Religion II

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Can you tell us what was the context of God's test to Abraham? Why did he test Abraham?

Without knowing, I will venture a guess: because He wanted to know if Abraham was righteous enough to become the father of His “chosen people”...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

There are arguments to be made people used allegory and metaphor in older cultures.


In classical literature two of the best-known allegories are the Cave in Plato's Republic (Book VII) and the story of the stomach and its members in the speech of Menenius Agrippa (Livy ii. 32).
Among the best-known examples of allegory, Plato's Allegory of the Cave, forms a part of his larger work The Republic. In this allegory, Plato describes a group of people who have lived chained in a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall (514a–b). The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows, using language to identify their world (514c–515a). According to the allegory, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality, until one of them finds his way into the outside world where he sees the actual objects that produced the shadows. He tries to tell the people in the cave of his discovery, but they do not believe him and vehemently resist his efforts to free them so they can see for themselves (516e–518a). This allegory is, on a basic level, about a philosopher who upon finding greater knowledge outside the cave of human understanding, seeks to share it as is his duty, and the foolishness of those who would ignore him because they think themselves educated enough.[8]

People today rarely choose to read things allegorically; however, this was not the case for much of Western history. Allegory was part of a system of interpretation (hermenutics), originally called allêgoria, or "other-speaking" (Greek). This system was fully refined in the Middle Ages and applied principally to the Bible, but it appears as early as ancient Greece and continues through to the modern era, albeit at a reduced rate.

Hey Box (hermenutics), was originally called allêgo

The OT predates the Plat. The ancient mind would not have understood the story of Abraham as being mere allegory since he was held up as a champion of faith -- real faith. And faith gets tested! This is how God separates the wheat (true believers) from the chaff (self-deceived, phony believers).

Moreover, the ancient Hebrews knew all about the gods of the Canaanites and how those gods demanded human sacrifices -- little kiddie sacrifices to boot, so Yahweh's test of Abraham was God's way of backslapping the lesser gods (elohim) of Mesopotamia by demonstrating to the Hebrews that he did not desire the sacrifice of any sinner, for such a sacrifice would have been meaningless to him.

Yahweh also demonstrated to the lesser elohim that he, too, has his loyal following who are willing do whatever he asks of them.

Make believe allegories would not have resonated with ancient Hebrews. After all, they lived in a world where they were literally surrounded by pagan nations who worshiped the lesser elohim.

Moreover, Abraham's faith is celebrated and put on display throughout the NT. If Abraham didn't have genuine faith -- if it was all phony-baloney, plastic banana, good time, rock n' roll, allegorical faith, -- and that's the way the NT audience believed about Abraham, then what kind of parallel would they draw from Abraham to their own lives in terms of the quality of faith God expected of them? If they believed Abraham's faith was all plastic, then what would have stopped them from thinking they couldn't get away with the same kind of spurious faith?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Don't you know that believers are to "consider it all joy" when they encounter various trials, for we know that the testing produces endurance and that in turn results in Christians being perfected and made complete (Jas 1:2-3)?

Yes, yes...that's the "theory"; the Christian should rejoice during his misfortune...because the earthly life is only a "test". But in actuality...the Christian laments his earthly plight and cries about being persecuted. How often does the persecution of Christians make it as a topic of discussion on this board...and how often have you yourself blamed the Jews for the persecution and killing of Jesus? If these persecutions were "joyful" experiences...then, why all the finger-pointing and the blame?

The "context" for Issac's sacrifice, you ask...as if that would make any difference in your senseless argument. A God asks a man to kill his son...and you are looking for the "context" What was the context when God tormented Job? There was no context. Your God is a power-hungry dictator...and he treats his subjects as his paranoia dictates.

[hcap]

Of course boxcar since you know nothing of other religions and philosophies, the Buddhist concept of attachment to things is way beyond you even considering ones' son, or child, a major subject of one's life....at least for parents, (of which thankfully you are not one,) can also be an overly consuming preoccupation. Almost to the detriment of the child and the parent.

Giving up this all consuming ATTACHMENT does not mean abandoning one's child, but rather allows proper discernment of what is important and what is not.

More of other religions you do not know.

Buddhi- Discernment.

Buddhi is a feminine Sanskrit noun derived from the same root as the more familiar masculine form Buddha. Buddhi denotes an aspect of mind that is higher than the rational mind and that is attracted to Brahman. Unlike manas, which is a composite of mind and ego deriving from an aggrandized "I-sense" that takes pleasure in pursuing worldly aims and sense pleasures, buddhi is that faculty that makes wisdom possible. In Samkhya and yogic philosophy both the mind and the ego are forms in the realm of nature that have emerged into materiality as a function of the three gunas through a misapprehension of purusha. Discriminative in nature, buddhi is that which is able to discern truth from falsehood


Abraham able to sacrifice Isaac is simply letting go of attachment and therefore possibly enhancing truth from falsehood.

