What is Christianity support?

[Windwalker]

I’m aware that Philo saw the books of Moses as deeply symbolic. Had he been my contemporary, I would ask Him why it is that Y’shua spoke of Moses, Adam and Abraham as literal persons, and why NT writers further spoke of Enoch, Sarah, Issac, Jacob, etc. as real, literal persons, not figurative symbols.

Because that is the nature of mythic-literal faith. They are in fact symbolic, even if they were literal people. They represent various ideals, and they are functioning that way in the way people use them even if they are not consciously aware of it. What distinguishes mythic-literal from the other later stages is that the symbol is fused with the actuality of it. Later stages are able to separate them, realizing that the symbol is the symbol, regardless of the status of the actuality. Point is case, was Jesus more powerful in the minds and hopes of people before or after he was no longer a physical person in front of them? When you kill the person, they become far larger as a symbol than they were as a person.

But my point in bringing up Philo was not to talk about how he viewed Moses. It was specifically to talk about the Logos. The Logos was his term. John 1 is very specifically taking Philo's Logos as the Agent of Manifestation as a starting point to bridge the gap between his audiences, the Greeks and the Jews. The concept was familiar to both, with the Jews have the Memra of Jehovah. While John 1 is not identical to Philo's Logos, he is definitely using it as a starting point to talk about who Jesus was. To him, God was wholly unknowable, and Logos was the agent of manifestation that revealed this unknowable God. He starts there speaking of this Logos they were familiar with, then ties it to Jesus in verse 14, "And the Logos became flesh". In other words, this Jesus has always been the Manifestor of God, the Memra of the Lord.

Paul even says, “As in Adam all died, in Jesus all are made alive,” and he repeats this or a similar construction multiple times in Romans 5 alone. There are serious implications for accepting symbolic meanings only for the Penteteuch.

No, not really. The only challenge is being able to find and hold the symbol without the need for it being a literal fact on the ground. People find a great deal of faith and hope in the symbol, regardless of what the facts are. That takes a certain maturity of faith to come to that place. But I can appreciate the fear expressed that there are "serious implications". It challenges faith. And it could lead to some crisis of faith for many. But that's how people grow most of the time, through pain, letting go of what gave truth and security before. I see it as unavoidable actually if one is at that stage in their trajectory.

I understand that the books of Moses and the Hebrew scriptures are both literal events and symbolic events.

Just to reiterate again, the whole thing is symbolic, regardless of whether someone is speaking in literal or symbolic terms.

God’s Word has multiple applications for us. My concern is that you seem to be asking me to relinquish all the literal for the symbolic.

I'm saying that if maintaining a literal understanding is exacted through things like science-denial, trying to deny and rationalize that denial of the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary of how you've believed things, than it is in fact possible to change and reframe that understanding and it not kill faith.

I apologize. Please let me restate: I see you making numerous eisegesis proof texts with verse fragments. Since you start many of your exegesis statements with “the face value of what we read is not really what the writer meant to say” it seems like poor hermeneutics to me.

I don't think I'm using things as "proof texts". One of the beauties of mythologies is that they can say many things, not just one thing. The Italian intellectual Umberto Eco said once, “Books are not made to be believed, but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we mustn’t ask ourselves what it says but what it means.” That is exactly the best way for the texts of scripture to be allowed to be the "living word". If you assign it meaning limited to "what did the author think", then you make it the "static word", that meaning and that meaning only.

And I say so respectfully, as I’m aware you have a degree in this but also that you’ve spoken against the precepts of what I learned in my studies. I don’t have a seminary degree, but in my Bachelor’s studies at a secular university, even those professors who self-declared as atheists and agnostics—even one professor who promised to do the so-called NT revision with all miracles removed—never, ever taught that either testament is allegory or symbolism only. They taught an historical, crucified Jesus, and they even taught canards like Paul modified Christianity away from Jesus’s original intent, but the most liberal scholars I’ve encountered don’t deny that Jesus and Paul spoke of a literal cross and literal salvation.

It doesn't appear yet that you are following what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what the history of it is, whether factual or a creation of the inspiration of faith, it's still symbolic. That's how it's used. That's why it's part of one's faith traditions. I think there is a serious problem actually in modern society that has hit the church and that is the confusion of facts and meaning.

Let me give a brief example. Let's take the story of Jesus on the cross. What does that say to you? What imagery comes to mind. What does it inspire? It's not just some guy hanging there being brutally executed, but it points to something deeply beyond the fact of a hunk of human meat nailed to planks of wood. The latter is the fact. But that's not what see when you think of that. You see "redemption", you see "love", you see "forgiveness". The fact is it's some dead guy. The symbol is all those other things we attached to it.

As I said before, for those at the mythic-literal stage they cannot separate the symbol from the fact. The "man on the cross" literally mediates the symbol for them. They are fused, undifferentiated. But the problem with this however is when it runs into a modern, rationalistic framework of understanding which sees "facts" as a matter of empirical evidences. Then, because it is unable to separate the symbol from the icon itself, it fights against the "facts" being offered and ends up in denial of modernity, arguing how they aren't wrong, how only a few "liberal scholars" say that, which hundreds of traditional scholars say otherwise, and so forth as if that argument defends against the evidences being presented.

The whole thing really is a matter of stages of faith development. Not a matter of modernity being proven wrong. It's a matter of not needing it to be. And that's my point in talking about how Christianity does not need to be bound to these mythic-literal understandings when it creates a problem for the person who doesn't think in those terms to make a choice to either stay in the faith or leave it because they don't feel they can be honest before God believing literally when they are simply unable to. Do you allow for others to believe non-literally?

 

[BilliardsBall]

But my point in bringing up Philo was not to talk about how he viewed Moses. It was specifically to talk about the Logos. The Logos was his term. John 1 is very specifically taking Philo's Logos as the Agent of Manifestation as a starting point to bridge the gap between his audiences, the Greeks and the Jews. The concept was familiar to both, with the Jews have the Memra of Jehovah. While John 1 is not identical to Philo's Logos, he is definitely using it as a starting point to talk about who Jesus was. To him, God was wholly unknowable, and Logos was the agent of manifestation that revealed this unknowable God. He starts there speaking of this Logos they were familiar with, then ties it to Jesus in verse 14, "And the Logos became flesh". In other words, this Jesus has always been the Manifestor of God, the Memra of the Lord.

I understand. But John was unable to invent a new Greek cognate for “mind” and you’re assumption is the use of a term that a heretical Jewish scholar used is more than mere coincidence.

John’s use—which you are justifying from ONE word in the NT, used in one passage, would also be the sole NT doctrine where the apostles borrowed from a sect of Judaism outside the Mishnah of the Hebrew scriptures themselves.

No, not really. The only challenge is being able to find and hold the symbol without the need for it being a literal fact on the ground. People find a great deal of faith and hope in the symbol, regardless of what the facts are. That takes a certain maturity of faith to come to that place. But I can appreciate the fear expressed that there are "serious implications". It challenges faith. And it could lead to some crisis of faith for many. But that's how people grow most of the time, through pain, letting go of what gave truth and security before. I see it as unavoidable actually if one is at that stage in their trajectory.

Instead of implying my faith is immature, consider… the real implication for the OT not being literal is that it makes the NT gospel, among other things, a pack of lies. “Just as Noah was saved, you will be saved… as in Adam, so you… the entire chapter of Hebrews 11 becomes a testimony of how meditations on the heroism of symbolic, non-literal people, will get Christians through literal tortures and persecutions under Rome! Does that sound like helpful “balm” to readers of the day?

I'm saying that if maintaining a literal understanding is exacted through things like science-denial, trying to deny and rationalize that denial of the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary of how you've believed things, than it is in fact possible to change and reframe that understanding and it not kill faith.

A part of science is testing assumptions and hypotheses, including currently accepted science.
It’s not science denial to consider alternative hypotheses. Creationists start with “Are there stories considered to be only symbolic that may have root in science fact?”

