I can't believe that...
... I actually bothered spending 2 hours analysing the exchanges between GCS and me in order to rebuke his accusations against my arguments on the Renaissance. I think I should share it with everyone - since I put in so much effort I might as well entertain a larger crowd._______________________________________
Haha first thing first - we should all congratulate GCS's brother because he is getting married - haha this is some dream that still lie in some haze somewhere in front in my life :D
Read the yellow stuff if the whole thing is too long.
I get your point COMPLETELY - your argument is framed in such a way that YOU THINK I THINK that the Renaissance is centered on God and the Christian faith, and YES i know that it's not, even before you told me - I have admitted my mistake in saying that 'seeking the path to God is fundamental to all renaissance humanist scholars'.
I think you started to get my point too - such that the Renaissance, for all its outcomes, religion is still something ingrained in it, and you can't look at the Renaissance without studying how the Christian faith functioned in the scholars back then.
Let me explain why I made those assertions against your points - in order to convince you that i make sense.
You said:
'The very spirit of Renaissance Humanism is antithetical to the faith required as a Christian. What does the word “renaissance” mean? It means to be “reborn”, and it is a reborn in the spirit of the Greek and Roman antiquity and a reborn in the pagan classics, not the Christian classics.'
and
'Renaissance Humanism frees the West from medieval Christianity, for you to say that this movement is “fundamental” to the path to God is akin to creationism at its best. (well i think i said 'the path to God is fundamental to renaissance humanism' - not the other way round.)
then:
'I have no objection, if one calls the Reformation, a movement concerned with finding a “path to God”, for it is distinctly religious in character, at the same time influenced by a return to source-the bible, and man’s personal relationship with God. But not Renaissance Humanism. Let’s call a spade a spade.'
From all these I drew this conclusion: Your point = the Reformation is an anomaly because
a) You don't think returning to Christian classics is consistent with the spirit of the Renaissance
b) Man's personal relationship with God - well, this notion is closely linked to creationism (see the first few chapters of Genesis), and you did not accept creationism as consistent with the spirit of the Renaissance.
c) 'Let's call a spade a spade' - you are attempting to seperate the Reformation from Renaissance humanism.
So the logical conclusion is: although the Reformation bore characteristics of Renaissance humanism, these characteristics are actually not consistent with the movement's spirit, and thus, the Reformation is in general not consistent with Renaissance's spirit - that sounded very much like 'the Reformation = anomaly of the Renaissance'.
But I hold a different view because I possess knowledge regarding 'prisca sapientia', Plato's creator theory, and the fact that philosophers actually did attempt to read ancient texts by the prophets Moses and Abraham or at least their contemporaries - so, to me, returning to the Bible and Christian classics is consistent with the spirit of the Renaissance, and if I accept that, I have to accept that these philosophers would accept creationism and thus the first few chapters of Genesis and thus the returning the worship of God to the people.
You are the one who is not consistent (sometimes you say that Christian classics should be out of the picture, sometimes you concede that the pursuit of aesthetics is akin to seeking the 'path of God', now you say that 'Reformation is very much influenced by Renaissance Humanism') - haha hope this is clear enough.
Note I know perfectly well that the Renaissance is not centered on religion - I said 'early humanist scholars set themselves apart from the universities so that they can perform intellectual explorations freely, and in order to fulfill their desire to obtain true and pure knowledge, they attempted to seek original classical texts before they were being corrupted by the medieval scholars' - you don't have to keep stressing that to me (quote: 'but again, the whole movement is not about God or the Christian faith...').
Also you said:
'It is an oxymoron to be a humanist and a God-believer.'
'The very spirit of Renaissance Humanism is antithetical to the faith required as a Christian.'
then you adjusted a little:
'The whole movement entails a movement away from faith, supernaturalism, obedience and other traits associated with the medieval Christian faith.'