I know you prefer your god as a bloodthirsty murderer of children.You have told us many times. When you let go of the literal you might understand higher themes.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Without knowing, I will venture a guess: because He wanted to know if Abraham was righteous enough to become the father of His “chosen people”...

Nope. Wanna try again?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The OT predates the Plat. The ancient mind would not have understood the story of Abraham as being mere allegory since he was held up as a champion of faith -- real faith. And faith gets tested! This is how God separates the wheat (true believers) from the chaff (self-deceived, phony believers).

Hey bunky, Does allegory and metaphor suddenly begin with PLATO?

More Religion you don't know. Judaism. Not your Christian filtered Judaism.

Jewish Encyclopedia
.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...-old-testament

ALLEGORY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

Allegory is a sustained description or narration, treating directly of one subject, but intended as an exposition of another, the latter having a more spiritual nature than the former, yet bearing some perceptible resemblance to it. It is a comparison between two different groups of ideas on the basis of something possessed in common. It has for its purpose the illustration or inculcation of a higher truth.

In the Old Testament, allegory with its kindred didactic forms is comprised under the Ḥokmah (Wisdom), literature under the two terms mashal and ḥidah (Ezek. xvii. 2; compare xxiv. 3; Dan. viii. 23). Mashal, now specifically maxim, or gnome, primarily denoted a comparison or simile. Under this older meaning, it was generally rendered in the Septuagint by παραβο;λή (parable). Originally, it was doubtless didactic in purpose, and derived a maxim for the conduct of life from the comparison of two apparently dissimilar objects. Later it was applied to any sententious or pointed saying, and even to obscure prophetic utterances, since these, too, aimed to instruct and usually employed comparison (Num. xxiii. 7, 18; xxiv. 3; compare Isa. xiv. 4; Micah, ii. 4; Hab. ii. 6). Ḥidah, properly a riddle, is used in a wider sense for figurative and significant speech (Judges, xiv. 14; I Kings, x. 1; compare Ps. xlix. 5; lxxviii. 2).

Parable and Allegory.

In the parable and allegory an actual basis of resemblance and actual points of contact exist between the primary subject and the analogous subject with which it is compared. Thus, each subject may serve as a figure for the other. In the parable the author himself indicates the analogy by placing interpretation next to image; but in the allegory, judgment is not expressed. An index to the meaning is provided by the condition and circumstances of hearer and speaker, and by the individual figures of the image which, as it were, form a veil through and beyond which the mind sees the real object. The interpretations are given, for instance, in the most finished parable of the Old Testament (Isa. v. 1), in the parable of the vine (Ezek. xv.), and in the parable of the poor man bereft of his ewe lamb by the rich man (II Sam. xii.). On the other hand, in the eightieth Psalm, the reference of the vine to Israel (compare Isa. v.) is not definitely indicated, but only understood from the connection. In Jer. ii. 21 the same thought is expressed as in Isa. v. and Ps. lxxx., but here it is in metaphoric form. In the New Testament (John, x.), Jesus' comparison of himself to a vine is also a metaphor, though somewhat lengthy, and often quoted as an instance of mixed allegory. Still more extended are the metaphors in Ezek. xvi. and xxiii. One of the finest pieces of allegorical imagery is the representation of the king of Babylon as an eagle, and the house of David as a cedar (Ezek. xvii. 2-10); but since the interpretation follows it is not strictly an allegory, and metaphors similar to it in character are given in Ezekiel (xix. 1-9; xxx. 2-17). The comparison of Jerusalem to a caldron (Ezek. xxiv. 3-6) is a parable rather than an allegory, and the allegorical description of old age (Eccl. xii. 2-6), in its individual figures, is rather in the nature of an enigma.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nope. Wanna try again?

To open a spirtual “gateway for other human beings to transcend the limitations of the ego and become a clear channel for the Divine Will in our world.”

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes, yes...that's the "theory"; the Christian should rejoice during his misfortune...because the earthly life is only a "test". But in actuality...the Christian laments his earthly plight and cries about being persecuted. How often does the persecution of Christians make it as a topic of discussion on this board...and how often have you yourself blamed the Jews for the persecution and killing of Jesus? If these persecutions were "joyful" experiences...then, why all the finger-pointing and the blame?

