...only stupid people.
I was listening one of Fr. Benedict Groeschel's tapes on spirituality yesterday and he said something funny and profound. It was something like this:
It's easy to be stupid. But in order to be very stupid, you need to be very smart. Being very smart enables you to add depth to your stupidity.
He was referring to Theologians in general and was slamming the rationalism of the Enlightenment.
And I thought of that today when I say this link on the ABC News site:
"Who Killed Jesus? Theologians develop answers to this 2004 year-old question."
Several areas where someone is being very stupid.
The "Who Killed Jesus?" question is a valid one and the answer is I did, you did, we all did.
So to have it followed by the rest is like asking,
"Why is the sky blue? Climatologists debate something I can explain to a four year old."
"Why does my dog beg at the dinner table? Animal behaviorists struggle to understand what Pavlov knocked out decades ago"
"Why are French Fries called French Fries? Culinary anthropologists and linguistic specialists discuss polymorphic language parameters."
I prefer St. Augustine for my theological development. Throw in a few encumenical councils, Doctors of the Church and more recent encyclicals and it's all covered. But don't tell that to the PhD at the Washington Theological Union - he's busy trying figure out how old Jesus was when he realized he was God. And - again to quote Fr. Groeschel - that's just latent Arianism.
And very stupid.
Arianism is the doctrine. Aryanism is the idea that the Persian/Brahman `race' is superior to all others, often including the silly notion that Germans are from the Hind
Can I buy a vowel? (Going to change the spelling in the post.)
Quoting that ABC promo: "Who Killed Jesus? Theologians develop answers to this 2004 year-old question."
Their math seems a little iffy as well. They would've sounded smarter if they simply said "2000" as a rough figure.
By "stupid" I think the good Father meant "foolish," right? As Cicero remarked, "There is nothing so foolish that some philosopher has not said it."
Actually, more of a 1,971 year old question (2004-33). The question wasn't around before the crucifiction in 33AD. But hey, when do ABC and liberal scholars need facts.
Don't get hung up on the dates!
The amazing part is that in 2004 someone thinks that a huge theological breakthru (development) will be found in discovering that the Butler killed Jesus with a Candlestick in the Parlor or that Jesus was actually adopted or didn't know he was Divine until he had a conversation with Buddha in the afterlife.
Actually, the question of why French fries are called that (and why all sorts of natively American foods have names claiming them as foreign) is a really interesting one, well worthy of being revisited multiple times as we learn more about language. ;)
But otherwise, I agree with your point.
Maureen
On the French fries, I was hoping to illustrate it doesn't take armies of scholars to understand the concept.
French fries are interesting. And tasty.