Of course, i got the point of the post [or, at least, i hope so. I am never sure with you. ;)] But i am still not sure about designating Christ on the Cross as "patricide".
However, do you see any corelation between this post and the ancient practice of Ostracism? Especially in the context of Aristotle's defence of it:
If, however, there be some one person, or more than one, although not enough to make up the full complement of a state, whose virtue is so pre-eminent that the virtues or the political capacity of all the rest admit of no comparison with his or theirs, he or they can be no longer regarded as part of a state; for justice will not be done to the superior, if he is reckoned only as the equal of those who are so far inferior to him in virtue and in political capacity. Such an one may truly be deemed a God among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and that for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law- they are themselves a law. Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares, when in the council of the beasts the latter began haranguing and claiming equality for all. And for this reason democratic states have instituted ostracism; equality is above all things their aim, and therefore they ostracized and banished from the city for a time those who seemed to predominate too much through their wealth, or the number of their friends, or through any other political influence.
Some of Plato's first writings are on the "nature" of "piety" and the Holy (Sacred) (Euthyphro). I never really understood the arguments, but enjoyed the "irony" of Euthyphro prosecuting his own father. Now at least, I believe I understand some of the irony.
Things may happen for "no" reason, renderingg "understanding," impossible.
------
If I can believe in a Creator, then I can trust that the reasons or answers may be beyond my comprehension. Meaning, if I can accept that I am not the highest form of intelligence, that there is a Higher Power, it's logical that there are events that serve a Higher purpose that I am not meant to know.
Yes, it may be true that understanding and belief are separate, but they don't have to be mutually exclusive. And, as to Job, can't we say of him that he too finally UNDERSTOOD?
But let us put that aside. Let us talk. What according to you is the truth of the Cross, Jen?
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [1 Corinthians 1:18]
So what was this "wisdom" [divine and not of this world]? And should we at all consider it in its madness?
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a scandal to Jews and a madness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Corinthians 1: 20-24]
In fact, was He even mad or not: Quoniam in furorem versus est [Mark 3:21]; or, did he only appear such to some?
"Jesus crucified ... was the scandal of the world and appeared as nothing but ignorance and madness to the eyes of his time.... Do not permit your cross, which has subdued the world for you, to be still the madness and scandal of proud minds." [Bousset. Panegyrique de Saint Bernard.]
It's not obedience as much as acceptance that there is a reality that I am not yet part of, purposes higher than I can see, and a wisdom that my mind cannot comprehend.
Honestly, nicrap, I wish I could answer you adequately tonight. I indicated on my blog that today was not good for me. I don't feel good physically, spiritually, or emotionally, not to mention that I am the last person you should ask about Biblical truths. Maybe fj can get Elbro to pay a visit.
However, i was not looking for Biblical "truths" [I have little or no interest in metaphysics]; what interests me instead is history, how people peceive this or that, their beliefs, their attitudes — contingent truths, in short. :)
In fact, this acceptance that you speak of, which you would agree is acceptance without knowledge, is even predicated on the very impossibility of ever knowing, reflects a certain experience, certain idea of Christianity in the modern times.
A very romantic idea, no less, which may have its roots in Dostoevsky, and shares certain common themes with Existentialism.
I first believed as a young girl, and contrary to what some may say, it was a spiritual experience. Throughout college, my faith was tested, just by sitting in biology, sociology, political science classes, etc. But I experienced a severe depression around age 19, and I experienced God in very direct ways during that time.
In my twenties I become disillusioned with the church, but not God (they are and have always been two very separate things for me). My thirties have been the most eventful and turbulent time for me. I cannot deny Christ, try as I may. The more I read and grow intellectually, the more difficult it has been to attend the church I attended in the past. For years I have felt like I was in between this and that, in a no man's land. But Christ remains a reality for me. I cannot explain to you the very mechanism of faith. It's not big and loud. I honestly don't think I am an "Evangelical", and I never felt comfortable with that title.
I had a very good friend in high school and college who denounced her faith and would question me about mine. She was convinced that the "God experience" was merely a combination of group think and emotions.
I tried to explain to her that my experience with God is intensely private, quiet, and internal. Things change that resisted change. New understanding occurs...
I don't know if that answers your question. I hope it does.
