State vs. Church: What Christians Can Do to Save Canada from Liberal Tyanny.
(www.christiangovernment.ca)
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves
State vs. Church: What Christians Can Do to Save Canada from Liberal Tyanny.
(www.christiangovernment.ca)
1) S. Jetchick (2008-Jan-24)
2) T. Bloedow (2008-Jan-24)
3) S. Jetchick (2008-Jan-28)
4) T. Bloedow (2008-Jan-29)
5) S. Jetchick (2008-Feb-06)
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:10 PM To: timothy (add "at" sign) christiangovernment.ca Subject: Closest thing to publicity and endorsement for your book Good day Mr. Timothy Bloedow, As promised, I'm now going to review Chapter 5 of your book titled State vs. Church: What Christians Can Do to Save Canada from Liberal Tyanny. Chapter 5 is called: "The State Has No Business in the Boardrooms of the Nation", and is available as a free e-book. First, some disclaimers. (1) I haven't read the whole book. (2) I publicly excoriate leaders of my own Church, so don't be surprized if I don't agree with everything you say! (3) For readers of this review, Mr. Bloedow and I are both affiliated to the Christian Heritage Party of Canada. (4) I use the good, old-fashioned Christian technique of distinguishing between what I agree with (green), what I disagree with (red) and what is in between (yellow). In the old days, they didn't have traffic lights, so they used three Latin words to mean the same thing: Concedo, Nego, Distinguo. OK, here we go. [Distinguo] "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" (p. 3) This is partially true, and partially false. The explanation is given here: The EYE Was In The Bedroom And It Stared At Trudeau [Nego] "the church should not interfere in the affairs of the state, and that the state should not interfere in the affairs of the church" (p. 3) If taken literally, this would mean the church of Satan could perform human sacrifices, and the police could not interfere, as long as these ceremonies occured inside a church. It would also mean that God-given moral principles would not have any moral authority inside Parliament. [Concedo] "Those who scream, "Separation of church and state," however, are invariably only interested in one side of this coin - keeping the church out of what they claim to be the legitimate affairs of the state" (p. 3) Amen! [Distinguo] "without a broad-based commitment to self-government, a society cannot survive" (p. 3) Of course, much will depend on the definition you give to "self-government". I'm not sure, but you might mean what many political thinkers call: The Principle of Subsidiarity. [Distinguo] "It is fundamentally impossible to impose sufficient external constraints on people who do not already feel constrained to civil behaviour by internal compulsion." (p. 3) There are many ways to interpret this statement such that I'll agree with it. Basically, you have to want to live in a country, want to love your neighbor, want to contribute to society. The carrot and the stick can only go so far. (But of course, we can and should jail dangerous criminals.) [Concedo] "The state does not have the authority to define marriage, but it does have a legitimate and necessary role in affirming and supporting the institution of marriage as defined by God, and revealed to us in the Bible[, oops! Something missing here!]." (p. 4) Amen! The only problem with that sentence is the part missing at the end, but this is a L-O-N-G debate I constantly have with members of the CHP. To be correct, you have to add: "... and revealed to us in the Bible, but also knowable by right reason." If you don't add that, you set yourself up for horrible problems. Allow me to quote myself: If these Biblical principles were only knowable by Faith, then in fact, we'd really have a "theocracy". Citizens who would not have Faith would need to be excluded, since they couldn't know the fundamental principles of good government. We could tolerate them (while waiting for them to accept Jesus as their personal saviour), but not let them participate in the government of the land. [Does The CHP Want To Establish A Theocracy? Section 7] [Distinguo] "This is the biblical deference to decentralization and localism that flows from a recognition of the need for the division of authority and diffusion of power." (p. 6) Yes, but remember the Principle of Subsidiarity must be balanced with the Principle of Solidarity, which is also taught in the Bible (and by right reason!). [Distinguo] "The modern philosophy of imprisonment implies that crimes are offences against the state, rather than against particular victims" (p. 7) I'd be quite willing to admit we currently depend too much on imprisonment to solve all our judicial problems. I haven't given that topic much thought, though. I have nothing against a National criminal code (actually, I have nothing against an International criminal code too, which I assume you'd be against). [Concedo] "Since the homosexual political movement has become the vanguard of the Secular Humanist agenda - the forefront of the modern campaign to impose a police state on Canada" (p. 8) That is a big statement, which requires an enormous amount of data to back it up solidly. As I've said, I haven't read your whole book. But offhand, I'd tend to agree with that statement. [Concedo] "The