no world is more real than the ones they create

[Robyn Banks]

Lindbeck calls for an "intratextual theology" that "redescribes reality within the scriptural framework" and aims at "imaginatively incorporating all being into a Christ-centered world".

"[T]he reasonableness of a religion is largely a function of its assimilative powers, of its ability to provide an intelligible interpretation in its own terms of the varied situations and realities adherents encounter."

"For those who are steeped in them, no world is more real than the ones they create. A scriptural world is thus able to absorb the universe. It supplies the interpretive framework within which believers seek to live their lives and understand reality."
- 'The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age'

[The Creep]

This is interesting. Your talking about the synthetic powers of Christianity. There's another school of thought that emphasizes Christianity as a contradiction. Zazic praises Christianity for its disruptive powers. Jacque Ellul believed that true Christianity was an anti-system and that Christ as a person could not be treated as the lynchpin of an order constructed by human minds.

I don't believe the conflict between those two ways will ever end so long as the human heart remains as complicated as it is.

[mentored1]

Well met Creep

This is interesting. Your talking about the synthetic powers of Christianity.

Syncretic isn't it? I could be wrong. Anyways - the varied symbols and themes that exist liberally in the Scriptural records ensured that many different threads of mythology across many cultural lines would have something to identify with.

I don't believe the conflict between those two ways will ever end so long as the human heart remains as complicated as it is.

Well put. I've wondered if the split between two ways is not a reflection of a split in the human psyche on some very fundamental level. As one author put it: 'the pathology of the human mind is comprised of one side that constructs wonders like cathedrals and the other side is the one that decorates those cathedrals with monsters and suffering'. {paraphrased}

The emergence of the human brain in its modern form happened suddenly from what we know right now (?) and I wonder if its possible that some of the connections in that rapid expansion didn't develop defects. A lot of that primitive fear and superstition of a world populated by monsters and death underlying the modern confidence and creativity of a world populated by computers and longevity... :shrug:

Take care

[shunyadragon]

Lindbeck calls for an "intratextual theology" that "redescribes reality within the scriptural framework" and aims at "imaginatively incorporating all being into a Christ-centered world".

"[T]he reasonableness of a religion is largely a function of its assimilative powers, of its ability to provide an intelligible interpretation in its own terms of the varied situations and realities adherents encounter."

"For those who are steeped in them, no world is more real than the ones they create. A scriptural world is thus able to absorb the universe. It supplies the interpretive framework within which believers seek to live their lives and understand reality."
- 'The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age'

This is not really new. It is what most liberal theologians try to do. They try to fit an ancient wordview into today's world. It is like pounding square pegs in round holes, you get a lot of splinters, such as new churches. Any attempt at rewritting or reinterpreting doctrine or theology will always have to deal with the realities of the ancient scripture, which is the BOOK', and in itself is not adapted to 'revisionism'.

The conservatives on the other hand, basically draw the line in the sand and reject the modern world and opt to live in the past, or the 'good old days'.

Naming ages like the Postliberal or Postmodern age is also problematic. If anything we are in the Modern Age of increased poloriazation of religion which began in the 18th century. This actually true of most ancient religions of the world.

[The Creep]

Pleasure to meet you mentored1

I don't believe that liberals are necessarily trying to make ancient views fit modern ones but I'm wondering if either of you have heard of C. S. Lewis' use of the phrase "Chronological snobbery."
The use of the term "ancient" assumes that anything ancient must be devalued - rendered obsolete merely by the fact that people living later have different ideas about it. I try not to get dragged into forming my opinions by whether or not something is new or old.

The human mind is excessively complex and I don't by the choices so often offered me about what I must believe or not believe - I certainly don't buy a choice between the so-called scientific and the so-called religious.

I used the term "synthetic" because I was the thinking of the powers of synthesis Christianity has.

I don't know how to reconcile the synthetic and the contradictory.

[shunyadragon]

Pleasure to meet you mentored1

I don't believe that liberals are necessarily trying to make ancient views fit modern ones but I'm wondering if either of you have heard of C. S. Lewis' use of the phrase "Chronological snobbery."
The use of the term "ancient" assumes that anything ancient must be devalued - rendered obsolete merely by the fact that people living later have different ideas about it. I try not to get dragged into forming my opinions by whether or not something is new or old.

