Christian Symbolism Part Deux
In comments for the post on the crucifix (not far below), mikeswanson makes the eminently accurate point that the study doesn't really say anything about Christianity as a religion and is kind of pointless. I tried to respond briefly. I'd like to hear what other readers here think. Comment away. Maybe we can get a real discussion with several members going. Maybe not.
posted by Lapp at 9:33 PM
2 Comments:
Mikeswanson's right! I dont think anyone else will contradict me...
Constructively--it does technically change things if the icon does not represent the crucifixion, but nothing will ever change things to the die-hard Christians, or the die-hards of any religion for that matter. Call it intractibility on their part, but I'm reminded of the PD James novel (which I watched on dvd :)) Death in Holy Orders in which Father Martin refutes the St.Anselm papyrus of which he is the custodian. The papyrus is supposedly an order signed by Pontius Pilate to destroy the body of Christ. Inspector Dauglish asks him if it would change his beliefs and Father Martin replies (essentially) "I have the assurance of the nature of the holy spirit in Christ, what do I care about what happened to mere bones?" He then burns the papyrus calling it a "red herring" in the search for faith. Father Martin seems intractible, but it is the spirit of theology that matters, not the letter. Plus, I'm more than a bit skeptical at how studies are funded and for what purpose, as studies must have some use value.
Post a Comment
<< Home