British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) inquisition against this Christian teacher" (p. 12) Of course I won't be miffed if you refuse my point of view on good and joyful inquisitions! ;-) [Distinguo] "The threat, however, is not fundamentally from homosexuality but, rather, from the further encroachment of the civil government into what should be treated as the private sphere of the family" (p. 14) I think you're being too nice here. The civil government can do harm by violating the Principle of Subsidiarity (what you might call "Christian-worldview-based self-government"). But the government can also cause harm by violating Natural Law even if it does respect the Principle of Subsidiarity! Small example: a State policeman who kicks down your door to check whether you've changed your cat's litter is violating the Principle of Subsidiarity. A State policeman who has a valid Warrant, and who kicks down someone's door to search for a large stash of cocaine in their house is not violating that Principle. Now, if a State policeman does have a valid Warrant, does find a large stash of cocaine, but then grabs it and runs away in order to sell drugs and make cash, he's violating Natural Law, even though he was not violating the Principle of Subsidiarity in kicking down that door. [Concedo] "A culture of intact families would not require - or tolerate - this kind of fascistic interference in the nation's family life. [...] No doubt, Christians didn't put up the kind of fight they should have at the time. So we reap what we sow. It will be a long, uphill battle for Christians" (p. 14) I totally agree, unfortunately... [Concedo] "[...] this historic transition - from the family as an autonomous institution focused on the bearing and rearing of children to the «new family», socialist in form, understood as an ever-changing network of relationships dependent on the state." (p. 17) Amen to many, many paragraphs in that section. [Concedo] "[...] a free society needs a culture that supports and sustains marriage as the normative institution for the begetting, bearing and rearing of children. A culture full of people who violate their contracts at every possible opportunity can not be held together by legal institutions" (p. 21) AMEN! [Nego] "Is coercively extracted taxation to redistribute income to the poor a biblically sanctioned means for helping the poor? A thorough debate on this point will have to wait for another time, but frankly, the answer is no." (p. 27) While I agree with most of what you say about socialism, welfare states, etc., I'd have to take you to task on this one. But of course, we'd have to start by listing everything we agree on. For example, I certainly don't advocate that hard-working, frugal families should be forced to pay for the life of pleasure and waste of lazy bums! [Distinguo] "An unsupervised child squeezes through the bars of a high- rise apartment's balcony and falls to her death. The next thing you know, the civil government is requiring all apartment building owners to replace open-style balcony enclosures with solid panels" (p. 28) I agree with you the government in Canada these days often exaggerates with regulations, but the above example is not exactly what I'd select as a "war-horse" if I were going to attack excessive regulation! This looks more like a case where a good law needs to be adapted. For example, all apartment building owners can be told they must warn in writing all tenants, if their balcony enclosures are non-conformant, and if they ask, the owner must provide a safe solution. So tenants with no children (like me!) can just say: "OK, thanks" and chuck the warning in the recycle bin. And clever apartment building owners can solve the problem at a low cost. (Seriously, my Mom once gave me the task to fix an old baby crib that was non-conformant, since the bars were spaced too far apart. I dismantled it, drilled some holes and added extra wooden bars. Presto! Problem solved! All of my nephews and nieces are still alive, even though they probably all did spend some time in that old crib, at my Mom's summer cottage.) [Concedo] "The social welfare state has also ripped the heart out of motherhood." (p. 28) Everytime I walk past that lavishly-funded State day care center on my way to daily Mass, and see mothers abandoning their kids for the day, I can't help think something is deadly wrong. [Concedo] "What we need to be doing, then, is taking up the challenge ourselves for the family and the church to take back the territory stolen from us by Canada's Secular Humanist civil government. That is really what we are doing when we tell the government to keep its hands off the definition of marriage. But we need to do this intentionally and comprehensively. We need to see this skirmish, as important as it is, over the definition of marriage as but one part of a bigger picture; and we have to become committed to this bigger picture, committing ourselves to reinvigorating Canadian society comprehensively with the liberty ethic of Christianity, including an abiding commitment to a Christian- based sphere sovereignty. Men need to be men again, and women need to be women. Men need to be husbands and fathers and women need to be wives and mothers. And we need to draw our line