The Emerging World Religion

[sojourner]

This one at John 17:14-16. How could you explain the different meaning of the “world” uttered by Jesus in time??

John 17:14-16
14. "I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. ( the world hated His word )
15. "I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
16. "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Thanks

Here "the world" is unbelievers.

 

[sojourner]

It is not. This is why I would like to discuss it with you and lay down the Scriptures if those are my words and understanding.

Thanks

Yes. It is. Everyone understands the texts through their own theological lens, unless they're specifically taught to set that lens aside.

 

[Windwalker]

That's right. This is the unitive heart. It doesn't matter if you're Jew or Greek, Christian or Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim. All drink that one Spirit.by Windwalker

Windwalker, you are talking the same thing. How come that we are one in Spirit that may realize in unitive heart? Why is it that it has nothing to do with different beliefs?

Because one does not drink of the Spirit with their doctrines and beliefs. One drinks of Spirit with their hearts and their souls.

First, you agree that 1 Cor.12:12-13 pertain to Jew or Greek, you added Hindu and Muslims to drink that one Spirit. How could I not react to your statements?

"Gentiles" are non-Jews. I added Hindu and Muslim for your benefit as you seem to imagine "Gentiles" to be some separate group from these other religions.

This is a statement of the past event as Jews and Gentiles are partakers of the grace of God. Look at the word “baptism” as connected with one Spirit or the Holy Spirit.

Past event? That's interesting. So you imagine that way back then, a new group was formed out of Greeks and Jews called Christian, and then that Christian group was now to make themselves the "true followers" and exclude all others that were not them? That strikes at the very heart of what the message of "There is neither Greek nor Jew but all are One" is getting at. According to you, now it's supposed to Christian versus Non-Christian. This is the very thing Christ was against. It's the "Us versus Them" thing that "all are made to drink of the same Spirit" was supposed to destroy.

How could you call Jesus with the other name that was given by the Father as prophesied in Isaiah? Why?

Because your understanding of "name" as a literal personal name is tragically lame.

Of course, Krishna is different with Jesus Christ. Krishna is not Jesus.

My point was not to say Jesus and Krishna are the same person. But what they represent through faith and spiritually are very, very similar. They are both manifestations of the divine in form. When someone looks to Krishna, and when some looks to Christ, they are doing the same thing, coming from the same place inside their hearts. It is the same Love they are reaching to. It is the same thing, beyond the forms they appear to us as in our cultural symbols.

This is contrast with the command of Christ.

No it's not. He said to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. He did not say believe in religion and be saved.

I don’t think the name Krishna is the name above every name.

I don't think the word "Jesus" is what is meant. This is a very literal, and bad interpretation on your part. It does not matter what the symbol looks like, how it appears, or what it is called. It is what is pointed to by all the symbols, whatever those are, that matters. This is something you are deeply confused about.

Jesus Christ will not deny people who will come to follow Him. Krishna is a Hindu deity while Jesus is the Lord and Saviour sent by God, the Father. Therefore, their names are totally differ from each other. Practically and logically, if you call Krishna, it is not Jesus Christ who will come to you.

Again, you are confused about these things. You mistake fingers pointing at the Moon as the Moon itself.

Jesus’ call to follow Him is not just posing as a follower of Christ by not forsaking Hinduism in their midst. I don’t see any account in the Bible about Jesus’ followers who still embraced and practicing other beliefs.

Great googly moogly! Wow. Have you not read the New Testament? Have you never read the writings of Paul, and how to him it wasn't about eating meat, or observing this day or that, meaning religious expressions? He taught very clearly that what mattered was the heart, not the religious rites and doctrines and rituals. In other words, Christ transcends religions!

What you are doing, what you are preaching, is that you should obey the law, be a "Judaizer" in so many words, doing exactly what Paul fought against. And you know what he said about those that said the followers of Christ should adopt the religious practices of the Jews and abstain from this meat or observe this day or that day (joining a religion in other words)? Here's what he said, "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" It was the "Judaizers" who were confusing Christians telling them they needed to now join the Jewish religion and follow its practices. This is all legalism, and strikes at the heart of the Christian message.

The path of God in Christ is a total surrendering of our lives to Him—as His will must be done.

