symbolism

[socks]

Hmmm, dunno exathar. We live in a nation where the popular application of fairness tends to reduce anything that gets in our collective craws to mush. We want to embrace "evolution" as the most viable solution to our origins and reduce other things to "myths", as if our current level and expected rate of understanding will ever hope to grasp how primordial bio-electric sludge can become a walking talking iPhone fanatic given enough time. But we pump fuel into our cars made from sources I'd be hard pressed to fully describe in in a way that would convince anyone I actually understand how it came to become "oil" so I get that the human mind makes incredibly complex leaps of faith and calls it "understanding". I do it we all do it. It bugs me too. I bug myself sometimes. To bug is to be I guess.

But I digress- the symbolic nature of Genesis is a rough tug-of-war amongst religious folk, me included. I don't know what the Iroquis creation myth is but I'd assume they have trouble with it too. Seeing that far back requires good eyes.

Speaking of Jung, the band "Electric Flag" recorded one of it's best lengthy jam to a tune titled "Fine Jung Thing". Think it was in the soundtrack to the movie "The Trip". It's all Mike Bloomfield, ripping out his last meth breath with every note. Really hot guitar on it if you like blues - rock.

I like Henri Bergson' s stuff and in his book "Creative Evolution" he wrote - The present contains nothing more than the past, and what is found in the effect was already in the cause......I kind of agree with that, depending on how cause and effect are defined and therein is some Jungian thought, that the whole can outsize the parts. But an outcome could not in theory be devoid of reference to it's cause, so yeah I get it.

In regards to symbols, language could be said to be symbolic representation of meaning that's given to uh...something. An outcome or result. It could be said that language, words, don't exist alone, that there's no expression without a hmmm expressor. So there has to be something and some meaning or definition given to it, parameters, and then the expression describes that, brings attention to it, represents that.

"Logos" - same idea. Intent expressed.

Symbols. Gotta have them.

[waysider]

am i a complete dumbass

last evening i found myself inside getting so upset because my kid (junior in HS) had to compare the Iroquois Creation Myth with the Hebrew/Christian Myth

there were so many similarities, but i was so upset that the Garden of Eden was presented as a complete myth just like the Sky World thingie

i don't understand

I think we've unfortunately been conditioned to accept the idea of myths being synonymous with untruths.

I don't personally think that is an appropriate way to regard a myth. It diminishes the value.

Think of Aesop's fables, for example. Yes, they can be considered myths because they never actually happened. However, nestled in the fictional contexts, are kernels of truth and wisdom that lie waiting for the discoverer.

So, though some may consider various Biblical records to be myths, (and, perhaps they are, by strict definition.) that doesn't negate the lessons in morality to be gleaned by virtue of the symbolism they contain.

edit: Here's an example.

I think most people would concede that the fable of The Fox and the Grapes is not a historical recounting of an actual event. But, there is great wisdom to be gained if one will consider the moral lesson being presented through the use of symbolism.

Edited October 15, 2010 by waysider

[HCW]

If it was O.K. for Jesus to read symbolism into the scriptures (ie: the parables), why is it wrong for us to do the same? (ie; privately interpret)

I would respectfully submit that Jesus NEVER read any symbolism INTO the scriptures. It might be "better" said that he extracted truth (or the message) FROM the scriptures and used symbolism that his audience of the day could relate to.

As far as what is or is NOT O.K. to do.... That has always (from the beginning of human relations on this planet) been determined by what AUTHORITY one chooses and attempts to submit to.

Provided one attempts to accept GOD as primary authority, that person therefore should accept the scriptures as having authority. The scriptures clearly speak to the the concept of anyone PRIVATELY interpreting them as being "wrong," or NOT O.K.. Even a casual reading of the scriptures can allow one to find Jesus telling "us" to do as he, himself did. (..."the works that I do shall ye do also..." Therefore if we were to first understand the scriptures well enough (as he did) we could then do as he did and extract the message resident in scriptures and communicate said message(s) in parable form so that our audience can relate to the message.

I would also submit that we SHOULD relate the scriptures (at times) in similar forms as Jesus did, to communicate Godly truths, as he did to audiences, as he did. This would require that one studied the scriptures as Jesus did and got to know them as he did.

Unfortunately. Far to FEW of us do that. In studying Jesus' words from the Bible, as they relate to the rest of the Bible, it can be found how AMAZINGLY WELL he understood the ENTIRE canon of scripture written prior to his birth. He knew how things related one to the other and could readily extract "symbolism" from the scriptures in order to communicate his messages in ways that stick in people's minds.

ALL language is symbolism. Even dry, clinical, "literal" accounting of facts relating to an event or message. A rose in any language is still a rose. The differing sounds of the words from one language to another does not add to or distract from its beauty or smell. The words themselves are just symbols used to describe it. If one understands the symbols (the language) he can discern the message. Parables are nothing more than a compounding of the concept of language where a group of words "paints" a "picture" used to communicate an idea. One word can communicate as well as a whole parable... I.e: "stinky" brings a specific idea to mind to those of us who understand English.

If a person doesn't understand the language he won't be any more able to extract an idea from one word than another who is fluent with the language, but doesn't understand the parable. No difference.

Problems arise, however, when an individual INJECTS his PERSONAL (private) message INTO scripture and thereby CHANGES the message resident in the scripture. In so doing the individual becomes his own AUTHORITY, rejecting the authority they SAY they accept from GOD via the scripture.

Jesus NEVER did that. He made HIS life fit with the authority he submitted to (GOD) and is so doing he dedicated HIS entire life to teaching US how to BE Godly by showing us THE WAY to do it. That is how HE BECAME the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE.

We, and most unfortunately, the ones of us who SUPPOSEDLY dedicate OUR lives to teaching and showing others HOW to live as Jesus did... for the most part, DON'T do as Jesus did. WE "do err, because we DON'T know the scriptures, nor (or therefore we don't) know the POWER of God."

Its never "wrong" for us to do the same as Jesus did.

[HCW]

I think we've unfortunately been conditioned to accept the idea of myths being synonymous with untruths.

I don't personally think that is an appropriate way to regard a myth. It diminishes the value.

Think of Aesop's fables, for example. Yes, they can be considered myths because they never actually happened. However, nestled in the fictional contexts, are kernels of truth and wisdom that lie waiting for the discoverer.

So, though some may consider various Biblical records to be myths, (and, perhaps they are, by strict definition.) that doesn't negate the lessons in morality to be gleaned by virtue of the symbolism they contain.

Agreed. As I'm getting older and putting more and more time (and distance) between myself and TWI's ideas about "the accuracy and integrity of God's Word" I find myself more and more concerned about the few or even single grain of truth that I might find in ANYTHING I hear ANYBODY say - - than I am about "how accurate it is" overall.

I mean, the more I learn about the Bible, the LESS scholarly I feel about it. I even have a regular, very nice Biblical conversation w/ a Jehovah Witness friend of mine who comes to my door. Even though I couldn't agree less with their view of who is & isn't going to heaven, we focus on things we can agree about. He's not gonna change my faith affiliation, nor I his. BUT we both enjoy studying and talking about the Bible.

Maybe I'm just gettin' old, but I actually enjoy the differing perspectives as people speak about the truth. I learn from them & find myself growing in a lot of ways that we were strangled from via our exclusionary practices in TWI. I even find similar exclusionary thinking in many churches.

Didn't the Bible say "whosoever will may come...?" Didn't Jesus say, "I'm just happy that they mention my name?" Or did he say, "You better be scientifically accurate and mathematically precise...." or you don't get in?