in the sand - a line well beyond where we are now - as we fight this war against the intrusion of the androgynous and sterile civil magistrate of Secular Humanism." (p. 31) Amen! Amen! Amen! In Christ, Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: T Bloedow Sent: 24 janvier 2008 23:35 To: 'Stefan Jetchick' Subject: RE: Closest thing to publicity and endorsement for your book Thanks Stefan. Good interaction with my text. I hope you buy the book soon. Not sure what you have in mind for any response. I'm limited in time for that sort of thing, so wouldn't be up to an on-going back- and-forth. I'll respond here to a couple of your points. You challenge this statement: [Nego] "the church should not interfere in the affairs of the state, and that the state should not interfere in the affairs of the church" Your first rebut assumes that by church, I mean a building. That is not the case. Your second rebut confuses state with politics and church with religion - a distinction that is key to the case I make through the book and something I deal with in chapter 1. In response to this comment of mine - "without a broad-based commitment to self-government, a society cannot survive" - you introduce the point of subsidiarity. I prefer what I think is a more accurate model typically called "sphere sovereignty" and I discuss that in my book too. Basically, the forms of government that exist were ordained by God - they are self-, family, church and civil gov't. They each have their own legitimate spheres of authority or jurisdiction in this world which they should remain within, and society will only function well and justly if they do so. Self-government essentially refers to whatever makes up good character: the fruit of the spirit (Galatians chapter 5), self- control, restraint, personal responsibility, charity, etc. You wanted me to add "knowable by right reason." to the Bible as our source of knowledge. There have been the 2 streams of thought throughout the history of the church. Your position is the dominant one today and would be consistent with Thomist thought. My view would follow the Augustinian tradition where right faith - Christian faith - is seen as the necessary precursor to right reason, which is why for a long time, I have included the following quote from Augustine at the beginning of my newsletters: "Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand." - Augustine of Hippo I believe that you are accurate in terms of your understanding of the implications of this view, and rather than fleeing the concept and language of theocracy in my book, I take time to examine it and challenge people to think about it correctly and not to shrink from the use of the term when it is rightly understood. In terms of the confrontational and unreconcilable forces that such a view implies, this is a good reminder to all people that we cannot ultimately change our society by ourselves, but God by His grace, and through His redemptive work, must be working as well such that, should He grace Canada with a reformation and revival, the spiritual and material realities will operate in conjunction with each other. For the victory of Christ's Kingdom, Tim
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: 28 janvier 2008 10:53 To: Tim.Bloedow Subject: I'll need help from an expert on Saint Augustine Hello again Mr. Bloedow, This e-mail has three parts: - "housekeeping details", - the important part - the less-important part ========================================================= 1) "housekeeping details": >> I hope you buy the book soon. All material on my web site will aways be free. But I don't have a wife and kids like you, so I can afford that! I'll mail a check for 25$ today. Please don't send a book yet! It's just to encourage you to answer my questions. >> Not sure what you have in mind for any response. Just intelligent, rational and careful discussion. >> I'm limited in >> time for that sort of thing Three good reasons to take time for this discussion: 1) I'm thinking about proposing a Resolution for the next CHP Leadership Convention in Regina, Saskatchewan. Since this is a fundamental Resolution, related to the Pledge, it requires a thorough and public scrutiny. Since your book is apparently totally against that Resolution, and you are a well-known thinker, then I think you can help greatly. 2) No time limits to answer. 3) It's good publicity for a book, when people see its author deal with specific critiques of it. ========================================================= 2) The important part: >> "Understanding is the reward of Faith. Therefore seek not to >> understand that you may believe, but believe that you may >> understand." - Saint Augustine Houston, we have a problem. Apparently, you are misinterpreting Saint Augustine. But I happen to know a guy who did his Ph.D. on Saint Augustine, so I'll get his input first: Question for scholar: What is the connection between the above quote from Saint Augustine, and Section 7 of Does The CHP Want To Establish A Theocracy? >> rather than fleeing the concept and >> language of theocracy in my book, I take time to examine it and >> challenge people to think about it correctly and not to shrink from >> the use of the term when it is rightly understood. Which is exactly what I