From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Apr 06 2003 - 00:49:18 BST
DMB,
DMB to SAM:
> Myths are not facts. Doesn't that mean so much more now? I mean, don't the
> quotes help? Symbols function and operate upon us properly when the
> intellect is NOT engaged, it hits us at a different level, the social
level.
> This is not a put-down. Its a designation. Claiming that such things are
> intellectual does not flatter or elevate, it only causes confusion and
> misunderstanding about the things.
The status (intellectual or social) of myths and symbols is not the issue
here (I too see them as having social origin and utility). The question is
whether or not *theology* is an intellectual activity. Theologians *comment
on* and *interpret* the myths and symbols of their religion, not just repeat
them.
This is about different states of
> consciousness, among other things. Its about the different levels within
> each of us. I think they each have their own way, their own kind of truth.
I
> think they are at odds, but that this is a temporary situation,
historically
> speaking. Many thinkers besides Pirsig are working on the problem. Making
> the distinction between the social and intellectual levels is supposed to
> add clarity. He too, is trying to rescue myth from the realm of the
"mere".
Theologians are also working on the problem, for example (quoting from "The
Craft of Theology" by Avery Dulles):
"The biblical message, according to Bultmann, is encased in ancient
mythological structures of thought and language that make it difficult for
contemporary readers, whose world view is shaped by science and technology,
to grasp the real meaning. Bultmann therefore institutes a program of
demythologizing the New Testament. He tried to strip away the mythological
structures in order to retreive the existential meaning that lies hidden
beneath them."
...
"Conservative Protestants, who based their faith on the authority of the
Bible, regarded Bultmann as a dangerous heretic. Catholics, who believed the
Bible always had to be interpreted in light of philosophical and scientific
knowledge, saw some merits in the Bultmannian program. But they objected
that its purely existential exegesis was too narrow. The Bible, they
insisted, had a lot to tell about God and not only about human
self-understanding."
(Note that word "always" in the third to last sentence. As Sam said: "What
is claimed by Christians is that it is compatible with reason, that there
are no ultimate contradictions in the Christian faith." He should have
excluded those Conservative Protestants, though.)
That is, Bultmann's project has come under criticism because he was too
modern, that is, too SOM-ish. A contemporary theologian is more likely to
treat Christian myths more or less as Campbell does. In sum, the Bible is
seen as telling a lot about God (and people) mythically, while theologians
attempt to translate that telling into something the intellect can handle.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 06 2003 - 00:52:08 BST