The Old Testament

The existence of it is initially suggested. The realization of it is an application of mind that gives you access to force/power to influence or inform, that you previously did not know you possessed. It does not act on an individual as much as it allows an individual to act with efficient effectiveness from increased phenomenal awareness.

An outside force? A force ubiquitous to our being at large. A force of process from which we all emerge.

 

is guidance a force ? such a metaphor would imply physical as
in /how did you get here? / was blown by the wind / . actually ,
when the wind touches the oracle that is an acceptable and
even affectionate movement of meaning . a spirit kiss . when in
prayer and a butterfly comes to sit on your finger just as a
beautiful feather tumbles into your lap -spirit kiss- bless the
understanding that is all yours .

 

right back at you

 

:smilielol5:

 

You'll have to read my last post regarding you in the other thread to understand where this places you.

 

I look at the core teachings and example of Jesus, interpreted in the light of reason, judgment, experience, intuition, scholarship and probability. I start with available scripture, including non-canonical sources, using as criteria: age, multiplicity of occurrences, historical context, dissimilarity, and embarrassment. I take the agape principle as the main yardstick in judging authenticity. And I agree with the rest that the Holy Spirit guides the process. As Yale professor, Dale Martin puts it: "The Bible isn't scripture simply in and of itelf. It is scripture, the holy word of God, when it is read in faith by the leading of the Holy Spirit." Is the Holy Spriit internal or external.? I think of it as both.

 

Here I probably disagree with some Christians on this forum who take a literal view of Scripture. I follow some of the earliest theologians of the Church, like Origen, who argued that the Bible had to be understood often allegorically or metaphorically. There are numerous doublets in the Old Testament where the editors, to their credit, gave two versions of the same story--take your pick. As you say, there seem to be different descriptions of the sequence of creation. How could that be?

I don't have a problem with it, because I don't think either was intended as a scientific account of the process of creation. In fact, there seem to be seem two accounts in Genesis, each with its own points to make. The account beginning Gen. 2.4, written first, is often called the J (Yahwist) story, reflecting southern authorship. It seems simpler and more "primitive"-- more accurately "innocent"--describing a loving god molding Adahm (Everyman) out of the dust of the ground and breathing life into his nostrils. The creation of woman from Adam's rib is controversial these days, but the punchline is that they were of the same flesh and bones. "Therefore, a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh." The Lord and his human creations were in intimate contact back then. The Lord liked to go walking in the cool of the day. Origen in the third century noted the absurdity to taking all this literally. And Saint Augustine said: when I read literally, I was slain spiritually. I agree, but would hasten to add that it was a new understanding of Genesis that's responsible for my being a Christian today. Humans were made in the spiritual image and likeness of God. That is why, as Jesus said, the first two commandments sum up the rest. We must love God, but God is reflected in His creations. In a real sense, when we encounter any human, we're in the divine presence and should act accordingly. Hence my frequent allusions to seeing God at WalMart (which is a metaphor). Genesis goes on to tell us about two humans who are in Paradise, and the main thing on their minds is what they don't have. I see this as the fundamental problem of our nature, similar to the Buddhist concept of attachments. Not only do I regard it as true--I think it is one of the fundamental truths about our existence.

The beginning of Genesis, called the P-story after the Aaronte Priest or priests who are thought to be its source, is majestic, in the Cecil B. DeMill manner. The numersous refrains such as are found in hymns suggests that it was intended as a hymn of praise. Hymns are poetry, not science. It is thought to have reached its final form during or immediately after the Babylonian captivity, and is a challenge to theological positions which were held by the Babylonian, Canaanite, and Assyrian peoples of the region. Intrestingly, the opening passage "In the Beginning" in Hebrew starts in the middle of a sentence--implying something before. The word of God brings light to primal darkness and brings the waters under control. Here there are echoes of the Babylonian creation myth in which Marduk slays the monster of the deep (his mother) Tiamat, fashioning the earth from her carcass, and creating humans as slaves for the gods who were pissed about his deed. In Genesis, God subdues Tehom, the formless void, representing chaos. But it is not a living monster but an inanimate threat. Tehom is always present in life (security is an illusion), but God has the upper hand. God begins by creating light. His other creations include the objects worshiped as deities in Mesopotamian and Canaanite pantheons, but depicted in Genesis as mere physical objects. Even the sun and moon, worshiped by the Assyrians, Egyptians, and later even the Romans, as paramount deities are depicted in Genesis as "lights" hung almost as ornaments. The point is God's transcendance and the naturalness of the objects of creation. That's my take. So where's the cover up?

