i think...if one was somehow able to remove filters and see a "color-coded" view our interior selfs, i'm guessing that all of us (including any and all "black-and-white thinkers/feelers") are vibrantly kaleidoscopic and animate...stained glass windows with a million pieces of every color...and even if only one or more colors dominate the scene at any given time, every "window" is ever only drop-dead gorgeous, imo.
We can see a color coded view of our interior self. . . . our DNA is as beautiful as any stained glass window. That is where who we are. . . is stored. . . you are right. . . drop dead gorgeous.
...if one was somehow able to remove filters and see a "color-coded" view our interior selfs, i'm guessing that all of us (including any and all "black-and-white thinkers/feelers") are vibrantly kaleidoscopic and animate...stained glass windows with a million pieces of every color...and even if only one or more colors dominate the scene at any given time, every “window” is ever only drop-dead gorgeous, imo
We can see a color coded view of our interior self. . . . our DNA is as beautiful as any stained glass window. That is where who we are. . . is stored. . . you are right. . . drop dead gorgeous.
Which is also why churches (well--some churches anyway) are designed the way that they are ---they are reflections of our own, or at least the builders, interiors
thanks geisha...yeah, DNA is beautiful like that too...
although for what its worth...i wasnt referring to DNA...but something less miniature...something more abstract and less reducable...like the whole structures of our consciousness...our psycho-spiritual cartographies...the interior castles and chambers of the soul...etc...where DNA plays a supporting role in who we are...yet not the primary location
do you think (anyone here) love covers a multitude of theologies?
yes. all of them...even the "bad" ones, and including all non-theologies
and not only "covers," but infuses, permeates, drives, pushes and pulls...there seems no better word to describe the very nature of the field that "all alls" live and move and are being in. Every part...every whole....every pain...every joy...even hate...is already always falling in and through love.
yearning...the yearner...and the yearned...all soaking wet IN love as one.
as a wave is a part of the ocean...selfish love is still a piece of LOVE...parental love still is a piece of LOVE...romantic love is still a piece of LOVE...fraternal love is still a piece of LOVE...reasonable love still is a piece of LOVE...addicted love is still a piece of LOVE...avoidance of love is still a piece of LOVE
"love" is still a word that points to things that exist prior to and alongside words. Every religion formed words for it. Both origin and destination. Inescapable paradox.
From a scientific standpoint there are literally dozens of problems with Genesis. I do love reading it, though. If one can accept it as an allegory, or (gasp!) admit that there may be some factual errors in the story, then there are many lessons a reader can take way from it. The story of Cain and Abel, for example, with its themes of jealousy and sibling rivalry is a story for the ages that has played itself out countless times. Almost everyone knows a family where two brothers are estranged because of their differences.
The things that bother me about Genesis don't seem to bother other people as much. For example, Adam and Even lived for 900+ years, if I'm not mistaken. If there were a pre-diluvian race of individuals whose life span was nearly a thousand years, wouldn't there be some archeological evidence of it, flood or no flood?
I was doing some thinking on the story of Cain and Able, I have several problems with it from a moral and mental health perspective. I will try to break it down as sibling competition, dysfunctional family values, immature passive aggressive father figure.
The idea that god accepted Able's sacrifice because it was a lamb and didn't accept Cains because it was grain is mean, tyrannical. The idea that god didn't give an out for Cain by telling him just give Able your sacrifice for a lamb and I will accept that, a win win win situation, god wins because he gets a worthy sacrifice and avoids the murder of Able, Able wins because he gets some quality grain and keeps his life, and Cain wins because he remains worthy in gods eyes and doesn't become a murderer.
The stories in the bible are twisted and mentally unsound, they promote unhealthy relationships and foster division.
I was doing some thinking on the story of Cain and Able, I have several problems with it from a moral and mental health perspective. I will try to break it down as sibling competition, dysfunctional family values, immature passive aggressive father figure.
The idea that god accepted Able's sacrifice because it was a lamb and didn't accept Cains because it was grain is mean, tyrannical. The idea that god didn't give an out for Cain by telling him just give Able your sacrifice for a lamb and I will accept that, a win win win situation, god wins because he gets a worthy sacrifice and avoids the murder of Able, Able wins because he gets some quality grain and keeps his life, and Cain wins because he remains worthy in gods eyes and doesn't become a murderer.
The stories in the bible are twisted and mentally unsound, they promote unhealthy relationships and foster division.
As a newcomer to the bible, I tend to agree with you but not completely. For me, the interesting part of reading the bible is trying to figure out what the underlying message is, or was intended to be. Maybe sometimes there isn't one, and maybe sometimes the message is of little use to modern man, but I find it all interesting just the same.
Unlike what some may believe, I think many stories in the bible can be interpreted in various ways. And if nothing else, the dark poetry in Lamentations, the love songs of Solomon, the prayers in Psalms and the (sometimes hidden) lessons in Proverbs are just plain fun to read.
As a newcomer to the bible, I tend to agree with you but not completely. For me, the interesting part of reading the bible is trying to figure out what the underlying message is, or was intended to be. Maybe sometimes there isn't one, and maybe sometimes the message is of little use to modern man, but I find it all interesting just the same.
Unlike what some may believe, I think many stories in the bible can be interpreted in various ways. And if nothing else, the dark poetry in Lamentations, the love songs of Solomon, the prayers in Psalms and the (sometimes hidden) lessons in Proverbs are just plain fun to read.
But wait this is the canon of scripture, are you allowed to love some and ignore others? Wouldn't that cast doubt on you as a true believer? You can't just accept parts of the bible and reject others and call yourself a christian. Yet that's what people do, they say in public one thing but in private wish for the vengeful god to come back as in days of old and execute swift judgment on infidels like me. I say, bring it! Let's see what gods or devils can do, I'm calling them out right now in public on the world wide platform come and get me. See nothing. Nadda, zip, zilch,oh wait I feel a pinch in my stomach, oh, no it was gas.
As a newcomer to the bible, I tend to agree with you but not completely. For me, the interesting part of reading the bible is trying to figure out what the underlying message is, or was intended to be. Maybe sometimes there isn't one, and maybe sometimes the message is of little use to modern man, but I find it all interesting just the same.
Unlike what some may believe, I think many stories in the bible can be interpreted in various ways. And if nothing else, the dark poetry in Lamentations, the love songs of Solomon, the prayers in Psalms and the (sometimes hidden) lessons in Proverbs are just plain fun to read.
Oh my God! By TWI standards, you've just committed blasphemy!
:P
"Knowing this WHEN, class?-- FIRST ---NO prophesy of the scriptures is of any WHAT, class?--PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Dat's Riiiiiiggggghhhhht! God's Word has a purpose for everything it says----where it says it, when it says it, how it says it and to whom it says it. You see, class, it fits like a hand in a glove, with scientific precision and mathematical accuracy. In this class on power for abundant living I'm going to teach you to be able to understand it in a way that you'll "know that you know that you know", beyond a shadow of a doubt, what it really means. And, if you still don't understand what it means, you just write to me, "The Teacher" and I'll TELL you what it means."
disclaimer: somewhat paraphrased and condensed on account of my memory ain't what it used to be.
But wait this is the canon of scripture, are you allowed to love some and ignore others? Wouldn't that cast doubt on you as a true believer? You can't just accept parts of the bible and reject others and call yourself a christian.
I've said this before: it is very liberating to read the bible without ties to some religion or committment to some faith or ideal. I would never accept any one individual's interpretation of the bible as the "correct" or "definitive" one (unless I chose to) because I don't necessarily believe anything that any one person tells me about anything.
Yet that's what people do, they say in public one thing but in private wish for the vengeful god to come back as in days of old and execute swift judgment on infidels like me. I say, bring it! Let's see what gods or devils can do, I'm calling them out right now in public on the world wide platform come and get me. See nothing. Nadda, zip, zilch,oh wait I feel a pinch in my stomach, oh, no it was gas.
LOL I like your sense of humor. Your sarcasm reminds me of me.
You seem to have come a long way spiritually from your Way days, my friend. What's your Way story? Please share if you want to.
"Private interpretation" is at the heart of all that is "evil" in Wayville.
Of course I do. You and Seth had me cracking up.
I must say, that after listening to my ex-way friend and the CES/STF/CFFM combine go on and on about "no private interpretation", it felt damn good to say that I make my own interpretation. :B)
I'll gladly listen to anybody's interpretation, but I take it with a grain of salt.
As a newcomer to the bible, I tend to agree with you but not completely. For me, the interesting part of reading the bible is trying to figure out what the underlying message is, or was intended to be. Maybe sometimes there isn't one, and maybe sometimes the message is of little use to modern man, but I find it all interesting just the same.
Unlike what some may believe, I think many stories in the bible can be interpreted in various ways. And if nothing else, the dark poetry in Lamentations, the love songs of Solomon, the prayers in Psalms and the (sometimes hidden) lessons in Proverbs are just plain fun to read.
As a newcomer to the Bible, as you say, I think you might get something out of reading, The Bible, A Biography,by Karen Armstrong. Its a good intro to what the Bible is and where it came from. Heres a quote from the inside flap of the paper cover:
She analyzes the climate in which oral history turned into written scripture, how this scripture was collected into one work, and how it became accepted as Christianitys sacred text. She explores how scripture came to be read for the information it imparted and how, in the nineteenth century, challenges to the historical accuracy of the Bible caused as much concern as Darwins theory of evolution.
I think it was in PFAL that VPW talked about Psalm 119 being an acrostic psalm. That is, in this particular case, that each section starts with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet which is then featured in that section. This is something that is completely lost when it is translated into any other language. That makes no sense to me when trying to ascribe a perfect or inerrant nature to it. Instead, it sounds to me like this was a convention of the language that was used at that particular point in history. It's difficult for me to accept that God would assign a level of perfection to a particular passage when the essence of such perfection would be lost to all but a handful of scholars.
I think it was in PFAL that VPW talked about Psalm 119 being an acrostic psalm. That is, in this particular case, that each section starts with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet which is then featured in that section. This is something that is completely lost when it is translated into any other language. That makes no sense to me when trying to ascribe a perfect or inerrant nature to it. Instead, it sounds to me like this was a convention of the language that was used at that particular point in history. It's difficult for me to accept that God would assign a level of perfection to a particular passage when the essence of such perfection would be lost to all but a handful of scholars.
Fantastic observation! Translation work takes the problems with the false notion (IMO) of inerrancy to another level and complicates the issue infinitely. Not only from the Biblical languages themselves into English, but then from English into another language.
For instance, anyone who translated TWI teachings, i.e. the PFAL class and Holy Spirit book from English to Spanish or from English to French knew of the multitude of tricky issues involved. A word in one language can have a “range of meaning” in another. Some people working on these projects were in deep denial about the problems or else were willing to admit knew they could not back up VPW’s theology or claim of an inerrant Bible in the process of translating. Did anyone here at GSC work on translation projects or know of anyone who did? I do, although I decline to give names here. They struggled in silence mostly and bore the brunt of VPW’s rantings about not maintaining the “accuracy” of “The Word” like they should, etc. Their task was impossible. Finally, they left, too.
Fantastic observation! Translation work takes the problems with the false notion (IMO) of inerrancy to another level and complicates the issue infinitely. Not only from the Biblical languages themselves into English, but then from English into another language.
During a couple of my college classes we would study literary works written in another language. It's amazing how you can get the content, but none of the nuances came through - imagery, figures, emotions, character development.
I'm really moving away from the fundamentalist viewpoint. Once people start to get all narrow on a definition they think is "the Word" most of the time I've seen they just start acting like bigoted rednecks who think they are intellectual but in reality are stupid.
I'm really moving away from the fundamentalist viewpoint. Once people start to get all narrow on a definition they think is "the Word" most of the time I've seen they just start acting like bigoted rednecks who think they are intellectual but in reality are stupid.
Wow. . . really? So, what are you moving towards? Ideationalism? You may find this more problematic. . . . No? Try applying rational thought to a subject without a predicate and see how far into the abyss you wander.
Just look at this thread.
Is it that Christians never engage in inner dialogue about what they believe? Who are these bigoted rednecks. . . . and from what intellectual and moral position do you make these judgments?
You have to have one to make a sweeping judgment like that.
I can give you a very long and distinguished list of people, who by vague definitions alluded to on this thread. . . . and those definitions very subjective, would be considered as having a narrow view on what they think the word is. . . .
Multiple PhD holders, people who teach at Oxford, people invited to speak at the UN, invited to college campuses all over the world. . . . people who found schools like Harvard Law. . . .scientists who map out DNA. . . . people like Johnathan Edwards. . . . who is generally considered America's greatest intellectual. . . C.S. Lewis, who I think we can safely say was not a redneck. Alistar Mcgrath is an amazing thinker who holds 2 PhD's along with John Lennox who holds 3. . . . are they in reality stupid?
Get to know some of these amazing Christian thinkers. They challenge the idea of theological evolutionary process. . . . which is the underlying theme of this thread. The IDEA or concept. . . that the IDEA of a God who does not exist has been refined over time. That begins with an assumption, which leads to a particular conclusion. . . .not the other way around. . . . . easy enough to do. . . . but when you start thinking about it. . . . it becomes problematic.
Take the idea of compassion for example. If life is simply bio-chemical. . . . then compassion becomes metaphysical theorizing. The naturalist deductions for compassion breaks apart when challenged, . . . . but, isn't a metaphysical concept what is originally being challenged ? One is okay. . . why again? Because we can refine it?
Dealing with the problem of human suffering? A lofty and noble goal. . .if pain is the end point. . . . we can then kill suffering children because that will end their pain? That would make killing acceptable and even compassionate. No? Of course it would. That would be the compassionate thing to do. . . . kill a bio-chemical life form suffering from pain. If there is no God. . . . . let's roll out the compassion and start killing the suffering!! Be compassionate.
Hey, in some cultures people eat other people. . . . if we are just bio-chemical life forms. . . . is it really a problem? Ever see a chicken eat chicken. . . they love it. Do we stop people from doing this? Their concept of compassion may vary. . . do we impose one on them. . . . some theory? That doesn't sound very compassionate to me. . . sounds rather narrow.
Either life is sacred. . . or it is simply bio-chemical. . . what makes it sacred? God. Otherwise we are simply theorizing. Where do we hear about God? From the word? That is one very prominent way. . . yes? By definition it is a narrow way to God found in Christian scripture. Are you moving from the narrow way?
The idea of God beyond the reality of God? What a mess that becomes but we can make it sound pretty. . . Who then becomes God? We do.
Is it that Christians never engage in inner dialogue about what they believe? Who are these bigoted rednecks. . . . and from what intellectual and moral position do you make these judgments?
You have to have one to make a sweeping judgment like that.
I took it to mean people of lower education and/or lower socioeconomic status who ascribe to a theology that they don't really understand.
I took it to mean people of lower education and/or lower socioeconomic status who ascribe to a theology that they don't really understand.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Jesus came for the lowly and broken. . . . .
We have several different concepts or classifications going on in this thread without any clear delineation. Seems to me a general. . . . GRRRRRR factor at the idea of Christian fundamentals based on Christian scripture.
But, it also seems to be based on our shared experience within a cult. A group which used control tactics and expounded an aberrant faith. Somewhat reactionary. . . fine. . . but, what are we reacting to? Christians do not even accept TWI theology for the most part. . . .I walk in and out of churches at will. . . with no threat of shunning or condemnation. . . . who are these fundamentalists??
I think I might be one by vague definition here. I am still not sure? We are classifying people in general broad strokes. . . . and basically it comes down to what?
The term fundamentalist is two-fold. . . a historic movement and apparently those who hold to fundamentals? And we have the authority to classify. . . why? Because our way is better?
Bad news here. Holding the fundamental notion that there is no God, only the evolution of the idea of God. . . . and setting out to Charter Compassion in part based on this premise is no different than me telling you Jesus is the way. It is based on a fundamental understanding. It is just as problematic as what people consider fundamental theology to be.
God is a theory or idea. . . . so, then is compassion. Do we make it up as we go. . . . as long as it does not impose on people?
It is going to impose itself on someone. It becomes the new rule. . . . what is a Charter? Geeze. . . . " A grant of authority or rights."
It is just someone telling me their way is better based on their fundamental understanding. . . . that sounds just like the original complaint to me.
For those of you reading this who may not be familiar with what Geisha is referring to by that “Charter,” here is the info (I find it inspiring and good) from:
The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.
It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.
We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.
We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.
And Christians call on all people to accept the gift bestowed on mankind. . . .
1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn. . .
Sounds pretty good. . . He reaches out to the poor, as do many, many quiet unassuming Christians. . . . He binds the brokenhearted. . . did that for me. . . he offers freedom. . . and release from all kinds of prisons. . . . and he offers justice and comfort to all who mourn.
I believe and live that. . . . but, if I tell someone. . . no, He. . Jesus. . is the only way. . . I am what? A fundamentalist? It is what I know and believe to my inner core. It is my faith! I don't think all ways are equal or valid. . . . I don't believe God is an evolved idea and I don't want to live my life by principles laid down by Karen Armstrong or compassion by consensus.
I believe it is a very narrow gate. . . and there is a path that leads to God and one to destruction. So, if I believe this and DO NOT shout it from the rooftops. . . that does not make me very compassionate. . . does it?
Either I change what I believe to conform to what some other person thinks I should . . . or I get labeled?
No thanks. . . that is total hypocrisy. Doing the same thing that one claims to stand against.
Take the idea of compassion for example. If life is simply bio-chemical. . . . then compassion becomes metaphysical theorizing. The naturalist deductions for compassion breaks apart when challenged, . . . . but, isn't a metaphysical concept what is originally being challenged ? One is okay. . . why again? Because we can refine it?
Dealing with the problem of human suffering? A lofty and noble goal. . .if pain is the end point. . . . we can then kill suffering children because that will end their pain? That would make killing acceptable and even compassionate. No? Of course it would. That would be the compassionate thing to do. . . . kill a bio-chemical life form suffering from pain. If there is no God. . . . . let's roll out the compassion and start killing the suffering!! Be compassionate.
Hey, in some cultures people eat other people. . . . if we are just bio-chemical life forms. . . . is it really a problem? Ever see a chicken eat chicken. . . they love it. Do we stop people from doing this? Their concept of compassion may vary. . . do we impose one on them. . . . some theory? That doesn't sound very compassionate to me. . . sounds rather narrow.
Either life is sacred. . . or it is simply bio-chemical. . . what makes it sacred? God. Otherwise we are simply theorizing. Where do we hear about God? From the word? That is one very prominent way. . . yes? By definition it is a narrow way to God found in Christian scripture. Are you moving from the narrow way?
This is Yet Another Variation of the Same Old Argument of how those who do not accept god have no morals, don't believe anything is sacred, have no compassion. ... And frankly, I'm sick and tired of that argument that's based on nothing more than religious propaganda (that's also propped up by strawman arguments like "Dealing with the problem of human suffering? A lofty and noble goal. . .if pain is the end point. . . . we can then kill suffering children because that will end their pain? That would make killing acceptable and even compassionate. ..." etc., etc., ad nauseum ) that people blindly hang on to, ... even if they actually know someone who's an atheist who has been a compassionate individual. <_<
Also, I can relate to Chockfull's argument re: fundamentalism. Particularly when the selfsame fundamentalists (ie., 'fundies', as I like to call them) absolutely refuse to consider challenges (valid ones, that is) to what they believe. Ie., _blind_ faith. ... Been there, done that, burnt the t-shirt!
Update:
I believe it is a very narrow gate. . . and there is a path that leads to God and one to destruction. So, if I believe this and DO NOT shout it from the rooftops. . . that does not make me very compassionate. . . does it?
Well actually, it does. Particularly in the evening when people just want a little peace and quiet, thank you very much. ... Perhaps that was the idea behind the Swiss outlawing all those Muslim mosque minarets recently. They just had it up to here with all of those "ALLLLL-AHHHHHH ACK-BARRRRR!!" howlings 4 times a day.
P.S., I wonder if this is part of me being a 'pi**eroffer'? ... Certain folks here know what I mean by that term. ;)
This is Yet Another Variation of the Same Old Argument of how those who do not accept god have no morals, don't believe anything is sacred, have no compassion. ... And frankly, I'm sick and tired of that argument that's based on nothing more than religious propaganda (that's also propped up by strawman arguments like "Dealing with the problem of human suffering? A lofty and noble goal. . .if pain is the end point. . . . we can then kill suffering children because that will end their pain? That would make killing acceptable and even compassionate. ..." etc., etc., ad nauseum ) that people blindly hang on to, ... even if they actually know someone who's an atheist who has been a compassionate individual. <_<
Also, I can relate to Chockfull's argument re: fundamentalism. Particularly when the selfsame fundamentalists (ie., 'fundies', as I like to call them) absolutely refuse to consider challenges (valid ones, that is) to what they believe. Ie., _blind_ faith. ... Been there, done that, burnt the t-shirt!
You were in a damn cult unless you belonged to some denomination I am unaware of? A CULT!! Burn the tee-shirt I will help you, but unless you feel some need to tell ME how to live MY life. . . . spare me the vitriol and give us "Fundies" some peace!
I do not believe I have shared the gospel with you lately, but I have gone OUT of my way to treat you with respect.
Tired argument . . . why because you say so ? Line up and let Karen Armstrong tell you how to be compassionate. . . . hey, I might even pay her for that one.
Here is one I heard tonight. . . gotta make it my new tag line to go along with my new label . . . . IF sinners want to jump into the lake of fire.. . . they will have to do it over my body.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
geisha779
We can see a color coded view of our interior self. . . . our DNA is as beautiful as any stained glass window. That is where who we are. . . is stored. . . you are right. . . drop dead gorgeous.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Thank you
Which is also why churches (well--some churches anyway) are designed the way that they are ---they are reflections of our own, or at least the builders, interiors
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thanks geisha...yeah, DNA is beautiful like that too...
although for what its worth...i wasnt referring to DNA...but something less miniature...something more abstract and less reducable...like the whole structures of our consciousness...our psycho-spiritual cartographies...the interior castles and chambers of the soul...etc...where DNA plays a supporting role in who we are...yet not the primary location
yes. all of them...even the "bad" ones, and including all non-theologies
and not only "covers," but infuses, permeates, drives, pushes and pulls...there seems no better word to describe the very nature of the field that "all alls" live and move and are being in. Every part...every whole....every pain...every joy...even hate...is already always falling in and through love.
yearning...the yearner...and the yearned...all soaking wet IN love as one.
as a wave is a part of the ocean...selfish love is still a piece of LOVE...parental love still is a piece of LOVE...romantic love is still a piece of LOVE...fraternal love is still a piece of LOVE...reasonable love still is a piece of LOVE...addicted love is still a piece of LOVE...avoidance of love is still a piece of LOVE
"love" is still a word that points to things that exist prior to and alongside words. Every religion formed words for it. Both origin and destination. Inescapable paradox.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
I was doing some thinking on the story of Cain and Able, I have several problems with it from a moral and mental health perspective. I will try to break it down as sibling competition, dysfunctional family values, immature passive aggressive father figure.
The idea that god accepted Able's sacrifice because it was a lamb and didn't accept Cains because it was grain is mean, tyrannical. The idea that god didn't give an out for Cain by telling him just give Able your sacrifice for a lamb and I will accept that, a win win win situation, god wins because he gets a worthy sacrifice and avoids the murder of Able, Able wins because he gets some quality grain and keeps his life, and Cain wins because he remains worthy in gods eyes and doesn't become a murderer.
The stories in the bible are twisted and mentally unsound, they promote unhealthy relationships and foster division.
Seth
Edited by Seth R.Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
As a newcomer to the bible, I tend to agree with you but not completely. For me, the interesting part of reading the bible is trying to figure out what the underlying message is, or was intended to be. Maybe sometimes there isn't one, and maybe sometimes the message is of little use to modern man, but I find it all interesting just the same.
Unlike what some may believe, I think many stories in the bible can be interpreted in various ways. And if nothing else, the dark poetry in Lamentations, the love songs of Solomon, the prayers in Psalms and the (sometimes hidden) lessons in Proverbs are just plain fun to read.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
But wait this is the canon of scripture, are you allowed to love some and ignore others? Wouldn't that cast doubt on you as a true believer? You can't just accept parts of the bible and reject others and call yourself a christian. Yet that's what people do, they say in public one thing but in private wish for the vengeful god to come back as in days of old and execute swift judgment on infidels like me. I say, bring it! Let's see what gods or devils can do, I'm calling them out right now in public on the world wide platform come and get me. See nothing. Nadda, zip, zilch,oh wait I feel a pinch in my stomach, oh, no it was gas.
Seth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oh my God! By TWI standards, you've just committed blasphemy!
:P
"Knowing this WHEN, class?-- FIRST ---NO prophesy of the scriptures is of any WHAT, class?--PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Dat's Riiiiiiggggghhhhht! God's Word has a purpose for everything it says----where it says it, when it says it, how it says it and to whom it says it. You see, class, it fits like a hand in a glove, with scientific precision and mathematical accuracy. In this class on power for abundant living I'm going to teach you to be able to understand it in a way that you'll "know that you know that you know", beyond a shadow of a doubt, what it really means. And, if you still don't understand what it means, you just write to me, "The Teacher" and I'll TELL you what it means."
disclaimer: somewhat paraphrased and condensed on account of my memory ain't what it used to be.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I've said this before: it is very liberating to read the bible without ties to some religion or committment to some faith or ideal. I would never accept any one individual's interpretation of the bible as the "correct" or "definitive" one (unless I chose to) because I don't necessarily believe anything that any one person tells me about anything.
LOL I like your sense of humor. Your sarcasm reminds me of me.
You seem to have come a long way spiritually from your Way days, my friend. What's your Way story? Please share if you want to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
soul searcher
I hope you know we're funnin' with you.
"Private interpretation" is at the heart of all that is "evil" in Wayville.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Of course I do. You and Seth had me cracking up.
I must say, that after listening to my ex-way friend and the CES/STF/CFFM combine go on and on about "no private interpretation", it felt damn good to say that I make my own interpretation. :B)
I'll gladly listen to anybody's interpretation, but I take it with a grain of salt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
As a newcomer to the Bible, as you say, I think you might get something out of reading, The Bible, A Biography,by Karen Armstrong. Its a good intro to what the Bible is and where it came from. Heres a quote from the inside flap of the paper cover:
She analyzes the climate in which oral history turned into written scripture, how this scripture was collected into one work, and how it became accepted as Christianitys sacred text. She explores how scripture came to be read for the information it imparted and how, in the nineteenth century, challenges to the historical accuracy of the Bible caused as much concern as Darwins theory of evolution.
Visit: Karen Armstrong's books about history of religion
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think it was in PFAL that VPW talked about Psalm 119 being an acrostic psalm. That is, in this particular case, that each section starts with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet which is then featured in that section. This is something that is completely lost when it is translated into any other language. That makes no sense to me when trying to ascribe a perfect or inerrant nature to it. Instead, it sounds to me like this was a convention of the language that was used at that particular point in history. It's difficult for me to accept that God would assign a level of perfection to a particular passage when the essence of such perfection would be lost to all but a handful of scholars.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Fantastic observation! Translation work takes the problems with the false notion (IMO) of inerrancy to another level and complicates the issue infinitely. Not only from the Biblical languages themselves into English, but then from English into another language.
For instance, anyone who translated TWI teachings, i.e. the PFAL class and Holy Spirit book from English to Spanish or from English to French knew of the multitude of tricky issues involved. A word in one language can have a “range of meaning” in another. Some people working on these projects were in deep denial about the problems or else were willing to admit knew they could not back up VPW’s theology or claim of an inerrant Bible in the process of translating. Did anyone here at GSC work on translation projects or know of anyone who did? I do, although I decline to give names here. They struggled in silence mostly and bore the brunt of VPW’s rantings about not maintaining the “accuracy” of “The Word” like they should, etc. Their task was impossible. Finally, they left, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
W@!t*r C^mm!n$ and B#rn!t@ J*$$ along with G@r^ C^rt!$$ would proably back you up on that observation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I'm confident that G@r^ C^rt!$$ would, WC is a long story & still teaching VPW-based stuff, and BJ is still writing for The Way Mag...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Thanks, Pen. I've see KA's books on Amazon.com. I'll be sure to check then out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
During a couple of my college classes we would study literary works written in another language. It's amazing how you can get the content, but none of the nuances came through - imagery, figures, emotions, character development.
I'm really moving away from the fundamentalist viewpoint. Once people start to get all narrow on a definition they think is "the Word" most of the time I've seen they just start acting like bigoted rednecks who think they are intellectual but in reality are stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Wow. . . really? So, what are you moving towards? Ideationalism? You may find this more problematic. . . . No? Try applying rational thought to a subject without a predicate and see how far into the abyss you wander.
Just look at this thread.
Is it that Christians never engage in inner dialogue about what they believe? Who are these bigoted rednecks. . . . and from what intellectual and moral position do you make these judgments?
You have to have one to make a sweeping judgment like that.
I can give you a very long and distinguished list of people, who by vague definitions alluded to on this thread. . . . and those definitions very subjective, would be considered as having a narrow view on what they think the word is. . . .
Multiple PhD holders, people who teach at Oxford, people invited to speak at the UN, invited to college campuses all over the world. . . . people who found schools like Harvard Law. . . .scientists who map out DNA. . . . people like Johnathan Edwards. . . . who is generally considered America's greatest intellectual. . . C.S. Lewis, who I think we can safely say was not a redneck. Alistar Mcgrath is an amazing thinker who holds 2 PhD's along with John Lennox who holds 3. . . . are they in reality stupid?
Get to know some of these amazing Christian thinkers. They challenge the idea of theological evolutionary process. . . . which is the underlying theme of this thread. The IDEA or concept. . . that the IDEA of a God who does not exist has been refined over time. That begins with an assumption, which leads to a particular conclusion. . . .not the other way around. . . . . easy enough to do. . . . but when you start thinking about it. . . . it becomes problematic.
Take the idea of compassion for example. If life is simply bio-chemical. . . . then compassion becomes metaphysical theorizing. The naturalist deductions for compassion breaks apart when challenged, . . . . but, isn't a metaphysical concept what is originally being challenged ? One is okay. . . why again? Because we can refine it?
Dealing with the problem of human suffering? A lofty and noble goal. . .if pain is the end point. . . . we can then kill suffering children because that will end their pain? That would make killing acceptable and even compassionate. No? Of course it would. That would be the compassionate thing to do. . . . kill a bio-chemical life form suffering from pain. If there is no God. . . . . let's roll out the compassion and start killing the suffering!! Be compassionate.
Hey, in some cultures people eat other people. . . . if we are just bio-chemical life forms. . . . is it really a problem? Ever see a chicken eat chicken. . . they love it. Do we stop people from doing this? Their concept of compassion may vary. . . do we impose one on them. . . . some theory? That doesn't sound very compassionate to me. . . sounds rather narrow.
Either life is sacred. . . or it is simply bio-chemical. . . what makes it sacred? God. Otherwise we are simply theorizing. Where do we hear about God? From the word? That is one very prominent way. . . yes? By definition it is a narrow way to God found in Christian scripture. Are you moving from the narrow way?
The idea of God beyond the reality of God? What a mess that becomes but we can make it sound pretty. . . Who then becomes God? We do.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I took it to mean people of lower education and/or lower socioeconomic status who ascribe to a theology that they don't really understand.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Jesus came for the lowly and broken. . . . .
