Who's authority?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm trying to clarify. Goodness knows I am not perfect, I do misunderstand at times. That is why I am requesting a clarification.

It is evident to me that Native thought should not be construed as a trump to Catholic or Christian thought, but it seems to me that when considering the "authoritative sources" that each of us subscribe to in order to support and build our positions, it hardly seems fitting to me to disclude any from discussion on the basis of the OP in question. For instance, where a Christian discussion might gravitate towards the trinity, there may be Native American insights that build on that premise, just as there may be Buddhist (for example) insights that refute that premise.

It would seem that the direction this Theology board looks for authority is towards the theoretical, not towards the practical.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

~Chuck Reid

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo —

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I had thought perhaps to interject a little from some Native American traditions I stumbled on recently. But if I am to understand this remit, these Aboriginal traditions would not be welcome because they are not Christian, let alone Catholic?

No, not at all. Simply that the voice of the Native American Tradition would not be 'authoritative' for the Christian (and vice versa), whereas the voice of the NA Tradition is the authentic and authoritative voice of the 'testimony of experience', the voice of the community, for Native Americans.

Dialogue between voices is to be encouraged.

Individual opinion does not equal the garnered wisdom of collective experience, nor does it overthrow the collective voice of the community ... that's what I mean by 'authority' — it is 'authoritative' because it is recognised as such by the community.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Surely you do not intend to mean that Native Americans have no *valid* claim as to what constitutes Spiritual Authority, do you?

Not at all, but I do suggest that someone's opinion of 'Spiritual Authority' carries no weight if it is only backed by their own opinion. what we're trying to get to here is ideas beyond opinions: the ideas that shape communities and by which comunities shape themselves.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

If I may interject ...

Thanks Wil, you said what I wanted to say quite succinctly. I missed your post first time round.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

It would seem that the direction this Theology board looks for authority is towards the theoretical, not towards the practical.

I tend to see it differently. Individual opinion is theoretical, even if lived by the individual, because it has no real standing outside the individual.

Community experience is intensely practical, being 'worked out' in and by the community, and this is where doctrine and dogma derives, and this is what the community accepts as authoritative.

Thomas

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I tend to see it differently. Individual opinion is theoretical, even if lived by the individual, because it has no real standing outside the individual.

Community experience is intensely practical, being 'worked out' in and by the community, and this is where doctrine and dogma derives, and this is what the community accepts as authoritative.

Thomas

...and we can see the results of 'collective authority' vs 'individual authority' in the case of the collective crowd calling for the crucification of Jesus, whereas the individual who held authority, Pilate, wanted to spare Jesus, but yielded to the crowd out of fear. Which would have been the 'correct and acceptable authority' in this case?

We can also see examples of individuals being persecuted for their opinions that were heretical to the 'collective wisdom' backed by authority in the instances of the geocentric model vs the heliocentric model of the solar system, and in the persecution/assasination of individual political voices such as Martin Luther King Jr.

I wouldn't call any of these collectivist actions practical. Only by reflecting back on them can we see the error, and repent from these mistakes, transforming them into practical wisdom.

Might does not always make right. I think that this is an excellent argument demonstrating that all collectivist authority and actions must be questioned, imo.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

...and we can see the results of 'collective authority' vs 'individual authority' in the case of the collective crowd calling for the crucification of Jesus, whereas the individual who held authority, Pilate, wanted to spare Jesus, but yielded to the crowd out of fear. Which would have been the 'correct and acceptable authority' in this case?

The Sanhedrin is recognised as the authoritative voice of Judaism when it called for Jesus' execution: John 18:14 "Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews: That it was expedient that one man should die for the people."

And Pilate was the authoritative voice of the Roman Empire in response when he saw no reason, under Roman Law, why the man should die: John 18:38 "I find no cause in him."

Originally Posted by seattlegal

We can also see examples of individuals being persecuted for their opinions...

I am not arguing right or wrong. I am arguing that if you want to know what a community thinks and why, ask a representative of the community. You're not obliged to accept it, but at the very least you can rely on what you're rejecting is what they actually think, and not what someone who is not of the community thinks they think.

