Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (13722)	10/13/2002 6:59:43 PM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Thanks. I will need to read and think about it some more, perhaps "be" it awhile. But I think I grasp it conceptually. I think there is a fine line of distinction between his approach and what I understand of the Judeo-Christian perception of reality, individuals, and God. Regarding the interpretation of Paul and John I would use Mortimer Adler principles first. But I would say there is another useful principle to consider in interpretation: a text cannot mean something now that it never could have meant to the original writer and readers. Paul was in Athens, quoting well-known Greek philosophic/poetic references, as a point of contact with the locals. He references the statue to the "Unknown God". He offers to explain to them who this god is. His intent was to proclaim the God of Abraham, and Jesus as the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. They worshipped many gods, even unknown ones (not to leave any out!), but God is not far away or obscure, because "in him we live and move, etc..." I find the saying of John really interesting as well. He tells us pretty much what he intended by starting off that way. I can't remember for sure, but the concept of the Logos places his discussion in philosophical circles, wisdom literature for Jewish readers. Wisdom as an expression of deity is sometimes personified, and Logos is part of the vocabulary that occurs in that genre. So John is framing Jesus as an expression of the eternal Wisdom, or deity become flesh. That's a radical idea which most intellectuals will not allow room for. But I think he is saying something to that effect. It is better to try to let them say what they thought and intended, and if we disagree at least it is with what they actually intended, and not something we derived. Not that you are doing that, but that is how I try to approach it. Enjoying the discussion and clarification. Shalom maran atha!