First of all, thanks. I know it must have been difficult for you, giving us a peep into your faith and your life. I really appreciate it very much.
It was an interesting account, and i enjoyed it very much. There were certain "problems" as well. For one, it did not tell us why you believe — it was "autobiographical" not rational — what gives rational, intelligible form to your faith. At best, it put it down to a certain emotional/spiritual experience, but you do see the problem with that. A person who is suffering from melancholia and believes that he is haunted by a demon is no different; he too has been led to it by a similarly intense emotional experience. [Van Diemerbroeck gives an account of just one such person; this man had taken his son to bathing and the boy had drowned, whence his melancholia and delusion.] There is no way one can differentiate between the two "experiences".
But let us not talk about all this right now; let me rather congratulate you on your writing skills. You have an innate talent — i can tell — and i would really like for you to overcome your bashfulness and write as often as you can. :)
My friend, you are correct. The "problem" with faith is that it is not rational, as the world defines "rational"... but that very problem is also the beauty of faith.
Thank you for asking these questions. I am experiencing joy today, and not a moment too soon.
One last thing... on faith being a form of madness. I can only speak for myself. Having experienced both, I consider them very different. Madness, even if mania, is terrifying to me. Faith is not. Sublime, yes, but terrible, no.
Could it be because others share in it? ;) ---------
Not for me. I steer clear of churches AND people who promote a frenzied atmosphere.
:-) your comment made me think back on the time I have spent around "crazy" people vs. church experiences.
Being around other mad hatters was strangely comforting, but I am uncomfortable in church. I don't need to see others experiencing God to trust my own experience.
Church or not, faith in God is a common experience; it could never be as terrifying as let's believing that one is the King of England.
A man breaking his journey between one place and another at a third place of no name, character, population or significance, sees a unicorn cross his path and disappear. That in itself is startling, but there are precedents for mystical encounters of various kinds, or to be less extreme, a choice of persuasions to put it down to fancy; until - "My God," says the second man, "I must be dreaming, I thought I saw a unicorn." At which point, a dimension is added that makes the experience as alarming as it will ever be. A third witness, you understand, adds no further dimension but only spreads it thinner, and a fourth thinner still, and the more witnesses there are, the thinner it gets and the more reasonable it becomes until it is as thin as reality, the name we give to the common experience... "Look, look" recites the crowd. "A horse with an arrow in its forehead! It must have been mistaken for a deer."
G'Nite! Perhaps in the morning, her "energy" will return., and I'll press my boring neurological, psychological philosophies upon her already hard-pressed patience. ;)
Lol, fj, if I didn't laugh at your insight, I'd be offended. :p
It is a matter of patience. I begin to feel mocked when you guys question me about my faith, or even when I read a non-believer' s intellectual attack on faith, in general.
I'm not an intellectual, but I have warred with myself enough that I have no patience to do it with others. :(
It seems to me that we have been talking at cross-purposes; let me therefore try and straighten things out a little bit, from my own perepctive at least.
I have not been asking you to "explain" your faith to me; when i say give me a rational account of it, all i mean to ask is what do you see in it for yourself and for the world, how does it help you, what does it consist in — for instance, what is your relationship with God, is it immediate, full of confidence, or remote, submissive; what are your views of sin, of the Last Judgement; how do you perceive Christ, His life, His divinity, His madness, His attitude towards poverty, His teachings — in short, to give a rational intelligible form to your faith so that others can "see" it too: the totality of your experience as a Christian, and to that extent, the totality of the modern Christian experience. The answers to these and other such questions would constitute that totality, it is what i am interested in. It is never my intention to investigate into the nature of faith and its origins; like i said i am not very interested in metaphysical questions.
However, the fact that you think you need to defend your faith all the time — i think that more than anything else may have shaped the modern Christian experience, forming around a rationalism which is at once its greatest enemy and its greatest legacy.
P.s. I have reposted the same comment as above, with slight changes. The highlighted part marks them.
The sentiment is correct, but i think it is better expressed by "its ultimate support"; as it is around modern rationalism that Christian experience has developed in past few centuries and acquired its specific character.
I tried to form a decent answer for you, but I'm afraid I can't right now. I don't know if I'm too tired or just overwhelmed by the subject matter, but my answer will have to wait.
