Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think it's the "I don't care" option.
As for Edmund Husserl, he was definitely an interesting read back in college and I liked his hermeneutic of "Framing." That was one idea that has always stuck with me, however badly I may appropriate it.
Ricoeur's Time and Narrative Vol. 3 starts out with Husserl's Phenomenology of internal time consciousness. Wow! I may have to read the actual guy.I have to look it up. Is two d's or two g's or who cares? I am a fan of his teacher, Husserl, though.
Another big name (that is influential) . How about Habermas? Derreda and Gadamer? I never heard of these guys and Tracy talks about them in the same sentences as Plato and Aristotle.Maybe this has been discussed, but in terms of theology, the primary Heideggerian is Rudolph Bultmann (not to be confused with Moltmann, who was a very different German animal). Bultmann basically appropriated (in the usual sense of the term) Heidegger for Christianity. It is an existential/phenomenological approach.
Ricoeur's Time and Narrative Vol. 3 starts out with Husserl's Phenomenology of internal time consciousness. Wow! I may have to read the actual guy.
I can just see my librarian now, "Can you get me a copy of Edmond Husserl's Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness please?"
I may have to get my own copy of Jurgen Moltmann's The Crucified God. I am a slow reader with these guys.
Another big name (that is influential) . How about Habermas? Derreda and Gadamer? I never heard of these guys and Tracy talks about them in the same sentences as Plato and Aristotle.
Another big name (that is influential) . How about Habermas? Derreda and Gadamer? I never heard of these guys and Tracy talks about them in the same sentences as Plato and Aristotle.
It would help if I read they guys he talks about....maybe.Anyway, enjoy your journey through David Tracy's thought. It sounds like you are.
It would help if I read they guys he talks about....maybe.
Sounds a little Zen. Is it even possible to effectively bracket? so Much seems unconscious.I have found Husserl's phenomenological method helpful. His idea of bracketing, in particular, is interesting and useful. When we observe phenomena, we bring all kinds of assumptions (physical, metaphysical, ontological, etc.) to the experience. By "bracketing" those assumptions (suspending judgment) we are able to analyze the experience and, perhaps, see the thing in itself. I don't know about seeing the thing in itself, but I have found it helpful to try and bracket my own assumptions when trying to perceive something (anything, really) and see it for its own sake.
Why rehash the last the last 300 years of scripture scholarship?
I understand wanting to find truth in a haze of different views, or through the solidity of estabished, even if false, doctrine. But I don't see how just airing alternative views will be helpful, if the established view turns out to be the true one and you've discounted it as a premise.It is there for all the world to see and decide.
And, as I said., I am not trying to convince anyone. I am looking for people desiring to share their alternate views.
What do you think the "established" view is? And considered "established " by whom.Is that what you are pointing to as truth? If so, then alternative views for you would be those challenge the last 300 years of "scholarship".
I understand wanting to find truth in a haze of different views, or through the solidity of estabished, even if false, doctrine. But I don't see how just airing alternative views will be helpful, if the established view turns out to be the true one and you've discounted it as a premise.
I basically agree with your thoughts here. And like you, I am not interested in convincing others that they should adopt this posture towards scripture.So for me, creation accounts are myth. Patriarchs, well who knows probably some mixture of legend and history. The closer we get in time, I think, the more reliable the historical content. I certainty think focusing on a polemic asserting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 is completely missing the point.
I less critical reading of those texts might find unlimited justification and support for everything Israel is doing right now. That is why hermeneutics are so important. They drive our actions far beyond promoting Genesis in a science classroom. I am only just beginning to become aware of the importance.I basically agree with your thoughts here. And like you, I am not interested in convincing others that they should adopt this posture towards scripture.
And for me, a turn towards embracing biblical scholarship helped both my faith and my ability to even read the bible on my own again. It was tremendously helpful to learn that most scholars agree that the archeological evidence doesn’t support the biblical narrative of the Canaanite genocide. So now I can read those accounts and try and understand what this narrative may have meant to the ancient writers and audience, instead of having a crisis of faith over God having thousands of children slaughtered by sword and spear.
This is a most excellent question. I can tell, because it is the converse of the one I've been asking you. So, if you'll tell me what the "alternate" views are you are proposing, then we'll understand what the established view is the alternate views are the alternate of.What do you think the "established" view is? And considered "established " by whom.
What? You choose to dodge the question and have me do all the work? Very well. I will play a long for a while.This is a most excellent question. I can tell, because it is the converse of the one I've been asking you. So, if you'll tell me what the "alternate" views are you are proposing, then we'll understand what the established view is the alternate views are the alternate of.
Without that answer from you, all we are left to believe about your view(s) is that it is merely contrary to whatever the church is teaching. Which is not a very good position to take, in my opinion.
Excellent reply, thank you! If the historical critical view is the established view, in your opinion, then for your thread here, a validly alternative view for your thread is the literal view, of Genesis at least. And an invalid view for your thread is the historical critical view, since it can't be both the established view and an alternative view at the same time.What? You choose to dodge the question and have me do all the work? Very well. I will play a long for a while.
I can only guess that what you mean by "established view" is biblical literalism. Biblical literalism - Wikipedia
And an "Alternate" view must be something like a Historical-Critical methods. Historical criticism - Wikipedia
And what "church" are you talking about? Even the stodgy ol' conservative Catholics church has joined the protestant scholars in accepting historical critical methods. This is especially true with the Genesis creation accounts as mentioned in OP.
So the actual "established view" among most scholars, protestant and Catholic, is no longer literalist, at least with respect to Genesis.
No.. I think for many on this form, in their minds, the Literal view is the "established view". Anything else is alternate.Excellent reply, thank you! If the historical critical view is the established view, in your opinion, then for your thread here, a validly alternative view for your thread is the literal view, of Genesis at least. And an invalid view for your thread is the historical critical view, since it can't be both the established view and an alternative view at the same time.
Am I understanding correctly now?
No.. I think for many on this form, in their minds, the Literal view is the "established view". Anything else is alternate.
Those passages in the bible influenced things like the treatment of indigenous people in the Americas by European powers. It is hard to condemn atrocities if you believe God has committed and ordered things like the mass killing of children in the past. If God does it then there is nothing inherently wrong with it, right?I less critical reading of those texts might find unlimited justification and support for everything Israel is doing right now. That is why hermeneutics are so important. They drive our actions far beyond promoting Genesis in a science classroom. I am only just beginning to become aware of the importance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?