I just read a number of beautiful eulogies from former students of Alan Segal and had to share one of the quotes from his book, "Life After Death".
"Religion's imagining of our hereafter also seems to say the same - our 'immortal longings' are mirrors of what we find of value in our lives. They motivate our moral and artistic lives. Our longing itself deserves a robe and crown, nothing less. If humans can be, in Hamlet's words, 'in apprehension like a god,' do we not deserve his epitaph: 'flights of angels sing us to our rest'?" (p. 731).
I think this is a beautiful quote that resonates within my own heart about the "human value" of valuing and determining. These longing of value deserve a "robe and a crown"! His students described a man who talked of transcending oneself. He obviously found that he could do that through the students he left behind. Alan must have been an artist in creating his scholarship of early Christian and Judaic communities and using classical literature to defend or support the "human element" of such literature.
After that , what more can be said?
Showing posts with label bibilcal scholarship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bibilcal scholarship. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Prejuidice Confirmed
Just recently, I saw on FaceBook that two biblical/theological scholars were to be visiting an area where I knew a "friend". I was amazed that these internationally known scholars would be visiting this small town. I decided to inform my "friend", so she might see them. I thought that the information that she would be exposed to might break the "wall" that hindered her from considering "real life".
This friend is a fundamentalist and she teaches numerous bible studies and holds authority over many minds in this town. I thought that being educated by those who have made their life's commitment to her value of "text" would be interesting for her and her "hobby".
When I told her about the event. She said she didn't want to consider it. Why, I asked? She stated that another friend had attended events supported by this particular lay group and she viewed these scholars as "liberals, besides the fact that those in this lay movement were the elite in this town"! When I tried to defend them, and suggest that maybe it would be of interest for her to just listen and consider what these people were saying, she refused!!!
I am not surprised since she had already been biased by her other friend. And this both friends do not value "open minded" discussion, education, intellectual challenges. In fact, in the past, when I have off-handedly offered "information" that I had learned, she would just state that she wasn't called to teach the "educated", or those that needed such information. (i.e., everyone was comfortable in their "imaginations" and their understandings of "truth". Why bother them?). Just as well, it confirmed to me that some people think that learning something that might challenge their assumptions, which would undermine their "self" or "ego". Their very identificaton is in how they understand the text.
Yes, why bother people with information that might make them uncomfortable? Would it change their life commmitments or decisions? I think so, as many of them have based their lives on what they deemed as "truth". And it might have limited them in thier choices and their understanding of values. But, will such as these change? I don't think so, not unless they themselves see value in learning, understanding or education, itself. But, then, I probably won't change my commitment to learn think,, challenge and provoke.
This friend is a fundamentalist and she teaches numerous bible studies and holds authority over many minds in this town. I thought that being educated by those who have made their life's commitment to her value of "text" would be interesting for her and her "hobby".
When I told her about the event. She said she didn't want to consider it. Why, I asked? She stated that another friend had attended events supported by this particular lay group and she viewed these scholars as "liberals, besides the fact that those in this lay movement were the elite in this town"! When I tried to defend them, and suggest that maybe it would be of interest for her to just listen and consider what these people were saying, she refused!!!
I am not surprised since she had already been biased by her other friend. And this both friends do not value "open minded" discussion, education, intellectual challenges. In fact, in the past, when I have off-handedly offered "information" that I had learned, she would just state that she wasn't called to teach the "educated", or those that needed such information. (i.e., everyone was comfortable in their "imaginations" and their understandings of "truth". Why bother them?). Just as well, it confirmed to me that some people think that learning something that might challenge their assumptions, which would undermine their "self" or "ego". Their very identificaton is in how they understand the text.
Yes, why bother people with information that might make them uncomfortable? Would it change their life commmitments or decisions? I think so, as many of them have based their lives on what they deemed as "truth". And it might have limited them in thier choices and their understanding of values. But, will such as these change? I don't think so, not unless they themselves see value in learning, understanding or education, itself. But, then, I probably won't change my commitment to learn think,, challenge and provoke.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
A Human Book That Can Be Dangerous
Last post I was personal. And in sharing my journey I do not want to give the impression that "I have no hope" or that I am distraught. No, in fact, what I have come to understand has enlarged me as a person. I am grateful for it, but it has been challenging and at times, painful.
When I call scripture a human book, I mean that humans wrote the book with certain understandings, and assumptions. Some of these are personal assumptions, just as the "image" of Father was an important one for me, because of my past. Each gospel writer have different emphasis' and different rememberances. This is not unusual, as when two people are asked about a certain situation, there are ususually areas of disagreement.
Why do I say that a human book, much less the Bible is a danger? Whenever there is something that is considered "special" or"holy" then humans tend to treat it differently. This should not be, as scripture was written by human beings, and though, inspired, were not inspired any more than what any other human being can be inspired. These writers did not become some "superman" before they wrote the scriptures. They were ordinary people who had had an extraordinary experience that had impacted their lives. Because of the impact, these writers were "inspired", but it was not a supernatural kind of inspiration. Without knowing really what the writer's intent was, nor can one understand how they "hoped in god", but we do know that these were "worldviews" as well as personal views of the writers. Therefore the text should not be accepted at face value because our world is different.
I find that faith is more enlarging and mores inclusive of others when there is an understanding of the text's limitation and not believeing that the text is somehow superior to the human being. The text cannot talk, interpret, or reason. So, understanding the text is "work". Ancient paradigms, language expressions, bring much confusion as how to apply the text Our modern West does not seek to apply it, but dismiss it altogether, while the conservative evangelical tries to obey it, with limited understanding of how wrongly their application might be. This is dangerous to the individual interpreter but also, others, as judgements will be based on this limited viewpoint.
When I call scripture a human book, I mean that humans wrote the book with certain understandings, and assumptions. Some of these are personal assumptions, just as the "image" of Father was an important one for me, because of my past. Each gospel writer have different emphasis' and different rememberances. This is not unusual, as when two people are asked about a certain situation, there are ususually areas of disagreement.
Why do I say that a human book, much less the Bible is a danger? Whenever there is something that is considered "special" or"holy" then humans tend to treat it differently. This should not be, as scripture was written by human beings, and though, inspired, were not inspired any more than what any other human being can be inspired. These writers did not become some "superman" before they wrote the scriptures. They were ordinary people who had had an extraordinary experience that had impacted their lives. Because of the impact, these writers were "inspired", but it was not a supernatural kind of inspiration. Without knowing really what the writer's intent was, nor can one understand how they "hoped in god", but we do know that these were "worldviews" as well as personal views of the writers. Therefore the text should not be accepted at face value because our world is different.
I find that faith is more enlarging and mores inclusive of others when there is an understanding of the text's limitation and not believeing that the text is somehow superior to the human being. The text cannot talk, interpret, or reason. So, understanding the text is "work". Ancient paradigms, language expressions, bring much confusion as how to apply the text Our modern West does not seek to apply it, but dismiss it altogether, while the conservative evangelical tries to obey it, with limited understanding of how wrongly their application might be. This is dangerous to the individual interpreter but also, others, as judgements will be based on this limited viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
