These are the words of Scripture. Either you accept them for what they say, or you do not. If you argue poetic licence, the unfeasibility of expressing truths beyond our understanding in words we can comprehend, you have a difficulty - for who is to decide what is intended to be taken literally, at face value, and what has to be interpreted, in the light of other scriptures, in order to arrive a their proper, intended meaning.
If one is to retain one's faith in scripture as the Word of God, studying the Word prayerfully in the light of the whole - comparing scripture with scripture as we are specifically instructed to do - will not the Truth contained in the whole shine forth?
If there is doubt on this score, the value of the Word is mightily diminished, is it not? For its true perception belongs only to the elite - those who can read it in the original text, or those enjoying the resources of time and money enabling them to purchase the Word in their own familiar language, and a commentary, Bible dictionary and any other study aids as required by the reader, according to their abilities and available time.
Even given the availability of both these commodities (in adequate quantities), one is still faced with the task of deciding which interpretation among the many, one will decide upon as most trustworthy, accurate, applicable to one's own circumstances. It appears that the field of theological study is littered with the landmines of conflicting interpretation and application. What, then, is one to do?
How can one be certain that any particular resource is the correct one? The issue is not one to be taken lightly. It is crucial. Down the centureis peoples, tribes, individuals, nations, companies of nations, have argued differing interpretations, each belief system held with an integrity so passionate that rivers of blood have been shed in defence of (even by methods contradictory to,) a particular body of belief, expressed in a particular manner of worship.
Does this process, seemingly as inevitable as it is ghastly, not undermine to the point of irrefutable contradiction, the principles, claims, the very validity of most religions? Man feels himself obliged to have some account of his existence. He is, unavoidably, aware of not just the wonder of his own being, but also of creation all about him.
There is so much about it that he cannot understand. Yet, it seems, Man has, in his deepest consciousness, his inner being, a compulsion to acknowledge some force, some process, most satisfyingly some Being, to account for his existence, and therefore intimately involved in his manner of life, his survival.
Inevitably, differing concepts of this source of origin will find expression in the formulation of a system of belief principles conducive to the well-being, even the survival, of clusters of humanity in various part of the globe, perhaps of the cosmos. Sooner or later the disparate clusters, each with it's own interpretation, understanding and manifestation of that perception of their origin, character and destiny, will come into conflict.
Why the two groups, meeting, could not amalgamate in a pooling of resources for the betterment of both must be due to what has been cynically termed the Selfish Gene. Whatever the reason, the outcome has been continual competition and dispute, the survival of the fittest, with all the ugly, unpleasant connotations this implies.
What seems to emerge, then, is that Mankind, as a whole, has failed to perceive or to live out its destiny. The fragmentation of the species has resulted more in competition than co-operation. It is now, at this time in the history of Creation, the responsibility of individuals to seek for themselves the verities of our existence and to put them into practice.
Those who seek the truth in spiritual realities would seem to do this best - for themselves and for Creation as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment