What are the chances?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What if it’s not about being right, but about being in relationship?

I have no idea what that can really mean.

I have many, many relationships. None of them, however, is with another being that exists only and entirely in my own mind. Think about that, for a moment. My relationship with my partner has surprises every day, even after all these years. Why? Because he gets to be who he is. When people tell me that they have "a relationship with God" (or Jesus, or whatever other deity they prefer), I'm always curious as to how they react when the other party in the relationship behaves unexpectedly. But of course, that never happens, because the other party in the relationship is a construct within their own minds.

 

[sojourner]

To understand a text well, one has to read fully without a prejudice, and really try to hear the text in a full complete way.

The problem you are guessing at -- having one's perceptions controlled by having a doctrine or meaning you expected to see, and then seeing what you want the text to say -- is one that happens to anyone that brings a point of view to the text expecting to see it.

To avoid or undo that, you'd need to read fully through all of the texts with the intention of learning new things and seeing what you didn't know or expect.

With that full reading (with an openness to find new details and learn more)

I'm simply reporting the a more complete content of the text when read fully.

Yeah... that’s not How it Works, though. In the process of exegesis, “full reading to find new details” isn’t the issue. In exegesis, we read to find the details that already are there. I’m happy you CLEPed out of Freshman English. How many graduate courses in biblical exegesis have you completed?

 

[sojourner]

I have no idea what that can really mean.

I have many, many relationships. None of them, however, is with another being that exists only and entirely in my own mind. Think about that, for a moment. My relationship with my partner has surprises every day, even after all these years. Why? Because he gets to be who he is. When people tell me that they have "a relationship with God" (or Jesus, or whatever other deity they prefer), I'm always curious as to how they react when the other party in the relationship behaves unexpectedly. But of course, that never happens, because the other party in the relationship is a construct within their own minds.

It means that immersing oneself in a religion has less to do with empirical fact-gathering than it does with building right relationship with self, the world, and others.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It means that immersing oneself in a religion has less to do with empirical fact-gathering than it does with building right relationship with self, the world, and others.

Ah. I do that with philosophy, science and common sense. The advantage they have over religion, I think, is that they are more amenable to change, when change is obviously required. Dogma is quite resistent to recognizing when it is, itself, wrong.

 

[sojourner]

Ah. I do that with philosophy, science and common sense. The advantage they have over religion, I think, is that they are more amenable to change, when change is obviously required. Dogma is quite resistent to recognizing when it is, itself, wrong.

Not all spiritual expressions are about dogma. The spirit is quite malleable. Life flows — it doesn’t tick.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought you were biased toward groundskeeping.

ignorant groundskeepeing.
(I do not study it. I am not a master gardener.)

And the Lure of the Animal.

I have more than one bias.
But this creates bias in others.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not all spiritual expressions are about dogma. The spirit is quite malleable. Life flows — it doesn’t tick.

Notice that you made a small change to the language I used, to say something else altogether. I said "religious" which you rendered as "spiritual." As they are not the same thing, I don't feel that your point is really valid.

 

[sojourner]

Notice that you made a small change to the language I used, to say something else altogether. I said "religious" which you rendered as "spiritual." As they are not the same thing, I don't feel that your point is really valid.

Not all religions are all about dogma, either. But even the ones that are dogma-driven incorporate practices that are quite malleable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not all religions are all about dogma, either. But even the ones that are dogma-driven incorporate practices that are quite malleable.

And once again you changed the word I used, from "religious" to "dogma."

Do you have a problem with actually quoting what I say? Does it make it more difficult for your attempts to defeat me?

 

[sojourner]

And once again you changed the word I used, from "religious" to "dogma."

Do you have a problem with actually quoting what I say? Does it make it more difficult for your attempts to defeat me?

Jeebus! Calm down, man! Yikes! Have some egg nog! You said “dogma” in the first place in post #124. Someone is going to get a lump of hydrous-sulfurous-nitrous-oxygenated-carbo geological matter in his stocking!

