oxigen2

Meditatie pascal(ian)a

Ceea ce, napaditi de certitudini facile, uita majoritatea apologetilor crestini care citeaza „pariul lui Pascal” e ca acesta s-a nascut dintr-un sanatos scepticism, ca optiune pragmatica in fata imposibilitatii certitudinilor de orice fel. Pascal nu era sigur nici macar cu privire la faptul ca nu putem sti nimic cu siguranta. Iar pariul lui se bazeaza pe prezumarea idealitatii scenariului crestin. Or, eu nu gasesc nimic ideal intr-o „viata de apoi”. Promisiunea invierii ma lasa rece, daca nu cumva ma infurie, ca mizerabila nada pentru cel mai jalnic negot de iluzii.

Eu sint incintat sa traiesc in orizontul mortii. Sentimentul tranzientei este nimbul melancolic a tot ceea ce e frumos. O fuga de Bach care nu se mai termina este tortura suprema. Floarea care nu se vestejeste e ca un orgasm infinit. Asteptarea sfirsitului, necontaminat de dulcegaria unui „dincolo”, e tocmai ceea ce face viata asta demna de trait. Despartirile sint cel putin la fel de necesare ca si intilnirile. Celula care a uitat cum se moare e cancer.

Chiar si in ordine teologica, invierea lui Isus este un deznodamint aberant. Niciuna dintre jertfele aduse la sanctuarul levitic nu si-a primit viata inapoi, dupa ce si-a pierdut-o la altar. Daca Isus a inviat, moartea lui nu face nici cit o ceapa degerata.

Studiul care probabil a dus la demiterea lui Florin Laiu de la ITA

Se numeste „The Sanctuary Doctrine: a critical-apologetic approach” iar in posesia mea, via Polihronu, se afla al doilea draft pregatit pentru Biblical Research Council si datat octombrie 2011. Il puteti accesa in intregime mai jos. Este bazat pe materialul pe care FL l-a prezentat public la European Theology Teachers Convention, aprilie-mai 2011, Cernica-Bucuresti, si despre care el afirma ca reprezinta filiera prin care opiniile lui au ajuns la cunostinta forurilor superioare (vezi comentariul #3 de aici).

Am sa citez pe larg, din prima parte rezumatul, care pe englezeste se cheama „abstract”, iar din ultima parte „Practical Suggestions”. Fac asta deoarece ideile si modul de abordare al autorului mi se par relevante pentru multe categorii de cititori si pentru ca mie mi-au sporit, inca o data, aprecierea fata de FL. Adnotarile mele sunt intre acolade, „{„, „}”:

Abstract

The following study touches a series of sensitive issues relating to the Judgment and Sanctuary theology (JuST), a point of convergence for the Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutics and eschatology. The author militates for a more critical Bible exploration, and a more dynamic perception of the SDA historical doctrine. It is shown that such a challenging exegetic approach depends on more basical hermeneutic issues, as for example the theology of inspiration, and the role of the Spirit of Prophecy in theological debates.

The fundamental importance of consistent linguistic and contextual exegesis is stressed, as a reasonable approach to Daniel 8-9. {am scos in evidenta acest aspect, il consider notabil} Crucial terms and expressions are critically treated, as well as some secondary terms and expressions, to stress the necessity of better translations of the prophecies of Daniel. While in a few cases the author suggests different and challenging solutions, most of his solutions agree with the present SDA scholarship. Many other important subjects that are usually involved in the debates over the SDA understanding of Daniel 8:14 are touched in this study. All these critical issues are discussed from apologetic-confessional concerns, intended for constructive and affirmative purposes. If opinions of this author are sometimes divergent from yours, Adventist theologian colleagues, it is hoped that the criticism shall not be perceived as the slightest personal affront, neither as an offense to our community of faith. {Rigurozitatea, bunele intentii apologetice si faptele pe masura, toate caracteristice lui FL si cunoscute si de interlocutorii credinciosi si de cei necredinciosi, nu au fost suficiente pentru a-l proteja de un destin decis sec, prin votul unui comitet. Spiritul retrograd al unui conservatorism plat, nechibzuit, devine malefic prin efectul pe care mesajul unei asemenea decizii il are asupra directiei si atmosferei generale din sânul unei comunitati de credinta si asupra formării fiecarui membru, luat in parte.}

[…]

Practical Suggestions

Adventist prophetic (eschatologic, apocalyptic etc.) studies need continual revision and progress, in the light of new hermeneutic and exegetic approaches. This is the task of all our theologians and of all our community of faith. Our responsible authorities (BRI, BRCs) should encourage constructive theological endeavors in this field. First, to make a more thoroughful evaluation of the former critical approaches and suggestions; and second, to encourage the dynamic theological model of our pioneers.

