Oliver,
I tried to be as brief as I thought I should because it seemed to me that we were just conducting parallel monologues. Your previous post touched upon, (speculative) exegesis and (Christian) theology, a field which has its own specialists, not e.g simply. historians, anthropologists or philosophers. It is true that they can disagree between themselves, often simply because of their different a priori cultural or philosophical backgrounds, denominational domiciles etc., a situation you do not have to that extent with specialist scientists although they can disagree as well.

Normally you accept the expertise of your doctor but in serious cases you can ask for a second opinion, and if they disagree it is up to you whose advise you follow. Where religion is involved you also have to decide whose advise you follow, (and if you go for a charlatan you carry the consequences, the same as in case of medical advise). This is why I said you were entitled to your own interpretations. Also, there is no such clear-cut criterion of who is a real specialist in the field of exegesis (perhaps similar to other humanities fields) as in the case of (natural) science or mathematics.

I am afraid this is all I can say because I do not consider myself a specialist in exegesis. Neither have I the right to call your questions naive for the same reasons. Even in mathematics, where I should have some knowledge, there are questions I would not be able to answer except by suggesting you either accept the authority of some mathematician, or go and study (undergraduate or postgraduate) mathematics from scratch.

And I certainly do not want to patronise you if you consider yourself knowledgeable in these things better than I, although to me you rather seem to be a seeker, if I may thus interpret your reference to an “open system“.

In a certain sense I see myself a seeker as well, although I might have found things you are still looking for, and vice versa. (ctd)

(ctd) “It is understandable that a man may seek but not find; it is understandable that a man may deny; but it is not understandable that a man may find himself under the imposition: you are forbidden to believe.” These are the words of Cardinal Wojtyla (later John Paul II) spoken in 1978, and although he was referring to the Polish political authorities of that time, I think also in our times it is “not understandable“ if a belief system - be it based on theist or atheist premises - is imposed on those adhering to a different system, or those who are just unable to understand (you might say indwell) the rational, cultural, psychological etc determinants that are behind the presuppositions of that system. If it was a priest or preacher who imposed his “system” on you, I can understand your bitterness. Perhaps part of the reason I adhere to my “system” was the imposition of the kind Wojtyla talked about.

Thank you for the interesting quote re Thomas Kuhn, although there indeed must be very few, if any at all, who “attempt to reduce the task of science to the formulation of precise mathematical law.” It was Thomas Kuhn - not theoretical physicists and cosmologists who could not proceed in their research without very “heavy” mathematics - who was generalising to all of science his own observations.

George;
The following might interest you. Use JSTOR via your university’s databases, as most DBs only go back to 2002. Quite a multi-disciplinary Who’s Who.
ISIS: Vol. 52, No. 2, Jun., 1961, article contents:
1.
o Front Matter
2.
o The Conference on the History of Quantification in the Sciences (pp. 133-134)
o Harry Woolf
3.
o Some Aspects of Quantification in Science (pp. 135-142)
o S. S. Wilks
4.
o Quantification in Medieval Physics (pp. 143-160)
o A. C. Crombie
5.
o The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science (pp. 161-193)
o Thomas S. Kuhn
6.
o The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science (pp. 161-193)
o Thomas S. Kuhn
7.
o Quantification in ChemistryQuantification in Chemistry (pp. 194-214)
o Henry Guerlac
8.
o The History of Quantification in Medical Science (pp. 215-237)
o Richard H. Shryock
9.
o The Beginning and Growth of Measurement in Psychology (pp. 238-257)
o Edwin G. Boring
10.
o On the Progress of Quantification in Economics (pp. 258-276)
o Joseph J. Spengler
11.
o Notes on the History of Quantification in Sociology--Trends, Sources and Problems (pp. 277-333)
o Paul F. Lazarsfeld
12.
o Quantification in Biology (pp. 334-352)
o R. W. Gerard
13. Back Matter (pp. 353-354

Dear Sells,

I have wondered why you post and rarely debate the issues you raise? I wonder if you have been posting your sermons. If so, and only if, you should realize the content is the property of the Anglican Church. I have been in the situation where I have had to ask for permission -which must be acknowledged- from OTEN/SBS to use a table I reproduced for a journal. I was the author of the table and on the editorial board of the magazine.

Regarding dogma, I have read that the 39 articles of the Anglican Church were originally 42, herein, there was much infighting among the ministers of the sixteen century. Finally, Elizabeth I (1559?) chose the thirty-nine:

But on what authority? Defender of the Faith? No. That title was given to Henry VIII by The Pope for Henry’s thesis.

Stretching matters, even if one accepts the DoF title belongs to the House of Tutor Dynasty; Elizabeth II belongs to House of Windsor of of the Saxe-Coburg und Gotha & Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld Dynasties.

Moreover, here, with the DoF doggma, there are also serious issues of separation of church and state. What is the basis of the dogma and why is the particalar human, Elizabeth Windsor, the temporal head of a church? Certainly not a god's choice? Or do you believe in the Divine Right of Kings too?

Is it true that a Britian Monarch must swear a Coronation that they do not believe in transsubstantiation? First, the Bible (Mark?) states one should not swear oaths, and, secoundly, the Dogma cuts across hundreds of years of Christian dogma. Surely you are not saying that the illigimate Virgin Queen of England [Mary had better title] can change the dogma of Holy Roman Church, yet Oliver can't change Anglican dogma, in theory? Power separates Elizabeth I and I, not humanity.

Lastly, does the Anglican church still belives in "original sin". That is one powerfully dangerous doctrine. Were I a theist, I would look poorly upon a god whom conceived it. Down boy, bad god! bad god!

George

Differences in Biblical interpreation arise for many reasons and cannot really be compared to scientific disputes. Obviously historical method and some of the tools of literery criticism are used to ascertain, to the extent that it is possible, what the author intended in his/her own context.

We, however, read the Bible for particular reasons that are not usually directly addressed by the authors. We are, after all, separated from the authors by 2000 years in time and a cultural gap that might as well put us on opposite sides of the galaxy. Our reason for reading the Bible will largley determine the hermeneutic framework we adopt so that we find varying feminist interpretations of Firenza, Reuther, Trible on the one hand and the more conservative interpretations of Rahner, Kung, Ratzinger and so on on the other. Gods word is not singular in meaning and indeed we should read it looking for meaning rather than looking for its meaning. In a scientific dispute one or both parties inevitably must be 'wrong'.
This is not the case with Biblical interpretation. You and I might come to quite different conclusions wrt what the Bible 'means'. Hermeneutical framework is every bit as important as exegetical method in arriving at a mature understanding of God's Word.

waterboy,

Whose/Which God and on what basis do you choose? Did Jesus die for the Antecs of the 1300 BC? What is the relation between the Rites of the Jews and animism in in Shogun Japan?

For me Christianity, seems too undifferentiated from the religions of Hebrews, Eygpt, Roman and Greece, and too provincial for centuries.

Cheers.