 

[idea]

I used to think I was in the "true" church - so strange, felt the feels, so convinced. It is like a hive of bees, with everyone following the queen bee. The cult thing, it is real, it takes hold of your mind somehow.
another example: I grew up in the Westboro Baptist Church. Here's why I left

There are examples of JW's who leave too that are horrific.

It takes really extreme stuff to leave usually I'm still trying to figure out how I was sucked in.... I know how I left.

 

[1213]

...Or do you just ignore those bits when you think about your "loving" God?

Those doesn’t change that it is written, “love your neighbor as yourself”.

For me, to judge God’s decisions, we should have much more information to make correct judgment. By what I know, God has not done wrongly. He has given the life and He has the right to decide how long it lasts. Even if person would have not done anything wrong, God has the right to not give eternal life. However, in the Bible it is promised that righteous people will have eternal life, which I think is nice.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

This “life” is only like a lesson that is not even meant to last forever. That is why I think there is no good reason to worry death in this life, because nothing of this world can destroy our soul.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

I think it is good, if only righteous live forever and others have just short life. If unrighteous would live eternally, they would make life eternal suffering for all.

 

[halbhh]

Yeah... that’s not How it Works, though. In the process of exegesis, “full reading to find new details” isn’t the issue. In exegesis, we read to find the details that already are there. I’m happy you CLEPed out of Freshman English. How many graduate courses in biblical exegesis have you completed?

While I think I've heard of "CLEP" I don't remember using one. I read well apparently when I read through a text. But I think anyone could, if they would. If.

One has to be willing to see what is different than you wanted or expected or thought you knew, which is humble. It's a reading where the reader takes a humble attitude that the text may have something to teach them.

But to me, other types of reading feel very much like a waste of time.

For instance, if you merely read to attempt to prove a thesis you have, then from my view you've totally wasted some of your finite (and short) time here.

 

[sojourner]

One has to be willing to see what is different than you wanted or expected or thought you knew, which is humble

In exegetical reading, one has to be willing to see what’s actually there, rather than reading through one’s own biased lenses and making assumptions.

It's a reading where the reader takes a humble attitude that the text may have something to teach them

It’s a reading wherein the reader takes the attitude that cultural, historic, linguistic, literary, textual, source and anthropological idiosyncrasies have to be dealt with. It’s a reading wherein modern understandings of these issues have to be carefully parsed out. It’s a reading that, in order to really be done correctly, must be undertaken with a knowledge of the original languages.

But to me, other types of reading feel very much like a waste of time

I’m sorry you feel that exegesis is a “waste of time.” Mathematics is probably a waste of time for engineers, too.

For instance, if you merely read to attempt to prove a thesis you have, then from my view you've totally wasted some of your finite (and short) time here

That’s eisegesis.

 

[halbhh]

Yeah... that’s not How it Works, though. In the process of exegesis, “full reading to find new details” isn’t the issue. In exegesis, we read to find the details that already are there. I’m happy you CLEPed out of Freshman English. How many graduate courses in biblical exegesis have you completed?

In exegetical reading, one has to be willing to see what’s actually there, rather than reading through one’s own biased lenses and making assumptions.


It’s a reading wherein the reader takes the attitude that cultural, historic, linguistic, literary, textual, source and anthropological idiosyncrasies have to be dealt with. It’s a reading wherein modern understandings of these issues have to be carefully parsed out. It’s a reading that, in order to really be done correctly, must be undertaken with a knowledge of the original languages.


I’m sorry you feel that exegesis is a “waste of time.” Mathematics is probably a waste of time for engineers, too.


That’s eisegesis.

I'm not the one that is guessing stuff without any basis about someone here.

Hope you have a good day. (I sincerely mean that too)

 

[sojourner]

I'm not the one that is guessing stuff without any basis about someone here.

Hope you have a good day. (I sincerely mean that too)

Perhaps, then, you’d be willing to give me your pedigree where biblical scholarship is concerned. Degree(s)? Published works? Work in the field of biblical scholarship?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't really wander into this thread wanting a serious debate on why I believe in God. But yes there are religious charlatans in the world. I happen to believe that the leaders in my church, especially those at the top are not charlatans. They believe what they teach. I think I can honestly say I know that as a fact. I believe God has manifested himself to me, not through my leaders, but one on one directly. I don't really want to get into my personal experiences and how I feel God in my life as I don't think it would be taken seriously and it is real and serious to me.

