|
I understand what Torrance is saying and I do not agree
with him. If David thinks we need Platonic or Aristotlian
logic to understand God then I don't agree with him
either. We do not need mental images to understand God's Words
Jesus said his words are spirit and they are life; He
has send the Holy Spirit to give us understanding. What more
do
we need? Images and icons keep ppl in bondage to
religious spirits. jt
Jt asks 'how so Lance?' I refer you back to DM's
post on this. You told me (us) that you understood it. Did you?
How so Lance? Mankind has always had a very
vivid imagination and when I read the OT I see that the problem Israel
had
was one of going off after their own thoughts,
following visions of their own heart and worshipping the work of their
own hands. How is Torrance different?
You have to remember that Jesus didn't make up any parables. He only
said and did what he first saw the Father saying
and doing. Having an interest in science is fine if that is where one
is at but anything can become an idol. jt
No Judy! 'Imageless images' is the opposite
of idolatry. TFT is making a point applicable directly to our discussion
He is doing that which Jesus did often in parables.
T. F. Torrance's concept of
'imageless images' is basic to his epistemology, in particular, his
concept of the relation of language to being. In his book,
Reality and Evangelical Theology
(InterVarsity, 1999) for example, he talks about the way in which
symbolic thinking leads to dualism (p. 27). That is, we use symbols to
construct in our minds 'imges' of reality which we draw out of our
experience and observation. He argues that this leads to
epistemological dualism. Torrance's own view is that the images we use
(words/ symbols) point beyond themselves to realities for which our
'images' are inadequate, but necessary. He often
used the illustration in class that the relation between words and
that which words represemnt cannot be expressed in words!
Also, the relation between that which a picture seeks to represent if
it is a 'picture of something' and the 'thing itself' cannot be
expressed by 'drawing another picture' (image). There is a 'zero
point' he used to say in such an endeavor where we surrender our minds
to the reality of the thing itself that exists beyond the images we
use to represent it.
Well Lance, DavidM suggested I pay attention to
this - but I don't find it relevant to what we have been
discussing.
Torrance is addressing the natural and I am
addressing the spiritual. Mankind does not understand spiritual
truth by way of "images". God knowing how prone we are to
idolatry has not left us an imagine of Himself. Noone knows what Jesus
looked like in the flesh and of course there is no image of the Holy
Spirit who is like the wind, we know where he has been because we see
the results. Tell me what is the image of faith, love and/or
justice?
Torrance argues that this
is exactly what the physicist must do when using
images to depict the invisible reality of sub atomic particles.
"This involves the disciple of thinking in such a way that, through
highly refined symbolic or formal structures, images are made to refer
imagelessly to the realities intended." (p. 63} "That is
to say, all our theoretical statements fall short of the reality they
indicate and are constantly revisable in the light of it." (p.
66).
Torrance is trying to merge
natural with spiritual just like Aquinas did when he tried to merge
Aristotle with scripture. God reveals Himself to us in his own
way and it is by using words - words given by prophets that He has
chosen; words containing life and light; words inspired by the Holy
Spirit none of which makes any sense to the carnal mind. We
receive them by faith and when we are willing to do this understanding
comes from God.
Dead religion along with the
occult is what clings to images, symbols, and icons -
judyt
|
