Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
If you remove the assumption that there is anything divine about the reasoning of the "divines" then what you are left with is something like a crowd of experts. You may find it prudent to follow their discourse, but they hardly command the kind of allegiance that might get you, oh I don't know... crucified. Isn't that what Jesus asked for? What the crowd produces is, at best a product of more or less. Is it any surer than the here-to-day-gone-tomorrow zeitgeist of Tomes' panel of linguistic experts? So, at the end of the day, you don't have what was contemplated in the New Testament..."a sacrifice of sweet smelling savour" it is called in one of the more succulent metaphors. What is needed is subjective passion and that cannot be conjured. If anything is divine that's it. Call me a fideist but I call it faith.
|
Interesting post zeek. I've read the New Testament, and for some time lived blind faith, but never contemplated immolation as a service to God. Maybe, and possibly fortunately, I just lacked sufficient faith to become such a sacrifice.
But I have discovered the effects of the "crowd of experts" on faith. So I understand why they are to be avoided.
And that's why Nigel's treatise on etymological errors should be avoided. As the end result of his treatise is to wonder where to place your faith, or into whom to place your faith ; which experts; and into the meanings of Bible words???
And that kills the subjective passion you say is needed.
Faith doesn't need etymology ... or a panel of experts.