Live the Trinity - Latest Comments

Re: Idea for the social-political blog name

biglsusportsfan — Thu, 10 May 2012 17:09:34 -0000

I chase Squirrels sounds fun !!

Re: Good and bad states for business and the significance of regional bigotry

Rick — Sun, 06 May 2012 23:39:30 -0000

Hey thanks for reading and leaving a comment. I'm inclined to agree. So does that challenge the idea - that some made - that businesses requiring high/specialized skills will *only* locate in areas with lots of people fitting that profile? And yes if I was offered a killer job back in the northeast - it would be hard to turn down. Although the location *would* go in the "minuses" column when it came to deciding whether or not to take it and move.

Re: Good and bad states for business and the significance of regional bigotry

Arizona Printing — Thu, 03 May 2012 21:05:45 -0000

Meh, at the end of the day, a job is a job. If it so happens that a company in Arizona is offering amazing services, then that's where the jobs will flock to. If a company in New York offers even better services, then you'll see jobs shift that way too. There's no magic formula

Re: Education reform in Louisiana (or) Ruining a system in order to save it

Lsmith — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:30:29 -0000

I agree with you 100 %. I am about to send a letter to my local paper. I am a retired teacher/administrator. I would not mind my evaluation being tied to student performance if the district could guarantee me the following conditions: Students would come to class ready to learn every day; students would pay attention when I am teaching and I don't have to constantly stop to tell them to get back on task; students would come to class daily and not be absent one or two days every week; parents would re-enforce the skills that I teach by helping their children with home work and not complain that they have too much homework; parents would become involved in their children's education from August -June and not just in May when they realize that the child is going to fail the class; students would be grouped heterogeneously with not all student with low ability placed in my class. Now if I can be assured of these conditions, I would not mind being evaluated on the success of my students on standardized tests, etc.
Thanks

Re: Fleming Rutledge, “The Invisible Lord in Lord of the Rings”

Rick Wright — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:19:55 -0000

Yeah, and part of me wonders if I'm really up to it. I'm effectively working until about 9:00 most days. Parish ministry, teaching a class at LSU, teenage daughters, working on an article. But then I don't have to post something every day right?

Re: Fleming Rutledge, “The Invisible Lord in Lord of the Rings”

Rick Wright — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:17:33 -0000

"You" = Fleming Rutledge. These are notes from her lecture.

I would say we then need to try to understand what she meant by that. If you had said something during the Q and A afterward, how do you think she might have replied?

Re: Fleming Rutledge, “The Invisible Lord in Lord of the Rings”

biglsusportsfan — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:00:57 -0000

YOU LIVE - WOW!! Every Day when I go to Anglican Curmudgeon and note on the side bar if you updated. About fell over when I say you did

Re: Fleming Rutledge, “The Invisible Lord in Lord of the Rings”

Rey Jacobs — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:20:43 -0000

"- Augustine vs Pelagius (3rd-4th c AD)

- we only know Pelagius through Augustine

- Pelagius = freedom of human will

- Augustine = bondage of human will

- there is no doctrine of free will in Christian tradition!"

You just got through saying Pelagius taught free will then you say there is no doctrine of free will in Christian tradition. But Pelagius is in Christian tradition, and free will was accepted by the Radical Reformers (anabaptists) as well as by Erasmus. Not to mention the Greek fathers all taught free will prior to Augustine.

Re: Recent poor attempt to address(?) same-sex relations and Christian tradition

Jack G Stacey — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:53:00 -0000

Having recently read Dudley's article, I wondered if there were any thoughtful responses on the internet. So I did some searching, and this is the best I found. It's not a good response.

You accuse Dudley of not having a thesis when his thesis is quite clear: "my childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards."
He then provides four specific arguments to support that thesis.

You accuse Dudley of simplistic proof texting by showing how the only evidence we have of Paul's theology of nature is one that's completely at odds with modern Christian thought, and chalk this up to his assumed ignorance of supposedly great scholars like Robert Gagnon, neglecting to mention that even Gagnon acknowledges the 1 Cor. reference poses a problem for appropriating Pauls theology of "nature" in romans 1.

You accuse Dudley of manipulating the Bible to support gay marriage when he doesn't argue in favor of gay marriage at all (re-read his thesis).

And, most laughably of all, you reference a random blog post by an undergraduate student at Louisiana Tech, who makes a claim with no evidence to support it, to undermine a conclusion that's not at all controversial to those familiar with the relevant scholarship (i.e. Jovinian's views on the equality of marriage and family were indeed considered heresy, even if those weren't his only heretical views).

Your post adequately demonstrate why mainstream America is growing increasingly tired of Christians. Like most evangelicals, you are more interested in defending your party line than you are in serious conversation.

That you accuse Dudley of being a bad writer when your blog post reads like a 10th grader's stream-of-consciousness journal assignment reveals the true reason for this blog post, which is not to engage in serious dialogue but simply to smear a person (who has much more academic credibility than you do) who challenges your comfortable beliefs. I want the last 10 minutes of my life back.

Re: Recent poor attempt to address(?) same-sex relations and Christian tradition

Timothy Rogers — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:07:57 -0000

FYI: Dudley's position on Jovinian is indeed that taken by Dale Martin. I know because I read the book by Dale that Dudley alluded to. Here's a direct quote after Dale summarizes the Jovinian episode: "It is highly ironic that modern promoters of modern Christian 'family values' and the centrality of marriage and family for Christianity portray themselves as the supporters of Christian tradition. In fact, they would be considered heretics by the 'orthodox' church fathers."

Of course, that doesn't mean Dale's argument is uncontroversial. I don't mean to say that there aren't scholars who would disagree, and you're completely right that we could play the "you have your scholars I have mine" game, but I still don't think it's fair to accuse Dudley of bad scholarship based on the word of a random blogger (I don't know the blogger's credentials, but he appears to be an undergraduate student at Louisiana Tech) versus a conclusion supported by the former chair of the religious studies department at Yale.

Re: Recent poor attempt to address(?) same-sex relations and Christian tradition

Rick Wright — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:43:31 -0000

@Jason and @Timothy Rogers - Thanks for taking the time to comment.

(Update 2011/06/23 - Based on their email addresses looks like Jason and Timothy are the same individual. Which is fine.)

@Jason C Person1 - If large numbers of people and media outlets pick up the story then it's fair game. I'm aware it's a simplified op-ed and even bring this up in my post do I not? Even so we can look at (1) his logic/argumentation (2) what evidence he provides and (3) even consider what his goals/intent are. "He said on CNN" is nice (I watched some of it and give him credit for a couple points he made) but one might ask why he chose not to include those points in an article that some have chosen to promote so widely. You can reduce the issue to "did he say anything untrue" but one can make a "true" statement that (4) avoids delving more deeply into the issue and (5) leaves out historical/literary *context* that calls into question the relevance, value, and even truthfulness of said "true" statement. You can misrepresent something and convey false impressions using only "true" images and statements.

@Timothy Rogers - I'm not sure how to respond to bold sweeping assertions. Are you suggesting there are no scholars that would challenge the way he presents these issues? Are evangelical/traditional Protestant or Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian scholars in such short supply or do they not count? I have been to many academic conferences and know something about the range and diversity of opinions one can find among mainstream scholars. Read his piece carefully and it's not clear Dudley was citing Martin regarding Jovian rather than "family values/heresy". Moreover Opinionated Catholic has already cited other scholars that would challenge Dudley regarding Jovian and Augustine. You have your tenured professors and I have mine. Who is right? That's the problem with playing the credentials/authority card. So yes I question the quality of his scholarship. It's simplistic, it's reductionistic, it does not deal with broader context and the larger picture. I note it's possible that somewhere along the line he deals with all this. But see my response to Jason. We deal with what we have that the mainstream media has picked up and is promoting.

I touched a nerve by pushing back on his playing the "white male heterosexual" card. I don't see the relevance of the point or of your effort to defend his making it. When church *leaders* who are neither white nor male speak to these issues does that make a difference? I have visited with Christian leaders in other countries and most of my congregants are neither white nor American. And how does that address my point about "interest"?

You accuse me of going after the writer not his work. Nonsense. I critiqued the work and made a few points along the way about what the work appears to reveal about the writer. Not to mention I try to cut him some slack and even defend him in a few places. And give him credit for a couple points and compliment him for his medical work. Dear reader - did you read my post as carefully as you expect me to read his?

