Of another world

[littlemanpoet]

I had a post up early yesterday but being on an unfamiliar computer at a certain conference I was attending, I was unsuccessful in posting it.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

...the Christian group (or just LMP, since he has comprised most of it, to date) has been a lot more willing to give and take, to say "you have a point".

I'm not saying that one group has been, or ought to be, accepting the other group as right. I'm not even saying the Christian group is right (although as a card-carrying member, I obviously feel that way). What I am saying is that the Christian group has thus far been more willing to say "you have a point" whereas the non-Christian group hasn't been willing to say that.

As noted, however, that is simply things as I am seeing them- on this thread. Possibly my vision is being coloured by the side of the fence that I'm on.

I think this last sentence is apt. I used to get on the defensive when such astute questions were put to me, but that has changed. I understand why I did get on the defensive: I was afraid that I wasn't up to defending the Faith, that I had to be the next C.S. Lewis in order to do what I felt needed doing. At the conference I attended I heard a lot of useful stuff, and here's one quote, from Marilynne Robinson of the Iowa Writers' Workshop at the U. of Iowa.:

Nothing true can be said about God in a posture of defense.

The reason is that defense is all about setting borders, confining oneself into a small area so as to protect oneself or one's beliefs. But God is bigger than our beliefs. God exceeds defense, proof, et cetera.

Originally Posted by Betberry

Well, this is a bit of a sticking point, I would think, as I doubt if there is general concensus about where it is literal, where symbolic, where metaphorical. I rather liked the explanation of the Catholic sense of letter and meaning (the article used the terms sign[ifier (sic)] and signified) in the article I referred to above.

Originally Posted by [i

THE GIFT OF ILÙVATAR: TOLKIEN'S THEOLOGICAL VISION[/i] by Damien Casey]Tolkien has a strong dislike of allegory with its one dimensional correspondence of sign and signified. [12] Tolkien's imagination is thoroughly Catholic in this regards. Whereas C.S. Lewis thought allegorically, Tolkien thought symbolically. The Catholic understanding of symbol is not simply something that stands for or points to something else. This is no more than a sign, or in its narrative form, an allegory. Rather, the symbol both points beyond itself and makes present that to which it points. It is the nature of sacrament and symbol to bear within themselves the objects to which they refer. Hence Tolkien's imaginary world hopes in some sense to bear the true world within itself.

I like this. However.... literal versus symbolic versus metaphorical. First off, symbolic seems to be an umbrella term under which metaphor finds itself, no? "Literal" would be the histories and stories, unless the text itself indicates a figurative reading such as the parables. If the Bible calls them histories, so I read them, even if many scholars disagree.

More later.

[davem]

If the Bible calls them histories, so I read them, even if many scholars disagree.

This is what worries me about all believers - if the Bible (or Koran, or Mahabharata, etc) says one thing, & the 'scholars' (basing their statements on 'trivialities' like archaeology, historical record, common sense) say different the text is given primacy & the scholars either dismissed as fools or sent to the stake.

The Bible says Jesus was the Son of God, the Koran denies that. To the followers of each the others are heretics, unbelievers. LMP, you scare me. Sorry, but you do. I know you would never light the fire, but you would create the climate, make it possible for the fire to be lit.

When you say 'I believe the histories contained in the Bible, no matter what the 'scholars' say.' & I ask for evidence its not because I want to belittle your faith, butbecause only evidence is safe. The Twin Towers fell, & thousands of people died because some people decided to 'believe' something they read. Six Million Jews died in the Holocaust because people made the choice to reject the 'scholars'. Belief is the single most dangerous approach to life.

Its an approach that seems the way of least resistance, 'let go, trust in a Higher power', don't worry about all these confusing 'facts'. Admit your ignorance & rest in the arms of God'. Sorry, but its a cop out, a denial of your intellectual responsibility - & that is ultimately a rejection of your moral responsibility.

And now I'm on the attack again.

Look, I'm not saying the cold, hard material world is all there is. I've had experiences which have confirmed to me that 'there are more things in Heaven & earth' than are included in the works of 'scholars' but I've never gone down the line of simply 'believing' anything. If the historical accounts in the Bible are true they can be proved (& it will be 'scholars' who prove them), if they can't be proved they are not true.

You've called yourself both a writer & a poet - if you are, & especially if you are a poet, you don't get the luxury of such a cop out.

Sorry for my harsh words, but they had to be said....