On left this week (1) read an interesting interview (The reversal of theology, in fact) to the theologian Vito Mancuso, which contrasts with the negative side effect of guilt and dogmatic Christianity of the Church ...
It's an interview following the presentation, the publisher Fazi, a book by Matthew Fox on "In the beginning was the joy " that Mancuso, the site of the house Publisher Campo dei Fiori, with the words " is finally to understand that genuine portal of entry to Christianity is not evil, but it's good, is not the curse, but it is a blessing, not the pain, but joy. The way cosmocentric illustrated with enthusiasm by Fox in this masterpiece is the only possibility for Christianity to return really affect the actual life of 'humanity .
But can you really conceive, as he says, a Christian based the original good rather than on the original crime? E 'a likely scenario or a subtle trick to find a summary (all political) among Catholics, lay, agnostics and former communists always so quick to exalt Jesus "proletarian" Origins of the Christ 'recent' to counteract the cold of the faith of the Vatican hierarchy management? " There are books that bring fear to those who hold power ..." is the beginning of an article, also signed by Vito Mancuso, who has dedicated the book of the former Republic Dominican friar American (2) .
Claiming an original human goodness inside the Christian concept would undermine the most critical when Christianity has always been subject, turning it into a container of good feelings, social justice and free of any universalist utopias concrete theory on humans. It was so good because God wanted.
Some years ago Cardinal Martini (also an admirer of Vito Mancuso) in response to a reader in the pages of Corriere (3) textual affirmation that the Church might even accept Darwin's theory of evolution, as long as they except for two basic concepts: the first creation as a work of God and the dogma of original sin. The sin of Adam (Eva primarily ) can not be touched.
Good. So where's the catch? You can probably pass it to advance the hypothesis that Augustine (and his famous conflict with Pelagius on sinfulness of children who die without baptism) the responsibility of the 'original sin', with the exception of the first three centuries of Christianity abundant, making it a mythical golden age, free of guilt and penance necessary.
But we forget so maybe Saul, Roman said Paul, who after being struck on the road to Damascus, revived the myth of the fall of Adam, recovering from the book of Genesis that had not aroused the slightest interest in Jewish literature of the thousand years earlier.
" is St. Paul who brought the subject out of its lethargy Adamic (...) The figure of Adam (...) was personified on the model of the Christ which is by contrast "says Paul Ricoeur in finitude and guilt.
" is St. Paul who brought the subject out of its lethargy Adamic (...) The figure of Adam (...) was personified on the model of the Christ which is by contrast "says Paul Ricoeur in finitude and guilt.
The 'serving' the fall of the first man to support the salvation given by the Messiah and bustle of his passion / crucifixion / death / resurrection. In a mirror to the first man of sin so they could oppose the last man, the redeemer.
" Then as the fault of one man has affected all people the conviction, so also for the work of Justice to one pours upon all men ... justification "Romans 5-12.
If there was, prior to a fault, what for God himself would incarnate in a man to die and rise again? Thomas, the embodiment is for redemption. Without sin, there would have been ... Obviously. To do that otherwise?
If there was, prior to a fault, what for God himself would incarnate in a man to die and rise again? Thomas, the embodiment is for redemption. Without sin, there would have been ... Obviously. To do that otherwise?
But " The statement that, until the advent of Jesus, mankind was under the dominion of sin, the resulting doctrine of original sin, the idea of \u200b\u200bredemption through Jesus as the only way of liberation from sin, completely reverse the structures discourse of the original Hebrew ... "Ariel Toaff, Jesus and incomprehensibility of the Christian message .
So is the guilt that distinguished the 'new' religion from Judaism and the blame had to be original or the 'new' religion would make no sense. Hence the accusation of being a Christian culture amartiocentrica, that is centered on guilt, not about salvation, but as you are going to propose a fundamental deception historically very profitable.
Now Mancuso then falls into a situation of having to reject not Augustine, but Paul of Tarsus (emblem of the new left as we know), that the Christianity of the Great Church, the oldest, or at least as old as the Judeo-Christianity that defeated, pushing him out of history.
And here we are perhaps at the core of the "new" theological project, the big news: who will revive the Judeo-Christianity as opposed to Pauline Christianity?
to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, finance the Son of God made man, but not the truth of original sin? Mancuso says, " Jesus, like any good jew, he was not aware of a original sin." That is a sinful original human being.
True, there is no trace in the phrases attributed to Jesus in the Gospels of conceptualizations outside the complex and Jewish thought of the time and the Fox in an interview in Corriere (4 ) says " ... I do not deny original sin. I contend what we mean by this. The word 'sin' is very problematic and will not appear anywhere in the Jewish consciousness (ie Jesus) "arguing that, in fact, infant baptism was only a ritual function of acceptance in the community, not a fault of purification prenatal, unlike the baptism of adults who actually have this feature of 'cleaning up' from their sins.
to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, finance the Son of God made man, but not the truth of original sin? Mancuso says, " Jesus, like any good jew, he was not aware of a original sin." That is a sinful original human being.
