posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mmoa_writes at 10:22pm on 13/11/2006 under bible, history, interpetation, religion, roman catholiscm, schoarship
mmoa_writes at 10:22pm on 13/11/2006 under bible, history, interpetation, religion, roman catholiscm, schoarship... because I can't talk to people without getting nervous, grinny and sweaty. *shrugs* And I always get the feeling that I have to agree with the person I'm talking with, which means that I end up going round in circles and never proving any point at all. The Internet is a wonderful thing.
[Watching Spirited Away, again. Will increase collection of studio Gibli. Just a pity I missed 'Howl's Moving Castle' when it came out in the cinema.]
On Christianity: The Roman Catholic Church, I am beginning to feel, actually got it right all along.
I don't mean on it's doctrines per se. Just because one gets the right idea, doesn't mean that one isn't spouting a load of nonsense. What I mean is, that once one lets go of the prudish and unimaginative chains of traditional Protestant thought, you begin to realise more of the 'why' in a way that you casually dismissed as mere incorrect religion before.
My main interest in theology lies in how people interprete it and one thing I realise after having yet another debate on creationism, is that the strange sort of 'literalism' adopted by creationists, Rapturists and dominionists is essentially based on the Protestant obsession with the Bible. The guilt of the modern Anglican church (and indeed, of the Anglican church of yesteryear) is that it relies on a deeper/liberal/looser/more nonsensical/more spiritual (you name it) understanding on the literature that is the Bible, rather than the strictly 'do as it says on the tin' that all true Protestants ought to.
Perhaps this is part of the problem. The entire Christian faith is based, after all, on a radically different interpretation of traditional holy scriptures. As I once remarked to a more religious friend (heh, at the time...), Christianity is nothing more than an alternative Jewish philosophy. That was harsh, (alternative philosophies, after all, tend to become something of their own after 2000 years on the world's top ten...) but essentially true. That is probably why it is Christianity of all the religions of the world, most of which are based on even more primitive understandings of humanity and the world around us, that is having the hardest time in general when confronted with the modern world.
Technically, it shouldn't: the pragmatism of 'render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar' (interestingly enough, seen as a sort of hypocrisy in other religious circles - how can one separate politics from belief, after all *note sarcasm*) was what really brought the early Church in conflict with the outside world at first, but eventually (in a rather odd twist) saved the West from theocracy and led us to Modernity. The idea that sin, imperfection, is such an integral part of humanity that no matter how many priests or gurus you consult, it will never change, did remove (at first, of course. As we know too well, it descended into the guilt-complex of the later Church...) the old view of the necessity for priests and prophets and placed each human being within the potential to commune and have direct experiences with God (which we've now turned back on with our current obssession with self-help books and therapists. Not to say that they're bad or anything, just that it demonstrates our unwillingness to accept that they won't help. Any help we may get will come from within ourselves (the soul and spirit) and our reasoning which in the past was assumed to be part of the direct link man had with God...)
Technically, of course. But it does. And so, back to my original point.
Much of the critisism levelled at the RC Church (mainly by me, lol) has been at the way it 'creates' doctrines and dogmas, and then demolishes the old ones that it doesn't want anymore. But then, I thinks to meself, is that not modern religion in essence? Why shouldn't it change? What one generation considers a basic truth, may well be different from another generations, after all. I can accept that when it comes to philosophies and fashions and social norms, why not with religion? Why is that the big problem with it?
As much as we modern people may dislike the way the RC Church seems to just make things up as it goes along, I've come to think that, well, maybe that's the point. One creates myths to provide a religious truth or assumption more 'sacred' power, not to intentionally deceive. So what if the earliest Christians did not think that Jesus was born of a Virgin? When the doctrine comes along later, it provides a greater sense of mystery which is what the entire Christian faith is about, after all (and if you don't agree me, please remind yourselves of what we actually 'celebrate' on Easter day?* Thank you...). That is what myth is for.