Amen. Are you willing to surrender your religion too?

 

[Yoshua]

But it's nature is not stability. It's nature is dynamic, not static. If there is a "law" of God, it is change. Relatively stable structures may emerge out of this dynamic processes, but they are not immutable and eternal. There is no mathematical "law" that transcends the system of this universe that was superimposed upon it from outside of it. The very use of the term "law of nature" suggests something eternal, but it is really more at best a figure of speech, not a fact.

God is not a static object that can be measured and defined and put into stable mathematical equations. This is a problem of understanding on your part, as well as that of quite many other traditional theists. It's a misunderstanding of the nature of reality itself, and by extension, God.

Hi Windwalker,

Anything that transpired in this world proves that He is a stable God.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Is your understanding of it absolute? No? Than why argue for it being absolute, if you're not trying to argue your points of view are as well? Please answer this.

Windwalker,

Man’s understanding is not absolute. This is the prime reason why man needs to seek God, and diligently study His word. The Holy Spirit was given to lead us into truth. Why argue? Just need to share my points of view in the rf.

Actually, your question is also exactly the same as the opposite for being non-absolute (for you).

No it is not a logical understanding whatsoever because it is not what God says, it's what you interpret God says. You should not state it, "It's not my word, it's God's word". You should accurately, and logically state, "I believe this is what the Bible means". That's radically different than denying it's your point of view but is a fact instead. That's what you are doing, and that is what I consider self-blindness and subtle arrogance. Can you blame others for seeing this in what you are in fact doing?

In the first place, how will you know that it is truly God’s word as accurate and logical in understanding? How?
You may use a Scripture as an example to clarify.

Sure, and I agree with the statements. However, how you understand what those mean and what I understand what those mean are two different things. I agree with Jesus. You agree with Jesus. You and I do not agree with each other! Why??? Could it be that your interpretation of what Jesus says is different than what I interpret? If so, then can't I say instead of you, "It's not my words, but Jesus'"? I read the same words, and in both cases, its Jesus' words, not our own.

Why not make it closer? We agreed with the statements. How come this agreed statements will fall to your question “Could it be that your interpretation of what Jesus says is different than what I interpret?”

What particular word or statements that makes you different (in understanding) from John 14:23 text?

I don't believe you can adequately address this very fact if you deny that it's your interpretation of what Jesus said, rather than trying to dodge responsibility and say it's not your ideas but what the other person said. Yes, Jesus said these words. But you and I disagree on what he meant. Tell me why, if you can.

We both know that it is Jesus’ statements, no doubt about it. But in literal reading, we agreed. What particularly is the thing that you think Jesus meant when He said this?

Yes! You need to interpret them. You already are every time you quote them to prove your own point of view. Again, you quote the exact same verses I do, but my understanding of them is light years away from yours. Why? Explain why.

I think I need to ask you what you mean to say "your understanding is light years away," what is that?

Ah, but systems of interpretation are prone to biases as well! You are using different systems than I am, and that results in different results! No system of interpretation is going to give you an absolute understanding either. So you're still stuck with relative truth!

It can’t be stuck in relative truths unless that person treated God’s words as authority and absolute truth. That’s the key.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

gain, I can cite Christ's words as well to support my point of view, and claim they are in fact his words which they are. But that is irrelevant as it is my understanding of his words that really matters. Same with you. It is not Christ's words I dispute. I dispute your understandiing of them, as well as the basis of interpretation you use to understand them. You own mind limits what can be understood. And the system of interpretation you use also limits what can be understood.

Some systems are better than others, which I believe mine is, but never does it make them "Authoritative" in the Absolute sense. This is where you are mistaken and deluded in your thinking about these things.

It is a matter of understanding them by biblical interpretation on how Jesus’ teachings may apply in our lives. There is no such thing as limiting our minds on what can be understood in interpretation because it could be also mean limiting ourselves to dwell in God’s word from diligently studying it.

I have and I do. And your understanding is what what I don't agree with. The words on its pages mean something different to me when I read them, because I am coming to them from a different place than you are, on very many levels.

Ok. Then, I respect you on that.

