11 Mar 07
Originally posted by whodeyA myth is inherently a falsehood of some kind, no?
Well this opens a whole bag of worms in terms of labeling the original Torah in the realm of myth. If it is inspired by God, would God inspire a myth? A myth is inherently a falsehood of some kind, no? Could God lie? If it is not inspired by God, then it only has meaning in terms of a persons own "Torah". Then you may as well pick up an issue of Better H ...[text shortened]... neither can you divorce his word from its source. They are one in the same.
No. A myth is a way of telling stories with an embedded symbolism that points to truth.
Now, you and I come at this entirely differently. Whether or not the authors of the biblical texts were inspired (and whatever that may mean), and whether or not there are historical places, rulers, events in the stories—I still see them as mythological in nature. I do not take the Bible as “the word of God”—literal or inerrant or otherwise—and I have argued before on here, from the NT texts generally used to support that view, that in fact they do not. That is, one cannot arrive at a position of sola scriptura using solely the “scriptura” to do so. (I take a “midrashic” approach to the NT as well, although in a different manner because the structure and language of those texts is a bit different.)
I think that literalistic/historicistic readings of the texts trivialize them. I also think that treating the Biblical texts as somehow the inerrant “word of God” at least runs the risk of being idolatrous. I have argued that several times now just in the last week or so. Unfortunately, I think I am starting to anger some people by those views.
How did I define idolatry recently? Putting ones trust in, or cleaving to, anything but the living God.
Jonah (reluctantly) obeyed the command of God, preached to the Ninevites that they would be destroyed—no ifs and or buts, no second chances if they repented; the offer of pardon if they repented was not offered them. “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it. But this was very displeasing to Jonah, and he became angry.” So many Christians seem to cling to a biblical fundamentalism that they think insulates them from God changing his mind...
Faith means openness to possibility and, in the religious sense, the ultimate ineffable mystery. One who is afraid that the biblical texts might be wrong—or who needs to insist at all costs that they cannot be wrong—is putting one’s trust in the wrong place. There is no such thing as riskless faith.
People scream at fundamentalists such as myself for taking portions of the Bible literally that they do not agree with, however, when it is something they can use to attack the Bible they have no problem taking such stories as the literal truth and then bashing us over the head with them.
No doubt. I, however, never play that game, and have argued against it a time or two. I have been lambasted by both sides in that debate... Actually, when theists (of whatever particular religion) insist on idolizing texts, then they are fair game on that count; the problem is that there are those outside of all religious bounds, who have also accepted the notion that these texts must be taken literally. But who has taught them?
For me, when you say you read the Bible as "literal" you are merely saying that you believe the original text is correct even though it can have multiple meanings, however, there are NO myths. You then could say that the interpretations are not always correct. For example, the 6 days of creation I think have not been interpreted correctly. I do believe the earth to be billions of years old. The original words for morning and evening in Genesis can be translated as order and disorder. In Genesis 2:4 this is even hinted at by referring to the "generations" of creation. The Biblical critic of the fundamentalist would then charge that I must take the original translation and interpretation in my KJB if I claim to be a fundamentalist, however, I would charge that it is equally important, if not more important, to look at the original wording and possible translations.
I don’t disagree with any of this, except the “NO myths” part. However, I do think you are using the term “literal” a lot broader than some others—or that perhaps I use it.
Also, the word “fundamentalist” has come to mean different things. Originally, it referred to a particular Christian doctrine based on the five “fundamentals.” Now it has come to refer generally to a kind of religious rigidity. I can drop the term, but frankly, the new conventional usage has, I think, overtaken us.
_______________________________________
You know, Whodey, I have ventured very carefully—and indeed very little—into the Christian paradigms, or the NT. And when I have, it has been pretty tentative, even though that’s where my roots are. To me, the logos tou theou is the “Tao,” the patterns, the suchness, of the One-without-a-second—and that logos manifests in the material. (Think of the “logos” of the grain in wood.) Manifest as human being, that logos is referred to as ho Christos. And the gospel about Jesus is that he represents that in a particular (unique) but not exclusive way; one could say, using standard Christian language, that Jesus as ho Christos is a sacrament of the pre-existing logos.
Now, I am still working on this expression of my non-dualistic view within Christianity (it is not new, by any means—nor do I think it is generally heretical)—but I am not prepared to argue it yet. I just offer these tidbits for thinking about...
__________________________________________
You know, I am afraid that I am just going to enrage a lot of Protestant Christians as I continue my attack of what I call idolatry.