Outside the context of the Christian faith, this use of myth pops up just about everywhere. On studying the 'Republic' for example, I decided to read more about it rather than just the commentary at the back (!) and I found one very very modern and rather bitter critique that took a swipe at Plato's reason (I'm not going to hazard by saying Socrates) for being a just person: so that, like Ur (the mythical man), we go through the afterlife fine and happy and do well in the next life and don't get punished by the gods.
But that shows a misunderstanding of what myth was, and is, for. How can one show the consequences of a human construct (myth? heh) like justice? By making another myth. [EDIT: It's a little like the difference between theoretical and experimental physics. They both have to agree, obviously, but they come about from very different places. One is firmly based on what is seen ie material reality, and the other on, well, theory and abstract mathematics]
When we tell each other of crocodiles being flushed down the toilets and turning into massive reptiles that infest the sewers, do we really believe this? Are we geuinely, maliciously, trying to deceive our friends, or is that simply another example of the use of embellishment to emphasise a more basic point (that we are terrified of the consequences of our actions... and sewers)? When my mother used to tell me not to eat food that had been left on the table overnight, for 'one does not know what has been there before you,' referring to spirits that wander when humans are gone, is that because she wanted me to actually believe that there were such things, or that she did herself, or because it's just a way of emphasising a more fundamental fact of nature - that, hey, food rots; pests leave their dung and saliva over left-over food. If you do eat it, then welcome the stomach-ache you get in return for forcing your stomach and gut to deal with more than it can take... I mean... the punishment from God/s... lol.
[This is not in defense of myths, by the way. I'm not saying that because we suddenly realise it's all an extended metaphor that we should just leave it be, that we shouldn't try to debate and shift away from that sort of understanding. Let us never, never forget that they are essentially stories. What I am trying to do is illustrate it's purpose, beyond 'oh it's just something someone made up' which is what most of us think is how such stories came about (rather meanly, I'll admit). After all, it's half-lies that are more successful than complete lies, and sometimes more believeable.]
Anyway. So, the RC Church changes it's doctrine on limbo, to which most Protestants/-influenced thinkers would say "oh that wasn't in the Bible to begin with..." (to quote Richard Dawkins, the RC Church shows a remarkable suspicion of the bible. All I can say is, good thing to. That's when you understand what it's all about - ie. well, whatever you want to make of it, really). It decides in the mid 19th century that the Pope is infallible. It decides in the 11th century that priests should be celibate. It decides earlier on that Mary was a Virgin, that she was the result of the Immaculate conception... the power of these doctrines is that they are based on one understanding of the 'Good Book' and not on the Good Book itself, and that is what counts.
Following on from this, one can argue that it is such doctrines that led to the flirtation with theocracy that the RC Church underwent (oh alright, not so much flirtation as open engagement with) but in return, the fact is that the presence of such doctrines that have no strictly biblical base is it's saving grace, because one can argue and debate on an understanding, but one can't on a chunk of badly translated scripture, because that's where the discussion stops (and believe me, I've epxerienced this first-hand!). And we know that people did. The presence of all these strange doctrines, and the strange heresies that flourished in opposition, shows that, contrary to the popular stereotype, people did argue and change their opinions. It was when people got tired of debating, of the natural ebb and flow of change of religious sentiment and opinion that they turned to bible-bashing, so to speak. Which in turn has led to the scourge of science in this day and age, the strangely idealistic, rather revolting and naive worldview of the average modern Christian.
Now that last sentence is my death-knell. I know full well that the RC Church is responsible for the supression of scientific thought, as well as it's comparative flourishing within the medieaval West, but I always find it fascinating that the heresies of people like Galileo and Bruno were not committed against Christian teachings, but even older ones that had been taken as assumed truths, that were not so much religious in nature, but were considered so fundamental, so unsubjective, that anyone speaking against them was calling for insurrection.
...
Fuck it. What a load of bollocks. This is why I chose science and not anything else so subjective. At least I talk sense when it comes to science. And now I have another rant in my head, based on a discussion I was having with my youngest sister on precisely that: Why Science? (she's brilliant, really).
