Saturday, June 03, 2006
Contributors
Previous Posts
- I have been enjoying (perhaps a little too much, s...
- Strange New World My chaplaincy assignments were g...
- Problems of Thought & BeliefThe first few days of ...
- The Ascension of Our Lord
- "Since the message we have contradicts everything ...
- One wonderful thing about my theological education...
- Believe it or not, this is a beautiful album, and ...
- A new post by my old friend Kevin has psyched me u...
- Longing for what's out of reach...
- Seminary has a way of investing one's affections ...
3 Comments:
I like the idea of appealing more to our theological sensibilities; however, regarding the following:
"Trey's argument is that men understand life in terms of being (ontology) and goals (teleology), while women understand it more in terms of existing relationships (existentialism and phenomenology)"-- I don't quite fit the bill--i.e., I am a woman and I happen to be extremely telos-oriented and my husband is relational-focused. Also, I quite enjoy Thomism (not that I agree with it in toto), while my husband would probably prefer not to read the Summa given a spare moment to contemplate.
I find these kinds of books (whether Christian or non-Christian) to be overly general and at times de-humanizing--as if all women or all men fit neatly into pre-packaged categorizes. It seems to me that there is far more mystery to both sexes than any a priori categorization can adequately capture.
Just a few thoughts...
Cheers,
Cynthia
Cynthia,
Yes. You are absolutely right. I don't mean to endorse overgeneralizations about men & women.
About this, a distinction must be made: I read the article as purely a satire of pop-psychology and not an endorsement. Your comment rightly points out, though, that theological responses (however clever) are prone to the same pitfalls.
I certainly can affirm clear departures from the masculine / feminine typology endorsed in that article, too.
Exposing popular psychology's argumentative poverty by translating it into Thomistic language is still pretty funny, I think.
I appreciate your comments, and am honored that you keep up with my humble posts.
I'd be curious to know where you got your start with St. Thomas. As a Lutheran, I am definitely in the minority as an admirer of his thought (though there seems to be a growing surge in interest among evagelicals).
Peace,
Nate
Hi Nate,
I would imagine given your other posts that you hold a very balanced view on men and women--I just can't resist posting counters to those kinds of things--probably a manifestation of my sinful nature.
As to my interest in St. Thomas, I am a PhD student at a Catholic university and we are required to a good deal of St. Thomas' works As I think you know, I am a Reformed believer in the Calvinist tradition; however, I believe that we have much to learn from St. Thomas.
Warm regards,
Cynthia
p.s. I enjoy the honesty of your posts and the way that you take your theology seriously and want to see it manifest existentially.
Post a Comment
<< Home