Egregious insult because 12,000 people like his article? Oh dear. Sir - that is genuinely funny. I am sorry but your effort to attack me for critiquing Dudley's *article* is weak, flawed, unpersuasive.

I can understand if people are annoyed that I would challenge/critique a voice that expresses views some support. But even if we agree with his positions/conclusions (insofar as one can identify them) it is a flawed piece that will persuade only the converted. No doubt that is why those deeply committed Christians in the mainstream media are trying to get so much mileage out of a blog post.

Re: Recent poor attempt to address(?) same-sex relations and Christian tradition

Jonathan — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:31:26 -0000

I commented too soon... "This raises the issue of why are progressives/liberals promoting this young man’s work when it does not hold up well to scrutiny? The question almost answers itself. “Look! A Christian and Bible scholar who agrees with us!” One is reminded of 1 Kings 22."

As a conservative who has long ago grown tired of conservative scholars doing essentially the same thing from the other end of the spectrum, I find it refreshing to see such accountability.

Re: Recent poor attempt to address(?) same-sex relations and Christian tradition

Jonathan — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:22:51 -0000

Very thorough analysis of Dudley's article. Rather than contribute meaningfully to the excellent discussion here, I had to clean the coffee off of my monitor upon reading,

“I wrote a 50 page paper refuting 12 books on the subject. But I’ve got
an anatomy exam next week and this article can’t be more than 500 words
so this’ll have to do”

Richard Wright off the top rope...

Sorry :), now back to more enlightened commentary...

Re: Recent poor attempt to address(?) same-sex relations and Christian tradition

Timothy Rogers — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:26:08 -0000

You do realize that when he says "white heterosexual men" he's talking about evangelical LEADERS in the community he's writing about, not all Christians. You should realize this because he explicitly states as much. And he's absolutely right. Scroll through the list of the leaders of a place like "the gospel coalition" or the professor of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary or the leadership of any of the communities most firmly identified with the religious right and tell me that most of them are not white, heterosexual men.

The fact that you say he's a bad writer reveals your true motivations; to cut down the writer, not to offer a serious analysis. It's an egregious insult that's obviously wrong, given that 12,000 people have already "liked" his article within just 2 days.

Re: Recent poor attempt to address(?) same-sex relations and Christian tradition

Timothy Rogers — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:12:40 -0000

Every single position he argues for is widely held by mainstream biblical scholars, including that on Jovinian (which, as he indicates in the article, comes straight from the work of a tenured professor of New Testament at Yale), so it's preposterous to accuse him of bad scholarship.

Re: Recent poor attempt to address(?) same-sex relations and Christian tradition

Jason C Person1 — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 02:35:57 -0000

"Dare we ask about the very human perspectives of the leaders of progressive-liberal Christianity? Do they never attribute those to God? Do they never engage in charade? Are they always honest with themselves and others? Are they always defending the Bible’s values? Do they never use the Bible to defend their own?"

FYI: He said very bluntly on CNN today that liberals do the same thing.

I don't think this type of analysis is all that fair, considering that it's an op-ed written for a VERY general audience that necessarily requires simplification. And I don't think he said anything untrue, even if you might not agree with his interpretations of the facts.

Re: Recent poor attempt to address(?) same-sex relations and Christian tradition

biglsusportsfan — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:25:46 -0000

Great piece. I linked it and talked about the guys piece too today. Great to see you bloggin on a more regular basis again

Re: The plot(?) to destroy Toyota

New Cars — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:08:39 -0000

Yeah you are rite

Re: The plot(?) to destroy Toyota

redsnow 0.9.6rc15 — Fri, 06 May 2011 12:24:04 -0000

toyota is ever lasting , it can't be destroyed easily

Re: The plot(?) to destroy Toyota

Rick Wright — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:55:47 -0000

Thanks for leaving a comment and I agree entirely.

Oddly enough I've been informed that my 1998 Corolla with 117k miles has three leaks and an important mechanical part is beginning to fail and therefore my car needs a new engine. Argh! This is the *second* Toyota we have owned that has died young because of engine problems.

I still support Toyota and stand by everything I wrote - but my next car won't be a Toyota.