try to do here: Does The CHP Want To Establish A Theocracy? >> we cannot ultimately change our society by ourselves, but God >> by His grace, and through His redemptive work, must be working >> as well such that, should He grace Canada with a reformation >> and revival, the spiritual and material realities will operate >> in conjunction with each other. Amen again. Which is another reason why I think I need professional help about that quote from Saint Augustine. If I'm right, and if you really are making a mistake, then that mistake is wrapped up in many good truths. So I have to be careful. ========================================================= 3) Less-important, point-by-point answers: >> Your first rebut assumes that by church, I mean a building. I'm part of a Church with over one billion members (Catholic), so I'm kind of aware "Church" doesn't equal "building"! :-) Seriously, the objection cannot be dismissed lightly. A radical and total separation of churches and State leads to awful consequences: "If taken literally, this would mean the church of Satan could perform human sacrifices, and the police could not interfere, as long as these ceremonies occured "inside" (physically or jurisdictionally) a church. It would also mean that God-given moral principles would not have any moral authority inside Parliament." >> Your second rebut confuses state with politics and church with >> religion - a distinction that is key to the case I make through the >> book and something I deal with in chapter 1. I'm not sure what you mean by "second rebut". It will help readers if you quote what I say a bit more. >> you introduce the point of subsidiarity. I prefer what I think is a more >> accurate model typically called "sphere sovereignty" Of course, nobody is preventing you from improving on the Principle of Subsidiarity! Also, nobody forces you to call something by one name rather than by another one. But apparently, you're missing my point: "Yes, but remember the Principle of Subsidiarity must be balanced with the Principle of Solidarity, which is also taught in the Bible (and by right reason!)." >> Basically, the forms of government that exist >> were ordained by God - they are self-, family, church and civil >> gov't. They each have their own legitimate spheres of authority or >> jurisdiction in this world which they should remain within, and >> society will only function well and justly if they do so. Yes, but this bypasses the crucial problem of the harmonization of these spheres. Sometimes lower spheres have to leave the "right of way" to a higher sphere (Principle of Solidarity). In mathematical terms, the spheres intersect. >> For the victory of Christ's Kingdom, Amen, of course! Give me a bit of time to contact "my" scholar. Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: T Bloedow Sent: 29 janvier 2008 00:51 To: 'Stefan Jetchick' Subject: RE: I'll need help from an expert on Saint Augustine Stefan, First to the important "Augustinian" point: Re. Augustine: Oh well, even if I'm wrong about Augustine, I still hold to that position based on Scripture. Ultimately it comes down to what one believes about the nature of the impact of the fall and sin on this world. I don't believe that there exists any realm of moral or epistemological neutrality in this world. Christ said, if you're not for me, you're against me. And at another time, if you're not against me, you're for me. Those are two explicit statements, but I would argue that the consistent testimony of Scripture affirms this reality of antithesis between good and evil, truth and error. And while people who are not true Christian converts, having been given a new heart and mind by God by which they can now accept the truth as truth, can live truthfully or factually in this world, they cannot logically explain how they do so. In other words, a non-Christian may be able to "do Math" but he can't explain why is able to do Math or how Math works because a comprehensive logically consistent explanation or rationale must start with first principles, and non- Christians are incapable of starting with true first principles, because the first principle for everything is "In the beginning God..." And that's not the only first principle that non-Christians can't accept as they attempt to defend their reasons for what they do. There are 2 components of logic: 1 - starting with the correct presuppositions, 2 - arguing logically from those presuppositions. Most people are preoccupied with the 2nd aspect of logic, and give very little if any thought to the first. Yet the presuppositions are essential. You can't end with truth if you don't start with truth. If an assembly line worker is committed to building a Toyota, but he starts with the parts necessary to build a BMW, then putting those parts together properly is not going to give him a Toyota, even if his process of putting the parts together is flawless. That's a very summary explanation for why I believe in epistemological antithesis and, therefore, the impossibility of Christians and non- Christians being able to find a neutral intellectual meeting ground around which they can arrive at a basic body of shared truth and value commitments. In your CHP comment you link to, you make some errors. A factual error is your distinction