If you really think that hundreds of millions of people have verification of their beliefs, I'm sure you could talk about what this typically looks like without bringing anything personal into it.

When you say "God lets us know he's there," are you generally talking about:

- things that an atheist would accept probably happened but wouldn't agree came from God (e.g. "burning in the bosom"), or

- things that an atheist probably wouldn't accept actually happened (e.g. physical miracles)?

 

[halbhh]

Perhaps, then, you’d be willing to give me your pedigree where biblical scholarship is concerned. Degree(s)? Published works? Work in the field of biblical scholarship?

Seriously, simply, each person on Earth will always have an entirely unique viewpoint.

It's quite well known that any particular pedigree doesn't at all guarantee that a person will turn out to have gotten everything correct.

But, we are able to examine particular questions about possible facts or interpretations.

If we can, we could try to stick entirely to discussing actual things, and try to avoid the mud pit of focusing on either one of us personally. (and thus better keep rule #9 also)

I suggest that because it's the only possibility for good discussion. Any particular qualifications you or I or anyone have are irrelevant once we get into discussing particular questions. (of course, the correctness of a viewpoint doesn't depend at all on who thinks it)

In these posts, I was addressing a key and commonplace assumption (staring at post #62) that I think most people have (quite naturally and reasonably) --

That death of this mortal body is a final, true death (extinction).

I want to bring that assumption into the light, make it visible, so that anyone could consider it as the assumption that it is, and be aware of how it can influence one's logical thought on questions about scriptures or about God.

 

[sojourner]

Seriously, simply, each person on Earth will always have an entirely unique viewpoint

That’s why we need the invaluable input of exegetes and theologians. It keeps us from personal bias and from going down theological rabbit holes.

It's quite well known that any particular pedigree doesn't at all guarantee that a person will turn out to have gotten everything correct.

It’s also quite well known that those with proper study and training stand the best chance of not falling down those rabbit holes and biases mentioned above. Facts matter. Logic matters. When one ascribes a standard of authority to ancient texts, one had best be able to read what’s actually in those texts.

But, we are able to examine particular questions about possible facts or interpretations

Not without a proper exegetical approach.

I suggest that because it's the only possibility for good discussion. Any particular qualifications you or I or anyone have are irrelevant once we get into discussing particular questions. (of course, the correctness of a viewpoint doesn't depend at all on who thinks it)

No, but one has to ask who is likeliest to be most correct in an interpretation of an ancient text: a trained exegete, or average Joe who doesn’t have a grasp of the fundamentals of exegeting ancient texts.

I want to bring that assumption into the light, make it visible, so that anyone could consider it as the assumption that it is, and be aware of how it can influence one's logical thought on questions about scriptures or about God

That’s what exegesis is for.

 

[halbhh]

That’s why we need the invaluable input of exegetes and theologians.

Imagine if I began to explain to you basic addition. It would be...very odd.

Here, this could help: if you have encountered hundreds of Christians on the internet that seems to have little to no understanding you could easily get in just a few hours from a good commentary or by reading a theologian (I know I have), then...we should not just assume that would also be the case for any Christian we encounter in the future.

Right?

It’s also quite well known that those with proper study and training stand the best chance of not falling down those rabbit holes and biases mentioned above.

I like that. You are simply preaching to the choir on some level here.

Now, what brought on this lecture on such a basic, obvious thing though?

Was it somehow disturbing to hear the idea you ought to read with an open mind and try to hear the text, more fully? (it might be! after all, the implications can be fraught)

It's well known by those that read a lot in the bible (or anything for that matter) that the best possible technique is to first read through in just a pure listening way (to get the big picture things), and then, 2nd, read all the commentaries and analyses, backgrounds, history details, etc. But, this is only how one ought best to read any text.