Where did impressionism come from? What's its origin?
The term "impressionism" was actually offered as a derogatory label for a Monet painting, Impressionism Sunrise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Claude... , by a critic during a negative review. However, the term stuck, as this style evolved as the art in which colors were broken apart to force visual color mixing in the viewer's eyes. The style grew out of a movement outdoors as painter began painting en plein air, and working out ways to depict sunlight and its affects on the colors of objects. Whereas the earlier movements in art promoted the blending and smoothing techniques that minimized the appearance of brushstrokes, impressionism seemed to celebrate the heavier and more obvious application of paint, causing a stir among collectors and critics. It literally broke the rules that centuries of art had adhered to in its creation. Impressionism promoted a new way to view art and the subjects painted by the impressionists by creating an image for the eye to interpret instead of trying to recreate the object. It was through the work of a few patrons and promoters of this new method and style that impressionism finally gained favor. The vibrancy of placing pure colors side-by-side instead of blending the resulting color effect, along with the use of complimentary colors to make neutrals, the use of wet-into-wet techniques, and painting in all sorts of lighting conditions (early morning, late afternoon, and the nocturns) had all been employed by artists before, but the impressionists used them all at one in their works. We may look at a Money or Renoir today and think they are old-fashioned and not modern, but they were radical and broke ground for the cubits and those who followed, for seeing and painting the world around them in new ways. Impressionism began around 1830 and continued for nearly a century, into the mid-1920's, until Monet and Mary Cassatt both passed away. Meanwhile the post-impressionists (Gauguin and Van Gogh, Lautrec and Seurat) began to emerge soon after the impressionists did. They were followed by Cezanne and the early cubists. . . . etc. etc. etc.
Christian fundamentalists (many of them tending to be autoritarian personalities) tend to be rather closed-minded, and very subjective in the ways that they look at things, unwilling to consider things from different points of view. Thus, they are virtually unable (and likely unwilling) to look at things objectively, honestly considering how things look from many different points of view. That is why Christian fundamentalists tend to reject the Scholarly Historical/Critical approach to studying the Bible, and rely upon their own church or pastor's rather subjective interpretation of the Bible.Another factor is that Christian fundamentalists tend to be much less educated. Much less likely to understand that there are other folks in the world, other cultures, other religions who have "just as much right" to claim "their truth" as a reasonable way of looking upon things in the world. In other words Christian fundamentalists tend to be extremely ethnocentric; nationalistically (The United States is blessed by God as opposed to other countries that are heathen) AND (in terms of religion, my religion is the only correct faith/other faiths will send you to Hell)! As a result, as a relatively uneducated group of folks, and due to the way they look at the world, they are unwilling, and likely unable to comprehend the evidence that has accrued from the Historical/Critical approach to the Bible. You can argue with them as long as you would like to. I have discussed religion wit Christian fundamentalists for at least forty years now...... regular folks, to Ph.D's, seminarians, pastors, etc. with a total of perhaps a 1000 hours. As far as I know I have never lost a "debate." And the reason is that when you get down to the base, the foundational issues of what fundamental's believe, the Basic Assumptions, of their faith; there are PROBLEMS, and when it come to debatig them....... they can't, and thet won't! and WHY. Because in the long run THERE ARE LOGICAL, RATIONAL PROBLEMS THAT THEY CAN NOT DEAL WITH; THAT THEY WILL NOT DEAL WITH, AND WHEN THAT POINT IS REACHED, THE DEBATE IS OVER, IT IS FINISHED! THAT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE HUNDREDS OF TIMES. Doug Soderstrom, Ph.D.Retired PsychologistSpeciality: Understanding the Christian fundamental's Minddougsoderstrom@sbcglobal.net
As two of the answers given suggest, the historical-critical method is indeed widely accepted in schools of theology and seminaries preparing ministers for various Christian churches.The term includes a wide range of disciplines. Some of the common tools for historical-critical method are: source criticism (looking for related texts that the biblical author may have been influenced by, e.g., the gospel of John seems to have vocabulary that is influenced by gnostic philosophy); literary criticism (comparing a document to literary styles at the time of its composition, e.g., Paul’s episciles closesly follow the organization and structure of letter writing style of the Greco-Roman world of his day); redactive criticism (looking for signs of composition by several editors to the original work by analysis of vocabulary and appearance in the most reliable manuscripts, e.g., the two oldest manuscripts containing the gospel of Mark end at verse 8 in Chapter 16).It is certainly true that reading the bible after being exposed to critical methods changes ones understanding of the meaning of the text— at least it had a profound effect on me. But I don’t think that historical criticism is necessarily unorthodox or heretical. There are many very devote Christian scholars that are enormously accomplished at historical-critical methods, e.g., Fr. Raymond Brown (Catholic) and Bishop N.T. Wright (Anglican). I would also cite J.P. Meier’s masterwork Jesus: A Marginal Jew. This work takes the search for the historical Jesus to the highest level of scholarship, but Meier still accepts the strong possibility that Jesus was a wonder-worker.To be sure, there are those who use the critical method to ends that many traditional Chrisitians are appauled by (blasphomy they would cry), e.g, John Crossan and the Jesus Seminar. Reza Aslan’s book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, is particularly objectionable to me for the way it conjectures about the revolutionary impulse of Jesus.As a Catholic, I should note that the Catholic Church has fully accepted historical-critical methods for the past 50+ years. The church holds to the line that all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit for our salvation, but recognizes that human authors operated within their own intellectual limitations and the times in which they wrote.