But in the same vein you are denying reams of archaeology, literally thousands of discoveries, that verify specific and exquisite details of architecture, decrees, people, warfare, trade, agronomy, etc. ALL of which verify the Bible as factual. You are denying archaeology (and logic and Occam’s) to say the scriptures are ONLY symbolic. You have NEVER responded to my comments as to how the sciences confirm the literal truths of scripture.

I don't think I'm using things as "proof texts". One of the beauties of mythologies is that they can say many things, not just one thing. The Italian intellectual Umberto Eco said once, “Books are not made to be believed, but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we mustn’t ask ourselves what it says but what it means.” That is exactly the best way for the texts of scripture to be allowed to be the "living word". If you assign it meaning limited to "what did the author think", then you make it the "static word", that meaning and that meaning only.

Building a doctrine from one word—logos--and building others from verse fragments, rather than understanding the Bible teaches in passages and blocks entire chapters and larger—to confirm your biases—is the definition of eisegesis. I won’t accuse of this but you are accountable to God for rightly dividing His Word.

Let me give a brief example. Let's take the story of Jesus on the cross. What does that say to you? What imagery comes to mind. What does it inspire? It's not just some guy hanging there being brutally executed, but it points to something deeply beyond the fact of a hunk of human meat nailed to planks of wood. The latter is the fact. But that's not what see when you think of that. You see "redemption", you see "love", you see "forgiveness". The fact is it's some dead guy. The symbol is all those other things we attached to it.

The other things attached to it came from where? HOW and from WHAT TEXT do we know this One of tens of thousands crucified is love and redemption?

Do you allow for others to believe non-literally?

I do and also for ME to believe non-literally. I’ve been a popular writer and lecturer for giving allegories and word pictures. My most common prayer is “open my eyes to see marvelous new things from your Word”.

I think you’re stuck, and for some reason, which I admit I cannot yet fathom, because it would upset you greatly to learn the Bible is literal…? Stop trying to save me from being anti-science, and admit you are afraid of being counter-cultural. Stop trying to save me from being anti-modern, and admit you are afraid of being a watchman on the wall calling to a lost generation… as they ARE lost.

I rub shoulders with people for the gospel all the time. Forums are a terrible place to share. A great place to share is one-on-one, where people tell me as I share that the gospel offers the only logical solution to the problem of sin even when they don’t trust Christ for salvation!

 

[Windwalker]

I understand. But John was unable to invent a new Greek cognate for “mind” and you’re assumption is the use of a term that a heretical Jewish scholar used is more than mere coincidence.

John’s use—which you are justifying from ONE word in the NT, used in one passage, would also be the sole NT doctrine where the apostles borrowed from a sect of Judaism outside the Mishnah of the Hebrew scriptures themselves.

Very briefly here, my thoughts about this came as a result of many months of studying many scholars in regards to John 1. I looked to see if I could find the commentary online at Biblehub from the Pulpit Commentary Series, which I own. It states exactly what I did. Unfortunately, at Biblehub they omitted verse 1 and started only at verse 2. I'm not at my home so I can't pull that volume out of storage to quote from it for you. But to be clear, these are the thoughts of many reputable scholars. John was not duplicating Philo's Logos, but he certainly was using it as a familiar starting point to take those who were familiar with it and turn it into a presentation of Jesus, as that commentary for one example points out at some length. Instead of being simply an impersonal agent of creation and manifestation like Philo's Logos, John's Logos is described as personal, in intimate relationship, "face to face" pros ton theon, with God. It's quite a beautiful and powerful image, that I think carries through the entire Gospel itself.

BTW, just branding someone as a "heretic" means nothing to me. Heretic is just a word people call those they don't agree with to discredit them. Jesus was considered a heretic too.

 

[Windwalker]

Instead of implying my faith is immature,

Faith does grow through stages of development, and those stages have certain defining characteristics that make them stages. I'm at a particular stage. You're at a stage. We're all at one stage or another. It's pride that doesn't want to recognize that and to suggest those who say that are just trying to make themselves superior to them. That's not the case.

