sravaka -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/24/2010 4:29:51 AM)
|
I will probably regret this.... but, so be it. Three thoughts: 1. To me, the Bible, OT and NT alike, tell the story of a people "growing up" with an ever evolving understanding of the nature of their place in the world and/or of their God. (related questions) It starts out with "do this! don't do that!" when people are constantly on the edge of extermination, whether through natural or human means.... there's no time to think about "love" et al., until things settle down a bit. 2. I'm absolutely with Musicmystery from way back in the first couple pages-- you simply cannot hope to read any text intelligently, or derive any useful "answers" from it, without consciousness of a) how it came into being and b) how it reached you. You need to think about the historical circumstances not just in which OT evolved, not just in which the NT revised the OT, but also about how Augustine, Jerome, Aquinas, Luther, Joseph Smith, Pope John Paul II (i need a televangist name here to round things out-- fill in your own), whoever.... how all these "authorities" over time shaped/constrained interpretation in exceedingly complex/entangled ways. (I'm not speaking of religious sense here-- that tends to be a matter of "faith" et al.... but if you want to pose the question in an abstract way, these things need to be accounted for. Faith, or history: take your pick. there is no 3rd option.) 3. In Buddhism there is "upaya," (sometiimes translated "expedient means.") The idea is that the Buddha tailors his message according to the receptiveness and cluefulness of the audience. Thus you had intensively monastic, rule-driven Buddhism first, and "woo hoo! we all have buddha-nature!" Buddhism later. Maybe the god of the OT was playing the same sort of game. He just omitted to give a handy word for it.
|
|
|
|