Ship of Fools: Haven't heard it all before

Thread: Haven't heard it all before Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029672

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

This Ship front page article strikes me as very exciting - the idea of adults, from no church background whatsoever, hearing bible passages read for the first time, and having a completely different take on their meaning.

It is often assumed, by church leaders, that we must try to attract the very young to church so that they grow into the faith, with the assumption being that if it is not started early enough, it might be too late for understanding to occur.

But this idea of a first introduction at a much later age, when people's rich and varied life experiences inform their reasoning, sounds as if it might be the way forward.

Thoughts? Possible pitfalls? Ways to get started?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Over many years I very occasionally picked up a Bible, read a few verses and quickly put it down again. It was written in old fashioned English, for a start.

When much later I made the effort to read the gospels, to find out whether or not God was real, I tried to make sense of it in my own way. I asked nobody for advice. I didn't read commentaries. I simply read it on my own, and ended up believing in the existence of the risen Christ.

I think that the naive way that I read the New Testament was helpful, as I had no preconceived ideas as to what I was 'supposed to' believe.

The Old Testament needs a health warning, however, imv. I often wince at passages that are read out in church, hoping that there are no newcomers who will hear it. I have a grasp of it to some extent, having studied theology now, but think it good for some background knowledge to be available for anyone intending to read it - in plain English!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

This reminds me of what French philosopher and theologian Paul Ricoeur called the "second naiveté":

quote:
we accept that the myths we held as truth in the first naïveté (or Faithful stage) are in fact myths, but having passed through the critical distance (or Rational stage,) we begin to reengage these concepts at a different level. We no longer accept them at face value, as presented by religious authorities, but rather interpret them for ourselves, in the light of having assumed personal responsibility for our beliefs.

I think this is the nearest those of us who grew up with the Bible can get to that freshness.

Of course we can also introduce the Bible to people just as the author of your quoted article did. Ideally, this involves finding a bunch of people who have never read the Bible - from personal experience, I can tell you prison is a good place to start - but more importantly, it depends on being willing to study the Bible using open questions and without an agenda.

We've been doing this for years in our church Bible study and having a lot of illuminating fun.

(If any answer is too obvious, someone usually shouts "a squirrel").

[ 09. March 2016, 05:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

This is really interesting, and an interesting way of seeing these passages anew. It is incredibly difficult to read passages that are very familiar without taking on the assumptions of most of Christendom.

For those of us who are wallowing in the normal interpretations, I think we need to take very clear notice of these people, and these ways of reading the passages. One example from the article is that seeing the Nobleman as God is actually very dangerous and gives us a really negative image of God. When we then share this image, we make people see God as an ogre.

I suppose the answer, as so often, is to go out and listen to people, not talk at them. These people seem to have got a better grasp of what the Bible is saying than most Christians. The truth is, the accumulated knowledge of the ages is sometimes very wrong, and very dangerous.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

I have to say, the least helpful reading of the parables I encountered as a formative Christian was the allegorical reading. Down this road, I encountered irreconcilable logical inconsistencies that would have driven me away from the faith instead of toward it.

If God created pure logic in the form of mathematics as the underpinning of the structure of His universe, surely he would not give us His Word and expect us to change our initial premises like underwear in order to accept the logic proceeding therefrom.

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the logical foundation for faith should be less solid than that of material reality.

So - I rejected the allegorical reading of the parables, and for most of the Bible.

In fact it was interesting to me just yesterday when I questioned somebody on the meaning in Luke 11:24, they gave me some rambling allegorical explanation. I said "I disagree. I think Jesus is talking about demons and the mechanics of exorcism". Why would it be more complicated?

I take most of what's written pretty literally - like the people in the article - and it makes more sense to me that way than any other.

Not complete sense, in the same way that calculus is opaque to me, but certainly enough sense for me to accept the Bible as a rich and nuanced roadmap to the Kingdom within, and without.

But I have a kind of second century worldview anyway, when it comes to the mechanics of reality, so I guess that's just me.

AFF

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
A Feminine Force: It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the logical foundation for faith should be less solid than that of material reality

I completely disagree. The kind of faith you describe sounds utterly fruitless to me.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I think that the whole point of speaking in parables rather than in straightforward language is that every learning style is stimulated.

Will a mathematician ever see things the way an artist who specialises in abstract does, and vice versa? It's both/and, not either/or, as ever. None of us can claim that we know for sure, and that others are wrong.

In fact, if we take Bible stories too literally, or too allegorically, we soon find ourselves in a blind alley.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
A Feminine Force: It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the logical foundation for faith should be less solid than that of material reality
I completely disagree. The kind of faith you describe sounds utterly fruitless to me.

Well that's fine then. I'm not asking you to accept MY faith. Indeed, THAT would be fruitless, don't you think? After all your faith is your faith, and mine is mine.

And mine is not fruitless - not to me.

Surely you don't think we all have to see reality exactly the same way in order to inhabit it? Why should we then have to all agree on a single meaning of the parables?

AFF

[ 09. March 2016, 10:36: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
A Feminine Force: Why should we then have to all agree on a single meaning of the parables?

Who said that we have to?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
A Feminine Force: It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the logical foundation for faith should be less solid than that of material reality
I completely disagree. The kind of faith you describe sounds utterly fruitless to me.

It also seems to assume that the foundations for material reality are solid. Are they? I suppose, if you adopt some kind of naive realism, they are solid, e.g. reality is what you see, or reality is what science describes, or reality is described in text-books, or there is an objective world, etc.

But it strikes me that most 'theories of reality' break down at some point. In practice, scientists and other investigators tend to be very utilitarian - I mean, what works? As Bacon said, fuck Aristotle, get on with measuring, (rough paraphrase).

But this argument actually supports faith in a sense, see postmodernism, and the collapse of 'grand narratives'.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
A Feminine Force: Why should we then have to all agree on a single meaning of the parables?
Who said that we have to?

We don't have to but you and I both know that organizational and social expectations demand a certain amount of conformity of thought in order to claim membership. Reference: the entire history of the church.

Your error was in assuming that I was speaking for anyone but myself.

You are entitled to disagree with me, but you are not entitled to say whether or not my faith is fruitful.

Perhaps if you had said "That approach wouldn't work for me at all" then I would say "Fair enough, carry on, your faith has to work for you."

AFF

[ 09. March 2016, 10:56: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It also seems to assume that the foundations for material reality are solid. Are they? I suppose, if you adopt some kind of naive realism, they are solid, e.g. reality is what you see, or reality is what science describes, or reality is described in text-books, or there is an objective world, etc.

But it strikes me that most 'theories of reality' break down at some point. In practice, scientists and other investigators tend to be very utilitarian - I mean, what works? As Bacon said, fuck Aristotle, get on with measuring, (rough paraphrase).

But this argument actually supports faith in a sense, see postmodernism, and the collapse of 'grand narratives'.

Yes, well, epistemology has been rather my chief area of interest since I did my philosophy degree so many decades ago.

I guess the result of this is a certain postmodernism - but my personal experiences of reality contribute to a certain pre-modern view as well.

A peculiar place to be, but it's for the most part logically consistent, and enables me to function highly in my environment, and when it isn't or doesn't, I have faith that any inconsistency or any question will be answered and reconciled.

AFF

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A Feminine Force wrote:

quote:
Yes, well, epistemology has been rather my chief area of interest since I did my philosophy degree so many decades ago.

I guess the result of this is a certain postmodernism - but my personal experiences of reality contribute to a certain pre-modern view as well.

A peculiar place to be, but it's for the most part logically consistent, and enables me to function highly in my environment, and when it isn't or doesn't, I have faith that any inconsistency or any question will be answered and reconciled.

Well, one of the odd consequences of postmodern thinking is that the pre-modern might be accepted, since modernity itself comes under suspicion.

It's one of the very odd aspects of postmodernism, which apparently attacks grand narratives with a sledgehammer, and religion would figure there, but on the other hand, it also critiques any attempt at totalitarian thought, such as scientific realism. In the words of the chairman, let a 100 flowers bloom.

In fact, there has been something of a 'turn to Christianity' among some postmoderns, e.g. Zizek and Derrida, and I suppose Girard. I guess that Z and D exposed what they saw as the fundamental flaws in Western metaphysics. After that, who knows?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
A Feminine Force: Your error was in assuming that I was speaking for anyone but myself.

I haven't assumed anything.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, one of the odd consequences of postmodern thinking is that the pre-modern might be accepted, since modernity itself comes under suspicion.

It's one of the very odd aspects of postmodernism, which apparently attacks grand narratives with a sledgehammer, and religion would figure there, but on the other hand, it also critiques any attempt at totalitarian thought, such as scientific realism. In the words of the chairman, let a 100 flowers bloom.

In fact, there has been something of a 'turn to Christianity' among some postmoderns, e.g. Zizek and Derrida, and I suppose Girard. I guess that Z and D exposed what they saw as the fundamental flaws in Western metaphysics. After that, who knows?

I think with the italicized, you have summed it up very nicely.

Derrida is one of my favorite commentators on the influence of language on the perception of reality. I said in a previous thread how I regard the god of the Bible to be an idol made of words. A semiotic deity.

But we stray too far from the topic at hand.

I think that it's important that people who are unfamiliar with the Bible to find a meaning in its message which enhances their understanding of themselves and the reality they perceive around them.

To me, it would be a fruitless document if it didn't support the individual's attempts to ascribe meaning to circumstances that appear meaningless.

AFF

[ 09. March 2016, 11:34: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Of course, one of the problems with postmodernism is that it can boil everything down to a kind of anarchic relativism. So why not celebrate the triumphant victory of Quetzalcoatl in bringing the cocoa plant from heaven to earth?

But I suppose this is a problem only if you want One Way.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, one of the problems with postmodernism is that it can boil everything down to a kind of anarchic relativism. So why not celebrate the triumphant victory of Quetzalcoatl in bringing the cocoa plant from heaven to earth?

But I suppose this is a problem only if you want One Way.

He did what??? Say it ain't so!

LOL - and here all along I've been saying there's no chocolate in heaven - or sex or single malt whisky. That you have to be here in the flesh in order to enjoy those things.

But no, One Way is not an issue for me. I don't think such a thing exists.

AFF

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Ah, this is a vexed question in Quetzalcoatlology, whether the theft of the cocoa plant left paradise bereft of chocolate, or whether Quetz, in his magnanimity, left a small plantlet thereof, in order to supply the chocolate fountains.

Of course, this is as plausible as Christianity really, but less familiar, I suppose.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I take most of what's written pretty literally - like the people in the article - and it makes more sense to me that way than any other.

I think in terms of the parables that is absolutely right. They were told as simple stories for people to understand in a simple way, not as deeply allegorical metaphors of the nature of reality. It doesn't mean that the allegorical understanding is wrong (it can be seen as showing the tellers understanding of reality), but it is not necessary, and it doesn't trump the simple meaning.

Incidentally, the idea interested me so much that I have bought the book and will see if it lives up to it's review.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Why exciting?

Seriously are people really so unaware of the Classic work by Ian M Fraser?

There is a whole literature built around it some of it on Liberation Theology, some of it as Contextual Theology.

Jengie

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I am aware of Liberation Theology, and that is interesting, but different, I think. LT is about defining a theology around the oppressed, but it is still a theological structure. It says that there is a different way of understanding the core issues of theology, from the perspective of the underdog, not the powerful (simplistic, but this is how I understand it).

This work is starting from a different position, because it is simply looking at the bible stories themselves, as stories (not as texts, not to develop a theology), and getting new insights into them. I doubt that there is a consistent theological position that would come out of this, rather, there are insights that challenge the traditional interpretation. At least I suspect it does.

I suppose it is a difference between changing how we see Shakespeare. LT is about interpreting him as writing comedy, and so understanding his more tragic plays in a new light. Symon Hill is about saying "Oh look, he has a character called 'Bottom'!"

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I have to say, the least helpful reading of the parables I encountered as a formative Christian was the allegorical reading. Down this road, I encountered irreconcilable logical inconsistencies that would have driven me away from the faith instead of toward it.

Can you give an example of what you mean by an allegorical reading?

My perception of the parables is that they are intended to be (at least) analogical--to communicate a spiritual truth using familiar situations and tropes. I don't think, for example, that the point of the parable of the talents is that you shouldn't bury money, nor that the point of Dives and Lazarus is that it is a true story about two people who actually existed. So analogy (not unrelated to allegory) seems to be the general mode of the parables, at least from my point of view.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think it's interesting that nobody goes up to Jesus (as far as I'm aware), and says, did that really happen, in relation to a parable.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Can you give an example of what you mean by an allegorical reading?

My perception of the parables is that they are intended to be (at least) analogical--to communicate a spiritual truth using familiar situations and tropes. I don't think, for example, that the point of the parable of the talents is that you shouldn't bury money, nor that the point of Dives and Lazarus is that it is a true story about two people who actually existed. So analogy (not unrelated to allegory) seems to be the general mode of the parables, at least from my point of view.

Almost every one of the parables begins with the words "The kingdom of heaven is like..." and then it goes on to describe a situation wherein we are taught to view some kind of father, or landowner, or bridegroom, or vineyard owner as "god".

Then some baffling narrative ensues where there is reward, punishment, puzzling inequity, and some kind of casting out into the outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. And we are taught to construe these narratives as moral or cautionary tales.

Like Aesop's fables.

But I don't think they are.

I think the parables are narrated within the context of a worldview that is lost to us now, and which is assumed but not communicated in the parable itself.

So as a part of my own personal exploration of the holy writ, I set out to discover for myself the kind of worldview that would have supported a literal reading of the parable's message.

AFF

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Well, the word basileia (familiarly translated as kingdom) means something more like reign or kingship. "The Kingdom of Heaven" is probably more intelligible as "The Reign of the Messiah". But of course that doesn't solve the issue you have with the vineyard owner, or the king, standing in for God.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I take most of what's written pretty literally - like the people in the article - and it makes more sense to me that way than any other.
I think in terms of the parables that is absolutely right. They were told as simple stories for people to understand in a simple way, not as deeply allegorical metaphors of the nature of reality. It doesn't mean that the allegorical understanding is wrong (it can be seen as showing the tellers understanding of reality), but it is not necessary, and it doesn't trump the simple meaning.

Incidentally, the idea interested me so much that I have bought the book and will see if it lives up to it's review.

I think we need to distinguish here between metaphorical and allegorical. I'm having a hard time thinking of the parables as anything other than metaphorical-- especially since in one case, albeit only one, (the parable of the sower), Jesus explicitly says it is a metaphor and parses out the analogy.

That's different from allegorical interpretation that can get quite fanciful. I believe the metaphorical interpretation of the parables would have been obvious, even if at times shocking (as with the parable of the talents) to his audience.

[ 09. March 2016, 19:46: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Sorry, I was getting confused. They are metaphorical (explicitly and definitively), but it is the allegory that causes problems. I am not suggesting that they actually happened, so they are stories with a meaning.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Sorry, I was getting confused. They are metaphorical (explicitly and definitively), but it is the allegory that causes problems. I am not suggesting that they actually happened, so they are stories with a meaning.

No, you said it correctly-- it just seemed like the conversation in general at times was conflating metaphorical and allegorical. They are related, of course, but not the same, and wanted to be sure we were clear what we were talking about.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

There is also the idea of myth, often viewed negatively by Christians as meaning against truth. But there is a long and noble tradition, in many cultures of using myth to describe the indescribable, and unfathomable. One only needs to look at the many varied creation myths (the bible certainly doesn't have a monopoly on these), for example.

A completely fresh look at the stories contained within the bible, without previous Christian cultural baggage, is to be welcomed.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Ah yes, Myth. I think we can blame Bultmann for the problems with that.

The Bible is largely myth. But that is meant in a hugely positive way - that there is an important an complicated truth within it. When we properly understand myth - as a truth that is so beyond us, the only way it can be communicated is through stories - we see how much it raises the importance of the bible as a whole.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Oh I'm not sure I'd blame Bultmann. A part of the etymology of myth is 'truth as meaning' rather than 'truth as facticity'. But people are tempted to go for the assumption that if something isn't factual it can't convey truth.

Parables are stories and in my reading were often intended to provoke deeper thought. Such as 'can someone outside my faith community behave better than those within' or 'do the indifferent and the rich get their commupance in the end' or 'what's the difference between righteous and self-righteous'?

And those are good questions whatever culture you live in - or however you read the stories.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I do think that a 'mathematical' reading of the Parables can be helpful. In the current discussion on the Kerygmania thread I'm trying to do this with the Parable inaccurately named the Prodigal Son.

One way — and in my view a good, valid way — of reading this Parable as written in Luke is to get the looking glass out and ask: what does this parable *really* say? Sometimes we find that things we traditionally assume are in a Parable don't always combine with what it literally says.

I find this 'mathematical' way of reading Bible texts helpful at times, because it helps to focus my thoughts, but it is far from the only way of reading a Parable. What about exegesis? What about the poetic beauty of some of its language? What if some of it was meant as a dirty joke? I'd feel I would be missing out if I were to restrict myself to a mathematical approach (not that you can't do dirty jokes in mathematics).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

BTW, I like the idea of reading Bible texts with unchurched people and getting their reactions. I'm sure there are quite a number of people now who aren't familiar with these texts. That's a shame really but it does make for an interesting discussion.

It reminds me a bit of things I've been involved with around intercultural Bible reading; as in exchanging views reading texts through quite different lenses.

[ 10. March 2016, 10:34: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Someone in my Lent Group, last night, recalled a Jewish woman at a wedding hearing 1 Corinithan 13 - about 'faith, hope and charity' being read. She had never heard it before and thoughtit to be sublime and wanted to know where it came from.

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

Having read this story, I think it is very interesting.

I think we (that is, "faithful Christians") can fall into the trap of thinking/feeling that we "own" the bible, maybe an unhelpful extension of the "Jesus is my personal saviour" way of believing. This can lead to the spoken or unspoken belief that we "control" the meaning of scripture.

Of course this can never be true. Of course scripture can "stand on it own account" and be read by anyone. This is perhaps especially true of a parable, which is a story. We can have an opinion on what the meaning is, but no-one can definitely define the meaning.

When all is said and done:

"These have been written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through your faith in him you may have life."

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Of course we can't exclusively own the Bible - that would be taking an exclusive attitude (such as only 144,000 will be saved) - the bible is for all people, for all time.

I remember the shock I felt as a teenager, when I realised that much of the Old Testament narrative was claimed by Muslims as well as Christians.

Surely the whole point of the New Testament is that it is for 'Gentiles' as well.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It's not only the Bible. All words, once incarnate, become subject to the slings and arrows of the world. You could cut and paste someone else's words into your posts, claiming them as your own. You could republish a Stephen King novel with your name on the cover slapped over his. Jesus demonstrates all this in His own person.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I read the book over the weekend. It is very good, not because it reinterprets the Bible stories, but because it gives different views, and enabled me to see them from a new light.

It is not saying "this new way of reading them is what they mean", it is merely saying that these are new insights, new approaches, that might be truer to the original understanding.

I found tonight, trying to use this type of approach to the story of Lazarus helped me see new things in it. As someone who has heard the stories from the cradle, that is a real challenge.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

What do you think we should make of Jesus' words in Mark 4:11-12
"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven"

The fact that Jesus says parables are deliberately meant to prevent people from repenting (?) and being forgiven is very challenging.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The OT bit he's quoting is a bit in Isaiah, where God is clearly cranky and exasperated with the people he is sending Isaiah to. It's a bit of ... what do you call it, when you overstate your position in order to shock people awake? Rather like a pastor I knew who said to someone being ornery, "Fine, just go to hell then!"--which shock got him to reconsider his behavior.

The Isaiah passage is particularly interesting because God says this in the context of commissioning a new prophet--someone he is sending with the express goal of speaking his word to people. And Jesus knew this perfectly well. So we have to consider whether Jesus is importing this same yes/no ambiguity into his own context, and what his goal might be in saying something so stir-uppity.

ETA: Whoops, Isaiah 6.

[ 19. March 2016, 01:39: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think he is saying that he is not going to tell people exactly what to do, but people have to understand and think it through.

Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on :

Fascinating stuff. But we can't let ordinary people loose with a Bible, can we? They might misunderstand it, how will they deal with the finer points? Who will tell them about the proper first century context??? (irony alert)

And the really sad thing is I find myself thinking along those lines sometimes.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
What do you think we should make of Jesus' words in Mark 4:11-12
"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven"

The fact that Jesus says parables are deliberately meant to prevent people from repenting (?) and being forgiven is very challenging.

I wonder whether this takes us back to free will choice, in the sense that only those who choose to seek will find, only those whose ears are straining to listen will understand. The question is often posed by non- believers as to why, if God wants everyone to worship him, doesn't he make himself known without a doubt? if he did, everyone would turn to him, but for the wrong reasons and without a free will choice.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trickydicky:
Fascinating stuff. But we can't let ordinary people loose with a Bible, can we? They might misunderstand it, how will they deal with the finer points? Who will tell them about the proper first century context??? (irony alert)

And the really sad thing is I find myself thinking along those lines sometimes.

Actually, one of the thinks I really likes about the book is that he didn't dismiss this. It wasn't "This must be what it means, because this person reads it like this". It is simply another part of the broader perspective.

Because actually, the context, the minutiae are important. But they are just one part of it.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
What do you think we should make of Jesus' words in Mark 4:11-12
"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven"

The fact that Jesus says parables are deliberately meant to prevent people from repenting (?) and being forgiven is very challenging.

There's another way to look at this.

The parables act like zen koans - you know, "what is the sound of one hand" and all that.

IMO in this passage, Jesus is not telling us what the parables are intended to do, instead He is describing how the parables act upon an ordinary consciousness.

IMO Jesus is recognizes that there is a part in us that resists the type of humility necessary to experience the meaning of the parables, which resists being brought to its knees in recognition of its error, and which would rather die than seek forgiveness in humility and repentance.

IMO, this passage is just describing how the parables act on a humbled heart, as opposed to one hardened in its conviction of its right.

AFF

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

IMO in this passage, Jesus is not telling us what the parables are intended to do, instead He is describing how the parables act upon an ordinary consciousness.

IMO, this passage is just describing how the parables act on a humbled heart, as opposed to one hardened in its conviction of its right.

AFF [/QB]

I guess the key thing is to determine the meaning of the conjunctions "so" and "lest".

"... for those outside everything is in parables, so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven"

It does read to me, as though Jesus is saying things are said in parables for the purpose (so) of preventing those outside from receiving the message because it is not desirable (lest) they repent.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

IMO in this passage, Jesus is not telling us what the parables are intended to do, instead He is describing how the parables act upon an ordinary consciousness.

IMO, this passage is just describing how the parables act on a humbled heart, as opposed to one hardened in its conviction of its right.

AFF
I guess the key thing is to determine the meaning of the conjunctions "so" and "lest".

"... for those outside everything is in parables, so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven"

It does read to me, as though Jesus is saying things are said in parables for the purpose (so) of preventing those outside from receiving the message because it is not desirable (lest) they repent. [/QB]

Yes I understand how you might construe it this way.

But the interpretation pivots on the word "so" - you construe it as "in order that..." and I construe it as "as a consequence."

To those parts of us that resist humility and harden our hearts to forgiveness, it is certainly not desirable for them to repent, because in doing so, their identity and reason for being collapses.

As I read the scripture I notice how Jesus was a keen observer of the mechanics of human consciousness - in fact ISTM this is the single biggest issue addressed in the NT. The vocabulary is different, but the underlying issues remain the same.

AFF

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0