*I am referring, of course, to the resurrection. Mystery cults in essence.
The new Chanel advert with Nicole Kidman is just embarrassing. And on a more higbrow note, I am confused by Human rights.
[Watching Spirited Away, again. Will increase collection of studio Gibli. Just a pity I missed 'Howl's Moving Castle' when it came out in the cinema.]
On Christianity: The Roman Catholic Church, I am beginning to feel, actually got it right all along.
I don't mean on it's doctrines per se. Just because one gets the right idea, doesn't mean that one isn't spouting a load of nonsense. What I mean is, that once one lets go of the prudish and unimaginative chains of traditional Protestant thought, you begin to realise more of the 'why' in a way that you casually dismissed as mere incorrect religion before.
My main interest in theology lies in how people interprete it and one thing I realise after having yet another debate on creationism, is that the strange sort of 'literalism' adopted by creationists, Rapturists and dominionists is essentially based on the Protestant obsession with the Bible. The guilt of the modern Anglican church (and indeed, of the Anglican church of yesteryear) is that it relies on a deeper/liberal/looser/more nonsensical/more spiritual (you name it) understanding on the literature that is the Bible, rather than the strictly 'do as it says on the tin' that all true Protestants ought to.
Perhaps this is part of the problem. The entire Christian faith is based, after all, on a radically different interpretation of traditional holy scriptures. As I once remarked to a more religious friend (heh, at the time...), Christianity is nothing more than an alternative Jewish philosophy. That was harsh, (alternative philosophies, after all, tend to become something of their own after 2000 years on the world's top ten...) but essentially true. That is probably why it is Christianity of all the religions of the world, most of which are based on even more primitive understandings of humanity and the world around us, that is having the hardest time in general when confronted with the modern world.
Technically, it shouldn't: the pragmatism of 'render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar' (interestingly enough, seen as a sort of hypocrisy in other religious circles - how can one separate politics from belief, after all *note sarcasm*) was what really brought the early Church in conflict with the outside world at first, but eventually (in a rather odd twist) saved the West from theocracy and led us to Modernity. The idea that sin, imperfection, is such an integral part of humanity that no matter how many priests or gurus you consult, it will never change, did remove (at first, of course. As we know too well, it descended into the guilt-complex of the later Church...) the old view of the necessity for priests and prophets and placed each human being within the potential to commune and have direct experiences with God (which we've now turned back on with our current obssession with self-help books and therapists. Not to say that they're bad or anything, just that it demonstrates our unwillingness to accept that they won't help. Any help we may get will come from within ourselves (the soul and spirit) and our reasoning which in the past was assumed to be part of the direct link man had with God...)
Technically, of course. But it does. And so, back to my original point.
Much of the critisism levelled at the RC Church (mainly by me, lol) has been at the way it 'creates' doctrines and dogmas, and then demolishes the old ones that it doesn't want anymore. But then, I thinks to meself, is that not modern religion in essence? Why shouldn't it change? What one generation considers a basic truth, may well be different from another generations, after all. I can accept that when it comes to philosophies and fashions and social norms, why not with religion? Why is that the big problem with it?
As much as we modern people may dislike the way the RC Church seems to just make things up as it goes along, I've come to think that, well, maybe that's the point. One creates myths to provide a religious truth or assumption more 'sacred' power, not to intentionally deceive. So what if the earliest Christians did not think that Jesus was born of a Virgin? When the doctrine comes along later, it provides a greater sense of mystery which is what the entire Christian faith is about, after all (and if you don't agree me, please remind yourselves of what we actually 'celebrate' on Easter day?* Thank you...). That is what myth is for.
Outside the context of the Christian faith, this use of myth pops up just about everywhere. On studying the 'Republic' for example, I decided to read more about it rather than just the commentary at the back (!) and I found one very very modern and rather bitter critique that took a swipe at Plato's reason (I'm not going to hazard by saying Socrates) for being a just person: so that, like Ur (the mythical man), we go through the afterlife fine and happy and do well in the next life and don't get punished by the gods.