 

I'd like to make a comment, but i think im too dumb. All i know is the addition of vowels where there were none can change the matter? Leaving out a heap of information too. That might change things.
The fact that God resembles a satanist in the old Testament doesn't exactly fill my heart with joy.

 

"God formed man of dust of the ground." That is to say, the man was called "Man" or "Adam" because he was formed from the ground (adamah)
The way it was explained to me is that the word means earth, and man is associated with it as he was supposedly made from it. It is not supposed to mean that "adam" or "adamah" means man. It is based on the root meaning of the word. All I am saying is that things change when we don't stick to the original meanings, and check the source of the word to make sure we have the proper view. In the case of the christian old testament, it is based on, and I believe plagiarized from, the Hebrew bible.

Just pointing out the above, not trying to start another argument with you.

That's exactly the way I look at it. In my view, once you start changing meanings, you change everything related to it.

Except my experience with them has been that they may argue over what something means in a certain context, but they are pretty strict about what their words mean. Maybe not all of them, but the orthodox ones sure are, you should try arguing with one sometime

I would say that allegorical sayings are cute, but not really relevant as they can be taken to mean many things, depending on the context.

Here is the essence of our differences. You follow what people like me consider a myth. It is all based on earlier myths, and myths of it's own creating. Just like Judasim, Islam, and all the other ancient myths revolving around supernatural entities. Myths can only be proven as truth when there is enough factual evidence to support them. There is too much left to interpretation in all these myths.

Well, I don't think I ever even intimated any of the first part here. Disagreements are common, especially when dealing with things from history. They are always left to interpretation, which is why I am so nit picking about staying with original meanings, etc. I think we can prove a lot with the proper methods. The face value of statements made by people who may not have even existed does not go far to validate anything.

They didn't each me anything, they made me figure out the answers for myself. What they did was to suggest reading materials that would allow me to form my own answers. I think this is how they teach most of their own kind also, maybe not.

I haven't been looking for any god, I have been looking for truth, and I have not blamed anyone for anything, just disagreed with things they have said, since they are mostly opinion about things that carry no supporting evidence. I simply look for facts that would allow me to modify my opinion of what I have found so far. Notice I did say my opinion. When and if I ever see other facts supporting an alternative viewpoint, I give them serious attention. So far, mostly I have only seen reliance on old writings that have serious flaws in them, and are questionable as to their validity. When those flaws are resolved, and they can be verified to be correct, then they can be taken seriously. No one here has yet made a stab at that.

Not angry at all about being an agnostic, since it is a rational way of thinking. More like tired of hearing the same old hype, which lead me to being an agnostic in the first place. I thought maybe some "hip" people would have more insights into my questions and theories.

I didn't think I was presenting that assumption, more like the uniformity of facts would support belief.

We disagree on that, if we can't properly understand the language that was used to write the early texts christianity is based on, then how do we properly understand what was written?

I agree, but it seems that it is always supposed to be the other guys attitude that needs changing, doesn't it?

One of the things I learned early on was that I had to attempt to understand what was a parable, and what was perceived as the truth. The rabbi I talked to never told me what was what, I had to study to determine that for myself. One way was to understand that some things are just impossible. The Jews believe that their god has to operate within the confines of natural law, since it was the one who created it. They believe that he cannot operate outside it. So, when reading the bible, I kept that in mind. When something I read seemed like it couldn't work, I looked at it closer.
You don't have to discuss these things with me if you prefer not to. Just ignore any replies I make to your posts, I won't be offended.