Here is a statement by a prominent rabbi of recent history. But I also apply the same ideas to every religious expression—including Christianity:
“Every definition of God leads to heresy; definition is spiritual idolatry. Even attributing mind and will to God, even attributing divinity itself, and the name “God”—these, too, are definitions. Were it not for the subtle awareness that all these are just sparkling flashes of that which transcends definition—these, too, would engender heresy. ...
”The greatest impediment to the human spirit results from the fact that the conception of God is fixed in a particular form, due to childish habit and imagination. This is a spark of the defect of idolatry, of which we must always be aware. ...
”The infinite transcends every particular content of faith. “
—Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (former Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine), quoted in Daniel Matt, The Essential Kabbalah
In the end, it is idolatrous expressions, as often as not, that atheists are attacking. I’ll look for the references, but I have read some Orthodox Christians who have not thought that was wholly a bad thing...
11 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayQuite right. This was kind of a side discussion between whodey and I, I think.
All this is fine and good, I even agree, but it does not address the point that was brought up ealier, that we have all there is, and we will get no more.
Kelly
My mind has been hyper-texting across so much of this the last few days, I think I need to at least slow down a bit. But—
What is the NT line? "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God?" Well, I might retranslate that as "an overwhelmingly awesome" thing. Nevertheless, I think an awful lot of religious tendencies and viewpoints are aimed at “protecting” people from the presence of the living God—which I would interpret as the experience of the awesome, ineffable immensity of Being-Itself. But my particular interpretation here doesn’t matter...
It’s not just that I think your understanding (based on your own experience) keeps more openness to how we understand scripture, or that I think you “nailed it” last time as soon as you mentioned the gift of knowledge—it is that it keeps God free to be God. It keeps faith as an openness to possibility and mystery (including the possibility of being wrong), rather than a clinging to a particular view of the text.
I know I confuse some people when I wander across religious boundaries and start speaking in this particular language or that (Taoist or Jewish or Christian), but I do have a strong sense of idolatry. I once said to Ivanhoe that I thought that might be my primary message here—always harping against idolatrous tendencies among the various religious expressions (and being vigilant with myself on that matter too). So, to put it into strictly Christian terminology—if someone thinks that the Spirit is not free to shatter the boundaries of the text, and shatter all our idolizations, and do it again and again—then I am on the other side of that argument. Besides, as you have argued, I don’t think the texts themselves support that position.
Idols can be graven in stone, or in words, or in our minds. Even outside the text, if someone tries to idolize an insight from the spirit, the spirit itself will likely smash that sooner or later.
I might need to take it slowly here for awhile, KJ. I have not been able to express myself in Christian terminology—except tentatively—for sometime. And yet, it’s a but unfair to ignore that expression simply because I have had such a tragic history with it. Likely, I’d still be a heretic, but I think the non-dualistic “perennial philosophy” is also expressed—profoundly—within Christian symbolism, and I’d like to re-visit that. (Oh well, there are only a few people on here who know what I’m talking about at this point; you’ve been here long enough to have an inkling what I’m talking about...)
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by vistesdI understand, take it slow, do it right. 🙂
Quite right. This was kind of a side discussion between whodey and I, I think.
My mind has been hyper-texting across so much of this the last few days, I think I need to at least slow down a bit. But—
What is the NT line? "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God?" Well, I might retranslate that as "an overwhelmingly awesome" ...[text shortened]... t at this point; you’ve been here long enough to have an inkling what I’m talking about...)
Kelly
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by vistesdThanks for your comments. I have just a few things for you to ponder, however. Jonah was sent to tell the people to repent because they were headed on a collision coarse with destruction. This tells me that God wanted them to repent so that he could then turn his anger away from them. After all, it was not Jonah who wanted to see them spared because he did not like them. Now if God did not want to see them spared he would not have sent the prophet in to ask them to repent, no?
Jonah (reluctantly) obeyed the command of God, preached to the Ninevites that they would be destroyed—no ifs and or buts, no second chances if they repented; the offer of pardon if they repented was not offered them. “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would br ...[text shortened]... m to cling to a biblical fundamentalism that they think insulates them from God changing his mind...
Granted, it does say that after the people repented that God repented of wanting to destroy them. However, I would interpret this to mean that the people had changed their minds and repented unto God, not the other way around. God saw that their wickedness needed to be dealt with so that it was the people who needed to change, not God. The sin was going to be dealt with, with the people either repenting or seeing them destroyed. Now if the people did not repent and God changed his mind and did not destroy them, this would be a whole different scenerio altogether. If this had happened you could then convince me that God can indeed change his mind, however, that is not the way it played out. It is my believf, however, that God never changes, rather, it is we who change. Also consider that God is all knowing and all seeing. You cannot convince me that God does not know what is going to happen. Therefore I believe all prophetic words in the Bible to be accurate and will happen no matter how we plead with him. I will say, however, that he can make concessions with us so long as his ultimate prophetic word is completed.