The human mind is excessively complex and I don't by the choices so often offered me about what I must believe or not believe - I certainly don't buy a choice between the so-called scientific and the so-called religious.

I used the term "synthetic" because I was the thinking of the powers of synthesis Christianity has.

I don't know how to reconcile the synthetic and the contradictory.

I believe there is genuine argument that older religions lack relavence to today's world, and most definitely modern liberal theologians like Plantinga definitely do try make ancient worldviews fit modern ones.

This is not chronological snobbery nor does it devalue te positive aspects of a religion, but it puts it in a more real perspective. I think this can be well documented historically for all religions. For example, I have no doubt that the ancient people of the middle east did believe there was a world flood, and unfortunitely those living in the past still believe there actually was a world flood.

I think the original post in this thead describes this problem very well.

[wattsr1]

Lindbeck calls for an "intratextual theology" that "redescribes reality within the scriptural framework" and aims at "imaginatively incorporating all being into a Christ-centered world".

"[T]he reasonableness of a religion is largely a function of its assimilative powers, of its ability to provide an intelligible interpretation in its own terms of the varied situations and realities adherents encounter."

"For those who are steeped in them, no world is more real than the ones they create. A scriptural world is thus able to absorb the universe. It supplies the interpretive framework within which believers seek to live their lives and understand reality."
- 'The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age'


Gidday Robyn,

I think all our world views behave like a religion in the sense that they provide an interpretive framework within which believers seek to live their lives and understand reality.

If world views did not provide this function then non religious people would not be able to find meaning and understand reality. Yet they do.

Regards, Roland

[Mountain Man]

I hope you guys realize, the original post in this thread was submitted almost 3 years ago (check the date under the avatar), and Robyn Banks appears to have been banned some time ago.

Feel free to continue your discussion. Just don't expect Robyn Banks to respond.

[Skeptic]

"For those who are steeped in them, no world is more real than the ones they create. A scriptural world is thus able to absorb the universe. It supplies the interpretive framework within which believers seek to live their lives and understand reality."
- 'The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age'This is a good illustration of what Anthony Storr says in "Feet of Clay (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684834952/qid=1131027837/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-4695090-6659928?v=glance&s=books)" -- in so many words, that the only significant and apparent difference between religion and psychosis is popularity.

Byron

[wattsr1]

I hope you guys realize, the original post in this thread was submitted almost 3 years ago (check the date under the avatar), and Robyn Banks appears to have been banned some time ago.

Feel free to continue your discussion. Just don't expect Robyn Banks to respond.

I did wonder about the "banned" bit under the name but didn't see the date.

Thanks for the heads up.

Regards, Roland

[mentored1]

I don't believe that liberals are necessarily trying to make ancient views fit modern ones but I'm wondering if either of you have heard of C. S. Lewis' use of the phrase "Chronological snobbery."

Yes indeed I have heard the phrase... Is there anything necessarily wrong with making ancient views correspond to modern ones? Do ancient themes necessarily have to remain stagnant in the time frame they were originally in reference to? Even if there is an attempt to reinterpret "ancient" views is it necessarily something that shouldn't be done?

The use of the term "ancient" assumes that anything ancient must be devalued - rendered obsolete merely by the fact that people living later have different ideas about it. I try not to get dragged into forming my opinions by whether or not something is new or old.

Nor do I. Perhaps I can clarify my intent by using "ancient" - because I also agree that the average use of that description implies it is outmoded and needs to be replaced by something "better". In many ways I find many of the ancient myths and philosophies to be superior mainly due to the fact they dealt with archetypes and themes that were embedded in the human experience and had resounding application. I do not consider them obselete - I consider their importance to be lost on modern man; quite the opposite then. So consider my reference one of chronology and not importance.

The human mind is excessively complex and I don't by the choices so often offered me about what I must believe or not believe - I certainly don't buy a choice between the so-called scientific and the so-called religious.

Agreed - the human mind seems at present an unfathomable labyrinth that we're trying to navigate without aid of a compass, map, or guide. Nonetheless why does it essentially boil down to a choice between scientific and religious views? I understand you try not to buy that choice, as you mentioned, but why do you think those two paradigms are facing across a schism?

I used the term "synthetic" because I was the thinking of the powers of synthesis Christianity has.

I apologize if the implication was wrong - I understood how you meant it; I just recall it being called 'syncretic' in that fashion. I understood synthetic to mean something that was an artificial version of something natural - like synthetic oil. Nonetheless you were understood... :wink:

I don't know how to reconcile the synthetic and the contradictory.

