Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The real issue is accepting this blather literalisticaly.

See I learned a new Hermeneutics term for the ordinary English word, literally:

Well...that was Doc's "new Hermeneutics" term. The term Protestants use is the Historical-Grammatical Method, the rules of which allow for guided, controlled discretion in how a given passage should be interpreted. (THE PRIMARY RULE BEING CONTEXT.) It's not a rigid literalism of which you have often falsely accused me of using.

Also, the Historical-Grammatical Method allows for multiple interpretations, but the primary framework for any additional, deeper, spiritual interpretation is almost always the literal. The Exodus account is an excellent example of this. God did actually send Moses to free the ancient Jews of their slavery under Pharaoh. There was an actual physical deliverance. But this redemption from physical slavery, as important as it is to proper understanding of the entire scope of the account, is superficial compared to its deeper spiritual significance in terms of what the physical redemption ultimately typified. I provided a great deal of spiritual insight several years ago with all the Typology involved with the story.

[hcap]

We have been thui' Exodus before. I am glad you at least spoke of a "any additional, deeper, spiritual interpretation"

The problem I have with your literal framework is when you use it in claiming the universe is under 10,000 years old.

Or Noah really built an ark

Or original sin is inherited and all of humanity is evil

Or Evolution is wrong and is "scientism", whatever that means.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

We have been thui' Exodus before. I am glad you at least spoke of a "any additional, deeper, spiritual interpretation"

The problem I have with your literal framework is when you use it in claiming the universe is under 10,000 years old.

Or Noah really built an ark

Or original sin is inherited and all of humanity is evil

Or Evolution is wrong and is "scientism", whatever that means.

You must have hibernated during my Exodus series because I even explained and biblically justified Typology.

Of course, you have a problem with the items you cite. None of them fit into your worldview in a natural, sensible-sense interpretation. This is why you're such a a huge fan of allegory. With the allegorical approach, you can darn near make any biblical passage fit into your worldview. It's a hermeneutic that is as dishonest as it is convenient.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You must have hibernated during my Exodus series because I even explained and biblically justified Typology.

I expanded on your Christian Typology. How many times have I mentioned the same Jesus/Moses theme appears in many other non Abrahamic religions. Transformation and Metanoia are not exclusive.

What about the other details I brought up you are diverting from again. For instance, your 10,000 year old universe?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I expanded on your Christian Typology. How many times have I mentioned the same Jesus/Moses theme appears in many other non Abrahamic religions. Transformation and Metanoia are not exclusive.

What about the other details I brought up you are diverting from again. For instance, your 10,000 year old universe?

The other religions ALLEGORIZE. Typology is NOT allegory. None of the other religions teach that Moses is a type of Christ, or that Pharoah is a type of Devil or that the Passover Ritual is a type of Cross of Christ, etc., etc., etc. I discussed quite a few of the Exodus types and antitypes several years ago. And there is a reason why the other religions don't: Since the bible is Christocentric, Christ or his work are the antitypes to numerous OT types.

As I told Actor, I don't do rabbit trails. We were discussing the Serpent in the Genesis Creation account. We will never agree on the age of the earth, so no sense in going there.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

We were discussing the Serpent in the Genesis Creation account.

No, you are pontificating about the serpent. Your strategy has always been to ignore the tough questions. That is what you a doing now.

Numbers 22

28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, "What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"

29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

30 And the ass said unto Balaam, "Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee?"

[Actor]

YouTube

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

John's "intended...reality" was a God-sanctioned New Covenant religious ritual (or sacrament) designed to be a perpetual memorial until Christ returns. "As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me."

Agreed. And I don't believe his disciples responded, "This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?", or "took offense", or "no longer went about with him" over a metaphoric re-presentation, or perceived analogous metaphor such as Jesus as "Door".

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

I said:


Dnlgfnk, let me ask a more specific question. You said Ok, but other than competing myths, how would you interpret the tree of the knowledge of good and evil versus the tree of life?

The Tree of Life would represent the Creator's offering to man to participate freely in the Divine life of the Creator, spiritually immortal. Thus a life consisting in original justice, right relationship with the Creator and others, harmoniously with creation--the freedom and knowledge to do the right thing, not any thing. The soul would control the bodily appetites, and man would be aware of and content in his creaturely dependence on the Creator for the sustenance of that continued existence of intimacy with the Divine.

