"Napa Valley" Brocken InaGlory. Licensed. Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0
"Napa Valley" Brocken InaGlory. Licensed. Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0
Welcome to LAST SUPPER RED!!
What if laughter and hilarity are sacred? Might prayer be less about words and more about how we position ourselves before Mystery? What if God is less like Santa Claus and more like air? What if we are defined more by "Original Blessing" than "Original Sin?" Would Christianity flourish if we followed Jesus instead of worshipping him? What if "the Kingdom of God" has much less to do with the hereafter and is instead a here-and-now countercultural idea and reality with political and economic consequences?
What if laughter and hilarity are sacred? Might prayer be less about words and more about how we position ourselves before Mystery? What if God is less like Santa Claus and more like air? What if we are defined more by "Original Blessing" than "Original Sin?" Would Christianity flourish if we followed Jesus instead of worshipping him? What if "the Kingdom of God" has much less to do with the hereafter and is instead a here-and-now countercultural idea and reality with political and economic consequences?
Q goes on at some length about the role of interpretation in life generally, and scripture more specifically.
Margaret (joined by Snark) says that we have no choice but to interpret what we perceive with our senses . . . that no one can just take in the thing itself, without any filters. Is this a new thought for you? Old hat? Toss this "epistemological" idea around a bit if you like. It's important to do so because those who take religious scripture literally (whether it's the sacred writings of Jews, Christians, Muslims,
Q again plunges his main characters into an extensive theological discussion. At least they don't end up alienating each other this time.
What do you make of Phyllis Tickle's idea about the church having a rummage sale on its doctrines every 500 years or so? (see Footnote 9 on Page 45.) If it's true, should it happen at all? Should it happen more often? Are we living in such a time today? If so, what do you think the church needs to get rid of?
Hindus, Buddhists or any others) seem to believe they can get "the straight scoop" just by reading the words alone. No "interpretations" are needed. Indeed, such people usually become quite adamant that interpretations are evil. In every era there are those who read text literally as well as those who exercise their imaginations. Unfortunately, those who take things literally are usually regarded as defining their religion. That's waaay too much of a generalization!
Margaret says that human beings' need to give meaning to experience is part of the divine image in which they're made . . . that creating meaning is similar to God's creative activity. Do you resonate with what Margaret says? Or is it just her imagination? And if it is, is that a problem? What does the phrase "theological imagination" (used as a partial title of more than one book) mean to you?
How do you prefer to read literature . . . sacred texts . . . (or even maps!)? Do you approach them looking for metaphors? The literal meanings? Some people would say that even . . . or especially . . . sacred texts are like maps: they are guides for navigation, in this case, navigating life in its depth dimensions.
Did you ever follow a map and realize it didn't match the area where you were actually in? A common error is to confuse the map for the territory. Physicians do this frequently when they say to a patient with obvious symptoms, "Well, the tests came back showing everything is okay. Perhaps it's all in your head." Brrrrr!
Do you think of sacred texts as "maps," or does that not give them sufficient credit? Some other ways of thinking about them?