That's a quandary. It's a quandary for everything that is perceived in a dualistic fashion. It seems our minds are structured to comprehend things like this and methinks the results of this split are evident in human soceity. Regardless, perhaps the syncretic and contradictory are just in our minds and we have failed to understand it as a single structure.

Many ancient stories and symbols, to my mind, excelled at presenting a coherent picture: I'm not sure they were meant to be literal images - something literal tends to bring some things together to the exclusion of others (the syncretic/contradiction problem mentioned in this thread). Perhaps we've taken the symbolic myths of old into a place they were not intended... perhaps not... :shrug:

Take care

[shunyadragon]

Yes indeed I have heard the phrase... Is there anything necessarily wrong with making ancient views correspond to modern ones? Do ancient themes necessarily have to remain stagnant in the time frame they were originally in reference to? Even if there is an attempt to reinterpret "ancient" views is it necessarily something that shouldn't be done?

Making ancient view correspond to modern ones has two distinctly different applications. The first, which I endorse is where ancient legends, myths, and stories are like teachers concerning human nature and history. Gilgamesh, Genesis, Legends of ancient China and Japan, and the Illiad and Odessy are just a few of my favorite works of literature that are rich in symbolism and insight into the nature of being human. It is important to add that in this view the ancient texts are not 'made' to fit the modern world.

The second is whole different story. This is the worldview of many religions.
In this worldview there is the unrealisitic assumption that the 'Book' or collection of books is the yardstick of everything past present and future, and it 'must be made to fit' to explain everything in the modern world.


Nor do I. Perhaps I can clarify my intent by using "ancient" - because I also agree that the average use of that description implies it is outmoded and needs to be replaced by something "better". In many ways I find many of the ancient myths and philosophies to be superior mainly due to the fact they dealt with archetypes and themes that were embedded in the human experience and had resounding application. I do not consider them obselete - I consider their importance to be lost on modern man; quite the opposite then. So consider my reference one of chronology and not importance.

I believe that ancient myths are not necessarily 'better or worse'. They simplay are apart of the 'human experience and had resounding application' just the same as many modern stories tur or legend.

The obseleteness or outmoded nature comes in the overall worldview of the context these ancient legends when people place one 'ancient' work of literature at the center of everything, and then 'make it fit' whether it does or not.

[mentored1]

Well met - pleasure talking with you shunya, as usual. :teeth:

Making ancient view correspond to modern ones has two distinctly different applications. The first, which I endorse is where ancient legends, myths, and stories are like teachers concerning human nature and history. Gilgamesh, Genesis, Legends of ancient China and Japan, and the Illiad and Odessy are just a few of my favorite works of literature that are rich in symbolism and insight into the nature of being human. It is important to add that in this view the ancient texts are not 'made' to fit the modern world.

Quite right... "rich in symbolism and insight into the nature of being human" is an apt description of the value I see in ancient tales. I would agree that ancient texts are not made to fit the modern world only insofar as trying to apply them to practical situations.

They fit any world in regards to the "symbolism and insight" mentioned above - IMO. Any attempt to try and apply the practical and realistic effects of social arrangments, government, or other institutional practices tends to result in serious conflict and confusion.

The second is whole different story. This is the worldview of many religions.
In this worldview there is the unrealisitic assumption that the 'Book' or collection of books is the yardstick of everything past present and future, and it 'must be made to fit' to explain everything in the modern world.


Correct - and I think that is where that threshold from symbolism and insight to practice and plan is crossed for which those ancient texts were not intended by their inherent content.

When I stopped worrying about a particular theology should be practiced and how it applies to everyday life and started drawing the meaning and insight out of what I was studying the value and richness increased greatly. Hence my view that the insight and symbolism has a value that should not be measured out in institutions and laws.

The obseleteness or outmoded nature comes in the overall worldview of the context these ancient legends when people place one 'ancient' work of literature at the center of everything, and then 'make it fit' whether it does or not.

Indeed - and doing so means the exclusion of everything that view is NOT. Which is an awful lot given man's creative faculty.

So is your views that a new type of insight is needed for the modern world or a different view of the insights we already have?

I asked that question and realized you answered it in another thread by mentioning that 'creation and revelation are part of the same ongoing process'... :teeth:

Take care