 

I don't consider honest discussion as being dumb. I do agree with your comment on changing words. Once we start changing meanings of individual words, it changes the whole context of an issue. So much gets lost in translations, and we forget to take that into account on things that occur between people of different languages, especially old ones that have changed over time to start with.

 

Hmmm. That word plagiarism. The English-American usage of that word conveys malfeasance, or intentional wrongdoing. Do you have evidence of that, or have you taken the word out of its original context and used it to describe possibly innocent misunderstandings. If so, I'd say you might be guilty of group libel, or possibly hypocrisy, since you aren't using the word correctly and you think special care in word use is essential to clarity of thought.

Do you think the Jews "plagiarized" their creation myth and the flood story from the Sumerians and Babylonians? There are certainly some evident parallels between their myths and the Biblical accounts. Would it be correct to say that since the Old Testament deviates from the original tales in several respects, notably in portraying a more loving deity. Would it help our understanding to look at the Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh epic for a "truer" account of creation? I think it helps, but I also think the Torah can stand on its own.

But somehow you succeeded. Could it be your tone? Anyhow, let's call it a "discussion".

So anything the meaning of which depends on context is irrelevant or "cute"? Or do you simply not understand what the expression, as commonly understood, means?

Truth is mostly a myth. But myths can be useful. The Old Testament is the foundational myth of Israel. Of course it's not factual, but it conveys profound truths about moral reality and how the Israelites thought of themselves. "Myth", as the term is used by scholars, does not refer to a fairy tale or something which is false, but a story that conveys a deeper reality. The Christ myth (and I think Jesus was factual) describes a great rabbi who preached peace, love, and understanding, and gave His life for His beliefs so that we could gain insight into the means for our salvation. Most scholars think there is sufficient evidence to think that Jesus was also an actual historical figure who preached love and the coming Kingdom of Heaven, performed healings, had followers, had disputes with the religious establishment of the day, and was crucified by the Romans. The Quetzalcoatl myth of Aztec-Toltec religion describes a god who shed blood to resurrect the human race, but (unlike Jesus) disgraced himself by yielding to the temptations of the dark lord Tezcatlipoca and abandoned humanity to the Smokey Mirror. Most scholars don't think Quetzalcoatl existed, although some think the myth incorporated stories about an actual priest-king, Quetzalcoatl-Topilzin who tried to reign in human sacrifice and became the victim of some nasty politics from the priests and warrior clans. I take all myths seriously, but find primary inspiration in the Christ myth.

I think the "essence of our differences" is that you're using only half your brain to find truth--the left hemisphere, involving analytical thinking, while neglecting the right hemisphere, important for intuitive insights and integrative functions.

You've just accused us of lies and plagiarism. But we forgive you (at least I do) because you seem like a good ol' boy, not meanin' no harm.

Do you see any truth value in metaphor and allegory--things which are not factual but convey a deeper meaning?

Good. Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays as you probably prefer.

 

Piracy, counterfeiting, etc., are acts of intentional wrongdoing. Consider another definition:Plagiarism is taking the ideas of another and using them without giving proper credit. It is a form of stealing and a serious academic offense....


Plagiarism is unethical behavior that can generate various forms of social punishment such as loss of reputation, failure in a course at a school, loss of a professional job, recall of a book, or forfeiture of a license."

This definition emphasizes the malfeasance involved.

What puzzles me about your response, as has been the pattern with your other responses, is that you tend to answer by quoting something which doesn't necessarily seem to disagree with my point. My point (please don't provide the definition of "point") was that you accuse the early Christians of deliberate wrongdoing, without giving them the benefit of the doubt that they might have been sincere but misguided (Or even right). I think the early Christians, like the early Hebrews, were trying to make sense of reality. I assume that they got a lot of it wrong, just like I assume most of what you and I believe is wrong. I do think that there even were (and are) charlatans calling themselves Christians who were and are on power trips and (were and are) even guilty of stretching the truth for personal gain.But I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, unless there is direct evidence of wrongdoing. I suspect that loyalists around King Josiah had much to do with the Yaweh only emphasis, while returning priests and other elites from Babylonian captivity were influenced by the interest of the Persian court. So I keep those possibilities in mind when reading scripture. Which is why scripture is not my main source of evidence about God and Jesus.

