I just finished The Closing of the Muslim Mind, and, after reading it, I thanked God exceedingly for liberal historical, form, and redactional criticism and unhampered inquiry, and nearly literally ran to grab my NRSV NOAB 4th edition, and as many Michael Glazier books as I could easily find to cleanse my palate. (Even though my Penguin NCPB is actually nicer; I can't stand the unjustified right text in the NOAB 4th Ed.)
Sometimes we forget, even from whence we came, how good we have it, that a Bible can be published that says, "the traditional stories of its composition are false, and it contains nothing but legends, exaggerations, and lies". I normally gripe about it, but remembering the process of Islam, I am thankful for it indeed: thus, we have become Moderns, but not Modernists.
I'm in agreement with GK Chesterton, who said the point of opening one's mind was to close it again on something solid, lest, like a mouth, one lets it hang open and appears a fool.
I tend to be by far the most conservative or traditionalist commentator on this blog, but one must appreciate that heresy is at least allowed to be spoken - a religion that can not withstand heresy and falsehood is no more true than that which it is ostensibly opposed to, as "the darkness comprehended it [the Light] not".
You may not understand if you didn't come from a background that made sedevacantists look like flaming leftist commie comrade liberal secularist anti-religionists, but that book I mentioned above is a good place to start (although a bit unbalanced, as it deals only with the academic theology, which, nonetheless, effects the average people after having time to "trickle down" over thousands of years).
That reminds me that academic theology doesn't always trickle down. There are a lot (most?) Christians who can't explain the Trinity if their life depended on it, and just as many who view it as essentially three gods, like the Mormons do.
Have no fear, I still believe (and defend, in most cases) classical interpretation of the Bible, outside of a few books such as Hebrews (not written by Paul), Wisdom (not written by Solomon), 2 and 3 John (probably not written by John), et cetera et cetera.
But, we have come to be where we are - although, as you point out at least implicitly, at great cost to faith and purpose for the hereafter - due to that free inquiry. The allowing of free inquiry isn't necessarily a bad thing; it is the true meaning of "tolerance", not the "intolerance of all 'intolerance' in the name of tolerance" that hath become the Golden Calf of this age, and which you speak against, after a veiled fashion.
5 comments:
I just finished The Closing of the Muslim Mind, and, after reading it, I thanked God exceedingly for liberal historical, form, and redactional criticism and unhampered inquiry, and nearly literally ran to grab my NRSV NOAB 4th edition, and as many Michael Glazier books as I could easily find to cleanse my palate. (Even though my Penguin NCPB is actually nicer; I can't stand the unjustified right text in the NOAB 4th Ed.)
Sometimes we forget, even from whence we came, how good we have it, that a Bible can be published that says, "the traditional stories of its composition are false, and it contains nothing but legends, exaggerations, and lies". I normally gripe about it, but remembering the process of Islam, I am thankful for it indeed: thus, we have become Moderns, but not Modernists.
Thank God for free inquiry.
Chrysosyum,
bwaaahahahaaaahoo...ho...ha...heeeee!
Moderns but not modernists.
Bwaaahahahaaaahoo .....
I....can't...stop...laughing.....
Brad.
The most ironic thing being that I was, and am, serious. It doesn't stop me from putting rhetoric at my disposal, though!
Maybe another revolt against such close-minded insularity, where even humor is haram.
Closing the mind to such things as heresy of doctrine, contempt of God's word, and scornful scholarship is a virtue not a vice.
Brad
I'm in agreement with GK Chesterton, who said the point of opening one's mind was to close it again on something solid, lest, like a mouth, one lets it hang open and appears a fool.
I tend to be by far the most conservative or traditionalist commentator on this blog, but one must appreciate that heresy is at least allowed to be spoken - a religion that can not withstand heresy and falsehood is no more true than that which it is ostensibly opposed to, as "the darkness comprehended it [the Light] not".
You may not understand if you didn't come from a background that made sedevacantists look like flaming leftist commie comrade liberal secularist anti-religionists, but that book I mentioned above is a good place to start (although a bit unbalanced, as it deals only with the academic theology, which, nonetheless, effects the average people after having time to "trickle down" over thousands of years).
That reminds me that academic theology doesn't always trickle down. There are a lot (most?) Christians who can't explain the Trinity if their life depended on it, and just as many who view it as essentially three gods, like the Mormons do.
Have no fear, I still believe (and defend, in most cases) classical interpretation of the Bible, outside of a few books such as Hebrews (not written by Paul), Wisdom (not written by Solomon), 2 and 3 John (probably not written by John), et cetera et cetera.
But, we have come to be where we are - although, as you point out at least implicitly, at great cost to faith and purpose for the hereafter - due to that free inquiry. The allowing of free inquiry isn't necessarily a bad thing; it is the true meaning of "tolerance", not the "intolerance of all 'intolerance' in the name of tolerance" that hath become the Golden Calf of this age, and which you speak against, after a veiled fashion.
Post a Comment