![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hermionesviolinnotes from the handout (and ensuing discussion):
* "re-ligio": "re-link" -- religion should be about reconnecting with the divine and with each other
* "At the heart of the Biblical tradition is the notion that truth doesn't come to us primarily as fact, creed, or scripture. It is best conveyed through story" (p. 1).
* three major "macro-stories" (Marcus Borg) of the Bible:
1. bondage and liberation
2. exile and return
3. sin and forgiveness [I wanted them to include a primer on Jewish ideas about what sin is/means]
1. bondage and liberation
* Exodus story... I couldn't help thinking about Joel's class and the observation that God wanted Pharaoh to free the Israelites so that they could worship YHWH -- that it's not quite "liberation" in the way we might perceive of it (e.g. being totally self-determining) ... which then segues into thoughts about how slavery was such a normative part of their worldview at that time
* The "Canaanite" perspective was mentioned -- about how in those same stories of liberation and hope, God endorses conquest and genocide. I was pleased at this, because of course I get twitchy when the God of the Bible is conceived of as fuzzy-wuzzy.
2. exile and return
* This opened with Psalm 137, ending with "How could we sing the LORD'S song in a foreign land?" and it reminded me so strongly of Monday Night in Westerbork.
3. sin and forgiveness
* even the writers of the time didn't entirely understand Jesus' death
* "Christ died for our sins" can mean "to save us from our sins" or "because of/on account of our sins"
* various atonement theories (satisfaction, substitution, ransom, victory, moral)
Mike dug into the problematics of some of these/how they were articulated here, on a very detailed level. I was glad that thoughtful discussion was had even though I was feeling too tired to participate much.
As discussion went on, I was also noticing that none of the atonement theories particularly pinged me, though it's definitely something I wanna study further.
* Micah: "Do Justice, Love Kindness, and Walk Humbly with your God."
***
Trelawney affirmed my patience. Hello, irony. I had arrived a few minutes after seven, concerned because recently they've been starting promptly at seven, but I was the first person there except Trelawney, who had been waylaid by Gary and was still making photocopies. It hadn't really occurred to me that I was being patient, which I guess says something.
Meredith said she loved my outfit (patchwork blouse, black brocade jacket, black pants and boots as per usual) and also Affirmed my articulateness or something -- again with the irony. She said I seemed very deliberate in my speaking and that there was one word I used which she was impressed by, though she couldn't remember it now.
Eric affirmed Mike's use of the word "fealty."
* "re-ligio": "re-link" -- religion should be about reconnecting with the divine and with each other
* "At the heart of the Biblical tradition is the notion that truth doesn't come to us primarily as fact, creed, or scripture. It is best conveyed through story" (p. 1).
* three major "macro-stories" (Marcus Borg) of the Bible:
1. bondage and liberation
2. exile and return
3. sin and forgiveness [I wanted them to include a primer on Jewish ideas about what sin is/means]
1. bondage and liberation
* Exodus story... I couldn't help thinking about Joel's class and the observation that God wanted Pharaoh to free the Israelites so that they could worship YHWH -- that it's not quite "liberation" in the way we might perceive of it (e.g. being totally self-determining) ... which then segues into thoughts about how slavery was such a normative part of their worldview at that time
* The "Canaanite" perspective was mentioned -- about how in those same stories of liberation and hope, God endorses conquest and genocide. I was pleased at this, because of course I get twitchy when the God of the Bible is conceived of as fuzzy-wuzzy.
2. exile and return
* This opened with Psalm 137, ending with "How could we sing the LORD'S song in a foreign land?" and it reminded me so strongly of Monday Night in Westerbork.
3. sin and forgiveness
* even the writers of the time didn't entirely understand Jesus' death
* "Christ died for our sins" can mean "to save us from our sins" or "because of/on account of our sins"
* various atonement theories (satisfaction, substitution, ransom, victory, moral)
Mike dug into the problematics of some of these/how they were articulated here, on a very detailed level. I was glad that thoughtful discussion was had even though I was feeling too tired to participate much.
As discussion went on, I was also noticing that none of the atonement theories particularly pinged me, though it's definitely something I wanna study further.
* Micah: "Do Justice, Love Kindness, and Walk Humbly with your God."
***
Trelawney affirmed my patience. Hello, irony. I had arrived a few minutes after seven, concerned because recently they've been starting promptly at seven, but I was the first person there except Trelawney, who had been waylaid by Gary and was still making photocopies. It hadn't really occurred to me that I was being patient, which I guess says something.
Meredith said she loved my outfit (patchwork blouse, black brocade jacket, black pants and boots as per usual) and also Affirmed my articulateness or something -- again with the irony. She said I seemed very deliberate in my speaking and that there was one word I used which she was impressed by, though she couldn't remember it now.
Eric affirmed Mike's use of the word "fealty."