True, there is no trace in the phrases attributed to Jesus in the Gospels of conceptualizations outside the complex and Jewish thought of the time and the Fox in an interview in Corriere (4 ) says " ... I do not deny original sin. I contend what we mean by this. The word 'sin' is very problematic and will not appear anywhere in the Jewish consciousness (ie Jesus) "arguing that, in fact, infant baptism was only a ritual function of acceptance in the community, not a fault of purification prenatal, unlike the baptism of adults who actually have this feature of 'cleaning up' from their sins.
Yet many scholars of Judaism's Second Temple say a close ideological proximity between the first el'essenismo Christianity, that is with a minority, but not insignificant, the last two centuries of Jewish apocalyptic a. C.
And in the caves of Qumran, the site of a current (maybe) dell'essenismo schismatic, was found a manuscript where it says " What creature of clay can make miracles? Since the uterus is in sin and into old age guilty in iniquity ". (5) Where the Hebrew word used, awon (sin) has a meaning close to 'spot' indelible" the awon is (...) a stain that sticks man since the conception: it is therefore part of his nature "(6).
The man is so far from the uterus in sin? It will not be a reference to the guilt of Adam (in fact it is not), but it clearly speaks of an innate to human sinfulness. And the word 'sin' does exist. The amartiocentrismo then existed. Even thought the Essenes (or so) based his conceptualization of human nature on fault.
Jews who rejected the original sin of orthodoxy were those of the Temple, the Sadducees, Pharisees, which then the 'Rabbinic Judaism and those who refused in the wake of Ezekiel the transmissibility of guilt: " He who has sinned and no one else has to die, and the son not bear the iniquity of the father nor the father the iniquity of the son. The righteous shall be credited with his righteousness and evil his wickedness "(Ezekiel 18, 20).
also a jew today categorically rejects the idea of \u200b\u200boriginal sin, attributing it to Christianity. But not those two thousand years ago the Jews were closer to the current apocalyptic-messianic. So you can imagine, even the Judeo-Christians, though probably the close connection between Adam and Jesus and mirror did not.
Jews who rejected the original sin of orthodoxy were those of the Temple, the Sadducees, Pharisees, which then the 'Rabbinic Judaism and those who refused in the wake of Ezekiel the transmissibility of guilt: " He who has sinned and no one else has to die, and the son not bear the iniquity of the father nor the father the iniquity of the son. The righteous shall be credited with his righteousness and evil his wickedness "(Ezekiel 18, 20).
also a jew today categorically rejects the idea of \u200b\u200boriginal sin, attributing it to Christianity. But not those two thousand years ago the Jews were closer to the current apocalyptic-messianic. So you can imagine, even the Judeo-Christians, though probably the close connection between Adam and Jesus and mirror did not.
So what religion talks Vito Mancuso (and before him, Matthew Fox) when he says well-known as a primary source? Of a new religion? Or the intent is only to give a veneer of words to the old old story of 'good early Christianity'? Or is there still more? New theory which wants to propose to the battered troops of the Italian left ? The mystique of the child, the wonder of being alive, as he says in left?
Today there is no longer wander in darkness in search of a more or less spiritualistic explanation of the origin of humans is not as pure materiality ...
Today it is claimed, to clear that the first human activity is "the ability to imagine", coming from a specific biological process, from physiology of birth, another provision that mystical " to feel the immense load of good that surrounds us and wonder . Just
study Massimo Fagioli.
This is not easy, but when did the ideas were easy?
study Massimo Fagioli.
This is not easy, but when did the ideas were easy?
March 2011
this blog: cf. also "Myth and Ideology: the original sin"
Notes
1) No 10, March 11, 2011
2) La Repubblica, February 17, 2011
3) Corriere della Sera, August 30, 2009
4) Corriere della Sera, February 17, 2011
5) Hymns of Qumran, 1QH - Col. XII (= IV), 5-40, Prayer anguish and trust in God.
6) Paolo Sacchi, the Old Testament Apocrypha .
Bibliography
M. Beans, Death Instinct and knowledge
M. Beans, The puppet and the puppet
M. Beans, Theory of the birth and castration human
M. Beans, children, women and the transformation of man
M. Beans, History of a search. Lectures 2002
M. Beans, Das Unbewusste. Lectures 2003
M. Beans, the new thinking. Lectures 2004
M. Beans, One Life irrational. Lectures 2006
M. Beans, Fantasy disappearance. Lectures 2007
M. Beans, Left 2006
M. Beans, Left 2007
also www.lasinodoroedizioni.it
0 comments:
Post a Comment