Jokes aside, I think the simplest expression of my thought is:
The idiom of permission was not the intent of the original writers. It only became necessary when the character of Yahweh developed into someone who would never do what earlier scriptures clearly said he did.
Raf, your thoughts please. This might be idiom-related? When the scripture says "I come quickly" (Rev. 22:20) and "this generation shall not pass till all these things be done" (Matt. 24:34), what do you think is the most accurate interpretation out there? Thx.
Raf, your thoughts please. This might be idiom-related? When the scripture says "I come quickly" (Rev. 22:20) and "this generation shall not pass till all these things be done" (Matt. 24:34), what do you think is the most accurate interpretation out there? Thx.
I need a ruling from the judges on whether this would be off topic. Also, just checking, Oldies, you know I'm not a believer anymore right? Just checking.
For what it's worth: I do not think the writers intended figurative or misleading language here. Paul believed the "presence" of Christ [what we call the "Return"] would take place in his lifetime, or at least in the lifetime of his initial readers. It's hard to imagine that he wrote "we who are alive and remain" thinking "we" was a reference to people living 2,000 or more years in the future.
The Jesus of the gospels said what he said. He did not mean "figuratively speaking," nor did he say "by 'generation' I'm referring to people in a future so distant you would not even recognize it."
And whoever wrote Revelation did not have a creative definition of "quickly" that implicitly included the words "in geological terms."
I do not think there's a figure of speech that can reconcile "this generation" and "quickly" with "2,000 + years later..." Any "accurate" interpretation would have to start there.
fwiw, imho, If I may...Tragic as this may sound, I find it helps to notice how our general social and cultural fluency and competency in symbol, myth, and archetypes and such seems currently mostly in a dumpster fire. And there is this seeming endless war, not only between many folks holding onto various conflicting so-called literal interpretations of ancient writings, but between many other folks who easily debunk the many so-called literal interpretations yet also seem to believe they have debunked religion altogether and erased all its value from the past, present and future of our planet. Meanwhile, all along, many other folks have been interpreting and living and applying all that religion in significantly sound and vital ways, but are also either ignored, avoided, attacked or simply remain undiscovered by all the other folks. Some good news, perhaps, is that its not only possible to find real meaning in storytelling, but our wisdom, sanity and wholeness has always depended on our capacities to do so.
"Truth, naked and cold, had been turned away from every door in the village. Her nakedness frightened the people. When Parable found her she was huddled in a corner, shivering and hungry. Taking pity on her, Parable gathered her up and took her home. There, she dressed Truth in story, warmed her and sent her out again. Clothed in story, Truth knocked again at the doors and was readily welcomed into the villagers’ houses. They invited her to eat at their tables and warm herself by their fires." Jewish teaching story.
Matt 24 presents a contradiction in timelines for sure. This is one that has foiled the JWs through multiple generations of failed prophecy regarding the so called end times.
I have heard explanations that sound like rationalizations from multiple sources.
I don’t have a better explanation but am more inclined to go with the face value of Jesus was wrong or didn’t know and was guessing.
Can a man without sin be wrong? I had previously thought the answer was “only if that man is married” lol. But is Jesus proving me wrong once again?
See, "God-like mind reading capabilities" is what turns clear writing into "he didn't mean that, he was using the idiom of permission that I made up."
***
"God says what he means and means what he says!"
Fine. Here's what he says.
"He didn't mean that."
***
Sorry, I'm not the one doing the mindreading. Just the Biblereading
I am a little less on the side of God says what He means and means what He says option as I feel that is too extreme of an interpretation of inspired writing that leads to denominations and cults. My viewpoint is denouncing fundamentalism but not the overall Christianity message and concepts.
This leads me to view scripture more as a muse behind the writings as opposed to automatic writing dictation. The latter to me produces a “Stepford wives” result that seems independent from whatever message is being peddled. It seems very susceptible also to the Machiavellian pettiness present in all the worlds systems as opposed to a grassroots message to free the individual. I feel that the muse view preserves the individual as well as the grassroots message.
Matt 24 presents a contradiction in timelines for sure. This is one that has foiled the JWs through multiple generations of failed prophecy regarding the so called end times
it seems all these events in matt 24 happen every day
while some look to the future others see it happening now
our general social and cultural fluency and competency in symbol, myth, and archetypes and such seems currently mostly in a dumpster fire
trying to adjust, not easy when things have been so screwy for so long, like seeing a bigger picture than such a narrow minded up-bringing, however, even that is turning to favor, balancing it all, emotions logic realities, besides seeing more
And there is this seeming endless war, not only between many folks holding onto various conflicting so-called literal interpretations of ancient writings, but between many other folks who easily debunk the many so-called literal interpretations yet also seem to believe they have debunked religion altogether and erased all its value from the past, present and future of our planet.
I'm only going to address the portion in bold.
I no longer believe in God. And I do believe that religion has caused some real harm in this world. But it has also done some immense good. Not to mention, much, much evilhas been done in the name of "not-religion."
Evil acts are evil, whether committed in the name of God or in the name of "not-God." The difference, in my opinion, is that evil committed in the name of God expects a reward, whereas evil committed in the name of not-God expects no punishment. In the grand, cosmic scheme of things, the second group of evildoers are correct. But they're still evil.
Which gives rise to the question, who gets to decide what is and is not "evil"?
But we are getting farther from the thread topic, which is ok IF enough time has passed AND the person who started the thread is ok with its evolution.
This thread has now declined into frivolity and swiping at each other. Ho hum. I wish there was a way to sever off the nutty stuff so that just the relevant info is left.
it's an experience that is useful, I think ... --- If it's not taken too personally, you know anyways, it's an internal fight with yourself that someone brings out in you.... a good thing to bring out...most of the time....
Thanks. Yeah, felt like slipping in the back door and quietly pulling up a chair. Been lurking a bit. This conversation pulled me in.
As my manner is, I picked up this book from my local public library today. You're Not Listening: What You're Missing and Why it Matters. To some, this may seem off topic, but I submit it goes somewhat directly to Twinky's concern AND to the noticeably cerebral post our good friend sirguessalot interjected. I mean that in a positive way. And I am almost certainly as lacking as anyone in effort put into "listening" to my fellow GSC posters.
As my manner is, I picked up this book from my local public library today. You're Not Listening: What You're Missing and Why it Matters. To some, this may seem off topic, but I submit it goes somewhat directly to Twinky's concern AND to the noticeably cerebral post our good friend sirguessalot interjected. I mean that in a positive way. And I am almost certainly as lacking as anyone in effort put into "listening" to my fellow GSC posters.
Apologies to Twinky and all for the seeming derail on the other thread. I am clearly rusty on GSC forum etiquette. I am actually a student and advocate of deep listening (although I also find hypertextual listening quite a bit more challenging and time-consuming). I honestly thought my reply spoke to some overall challenges we have with biblical idioms and such, although admittedly I went a bit too meta. Also, some of my frustrations came through. Was mostly more of a cheeky way to break my 11-year GSC fast. Strong cup of coffee probably played a role. Cheers.
Recommended Posts
oldiesman
Raf, your thoughts please. This might be idiom-related? When the scripture says "I come quickly" (Rev. 22:20) and "this generation shall not pass till all these things be done" (Matt. 24:34), what do you think is the most accurate interpretation out there? Thx.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I need a ruling from the judges on whether this would be off topic. Also, just checking, Oldies, you know I'm not a believer anymore right? Just checking.
For what it's worth: I do not think the writers intended figurative or misleading language here. Paul believed the "presence" of Christ [what we call the "Return"] would take place in his lifetime, or at least in the lifetime of his initial readers. It's hard to imagine that he wrote "we who are alive and remain" thinking "we" was a reference to people living 2,000 or more years in the future.
The Jesus of the gospels said what he said. He did not mean "figuratively speaking," nor did he say "by 'generation' I'm referring to people in a future so distant you would not even recognize it."
And whoever wrote Revelation did not have a creative definition of "quickly" that implicitly included the words "in geological terms."
I do not think there's a figure of speech that can reconcile "this generation" and "quickly" with "2,000 + years later..." Any "accurate" interpretation would have to start there.
In my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Greetings, earthlings.
fwiw, imho, If I may...Tragic as this may sound, I find it helps to notice how our general social and cultural fluency and competency in symbol, myth, and archetypes and such seems currently mostly in a dumpster fire. And there is this seeming endless war, not only between many folks holding onto various conflicting so-called literal interpretations of ancient writings, but between many other folks who easily debunk the many so-called literal interpretations yet also seem to believe they have debunked religion altogether and erased all its value from the past, present and future of our planet. Meanwhile, all along, many other folks have been interpreting and living and applying all that religion in significantly sound and vital ways, but are also either ignored, avoided, attacked or simply remain undiscovered by all the other folks. Some good news, perhaps, is that its not only possible to find real meaning in storytelling, but our wisdom, sanity and wholeness has always depended on our capacities to do so.
"Truth, naked and cold, had been turned away from every door in the village. Her nakedness frightened the people. When Parable found her she was huddled in a corner, shivering and hungry. Taking pity on her, Parable gathered her up and took her home. There, she dressed Truth in story, warmed her and sent her out again. Clothed in story, Truth knocked again at the doors and was readily welcomed into the villagers’ houses. They invited her to eat at their tables and warm herself by their fires." Jewish teaching story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Matt 24 presents a contradiction in timelines for sure. This is one that has foiled the JWs through multiple generations of failed prophecy regarding the so called end times.
I have heard explanations that sound like rationalizations from multiple sources.
I don’t have a better explanation but am more inclined to go with the face value of Jesus was wrong or didn’t know and was guessing.
Can a man without sin be wrong? I had previously thought the answer was “only if that man is married” lol. But is Jesus proving me wrong once again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I am a little less on the side of God says what He means and means what He says option as I feel that is too extreme of an interpretation of inspired writing that leads to denominations and cults. My viewpoint is denouncing fundamentalism but not the overall Christianity message and concepts.
This leads me to view scripture more as a muse behind the writings as opposed to automatic writing dictation. The latter to me produces a “Stepford wives” result that seems independent from whatever message is being peddled. It seems very susceptible also to the Machiavellian pettiness present in all the worlds systems as opposed to a grassroots message to free the individual. I feel that the muse view preserves the individual as well as the grassroots message.
Of course my views are = .06 with inflation lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
it seems all these events in matt 24 happen every day
while some look to the future others see it happening now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
trying to adjust, not easy when things have been so screwy for so long, like seeing a bigger picture than such a narrow minded up-bringing, however, even that is turning to favor, balancing it all, emotions logic realities, besides seeing more
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Are we all just going to ignore that SirGuessALot has returned after an 11-year absence?
DUDE!
Welcome back.
Mulling over what you wrote. May be worthy of its own topic.
Chockful: I have no reply to what you wrote. It seems to me your comments would draw as much opposition from most Christians as my comments do.
Good night folks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Thanks. Yeah, felt like slipping in the back door and quietly pulling up a chair. Been lurking a bit. This conversation pulled me in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm only going to address the portion in bold.
I no longer believe in God. And I do believe that religion has caused some real harm in this world. But it has also done some immense good. Not to mention, much, much evil has been done in the name of "not-religion."
Evil acts are evil, whether committed in the name of God or in the name of "not-God." The difference, in my opinion, is that evil committed in the name of God expects a reward, whereas evil committed in the name of not-God expects no punishment. In the grand, cosmic scheme of things, the second group of evildoers are correct. But they're still evil.
Which gives rise to the question, who gets to decide what is and is not "evil"?
I refer you to the thread, Are you more moral than Yahweh," which explores the idea of morality and its origin.
But we are getting farther from the thread topic, which is ok IF enough time has passed AND the person who started the thread is ok with its evolution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
it's an experience that is useful, I think ... --- If it's not taken too personally, you know anyways, it's an internal fight with yourself that someone brings out in you.... a good thing to bring out...most of the time....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
As my manner is, I picked up this book from my local public library today. You're Not Listening: What You're Missing and Why it Matters. To some, this may seem off topic, but I submit it goes somewhat directly to Twinky's concern AND to the noticeably cerebral post our good friend sirguessalot interjected. I mean that in a positive way.
And I am almost certainly as lacking as anyone in effort put into "listening" to my fellow GSC posters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This thread will be home to the conversations that branched off the Idioms of Permission thread, some of which were kind of off topic.
Since those posts were written BEFORE this one, they'll appear before this one on this thread. Enjoy.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Ok, um...
I um....
I lost the thread. Working on getting it back.
Sorry.
***
Ok, I think that worked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Apologies to Twinky and all for the seeming derail on the other thread. I am clearly rusty on GSC forum etiquette. I am actually a student and advocate of deep listening (although I also find hypertextual listening quite a bit more challenging and time-consuming). I honestly thought my reply spoke to some overall challenges we have with biblical idioms and such, although admittedly I went a bit too meta. Also, some of my frustrations came through. Was mostly more of a cheeky way to break my 11-year GSC fast. Strong cup of coffee probably played a role. Cheers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
how is this not about the idiom of permission?
god allowed the tree of life to be eaten but did not allow the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be eaten
it don't matter I suppose, people see things differently and can't see some things differently,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
don't know which I am most of the time, both I'm sure
saw your edit in the 1st post, modcat, no problems, these things work themselves out
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Appreciated.
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.