Sterling Field
Contents contributed and discussions participated by Sterling Field
Cultural Memory and the Bible - 17 views
-
Michael,
Would this also be an idea that was applied by the early tribes all over the world (Indian, Celts, Anglo Saxon etc) that did not write their history but passed it down in rituals and in tales? I like your synopsis on Cultural memory, very to the point.
Would I also be correct in assuming that certain books in the Bible would fall into this category as they were written many years after the death of Christ or many years after the relevant event? I realize that there is much chronicling of history in this time, but were there not also those who did much of the same as the tribes listed above? Passing down stories and history through words, allegory and story telling?
More than One way to Read a Book - 8 views
-
It is my contention, and certainly that of Derrida, Heidegger and Wittgenstein that there is more than one way to read a book. That a book holds within itself more than just one meaning. This can certainly be applied to the Bible in this case, and I believe that it must be applied in order to bridge the gap of irreconcilable differences that are contained within, and what would seem to be blatant contradictions in terms and passages. There must be, in my opinion, more than one way to look at the Bible in order for it to stay relevant to and for humankind in this day and age. J. Hillis Miller states it well, "Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."
Derrida, in "Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida" states, "Because, however, affirmative deconstruction is, it is affirmative in a way that is not simply positive, not simply conservative, not simply a way of repeating the given institution. I think that the life of an institution implies that we are able to criticize, to transform, to open the institution to its own future" (p 5-6).
This is precisely the approach that Derrida brings to reading his texts and deconstructing them. He criticizes (rightly), transforms (brilliantly) and allows many of the texts to open themselves to a new future being viewed in a different light. That is the way that Derrida and I look at the Bible (only I would not consider myself a full Deconstructionist). We do not take what we are given at face value, standing back we hold an open and honest examination of what we are reading (although I speak in the present tense, I know that Derrida has recently passed away in the past few years) and we hold paramount the ideas that these texts can and should be pulled apart and re evaluated with an eye for the truth.
'Deconstruction in a Nutshell' in a Nutshell - 0 views
-
Straight from the words of Derrida in an interview. Came across this quote which does a good job of describing a deconstructionist approach: Derrida says, "There is the general structure of Messianicity as the structure of experience, and on this groundless ground there have been revelations, a history which one calls Judaism or Christianity and so on. That is a possibility and then you would have a Heideggerian gesture, in style. You would have to go back from these religions to the fundamental ontological conditions of possibilities of religions, to describe the structure of messianicity on the groundless ground on which religions have been made possible (23)".
Theory of Deconstruction - 0 views
-
Right off of Wikipedia: Theory Derrida began speaking and writing publicly at a time when the French intellectual scene was experiencing an increasing rift between what could broadly be called "phenomenological" and "structural" approaches to understanding individual and collective life. For those with a more phenomenological bent the goal was to understand experience by comprehending and describing its genesis, the process of its emergence from an origin or event. For the structuralists, this was precisely the false problem, and the "depth" of experience could in fact only be an effect of structures which are not themselves experiential. It is in this context that in 1959 Derrida asks the question: Must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?[3] In other words, every structural or "synchronic" phenomenon has a history, and the structure cannot be understood without understanding its genesis.[4] At the same time, in order that there be movement, or potential, the origin cannot be some pure unity or simplicity, but must already be articulated-complex-such that from it a "diachronic" process can emerge. This originary complexity must not be understood as an original positing, but more like a default of origin, which Derrida refers to as iterability, inscription, or textuality.[5] It is this thought of originary complexity, rather than original purity, which destabilises the thought of both genesis and structure, that sets Derrida's work in motion, and from which derive all of its terms, including deconstruction.[6] Derrida's method consisted in demonstrating all the forms and varieties of this originary complexity, and their multiple consequences in many fields. His way of achieving this was by conducting thorough, careful, sensitive, and yet transformational readings of philosophical and literary texts, with an ear to what in those texts runs counter
A Critique of Deconstruction - 2 views
-
A sound critique of deconstruction, mostly using Wittgenstein as the example. Does not necessarily rip deconstruction apart just simply present the difficulties in the deconstructionist ideas.
1 - 6 of 6
Showing 20▼ items per page
I think your question might just be loaded, but I will bite. Yes, I do think the Bible shows much cruelty towards women and homosexuals. I do not think that it supports the liberation of the gay community, and I stand by that belief. That is one of my major issue with the Bible is the constant nay saying and negative stories, imagery and wording that we get from the translations in the old testament and some in the new.
Cruelty and jealousy of God can be seen in Deut 13, 8-15 (which I will only pull a portion of it out for times sake)
"If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell there, that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, "Let us go and serve the other gods," which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword"
The cruelty of Christ and God in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9
"God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you... when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the glory of his might..."
Adding to this with John 15:6
"If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned"
Slavery support from the "Creator" in Leviticus 25:44-46 (partially quote due to time)
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property."
Sex Trafficking (of one's own daughters) supported in the Bible in Exodus 21:7-11 (fully written)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt faithlessly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money."
St Paul telling slaves to be good to their master's in Ephesians 6:5
"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ.."
Also take a look at 1Timothy 6:1-4 for more arguments for slavery in the Bible and how these slaves should act towards their God believing master's.
Quotes straight out of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" (this does not necessarily mean that these following ideas and quotes are not taking out of context in some cases but I do believe they are par for the Biblical course)
Dawkins states, "The attitude of the "American Taliban" towards homosexuality epitomizes their religious absolutism. Listen to the Revered Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University: 'AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals'" (p 327).
Dawkins quotes Pat Robertson stating, "[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers...." (p 328).
Dawkins talks about Gary Potter stating, "Gary Potter, President of Catholics for Christian Political Action, had this to say:'When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals" (p 328).
A few Bible verses that seem to be against homosexuality
Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination".
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lie with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them".
Finally, Romans 1:26-27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men left the natural use of the woman, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthiness, and received in themselves such recompense of their error, as was meet."
While there are excuses and arguments against much of this, I think that the Bible seems to be somewhat outspoken and, in my opinion, somewhat clear about these issues.
Well put my friend, well put. Especially the last sentence. Right on