RE: [gthomas] Re: Re: The Sermon on the Light
- Bauer Wrote:
Why do you call my thought "poignantly obtuse"? What do you mean by that,
anyway? & don't you think that someone in your discipline might sound
"obtuse" to a sociobiologist?
You may be correct that there exists some "cross disciplinary communication
interference." Your post is sufficient evidence to support such a
conclusion. Please read the following, however, about the purpose of the
"The Papyri Oxyrhynchi 1, 654 &; 655 and Nag Hammadi Codex II,2 (The Gospel
of Thomas) are literary papyri of interest to biblical scholars specializing
in extra-canonical texts (the writings outside of the New Testament). This
list is dedicated to the scholarly discussion of the Gospel of Thomas and
provides an online forum for those working or interested in New Testament,
History, or Religious Studies."
Do you see anything in the list description that mandates any deference to
your particular point of departure? I do not.
My point was simply that if you go around cutting & pasting together
bits-&-pieces of literature you're not understanding it in a holistic sense
& you can get it to "mean" just about anything.
And THAT, of course is poesis!
Such literary meanderings are useless from a scientific perspective. They
have about the same degree of validity as the "Bible codes" the
Fundamentalists talk about. Reading every tenth verse (or whatever) is
supposed to have a "hidden meaning".
"Literary meanderings", as you characterize them, are not scientific
postulates. Their intent is to goad the mind into activity, or into hyper-
activity. The nature of science (as I'm sure you will agree) is to present
hypotheses that are subject to falsification. The inherent nature of
religion is that it is precisely UN-scientific (i.e., not subject to either
confirmation or falsification). When one discipline legitimizes the other,
then one or the other is in-valid (so you are correct in your assessment
about "Bible Codes" and the like).
If you have trouble with the jargon, look it up, you're on the web.
If I were interested in the relevance of the jargon, I would do so. I am not
interested, so I will not. By contrast, if you are interested in the
"jargon" of religion I suggest you spend 8-10 years in formal study of the
discipline of religion, then you too can be TRULY confounded!
Humble Maine Woodsman