We have several different concepts or classifications going on in this thread without any clear delineation. Seems to me a general. . . . GRRRRRR factor at the idea of Christian fundamentals based on Christian scripture.
But, it also seems to be based on our shared experience within a cult. A group which used control tactics and expounded an aberrant faith. Somewhat reactionary. . . fine. . . but, what are we reacting to? Christians do not even accept TWI theology for the most part. . . .I walk in and out of churches at will. . . with no threat of shunning or condemnation. . . . who are these fundamentalists??
I think I might be one by vague definition here. I am still not sure? We are classifying people in general broad strokes. . . . and basically it comes down to what?
The term fundamentalist is two-fold. . . a historic movement and apparently those who hold to fundamentals? And we have the authority to classify. . . why? Because our way is better?
Bad news here. Holding the fundamental notion that there is no God, only the evolution of the idea of God. . . . and setting out to Charter Compassion in part based on this premise is no different than me telling you Jesus is the way. It is based on a fundamental understanding. It is just as problematic as what people consider fundamental theology to be.
God is a theory or idea. . . . so, then is compassion. Do we make it up as we go. . . . as long as it does not impose on people?
It is going to impose itself on someone. It becomes the new rule. . . . what is a Charter? Geeze. . . . " A grant of authority or rights."
It is just someone telling me their way is better based on their fundamental understanding. . . . that sounds just like the original complaint to me.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
For those of you reading this who may not be familiar with what Geisha is referring to by that “Charter,” here is the info (I find it inspiring and good) from:
Charter for Compassion
The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.
It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.
We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.
We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
And Christians call on all people to accept the gift bestowed on mankind. . . .
1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn. . .
Sounds pretty good. . . He reaches out to the poor, as do many, many quiet unassuming Christians. . . . He binds the brokenhearted. . . did that for me. . . he offers freedom. . . and release from all kinds of prisons. . . . and he offers justice and comfort to all who mourn.
I believe and live that. . . . but, if I tell someone. . . no, He. . Jesus. . is the only way. . . I am what? A fundamentalist? It is what I know and believe to my inner core. It is my faith! I don't think all ways are equal or valid. . . . I don't believe God is an evolved idea and I don't want to live my life by principles laid down by Karen Armstrong or compassion by consensus.
I believe it is a very narrow gate. . . and there is a path that leads to God and one to destruction. So, if I believe this and DO NOT shout it from the rooftops. . . that does not make me very compassionate. . . does it?
Either I change what I believe to conform to what some other person thinks I should . . . or I get labeled?
No thanks. . . that is total hypocrisy. Doing the same thing that one claims to stand against.
I guess I am a fundamentalist.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
This is Yet Another Variation of the Same Old Argument of how those who do not accept god have no morals, don't believe anything is sacred, have no compassion. ... And frankly, I'm sick and tired of that argument that's based on nothing more than religious propaganda (that's also propped up by strawman arguments like "Dealing with the problem of human suffering? A lofty and noble goal. . .if pain is the end point. . . . we can then kill suffering children because that will end their pain? That would make killing acceptable and even compassionate. ..." etc., etc., ad nauseum
) that people blindly hang on to, ... even if they actually know someone who's an atheist who has been a compassionate individual. <_<
Also, I can relate to Chockfull's argument re: fundamentalism. Particularly when the selfsame fundamentalists (ie., 'fundies', as I like to call them) absolutely refuse to consider challenges (valid ones, that is) to what they believe. Ie., _blind_ faith. ... Been there, done that, burnt the t-shirt!
Update:
Well actually, it does. Particularly in the evening when people just want a little peace and quiet, thank you very much. ... Perhaps that was the idea behind the Swiss outlawing all those Muslim mosque minarets recently. They just had it up to here with all of those "ALLLLL-AHHHHHH ACK-BARRRRR!!" howlings 4 times a day.
P.S., I wonder if this is part of me being a 'pi**eroffer'? ... Certain folks here know what I mean by that term. ;)
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
You were in a damn cult unless you belonged to some denomination I am unaware of? A CULT!! Burn the tee-shirt I will help you, but unless you feel some need to tell ME how to live MY life. . . . spare me the vitriol and give us "Fundies" some peace!
I do not believe I have shared the gospel with you lately, but I have gone OUT of my way to treat you with respect.
Tired argument . . . why because you say so ? Line up and let Karen Armstrong tell you how to be compassionate. . . . hey, I might even pay her for that one.
Here is one I heard tonight. . . gotta make it my new tag line to go along with my new label . . . . IF sinners want to jump into the lake of fire.. . . they will have to do it over my body.
That should get some "tolerant" teeth gritting.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.