Put it another way: A man called Jesus Christ was crucified. Why?
The accepted Jewish opinion is that He was "Bad", an apostate Jew, a false prophet who declared Himself to be God, a troublemaker who was going to bring a whole heap of trouble down on everybody, so the expedient measure, for the good of all, is ...

The accepted Roman opinion is that He was "Mad", a nobody, but He was stirring up a lot of Jewish dissent, which was leading to big trouble, so the expedient measure, for the good of all, is ...

The accepted Christian opinion is that He was "the Son of God", destined to die, for the good of all, so the expedient measure is ...

All three opinions are correct and authentic and authoritative with regard to their principle: Judaism, Rome, and Christianity. They can't all be right, though. Which one is it? Take your pick.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

... geocentric model vs the heliocentric model of the solar system...

The aim of this board in the first instance is to inquire why people held the geocentric or the heliocentric model of the solar system at all, and then, if interested, inquire further into what that model tells them about the solar system in which they live.

Whether you believe in the geocentric, the heliocentric, or any other model, is up to you.

Discussion here is not primarily about broadcasting what 'I' think, but finding out what 'others' think. Only subsequently, hopefully, are there grounds for a reasoned and well-mannered discussion about what is thought.

Thomas

[dauer]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The Sanhedrin is recognised as the authoritative voice of Judaism when it called for Jesus' execution: John 18:14 "Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews: That it was expedient that one man should die for the people."

...The accepted Jewish opinion is that He was "Bad", an apostate Jew, a false prophet who declared Himself to be God, a troublemaker who was going to bring a whole heap of trouble down on everybody, so the expedient measure, for the good of all, is ...

I don't think you can get the accepted Jewish opinion from Christian sources. As Jew I can most certainly say that's not the "accepted Jewish opinion" as in regard to Jesus, there is no authoritative opinion except that, based on Jewish requirements for the messiah, he's not the messiah. I don't think you could argue, from the GT, any more than, "According to Christian sources, the opinion of the Sanhedrin was..." if you're being intellectually honest. Certainly the Sanhedrin portrayed in the GT is not acting according to rules of jurisprudence set forth in Jewish sources which calls the GT as a source for understanding the sanhedrin and its actions into question. At the very least, it challenges the idea that the court portrayed in the GT is an authoritative Jewish court.

You could argue that the Christian view of the Jewish view is "..." but that doesn't make it equivalent with the Jewish view.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Put it another way: A man called Jesus Christ was crucified. Why?

The accepted Jewish opinion is that He was "Bad", an apostate Jew, a false prophet who declared Himself to be God, a troublemaker who was going to bring a whole heap of trouble down on everybody, so the expedient measure, for the good of all, is ...

The accepted Roman opinion is that He was "Mad", a nobody, but He was stirring up a lot of Jewish dissent, which was leading to big trouble, so the expedient measure, for the good of all, is ...

The accepted Christian opinion is that He was "the Son of God", destined to die, for the good of all, so the expedient measure is ...

All three opinions are correct and authentic and authoritative with regard to their principle: Judaism, Rome, and Christianity. They can't all be right, though. Which one is it? Take your pick.

Ah but if we follow our current line of thinking, AND your statements are correct if we are talking from a Roman perspective they are right, and from a Jewish perspective they are right and from a Christian perspective they are right.

Originally Posted by dauer

I don't think you can get the accepted Jewish opinion from Christian sources.

Excellent point but is the reverse true? I mean, let's see the Jews wrote the books (old testament), if we are discussing the intricacies found in their books wouldn't they be the authority?

[dauer]

Wil,

do you mean that we can't get the accepted Christian opinion from Jewish sources? I would argue that we can't and that the OT is an accepted Christian source, regardless its association to Judaism. I'd further argue that, in terms of authority on OT or Tanach, it depends on the tradition which is doing the interpreting. Jewish scholars are an authority on Jewish views of the Tanach. Christian scholars are an authority on Christian views of the OT. In both cases we're still talking about diverse perspectives.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The Sanhedrin is recognised as the authoritative voice of Judaism when it called for Jesus' execution: John 18:14 "Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews: That it was expedient that one man should die for the people."

And Pilate was the authoritative voice of the Roman Empire in response when he saw no reason, under Roman Law, why the man should die: John 18:38 "I find no cause in him."


