Yes, I was wondering if no-one else noticed this.Originally Posted by MaryLupin
The reason I didn't say any others was because that would be politics. I wonder how many years have to go by before politics turns into history.
Yes, I was wondering if no-one else noticed this.
The reason I didn't say any others was because that would be politics. I wonder how many years have to go by before politics turns into history.
Then by your definition god cannot be logically discussed. So what do you think you are doing if not logically discussing this? I mean, to discuss any text, including one that presents a religious interpretation of reality, can only be accomplished to the degree we have by a whole series of shared assumptions about our human realities. For example, I have to assume you have a body and know the feelings and basic experiences I have discussed. It is the foundation of the very possibility of discussion. Without it we have nothing. With it we have everything we need.
I don't dismiss any feeling. All feelings are valid simply because they exist. It is not the feeling that is the problem, it is what we think it means when we have the feeling that causes the problems.
Of course not. I never suggested it is. We have many subjective experiences that are vital to our sense of being alive. But they are subjective experiences. All we humans have in common is the objective world and events that we share. What I am saying is that only a system that we all share, that we all have access to can be the basis of a shared reality, and subjective experience, or any belief system or value system based on a principle unattainable and unknowable by human beings cannot be shared only interpreted though the minds of a few experts. This is the core of why Marx objected to religion. He saw it as the control of the means of "meaning" production by a few elite and lived out by the rest of us.
Yes but that is using reason in its colloquial sense quite different from the meaning of rationality. And interestingly, the cases you mention, which are indeed horrific, are all deemed reasonable because god told them it was the right thing to do.
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
I laughed out load at this Nikolai! Funny guy. Well, having taught in different places I would say your answer depends on the depth of the education system and how fiercely people try to deny what they are doing and have done in the recent past.
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
And this talk would be more appropriate in another forum.
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
Quite right to point this out.
Some of the stories are astounding in their brutality and horrific creativity,
as are these.
I think I know what you are trying to say here...that Jesus was from an ethnic/racial group that would have meant he had black hair, brown eyes and dark brown skin. What I want to point out is that being a Jew is a multi-colored designation. That is there are white blond Jews, black Jews, even Asian Jews. In short--Jew does not equal brown.
Well if you are talking about the mitochondrial "Eve" then our "Eve" was black.
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
I had a dream like this once. I woke from it suddenly, startled by fierce joy, saying over and over "I know nothing. I know nothing."
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
So what you want to do is judge Christianity by its text alone?
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
I'll come at this from another direction. What we can discuss about God is what He tells us about Himself in terms of His interaction with humanity throughout the episodes in the Bible. Where God begins to cease to be logical deals with the attributes that make Him God - omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotent: these terms defy human logic because there is not such superlative in human experience. But, the Bible gives us the other attributes of God - His love, kindness, mercy, justice, compassion, fairness, etc - those we can understand, as well as the commands He left us. What I'm cautioning against is the attempt to box God into the limited "box" of human reason and rationality. He won't fit - only certain parts will, but not the totality of God.
I didn't imply that you were "dismissing" any feelings - I'm challenging the idea that rationality establishes the legitimacy of something; love is often not rational; there are things about God that also appear to defy logic and reason - so many people toss out God because of this reason, but they're quite happy to hang onto and defend love.
God is accessible to all through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; through Christ's substitutionary death on the Cross, all people have been extended the gift of eternal life and forgiveness of their sins - all they need do is claim the gift. Yes, there are some religions that are highly stratified and put up "screens" between the believer and God where the clergy is the intermediary, but that is not what the NT teaches; as it says in Hebrews, all "may come boldly forward to the throne of God."
We interpret our facts from within the framework of our world-view. Personally, I see God as the basis of all reality, all rationality, all of what is real. Outside of God is nothing logical, rational or real. That suicide bombers can see themselves as serving God also points to the fact that anybody can see their view as "rational" and/or "reasonable." From where I'm standing, philosophies or world-views that attempt to understand/explain reality without God are irrational an unreasonable. Because you may/not agree with me, you'll shake your head and tell me I'm the one with the perception problem - but how would you really know? Don't you see the problem?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
No; I'm saying that you cannot judge it alone by the behavior of those who have misinterpreted the text or twisted it to their own means. You may judge Christians for their behavior, but Christianity itself is composed of more than simply the behavior of a reprehensible faction. If one believes in God, one must also believe in the devil - and as such, it is reasonable to assume that the devil does not sit idly by; one of his primary jobs (besides tempting us to sin) is to smear Christianity. There is no shortage of examples of his success throughout history, I am afraid.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Actually, I don't think so. It has been years since I took Hebrew (and I took only one course) so I looked up the word's etymology. Here is what this site has to say about the meaning and origins of the word "adam."
Adam
Biblical name of the first man, from Heb. adam "man," lit. "(the one formed from the) ground" (Heb. adamah "ground"); cf. L. homo "man," humanus "human," humus "earth, ground, soil." Adam's apple (1755) perhaps is an inexact translation of Heb. tappuah haadam, lit. "man's swelling," from ha-adam "the man" + tappuah "anything swollen." The allusion is to the fact that a piece of the forbidden fruit (commonly believed to be an apple) that Eve gave Adam is supposed to have stuck in his throat. To not know (someone) from Adam "not know him at all" is first recorded 1784.
Anyone out there who can answer this definitively?
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
And here is the problem...who gets to say which interpretation is correct? On what authority?
At what point does the size of the faction and their deeds outweigh what benefit is perceived?