between Catholic and Evangelical CHPers. Very few Evangelicals today hold to a faith condition to knowing God's truth. Most of them hold to some form of natural law, although probably not the Catholic view. I, on the other hand, do continue to be very sympathetic to the historic Presbyterian and Reformed view that was reflected in some of the early state constitutions in the U.S. that required a religious test for office, essentially a credible profession of Christian faith to hold office. Many fought for one for the U.S. Constitution too, as I understand it, but were unsuccessful. You seem to imply, or maybe you were more explicit, and I missed it, that those - Evangelicals - who believe that faith is the foundation of reason are in fact hostile to reason. In fact, as I demonstrated above, those like myself who hold to right faith as the foundation for right reason start with different presuppositions, but work logically from them. It therefore shows a pretty serious misunderstand of that position - and even, I am tempted to argue, ad hominem attack - to label my perspective as anti-rational. You say in your exploration of faith and reason that they have independent domains. No they don't - any more than the state and the church operate in completely distinct and isolated compartments of life. Essentially a presupposition is a notion accepted by faith. Since everyone's beliefs and ideas originate with a presupposition, everyone's reasoned conclusions are based on faith - either true faith (faith in what is true) or false faith (faith in what is false). The opposing view is the belief that there exists such things as "brute facts" - things so obvious that they are inherently knowable or self- evidently true. In our context of debate, that is usually claimed as a basis for saying, therefore, that we can or should be able to appeal to human beings' common morality for the rightness of certain things or wrongness of other things like abortion, homosexuality, etc. But the fact is that in our day, for example, we see lots of people denying the wrongness of something as obviously wrong as abortion and homosexuality and no matter how many logical arguments you use to try to convince these people to change their minds, they don't. This is itself a negation of natural law theory. It demonstrates the faith/presupposition basis of reason and the fact that it is all but impossible to convince people to change their belief about the EFFECTS of their presuppositions without dealing with the intellectual CAUSE, the presuppositions themselves. The fact that many non-Christians live by a variety of Christian ethics is not proof of natural law, but evidence of the gracious residual effects of a former Christian culture that still make some people uncomfortable with sinful behaviour, but we see that as the Church retreats from the culture and the Christian message is increasingly silenced, the residual effects of Christendom decline and perversity increases. (Natural law as a theory and an appeal is becoming increasingly dismissed.) This trend that is taking place right before our eyes is proof of the faith-based nature of reason and evidence of the inadequacy and error of natural law theory. --- Now to the lesser points, Ongoing debate is only good publicity for my book if you have traffic to your website (I don't know how popular your site is) and if the debate translates into book sales, which it usually doesn't. There are more armchair pundits than you can throw a nuclear bomb at these days, and most won't pull out a cheque book to pay for anything simply on the basis of the debate. After all, they're enjoying the free debate too much. I know you don't limit the church to a building, so I was pointing out a logical inconsistency in your statement. You challenged the way I phrased my position on the sep. of church and state by using an illustration related to the implied protection for people committing criminal acts as long as they took place inside the walls of a church. That suggestion only has merit if my definition of church was in ref. to a building. At any rate, I wrote my book to deal with these issues and I discuss this point in the book. I have a table of contents for the book on my website www.christiangovernment.ca that has a couple of chapter headings that should hint at the fact that I don't treat them as completely seperate. A workman is worthy of his hire and I worked hard to produce that book, so I'm not going to present all the info here when people who are genuinely interested would be willing to pay for the book. You wanted clarification on what I meant by your second rebut. You wrote: "It would also mean that God-given moral principles would not have any moral authority inside Parliament." As I discuss in my book, state and church are not synonymous with religion and politics. I note that many non-Christians and Christians constantly confuse these words and concepts. Church and state are institutions with distinct spheres of authority but religion and politics are realms of ideas and concepts and beliefs. Christians should support a correct understanding of the sep. of church and state because, e.g., we don't want politicians dictating who will be our elders or priests and imposing ecclesiastical discipline and we don't want