I'm looking specifically at what are defining characteristics of the mythic-literal stage of development as mapped out by James Fowler in his book "Stages of Faith, the Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning". Those exist in a religious faiths, and in human development. It's not a value judgment of you as "immature" or whatnot. It's meant to be a tool of understanding. It has value and purpose, as do all the stages. I find it helpful to understand where I am at in those stages to better understand all that is going on within me and why there are differences between us. It helps me understand why I think as I do, and you as you do. I wouldn't say I'm quite done maturing yet. I know for sure there is more yet to come, if I continue growing.

consider… the real implication for the OT not being literal is that it makes the NT gospel, among other things, a pack of lies.

No, it does not make it a pack of lies. From my perspective I understand these things in a different context, and different framework of of translating meaning from them. How the original speakers of the words may have framed these ideas within the language they used, such as "Adam and Eve", still speaks truth, even if Adam and Eve were not literal human beings by those names. It's not about them, but about what they symbolize. They were talking about "sin" entering the world, and "Adam and Eve" symbolize that. It's the concept of sin that's important, not the literal historicity of Adam and Eve, which is besides the point. It's about a values lesson, not a science lesson.

“Just as Noah was saved, you will be saved… as in Adam, so you… the entire chapter of Hebrews 11 becomes a testimony of how meditations on the heroism of symbolic, non-literal people, will get Christians through literal tortures and persecutions under Rome! Does that sound like helpful “balm” to readers of the day?

Yes. Symbols are larger than facts.

A part of science is testing assumptions and hypotheses, including currently accepted science.
It’s not science denial to consider alternative hypotheses. Creationists start with “Are there stories considered to be only symbolic that may have root in science fact?”

The Theory of Evolution is not a hypothesis. It's a scientific theory, which means it's moved way, way beyond just a hypothesis. I assume you understand the differences in scientific terms. What does "theory" in the context of scientific language mean to you? Do you think it implies a "guess", an opinion, a suggestion, or something else?

Briefly, in scientific terms a theory is a model of explanation that is well-established, well-tested, and well-confirmed. It's not the same thing a hypothesis, and so Creationism is at the level of a hypothesis, which to date lacks any scientific corroboration. When something has become a theory in science, there's a lot supporting it, and to unseat it as a theory would take a huge amount of errors found all over the place, basically like flipping a mountain upside down.

When it comes to the Theory of Evolution it's not some idea that Creationism can slide in alongside and call itself an alternative suggestion. It's not at the same level, and is not scientifically validated. If it could be, whatever scientist that could do that would have his career set for life! He would have overturned mountains of data into a new understanding of life and reality! Any scientist would love that! Talk about discovery! So the motive would be there, just not the facts supporting it.

Here's an interesting discussion about this: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/theory.htm

But in the same vein you are denying reams of archaeology, literally thousands of discoveries, that verify specific and exquisite details of architecture, decrees, people, warfare, trade, agronomy, etc. ALL of which verify the Bible as factual. You are denying archaeology (and logic and Occam’s) to say the scriptures are ONLY symbolic. You have NEVER responded to my comments as to how the sciences confirm the literal truths of scripture.

While I'm not an expert in archeology, I do know from having read those like Finkelstein and Dever that there is a lot of archeology, reams of it, which were performed by those who really were not using modern methods, but rather as extensions of the Bible studies, looking to confirm their readings of scripture. In other words, their qualifications, and hence their data and findings are highly suspect and not too terribly credible. I personal am attracted to researchers that use modern methodologies in research. I'm not going to engage in debating these things, and I'd defer you to someone who is an actual expert in the field using modern tools and methodologies to argue the finer points.

But that there are some historical "facts" in the Bible, I don't dispute that. That it's all factual, that I dispute.

Building a doctrine from one word—logos--and building others from verse fragments, rather than understanding the Bible teaches in passages and blocks entire chapters and larger—to confirm your biases—is the definition of eisegesis. I won’t accuse of this but you are accountable to God for rightly dividing His Word.