All you are doing is relying on external sources, as opposed to opening yourself to internal sources in addition to that. That's fine if that's where you are at. But you are mistaking that turning to that external source is going to give you Absolute Truth. It will not. Ever.

Windwalker, this is why “faith” comes by reading the word of God. Others may look at it as not leading to the Absolute Truth, but for those who have faith in God’s word and kept His promises, it is a forever truth with Him in eternity.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I didn't say I couldn't explain it. I said that they're all wrong. The basis is a solid theological line of thinking, which you lack. That lack means your opinions have no basis. Scripture doesn't provide its own "basis" without some sort of theological structure to aid in interpretations, since the bible is a multivalent text.

Hi Sojourner,

Of course, you may say that. That is how a person look at the Scripture as God’s word or not, a myth or truth, a book or inspired book etc..

Yes, it does. Scriptures served as a basis for those who have faith and trust in Him.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

Of course, you may say that. That is how a person look at the Scripture as God’s word or not, a myth or truth, a book or inspired book etc..

Yes, it does. Scriptures served as a basis for those who have faith and trust in Him.

Thanks

Myth and truth are, in this case, the same thing.

Interpretation of of scripture is a basis, and that interpretation is based on some theological structure.

 

[InChrist]

Meh... I'm no more impressed by any 'emerging world religion' than I am by antiquated religions. Maybe it's time for something completely different.

Maybe, but according to the scriptures when it comes to human behavior, spiritual or otherwise, there is nothing new under the sun. I think the only new and good thing will be when Jesus Christ Himself returns to replace religion with His personal reign on the earth.

 

[Windwalker]

Anything that transpired in this world proves that He is a stable God.

Howso? Please note my contrasting points of view about God was between dynamic and static. It was not between dynamic and stable. There is a difference. Stable only makes sense in the context of something that is in a state of instability. Stability is not precluded in dynamic systems. It creates them in fact. But static on the other hand suggests fixed and unchanging, not in motion.

The view of our universe historically has been thought of as a static system with fixed "laws", unchanging. By extension God was imagined in light of this premise. But our views of the universe has been radically changed recognizing it as evolving out of dynamic systems which create relatively stable structures. But this stability is not at all static, nor inherently fixed and eternal in nature. So by extension, the nature of the Divine itself likewise is seen and understood as inherently dynamic, creating, bringing into being life and truth out of disorder, moment to moment, ceaselessly creating. These are very different underlying perceptions upon which we form our thoughts and ideas about God itself; a God who created a fixed system in the past, or a God who is creating order out of disorder in each and every moment in the present.

The view of a static God creates binary systems, good and evil in opposition which when they fall out of balance create tensions needing to be brought back into equilibrium, made right again, where the lion shall lay with the lamb and paradise restored, and Satan or instability shall be put into chains again. The view of a dynamic God creates what can be seen as ternary systems which take the tension of opposites, thesis and antithesis, and create a new order from them in a synthesis.

This system is inherently creative in nature, advancing growth and potentials through novelty. So Truth itself unfolds into new forms, relative truths expressive of the Ground potentials. This is in contrast with the static, binary point of view which tension is resolved by falling back into eternal laws, getting back to the Source's original creation imagined now in the future as "Heaven". The problem with the latter is that it assumes that this perfection, this equilibrium was once realized in creation in the past. This is mythological. There is nothing we can point back to where we once lived in perfection, other than our stories in creation myths, imaginations of a paradise lost.

In all honesty, I believe this is why people fight to preserve the view of Adam and Eve as factual historical events, because it inherently supports this binary system of a fixed and static Truth in the past we have to return to, by getting rid of instabilities that create tensions in our lives by getting back to what we "lost" in the past. It stands in contrast with the view that Truth is realized by evolving relative truths, that Truth is not a static thing we need to find, but rather it is something we unfold into higher and higher truths, through evolution, through growth, through creativity. The former view creates a return to paradise lost model of truth and reality, the latter is a growth to goodness model of being and becoming.

I realize 99% of this will be lost in this discussion, but I was typing these thoughts more for myself and a few reading them that might see some insights in them for themselves worth pondering. I may start a different topic on these sometime as my thoughts are still chewing on these.

 

[Yoshua]

Because one does not drink of the Spirit with their doctrines and beliefs. One drinks of Spirit with their hearts and their souls.

Hi Windwalker,

In the first place, the hearts of men is not a clean and perfect in the eyes of God.

Isaiah 64:6
6. For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Jer. 17:9
9. "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

1 Cor. 12:12-13
12. For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

The Spirit that was mentioned here is the Holy Spirit. That Holy Spirit was given by God through Jesus Christ.

Acts 5:32
32. "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."

There is baptism, therefore there is a belief (not religion) and obedience. That would mean all were baptized and received the Spirit already, thus, anyone may receive that Spirit but not all of them would like to. The choice of man to be a follower is done through baptism of Spirit.

"Gentiles" are non-Jews. I added Hindu and Muslim for your benefit as you seem to imagine "Gentiles" to be some separate group from these other religions.

I know that Gentiles are non-Jews. I do not set them apart from being non-Jews but still, the drinking of that one Spirit from God is a complete turn around to God through Jesus Christ.

Past event? That's interesting. So you imagine that way back then, a new group was formed out of Greeks and Jews called Christian, and then that Christian group was now to make themselves the "true followers" and exclude all others that were not them? That strikes at the very heart of what the message of "There is neither Greek nor Jew but all are One" is getting at. According to you, now it's supposed to Christian versus Non-Christian. This is the very thing Christ was against. It's the "Us versus Them" thing that "all are made to drink of the same Spirit" was supposed to destroy.

I stated the term “past event” as this has been truly happened during their time. The term “baptized” and “made to drink” are aorist passive indicatives. Hence, this does not mean that baptism do not exist anymore nor effective for His followers at this time.

Based on the context, Jews and Gentiles are not already one in Spirit nor they are born already in one Spirit. There is no versus concept between believers and unbelievers. There is a Scripture in 2 Corinthians that shows the distinction between believers and unbelievers.

2 Cor.6:14-15
14. Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
15. And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

Because your understanding of "name" as a literal personal name is tragically lame.

Can you call Jesus Christ in the name of “Buddha”? Is this lame or not? Will you allow yourself to be called in any name as people would like you to be called?

My point was not to say Jesus and Krishna are the same person. But what they represent through faith and spiritually are very, very similar. They are both manifestations of the divine in form. When someone looks to Krishna, and when some looks to Christ, they are doing the same thing, coming from the same place inside their hearts. It is the same Love they are reaching to. It is the same thing, beyond the forms they appear to us as in our cultural symbols.

So, they're just in some sort similar in faith as you’ve said but not the same person. If they are not the same person, why need to tagged Jesus is Krishna.?

People may look to Krishna, and other look to Christ. Yes, they can do the same thing counted as the same effort in looking to their deities plus the same love that they’re exerted. People may do those things, but God cannot become a Hindu god nor any other gods for He said that there is no other god/God beside Him according to the Bible. Therefore, we may now see that man’s act and God’s word should be reconciled from each other.

No it's not. He said to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. He did not say believe in religion and be saved.

Of course, Krishna is different with Jesus Christ. Krishna is not Jesus. This is contrast with the command of Christ. by yoshua

Acts 16:31
31. So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.''


The word “believe” is to entrust.

Rom. 10:9
9. that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Who do you think the God that Jesus particularly referring to in Luke 10:27?

27. So he answered and said, " `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and `your neighbor as yourself.' ''

I don't think the word "Jesus" is what is meant. This is a very literal, and bad interpretation on your part. It does not matter what the symbol looks like, how it appears, or what it is called. It is what is pointed to by all the symbols, whatever those are, that matters. This is something you are deeply confused about.

Confused? I can see transparently who is Krishna and Jesus. Do you want to discuss their differences since their birth?

Again, you are confused about these things. You mistake fingers pointing at the Moon as the Moon itself.

There is no Moon here if there is a truth.

reat googly moogly! Wow. Have you not read the New Testament? Have you never read the writings of Paul, and how to him it wasn't about eating meat, or observing this day or that, meaning religious expressions? He taught very clearly that what mattered was the heart, not the religious rites and doctrines and rituals. In other words, Christ transcends religions!

Christ transcends spiritual relationship with Him, not religion.

What you are doing, what you are preaching, is that you should obey the law, be a "Judaizer" in so many words, doing exactly what Paul fought against. And you know what he said about those that said the followers of Christ should adopt the religious practices of the Jews and abstain from this meat or observe this day or that day (joining a religion in other words)? Here's what he said, "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" It was the "Judaizers" who were confusing Christians telling them they needed to now join the Jewish religion and follow its practices. This is all legalism, and strikes at the heart of the Christian message.

I’m not a Jew and don’t practice Judaism. Let us see what the Bible says.

Gal. 1:6-14
Perversion of the Gospel
6. I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7. which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
9. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
10. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

Paul Defends His Ministry
11. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
13. For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it;
14. and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

It is clear that what Paul is doing does not receive it from man, but from Jesus Christ.

Amen. Are you willing to surrender your religion too?

Not religion, but personal relationship or belief in Jesus Christ. Why should I surrender my belief and faith in Christ if I entrusted my life to Him?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Myth and truth are, in this case, the same thing.

Interpretation of of scripture is a basis, and that interpretation is based on some theological structure.

Hi Sojourner,

I don't think so. Can you explain how Myth and truth are the same?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Howso? Please note my contrasting points of view about God was between dynamic and static. It was not between dynamic and stable. There is a difference. Stable only makes sense in the context of something that is in a state of instability. Stability is not precluded in dynamic systems. It creates them in fact. But static on the other hand suggests fixed and unchanging, not in motion.

The view of our universe historically has been thought of as a static system with fixed "laws", unchanging. By extension God was imagined in light of this premise. But our views of the universe has been radically changed recognizing it as evolving out of dynamic systems which create relatively stable structures. But this stability is not at all static, nor inherently fixed and eternal in nature. So by extension, the nature of the Divine itself likewise is seen and understood as inherently dynamic, creating, bringing into being life and truth out of disorder, moment to moment, ceaselessly creating. These are very different underlying perceptions upon which we form our thoughts and ideas about God itself; a God who created a fixed system in the past, or a God who is creating order out of disorder in each and every moment in the present.

When it comes to God, God is static in His nature as immutable or unchanging God.

The view of a static God creates binary systems, good and evil in opposition which when they fall out of balance create tensions needing to be brought back into equilibrium, made right again, where the lion shall lay with the lamb and paradise restored, and Satan or instability shall be put into chains again. The view of a dynamic God creates what can be seen as ternary systems which take the tension of opposites, thesis and antithesis, and create a new order from them in a synthesis.

This system is inherently creative in nature, advancing growth and potentials through novelty. So Truth itself unfolds into new forms, relative truths expressive of the Ground potentials. This is in contrast with the static, binary point of view which tension is resolved by falling back into eternal laws, getting back to the Source's original creation imagined now in the future as "Heaven". The problem with the latter is that it assumes that this perfection, this equilibrium was once realized in creation in the past. This is mythological. There is nothing we can point back to where we once lived in perfection, other than our stories in creation myths, imaginations of a paradise lost.

So you mean the creation in Genesis was all a myth and not truth?

In all honesty, I believe this is why people fight to preserve the view of Adam and Eve as factual historical events, because it inherently supports this binary system of a fixed and static Truth in the past we have to return to, by getting rid of instabilities that create tensions in our lives by getting back to what we "lost" in the past. It stands in contrast with the view that Truth is realized by evolving relative truths, that Truth is not a static thing we need to find, but rather it is something we unfold into higher and higher truths, through evolution, through growth, through creativity. The former view creates a return to paradise lost model of truth and reality, the latter is a growth to goodness model of being and becoming.

Who said that we have a paradise lost in the past? What is your basis?

Thanks

 

[Straw Dog]

Maybe, but according to the scriptures when it comes to human behavior, spiritual or otherwise, there is nothing new under the sun. I think the only new and good thing will be when Jesus Christ Himself returns to replace religion with His personal reign on the earth.

If you say so. I do believe that your words matter, although my particular disposition tends to differ for some reason.

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

I don't think so. Can you explain how Myth and truth are the same?

Thanks

I don't need to; that's what a myth is: expression of a truth through metaphor.

