KK> That is all well and good, IMHO, but the reason I think the 20th century
KK> is the most spiritual century of all time is because we are learning to
KK> separate superstition from spirituality. Rejecting the literality of
KK> Genesis does not require us to reject the divinity of Jesus.
KK> Empirical spirituality?
Careful that you do not become too enchanted by the epoch in which WE
happen to live, Keith! Why we show no progress in humanity while seeming to
enjoy a spurt in technology is a mystery but to some degree, at least, the
same thing happened in the Hellenistic Age.
As to Genesis, I think it is only modern Fundamentalism that sees it in
literal terms. I doubt that contemporaries of the emergence of the myths in
Genesis (obviously patterned upon much more ancient Sumerian ones) EVER took
them literally. Nowhere do they even beg to be taken literally. In ALL
ges
and climes there are those who can imagine giant lizards swallowing the sun
and spitting it out chronologically as well as miraculous mud pies being
animated by gods. Note that the mythical material in Genesis very early
ives
way before the presentation of tribal names and exploits and ultimately quite
prosaic material associated even with heroes.
There is a unity here with the earliest writings and even artifiact
arrangements that have been discovered indicating the myth as a means of
handling the question of the origin and destiny of people. In fact, myth
actually is ONE means of exploring such questions while philosophy is
nother.
Science has existed side by side with both. Despite the "Isaiah" magic the
primitive has scarcely been found who waited for some "god" to chisel out a
canoe in order that he might go fishing or to fashion him a bow and arrow in
order to hunt. That "god" MIGHT be invoked to HELP him in the enterprise.
Sincerely,
Frank
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------
* Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12)
|