Re: The plot(?) to destroy Toyota

Cristal Mcmeans — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:28:09 -0000

The "Trade in your Toyota" deals are just plain underhand tactics, in my opinion. I mean, that's just so wrong. Usually, you make a promo like that not to get sales, rather, to demerit another product. I still trust Toyota's strict quality control. Just look at their presentation right now - they look like as if they don't care how much money they'll lose just to recall these cars. Well, no matter how much destabilization they plan to bring Toyota down, I'm pretty sure Toyota will be back on their feet in no time. After all, we're talking about Toyota here. Kaizen-way of thinking, Kanban labeling system, and the Lean manufacturing system - Production standards that's being applied through different companies across the World; all made by Toyota!

Re: The psychology of evil and the confluence of sin and death, part II

Rick Wright — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:32:59 -0000

I don't entirely understand the last sentence/question but think I do enough to reply.

I just finished teaching Exodus over 3 months for the Wednesday evening group using Fretheim's Interpretation commentary as prime resource. His discussion of "covenant theology" is interesting and unusual. In a nutshell when God says "if you sin the result will be x" (where x is something bad and unpleasant) that does not necessarily mean God is threatening to cause x as punishment for sin. Rather Fretheim argues this means the sinners remove themselves from God's "sphere" of life and blessing and x will be the natural consequences of sin.

"If you drink and drive you will die" doesn't mean someone will arrest you and shoot you dead. This is important partly because it means "covenant theology" what some call "Deuteronomistic theology" is not *really* about coercion. I plan to write a post about this at some point.

I can understand someone thinking "how on earth does Fretheim come up with that approach?" my lame but accurate response is this is a very short version of a very long developed discussion that works its way through much of that commentary. Fretheim considers carefully both the legal material and narrative material and tries to unpack the underlying causal logic underlying them.

Now - assuming I understand your question re Job 1-2 - that's partly the point of my earlier post. Most of the Hebrew Bible assumes that good and evil come from God. At the very least evil does not come from evil/harmful deities. But then Job 1-2 (as a whole) seem to suggest Job's misfortune is not because God *directly causes* but rather because God *permits* this Satan in his heavenly court (works for God?) to do these things. "Very well he is in your power only spare his life" (2:6).

The problem - which you may be getting at in your question - is how on earth has Job sinned? The story claims quite plainly that Job is righteous and does not sin (at least with his lips?). My response right now would be:

1) This is a work in progress and have not yet taken into account Job 1-2 and

2) Scholars are still debating Job. The last SBL meeting I attended had several papers on Job and whether he *has* sinned or is really righteous and just what on earth is going on between Job 3 and 41 and what *does* Job learn by 42?

3) Job is also a work of wisdom literature - which means it is also part of a larger ongoing discussion (wisdom Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) in which there is not one completely unified voice. Job looks at traditional covenant theology (see how I neatly contradict myself?) and says "oh yeah? what about this? here!" If Fretheim is right about Exodus and "covenant theology" then it is possible Job is not attacking so much as clarifying(?) the loose causal logic underlying covenant theology.

4) See #1.

Re: The psychology of evil and the confluence of sin and death, part II

Jonathan — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:05:45 -0000

Interesting topic...and one that comes up frequently in small groups that I attend. Concerning How do you address Job 1:20-22; 2:9-10? Does it fit in the discussion of sin, what sin leads to and God's role in the process?

Re: A few rejoinders to recent On Faith articles on sex and marriage in the Bible

Rick Wright — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:29:54 -0000

Well yes.

But I will still call the president of the United States "Mr President" or "President Obama" no matter how awful I think he is. Similarly I will still call Professor Knust precisely that no matter how much I think she has forfeited the credibility of her title.

Re: A few rejoinders to recent On Faith articles on sex and marriage in the Bible

Rick Wright — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:27:05 -0000

Jo - I chose to delete your comments for 2 reasons:

1) I didn't see the purpose of your long comment given that it just agreed with me and yet did not actually address anything I wrote. Until I saw the 2nd comment which:

2) You posted a link to your site which was basically an advertisement for people to come and get free literature.

Comments are fine. But the purpose of my website is not an advertising platform or a means to disseminate/reproduce content on someone else's site.