12 Mar 07
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWell, I’ll read “Jonah” again; I did not too long ago, and I don’t recall any call to repentance, only the message that they would be destroyed for their wickedness—in two days, was it? I do not take this as a story of a literal happening, but as a story designed to make a point (or several), mainly about God’s compassion as opposed to Jonah’s sense of integrity—for Jonah, the principle was more important than the people. (Whether or not he actively disliked the people of Nineveh, I don’t know; they were gentiles, which is another feature of the story that deserves more attention...).
Thanks for your comments. I have just a few things for you to ponder, however. Jonah was sent to tell the people to repent because they were headed on a collision coarse with destruction. This tells me that God wanted them to repent so that he could then turn his anger away from them. After all, it was not Jonah who wanted to see them spared because he di ...[text shortened]... wever, that he can make concessions with us so long as his ultimate prophetic word is completed.
Once you bring omniscience into it, that raises a whole lot of questions, most of which have been argued on here at one time or another.
As a non-dualist—that is, I do not think of God as a being, but as Being-itself, the Whole whence we come, of which we are, and to which we return (Brahman in Hindu Advaita Vedanta, Ein Sof in Judaism, the Tao, etc.)—questions like omniscience and omnipotence are not even part of my thinking. I think all such anthropomorphic ways of thinking about God are metaphorical, and valid as such and limited as such.
This non-dualism also has a Christian expression, which I am currently working on and not yet ready to present and argue; nevertheless here are a couple of quotes—
“In the first place, the mystery of Being cannot be confounded with a being, even though it might be at the summit of the hierarchy of beings. The one Being is the cause of being, and so cannot be a being. That philosophical idol, the ‘Good Lord’ of a certain type of Christianity, or the ‘supreme being’ of spiritualism, has brought about simultaneously the ‘death of God’ [philosophy] and the loss of the mystery of Being.” (Olivier Clement, The Roots of Christian Mysticism; Clement is an Eastern Orthodox theologian, and these comments are made in the context of discussing the importance of an apophatic theology.)
Dionysius the Aeropagite (circa 500 C.E.), spoke of a ‘God beyond God,’ that is, beyond all conceptualizations that we call God: “The mystery that is beyond God himself, the Ineffable...”
“The inexhaustible nature of transcendence is expressed in the profusions of creatures.” (Clement, ibid.)
“Every concept formed by the intellect in an attempt to comprehend and circumscribe the divine nature can succeed only in fashioning an idol, not in making God known.” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, circa 330-395 C.E.)
“[God] actually contains in himself all being...what I would call an ocean of being without limit and without end...” (St. Gregory Nazianzen, circa 330-390 C.E.; my italics)
If you take a look at some of the stuff that No.1 Marauder has been quoting from the Upanishads, you can see the parallels.
As I say, however, I’m still working on this, so can add no more for awhile...
12 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesd“Well, I’ll read “Jonah” again; I did not too long ago, and I don’t recall any call to repentance, only the message that they would be destroyed for their wickedness—in two days, was it? I do not take this as a story of a literal happening, but as a story designed to make a point (or several), mainly about God’s compassion as opposed to Jonah’s sense of integrity—for Jonah, the principle was more important than the people. (Whether or not he actively disliked the people of Nineveh, I don’t know; they were gentiles, which is another feature of the story that deserves more attention...).”
Well, I’ll read “Jonah” again; I did not too long ago, and I don’t recall any call to repentance, only the message that they would be destroyed for their wickedness—in two days, was it? I do not take this as a story of a literal happening, but as a story designed to make a point (or several), mainly about God’s compassion as opposed to Jonah’s sense of int ...[text shortened]... he parallels.
As I say, however, I’m still working on this, so can add no more for awhile...
I’ve looked at sin and our lives as cups with regard to sin, and I
believe even nations can be thought of that way too, we can be full of
sin, full of mercy our lives can be running over with a lot of things
when our cups run over. With regard to Nineveh and Jonah the fact
that they were tittering on the brink of judgment before God where
God was forced to do something one way or another with their sin
putting up with Nineveh’s wickedness when they reach a point where
God judges them to be beyond redemption, and they turned. The
matter is one of God judgment and the will of man, this I think shows
us that God values the will of man, to the point that God will allow our
will to allow us to sin, or repent without forcing us to make a choice, it
must be done by our will, we must be willing to come when called,
repent, humbling ourselves before the one who setup the foundations
of the universe.