As usual, I agree with much of what your sources say, and they are very good. The problem is with the inference. The early Christians were Jews who believed that they rather than the Temple priests and Pharisees, had the correct understanding of the Torah.
So when you quote me rabbis and secular scholars, it's like quoting Republicans to prove that Democrats are evil. I happen to agree that the early Christians came to conclusions about the Torah that are hard to swallow: Mark's conflating of the Suffering Servant and Messiah references in Second Isaiah; Matthew's reading of "virgin' instead of young maiden, and the somewhat comical portrayal of Jesus straddling two animals when he entered Jerusalem; The genealogies of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke, etc. I think these were errors, but I give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of sincerity, and I think the Tanakh is at least as implausible. Needless to say, I don't find any of this that troublesome in retaining a belief in God and Jesus.

It's interesting to me that you'd define "premise". This could be taken in either of several ways: (1) as an insult, implying that I'm too dumb to know what the word means; (2) as possibly a sarcastic reference to our previous dispute about other definitions; (3) as an "over the top" effort at precision; (4) all of the above; (5) none of the above. If (3) is the right answer, I don't think it contributes much to our understanding to go to this trouble.

If God is the source of the Torah, how did the Jews acquire proprietary rights? And weren't the early Christians Jews? You didn't answer my question about the Sumerians and Babylonians. Maybe they should be the ones bringing up the plagiarism issue.

It is, and I admire you for your sincerity as well as your candor. I hope you're not taking any of this personally. I'm also sincere and candid, and trying to point out some things that could be helpful in your quest.

There are a couple of things I was hoping you'd comment on: the question about the Sumerians and Babylonians (Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish) and my question about the meaning of the expression: "A rolling stone gathers no moss."

I'll try to pick up with the rest of your extensive post later. Meanwhile, have a great rest of the holidays!

 

okiefreak,

Before we get into things any further I wanted to ask you; are you satisfied with your views on this matter, and would it really serve any purpose to discuss them at all?

Just asking since I don't see any point in a discussion where neither of us are going to change our views, unless something comes to light that we had not considered before.

 

I'm always open new perspectives, although I'm basically satisfied and grateful for what I have. I regard religious beliefs pretty much the same as I do scientific ones--always tentative, consistent with logic and the available evidence, and supported by evidence. The kind and amount of evidence I accept for religious beliefs is different: reasonable suspicion based on experience, intuition, scholarship, hearsay, and scripture liberally interpreted. My exchanges with you remind me of on-going discussions I've been having with a friend over the meaning of life, based on the Great Books. He reminds me a lot of you. We've read the Gita, Confucius' Analects, Plato, Aristiole, Kant, Nietzsche, Camus, etc., and have just scratched the surface. The difference between us is that he actually thinks that when this is over, we'll know the meaning of life. He has a somewhat elaborate schematic of "Eudamonia" worked out that he revises after each session. When we're finished he'll have it complete, and we can send you a copy--no trips to mountaintops in Tibet required. Except I'm skeptical that I'll be any farther along in understanding it than I am already--dazed and confused. Our minds work differently. He is the Spock or Data type, if you're a Trekkie. I'm more a Kirk or McCoy, with possibly a more overdeveloped right brain hemisphere. My friend is fascinated by my paintings, because right-brain activity is incomprehensible to him. He's been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome (no dig intended). I'm much more intuitive and experiential in my approach to reality--perpetually overwhelmed by the on-going intensity of the kaleidoscope of sights and thoughts and sounds that I call God (to use Paul's phrase) "in whom we live and move and have our being". I think the meaning of life is to know God for a second, and I'm convinced that I've known Him for almost a lifetime. I just want to know Him better. So yes, I'm basically satisfied. But there's so much more to know and experience; so little time. And yes, it could all be an illusion. Nothing is certain, not even that.

Would it serve a purpose for us to continue? I doubt that we'll ever agree, but as long as we can learn from each other, I'm game.