The "context" for Issac's sacrifice, you ask...as if that would make any difference in your senseless argument. A God asks a man to kill his son...and you are looking for the "context" What was the context when God tormented Job? There was no context. Your God is a power-hungry dictator...and he treats his subjects as his paranoia dictates.

How would you know what Christians would actually lament? How would you know anything about real Christians? How do you know if you personally know even as few as one!?

I'll tell what the context was for Job if you tell me what the context of the testing was for Abraham.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Hey bunky, Does allegory and metaphor suddenly begin with PLATO?

More Religion you don't know. Judaism. Not your Christian filtered Judaism.

Jewish Encyclopedia
.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...-old-testament

ALLEGORY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

Allegory is a sustained description or narration, treating directly of one subject, but intended as an exposition of another, the latter having a more spiritual nature than the former, yet bearing some perceptible resemblance to it. It is a comparison between two different groups of ideas on the basis of something possessed in common. It has for its purpose the illustration or inculcation of a higher truth.

In the Old Testament, allegory with its kindred didactic forms is comprised under the Ḥokmah (Wisdom), literature under the two terms mashal and ḥidah (Ezek. xvii. 2; compare xxiv. 3; Dan. viii. 23). Mashal, now specifically maxim, or gnome, primarily denoted a comparison or simile. Under this older meaning, it was generally rendered in the Septuagint by παραβο;λή (parable). Originally, it was doubtless didactic in purpose, and derived a maxim for the conduct of life from the comparison of two apparently dissimilar objects. Later it was applied to any sententious or pointed saying, and even to obscure prophetic utterances, since these, too, aimed to instruct and usually employed comparison (Num. xxiii. 7, 18; xxiv. 3; compare Isa. xiv. 4; Micah, ii. 4; Hab. ii. 6). Ḥidah, properly a riddle, is used in a wider sense for figurative and significant speech (Judges, xiv. 14; I Kings, x. 1; compare Ps. xlix. 5; lxxviii. 2).

Parable and Allegory.

In the parable and allegory an actual basis of resemblance and actual points of contact exist between the primary subject and the analogous subject with which it is compared. Thus, each subject may serve as a figure for the other. In the parable the author himself indicates the analogy by placing interpretation next to image; but in the allegory, judgment is not expressed. An index to the meaning is provided by the condition and circumstances of hearer and speaker, and by the individual figures of the image which, as it were, form a veil through and beyond which the mind sees the real object. The interpretations are given, for instance, in the most finished parable of the Old Testament (Isa. v. 1), in the parable of the vine (Ezek. xv.), and in the parable of the poor man bereft of his ewe lamb by the rich man (II Sam. xii.). On the other hand, in the eightieth Psalm, the reference of the vine to Israel (compare Isa. v.) is not definitely indicated, but only understood from the connection. In Jer. ii. 21 the same thought is expressed as in Isa. v. and Ps. lxxx., but here it is in metaphoric form. In the New Testament (John, x.), Jesus' comparison of himself to a vine is also a metaphor, though somewhat lengthy, and often quoted as an instance of mixed allegory. Still more extended are the metaphors in Ezek. xvi. and xxiii. One of the finest pieces of allegorical imagery is the representation of the king of Babylon as an eagle, and the house of David as a cedar (Ezek. xvii. 2-10); but since the interpretation follows it is not strictly an allegory, and metaphors similar to it in character are given in Ezekiel (xix. 1-9; xxx. 2-17). The comparison of Jerusalem to a caldron (Ezek. xxiv. 3-6) is a parable rather than an allegory, and the allegorical description of old age (Eccl. xii. 2-6), in its individual figures, is rather in the nature of an enigma.

And your theory of allegory for virtually all scripture is precisely why you are not a son of Abraham, and why you will stand condemned when death claims you.

As I said, this is your convenient way of filtering out all the inconvenient truths of the bible.

There truly is no deception like self-deception.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And your theory of allegory for virtually all scripture is precisely why you are not a son of Abraham, and why you will stand condemned when death claims you.

As I said, this is your convenient way of filtering out all the inconvenient truths of the bible.

There truly is no deception like self-deception.

Why can't you realize your version of religion is not THE version? Or the only version?

At least take some time and study religion.

Hint: Science, engineering, history, philosophy, and math wouldn't hurt either.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

No I did not contradict myself and I speak from experience, not a book. Love by itself created everything and continues to create. It is as boundless as God and is God. You cannot define that which is boundless.

Your experience is all subjective and counts for nothing.

Again, Jesus defined God. What part of the text I quoted in John 14 didn't you get?

