Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If it were from the bible, you wouldn't be surprised either. However, just to give you another opportunity to criticize, my idea finds its ground in biblical theology. So...swing away.

So it comes down to something you made up and then you use the Bible to prove the Bible. Circular reasoning!

Do you understand what circular reasoning is?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So it comes down to something you made up and then you use the Bible to prove the Bible. Circular reasoning!

Do you understand what circular reasoning is?

You obviously do not understand what I said. I didn't make something up and then use the bible. The theology of the bible gave me the idea. And it can't be circular reasoning because Special Revelation and Natural Revelation are two different kinds of revelation. There's no law of logic that says that we can't have two different media in agreement with one another.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

it can't be circular reasoning because Special Revelation and Natural Revelation are two different kinds of revelation. There's no law of logic that says that we can't have two different media in agreement with one another.

And there's no law of logic that precludes both being wrong. And in this case there is only one media, viz., the Bible.

No one can prove that Biblical revelation, special, natural or otherwise, is a source of truth. If it could be done, someone would have done it by now. But no one has.

Once upon a time there was a talking snake. Once upon a time there was a talking donkey. Once upon a time a horse gave birth to a rabbit. Etc. Etc. Etc. How can anyone read this stuff and not realize they are reading a fairy tale?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And there's no law of logic that precludes both being wrong. And in this case there is only one media, viz., the Bible.

No one can prove that Biblical revelation, special, natural or otherwise, is a source of truth. If it could be done, someone would have done it by now. But no one has.

Once upon a time there was a talking snake. Once upon a time there was a talking donkey. Once upon a time a horse gave birth to a rabbit. Etc. Etc. Etc. How can anyone read this stuff and not realize they are reading a fairy tale?

No there isn't just one media. Look up the definition of "media". Books and Nature are very capable of communicating facts to us. These are two forms of communication.

Special Revelation (bible) says "all men are liars".

Natural Revelation (Nature or Reality as we all know it) tells (teaches) us that all men unknown to us are presumed to be untrustworthy, until they prove otherwise. This is a universal truth, therefore, this is a Law (or Principle) which I call the Law of Distrust.

Natural Revelation, therefore, affirms Special Revelation.

Have a nice night.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No there isn't just one media. Look up the definition of "media". Books and Nature are very capable of communicating facts to us. These are two forms of communication.

Special Revelation (bible) says "all men are liars".

Natural Revelation (Nature or Reality as we all know it) tells (teaches) us that all men unknown to us are presumed to be untrustworthy, until they prove otherwise. This is a universal truth, therefore, this is a Law (or Principle) which I call the Law of Distrust.

Natural Revelation, therefore, affirms Special Revelation.

So you believe that there was once a talking snake? There was once a talking donkey? A horse gave birth to a rabbit?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

And there's no law of logic that precludes both being wrong. And in this case there is only one media, viz., the Bible.

No one can prove that Biblical revelation, special, natural or otherwise, is a source of truth. If it could be done, someone would have done it by now. But no one has.

Once upon a time there was a talking snake. Once upon a time there was a talking donkey. Once upon a time a horse gave birth to a rabbit. Etc. Etc. Etc. How can anyone read this stuff and not realize they are reading a fairy tale?

"Because the human authors needed to use the language and thinking of their time, we need to study the conditions and use of language in the context of their time and understand what they intended to communicate"... from a national framework document for instructing Catholic high school students.

The biblical author is seen as a secondary, instrumental author making his own contribution to the text, such as a paintbrush conveys the painter's intention while leaving it's mark. Biblical-author-as-stenographer came later and is much more marginal.

With that in mind, the author of Genesis, e.g., is not offering a scientific cosmology or logical discourse incompatible with other cultures. He couldn't have been capable of such. He is returning an intuitively different conception of God and creation, a polemic mythopoetic description as against the other mythopoetic descriptions of creation, which even high schoolers may be capable of distinguishing from the "Brothers Grimm".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"Because the human authors needed to use the language and thinking of their time, we need to study the conditions and use of language in the context of their time and understand what they intended to communicate"... from a national framework document for instructing Catholic high school students.

The biblical author is seen as a secondary, instrumental author making his own contribution to the text, such as a paintbrush conveys the painter's intention while leaving it's mark. Biblical-author-as-stenographer came later and is much more marginal.