Again the "correct" interpretation problem...there are a number of people who designate themselves Christian who do not believe in the reality of the devil.
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
This won't work because of the "correct" interpretation problem. Only some people say they have direct access to the "truth" about god and how to interpret the contradictory aspects of the bible. Others rely on the directives of those few select. This means the majority of us are dependent on finding someone who can "correctly" interpret the bible and the wishes of its god. This is a kind of moral elitism.
A point about the Protestant movement away from the truth-authority posited by and about the Catholic church: one very large reason for the Protestant Reformation was to get rid of the authority figure between a man and his god. The idea was that each man would read the bible and decide for himself. Except that wasn't the actual idea. The idea was more like "each man of substance and property will decide for his women-folk and all those who serve him." Consequently, we have myriad Christian sects all sure they have the correct interpretation of what it means to be a Christian. In my reading of the Great Awakening in the United States the bitterest fights were between various Christian religious sects. It has changed little.
What this goes to prove is unless we can find a shared ground of experience to which all of us have direct access then we are put in the position of seeking a religious specialist to interpret reality for us. Religion can never be a equally shared ground of experience regardless of the truth value of Jesus' death and the meaning that is sometimes attributed to it. In other words, even if it were true that a man named Jesus was tortured and murdered in a political battle between long-warring groups in the lands we now know as the Middle East, and even if this man was a son of god, even then this story could not act as the basis of a shared reality for all humans because we do not all have direct access to non corporeal "truth." We cannot share each other's subjective experiences directly. So we would still have to depend on the interpretation of others (including those men and women who wrote the stories that are now called The Bible.)
Finally, the only way to discuss a text like the bible or the upanishads or the koran is to base the discussion of a level of shared reality equally accessible to all. Religious belief (one that needs "correct" interpretation) cannot be that ground.
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
I don't know Hebrew at all, but the
Online Etymology Dictionary is same definition
and from Encyclopædia Britannica "Adam and Eve":
"in Bible, the first man and woman; two versions of their creation in Genesis; in one, God created all living creatures, including both male and female humans in His own image; in the other, God created Adam from the dust of the earth (hence his name, from the Aramaic word meaning ground) and Eve from Adam's rib; both were innocent until Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat fruit of the forbidden tree of knowledge and Adam joined her; thrust out of Eden by God; account later in Genesis."
This site shows a number of definitions and uses of the word Adam, but I don't see anything relating to a colour(?) just in reference to 'dust, soil, earth' etc.
Ultimately, I don't think anybody interprets the Bible with 100% accuracy - because we ultimately do not understand the mind of God. The "correct" interpretation of the Bible is the one that is consistent with two things:
1. The context provided by the rest of the Bible
2. The character of God; things that contradict the character of God (suicide bombers, "Christian" protestors chanting "God hates fags!") are incorrect interpretations.
What would you like yourself to be judged upon? Your lapses of character and judgment (I'm assuming you're human and have these like I do) or on the times where you were noble, honorable and admirable? The focus on the "Christian" miscreants is like a flashlight beam focused on the offenders; outside that shaft of focused light is a large contingent of humble, obedient Christians who serve the needy, contribute to their community and bring relief, aid and health services to devastated countries. But it's no fun to pay any attention to them - much easier to point at the Crusades et al.
Well, they are ignoring what the Bible says - so their interpretation does violence to the text because it violates criteria #1 above.
Teachers can help us understand the Bible, but only the Holy Spirit can bring true understanding; hence the reality that pastors/ministers/etc may give insight, but only the Holy Spirit provides clarity. The Bible was not written to be filtered through the experts to the masses; that this happens is incorrect. The truths are there to be read by all. The better a relationship one has with God, the more likely that the believer will have a correct vision of who God is and as a consequence a correct interpretation of scripture.
Correct - but that doesn't mean that we despair that the Bible and Christianity have no value because of this particular set of circumstances. The Bible says certain things about who God is and what He expects of us. Theological hair-splitting is unimportant: that one accept Jesus Christ as his/her savior is the bottom line; every thing else falls into place after that.
Fine - but scripture is the transcendant word of God; discussing it as any piece of literature will only be successful to a certain extent; after that point, it will cease to make any sense because examining it outside of the context of a relationship with God tends to lead to misinterpretations. It is, after all, the revelation of a Divine Being; rational analysis will only succeed so far.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
And still no ref. to colour in Jewish Encyclopedia.com:I don't know Hebrew at all, but the
Online Etymology Dictionary is same definition
and from Encyclopædia Britannica "Adam and Eve":
"in Bible, the first man and woman; two versions of their creation in Genesis; in one, God created all living creatures, including both male and female humans in His own image; in the other, God created Adam from the dust of the earth (hence his name, from the Aramaic word meaning ground) and Eve from Adam's rib; both were innocent until Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat fruit of the forbidden tree of knowledge and Adam joined her; thrust out of Eden by God; account later in Genesis."
This site shows a number of definitions and uses of the word Adam, but I don't see anything relating to a colour(?) just in reference to 'dust, soil, earth' etc.
"Etymology of 'Adam.'"
The etymology of the word "Adam" is of importance. The writer of Gen. ii. 7 gives his own explanation when he says: "God formed man of dust of the ground." That is to say, the man was called "Man" or "Adam" because he was formed from the ground (adamah). ...." etc.
Wikipedia has an uncited mention no surprise there: "Adam's name is a reference to red earth or red clay, but it also can be interpreted as 'the one who blushes' or 'turns rosy'. etc."
Posting Permissions