Kelly
Genesis 15: 15-16
But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.
Matthew 23:28
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
13 Mar 07
God spreaks to us thru our hearts and thru our Faith,but you have to be attuned to Him and reading the Bible and thru prayer, you must always find time for God in your life and you must talk to God and praise him and he will guide you and reward you if you live by his laws for mankind[Bible)
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by richfeetAnd if he ain't real, then you're just talking to yourself!
God spreaks to us thru our hearts and thru our Faith,but you have to be attuned to Him and reading the Bible and thru prayer, you must always find time for God in your life and you must talk to God and praise him and he will guide you and reward you if you live by his laws for mankind[Bible)
13 Mar 07
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayJohah 3:2 Arise, go into Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee......So the people BELIEVED God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them....And God was their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do to them; and he did it not.
[b]“Well, I’ll read “Jonah” again; I did not too long ago, and I don’t recall any call to repentance, only the message that they would be destroyed for their wickedness—
So does anyone here think that God would have spared them had they not repented?
13 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdSo to attempt to comprehend God one must first fashion an idol of of some kind? Therefore, would not all religions be a constructed idol of some kind? It would then seem that only atheists would be free of such idolatry.
“Every concept formed by the intellect in an attempt to comprehend and circumscribe the divine nature can succeed only in fashioning an idol, not in making God known.” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, circa 330-395 C.E.)
So to better understand your position, you do not see God as a thinking indipendent being, rather, you see him as simply the collective whole or consciencness of what exists? Therefore, all religions have the same effect in that they get a better sense of this collective wholeness? In the end we then die and are then thrown back into this collective wholeness to be reprocessed never to live as the same person we once were? Is this your position?
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by whodeyI don't believe God would have.
Johah 3:2 Arise, go into Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee......So the people BELIEVED God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them....And God was their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do t ...[text shortened]... did it not.
So does anyone here think that God would have spared them had they not repented?
Kelly
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by whodeySo to attempt to comprehend God one must first fashion an idol of some kind? Therefore, would not all religions be a constructed idol of some kind? It would then seem that only atheists would be free of such idolatry.
So to attempt to comprehend God one must first fashion an idol of of some kind? Therefore, would not all religions be a constructed idol of some kind? It would then seem that only atheists would be free of such idolatry.
So to better understand your position, you do not see God as a thinking indipendent being, rather, you see him as simply the collective ...[text shortened]... oleness to be reprocessed never to live as the same person we once were? Is this your position?
I think we must fashion images, concepts. Whether or not these become idolatrous, or remain icons only, depends on how we treat them. And that, as Rabbi Kook notes, can be very subtle, a fine line—which is why I try to tread carefully with my own language about the subject. I would say that an attempt to “dogmatize” such images is a movement toward idolatry. (See my post, and Palynka’s corrective critique, on the “Mysti-Scism” thread.)
Therefore, all religions have the same effect in that they get a better sense of this collective wholeness?
I wouldn’t state it quite this broadly. I would say that all religions are a response to a realization of the ineffable whole. Some responses may be seen as better than others—sometimes this is personal and perspectival.
In the end we then die and are then thrown back into this collective wholeness to be reprocessed never to live as the same person we once were? Is this your position?
Well, this gets to the heart of it. Yes, this is my view. It is not, I think, ultimately necessary to non-dualism per se. But dualism versus non-dualism seems to be the great religious/metaphysical divide.
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by vistesdHow did I define idolatry recently? Putting ones trust in, or cleaving to, anything but the living God.
[b]A myth is inherently a falsehood of some kind, no?
No. A myth is a way of telling stories with an embedded symbolism that points to truth.
Now, you and I come at this entirely differently. Whether or not the authors of the biblical texts were inspired (and whatever that may mean), and whether or not there are historical places, rulers, events ...[text shortened]... but I have read some Orthodox Christians who have not thought that was wholly a bad thing...[/b]
I don't think trusting one's spouse, family or friends is idolatory.
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerOkay. Point well-taken on my sloppy expression... For the moment, for lack of a better phrase just now, I'll say "spiritual" trust/faith.
[b]How did I define idolatry recently? Putting ones trust in, or cleaving to, anything but the living God.
I don't think trusting one's spouse, family or friends is idolatory.[/b]
I'll be happy to be given a better way of putting it... (no tongue in cheek there at all.)