Rocky

Intriguing and salient points in both cases.

According to this creation myth (story), God made Eve to be Adam's help mate. Husband/wife snuck into the text later. Very clever!

Indeed, I just looked it up and in reference to the first two humans in Genesis, it does refer to Adam as Eve's husband. It still strikes me as peculiar to do so when there was nobody around to officiate a wedding ceremony.

I suppose I have. My mistake for not qualifying my question as related to Eve and Adam.

Have you SEEN the word "husband" in the bible?

Adam officiated the wedding ceremony? The way I see it is Genesis is a story (myth) of creation of humanity. Is it literally true? I doubt it. Is it true in the way (creation) myths of other cultures are true, which is in providing humans in such cultures to understand the foundational concepts at issue at the time? I think so. I am not a-theistic. I'm not challenging the existence of God. Does Genesis or any other book use the word "husband?" How does one become a husband? This is a question of cultural anthropology.

Her husband? Who officiated the wedding ceremony? Oh, it's just a creation myth.

Twinky, I am thrilled that we, who survived our time in twi and examine it backward, can share for those willing to live forward with our insight. This seems to be the entire purpose of studying history, and long-dead philosophers. Therefore, I am SOOOOOOO thankful for wisdom like from writings of Kierkegaard, having too recently learned this:

T-Bone might be on to something. Btw, that expression sounds what, when I was growing up, my mother called "double talk."

I'm not sure finding a website to confirm the opposite is possible is really going to be helpful, even if you find it. What you might rather be better off with is reading books about social and psychological issues to get a broader perspective. Finding a single data point to prove what you might already believe or how you might currently understand something isn't necessarily productive. I'd point you to Proverbs 2: 1-5 for related biblical insight.

From A Short History of Myth, Karen Armstrong mentions a point of history of the trinity. He [Isaac Newton] felt that he had a mission to purge Christianity of such doctrines as the Trinity, which defied the laws of logic. He was quite unable to see that this doctrine had been devised by the Greek theologians of the fourth century precisely as a myth, similar to that of the Jewish Kabbalists. As Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (335–395), had explained, Father, Son and Spirit were not objective, ontological facts but simply ‘terms that we use’ to express the way in which the ‘unnameable and unspeakable’ divine nature adapts itself to the limitations of our human minds. You could not prove the existence of the Trinity by rational means. It was no more demonstrable than the elusive meaning of music or poetry. But Newton could only approach the Trinity rationally. If something could not be explained logically, it was false. ‘’Tis the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion,’ he wrote irritably, ‘ever to be fond of mysteries & for that reason to like best what they understand least.’ Armstrong, Karen. A Short History of Myth (Canongate Myths series) (p. 132). Canongate Books. Kindle Edition.

It's probably tied up in some psychosocial concept. Well... this comment/post communicates an intriguing bit of imagination to me. Notable rhetorical question you posed to yourself. My observation is you are not trying to convince anyone of the veracity of Wierwille's writings. And that's refreshing.

Me personally, I think it's silly to try to pin down a general term like that to anything specific simply to justify an interpretation of another cultish social control mechanism.

From the twi perspective, that verse 14a seemed like a warning to not let yourself go farther than they led you... I don't know whether very many children received much of an education back in those days... but WE have LOTS of truth, facts, and wisdom available to us to grow up into. I'm thankful I wasn't afraid to explore beyond the twi boundaries of knowledge.

And we know (from having examined our experiences and the wacky things twi tried to get us to do, like put ourselves in mental prisons to keep us locked up and continually producing new (class) sales and 15% tithers) we CAN go much farther/further than we were led in that sinister cult. It all starts with heeding one of the most important things Einstein said: Imagine responsibly... or boldly.

Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. - Kierkegaard Thankfully, we examine our lives in order to make best use of what time we have remaining. -- Me/Rocky And I don't care if they're afraid of me or not.

This might be a good time to expand both your understanding of myth and the bible... and expand your imagination. Thank you for the question however. I don't hold either the bible OR mythology the same way I did as a fundamentalist wayfer. Surely you've heard of the concept of paradox? Oh, and why is it important for you to keep track of what anyone wants to do or believe?

Parsing some semantics, I suppose. Indeed, only God knows, if anyone, at this point. However, the point I was making has to do with Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. After all, our species is fundamentally social. But most certainly wouldn't argue that he put himself in the box. And whether he ever climbs out is quite definitely up to him. However, I also seem to recall NT scriptures about not placing stumbling blocks in front of our brothers or sisters.

I clearly recall Dale Carnegie teaching we do better at winning friends and influencing people when we give them a reputation to live up to.

You certainly can have an opinion, which is just as valid as anyone else's. Nevertheless, should your opinion put him in a box he might never decide to climb out of?

How is it that you try to avoid the message I gave you by deflection employing fallacy? Whether you intended your name calling as a compliment or not is neither apparent in your words (in the original statement) nor is it relevant to what I posed to you.

Mike, I appreciate how you've begun to learn to own your role in the communication processes at work in online forums, but you still seem to have plenty of room for improvement because you still haven't forsaken name calling.

Here's an excerpt from Karen Armstrong's A Short History of Myth: "Science would put an end to human misery and save the world. Nothing must impede this development. All the myths of the world should be subjected to stringent criticism and if they contradicted proven facts they must be cast aside. Reason alone gave access to this truth. The first scientist to fully absorb this empirical ethos was probably Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who synthesized the findings of his predecessors by a rigorous use of evolving scientific disciplines of experiment and deduction. He believed he was bringing his fellow human beings unprecedented and certain information about the world, that the cosmic system he had discovered coincided completely with the facts, and that it proved the existence of God, the great 'Mechanick' who brought the intricate machine of the universe into being. "But this total immersion in logos [reason] made it impossible for Newton to appreciate the more intuitive forms of perception..."

I'm not sure you can factually perceive any reason Mike "will never get it." Yes, Mike is dealing in myth. But it appears to me Mike expands wierwille's mythology by extrapolating verses he's now focused on with his (Mike's) imaginative interpretation of something he has no way of knowing except by way of his own imagination.

It is MYTH, not fact. Mike is exercising his imagination. I don't criticize him doing so. But it's important for readers to put it in a reasonable perspective.