Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the things I have been thinking about is why so many interpret religious literature so literally, and hold it to secular expectations. I don't believe spiritual literature is supposed to provide clear cut answers, but instead wisdom (Pete Enns is a good source for people interested in the Bible). It is supposed to present conflicts, paradoxes, etc. to get people to wrestle with it and become involved in the process of seeking God. The process is the most important thing, and that process should be ongoing and evolving, not static.
I believe some of the goals of this genre are: growing in knowledge of one's inner self (soul, consciousness...), growing closer to God, increasing wisdom, increasing love...making the transcendent immanent...making room for awe, mystery and wonder...focusing one's attention on things outside of the ego/small self (dying to self or transcending self)...just to start.
Regarding the secular expectations, it just seems that many assume spiritual literature will fit into certain boxes: it will be historically accurate, free of errors, free of human imperfection, internally consistent...and more. Those seem like expectations for another genre.
I could not have said it better.
I wonder if what people get out of religious texts, literature, depends on what they expect to get from it. And that we seek those kind of literature that answers the questions we ask and these questions may be different for each of us.
I agree...I think there would be different rules for someone approaching the texts with an academic interest than for a believer. But I wonder what the commonalities would be? I don't have a fully thought-out answer to the question--which is part of why I posted it---so I'm interested in hearing what people think.
One commonality might be to assume universality of scope, i.e. that any spiritual text is speaking to humanity as a whole across time and culture. Even if it is speaking to one particular group, like in Jewish scriptures, the truths still apply to humanity at large. Another commonality might be a presupposition that the texts deal with issues of the human experience that are in some way not fully knowable with our minds, thus leading one away from simplistic interpretations.
Yes, good ideas. Though, if a text is speaking to a particular group in a particular time period, is it right for people to try to apply it across all people and all time periods, against the original intent?
Yes, good ideas. Though, if a text is speaking to a particular group in a particular time period, is it right for people to try to apply it across all people and all time periods, against the original intent?
I think that is a question to ask constantly as we read the work. For me as a reader what the text says should apply for all people and would be timeless.
There is also the difference between reading philosophy and texts that deal with behavior. In Hinduism women are proscribed from chanting certain (probably most) vedic texts. At the same time our soul/atma/self is repeatedly affirmed as gender-less so why should it matter?
The way I resolve it is seeing these texts dictating who can read what is in context of time, space, history culture and all that, and one can follow that if one wants. On the other hand if I believe my atma is genderless and seeking for spiritual awareness, then I will chant those verses that are beautiful to me with abandon.
Could you maybe summarize? I'm sorry but I watched a minute of the video and I just
couldn't get through it--it was kind of incoherent.
That's funny. I could listen to that accent and her little precious face all day. I wish she had her own TV sit com on the BBC.
Since I'm incoherent -I understood her fine. Don't have the time to summarize -but here> seek Jesus, don't be tricked by the enemy - be steadfast and long suffering with God if you pray to him. God is amazing.
Yes, good ideas. Though, if a text is speaking to a particular group in a particular time period, is it right for people to try to apply it across all people and all time periods, against the original intent?
No. No one can apply anything across others. One can only apply, at free will of choice, something to himSelf. He may find others sharing similar views, as there no two that share same, there will always be personalized variations of commonly shared idea.
But that is THEIR views. They have no right to come to someone else and say - from now on, you will believe this.
Also, any belief is as good as environment it grew in. Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi. What worked for a say Jew (well, there was no Jews then, really) in time of Yeshua, is not applicable to John Smith in Ozarks of today. Different everything.
Also, add to this such thing, that is completely disregarded by believers, as Spirit of The Master. his presence. His emanation, His energy, His direct influence at His followers. As when Master is gone, all they are following is His foot prints in the sand of time, and tides of time smooth them very quickly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't have the time to summarize -but here> seek Jesus, don't be tricked by the enemy - be steadfast and long suffering with God if you pray to him. God is amazing.