"There is only one way to interpret the Bible." Do you agree? or disagree?
I disagree. The Bible is full of inconsistencies, ambiguities, and downright contradictions. If you read it for yourself you'd see. Suppose you had a church where they did no preaching about what was in the Bible. Instead they just gave everyone a Bible, told them to read part of it, and then we'll all get together next week and discuss it. You'd find that everyone had a little different idea of what the passage meant. You might have a very good discussion, or your discussion might just collapse into arguments and shouting matches. Churches -exist- for the purpose of standardizing belief, getting everyone on the same page. You go to church to be surrounded by people who believe exactly as you do, so you can encourage each other, reinforce one another's belief. But it would be better to celebrate differences of perspective and viewpoint. Judaism does this. There is no one -standard- interpretation, instead you read the views and commentaries of great minds who have lived in the last 3000 years. They don't all agree! The individual is encouraged to reflect on all these views and then do his own thinking. Consequently, if you ask a fundamentalist minister some question of deep importance, he will point your nose to one passage in the New Testament. He will tell you exactly what this passage means, and that we have to believe it, we have no choice. But if you ask a rabbi the same question he will scratch his head or stroke his beard. He will say :Well, Mamonides in the 10th century said so and so. Hillel said such and such. Augustin said so and so. Go home and think about it, and pray for guidance, and I'm sure you will come to the right decision on your own."
The Origins and creation of the US Constitution?
The first national government we tried was under the Articles of Confederation. The national government was really weak, its powers almost entirely encompassed in the foreign policy realm. Could not levy taxes against citizens of a state without the consent of that state's legislature, etc. Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts, a threat to internal security which had to be suppressed by the state militia because the confederated government wasn't powerful enough to act, was the final proof that the Articles of Confederation were not satisfactory. A Convention was called in Philidelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. The leaders in this convention, notables including John Jay, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, et al, realized that the changes required were too drastic to simply revise the existing document, so they started from scratch. The Convention closed its doors so no one would find out they were writing an entirely new Constitution, and created the great document. Because it sacrificed so much state sovereignty to the federal government, and was such a big deviation from the previous philosophy of minimizing federal power, there was a huge controversy over ratification. Jay, Hamilton, and Madison wrote the Federalist Papers, eloquent arguments for the desirability of the new government, during this period in an attempt to sway public opinion, especially in New York City. The Constitution came into effect when ratified by the ninth state. Whichever state that was and the date are probably easy to glean from the wikipedia article copy/pasted above.
The origin of the universe has been traced back to the big bang, by observation and interpretation of experimantal results.The origin of humankind is part of the vast Phylogenetic tree describing the origin and subsequent development of life.The origins of Christianity are the story of a man (Jesus) who lived during the Roman occupation of Palestine.The first goes back 13.82 billion years.The second perhaps 4 billion years, with early hominids featuring at sometihng like 2 million years ago.The third is in the order of 2000 years.
What is the difference between exegesis and hermeneutics?
Exegesis involves an extensive and critical interpretation of a text, especially of a holy scripture, such as of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Talmud, the Midrash, the Qur'an, etc. An exegete is a practitioner of this science, and the adjectival form is exegetic. The word exegesis means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while eisegesis implies more subjectivity. One may encounter the terms exegesis and hermeneutics used interchangeably; however, there remains a distinction. Exegesis is the practical application of hermeneutics, which is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself. Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text.  Although the most widely-known exegeses concern themselves with Christian, Jewish and Islamic books, analyses also exist of books of other religions. Hermeneutics is a philosophical technique concerned with the interpretation and understanding of texts. It may be described as the theory of the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself. The concept of "text" has been extended beyond written documents to include, for example, speech, performances, works of art, and even events. Thus, one might speak of and interpret a "social text". se more on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis