A long, long time ago, I had a series of conversations with a devout Jew. (I will report what he said at the time.) He said that, if he had the opportunity, he would speak nothing but Hebrew all the time, period. His religious convictions ran deep, and not just because it was what he was taught.
(Looking back, I would have a different preference in our conversations, and would ask very different questions. There's a lot I don't know.) We had some interesting comments on Scripture. I volunteered to call the Old Testament "the Torah" because they named it that first, so it was fair the name should count. He volunteered to call the New Testament "the New Testament" because that's what I called it. We proceeded from there with some guarded statements without "this is The Truth" statements, and respected each others positions.
Ok, to the relevant point (For those still awake.) He mentioned that there was a position among some Jews that there would be TWO messiahs- one would be the messiah everyone mentions who would reign, and before him, a messiah who would suffer for the people. (I didn't say the obvious response to him out of respect- he knew what I was thinking, so I had no need to say it. It had more impact if I just let him think on it in his own time rather than just made him get defensive.)
So, I never followed up on this, but took his statement at face value. (BTW, this "what Trinity?" business helped us communicate a great deal. One online test once listed me as a "conservative Jew" and not a Christian because one question divided on the basis of the Trinity.)
As regards to one of the last points in the discussion, I think there are actual Jews who believe in two messiahs, and would question (privately) whether Jesus was the messiah who would suffer for the people. I think the Trinity doctrine is still a major barrier to Jews to considering Christianity as a better answer. For them, the remaining question would be- can both messiahs actually be the same messiah, coming once to suffer, and once to reign? I don't know how many people there are to whom this would apply.
(Now, if you all will excuse me, I'll step back out of the thread. That's all I had to add.)
A long, long time ago, I had a series of conversations with a devout Jew. (I will report what he said at the time.) He said that, if he had the opportunity, he would speak nothing but Hebrew all the time, period. His religious convictions ran deep, and not just because it was what he was taught.
(Looking back, I would have a different preference in our conversations, and would ask very different questions. There's a lot I don't know.) We had some interesting comments on Scripture. I volunteered to call the Old Testament "the Torah" because they named it that first, so it was fair the name should count. He volunteered to call the New Testament "the New Testament" because that's what I called it. We proceeded from there with some guarded statements without "this is The Truth" statements, and respected each others positions.
Ok, to the relevant point (For those still awake.) He mentioned that there was a position among some Jews that there would be TWO messiahs- one would be the messiah everyone mentions who would reign, and before him, a messiah who would suffer for the people. (I didn't say the obvious response to him out of respect- he knew what I was thinking, so I had no need to say it. It had more impact if I just let him think on it in his own time rather than just made him get defensive.)
So, I never followed up on this, but took his statement at face value. (BTW, this "what Trinity?" business helped us communicate a great deal. One online test once listed me as a "conservative Jew" and not a Christian because one question divided on the basis of the Trinity.)
As regards to one of the last points in the discussion, I think there are actual Jews who believe in two messiahs, and would question (privately) whether Jesus was the messiah who would suffer for the people. I think the Trinity doctrine is still a major barrier to Jews to considering Christianity as a better answer. For them, the remaining question would be- can both messiahs actually be the same messiah, coming once to suffer, and once to reign? I don't know how many people there are to whom this would apply.
(Now, if you all will excuse me, I'll step back out of the thread. That's all I had to add.)
Very interesting! Thank you, Word Wolf. Now that you mention it, two messiah doctrine sounds vaguely familiar to me.
I presume this group is awaiting BOTH messiahs? Except the sub group that privately believes the first came 2000 years ago?
SInce it seemed a sensitive subject, I didn't dig. The impression I got is this- all Jews await the messiah who will rule. Some Jews may also await a different (lesser, non-reigning) messiah to suffer, and some Jews may believe that messiah already arrived, suffered, and died 2000 years ago. I don't know how many Jews would be in any category.
I wonder if he said anything about his basis for rejecting the resurrection or the New Testament. It sounds like you didn't go there.
I definitely agree the Trinity is a stumbling block to many Jews. On topic: it raises so many tangents to this thread that I doubt we'd be able to keep up. I wonder what Jews make of Christians who don't accept the Trinity. Dovthey reject the New Testament because of what it teaches? Or because of what they THINK it teaches? [Never mind the tired question of "who's right about that, anyway?"]
He hadn't previously READ the New Testament. Actually, he asked me to pass him a Christian Bible so he could read through it. (Back then, finding a spare took work.) Since this was not the internet age just yet, it was books or nothing- no digital Bible. I didn't ask him what he thought of it.
In his case, he initially brought up the Trinity as an insurmountable object for discussion- which proceeded once he processed my response. I do agree that Jews would be more open to discussion with Christians who are not Trinitarian than Christians who are. I don't think it would result in a flood of conversions, but more civil discussion is not a bad thing, as I see it.
Maybe the Trinity WAS his basis for rejecting the New Testament.
You don't have to read a holy book to reject it. I still haven't read the Quran.
So "I reject this book as God-breathed because it conflicts with doctrines I accept as God-breathed" would still fit with my overarching thesis on this thread, for what it's worth.
He hadn't previously READ the New Testament. Actually, he asked me to pass him a Christian Bible so he could read through it. (Back then, finding a spare took work.) Since this was not the internet age just yet, it was books or nothing- no digital Bible. I didn't ask him what he thought of it.
In his case, he initially brought up the Trinity as an insurmountable object for discussion- which proceeded once he processed my response. I do agree that Jews would be more open to discussion with Christians who are not Trinitarian than Christians who are. I don't think it would result in a flood of conversions, but more civil discussion is not a bad thing, as I see it.
My conversation with a rabbi really tiptoed around the Messiah as both perceived the other to have predisposed positions on him.
We mostly talked law and the prophets and the interpretation and application in modern times.
With my discussions with a Messianic Jew he definitely showed negative aggressive position towards the trinity but as a TWI follower the son of God position did not trigger him and we had a good discussion series.
I currently view the Trinity as nuanced and strong positions on either side have caused the most controversy within Christianity than anything. But that’s a sidetrack.
Maybe the Trinity WAS his basis for rejecting the New Testament.
You don't have to read a holy book to reject it. I still haven't read the Quran.
So "I reject this book as God-breathed because it conflicts with doctrines I accept as God-breathed" would still fit with my overarching thesis on this thread, for what it's worth.
This fits the pattern of my observations.
My point of contribution is more that “Theo pneustos” is not commonly known to that level of original knowledge depth of the Greek behind the various things it is translated in common languages.
Christians I have conversed with only the theology students and sometimes pastors have that level of Greek to know the words in a verse. IME the lay Christians more have a general “God inspired” take on it and understand nothing of the canon of scriptures other than rejecting the Mormon books as not from God.
If you take out all these !theory? off a return of Christ or who some thinks God is 3 in 1 or any other such perspectives and let the spirit guide, not these man-made doctrines
Senses will return, which is Christ returning in you. You know, it says the glory shall be revealed IN you.....that is where heaven and earth meet..
One person I know rejects it because he thinks that it is written by a group of primitives who think that Men should rule the world, justify various forms of slavery, etc. etc. I would argue differently- it is written TO a group of primitives who think that men should be the final authority in the house, settle disagreements by war, enslave their fellow man..
Written TO a society which worships a multitude of various contradictory gods.. and thinks that Wealth = Right.
That's just for starters here..
IOW, to people (or a people) of, in, and/or from cultures substantively different from what we are familiar with today.
Hence, it's extremely unlikely we can construct, in our own minds, a framework for which to grasp "the original intended meanings." That is, even if and when we give credence to the notion of God, a/the creator.
IOW, to people (or a people) of, in, and/or from cultures substantively different from what we are familiar with today.
Hence, it's extremely unlikely we can construct, in our own minds, a framework for which to grasp "the original intended meanings." That is, even if and when we give credence to the notion of God, a/the creator.
Very different indeed. Unless we actually lived in those times.. and who is to say that we did not..
“Thereis no basisfor rejecting PFAL asGod-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have beenconsidered God-breathed since there was a canon.”
Agreed. Seems to me that any interpretations and applications of any curated set of our world’s wisdom literature that flies in the same altitudes as TWI does with the Bible are as easily rejectable on all the same basis. That such a high percentage of humanity does exactly this is not only an enduring source of misery and woe, but reinforces the rejection of the remedy…which is not a wholesale rejection of the text, as is often quite popular, nor a tame watering down, but rather a regeneration of more sound, sane, wise and mature interpretations and applications of the very same bodies of text.
Ham, please correct if I am missing your point here, but this seems to point to one related conclusion I reached some years ago.
"Rejecting the Bible.. because.
One person I know rejects it because he thinks that it is written by a group of primitives who think that Men should rule the world, justify various forms of slavery, etc. etc. I would argue differently- it is written TO a group of primitives who think that men should be the final authority in the house, settle disagreements by war, enslave their fellow man.."
Many modern folks complain how the Bible is too-male oriented, when that male-orientation may be a primary point all along. And not just warnings TO cavemen, but stories for mothers and elders to tell children ABOUT cavemen.
From indigenous Hebraic wisdom stories warning about the very real immediate danger of even one un-initiated boy aging into adulthood (Cain, etc...), to apocalyptic warnings about what masculine-only dominance looks like after cultures, societies and the planet itself finally fills up with hydras of very horny self-authorized liars, thieves and murderers worshipping money and gobbling real estate. As if one dominant theme of the Bible is that there is no greater life-destroying force on Earth than when immature masculinity takes control. Even the New Testament's opening warnings about homosexuality seem more like warnings about the very real dangers of immature masculine-only attitudes (war, slavery, etc..), not queer nature. Talk about a red thread.
Also, like what Cman said: “it boils down to fear of death, all the crap people come up with, they can't face the devil....”
Because yes, extreme avoidance of the nature and reality of dying and an inability to allow light on one’s own inner shadows are both key unmistakable symptoms of this un-initiated masculinity, where the Bible (and/or other sacred texts and religious acts) are seen quite childishly as a powerful magical way to avoid death and fight demons, which is kinda cute when its a 3-year old. Not so much when its mobs of self-authorized rich, powerful, old fools.
hm..yeah.. romans.. and genesis for that matter.. it took eve and the serpent to get thru to adam
without feminine qualities .... I don't think humans would survive long
possibly why biblical scripture is such a stumbling block to many, and yet scripture abounds in everything, is the spirit being consulted within to determine it's meanings, or rather to soak up wisdom when it's shown so plainly
Indeed. Seems Adam-ness alone was incapable of generating much more than feral children.
Re: the original topic of reasonable bases for rejecting written things as God-breathed…
Most of us modern folk seem to have inherited a crippling underestimation of the value and impact of story AS story in the cultivation of wisdom, especially regarding ancient sacred texts. Both fantasy and literalism are easily debunked and mocked by mere objectivism, which then naively dismisses the very real vitality of myth.
I find that ideas like James Fowler's Stages of Faith seem to offer helpful approaches to noticing and evaluating patterns in the different ways we interpret text and life.
Sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, the presence and importance of stage-to-stage patterns of inner maturation (and lack thereof) seem ubiquitous throughout not only the modern Bible, but most of the world's sacred texts. Plant metaphors seem especially common as most direct and vivid examples of how inner life unfolds within (Unfortunately, it also seems, nothing stops almost anyone from mis-applying easily noticeable patterns of nature as a way to violate, manipulate, and exploit using plant terminology.).
We can also see matching patterns in both interpretation and application in spite of the specific language set or mythology being used. The texts of all major world religions seem to have groups of adult folks interpreting and applying them from every phase of inner growth. Most worldview conflicts occur not only between similar stages of maturity (like fundamentalism versus fundamentalism), but also between different stages of immaturity (like fundamentalism versus empiricism versus de-construction).
Tragically, perhaps, an almost wholesale rejection of the reality (and measurability) of such manifold patterns of inner maturity does seem like a quite natural consequence in societies where the very humiliations necessary for such growth are also seen as dangerous enemies. Our capacities to touch, hold and handle the fires of shame determine how resistant we are to life’s gauntlets of wisdom. Like a flaming sword that keeps us from returning to our original nature.
the most basic type of early Christian training, probably others too, but mine is Christian, anyways basic stories from the scripture covering lots of things, and good things to learn thru the early levels of faith as James Fowler puts it
seems the trouble comes when there are different stories and ideas after the first 3 levels of faith, things have been held on to for generations and centuries which stem from early faith beliefs, blocking more deeper wisdom and consideration
here is an example of beliefs that span many generations --- in my upbringing we were taught that hate is only of the devil, only the devil can hate, I've heard this all my life and from twi, you know - don't say I hate this food, say I don't care for it or like it, .................and it's just not true
Stage 3 – "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence; aged 12 to adulthood), is characterized by conformity to authority and the religious development of a personal identity. Any conflicts with one's beliefs are ignored at this stage due to the fear of threat from inconsistencies.
Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties), is a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for his or her beliefs and feelings. As one is able to reflect on one's own beliefs, there is an openness to a new complexity of faith, but this also increases the awareness of conflicts in one's belief.
a big change from 3 to 4 with 5 helping out
Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis), acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems. The individual resolves conflicts from previous stages by a complex understanding of a multidimensional, interdependent "truth" that cannot be explained by any particular statement.
Our capacities to touch, hold and handle the fires of shame determine how resistant we are to life’s gauntlets of wisdom. Like a flaming sword that keeps us from returning to our original nature.
There's deep metaphor in those sentences. Indeed, I've come to appreciate the importance of story to humanity. Now I'm reading George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's Metaphors We Live By. In their book, they argue metaphor is not simply or only a verbal mechanism for communicating certain concepts. Rather, metaphor is HOW we think.
Our capacities to touch, hold and handle the fires of shame determine... That's a powerful statement in itself.
I appreciate HOW you think.
Our capacities to touch, hold and handle the fires of shame... that, even though it's not the entirety of your sentence or your comment, is in itself a very powerful statement. It puts into a context HOW you look at the world. I think your last two sentences (which I quoted above) are quite profound. It shows how you think about shame. Its a metaphorical thought process. It awes me to consider the profundity.
Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis), acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems. The individual resolves conflicts from previous stages by a complex understanding of a multidimensional, interdependent "truth" that cannot be explained by any particular statement.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
80
37
33
25
Popular Days
Feb 17
51
Feb 16
36
Feb 27
26
Mar 10
24
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 80 posts
Bolshevik 37 posts
OldSkool 33 posts
Nathan_Jr 25 posts
Popular Days
Feb 17 2023
51 posts
Feb 16 2023
36 posts
Feb 27 2023
26 posts
Mar 10 2023
24 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I can certainly see and appreciate the parallells. The way you sound to me...the way Mike sounds to me...you guys both sound like me. Ive stumbled at wierwille's doctrines and was blinded from scriptu
waysider
The Bible declares itself to be God breathed. Therefore, it must be because the Bible says so and it's God Breathed... That's about as circular as you can get. There is no outside evidence to suggest
sirguessalot
Indeed. Seems Adam-ness alone was incapable of generating much more than feral children. Re: the original topic of reasonable bases for rejecting written things as God-breathed… Most of us m
WordWolf
A long, long time ago, I had a series of conversations with a devout Jew. (I will report what he said at the time.) He said that, if he had the opportunity, he would speak nothing but Hebrew all the time, period. His religious convictions ran deep, and not just because it was what he was taught.
(Looking back, I would have a different preference in our conversations, and would ask very different questions. There's a lot I don't know.) We had some interesting comments on Scripture. I volunteered to call the Old Testament "the Torah" because they named it that first, so it was fair the name should count. He volunteered to call the New Testament "the New Testament" because that's what I called it. We proceeded from there with some guarded statements without "this is The Truth" statements, and respected each others positions.
Ok, to the relevant point (For those still awake.) He mentioned that there was a position among some Jews that there would be TWO messiahs- one would be the messiah everyone mentions who would reign, and before him, a messiah who would suffer for the people. (I didn't say the obvious response to him out of respect- he knew what I was thinking, so I had no need to say it. It had more impact if I just let him think on it in his own time rather than just made him get defensive.)
So, I never followed up on this, but took his statement at face value. (BTW, this "what Trinity?" business helped us communicate a great deal. One online test once listed me as a "conservative Jew" and not a Christian because one question divided on the basis of the Trinity.)
As regards to one of the last points in the discussion, I think there are actual Jews who believe in two messiahs, and would question (privately) whether Jesus was the messiah who would suffer for the people. I think the Trinity doctrine is still a major barrier to Jews to considering Christianity as a better answer. For them, the remaining question would be- can both messiahs actually be the same messiah, coming once to suffer, and once to reign? I don't know how many people there are to whom this would apply.
(Now, if you all will excuse me, I'll step back out of the thread. That's all I had to add.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Very interesting! Thank you, Word Wolf. Now that you mention it, two messiah doctrine sounds vaguely familiar to me.
I presume this group is awaiting BOTH messiahs? Except the sub group that privately believes the first came 2000 years ago?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
SInce it seemed a sensitive subject, I didn't dig. The impression I got is this- all Jews await the messiah who will rule. Some Jews may also await a different (lesser, non-reigning) messiah to suffer, and some Jews may believe that messiah already arrived, suffered, and died 2000 years ago. I don't know how many Jews would be in any category.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Fascinating.
I wonder if he said anything about his basis for rejecting the resurrection or the New Testament. It sounds like you didn't go there.
I definitely agree the Trinity is a stumbling block to many Jews. On topic: it raises so many tangents to this thread that I doubt we'd be able to keep up. I wonder what Jews make of Christians who don't accept the Trinity. Dovthey reject the New Testament because of what it teaches? Or because of what they THINK it teaches? [Never mind the tired question of "who's right about that, anyway?"]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
He hadn't previously READ the New Testament. Actually, he asked me to pass him a Christian Bible so he could read through it. (Back then, finding a spare took work.) Since this was not the internet age just yet, it was books or nothing- no digital Bible. I didn't ask him what he thought of it.
In his case, he initially brought up the Trinity as an insurmountable object for discussion- which proceeded once he processed my response. I do agree that Jews would be more open to discussion with Christians who are not Trinitarian than Christians who are. I don't think it would result in a flood of conversions, but more civil discussion is not a bad thing, as I see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Maybe the Trinity WAS his basis for rejecting the New Testament.
You don't have to read a holy book to reject it. I still haven't read the Quran.
So "I reject this book as God-breathed because it conflicts with doctrines I accept as God-breathed" would still fit with my overarching thesis on this thread, for what it's worth.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
My conversation with a rabbi really tiptoed around the Messiah as both perceived the other to have predisposed positions on him.
We mostly talked law and the prophets and the interpretation and application in modern times.
With my discussions with a Messianic Jew he definitely showed negative aggressive position towards the trinity but as a TWI follower the son of God position did not trigger him and we had a good discussion series.
I currently view the Trinity as nuanced and strong positions on either side have caused the most controversy within Christianity than anything. But that’s a sidetrack.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
This fits the pattern of my observations.
My point of contribution is more that “Theo pneustos” is not commonly known to that level of original knowledge depth of the Greek behind the various things it is translated in common languages.
Christians I have conversed with only the theology students and sometimes pastors have that level of Greek to know the words in a verse. IME the lay Christians more have a general “God inspired” take on it and understand nothing of the canon of scriptures other than rejecting the Mormon books as not from God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
If you take out all these !theory? off a return of Christ or who some thinks God is 3 in 1 or any other such perspectives and let the spirit guide, not these man-made doctrines
Senses will return, which is Christ returning in you. You know, it says the glory shall be revealed IN you.....that is where heaven and earth meet..
.the rubber hitting the road
......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Rejecting the Bible.. because.
One person I know rejects it because he thinks that it is written by a group of primitives who think that Men should rule the world, justify various forms of slavery, etc. etc. I would argue differently- it is written TO a group of primitives who think that men should be the final authority in the house, settle disagreements by war, enslave their fellow man..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Written TO a society which worships a multitude of various contradictory gods.. and thinks that Wealth = Right.
That's just for starters here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
IOW, to people (or a people) of, in, and/or from cultures substantively different from what we are familiar with today.
Hence, it's extremely unlikely we can construct, in our own minds, a framework for which to grasp "the original intended meanings." That is, even if and when we give credence to the notion of God, a/the creator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
it boils down to fear of death, all the crap people come up with, they can't face the devil....
it's not hard to do though.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Very different indeed. Unless we actually lived in those times.. and who is to say that we did not..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
“There is no basis for rejecting PFAL as God-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have been considered God-breathed since there was a canon.”
Agreed. Seems to me that any interpretations and applications of any curated set of our world’s wisdom literature that flies in the same altitudes as TWI does with the Bible are as easily rejectable on all the same basis. That such a high percentage of humanity does exactly this is not only an enduring source of misery and woe, but reinforces the rejection of the remedy…which is not a wholesale rejection of the text, as is often quite popular, nor a tame watering down, but rather a regeneration of more sound, sane, wise and mature interpretations and applications of the very same bodies of text.
Ham, please correct if I am missing your point here, but this seems to point to one related conclusion I reached some years ago.
"Rejecting the Bible.. because.
One person I know rejects it because he thinks that it is written by a group of primitives who think that Men should rule the world, justify various forms of slavery, etc. etc. I would argue differently- it is written TO a group of primitives who think that men should be the final authority in the house, settle disagreements by war, enslave their fellow man.."
Many modern folks complain how the Bible is too-male oriented, when that male-orientation may be a primary point all along. And not just warnings TO cavemen, but stories for mothers and elders to tell children ABOUT cavemen.
From indigenous Hebraic wisdom stories warning about the very real immediate danger of even one un-initiated boy aging into adulthood (Cain, etc...), to apocalyptic warnings about what masculine-only dominance looks like after cultures, societies and the planet itself finally fills up with hydras of very horny self-authorized liars, thieves and murderers worshipping money and gobbling real estate. As if one dominant theme of the Bible is that there is no greater life-destroying force on Earth than when immature masculinity takes control. Even the New Testament's opening warnings about homosexuality seem more like warnings about the very real dangers of immature masculine-only attitudes (war, slavery, etc..), not queer nature. Talk about a red thread.
Also, like what Cman said: “it boils down to fear of death, all the crap people come up with, they can't face the devil....”
Because yes, extreme avoidance of the nature and reality of dying and an inability to allow light on one’s own inner shadows are both key unmistakable symptoms of this un-initiated masculinity, where the Bible (and/or other sacred texts and religious acts) are seen quite childishly as a powerful magical way to avoid death and fight demons, which is kinda cute when its a 3-year old. Not so much when its mobs of self-authorized rich, powerful, old fools.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
hm..yeah.. romans.. and genesis for that matter.. it took eve and the serpent to get thru to adam
without feminine qualities .... I don't think humans would survive long
possibly why biblical scripture is such a stumbling block to many, and yet scripture abounds in everything, is the spirit being consulted within to determine it's meanings, or rather to soak up wisdom when it's shown so plainly
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
questions we never asked -
was there evil before they ate of that tree of knowledge of good and evil
why would "the serpent" want adam and eve to know good and evil
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
thinking of romans 5 ... death passed to all by one and life by one
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Indeed. Seems Adam-ness alone was incapable of generating much more than feral children.
Re: the original topic of reasonable bases for rejecting written things as God-breathed…
Most of us modern folk seem to have inherited a crippling underestimation of the value and impact of story AS story in the cultivation of wisdom, especially regarding ancient sacred texts. Both fantasy and literalism are easily debunked and mocked by mere objectivism, which then naively dismisses the very real vitality of myth.
I find that ideas like James Fowler's Stages of Faith seem to offer helpful approaches to noticing and evaluating patterns in the different ways we interpret text and life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Fowler
Sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, the presence and importance of stage-to-stage patterns of inner maturation (and lack thereof) seem ubiquitous throughout not only the modern Bible, but most of the world's sacred texts. Plant metaphors seem especially common as most direct and vivid examples of how inner life unfolds within (Unfortunately, it also seems, nothing stops almost anyone from mis-applying easily noticeable patterns of nature as a way to violate, manipulate, and exploit using plant terminology.).
We can also see matching patterns in both interpretation and application in spite of the specific language set or mythology being used. The texts of all major world religions seem to have groups of adult folks interpreting and applying them from every phase of inner growth. Most worldview conflicts occur not only between similar stages of maturity (like fundamentalism versus fundamentalism), but also between different stages of immaturity (like fundamentalism versus empiricism versus de-construction).
Tragically, perhaps, an almost wholesale rejection of the reality (and measurability) of such manifold patterns of inner maturity does seem like a quite natural consequence in societies where the very humiliations necessary for such growth are also seen as dangerous enemies. Our capacities to touch, hold and handle the fires of shame determine how resistant we are to life’s gauntlets of wisdom. Like a flaming sword that keeps us from returning to our original nature.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
the most basic type of early Christian training, probably others too, but mine is Christian, anyways basic stories from the scripture covering lots of things, and good things to learn thru the early levels of faith as James Fowler puts it
seems the trouble comes when there are different stories and ideas after the first 3 levels of faith, things have been held on to for generations and centuries which stem from early faith beliefs, blocking more deeper wisdom and consideration
here is an example of beliefs that span many generations --- in my upbringing we were taught that hate is only of the devil, only the devil can hate, I've heard this all my life and from twi, you know - don't say I hate this food, say I don't care for it or like it, .................and it's just not true
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Stage 3 – "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence; aged 12 to adulthood), is characterized by conformity to authority and the religious development of a personal identity. Any conflicts with one's beliefs are ignored at this stage due to the fear of threat from inconsistencies.
Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties), is a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for his or her beliefs and feelings. As one is able to reflect on one's own beliefs, there is an openness to a new complexity of faith, but this also increases the awareness of conflicts in one's belief.
a big change from 3 to 4 with 5 helping out
Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis), acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems. The individual resolves conflicts from previous stages by a complex understanding of a multidimensional, interdependent "truth" that cannot be explained by any particular statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
There's deep metaphor in those sentences. Indeed, I've come to appreciate the importance of story to humanity. Now I'm reading George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's Metaphors We Live By. In their book, they argue metaphor is not simply or only a verbal mechanism for communicating certain concepts. Rather, metaphor is HOW we think.
Our capacities to touch, hold and handle the fires of shame determine... That's a powerful statement in itself.
I appreciate HOW you think.
Our capacities to touch, hold and handle the fires of shame... that, even though it's not the entirety of your sentence or your comment, is in itself a very powerful statement. It puts into a context HOW you look at the world. I think your last two sentences (which I quoted above) are quite profound. It shows how you think about shame. Its a metaphorical thought process. It awes me to consider the profundity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Wow! That too is very profound.
Link 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.