Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb From: geb@cadre.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: T.A.T Part I - give it a chance! Message-ID: <213@cadre.ARPA> Date: Sun, 27-Jan-85 19:07:33 EST Article-I.D.: cadre.213 Posted: Sun Jan 27 19:07:33 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 05:25:11 EST References: <293@decwrl.UUCP> Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh. Lines: 63 Summary: This is a perfect illustration of the different approaches of science and religion. The method of science is to start with the data (e.g. TV) and try to find a systematic explanation. The method of religion is to start with a system (in this case, traditional orthodox Christian theology) an apply it to explain all possible phenomena in the universe. Obviously the author of this tract has spent an enormous amount of time trying to cast a modern cultural phenomena into theologic terms. Certainly, for Christians who accept the theological priseses, this can be helpful in putting culture into their own perspective. For those who don't accept those premises, however, it is of quite limited use. It is therefore difficult to agree, or disagree, with the authors unless you accept their premises. > >The core of the Christian faith stands over and against television today. > >His (Jesus) preaching of the acceptance of God's justice and love was not >simply one among many ideologies to be considered. It called for a yes or no, >not consent but decision. Something in this passage bothers me and seems a bit too fascist. Certainly nothing I've read of Jesus's says that. > >Television shapes our perception of reality -- our values, mores, and >attitudes. The medium is often called a 'mirror of society.' Critical >reflection on the nature of the Church and the manner in which religion, >religious practice, and religious leaders are portrayed on television, >however, suggests that the mirror possesses the curved planes of a carnival >mirror, reflecting a caricature of religious faith and practice rather than >reality. > But it seems like more and more, when one turns on the television, one sees some Bible-thumper or other droning on and on about sin, JEEEZUS, and what not. I agree that it appears pretty absurd, but who is responsible for that? The bit about myth making was said much better by Tolkien (a Christian, incidentally) in his essay "On Fairy Stories" and by C.S. Lewis (I can't recall the place). Of course they were talking about literature. At its best, television is a form of literature, but mostly, it seems driven by commerce, which, while a necessity of life, doesn't always promote the best literature. I think we could argue that at its best, literature, like science, attempts to explain the world by constructs. Of course, some literature is written from a Christian perspective (C.S. Lewis space triliogy for instance), but most is not. In summary, I feel that the problem with the passage posted by Arndt is that in order to sympathize with it, one has to accept Christian theology. And not only Christian theology, but Christian theology as amended by incorporation of the Classical Greek absolutistic theology brought into it as excess baggage by scholastic converts such as Augustine and others. As a matter of fact, if one could translate this passage back into Aramaic and read it to Jesus, I feel confident that he wouldn't have the foggiest idea what they were talking about, with all this about transending the finite, and such. He was talking about his "Father in heaven", a personal (person), anthropomorphic-type God, that the present day Christians certainly don't seem to believe in.