We all have God within us. But God is not limited to "scriptures" or being defined by them. Neither is Jesus who proved he was not bound by the "scriptures" in his day when he hung around those you criticize today. Those without the spirit of Christ as you say. Funny how Jesus never had a problem with that but you do. It's clear Jesus preaches the religion of Love and you do not.

A typical antichrist response. Jesus' life was most certainly bound by the scriptures. He held HIS scriptures in the highest esteem as I demonstrated several weeks ago with several passages.

And, yes, Jesus hung around with the Trumps of the world who you personally hate! (So much for God or his love being in you, you whitewashed tomb!) And I have no problems sharing the gospel with sinners, which is precisely what Jesus did. But remember: his family were only those who did the will of God (Mat 3:32-34)! Conversely, you are so smug and arrogant and self-righteous that you wouldn't be caught dead voting for any politician because you're so much better than than any low-life, stinking politician is.

You see the acts of Jesus and you define God by your interpretation of those acts. This is inaccurate because it is subjective.

I see the Love behind those acts that Jesus did,which make him undefinable and unlimited. The acts flow from what is within.

You truly are a Weapon of Mass Confusion, aren't you? If Jesus is undefinable, then not even love can define him!

You need to upgrade your self-righteousness; for Jesus said that if one's righteousness didn't exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, they would not enter the kingdom of heaven (Mat 5:29). (How weird is that? How can the scribes and Pharisees miss entering the kingdom when the kingdom entered them, according to you?)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Why can't you realize your version of religion is not THE version? Or the only version?

At least take some time and study religion.

Hint: Science, engineering, history, philosophy, and math wouldn't hurt either.

But your allegorized version of all religions is the iron-clad truth, right?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

To open a spirtual “gateway for other human beings to transcend the limitations of the ego and become a clear channel for the Divine Will in our world.”

Hang it up. Not even in the ballpark.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

First, where is your source for the statement that the vast majority of religions subscribe to the scales of justice system of salvation? Catholics believe in the necessity of faith, but also subscribe to the words of James that faith without deeds is dead. This is not a scales of justice system, but a response to the requirement .

James 2:24-26 New International Version (NIV)

24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

It absolutely points to the concept that you cannot simply achieve salvation by accepting Jesus as your savior, but you must also practice what God prescribes. Whether you want to argue it does not atone for sins, it is a requirement for entry into heaven. God is not indebted to you; rather you pay your debt to God with faith AND deeds.

This is why we question your form of Christianity. You seem to not understand the importance of deeds, but only the importance of faith. You show that on PA often.

Hmm...really? What good works did the thief on the cross have that warranted Jesus' assurance that that very day he would be with Jesus in paradise?

Has it ever occurred to you that James was defining what true faith is v. spurious faith?

Heb 11:6
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
NASB

And if faith and works is necessary to be saved, then why didn't the writer of Hebrews tell his readers that it's impossible to please God without faith and works/deeds?

And did Jesus get it wrong, too?

John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this? "
NASB

Permit me to explain and clear up your confusion Good works/deeds, faithfulness and loyalty to God will invariably flow from God's gift of faith to his people. This is what James is teaching. If no acts follow professing faith, follow one's conversion, then obviously the faith is spurious in nature. Such a person was not gifted with divine faith by God.

Man is justified by grace and faith alone!

Rom 3:28
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
NASB

And,

Rom 5:1-2
1 Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.
NASB

And,

Gal 2:16
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.
NASB

And,

Gal 3:24-25
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NASB

If the Holy, Righteous Law of Moses + faith cannot save person, then what kind of other good works/deeds would one need to add to faith in this life, in order to reach those pearly white gates?

The RCC has been steeped in spiritual darkness for many, many centuries. (The Vatican might well be the satan's headquarters of operations.) It would be a good idea for you to flee from Catholic interpretations of the bible.

So, the RCC is no essentially no different than the other religions that teach a merit-based means to salvation.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How would you know what Christians would actually lament? How would you know anything about real Christians? How do you know if you personally know even as few as one!?

I'll tell what the context was for Job if you tell me what the context of the testing was for Abraham.

I won't allow you to tip-toe your way around every argument. You said that the "real Christians" consider life's trials to be joyful experiences...but you've also repeatedly blamed the Jews for persecuting and killing Jesus. You can't have it both ways, friend. If Jesus's trials were indeed a "joyful experience"...then, what exactly are you blaming the Jews for? For letting Jesus experience a "joyful experience" that could only help in him "being perfected and more complete" as a human being?

You are talking out of both corners of your mouth...and I won't take part in such a discussion.