Probably the first necessary step is to promote a sound and realistic theology of inspiration, not only among theologians, but also among our community at large. The Bible study and the Spirit of Prophecy need to be revived and encouraged in our churches everywhere, in a respectful and critical manner. To make more open and more efficient such popular study, much depends on ministers’ concern or abilities to do it, and on the popularity of good written studies on the topic. Our pastors or teachers must be able to understand in a practical way how divine inspiration works, and thus we have to resume, in the most open manner, the task we silently abandoned in 1919 {FL se refera aici la Conferinta Biblica din 1919, subiect despre care am scris si eu, amatoriceste, aici si aici, spre exemplu}. Without a decided and united effort, nothing good is to be realized.

SDA theologians with all our present capacities should make of this fundamental topic a priority in our research. We cannot allow our central doctrine and message to remain in a provisional stage. We should not fear that being fair with the Biblical text or the Spirit of Prophecy might lead to a loss of faith. There are some risks in the dynamics of a fair and determined research, but there are more risks in a conservative inertia. {evidentierea imi apartine, I’ll say Amen to that! Preach it, brother.}

It is wise to ask myself, if a doctrine so difficult for scholars should belong, with all its details, to our official doctrinal expostion, which so often functions as a creed and test of fellowship.295 {aici FL citeaza un material citat via Desmond Ford; bine a remarcat skeptic ca FL ar putea fi considerat un „Desmond Ford de Romania”; oare in oct 2011, data compunerii acestui al doilea draft al studiului, FL insusi a presimtit verdictul nefavorabil?} This is not a militant position against this precious doctrine. But why should we go through so much difficult stuff in Leviticus 16 and Hebrews 9 and Ellen White, insisting on nonessential details and forcing the text, and why should we not express the doctrine of Daniel 8:14 in its essential truth: God’s Judgment as culmination of the eternal Gospel? {mi se pare remarcabil ca aceasta pledoarie vine din partea unui expert si vizeaza tematica lui favorita si cea pe care o stapaneste cel mai bine; eu stiam de la scoala si din timpul facultatii, ca majoritatea cadrelor didactice care predau o materie considerata – fie pe drept, fie pe nedrept – mai putin importanta tind sa devina militanti si defensivi in incercarea de a spori prestigiul domeniului lor de specialitate}

A tentative statement on this doctrine, still in much need to be improved, as I perceive it, is following: […] {sar peste partea asta, nothing new under the sun}

Theological details are not for a statement of beliefs; they are for personal and denominational research, preaching, seminars etc. Why should belief in the two apartments or in a hazy work of celestial cleaning, became more important than tithing, which is not a test of fellowship?

Adventist theological advance depends much on the condition of a realist approach to the concept of divine inspiration of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. We must acknowledge our historical errors and perfectibility, and accept the reality that the understanding of E G White and of our pioneers is not necessarily the best exegesis to any Biblical passage in the year 2011. {evidentierea mea; e tragi-comic sa intrezaresti ca un paragraf ca acesta, rezonabil si de bun simt pe de-a-ntregul, inca are darul, in adventismul secolului 21, sa-i faca pe multi sa vada rosu in fata ochilor si sa devina razbunatori ca au fost deposedati de suzeta}

These considerations are themselves liable to human errors, but hopefully and prayerfully, I expect them to do some good for the Adventist JuST, to stir our theological community toward a reevaluation of this nearly classified topic.

Nota bene: Oferindu‑vă aceste paragrafe si cele cateva comentarii scrise de mine in graba nu intentionez sa va creez impresia ca acum stiti despre ce este vorba in acest studiu bine distilat sau ca puteti degusta buchetul soiurilor de vin nou si vechi ‑ nefermentate, desigur ‑ preparate de Florin Laiu. Din contra, imi doresc sa‑l accesati si sa-l parcurgeti chiar daca nu aveti cunostinte de ebraica. Daca aruncati o privire peste cuprins veti vedea ca sunt multe sectiuni pe care autorul, in adresarea sa catre evaluatori, le indica drept „must read” ‑ posibil o discreta ironie din partea maestrului.

Sursa: Poli a oferit aici un link de descarcare a studiului de 85 de pagini din care am citat ultima parte. In cazul in care pentru a descarca documentul vi se cere sa deveniti membri pe forumul OSC, si nu doriti acest lucru, il puteti lua direct de aici.

