fran, the entire subject of relics is an interesting one. Perhaps a thread about it would be of note. I've had many experiences with them in Buddhism too! :-)
On Oct 27, 2:27 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the link, Orn. I think there's a lot in what Lisa Miller > says. I make no secret of the fact that I find myself, at this stage > of my journey, comfortable in non-belief, seeing the believing stage > of my life and my growing struggle with faith in God, as part of the > continuing story of my growth. I don't know what's around the next > corners, but that's something that makes life wonderful. > > Many of the arguments between Dawkins, Hitchens et al., and their > mirror-image believing opponents is tossing coconuts at put-up, fixed > targets - fairground stuff. As Miller puts it, it just gets boring > after a while. Like Hecht, Epstein and Miller, I too think "that > people can have everything religion offers—community, transcendence, > and, above all, morality—without the supernatural." One way of looking > at religion is as part of the childhood and adolescence of humanity, > something we grow out of in order to move on. But the approach of > Dawkins and the others often reminds me, to continue this metaphor, of > people who argue that a sense of play, being childish, is stupid and > superfluous. It is neither, but rather something which, deepening, we > go through and beyond. To quote Paul, "When I was a child, I spoke > like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I > became a man, I gave up my childish ways." (1 Cor 13:11). (I'm quite > sure my use of his words to illustrate the need for humanity to go > beyond religion has the old snake-oil salesman spinning in his grave - > possibly even in St. Paul Without the Walls - at least those parts of > him which haven't been hawked as relics throughout Christendom - but > it's the kind of method of argument he used himself often enough :-)) > > Francis > > On 27 Okt., 20:45, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.newsweek.com/id/219009 > > > On Oct 27, 12:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Fran, thanks for the apparently divergent views of faith. Quite > > > cogent! > > > > On Oct 27, 11:50 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > In general, Alan, I have major problems with "miracles", seen from a > > > > literal, scientific point of view - given the way we see and describe > > > > our world today. From a "faith" point of view, miracles become > > > > unproblematic, because they are seen within a particular context of > > > > meaning in which the world and life is perceived. For the believer, > > > > all kinds of events can be infused with miraculous meanings - the most > > > > potent being "conversions of heart" - the working of God's grace. > > > > Evelyn Waugh's "Brideshead Revisited" is an excellent example of this > > > > kind of world view. The same themes are also present in many of Graham > > > > Greene's works - and, indeed, it is no coincidence here that both > > > > Waugh and Greene were converts to Catholicism who struggled with their > > > > new religion. > > > > > The baptism of Jesus by John is generally accepted as having a good > > > > claim to historicity. > > > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus#Historicityasabrief > > > > summary. > > > > > My problems begin with verses 10 and 11. How are we to understand the > > > > phrases "the heavens being torn" > > > > (σχιζομένους τούς ούρανούς) and "the Spirit, like a dove" (τό Πνεΰμα > > > > ώσεί περιστεράν)? Not to mention the saying of the voice from the > > > > heavens. This is, for me, not the language of objective observation, > > > > but of faith-inspired interpretation of significance. A common (and > > > > sincerely believed) literary descriptive device of the sort used in > > > > countless descriptions of what the authors saw as significant events, > > > > not only Christian ones, up to (and in many cases beyond) the > > > > beginning of the scientific era. > > > > > Francis > > > > > On 27 Okt., 15:53, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You say "Approached from a serious academic point of view there is > > > > > little evidence for the facutal truth of the nativity accounts ". I'm > > > > > afraid not what the writers I follow are saying. They claim those who > > > > > interpret the New Testament gospel accounts as "faith documents" are > > > > > applying an exegetical principal that all miraculous accounts are to > > > > > be read as a story and not literal history. Let me ask you: is this > > > > > true? > > > > > > For example, in the first dozen verses of Mark's gospel, which verses > > > > > those academics say is an historical record, and which not: > > > > > v4 John (the) Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism > > > > > of repentance for the forgiveness of sins > > > > > v6. John was clothed in camel's hair, with a leather belt around his > > > > > waist. He fed on locusts and wild honey. > > > > > v9. It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of > > > > > Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. > > > > > v10. On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn > > > > > open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. > > > > > v11. And a voice came from the heavens, "You are my beloved Son; > > > > > with you I am well pleased" > > > > > > On Oct 26, 11:01 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the Clarke link, Alan. It's a couple of decades ago > > > > > > since I > > > > > > first read the story and it was good to read it again - even if the > > > > > > basic story line isn't one that you'd forget! > > > > > > > Speaking as a now ex-Catholic (ex-Christian), while studying > > > > > > theology > > > > > > full-time as a Dominican, I didn't think that the basic truth of the > > > > > > Christian message was dependent on the literal veracity of the > > > > > > scriptural accounts of the Jesus event. Approached from a serious > > > > > > academic point of view there is little evidence for the facutal > > > > > > truth > > > > > > of the nativity accounts - Mark, the earliest account of Jesus' > > > > > > life, > > > > > > works and sayings, seems to know nothing of the Bethlehem origins of > > > > > > Jesus and even this gospel, on analysis, shows so many signs of > > > > > > careful literary construction that it's impossible to see it as an > > > > > > "objective" historical record, the same being even more true for the > > > > > > other synoptics and especially the gospel of John, probably written > > > > > > 60 > > > > > > to 70 years after the events it describes. > > > > > > > The records the New Testament leaves us are meditations on the > > > > > > meaning > > > > > > of the Jesus event for the authors and the communities for which > > > > > > they > > > > > > were writing. As such, they are ineluctably "faith documents." which > > > > > > is just fine for believers. A more recent example of such things > > > > > > would > > > > > > be Parson Weems biography of George Washington which includes the > > > > > > completely historically unsupported cherry tree story. What I take > > > > > > issue with is the line of argument followed by people like Wesley, > > > > > > who > > > > > > try to (mis)use Christian scripture as "proof" of "facts." There is > > > > > > a > > > > > > branch of Christian theology called apologetics (going back to > > > > > > Tertullian in the 2nd. Century C.E. - C.S. Lewis is a name many will > > > > > > recognise), but very few serious practitioners of this field would > > > > > > even dream of using the bible in this fashion. > > > > > > > I think the key phrase you use is "People can tell stories." And > > > > > > stories can be powerful means for communicating deeply felt insights > > > > > > and beliefs. But they can only fully unfold their potential when the > > > > > > narrators and audiences share the same language. In a > > > > > > Wittgensteinian > > > > > > sense, I would argue that the languages of believers and > > > > > > non-believers > > > > > > (even if they use a common everyday language) have large areas where > > > > > > there is no overlapping, or where the ostensibly same words/phrases/ > > > > > > memes have quite different meanings and ring different bells in > > > > > > their > > > > > > hearers. > > > > > > > That said, as a non-believer, I admit cheerfully to loving Advent > > > > > > and > > > > > > Christmas, the idea of spitting in the face of winter, affirming new > > > > > > life in the midst of darkness, finding deep truth in the meme of the > > > > > > most important, wonderful, significant things in life being found in > > > > > > areas which the great and powerful completely miss. Stars and > > > > > > shepherds and angels and wise men and difficult journeys and jealous > > > > > > kings - and a baby sleeping securely, yet surrounded by uncertainty > > > > > > and mortal peril. And Christmas trees and carols and celebrating > > > > > > family and friendship, giving and receiving gifts. And my own > > > > > > special > > > > > > ritual of making the living-room warm and comfy (especially when > > > > > > it's > > > > > > cold, dark and uncomfortable outside), lighting candles to make a > > > > > > nice > > > > > > subdued, flickering light, making a pot of roibusch tea with extra > > > > > > winter-herbal additions and listening to Händel's Messiah! > > > > > > Repeatedly > > > > > > in Advent - and, if I'm alone, even singing along! > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > On 26 Okt., 16:13, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Astronomy club sure sounds fun! Have you read Arthur C Clarke's > > > > > > > corking good short story called The Star, about the Star of > > > > > > > Bethlehem, > > > > > > > a future astronomer, and a discovery regarding an alien race? > > > > > > > Seehttp://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/star_clarke.html > > > > > > > > Most people who think the resurrection and nativity are stories > > > > > > > do so > > > > > > > from a prior commitment to naturalism -- that miracles don't > > > > > > > happen, > > > > > > > therefore, we are constrained to interpret every miraculous > > > > > > > report as > > > > > > > a story. Like myself, you seem to reject naturalism. Miracles can > > > > > > > happen. People can tell stories. Which is it in the case of the > > > > > > > nativity and > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
