Nao eh a toa que a cidade sempre viveu na minha imaginacao - e na da maioria das pessoas - e era considerada o centro do mundo. Abaixo tem um mosaico que eu vi andando na Yafo Street:
que eh uma reproducao de "Die Welt als Kleeblatt" do teologo alemao Heinrich Bünting, que alias tem varios outros mapas interessantes, tais como esse, onde a Europa eh representada como uma rainha. Mas voltando as representacoes, Jerusalem tem varios mapas indicando sua natureza dual: ao mesmo tempo o palco da historia divina e eh o cenario de varias guerras e conflitos completamente humanos.
A cidade eh sagrada para as tres principais religioes do ocidente, e lah eh onde tudo comecou: em todos os sentidos. O monte do templo eh o local de onde o Universo se expandiu e de onde Deus tirou o po do qual fez Adao.
Foi no mesmo monte que Abrahao estava prestes sacrificar Isaac (e a pedra do sacrificio estah lah, dentro da mesquita na foto acima - Dome of the Rock). E nesse lugar Maome subiu as ceus na sua Jornada Noturna.
7 comentários:
Re, adorei o post!
As figuras são lindas e o sentido historico mais interessante ainda!
Continue postando as novidades!
beijos e saudades,
Carol
Interesting that you chose to write its name in Hebrew and not in Arabic. Tsuk tsuk tsuk Renato.
I find it absolutely amazing that there is a Center for the Study of Rationality in the sacred place of the three major nonsense-spreading western institutions. It sounds like some secular people living there are apologizing for their neighbors.
About Abraham, let me post one of my favorite quotations: "God ordered Abraham to make a burnt offering of his longed-for son. Abraham built an altar, put firewood upon it, and trussed Isaac up on top of the wood. His murdering knife was already in his hand when an angel dramatically intervened with the news of a last-minute change of plan: God was only joking after all, 'tempting' Abraham, and testing his faith. A modern moralist cannot help but wonder how a child could ever recover from such psychological trauma. (...) What shocks me today about such stories is not that they really happened. They probably didn't. What makes my jaw drop is that people today should base their lives on such an appalling role model". [R. Dawkings]
I'm sorry if that come out a little rude. It's just that, due to personal experience, I can not be impartial about this subject anymore.
Your article is very nice, though. Please keep posting.
I disagree, but I see the point you are trying to make. Let me try to explain why I don't agree with it: non-sense in general is in the eyes of the beholder. Imagine the following experiment: you are telling someone how amazing math is and you tell him the Tarski-Banach Paradox. This person claims it is non-sense and can't be true and therefore all those mathematicians are wasting their time and money working on some models that are clearly wrong. This sounds like a fair comment, but the problem is that instead of using the Paradox as an invitation to dig deeper and explore what the counter-intuitive statement might hint, the person in the experiment simply to decided it non-sense. Now, let me try to relate it to religion.
Dawkins is taking a classical biblical story, disregarding its context and ranting over an oversimplified version -- the same way the person in the thought-experiment was ranting about the Paradox without trying to stop and contemplate its beautiful subtleties. Sometime ago and downloaded and listened to a Yale class on the Old Testament. Here is the class about Abraham and Isaac: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/sessions/lecture06.html . There is the transcript here, if you prefer to read rather then listen: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/transcripts/transcript06.html She presents to non-trivial explanations, which I find very interesting and the reconcile my idea of religion and the story. I do agree with you and Dawkins that the story is shocking, but after some interpretation I really like it.
It beings in Session 6 and ends in Session 7. Read the first three paragraphs of Session 7, they are very nice: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/transcripts/transcript07.html
One great thing is that those are academic lectures, rather then religious texts - so they tend to be more objective (impartiality never happens in life, but I thing it comes closer to it then most texts on the subject)
Sure, Dawkings takes a quote out of context. But his point is that even today people take sacred texts as truth and follow them literally. This is perhaps the main cause of religion-based hate/war. On the other hand, if you rely on "interpretation", many avenues are open. I would of course tend to agree with interpretations like those of the Yale course. Religious tradition is a beautiful subject, and a very interesting chapter of mankind history. But most of the people take the interpretation provided by very biased guys. I grew up in a very religious neighborhood. Even hating praying, for instance, it took years for me to be able to sleep without saying some ridiculous sentences. A kid immediately realizes that there is no point in praying 10 or 50 "Ave Marias", because you are repeating over and over the same sentence. This is nonsense. Period. But it takes years to get rid of such things, because they are taught as truths in your early childhood.
Postar um comentário