses at scholasticism (the method of leaning, thought to be so outdated and medieval. Can you hear the derision in the word “medieval”?) Aquinas was lumped in with Duns Scotus and the others.

C) Aquinas generally isn’t well appreciated in Protestant circles. As a Doctor of the Church, he was held in very high esteem at the time of the Reformation, so he was quoted and referenced by the Catholics. Aquinas was 300 years before the Reformation, nevertheless he was associated with Catholicism and viewed suspiciously by Protestants. Thus, he’s unnecessarily ignored in many Christian circles. If you want to quote Aquinas, you’ll get a better reception if you don’t say it’s Aquinas. Just say, “As one Christian philosopher said…”

]]> Comment on Units of art: Against anthologies by Erin J. http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/2012/03/22/units-of-art-against-anthologies/comment-page-1/#comment-4321 Erin J. Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:07:52 +0000 http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/?p=3452#comment-4321 Can't say I agree with you, as I tend to find satisfaction in both larger works and smaller "best of" collections. Without the anthologies, my taste would not be whetted for the whole thing. I think the place where I agree with you on this is that we should not take an abridgment as an accurate representation of the original, but merely use it as a springboard or a gateway drug to the real thing. Can’t say I agree with you, as I tend to find satisfaction in both larger works and smaller “best of” collections. Without the anthologies, my taste would not be whetted for the whole thing. I think the place where I agree with you on this is that we should not take an abridgment as an accurate representation of the original, but merely use it as a springboard or a gateway drug to the real thing.

]]> Comment on Waiting in the pediatric surgery wing by Matthew http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/2012/03/06/waiting-in-the-pediatric-surgery-wing/comment-page-1/#comment-4234 Matthew Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:05:59 +0000 http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/?p=3413#comment-4234 Sacred Heart, Spokane Washington. We were treated very well there. Sacred Heart, Spokane Washington. We were treated very well there.

]]> Comment on Waiting in the pediatric surgery wing by kolkata pediatric surgury http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/2012/03/06/waiting-in-the-pediatric-surgery-wing/comment-page-1/#comment-4233 kolkata pediatric surgury Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:49:40 +0000 http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/?p=3413#comment-4233 Nice writing but which pediatric hospital are you talking about? Nice writing but which pediatric hospital are you talking about?

]]> Comment on Waiting in the pediatric surgery wing by Matthew http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/2012/03/06/waiting-in-the-pediatric-surgery-wing/comment-page-1/#comment-4151 Matthew Wed, 07 Mar 2012 06:02:03 +0000 http://moscowcoffeereview.com/carpecakem/?p=3413#comment-4151 Thanks Demet. Thanks Demet.

]]>