other_life
bioconfused
it would be dishonest of me to give a full throated defense of 'Tradition' a la Congar or the Habadniks because i live in some sense outside of it but i don't think it's something to be trifled with, either. it's something i am in the process of making peace with in spite of how deeply embedded i am in the secular - because i am convinced of the authority of its claims on me, in terms of the ethics i must live by and my connection to a deeper chain in history, a familial belonging to the line of prophets that is 'the Israel of God'.
i take it therefore as axiomatic that all the words of Torah are revealed words and words in which is a deep, deep imprint of their Maker and Revealer. that they do not just refer to reality but participate in that reality and allow us to participate likewise. [or, in another way: the 'reality' of 'text' is not merely extratextual but rather makes entries into text such that participation in reality (sacramental reality) is (not exclusively, but really) text-immanent]
this is a very long way of saying that i take the sacramental view of scripture as a given and think that saying 'it's a way of keeping autists busy' is trifling/belongs more in the kantbot thread than it does here
i take it therefore as axiomatic that all the words of Torah are revealed words and words in which is a deep, deep imprint of their Maker and Revealer. that they do not just refer to reality but participate in that reality and allow us to participate likewise. [or, in another way: the 'reality' of 'text' is not merely extratextual but rather makes entries into text such that participation in reality (sacramental reality) is (not exclusively, but really) text-immanent]
this is a very long way of saying that i take the sacramental view of scripture as a given and think that saying 'it's a way of keeping autists busy' is trifling/belongs more in the kantbot thread than it does here