I have a thousand thoughts in my head, but they won't line up nicely for me.
In other words, it is understood that you have faith — what else? What else do you see in it, besides having faith? Where do you get off? in short. [I don't know if i am using the expression correctly, please advise me.]
But, above all else, what are the things that you believe in? What is their "meaning" for you, it coud be anything, their moral, social cultural, scriptural, spiritual meaning? However, be sure that your faith depends on these meanings, is reinforced by them. Could you not give us a rational intelligible account of it all so that we too can see it, evaluate it, "judge" it. [Which brings us to your own post on Sunday, but about that some other time.] :)
I'd like to answer your questions, but I wonder, are you asking about me as an individual, or are you curious about how an American Christian sees things?
lol. Excetly from where my interest in Ancient Greeks is coming. Further, i would be just as interested in discussing Hinduism with you [or any other faith for that matter], but tell me [and i don't mean it disrespectfully] are you upto the task? :)
It is actually a testimony to Christianity's immense influence that people all over the world, and of different faiths, want to study and discuss it. But, more specifically, in my case at least, it is because it forms such an integral pat of the Western tradition which, for better or worse, in the form of modernity, has come to dominate the intellectual and cultural landscape of the world. There is no escape from it for anyone who wants to understand the world in its present form...
As an individual, of course. I talk to you and not to some "American Christian". ;)
p.s. It's an-going process, like getting to know someone. Can't be done in one post. In fact, i am thankful that you gave us such a long account earlier. It was very interesting.
Everything that contitutes my own individual experience in this particular time and place, every process, every partice, every dscourse, it interests me.
It is for this reason that i study the experience of madness in the seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe; or the different modes of veridiction that have existed in different societies; or the practices of self-formation; and it is also for this reason that i study Christianity. Or, do you think just because i am Hindu i shouldn't?
Then, by the same token, i should not read about the Enlightenment; and yet, Foucault tells us that "we are all children of the Enlightenment" — or, do you think he only meant the Europeans and the Americans? ;)
And then, there is also the question of "possibilities" ... what i can be that i am not? Are there other, better ways of living this life, or should i be content with what i have got? But what have i got — at least i should know that. I should be able to give a rational intelligible account of myself, of how i live and have lived, of my actions, my attitudes, my opinions. If i do not tell an untruth — why not? What is the harm in telling an untruth? I should be able to tell that, so that i can make an evaluation of my life — and others can, too. That is the essence of Socratic method, of his dialectic, and there can be no learning without it, no knowledge, no taking care of oneself.
No, no, i am not miffed. It was an entirely legitimate question [i hope i have answered it adequately] — but equally legitimate is the question why do i study Ancient Greeks, the Hellentistic philosophers, modern day literature from all over the world, and so on; the images, the themes, that are in there are not the exclusive property of a particular religion, or a people, or a social group, but are all intertwined to form the universal experience of mankind — but i don't remember you asking me about that ever. ;)
Personally, I believe that the "Western" religious tradition is rooted in exogamy, as opposed to the endogamy of Asia/Africa. It all begins with Aeschylus' "The Suppliant Women" and Hypermnestra and ends with Helen.
That was cool, nicrap... but Indian society is still much more endogamous than the typical "western" society... although with patronyms like "Baker", "Wheeler", "Smith" and "Carpenter"... one has to wonder.
Did Indian's ever serve "apprenticeships" like early colonial Americans did?
Not power but knowledge is the characteristic of a king or royal person. And the rule of a man is better and higher than law, because he is more able to deal with the infinite complexity of human affairs. But mankind, in despair of finding a true ruler, are willing to acquiesce in any law or custom which will save them from the caprice of individuals. They are ready to accept any of the six forms of government which prevail in the world. To the Greek, nomos was a sacred word, but the political idealism of Plato soars into a region beyond; for the laws he would substitute the intelligent will of the legislator. Education is originally to implant in men's minds a sense of truth and justice, which is the divine bond of states, and the legislator is to contrive human bonds, by which dissimilar natures may be united in marriage and supply the deficiencies of one another. As in the Republic, the government of philosophers, the causes of the perversion of states, the regulation of marriages, are still the political problems with which Plato's mind is occupied. He treats them more slightly, partly because the dialogue is shorter, and also because the discussion of them is perpetually crossed by the other interest of dialectic, which has begun to absorb him.
