Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
Live in it for a while. I hate to be a broken record, but i can't really give a better answer. I'm not suggesting "Try Christianity for a Day" but rather that like any worldview, Christianity can't be explained. It can be shown, demonstrated, and elaborated. But it will never look the same outside in and inside out. i'm also willing to bet my last paycheck that you're using "literal" in a way that has almost no relationship to what i'm talking about.
|
You're being rather vague. I understand that you feel something because of these beliefs that you've developed, but that's about it.
Quote:
|
That's wrong. The story of the empty tomb in Mark is written at about 70 CE, 40 years plus. Matt and Luke are after Mark, no later than 85 CE. John, the last cannonical gospel, is written *no* later than 150 CE, a little over 100 years later. It is far more likely that John is closer to 90 CE. Those guesses aren't even that "conservative." Right wingers will say earlier, some liberals later. But they are very moderate, and have pretty good basis in evidence. Mark is being dated by references to the Temple destruction, John is based on a text fragment. Hundreds of years is off by a LONG way. Oh...Paul writes his letters in 50's CE, and refers to the ressurection constantly. Regardless of if these men, and in the case of "Mark" probably a woman, actually saw the events they record, it shows that in the movement at the time, the ressurection was the common theology.
|
I'm referring to some of the extra stuff where they explain what happened after the Jesus showed up missing. As for Jesus being gone from the tomb, that's WIDE OPEN for interpretation.
Quote:
|
You say metaphorical, i say theological. The honest truth is that it's damn hard to say what ressurection is. but the message is more important than the media, IMO. Easter happened, regardless of if a body was re-animated. People began experiencing Christ risen, and record that powerfully. I have no doubt *something* happened.
|
Well, something was written down, something happened. I don't know how you can judge just what that is by the effects it had on people. My philosophical stance on historical events is that the meaning of historical events <i>changes</i> over time, and I think the death of Jesus is a good example of this. I don't think we have any access to what it really was like when Jesus died.
People in this day in age are widely misinformed and highly affected by that misinformation, that is <i>no proof</i> that their reactions are based something that actually happened (i.e. Iraq being behind 9/11). Reactions are reactions, they don't illustrate fact.
Quote:
|
When did i ever say literal? It's a language. It lets you say things that you can't in secular languages. It gives you ideas and constructs that allow you to think about things that had been sighs too deep for words (Rom 8:26). It's a deep part of my idenity becuase it's what i had thought about, wordlessly and with frustration. It's a deep part of my idenity because it has brought me to realize the power and beauty of God's love for creation. It's a deep part of my idenity becuase <b>it's given me whys when i had only known whats.</b>
|
My fundamental argument with most religion is that many of the answers to questions about existence are to questions that cannot be answered. Additionally, I think those answers still are mired in absurdity that is much more convoluted than accepting that there are many things that we just cannot know fundamentally.
As for language... I understand the power of language, I'm a fan of literature and I'm a poet. I think one can respect literature and religions for the language used and the metaphors and stories of their mythologies. And it really is impossible to ignore religion (particularly Christianity) because the language pervades our society. As Flannery O'Conner says, we are haunted by Christianity at the least.
The problems I see with the language center around when the interpretations of the language go on from being recognized as semblances and are treated the same as the tangible situations around us now. I don't understand how you could come to a conclusion like, "It's a deep part of my idenity because it has brought me to realize the power and beauty of God's love for creation." via figurative/religious/metaphorical language by itself. There's something more than language that you've latched onto, and your belief in it transcends metaphor and reason. Kierkegaard would call this sort of transcendance absurd (and he appreciates it as a "knight of faith"). I have enough absurdity in my existence without leaping into more of it. I don't see why one would need an absurd ultimate meaning to go on living life... other animals certainly don't.
I'm going a little off topic, but it still relates. There is no logical explanation to believe in the stories of the Bible, though you can gain an absurd understanding of the universe through it that you can't get otherwise (except in other religions and beliefs that center around the same absurd understandings).
As a final note, please understand that I'm not using "absurdity" as a negative term, it is merely a descriptive term for the existential state of existing without essential meaning. I don't think that the absurd is negated by beliefs centered around ultimate meaning, but they are amplified by the lack of evidence and communication with the declared center of ultimate meaning.