our church leaders imposing criminal sanctions. But we do want our Christian worldview, faith and beliefs to inform, and in fact, direct, public policy and politics in the country because there is no neutrality: politics will be governed by a Christian worldview or somebody else's so Christians should be fighting for a Christian worldview. But when you question my view of sep. of CHURCH and STATE with a ref. to moral principles, you are confusing "CHURCH" with "RELIGION" or at least assuming that I do. Again, I am regurgitating all kinds of material that is not only in my book, but also in the FREE content on my website in the way of my newsletter commentaries and some of the speeches and interviews that are also posted on my website, so in order to honour God with the limited time he has given each one of us and to demonstrate a genuine level of respect and dignity towards yourself and those who read your website who are genuinely interested in what I have to say, I need to exhort you to make the effort to explore this content on my website - and buy my book - instead of expecting me to take the time to say the same things over and over again here and in other fora. Re. subsidiarity and solidity, I don't accept the basic premise of this model with the need for balancing. That is why I don't like the subsidiarity model, and prefer the sphere sovereignty model. The subsidiarity model seems to assume a hierarchy of authority and you use language like "inferior societies" and your ref. to lower spheres and higher spheres which indicates that to be the case in your understanding. On the contrary, the sphere sovereignty model does not require one to see the state as a greater authority than the church or the family, or the church to be greater than the state or the family, or whatever. Rather, each divine government is sovereign in its shere. Hence the need to do the Bible study necessary to learn what those spheres are so they don't interfere with each other's authority. It's rather complex to discuss how this should work itself out in real life, but it does in many relative ways, though not perfectly. This "Presbyterian" governmental model is visible in various ways in our western societies. It has been used even within civil government to implement a balance of powers structure. In our British constitutional monarchy system, you have the Crown and Parliament and you have the Cabinet, the Legislature and the Courts and in Parliament you have the House of Commons and the Senate. No one branch of government is completely sovereign over the others. They each have spheres of authority and they are supposed to work cooperatively and some have veto power over the others, but that veto power is supposed to be used very sparingly. So our political system - and the American Republican system - ar working illustrations of this balance of power, sphere sovereignty approach. It has been greatly perverted and the balance isn't as balanced anymore with the loss of Christian foundations and move towards Secular Humanism in our day, so they aren't as useful as visual illustrations as they once were without also doing a bit of historical study. Yes, the spheres intersect. I use a visual illustration to that effect in my book. One example: a person murders someone else. The state is charged to prosecute the person criminally - and execute him if he's found guilty after due process. His church, if he were a member, would be obligated to bring him before the church courts, to examine his profession of faith which would most likely be found wanting if he engaged in premeditated murder. And if that was the determination of the church court, then it would be obligated to excommunicate him. His parents would be duty-bound to disinherit him (another practise hardly used in our anti-covenantal age). I'm interested in what your "scholar" comes up with re. Augustine, but I'm going to defer to my book and website wherever pertinent if we continue this discussion, rather than regurgitating material that I have already presented. Regards, Tim
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: 6 février 2008 19:55 To: Tim.Bloedow Subject: Follow up on our debate Good day Sir, >> Christ said, if you're >> not for me, you're against me. Concedo (i.e, Amen!) >> a non-Christian may >> be able to "do Math" but he can't explain why is able to do Math or >> how Math works I might be misinterpreting you, but if I take your statement at "face value", with its obvious meaning, then Nego. I would simply point to any History of Mathematics to justify my assertion. >> a comprehensive, logically consistent >> explanation or rationale must start with first principles Concedo. >> the first principle for everything is [God] Distinguo. The word "first" has many meanings (See Chap. 12 of Aristotle's Categories). Chronologically, God is not the first thing we know, but He is the ultimate cause of the existence, goodness and truth of everything, etc. That is why Philosophy, which studies the first and universal causes, culminates in the study of God (without the light of Revelation). >> There are 2 components of logic: 1 - starting with the correct >> presuppositions, 2 - arguing logically from those presuppositions. Nego. A good demonstration doesn't start with presuppositions. A good demonstration starts with careful observation of obvious facts. >> You can't end with truth if you don't start with truth. Concedo. >> If an assembly line worker is committed to building a Toyota, but he >> starts with the parts necessary to build a BMW, then putting those >> parts together properly is not going to give him a Toyota, even if >> his process of putting the parts together is flawless. Concedo. Which is why you cannot start with faith, and end up with reason. Reason cannot be founded on an act of faith. >> I believe in [...] the impossibility of Christians and non-Christians >> being able to find a neutral intellectual meeting ground around which >> they can arrive at a basic body of shared truth OK. I'm sorry, but I have to be fair. I gave this treatment to a Belgian Freemason recently, for the same reasons. Please perform the following scientific experiment on yourself: "What Is Truth?" There is a "basic body of shared truth" out there. You just need to hit harder if you don't see it yet. Notice also how you start your sentence: "I believe in...". I don't believe there is a possibility of finding shared truth between Christians and non-Christians. I observe it, with evidence. >> Evangelicals - who believe that faith is the foundation >> of reason are in fact hostile to reason. Obviously, you don't claim you're a Catholic. But if you did, you'd be considered a heretic. The heresy is called "fideism". A few quotes from the Denzinger: #2751: Reasoning can prove with certainty God's existence and the infinity of His perfections. - Faith, gift from Heaven, supposes Revelation; it therefore cannot be invoked appropriately for an Atheist as a proof of God's existence. #2755: On these various questions, reason precedes Faith and must lead us to it. I'm not quoting this as having any authority over you, I'm just showing that as far as I can see, your theory is incompatible with Catholicism. But I would also argue that your theory is incompatible with ordinary Canadian politics. >> those like myself who hold to right faith as the foundation >> for right reason start with different presuppositions, but work >> logically from them. I'm not saying you're irrational because of the way you work logically from your presuppositions. I'm not saying either that your presuppositions are wrong or bad (i.e. I totally agree with you that Jesus Christ is the Lord, etc.). What I do say is that fideism is an incorrect interpretation of the Bible, and that it leads to serious political errors (i.e. so serious that if the CHP decided to officially teach those errors, I would have to leave that political party). >> and even, I am tempted to argue, ad >> hominem attack - to label my perspective as anti-rational. Nego. Webster's gives two meanings to ad hominem: 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character I'm pointing to the logical errors in your reasoning, not appealing to feelings or attacking your character (which as far as I know is beyond reproach). >> You say in your exploration of faith and reason that they have >> independent domains. Nego. I never said that. On the contrary, I say the exact opposite in the hyperlink I begged you to read! >> everyone's reasoned conclusions are based on faith [...] >> The opposing view is the belief that there exists such things >> as "brute facts" - things so obvious that they are inherently >> knowable or self-evidently true. Yep! That's my view! If you have any doubts about my view being the correct one, hit harder! ;-) >> we see lots of people denying >> the wrongness of something as obviously wrong as abortion and >> homosexuality and no matter how many logical arguments you use to try >> to convince these people to change their minds, they don't. Concedo. But I would temper that assertion a bit. So far, every time I've cornered someone and they listened a few minutes, they did soften their pro-abortion position (although not necessarily right away). >> This is itself a negation of natural law theory. Distinguo. It depends on how you define "natural law theory". If you define "natural law theory" as "that which can save us, without the Redemption of Christ", then of course "natural law theory" is full of horse manure! Except that's not the correct definition of "natural law theory". >> as the Church retreats from the culture and the Christian >> message is increasingly silenced, the residual effects of >> Christendom decline and perversity increases. Concedo. But once again, you're beating down open doors. You don't need to choose between Christ and reason. Christ gave us reason, because He wants us to use it! >> the faith-based nature of reason Strictly speaking, that is a contradiction in terms. If I were to put the most favorable interpretation possible on that expression, I'd say it's a very crude attempt to say this: #1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error. [Source] >> I need to exhort you [...] buy my book - instead of expecting me to >> take the time to say the same things over and over again here Sorry to have taken your time. I know I'm glad we had this debate, since now I know I can't recommend your book because it contains serious philosophical and political errors. In Christ, Stefan
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves