The Forum > Article Comments > The pros and cons of biblical criticism > Comments
The pros and cons of biblical criticism : Comments
By Peter Sellick, published 4/12/2009Modernity is the enemy of faith, not because it exposes faith as irrational but because it cripples the imagination.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
Posted by twistoflime, Friday, 4 December 2009 11:19:39 AM
| |
Poor Sells--he is unconsciously trapped in the "world"-view created at the time of the Renaissance. And ALL of his "religion" is patterned by the "world"-view that emerged then.
"The Renaissance was the collapse of the "God"-civilization that precede it--the civilization based on mythologized presumptions of what was traditionally conceived to be spatially and temporally "behind" and "above" the world. The Renaissance destroyed the earlier form of civilization. With the Renaissance, "God"-myth-based civilization was replaced with human-based civilization, or ego-civilization--or civilization based on the myth of the human ego-"I". That ego-civilization came to its essential end in the twentieth century.Indeed, what happened in the twentieth century was the definitive failure of Renaissance-originated civilization, which civilization was based on the idealization and glorification of the ego and on the wholesale adoption of the ego's perspectival view of "reality". During the period of the Renaissance, there was a profound struggle to come to terms with the notion that the nature of the universe was not as it had previously been presumed to be. The "old view" had the Earth at the center of everything. During the Renaissance people had to come to terms with the notion, based on physical (perceptual) observation, that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 4 December 2009 11:46:41 AM
| |
twistofilme
My point was not that facts destroy imagination but that if the content of our minds is limited to the factual they become very dry indeed. You raise an interesting point. If the factual is ignored then castles can be built in the air. It is interesting that in the creed mention is made of Jesus being "crucified under Pontius Pilate" which is a reference to an historical figure and event that may be recorded along with other historical events. There is a relationship between the actual/historical and the imaginary that springs from that, as you have said. It is this link that makes the theological so interesting and grounds it in the actual. Peter Sellick Posted by Sells, Friday, 4 December 2009 11:47:14 AM
| |
continued:
"The "old view" did not rightly represent Reality-Truth---but neither does the "new view" rightly represent "Reality-Truth. In either case (whether "old" or "new"), if the "point of view" were shifted so much as a hairs breadth to the left or the right, the universe so described would no longer exist. Reality ITSELF is not any "view", or in any "point of view". Reality Itself is not merely the idea of "God creating and running the universe". Rather, Reality---Itself, and in the context of all conditionally arising appearances---is INHERENTLY DIVINE (or egoless, Indivisible, Absolute, Transcendental, Spiritual, and Perfect) in Nature. EITHER there is the Enlightened Life (of egoless Self-Illumination in and by Reality Itself) OR there is the mummery of the narcissistic ego-"world". There are NO other choices." It is obvious which option Sells has chosen and stubbornly clings to. As of course have all the rest of us, including ALL of those who presume to be "religious". http://global.adidam.org/books/perfect-knowledge.html http://www.dabase.org/tfrbklih.htm http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-god.aspx By the way, the Process that IS True Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with the imagination. Right life is mindless ecstatic participation in the boundlessly Bright Field of Conscious Light that IS Reality. Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 4 December 2009 12:09:57 PM
| |
If you wish to take a collection of old writings, put some (whilst rejecting others) into a motley collection and call them 'Holy', that is up to you. But they are not yours' never have been, and anyone is free to look at them any way they want. Where exactly in the middle ages did you get stuck? Somewhere where the earth was flat and the centre of the Universe?
So some old fart in drag tells me to have faith (believe something for no reason than I have been told to) and threatens that thinking for myself will somehow be detrimental to my imagination? Sells, you have in the past come up with some right old cobblers, but this time you have outdone yourself. Posted by Daviy, Friday, 4 December 2009 3:30:26 PM
| |
You can talk about pros and cons all you like. What is obvious that true science has not contradicted the Scriptures at all. The climategate scandal just shows to what lengths our prideful academics will do to in order to hide what true science says. The incredible blind faith by leading scientist and its gullible followers is no more evident than in the evolution fantasy.
Still by far the most logical explanation of creation is a Creator. Yes that takes a step of faith to believe but at least you can read the texts of where this belief comes from. Honest observayion confirms Scripture.We see with climategate that every piece of evidence that disproves the earth worshippers version of science has been deleted and left out of the 'consensus'. This is hillarous. Anyone who thinks these corrupt pitiful scientist has the answers to life have rocks in their heads. Christ is the only truth teller and still has no match or anyone that comes close. Posted by runner, Friday, 4 December 2009 4:18:01 PM
|
There is so very much more left to understand in the universe. And to yearn for further factual knowledge requires imagination.
A hypothesis is formed by our imaginations and then tested in reality (or so far as can be done, for various reasons, at any one time). Facts are not an end in themselves because for the most part they trigger us and our imaginations to ask more questions. We use facts and our imagination to push further the boundaries of human knowledge.
I'm weary of anyone who counsels away for the factual (and as such, the truth of things) and in doing so almost counsels a fear of the factual.
It is patently false that facts destroy imagination.