tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4844458687369955274.post8817507219332450518..comments2018-07-15T00:14:54.349-07:00Comments on mapHead: Fragments of a Religion That Never Existednatcasehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18058664776852941599noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4844458687369955274.post-11771697217931870492009-01-20T09:29:00.000-08:002009-01-20T09:29:00.000-08:00Yes, "let them choose me" is more like it. As Emil...Yes, "let them choose me" is more like it. As Emily Dickinson wrote, “If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry.” Good criterion for personal scripture, as well.James Riemermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00785078588562735749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4844458687369955274.post-92124311683853638552009-01-19T20:04:00.000-08:002009-01-19T20:04:00.000-08:00James wrote: "...I think there's something to be s...James wrote: "...I think there's something to be said for not choosing."<BR/><BR/>To me this is one of the keys to this sort of approach to scripture (and I guess to life in general). I little different meaning to "not choosing" — to me one of the important things is not to choose scripture, but to <I>let them choose me</I>. I can name on one hand the movies that have literally left weeping over the last two decades. In every case, I was left mystified at the depth of my grief. Where the hey did <I>that</I> come from, I say to myself. And so I try gently to follow that grief, to let it tell the story to me, instead of me having to provide a structure for it.<BR/><BR/>In a sense, having the Bible as an unchosen sole source can be an advantage, in that you can simply rely on it, you can simply give over. That's harder to do when your approach can be described as "making up your own religion."natcasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058664776852941599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4844458687369955274.post-27024474264959240692009-01-19T16:02:00.000-08:002009-01-19T16:02:00.000-08:00I most certainly have my "scripture" in the sense ...I most certainly have my "scripture" in the sense you speak of. A fair bit of what's in the Bible qualifies, a great deal more of what's in there doesn't. Most of my "scripture" in this sense is fiction, some is poetry, and a very few choice bits of philosophy.<BR/><BR/>When I tell those who take the Bible as their one essential scripture, that I read it the same way I read Melville or Dostoevsky or Kafka or Cormac McCarthy, they tend to take this as a dismissal of the Bible. It's not. Literature like this plays a powerful, crucial role in my spiritual life. At its best it unveils to me a rare and breathtaking view of the usually hidden essential nature of human existence. What is revealed is sometimes beautiful, sometimes horrifying, sometimes--most revealing of all--both at once.<BR/><BR/>I suppose if I had to choose one volume to serve as my scripture, the Bible would be a pretty good choice. There are stories and passages in there as soul-shattering as anything I've ever read. But I don't have to choose one volume, and I think there's something to be said for not choosing.James Riemermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00785078588562735749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4844458687369955274.post-72450388826523028352009-01-19T10:29:00.000-08:002009-01-19T10:29:00.000-08:00Hmm, it looks like "deuterocanonical" is more freq...Hmm, it looks like "deuterocanonical" is more frequently used to describe the Old Testament Apocrypha (as decided at the Council of Trent), while canon-for-some New Testament books are "Antilegomena"<BR/><BR/>At least, that's what Wikipedia says, and Wikipedia is never wrong. :-)natcasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058664776852941599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4844458687369955274.post-13616333570740139162009-01-19T10:21:00.000-08:002009-01-19T10:21:00.000-08:00"deuterocanonical"Good word.And then the Jesus Sem..."deuterocanonical"<BR/><BR/>Good word.<BR/><BR/>And then the <A HREF="http://www.westarinstitute.org/Seminars/seminars.html" REL="nofollow">Jesus Seminar</A> came along and downgraded the canonical gospels...<BR/><BR/>Browsing the Westar site I came across <A HREF="http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/faithandreason.html" REL="nofollow">this</A>, which looks interesting, and applicable to this discussion.natcasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058664776852941599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4844458687369955274.post-11617146104571942872009-01-19T10:04:00.000-08:002009-01-19T10:04:00.000-08:00Hi again, Nat!You write, "What I'm interested in h...Hi again, Nat!<BR/><BR/>You write, "<I>What I'm interested in here is the idea of scripture not defined by its innate qualities (e.g. dictated by God), but by its functional qualities.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Interestingly enough, Christ defined the scriptures by their functional qualities in John 5:39: "<I>...those are they which testify of me.</I>" This functional definition persisted in the early Christian world until the time of Bishop Marcion, in the middle of the second century, at which point it became clear that the disagreements over which scriptures testified truthfully of Christ and which scriptures misrepresented him and/or his teachings were too serious to ignore. The leaders of the Church then spent several centuries working out a list of "canonical" scriptures, scriptures that they agreed represented a truth that was salvific for all readers in all situations. Scriptures that they felt were of slightly lesser quality — helpful for some readers or in some situations but not all — were "deuterocanonical".<BR/><BR/>I would suggest that there is a respectable list of writings by early Friends (Fox, Barclay, etc.) that qualify for deuterocanonical status within the traditional Friends community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com