I am not arguing right or wrong. I am arguing that if you want to know what a community thinks and why, ask a representative of the community. You're not obliged to accept it, but at the very least you can rely on what you're rejecting is what they actually think, and not what someone who is not of the community thinks they think.

Put it another way: A man called Jesus Christ was crucified. Why?
The accepted Jewish opinion is that He was "Bad", an apostate Jew, a false prophet who declared Himself to be God, a troublemaker who was going to bring a whole heap of trouble down on everybody, so the expedient measure, for the good of all, is ...

The accepted Roman opinion is that He was "Mad", a nobody, but He was stirring up a lot of Jewish dissent, which was leading to big trouble, so the expedient measure, for the good of all, is ...

The accepted Christian opinion is that He was "the Son of God", destined to die, for the good of all, so the expedient measure is ...

All three opinions are correct and authentic and authoritative with regard to their principle: Judaism, Rome, and Christianity. They can't all be right, though. Which one is it? Take your pick.


The aim of this board in the first instance is to inquire why people held the geocentric or the heliocentric model of the solar system at all, and then, if interested, inquire further into what that model tells them about the solar system in which they live.

Whether you believe in the geocentric, the heliocentric, or any other model, is up to you.

Discussion here is not primarily about broadcasting what 'I' think, but finding out what 'others' think. Only subsequently, hopefully, are there grounds for a reasoned and well-mannered discussion about what is thought.

Thomas

These would be considered to be authorities of men. Back to the question raised in the opening post:

Originally Posted by wil

Feel free to tell me to move this if it doen't fit the criteria for this section.

Thomas Moore, Roman Catholic, Monk, Spiritual Writer, Psychologist...from his book "The Souls Religion" As I understand it educate is from a greek root which means 'to draw out' not to shove in.

My question is what is spiritual authority?

Could any of the above mentioned authorities be considered to be "spiritual authority?" If so, which ones, and why?

[Thomas]

Hi Seattlegal —

But we're discussing doctrine here ... so 'authority' is vested in an individual by the community after his having successfully demonstrated a firm understanding of, and the ability to explain, the doctrine as it is understood by the community that holds it.

Thomas

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Seattlegal —

But we're discussing doctrine here ... so 'authority' is vested in an individual by the community after his having successfully demonstrated a firm understanding of, and the ability to explain, the doctrine as it is understood by the community that holds it.

Thomas

Then the question must be asked: does doctrine necessarily constitute "spiritual authority?" What about the fruit that any given doctrine bears?

I've given two similar examples of what constitutes spiritual authority from two different doctrines in post #17. There seems to be some agreement between these two doctrines as to what constitutes spiritual authority...

[Thomas]

Hi Dauer –

Originally Posted by dauer

I don't think you can get the accepted Jewish opinion from Christian sources.

I quite agree. That's the whole point ... if only I could make everyone else see that.

I was generalising towards that point. What I should have done, especially on this board, is reference a text or source from which to derive an accepted Jewish opinion, rather than offer my own erroneous one.

Apologies,

Thomas

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by wil

Ah but if we follow our current line of thinking, AND your statements are correct if we are talking from a Roman perspective they are right, and from a Jewish perspective they are right and from a Christian perspective they are right.

Perhaps it is in the few who can see and admit that all of those perspectives of authority are flawed and suck.

Take for example the post, pre and middle rapture theories or your freewill predestination theories. They all say they are right using the same exact text while claiming their religion is the authority. Yet they are all clearly flawed ideas when you follow it through. Religion does this to people.

To answer your question, I would not say any human has authority let alone spiritual authority and it does not matter what religion or group makes what claims to what texts. Private human interpretations make words mean whatever they want it to mean at any time, then change what it means when convenient thus presenting error rather than some god(s) giving authority to some group.

It is more of an incomplete, inconsistent, human brainwashing & fear attribute than real authority.

When leaving the authority/doctrine (error) actually gets you out of the error...then you of course become a heretic & evildoer to the group you leave for leaving the incomplete error...and so on & so forth...

[dauer]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Dauer –


I quite agree. That's the whole point ... if only I could make everyone else see that.

I was generalising towards that point. What I should have done, especially on this board, is reference a text or source from which to derive an accepted Jewish opinion, rather than offer my own erroneous one.

Apologies,

Thomas

Ain't no thang, T.

-- Dauer