The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil would represent man's temptation to self-mastery apart from the Creator, to create his own reality through the experience of good and evil (in original justice, man could know something as incompatible with right relationship without having to experience it). Refusing to accept his limits as creature, and abandoning his trust in the original relationship with the Creator, man would understand that relationship as a burden to be freed from, and an introduction to seeing all other relationships similarly--as rivals and threats to self-mastery. All from a now mistaken conception of freedom as essential self-dependence.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, you are pontificating about the serpent. Your strategy has always been to ignore the tough questions. That is what you a doing now.

And now you want to get stuck on an ass, heh? Don't forget to put on your helmet.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

We were discussing the Serpent in the Genesis Creation account.

There are many sub topics in Genesis Creation myth.

You brought up sarpents walked upright before they were cursed as a fact and posted evidence for vestigial limbs in snakes. However you anthropomorphized this evidence into a snake acting as a spokesman for evil literally in the English sense, or literalisticaly in hermeneutics sense. I showed you this only deserves partial credit for vestigial limbs, a far cry for evidence your convoluted Adam and Eve biblical account.

I asked about another sticking point in your literalisticaly bonkers interpretation of Genesis. You have told us based ion your understanding of Genesis and other bible tales, the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

Well? Are you going to respond or deflect further?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

The Tree of Life would represent the Creator's offering to man to participate freely in the Divine life of the Creator, spiritually immortal. Thus a life consisting in original justice, right relationship with the Creator and others, harmoniously with creation--the freedom and knowledge to do the right thing, not any thing. The soul would control the bodily appetites, and man would be aware of and content in his creaturely dependence on the Creator for the sustenance of that continued existence of intimacy with the Divine.

The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil would represent man's temptation to self-mastery apart from the Creator, to create his own reality through the experience of good and evil (in original justice, man could know something as incompatible with right relationship without having to experience it). Refusing to accept his limits as creature, and abandoning his trust in the original relationship with the Creator, man would understand that relationship as a burden to be freed from, and an introduction to seeing all other relationships similarly--as rivals and threats to self-mastery. All from a now mistaken conception of freedom as essential self-dependence.

So Adam and Eve failed the test and were banished for screwing up? On the other hand god frowned on "self-mastery apart from the Creator".

Maybe god should have included some "self-mastery" when he made the whole kit and caboodle of his "children" and the universe. Galaxies, space, time, and matter and everything, but no ability to determine god's preferred direction his children should take towards him?

Seems to me all of the ensuing original sin, destruction of the world by a flood and spiritual dead ends experienced by mankind, might have been minimized with some self-discipline and knowledge and ability needed to discriminate the correct way from the wrong way.

Self mastery is not the problem. On the contrary it is mainly the ego driven substitution of an overly active analyzing mind for experience life directly. Knowledge is useful, but:

I remember as a kid, playing softball. Got pretty good. But there were a few friends that spent hours and days studying professional baseball players, games and a ton load of statistics. They would argue theoretically and knew details beyond any of us who played and developed the life skills of playing.

Of course they were awful as athletes, and were never chosen on anyone's' team when the kids actually played. They were so full of the "weight" of facts they could not run, or field, or hit or throw.

Or live.

Their self-mastery in thinking at the wrong time interfered with the proper self-mastery of playing.
...............................................

Zen Buddhism addresses this collection of substituting pre-conceptions for direct understanding :

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a University professor, who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”

“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

There are many sub topics in Genesis Creation myth.

You brought up sarpents walked upright before they were cursed as a fact and posted evidence for vestigial limbs in snakes. However you anthropomorphized this evidence into a snake acting as a spokesman for evil literally in the English sense, or literalisticaly in hermeneutics sense. I showed you this only deserves partial credit for vestigial limbs, a far cry for evidence your convoluted Adam and Eve biblical account.

I asked about another sticking point in your literalisticaly bonkers interpretation of Genesis. You have told us based ion your understanding of Genesis and other bible tales, the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

Well? Are you going to respond or deflect further?

I didn't anthropomorphize anything. First of all, you're assuming speech is limited to only humans. Yet, scripture teaches otherwise. God and angles can speak. The devil used the Serpent as his vessel or medium through which to speak. This makes sense since human beings' senses are not equipped to hear or see the spiritual realm. Thus, Satan used a physical animal through which to speak.

And I have discussed the age of the earth with you previously. Been there, done that -- so get over it, Humpty.

[boxcar]

I have a different take on the two trees in the Garden that were given specific mention. I think the commentators share some useful spiritual insight.

The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/b...-god-and-evil/

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

Their self-mastery in thinking at the wrong time interfered with the proper self-mastery of playing.
...............................................

As a "poor" golfer, I can relate to that.
In that game, overthinking can lead to 'paralysis by analysis.'