>>Does he really mean this objectively,
>
>there is, esp in these matters, no such thing as objective.
Surely, you can't be serious.
very serious. see below.
>If you are refering to anti-hierarchical movements expoiting anti-christic
>imagery, I concur that given the supposition, it would not be surprising;
>but I was refering to exegetical science, which as I see you do not
>consider to be objective, and I do; but this is a theological matter, best
>left of this list.
true, but i can't help but make a remark since it is at the core of much
discussion btwn scholars and various kinds of religious
fundamentalists. i'll even grant you that the text is directly given to us
from god, or, in one rabbinic version, that he wrote the 5 books of moses
including the little crowns on the letters. but there is no such thing as
a literal or single meaning to the text. we cannot understand the text
without exegesis, and no matter how certain we are that the "our" exegesis
or our exegetical science (whether individual or collective) is the "true"
one, we have to have the exegetical modesty to allow that we (as opposed to
the author) may be fallible.
i must say that the notion of an exegetical science that renders
"objective" readings of sacred texts strikes me as a theological version of
the kind of (newtonian) physics-envy that we find among some of the social
"sciences" (pyschology, economics, sociology).
>I was using theological in the objective sense, again. Of course if a
>group takes a certain stance against the mainstream, and theologizes it,
>you can call it theological motivation; but in medieval terms,
>theological motivations originate with God, and that is how I was using
>the term.
xnty started out as a group that took a certain stance against the
mainstream. why do you think that such groups take such stands? why do
you think it is later "theologized" (whatever that means) rather than done
by people who believe they are inspired by god? as for what the mainstream
is, how can a xn argue that majoritarian decisions decide the nature of god
and what he wants from his human creation? doesn't jesus explicitly tell
his disciples that most people will despise them? and how can we judge
what the mainstream is in a period like the MA, when the overwhelming
majority of texts comes from people who not only claim to represent the
mainstream, but will engage in crusade and inquisition to eliminate rivals?
richard
|