On 04 Jul 2014, at 20:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/4/2014 9:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jul 2014, at 19:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/3/2014 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only a pseudo-scientist would say that the science progresses
have put any threat on the non literal reading of any "sacred
texts".
Wouldn't that depend on what the non-literal reading is? I think
what you mean is that there is always some non-literal reading
that is not threatened by science...or by logic, or by empathy, or
by anything else you care to name, because "non-literal" is just
"not what it says". "Mein Kampf" is also consistent with good
race relations, on a non-literal reading.
'Mein Kampf' contains hate. Hate is always literal,
Is that from the Marchal dictionary of the Engligh language?
or you are in a Charlie Chaplin movie.
Or in the Christian bible:
Proverbs 6:16, 19 These six things doth the LORD hate ... A false
witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
With sufficient non-literalism these become "God is love".
let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You
confirm what I said to John Clark. Atheist defend the God of the
bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage
you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that
public.
You can study the deep non literal meaning in a book like Aldous
Huxley "philosophia perennis". You can sum it by "Plato might be
right", or "the laws of physics might have a deeper reason, perhaps
even a purpose".
When the meaning is "deeply non-literal" isn't is likely that it's
your own ideas you are imposing on the book.
Understanding something is always a question of reducing or
representing it to what you already understand.
The institutionalist religions are as far of religion than the
today politics of health is from health. For basically the same
reason (stealing people's money).
A scientist interested in religion will always read a "sacred text"
with the same equanimity than reading a "salvia divinorum" report.
Equanamity is not the same thing as giving it a non-literal meaning.
It consists in remaining open to all interpretations possible.
Religion, like nationalities, have also social identity role,
indeed very often perverted, and we (the scientists) have to keep
calm and try hard to not throw the unsolved questions when
abstracting from the fairy tales and legends associated with some
plausible, or not, contact between humans beliefs and truth.
And to be careful not to insert our hopes and wishes in place of the
fairy tales.
Yes. Nobody claims that it is easy. That is one reason more to
encourage the reasoning and skeptical attitudes, especially in
fundamental studies, like the theological one.
By deciding that theology is automatically bullshit, we just
perpetuate the institutional bullshit, a bit like making drug
forbidden, we create and and make bigger the illicit drug markets
which control and target the kids.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