Breeding was, after all, the supposed cause of the downfall of his original "Republic".
Freud examines the system of Totemism among the Australian Aborigines. Every clan has a totem (usually an animal, sometimes a plant or force of nature) and people aren't allowed to marry those with the same totem as themselves. Freud examines this practice as preventing against incest. The totem is passed down hereditarily, either through the father or the mother. The relationship of father is also not just his father, but every man in the clan that, hypothetically, could have been his father. He relates this to the idea of young children calling all of their parents' friends as aunts and uncles. There are also further marriage classes, sometimes as many as eight, that group the totems together, and therefore limit a man's choice of partners. He also talks about the widespread practices amongst the cultures of the Pacific Islands and Africa of avoidance. Many cultures do not allow brothers and sisters to interact in any way, generally after puberty. Men aren't allowed to be alone with their mothers-in-law or say each other's names. He explains this by saying that after a certain age parents often live through their children to endure their marriage and that mothers-in-law may become overly attached to their son-in-law. Similar restrictions exist between a father and daughter, but they only exist from puberty until engagement.
Woman as "ethical" agent. That's the "Western" tradition. So "choice" in marriage, is "woman's" (Hypermnestra).
I don'y know about the apprenticeships, tell me? Were you refering to the practice of taking up an apprentice and "grooming' him as the future son-in-law?
In fact, the analogy goes even further. Every one is either an uncle or an aunt here, or if of the same age, either brother or sister. Oh the heartaches it has caused! heh.
91 comments:
Not sure about the symbolism ... i mean, consubstantiality aside, isn't He supposed to be the Son?
...[still] supposed to be the son. [Both "Son of Man" and "Son of God".]
Noli me tangere...
Now i wonder what that was all about. ;)
p.s. Jen sure would kill me if she reads this. ;)
Father, Son, HG. The big Trinity. ;)
For crying out loud, Fj! ;)
Now go kill your Father! :P
Your "symbolic" Father, of course. Only then will your future totally belong to Him! ;)
Of course, i got the point of the post [or, at least, i hope so. I am never sure with you. ;)] But i am still not sure about designating Christ on the Cross as "patricide".
However, do you see any corelation between this post and the ancient practice of Ostracism? Especially in the context of Aristotle's defence of it:
If, however, there be some one person, or more than one, although not enough to make up the full complement of a state, whose virtue is so pre-eminent that the virtues or the political capacity of all the rest admit of no comparison with his or theirs, he or they can be no longer regarded as part of a state; for justice will not be done to the superior, if he is reckoned only as the equal of those who are so far inferior to him in virtue and in political capacity. Such an one may truly be deemed a God among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and that for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law- they are themselves a law. Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares, when in the council of the beasts the latter began haranguing and claiming equality for all. And for this reason democratic states have instituted ostracism; equality is above all things their aim, and therefore they ostracized and banished from the city for a time those who seemed to predominate too much through their wealth, or the number of their friends, or through any other political influence.
interesting, now that you mention it!
You guys love to complicate things.
:p
How so?
Christ, the Crucifixion.... it seems so simple to me.
But that's the nature of belief.
I tend to complicate things that I don't understand or believe in. (I realize that understanding and belief CAN BE totally separate.)
And I get nervous at the idea of representing "Christianity"... because I am so broken and unsure of just about everything.....
Understanding and belief are most definitely separate.
...for beliefs precede understandings. Perhaps Job was right. Things may happen for "no" reason, renderingg "understanding," impossible.
Some of Plato's first writings are on the "nature" of "piety" and the Holy (Sacred) (Euthyphro). I never really understood the arguments, but enjoyed the "irony" of Euthyphro prosecuting his own father. Now at least, I believe I understand some of the irony.
Things may happen for "no" reason, renderingg "understanding," impossible.
------
If I can believe in a Creator, then I can trust that the reasons or answers may be beyond my comprehension. Meaning, if I can accept that I am not the highest form of intelligence, that there is a Higher Power, it's logical that there are events that serve a Higher purpose that I am not meant to know.