With that in mind, the author of Genesis, e.g., is not offering a scientific cosmology or logical discourse incompatible with other cultures. He couldn't have been capable of such. He is returning an intuitively different conception of God and creation, a polemic mythopoetic description as against the other mythopoetic descriptions of creation, which even high schoolers may be capable of distinguishing from the "Brothers Grimm".

So you are saying that the Bible is not to be taken literally? Right?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

So you are saying that the Bible is not to be taken literally? Right?

"Literally" as in, "What is the author attempting to assert?" All interpretations are subordinate to the literal. Flowing from the literal would be the allegorical/typological; the moral ; and the anagogical (the eternal significance of the words).

"Literalistically", as in every word always carries univocal meaning? No.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So you believe that there was once a talking snake? There was once a talking donkey? A horse gave birth to a rabbit?

What does any of this have to do with the Law of Distrust affirming scripture?

But here is what I do believe: With stupid, non sequitur questions like these, you are giving affirmation to another scripture:

Jer 10:14a
14 Every man is stupid, devoid of knowledge...
NASB

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"Literally" as in, "What is the author attempting to assert?" All interpretations are subordinate to the literal. Flowing from the literal would be the allegorical/typological; the moral ; and the anagogical (the eternal significance of the words).

"Literalistically", as in every word always carries univocal meaning? No.

All interpretations may be subordinate simply because we first use words to communicate, but I think not all of equal value. Great literature, poetry go beyond words.

Uniivocal is the wrong adjective if you mean :

"having only one possible meaning; unambiguous"

The history of many religions is filled with different interpretations.The Protestant Reformation is a major divergence from Catholicism.

Let alone all these threads

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

Great literature, poetry go beyond words.

Great literature and poetry are words, and just words. Nothing more and nothing less.
Even Kilmer recognized that when he wrote:

Trees
BY JOYCE KILMER
I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Great literature and poetry are words, and just words. Nothing more and nothing less.
Even Kilmer recognized that when he wrote:

Trees
BY JOYCE KILMER
I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.

I guess a Shakespeare play is equal to it's classic comic knockoff then?

Kilmer's poem is spot on. Replace tree with say "turd" and it loses something.

Great literature and poetry paint an image or a picture that are greater and may be worth more than the individual words that are used. Combining content with style and craft.

Huts and cottages are made of material. So are skyscrapers and Gothic Cathedrals. Personally I prefer Mozart, Bach and Miles Davis to Rap. All art, science and most human endeavour can be shallow or deep. Why be good at anything?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

I guess a Shakespeare play is equal to it's classic comic knockoff then?

Kilmer's poem is spot on. Replace tree with say "turd" and it loses something.

Great literature and poetry paint an image or a picture that are greater and may be worth more than the individual words that are used. Combining content with style and craft.

Words can only be words.
The reader's mind paints the picture and images that the writer may or may not have intended.
When literature and poems are considered "great" they are so because of our minds.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

All interpretations may be subordinate simply because we first use words to communicate, but I think not all of equal value. Great literature, poetry go beyond words.

Uniivocal is the wrong adjective if you mean :
The history of many religions is filled with different interpretations.The Protestant Reformation is a major divergence from Catholicism.

Let alone all these threads

"All interpretations..." Of course. From the Christian perspective as well, words are God's condescending to man, and for whom that communication hopefully progresses from the arranged symbols on a page/monitor through which we derive meaning, to the meditative, to the contemplative, to infused contemplation, to union...But for the context of John 6, does the author intend to convey that Jesus is referring to actual "blood" in v. 53, since consuming blood is forbidden in Leviticus 17? That necessary determination of the "literal sense"--if the author intended a metaphor, that is still the "literal sense"--makes the successive senses either redundant (if allegorical, since he already established himself as "bread" in v. 41); or something I need to actively engage in (reception of Eucharist, if literal sense was intended).

"Univocal..." I'm suggesting that the mountains did not "skip like rams", nor the "hills like lambs", and the sea did not "look (upon the presence of YHWH, v.7) and flee", when Israel left bondage in Egypt (Ps 114:3). That is a literalist vs. literal (praise of YHWH) interpretation.

The Protestant Reformation is a major divergence from Catholicism"...and the Fourth Way, esoteric Christianity, Divine Consciousness, awakeness. Am I to offer any opinion but my own?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What does any of this have to do with the Law of Distrust affirming scripture?

Does the "Law of Distrust" also affirm that snakes and donkeys can talk and that horses can give birth to rabbits?