To say that there are "errors" in the Bible is like saying to a poet, "There are errors in your poem." The Bible includes in its textual forms what it is and one can say I don't like this for such and such reason or I don't like the particular way that you read it, but to say there are errors is irrelevant to it having meanings. We don't say about Plato's Socratic dialogues, "There are errors in his dialogues." Persons need to be in a right reading relationship with the Bible or any writing.
Aphorism of the Day, January 4, 2025
The way some people read the Bible has led some people to atheism or to the unwitting falsehood of implying that one cannot be a poet and a scientist at the same time. Persons wrote the Bible as multi-discursive users of language; readers of the Bible are multi-discursive users of language and should read the mystagogic aesthetic portions as such and the portions written with common sense perception as such. Bible readers should be simply encouraging readers to stay within their discursive lanes when explicating biblical meanings.
Aphorism of the Day, January 3, 2025
It is historical true that portions of manuscripts of New Testament writings have been found dating from the second century to the most complete manuscript being found in the 4th century. These writings would indicate a tradition which came to writing of authors who employed the writing genres available in their times to communicate a message about how Jesus of Nazareth defined for them the most cherished human values in their lives. They wrote about his life and his afterlife experienced as mystical experience as it pertained to the crucial human questions about the meaning and mission of one's life and the vision of what one's afterlife might be. The life of Jesus was written "under the influence" of mystical experiences. Other writings about Jesus written under the influence of mystical experiences have not made it into canonical Scriptures.
Aphorism of the Day, January 2, 2025
The word perfection as a state of being should be replaced with the notion of completeness a the last occasion in continuous omni-becoming. One can say from one's position that all is not what one wants everything to be but one cannot say that all is not completely at that it has become. The partial does not have the capacity to make a value just upon completeness, even while one sees and knows in part about the partial things that one sees and knows and on which makes continuous value appraisals.
Aphorism of the Day, January 1, 2025
Plato imagined perfection as being changeless. Trying to merge changelessness while being limited to the effects of time is impossible unless a final future already has been determined and integrated all of the imperfections in time as having to have been necessary for some final changeless state. Perfection which does not allow for genuine freedom of the perpetual surpassing occasions of time makes it some robotic state negating moral and spiritual validity.
No comments:
Post a Comment