Yes, it may be true that understanding and belief are separate, but they don't have to be mutually exclusive. And, as to Job, can't we say of him that he too finally UNDERSTOOD?
But let us put that aside. Let us talk. What according to you is the truth of the Cross, Jen?
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [1 Corinthians 1:18]
So what was this "wisdom" [divine and not of this world]? And should we at all consider it in its madness?
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a scandal to Jews and a madness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
[1 Corinthians 1: 20-24]
In fact, was He even mad or not: Quoniam in furorem versus est [Mark 3:21]; or, did he only appear such to some?
"Jesus crucified ... was the scandal of the world and appeared as nothing but ignorance and madness to the eyes of his time.... Do not permit your cross, which has subdued the world for you, to be still the madness and scandal of proud minds." [Bousset. Panegyrique de Saint Bernard.]
@Jen at 11:34 pm
Obedience is very Christian, no doubt. ;)
It's not obedience as much as acceptance that there is a reality that I am not yet part of, purposes higher than I can see, and a wisdom that my mind cannot comprehend.
Honestly, nicrap, I wish I could answer you adequately tonight. I indicated on my blog that today was not good for me. I don't feel good physically, spiritually, or emotionally, not to mention that I am the last person you should ask about Biblical truths. Maybe fj can get Elbro to pay a visit.
Sorry :(
No prob. Take care.
p.s. I appreciate the candour.
However, i was not looking for Biblical "truths" [I have little or no interest in metaphysics]; what interests me instead is history, how people peceive this or that, their beliefs, their attitudes — contingent truths, in short. :)
p.p.s. This blog is very soothing to the eyes, i am enjoying commenting here. Thanks fj. :)
In fact, this acceptance that you speak of, which you would agree is acceptance without knowledge, is even predicated on the very impossibility of ever knowing, reflects a certain experience, certain idea of Christianity in the modern times.
A very romantic idea, no less, which may have its roots in Dostoevsky, and shares certain common themes with Existentialism.
So, in a way, you did tell me something. ;)
I first believed as a young girl, and contrary to what some may say, it was a spiritual experience. Throughout college, my faith was tested, just by sitting in biology, sociology, political science classes, etc. But I experienced a severe depression around age 19, and I experienced God in very direct ways during that time.
In my twenties I become disillusioned with the church, but not God (they are and have always been two very separate things for me). My thirties have been the most eventful and turbulent time for me. I cannot deny Christ, try as I may. The more I read and grow intellectually, the more difficult it has been to attend the church I attended in the past. For years I have felt like I was in between this and that, in a no man's land.
But Christ remains a reality for me. I cannot explain to you the very mechanism of faith. It's not big and loud. I honestly don't think I am an "Evangelical", and I never felt comfortable with that title.
I had a very good friend in high school and college who denounced her faith and would question me about mine. She was convinced that the "God experience" was merely a combination of group think and emotions.
I tried to explain to her that my experience with God is intensely private, quiet, and internal. Things change that resisted change. New understanding occurs...
I don't know if that answers your question. I hope it does.
First of all, thanks. I know it must have been difficult for you, giving us a peep into your faith and your life. I really appreciate it very much.
It was an interesting account, and i enjoyed it very much. There were certain "problems" as well. For one, it did not tell us why you believe — it was "autobiographical" not rational — what gives rational, intelligible form to your faith. At best, it put it down to a certain emotional/spiritual experience, but you do see the problem with that. A person who is suffering from melancholia and believes that he is haunted by a demon is no different; he too has been led to it by a similarly intense emotional experience. [Van Diemerbroeck gives an account of just one such person; this man had taken his son to bathing and the boy had drowned, whence his melancholia and delusion.] There is no way one can differentiate between the two "experiences".
But let us not talk about all this right now; let me rather congratulate you on your writing skills. You have an innate talent — i can tell — and i would really like for you to overcome your bashfulness and write as often as you can. :)
Why is FJ hiding away? I have never known him to stay away from a discussion before, no matter how trivial — and this is far from trivial. ;)
My friend, you are correct. The "problem" with faith is that it is not rational, as the world defines "rational"... but that very problem is also the beauty of faith.
Thank you for asking these questions. I am experiencing joy today, and not a moment too soon.
