Comments on: They didn’t care about theology

By: suki

suki — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:51:52 +0000

If you think about Peter and Paul, etc. as shepherds and fishermen historically, and all that they had to do and deal with to get by, it makes sense that they would not be theologizing all day long. Also, Jesus seemed more of an action-man than a philosopher–remember the bank scene? He also demonstrated god’s forgiveness by dying for our sins, instead of, say, just pontificating about them, or philosophizing them away. I’m not saying they didn’t do it at all, but I am saying that they did not think of it the way people later did. I often think that people find their own meaning in books. Perhaps what makes the bible such a powerful, magickal book is not what it actually says, but that masses and masses of people decided to believe it true or powerful or magickal.

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:32:53 +0000

And who was that young man of twelve, found discussing with the Rabbis in the Temple?

Yeah, I thought of that discrepancy as well.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:44:33 +0000

Hmmm, I wonder who those “ancient sages” are. They were surely not the ancients of Egypt, Greece, Persia or Chaldea, for instance.
There was plenty of talk about metaphysics and theology well before Jesus walked this Earth. And who was that young man of twelve, found discussing with the Rabbis in the Temple? There is “meat and milk” in the Gospels, and not all of the “meat” was given to the common people.

A wise man once said that the study of the Gospels can challege the greatest of minds, but also the simplest of folk can still glean from them.

This question of knowledge and knowledge gathering is a big one. Maybe Karen hasn’t considered the relationship of knowledge to love. How can we love what we truly don’t know?
“HAPPY is he to whom truth manifests itself, not in signs and words that fade, but as it actually is.”
The Imitation of Christ
-Thomas Ã Kempis: a great guide on humility and vanity.

By: Edd

Edd — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:41:50 +0000

I certainly agree with Karen Armstrong when she says it creates splits in the church, but does is that the thinking itself, or just the lack of ability to reconcile differences?
Even if the discussion is ultimately just self-indulgent guesswork, I could see it as “crosswords for the imagination”, so to speak. I find it interesting to look at theories and ideas as an activity in itself, much the same as someone may like sport, or movies. I like to think things also go a bit deeper than that, and maybe when I get to that stage it becomes egotism. I dont think that ever has to effect if you do good and are compassionate (from a religious point of view), the problems only arise when you cement your beliefs in these things, and try to enforce them on others.