Ah, progress

[pearson]

Tom, of what is Jesus lord? If we believe in "one Lord, Jesus Christ," who is of the same substance as "God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things, visible and invisible," then it definitely and inescapably follows that there is order to creation-- Jesus is lord of it by divine design.

Jesus is lord of heaven and earth.  But I honestly don't see that it "definitely and inescapabaly follows" that there is a sacred order to creation.  Unless by that you mean the order of redemption by which God in Christ is reconciled to His creation.  Isn't creation "groaning in labor pains," and subject to hope that "creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay," an indication that whatever sacred order originally existed is no longer operative?  In fact, isn't there some sense in which God's redemptive plan is a response to the absence of sacred order in creation, and that God's act of reconciliation between Himself and creation through Christ crucified just is the establishment of the only sacred order in which we can place our trust? 

But asserters of an orderless or random or undesigned creation are even further removed from the truth of the matter. A Voodoo practitioner is closer to the truth than an Atheist or pure materialist.

Perhaps I am not sufficiently concerned (and should be) about the atheist or the pure materialist; they seem consumed with the limited task of trying to figure out how the disorder in creation works.  I'd like to think that my interest lies more in figuring out how God is dealing with the disorder, and I believe the answer is: Christ.  In the end, I guess, my only concern is with the sort of sacred order that emerges from redemption, not a sacred order that arises from creation.

Tom Pearson

[Timotheus Verinus]

Ah, Speckhard.

Mr. Teigen,  Can you perhaps refer to him as Pr. Speckhard, Mr. Speckhard, Peter, or something a little less confrontational and a little more respectful than "speckhard?"

I'm failing to see why you would refer to him as such.

I thought that was extremely rude, too, especially since he did it here, as well.

http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4883.msg299483#msg299483

But then again, he calls me the Holy Lady from Ohio.     Perhaps we're reading too much into it, who knows?

That could be, since he did it here, too, but in the context of having a good laugh together. 

We ought not excuse such things, but call a thing what it is. Consciously or subconsciously and that doesn't really matter, rhetorical techniques such as these are used to "de-personalize" the one we argue with. If they aren't a person its easier to condemn "THEM."

This is not rocket science or pop psychology. It is core rhetoric, of which far too few are familiar these days. Sadly it seems that many took the "Social Meaning of flower petals in the 14th Century" for history credits, instead of core logic and rhetoric courses. 

{/sarc on}But then I don't really care about "them" "pig brained non people." "They" are stupid!  And the best part is that as an anti-academic, I can call "them" Doctor, and they don't know I'm insulting "them"...

secret agent de-personalizer, {/sarc off}
TV

[peter_speckhard]

The knowledge of disorder is an acknowledgment of order. If ther were no order, there would be no awareness of disorder, just as certainly as fish do not feel wet.

[Coach-Rev]

I have personally apologized to Pastor Speckhard.  I disagree with him but I do not wish to disrespect him.

I appreciate your candidness on that.  Thank you.

[revjagow]

Catholic Memes did a Dr. Evil version. 

[pearson]

The knowledge of disorder is an acknowledgment of order. If ther were no order, there would be no awareness of disorder, just as certainly as fish do not feel wet.

True enough.  If there were no order, there would be no awareness of disorder.  But it doesn't follow that without sacred order, or some sort of ultimate order, there would be no awareness of disorder.  For instance, we can be aware of a disordered work of music because we have the order of western tonality to compare it to.  But I don't see why we need anything more than the order of western tonality to discern that disorder; the order of western tonality doesn't require an encompassing sacred order to function as a normative order through which disorder can be recognized.

Then again, I'm not sure how heavily you stress the "sacred" part of sacred order.  But I'm pretty sure we don't need a sacred order for the purpose of noticing various kinds of disorder in creation.

Tom Pearson

[peter_speckhard]

The knowledge of disorder is an acknowledgment of order. If ther were no order, there would be no awareness of disorder, just as certainly as fish do not feel wet.

True enough.  If there were no order, there would be no awareness of disorder.  But it doesn't follow that without sacred order, or some sort of ultimate order, there would be no awareness of disorder.  For instance, we can be aware of a disordered work of music because we have the order of western tonality to compare it to.  But I don't see why we need anything more than the order of western tonality to discern that disorder; the order of western tonality doesn't require an encompassing sacred order to function as a normative order through which disorder can be recognized.

Then again, I'm not sure how heavily you stress the "sacred" part of sacred order.  But I'm pretty sure we don't need a sacred order for the purpose of noticing various kinds of disorder in creation.

Tom Pearson

I was using Reiff's terminology. It is his thesis that modernity has no positive thesis of its own but is instead merely a war against sacred order. Perhaps "divine" would be a better word. The idea is simply that the order in the universe was put there by God (or whatever you call the Creator of all creation) and that aesthetics, morality, doctrine etc. are attempts to discern, clarify, highlight, reinforce or otherwise make plain that order in a fallen and disordered world, while modernity sets out to debunk, erase, ignore, transgress, or otherwise prove that such order is an illusion (or at least purely subjective and arbitary) and that those who are guardians/proclaimers of that order are simply self-centered and oppressive. 

[Norman Teigen]

Pastor Speckhard,  I am interested in learning more about this Reiff.  In my searches I mostly find reference to a former University of Iowa football player Reilly Reiff who now plays with the Detroit Lions.

Please help me out with the name of this Reiff and where I might find his writings.

In the spirit of inquiry with no contention intended.

Norman Teigen,  Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

[peter_speckhard]

Pastor Speckhard,  I am interested in learning more about this Reiff.  In my searches I mostly find reference to a former University of Iowa football player Reilly Reiff who now plays with the Detroit Lions.

Please help me out with the name of this Reiff and where I might find his writings.

In the spirit of inquiry with no contention intended.

Norman Teigen,  Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

If you google him he comes up right away, but mostly as the author of The Triumph of the Therapeutic, which was a far more famous work than My Life Among the Deathworks.

[Norman Teigen]

What is his name, please?  I intend no disrespect by asking for his name.  I want to see what this man has to say.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Peter, you are speaking of Phillip Rieff? 

My introduction to him was through a couple of features on him on a fairly recent edition of  Mars Hill Audio.  See also this Mars Hill Audio link.

Pax, Steven+ 

[peter_speckhard]

What is his name, please?  I intend no disrespect by asking for his name.  I want to see what this man has to say.

Philip Rieff. I think you got the i and the e in the wrong order.

[Norman Teigen]

Thank you, Pastor.  I will follow up on this lead.