My guess is that he is maintaining critical distance! :-)
One last thing... on faith being a form of madness. I can only speak for myself. Having experienced both, I consider them very different. Madness, even if mania, is terrifying to me. Faith is not. Sublime, yes, but terrible, no.
And thank you for encouraging me to write. I don't think it'll happen, though. ;-)
My friend, you are correct. The "problem" with faith is that it is not rational, as the world defines "rational"...
Which brings me back to my comment at 5:07 am ... and a very modern experience of Christianity. :)
Madness, even if mania, is terrifying to me. Faith is not. Sublime, yes, but terrible, no.
Could it be because others share in it? ;)
And thank you for encouraging me to write. I don't think it'll happen, though.
I didn't mean write a book but only that express yourself more often. Here, for instance. It was very enjoyable. :)
I'll keep my distance.... so long as everyone play's nicely. ;)
I have my own theories as to origination, of course... and will share "later" if you like.
Could it be because others share in it? ;)
---------
Not for me. I steer clear of churches AND people who promote a frenzied atmosphere.
:-) your comment made me think back on the time I have spent around "crazy" people vs. church experiences.
Being around other mad hatters was strangely comforting, but I am uncomfortable in church. I don't need to see others experiencing God to trust my own experience.
When we start to talk about faith from a psychological or neurological or philosophical angle, I get bored.
These lenses are incapable of capturing the essence. It's futile.
But that's all I say on it, because the conversation pulls people apart, and goes nowhere.
Later, I would love to talk about Dostoevsky and his faith. He does resonate with me, deeply.
Please do, fj. With you it's even more fun. :)
@Jen
Church or not, faith in God is a common experience; it could never be as terrifying as let's believing that one is the King of England.
A man breaking his journey between one place and another at a third place of no name, character, population or significance, sees a unicorn cross his path and disappear. That in itself is startling, but there are precedents for mystical encounters of various kinds, or to be less extreme, a choice of persuasions to put it down to fancy; until - "My God," says the second man, "I must be dreaming, I thought I saw a unicorn." At which point, a dimension is added that makes the experience as alarming as it will ever be. A third witness, you understand, adds no further dimension but only spreads it thinner, and a fourth thinner still, and the more witnesses there are, the thinner it gets and the more reasonable it becomes until it is as thin as reality, the name we give to the common experience... "Look, look" recites the crowd. "A horse with an arrow in its forehead! It must have been mistaken for a deer."
[Rosencratz and Guildenstern Are Dead.]
With you it's even more fun.
With you around, i meant... :)
Time to turn in for the night. Jen is getting bored, anyway. ;)
Nyt, guys.
Someone to help spread it thinner, you mean?
WJ's "Varieties of Religious Experiences" were lost on me.
I'm too simple. ;)
G'Nite! Perhaps in the morning, her "energy" will return., and I'll press my boring neurological, psychological philosophies upon her already hard-pressed patience. ;)
Lol, fj, if I didn't laugh at your insight, I'd be offended. :p
It is a matter of patience. I begin to feel mocked when you guys question me about my faith, or even when I read a non-believer' s intellectual attack on faith, in general.
I'm not an intellectual, but I have warred with myself enough that I have no patience to do it with others. :(
But then, I have a bad habit of taking things too seriously.
So, I'm going to deflect my exposure anxiety onto you.....nicrap sent me a photo of his bookshelf.....you're next! :-)
Goodnight, nicrap. I enjoyed our discussion.
It seems to me that we have been talking at cross-purposes; let me therefore try and straighten things out a little bit, from my own perepctive at least.
I have not been asking you to "explain" your faith to me; when i say give me a rational account of it, all i mean to ask is what do you see in it for yourself and for the world, how does it help you, what does it consist in — for instance, what is your relationship with God, is it immediate, full of confidence, or remote, submissive; what are your views of sin, of the Last Judgement; how do you perceive Christ, His life, His divinity, His madness, His attitude towards poverty, His teachings — in short, to give a rational intelligible form to your faith so that others can "see" it too: the totality of your experience as a Christian, and to that extent, the totality of the modern Christian experience. The answers to these and other such questions would constitute that totality, it is what i am interested in. It is never my intention to investigate into the nature of faith and its origins; like i said i am not very interested in metaphysical questions.
