The bit about the fallability of princes and human leaders in general is good, but the rest seems standard issue and not particularly thought inspiring to me. Please elborate in case I missed something.
Oh, it's not really thought-inspiring at all. I just like it. Reading an individual Psalm is really like dipping a toe in the stream, anyway. But it reminds how nice the water is.
Fair enough. I personally prefer the bits of the bible that have relevance for believers and non-believers alike. I suppose that's because I say I want the kingdom, but I don't want God in it. ;)
Could be both. Religious language is purposefully vague in many cases. So here it could be a dual warning to A) not to worship any human and B) not to turn Christ into an idol. That second implication is very interesting to me, since it implies to me that the whole point Jesus is to show that God is not something external to man. By explicitly putting the devine in one man, people were meant to understand the dual implication that everyone is divine (ie. equally worthy of consideration as a human being) and that no one on earth ought to be regarded as a god above others. Of course, again, this is all part of my heretical belief as an unbeliever, but I think that most major religious texts have plenty of universal ideas in them that are useful regardless of one's belief (or lack thereof) in God(s).
6 Comments:
The bit about the fallability of princes and human leaders in general is good, but the rest seems standard issue and not particularly thought inspiring to me. Please elborate in case I missed something.
Oh, it's not really thought-inspiring at all. I just like it.
Reading an individual Psalm is really like dipping a toe in the stream, anyway. But it reminds how nice the water is.
Fair enough. I personally prefer the bits of the bible that have relevance for believers and non-believers alike. I suppose that's because I say I want the kingdom, but I don't want God in it. ;)
Good ol Ecc 9:11...nothing beats rock.
Me confused. I've always heard "son of man" as a euphemism for Christ, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Could be both. Religious language is purposefully vague in many cases. So here it could be a dual warning to A) not to worship any human and B) not to turn Christ into an idol. That second implication is very interesting to me, since it implies to me that the whole point Jesus is to show that God is not something external to man. By explicitly putting the devine in one man, people were meant to understand the dual implication that everyone is divine (ie. equally worthy of consideration as a human being) and that no one on earth ought to be regarded as a god above others. Of course, again, this is all part of my heretical belief as an unbeliever, but I think that most major religious texts have plenty of universal ideas in them that are useful regardless of one's belief (or lack thereof) in God(s).
Post a Comment
<< Home