Adventismul lui Florin si Vasile

Da, e pe bune. Cind am aflat de mutarea disciplinara a lui Florin Laiu, i-am trimis felicitarile mele. „Promovarea” asta plutea in aer de ceva vreme – o adulmecam de pilda asta toamna. Face bine la suflet sa te afli din cind in cind si de partea cealalta a baricadei, transformat de ochiul binevoitor al unor prieteni din ciine credincios la stina in lup in blana de oaie. Evident, face si mai bine la suflet sa fii pur si simplu „epurat”.

Ii dau dreptate varului admin cind zice ca profesorul Laiu n-are nici in clin, nici in mineca cu directoratul unui centru de studii misiologice. Dar ce-i nou in faptul ca, dintr-un prost simt al datoriei (in ambele sensuri ale cuvintului), Florin accepta sa se iroseasca? Ma rog, sa lasam destinul profesorului in grija ingerilor care-i urmaresc cica foarte curiosi povestea.

Un pic mai interesanta pentru observatorul terestru e evolutia adventismului romanesc. Unui zelos descreierat al bisericii i se trece usor cu vederea faptul ca se intimpla sa fie si pedofil, in timp ce unuia dintre cele mai bine mobilate si lucide creiere ale bisericii, la fel de zelos, nu i se poate ierta ca uneori… gindeste. Eu cred ca nu mai e mult pina cind adventistii din Romania vor fi adventisti asa cum sint catolici catolicii din America – biserica zice ca e pacat sa folosesti contraceptie, o covirsitoare majoritate a enoriasilor ii arata bisericii degetul de la mijloc.

O critică la adresa seductivității Budismului

Urmărind ultima emisiune, mi-am amintit de un fragment pe care l-am citit acum ceva vreme, fragment ce se potrivește mănușă cu subiectul discuției lui Edi. Citatul propus aparține filosofului Slavoj Žižek și constituie o critică adusă budismului, curent a cărui seductivitate face din ce în ce mai multe victime. Precizez că textul este unul stufos, destul de greoi, dar care merită din plin atenția cititorului. Bold-uirile îmi aparțin.

”Chesterton also correctly linked this dark core of Christianity to the opposition between Inside (the immersion in inner Truth) and Outside (the traumatic encounter with Truth): “The Buddhist is looking with a peculiar intentness inwards.The Christian is staring with a frantic intentness outwards.” Here he is referring to the wellknown difference between the way the Buddha is represented in paintings and statues, with his benevolently peaceful gaze, and the way Christian saints are usually represented, with an intense, almost paranoiac, ecstatically transfixed gaze.This “Buddha’s gaze” is often evoked as a possible antidote to the Western aggressive-paranoiac gaze, a gaze which aims at total control, and is always alert, on the lookout for some lurking threat: in the Buddha, we find a benevolently withdrawn gaze which simply lets things be, abandoning the urge to control them. However, although the message of Buddhism is one of inner peace, an odd detail in the act of consecration of the Buddha’s statues throws a strange light on this peace. This act of consecration consists of painting the eyes of the Buddha.While painting these eyes, the artist cannot look the statue in the face, but works with his back to it, painting sideways or over his shoulder using a mirror, which catches the gaze of the image he is bringing to life. Once he has finished his work, he now has a dangerous gaze himself, and is led away blindfolded. The blindfold is removed only after his eyes can fall on something that he then symbolically destroys. As Gombrich dryly points out, “The spirit of this ceremony cannot be reconciled with Buddhist doctrine, so no one tries to do so.” But isn’t the key precisely this bizarre heterogeneity? The fact that for the temperate and pacifying reality of the Buddhist universe to function, the horrifying, malevolent gaze has to be symbolically excluded. The evil eye has to be tamed. Is not this ritual an “empirical” proof that the Buddhist experience of the peace of nirvana is not the ultimate fact, that something has to be when east meets west excluded in order for us to attain this peace, namely, the Other’s gaze? Another indication that the “Lacanian” evil gaze posing a threat to the subject is not just an ideological hypostasis of the Western attitude of control and domination, but something that is operative also in Eastern cultures. This excluded dimension is ultimately that of the act. What, then, is an act, grounded in the abyss of a free decision?

Recall C. S. Lewis’s description of his religious choice from Surprised by Joy—what makes it so irresistibly delicious is the author’s matter of- fact “English” skeptical style, far removed from the usual pathetic narratives of mystical rapture. C. S. Lewis’s description of the act thus deftly avoids any ecstatic pathos in the usual style of Saint Teresa, any multiple-orgasmic penetrations by angels or God: it is not that, in the divine mystical experience,we step out (in ex-stasis) of our normal experience of reality: it is this “normal” experience which is “ex-static” (Heidegger), in which we are thrown outside into entities, and the mystical experience signals the withdrawal from this ecstasy. Citește mai mult din acest articol