However, the fact that you think you need to defend your faith all the time — i think that more than anything else may have shaped the modern Christian experience, forming around a rationalism which is at once its greatest enemy and its greatest legacy.
P.s. I have reposted the same comment as above, with slight changes. The highlighted part marks them.
its greatest legacy
The sentiment is correct, but i think it is better expressed by "its ultimate support"; as it is around modern rationalism that Christian experience has developed in past few centuries and acquired its specific character.
I tried to form a decent answer for you, but I'm afraid I can't right now. I don't know if I'm too tired or just overwhelmed by the subject matter, but my answer will have to wait.
I have a thousand thoughts in my head, but they won't line up nicely for me.
:-)
In other words, it is understood that you have faith — what else? What else do you see in it, besides having faith? Where do you get off? in short. [I don't know if i am using the expression correctly, please advise me.]
But, above all else, what are the things that you believe in? What is their "meaning" for you, it coud be anything, their moral, social cultural, scriptural, spiritual meaning? However, be sure that your faith depends on these meanings, is reinforced by them. Could you not give us a rational intelligible account of it all so that we too can see it, evaluate it, "judge" it. [Which brings us to your own post on Sunday, but about that some other time.] :)
Where do you get off? in short. [I don't know if i am using the expression correctly, please advise me.
-----
Not the correct usage. "What do you get out of it?", Maybe?
Sorry, i didn't see your comment.
There is no hurry, we have a lifetime to discuss these things. Let us right now clear out the cobwebs. Now where did i keep my broom? ;)
Thanks, jen. Have a good day! :)
Nicrap, let me ask you, why are you so curious?
Where is your interest coming from?
I'd like to answer your questions, but I wonder, are you asking about me as an individual, or are you curious about how an American Christian sees things?
Where is your interest coming from?
lol. Excetly from where my interest in Ancient Greeks is coming. Further, i would be just as interested in discussing Hinduism with you [or any other faith for that matter], but tell me [and i don't mean it disrespectfully] are you upto the task? :)
It is actually a testimony to Christianity's immense influence that people all over the world, and of different faiths, want to study and discuss it. But, more specifically, in my case at least, it is because it forms such an integral pat of the Western tradition which, for better or worse, in the form of modernity, has come to dominate the intellectual and cultural landscape of the world. There is no escape from it for anyone who wants to understand the world in its present form...
Hope this explains my interest somewhat. :)
As an individual, of course. I talk to you and not to some "American Christian". ;)
p.s. It's an-going process, like getting to know someone. Can't be done in one post. In fact, i am thankful that you gave us such a long account earlier. It was very interesting.
Everything that contitutes my own individual experience in this particular time and place, every process, every partice, every dscourse, it interests me.
It is for this reason that i study the experience of madness in the seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe; or the different modes of veridiction that have existed in different societies; or the practices of self-formation; and it is also for this reason that i study Christianity. Or, do you think just because i am Hindu i shouldn't?
Then, by the same token, i should not read about the Enlightenment; and yet, Foucault tells us that "we are all children of the Enlightenment" — or, do you think he only meant the Europeans and the Americans? ;)
And then, there is also the question of "possibilities" ... what i can be that i am not? Are there other, better ways of living this life, or should i be content with what i have got? But what have i got — at least i should know that. I should be able to give a rational intelligible account of myself, of how i live and have lived, of my actions, my attitudes, my opinions. If i do not tell an untruth — why not? What is the harm in telling an untruth? I should be able to tell that, so that i can make an evaluation of my life — and others can, too. That is the essence of Socratic method, of his dialectic, and there can be no learning without it, no knowledge, no taking care of oneself.
but tell me [and i don't mean it disrespectfully] are you upto the task? :)
--------
Not at the moment. :-)
I meant no disrespect by asking you why you were curious. It had nothing to do with your religion, or anything about you, really.
I just didn't want to misrepresent Christianity, as I am not your model Believer.
No, no, i am not miffed. It was an entirely legitimate question [i hope i have answered it adequately] — but equally legitimate is the question why do i study Ancient Greeks, the Hellentistic philosophers, modern day literature from all over the world, and so on; the images, the themes, that are in there are not the exclusive property of a particular religion, or a people, or a social group, but are all intertwined to form the universal experience of mankind — but i don't remember you asking me about that ever. ;)
When we meet the model believer, we would ask him. Till then we must make do with what we have, each other. :)
Personally, I believe that the "Western" religious tradition is rooted in exogamy, as opposed to the endogamy of Asia/Africa. It all begins with Aeschylus' "The Suppliant Women" and Hypermnestra and ends with Helen.
You might like this, fj. :)
Gandhi = perfume seller
Who knew?
That was cool, nicrap... but Indian society is still much more endogamous than the typical "western" society... although with patronyms like "Baker", "Wheeler", "Smith" and "Carpenter"... one has to wonder.
Did Indian's ever serve "apprenticeships" like early colonial Americans did?
from the Jowett intro to Plato's "Statesman"
Not power but knowledge is the characteristic of a king or royal person. And the rule of a man is better and higher than law, because he is more able to deal with the infinite complexity of human affairs. But mankind, in despair of finding a true ruler, are willing to acquiesce in any law or custom which will save them from the caprice of individuals. They are ready to accept any of the six forms of government which prevail in the world. To the Greek, nomos was a sacred word, but the political idealism of Plato soars into a region beyond; for the laws he would substitute the intelligent will of the legislator. Education is originally to implant in men's minds a sense of truth and justice, which is the divine bond of states, and the legislator is to contrive human bonds, by which dissimilar natures may be united in marriage and supply the deficiencies of one another. As in the Republic, the government of philosophers, the causes of the perversion of states, the regulation of marriages, are still the political problems with which Plato's mind is occupied. He treats them more slightly, partly because the dialogue is shorter, and also because the discussion of them is perpetually crossed by the other interest of dialectic, which has begun to absorb him.
Breeding was, after all, the supposed cause of the downfall of his original "Republic".
Religion "codifies" the marriage totem...
Wikipedia summary of Freud's "Totem and Taboo"
Freud examines the system of Totemism among the Australian Aborigines. Every clan has a totem (usually an animal, sometimes a plant or force of nature) and people aren't allowed to marry those with the same totem as themselves. Freud examines this practice as preventing against incest. The totem is passed down hereditarily, either through the father or the mother. The relationship of father is also not just his father, but every man in the clan that, hypothetically, could have been his father. He relates this to the idea of young children calling all of their parents' friends as aunts and uncles. There are also further marriage classes, sometimes as many as eight, that group the totems together, and therefore limit a man's choice of partners. He also talks about the widespread practices amongst the cultures of the Pacific Islands and Africa of avoidance. Many cultures do not allow brothers and sisters to interact in any way, generally after puberty. Men aren't allowed to be alone with their mothers-in-law or say each other's names. He explains this by saying that after a certain age parents often live through their children to endure their marriage and that mothers-in-law may become overly attached to their son-in-law. Similar restrictions exist between a father and daughter, but they only exist from puberty until engagement.
Woman as "ethical" agent. That's the "Western" tradition. So "choice" in marriage, is "woman's" (Hypermnestra).
Antigone, we barely knew ye! ;)
Now, either castrate yourself OR kill your father. There is no "third" option. :P
...well... no "authentic" one. ;)
gandhi=perfume seller
lol. I never thought or knew about it before.
I don'y know about the apprenticeships, tell me? Were you refering to the practice of taking up an apprentice and "grooming' him as the future son-in-law?
Like totem, gotra too is handed down from father to children; though in certain states it is handed down from mother to children.
In fact, the analogy goes even further. Every one is either an uncle or an aunt here, or if of the same age, either brother or sister. Oh the heartaches it has caused! heh.
...not so much "son-in-law" as using "contracts" to obtain labourers... or labour in return for education, room and board.
I hope y'all have a good week. I am headed out of town to enjoy this crazy thing we call family.
Adios!
...in many ways, an apprenticeship is like an "adoption" into a jati.
Ciao, Jen!
Gattaca vs jati...
Genetic Predestination writ large... not exactly sci-fi. ;)
...on exceeding destiny.
Irrational, isn't it?
...just don't get stupid about it. ;)
lol. I read about them some time ago. Full of interesting trivia. :)
Ciao, jen.
Post a Comment