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 05:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 01:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 08:33 pm (UTC)Christian writers focus more on Abraham's faith, and not on the attempted sacrifice itself. Abraham had been promised he would be the father of a great nation, but he was elderly, his wife was barren and they were childless. he fathered a son by his wife's handmaiden, and is told that his destiny would NOT be through Ishmael. Finally, he and his wife have one son - the son of promise.
Now he's told to sacrifice that son, and trusting God, he obeys. That's been cited as the ultimate example of faith, and as an exemplar for all Christians.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 02:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 02:41 am (UTC)*doesn't quite remember, and is suddenly curious*
no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 04:20 am (UTC)From a scientific or historical point of view, we can't PROVE that anything before some of the post-davidic kings is actually true, and there are some historic anachronisms in the older Genesis and Exodus texts. Anything in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel 1 & II and Chronicles I & II would have to be regarded as myth - a story told by a people about themselves which tells the truth about who they are and what they believe.
Myths can be based on true events (think of Longfellow's "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" - based on the real event but decidedly hahistorical), or they can be based on complete fiction. nevertheless, i'd argue that the myths are MORE true than the history. I'd argue that you can learn more about hte English by reading the legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood, both of which have only accidental correspondence to history.
In that sense, the story of Abraham is so compelling and so powerful to the Jewish mind that it is more true and more important than what really happened. No self-respecting Jew would view Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac as a foreshadowing of Jesus. nonetheless, the power of the story to serve as myth might allow some Christians to find new meaning and new significance to the story.
I must admit I was surprised when you friended me, as I had yet to see any of your previous comments in
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 01:31 pm (UTC)The concept of myth or story is too much neglected in Christian thought, especially among fundamentalists, who insist that the Bible is history, not myth. C. S. Lewis grew up an atheist into his middle thirties, then finally realized that God had to exist. He became a true agnostic as a provisional step, then actively investigated different religious traditions. He finally told J. R. R. Tolkien that he found only Hinduism and Christianity made any logical sense, and he was attracted to Christianity for cultural reasons. he admitted that the one problem he had with Christianity was that Christians insisted that Christ's death and resurrection was history, when it functioned so well as myth. Tolkien replied "What's wrong with a true myth?". Lewis had no response. The next day, he bacame a Christian and never looked back (except possibly after his wife died, and he wrote "A Grief Observed").
Somehow, I get the feeling that Lewis and Tolkien would approve of your class discussion.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-07 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 06:12 pm (UTC)I'm looking through my books for a passage that discussed six levels of truth, and what the opposite of that truth might be. It started out with simple things like scientific and/or historical truth, the opposite of which was false, then built up through truth vs. lies, then metaphoric truths and finally to a kind of paradoxic truth, where the opposite was another truth. I'll get the complete reference later.
The author's point was that scientific/historic truth, while still being important on many levels, didn't have a lot of power when it came to changing lives. Unfortunately, too many people, including too many Christian leaders behave as if these two are the ONLY truths. In that way, Pat Robertson and Bishop Spong are alike. Both act as if the historical and/or scientific proof of the life, death an resurrection of Jesus is the ONLT thing that matters. Robinson insists that they are literally, historically true, and Spong insists they can't be.
A mythic understanding says that the story of the passion and resurrection of Jesus changes lives because it acts as a story that defines the very way in which the believer understands his or her life. This kind of defining, central myth can be demonstrably false (e. g. a person beliving in a literal Adam/Eve story) or it can have only a passing connection to real history (e. g. a person who defines his/her life on the legend of King Arthur, who probably existed, but not in the form of the legend). A myth can also be clearly understood as a made-up story, but true nonetheless. There's people that can define the central core of their being based on Jesus' parables, which are mythically true, even if there never was a literal prodigal son. Finally, there is the "true myth" that Tolkien referred to, an event that actually happened, but also functions on the mythic level.
In evangelism, it would be very hard to convince someone to become a Christian based solely on trying to prove the historical validity of the passion and resurrection. On the other hand, once a person accepts the mythic reality of the Christian message, the historical proof becomes both easier to accept, and much less relevant at the same time.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 08:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-07 03:24 am (UTC)dinner
Date: 2007-01-07 07:35 pm (UTC)Re: dinner
Date: 2007-01-07 08:09 pm (UTC)Re: dinner
Date: 2007-01-09 06:52 pm (UTC)Re: dinner
Date: 2007-01-09 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 02:45 am (UTC)OMG, how tired am I of people trying to find profound signifigance in what isn't even as certain an etymology as they tend to make it sound? Of course, given my theology, it shouldn't matter so much the actual etymology as that people find meaning in the etymology put forward--cue discussion of myth and such--but no one said what I'm tired had to be rational or ideologically sound.
OTOH, the stuff about religion/truth being focused on stories rather than facts, and all of the Borg (who is too theologically conservative for me, but then who isn't?) makes my little poststructuralist heart very happy.