But that shows a misunderstanding of what myth was, and is, for. How can one show the consequences of a human construct (myth? heh) like justice? By making another myth. [EDIT: It's a little like the difference between theoretical and experimental physics. They both have to agree, obviously, but they come about from very different places. One is firmly based on what is seen ie material reality, and the other on, well, theory and abstract mathematics]
When we tell each other of crocodiles being flushed down the toilets and turning into massive reptiles that infest the sewers, do we really believe this? Are we geuinely, maliciously, trying to deceive our friends, or is that simply another example of the use of embellishment to emphasise a more basic point (that we are terrified of the consequences of our actions... and sewers)? When my mother used to tell me not to eat food that had been left on the table overnight, for 'one does not know what has been there before you,' referring to spirits that wander when humans are gone, is that because she wanted me to actually believe that there were such things, or that she did herself, or because it's just a way of emphasising a more fundamental fact of nature - that, hey, food rots; pests leave their dung and saliva over left-over food. If you do eat it, then welcome the stomach-ache you get in return for forcing your stomach and gut to deal with more than it can take... I mean... the punishment from God/s... lol.
[This is not in defense of myths, by the way. I'm not saying that because we suddenly realise it's all an extended metaphor that we should just leave it be, that we shouldn't try to debate and shift away from that sort of understanding. Let us never, never forget that they are essentially stories. What I am trying to do is illustrate it's purpose, beyond 'oh it's just something someone made up' which is what most of us think is how such stories came about (rather meanly, I'll admit). After all, it's half-lies that are more successful than complete lies, and sometimes more believeable.]
Anyway. So, the RC Church changes it's doctrine on limbo, to which most Protestants/-influenced thinkers would say "oh that wasn't in the Bible to begin with..." (to quote Richard Dawkins, the RC Church shows a remarkable suspicion of the bible. All I can say is, good thing to. That's when you understand what it's all about - ie. well, whatever you want to make of it, really). It decides in the mid 19th century that the Pope is infallible. It decides in the 11th century that priests should be celibate. It decides earlier on that Mary was a Virgin, that she was the result of the Immaculate conception... the power of these doctrines is that they are based on one understanding of the 'Good Book' and not on the Good Book itself, and that is what counts.
Following on from this, one can argue that it is such doctrines that led to the flirtation with theocracy that the RC Church underwent (oh alright, not so much flirtation as open engagement with) but in return, the fact is that the presence of such doctrines that have no strictly biblical base is it's saving grace, because one can argue and debate on an understanding, but one can't on a chunk of badly translated scripture, because that's where the discussion stops (and believe me, I've epxerienced this first-hand!). And we know that people did. The presence of all these strange doctrines, and the strange heresies that flourished in opposition, shows that, contrary to the popular stereotype, people did argue and change their opinions. It was when people got tired of debating, of the natural ebb and flow of change of religious sentiment and opinion that they turned to bible-bashing, so to speak. Which in turn has led to the scourge of science in this day and age, the strangely idealistic, rather revolting and naive worldview of the average modern Christian.
Now that last sentence is my death-knell. I know full well that the RC Church is responsible for the supression of scientific thought, as well as it's comparative flourishing within the medieaval West, but I always find it fascinating that the heresies of people like Galileo and Bruno were not committed against Christian teachings, but even older ones that had been taken as assumed truths, that were not so much religious in nature, but were considered so fundamental, so unsubjective, that anyone speaking against them was calling for insurrection.
...
Fuck it. What a load of bollocks. This is why I chose science and not anything else so subjective. At least I talk sense when it comes to science. And now I have another rant in my head, based on a discussion I was having with my youngest sister on precisely that: Why Science? (she's brilliant, really).
*I am referring, of course, to the resurrection. Mystery cults in essence.
The new Chanel advert with Nicole Kidman is just embarrassing. And on a more higbrow note, I am confused by Human rights.
contemplative
(no subject)
(no subject)
*shrugs* The whole thing is a bit of a gyp, to be honest. Extended metaphors are just bad news on the whole.