Your whole point is that the Renaissance consists of a 'movement away from faith' - and FAITH is CENTRAL to Christianity. If you remove faith, there would be little left for Christians. God doesn't exist in people's hearts if people have no faith - now do you know why I read you as suggesting 'Renaissance humanism is about rejecting the Christian faith' (or in my words, 'rejecting the notion of God')? Even if you fudge it such that it is '"a movement towards the secular worldview", a "gradual transition in values and virtues"', it still meant the same thing to me - you understood the Renaissance to be a 'movement away from faith'.
Note I have NEVER admitted that the Renaissance is a 'movement away from faith' despite I agree with you that the Renaissance is centered on Man and not God: I made this VERY CLEAR in my last post. I merely said 'what gradually changed during that period over several generations of scholars was how ideas were formulated and how people interpreted the world' - faith wasn't out of the picture yet by the end of the Renaissance, but yes scholars have valued experience, observation and experimentation much more. That is what I meant!
Anyway, some stuff that you said aren't even true.
E.g.: 'The only “path to God”, if there is one, is the path to beauty, or the pursuit of aesthetics of some renaissance humanists. This, for one is limited to the arts...'
You can find references to God, divine perfection, etc. in a lot of texts dealing with natural philosophy. I won't say all, but a representative majority certainly, or at least the influential ones.
'Indeed, the whole Renaissance came about because scholars fleeing from the Fall of Constantinople brought with them Greek classics lost to the West for centuries and sparked off the movement in Florence!'
The movement started before that - the exodus fueled it. I have said that before.
Okay, this is not personal right. The last two paragraphs of my last post is meant to be personal - because I see the same pattern re-emerging in your exchanges with me throughout these years, and this is one thing you have never changed. I can't help myself bringing it up.
Anyway, you ARE attacking me in some instances - probably you didn't realise it. I guess it's not only me (whom you consider representing 'The Religious') who will perceive it as such - I guess even people who agree with your points of view will still perceive it as an attack.
One example: I used the word 'mystery' a couple of times in a post, and then you said: 'It seems that you like to use the rhetorical statement “it still is a mystery to me,” indeed, you hold a lot of mysterious views that can only be explained by a distinct, mysterious outlook on human history and knowledge, through a mysterious Christian religious worldview.'
This is at least mockery? And this is what prompted me to say that you should 'open your heart' - because since you think I have a 'distinct, mysterious outlook on human history and knowledge', I perceive that you still don't get my points that I have tried so hard to put forward - the only reason why you still don't get it is because you didn't want to listen to them at all as you are too happy with your current perception of religion. The points that I am referring to here had been presented in the previous paragraphs - and they aren't even religious.
Note I didn't perceive your assertions about the fallacies of Christian theology as an attack. You don't read the Bible the way Christians do, thus you formulate different conclusions about the nature of God from the fragments that you have read - Ferret has addressed this. The actual concepts of the Holy Spirit and the personal relationships between God and Man are foreign to you, thus of course you don't draw the same conclusions as Christians do - and I didn't say that you are wrong from your perspective. Of course you are wrong in the Christian perspective, but I won't make you listen to it.
Just to say a little about that:
God is the same God, whether OT or NT, His nature didn't change (this is from Ferret) - it is the relationship between Man and God that changed, because Jesus sacrificed himself for the redemption of Man's sin - as God deemed Man unable to do it by themselves.
Christian theology is based on 4 principles:
The Creation - The Fall - The Redemption - The Reconciliation
Genesis - the rest of OT - the NT - then Revelation.
In the NT Man is redeemed - as long as you believe that Jesus is the son of God and He sacrificed Himself for our sins - and we are currently at this stage. This notion is still a prophecy in the OT. We were discussing this in small group a few weeks back.
I'll end off with Luke 5:29 - 32:
'And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?" And Jesus answered and said to them, "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."'
If you are righteous - or you don't think you have sinned (set the original sin aside) just like the Pharisees, and thus you think you don't need God - I am perfectly fine with that. Like I said, even Jesus doesn't force people to follow him.
Labels: Philosophy and Religion