 

[Yoshua]

I don't need to; that's what a myth is: expression of a truth through metaphor.

Hi Sojourner,

If myth is the expression of a truth through metaphor, that would mean the truth and myth are the same, and can be mixed together.

How can you explain the Greek mythology? Is this a myth or truth?

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

If myth is the expression of a truth through metaphor, that would mean the truth and myth are the same, and can be mixed together.

You never cease to amaze me how you misinterpret everything like this into either/or variables. He said myth is an expression of truth through metaphor. That does not mean truth and myth are therefore the same thing. That's like saying singing is an expression of happiness, therefore all happiness is sung and all singing is only done when one is happy. Do you not see the flaw in this sort of thinking?

Mythology is essentially truths and ideas, or ideals, or hopes and aspirations, or lessons, etc that become embedded symbolically in a storyline, or the characters themselves. But not all truths have to be spoken in mythological terms. For instance, "If you don't pick up your toys someone might fall on them," is speaking a truth without mythology being the vehicle of communication. But the parent could as well communicate that truth by telling the story of one of the gods of his culture's symbols who as a child didn't put away his toys and cause disasters to fall upon the world.

If you look at the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, this is a great example of that very thing. What truths are being communicated by the characters in the story? There are many. In fact, far more truth is communicated by myth than just stating facts. To attempt to make myth historical and scientific facts reduces their value as a means of communication. It guts myth of its symbolic nature, thus depriving it of truth.

How can you explain the Greek mythology? Is this a myth or truth?

The same as Biblical mythology. Truths communicated through the vehicle of mythology.

 

[Windwalker]

So you mean the creation in Genesis was all a myth and not truth?

I'll respond to this point separately as it underscores what I just posted a few moments ago. Let's not make the mistake that I meant that the story of the serpent and Adam and Eve being a myth meant is doesn't speak truth. Of course it's myth, and of course it speaks truth. But to speak truth, it doesn't mean the story has to be factually correct. The creation myths in Genesis 1 and 2 are not historical accounts. Saying so doesn't make it as you state it, "All a myth and not truth". I do not mean myth in the sense of false or a lie. I mean myth in the sense of a story that communicates truth as they would have understood it back in the day those stories were first formed.

I'll put it this way. I believe God creates the world, and is creating the world in every moment. But my understanding of the natural world is different than it was 3000 plus years ago when the source of the Genesis myth was being written. I am able to draw from a knowledge and understanding they did not have. If they had awareness of what we do today, coupled with an awareness of God in their own experience, I'm positive that the story in Genesis would be quite different.

Or, if you want to understand it from a "revealed truth" sort of way, that God gave them this story like a boss dictating a letter to his secretary, he would have done so in the modes of understanding the world they could relate to. He would not speak using scientific lingo about quantum mechanics and morphogenetic fields. So he if were to dictate a letter today (which is how you understand the Bible to be), he would likewise speak of these truths of us taking into account how we see the world today. He wouldn't violate our understanding, but build upon it - which is what the vehicle of myth does in creating truths.

So therefore, when we read the ancient Babylonian myth of creation that the Genesis account of creation draws from, we shouldn't carve pieces of our brains out and deny what we understand today, but realize its how they would have understood the truths in the story, without the story needing to be understood as facts about the natural world itself in scientific terms.

There are many truths in the Adam and Eve story, without it being scientifically or historically factual. It doesn't need to be for truth to be found in it.

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

If myth is the expression of a truth through metaphor, that would mean the truth and myth are the same, and can be mixed together.

How can you explain the Greek mythology? Is this a myth or truth?

Thanks

Greek mythology is truth -- from a particular point of view, which is exactly what Christianity is.
The myth is the finger pointing toward the truth, not the truth, itself. Believe in the truth -- not in the pointing finger.

 

[Windwalker]

Greek mythology is truth -- from a particular point of view, which is exactly what Christianity is.

Isn't this what it all boils down to when you strip away everything else, that it's a matter of arguing one's own point of view is the truth itself? To celebrate another's point of view as valid means we have to understand our own as relative to us and not absolute. Everything, all of these debates to allow multiple perspectives to exist are to prove the supremacy of one's own point of view over all others. It's nothing more than that.