Oh dear. God judges us on our scholarship? I don't share that view of God with you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Very briefly here, my thoughts about this came as a result of many months of studying many scholars in regards to John 1. I looked to see if I could find the commentary online at Biblehub from the Pulpit Commentary Series, which I own. It states exactly what I did. Unfortunately, at Biblehub they omitted verse 1 and started only at verse 2. I'm not at my home so I can't pull that volume out of storage to quote from it for you. But to be clear, these are the thoughts of many reputable scholars. John was not duplicating Philo's Logos, but he certainly was using it as a familiar starting point to take those who were familiar with it and turn it into a presentation of Jesus, as that commentary for one example points out at some length. Instead of being simply an impersonal agent of creation and manifestation like Philo's Logos, John's Logos is described as personal, in intimate relationship, "face to face" pros ton theon, with God. It's quite a beautiful and powerful image, that I think carries through the entire Gospel itself.

BTW, just branding someone as a "heretic" means nothing to me. Heretic is just a word people call those they don't agree with to discredit them. Jesus was considered a heretic too.

It means something as do all theological terms. All heresy means is “non-Orthodox” and “non-scriptural”. Philo is heretical as far as the Jews of his day were concerned. However, there is no NT quotation demonstrating that Jesus was ever accused of heresy. His Mishnah were extraordinary in their punch and scope, and Jesus was accused of:

*healing on Shabbat
*forgiving sin
*claiming Oneness with the Father

And he proved He was in line with the Hebrew scriptures in each case.

Faith does grow through stages of development, and those stages have certain defining characteristics that make them stages. I'm at a particular stage. You're at a stage. We're all at one stage or another. It's pride that doesn't want to recognize that and to suggest those who say that are just trying to make themselves superior to them. That's not the case.

I'm looking specifically at what are defining characteristics of the mythic-literal stage of development as mapped out by James Fowler in his book "Stages of Faith, the Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning". Those exist in a religious faiths, and in human development. It's not a value judgment of you as "immature" or whatnot. It's meant to be a tool of understanding. It has value and purpose, as do all the stages. I find it helpful to understand where I am at in those stages to better understand all that is going on within me and why there are differences between us. It helps me understand why I think as I do, and you as you do. I wouldn't say I'm quite done maturing yet. I know for sure there is more yet to come, if I continue growing.

I agree in part, then. But there is in the scripture movement through milk to tougher meat.

No, it does not make it a pack of lies. From my perspective I understand these things in a different context, and different framework of of translating meaning from them. How the original speakers of the words may have framed these ideas within the language they used, such as "Adam and Eve", still speaks truth, even if Adam and Eve were not literal human beings by those names. It's not about them, but about what they symbolize. They were talking about "sin" entering the world, and "Adam and Eve" symbolize that. It's the concept of sin that's important, not the literal historicity of Adam and Eve, which is besides the point. It's about a values lesson, not a science lesson.

Adam and Eve were two of the many figures cited by NT writers in allegories, parables and doctrines expressing 1) the nature of eternal life for the saved 2) the nature of perdition for the damned. Calling it a science or theology lesson is less important to us that whether or not we are saved or damned for eternity. Again I ask why it’s so very important to you that the stories of the scriptures are not literal?

Yes. Symbols are larger than facts.

Even while being persecuted? The “symbol” of our imaginary Jesus will comfort you during heinous tortures?

The Theory of Evolution is not a hypothesis. It's a scientific theory, which means it's moved way, way beyond just a hypothesis. I assume you understand the differences in scientific terms. What does "theory" in the context of scientific language mean to you? Do you think it implies a "guess", an opinion, a suggestion, or something else?

Briefly, in scientific terms a theory is a model of explanation that is well-established, well-tested, and well-confirmed. It's not the same thing a hypothesis, and so Creationism is at the level of a hypothesis, which to date lacks any scientific corroboration. When something has become a theory in science, there's a lot supporting it, and to unseat it as a theory would take a huge amount of errors found all over the place, basically like flipping a mountain upside down.

When it comes to the Theory of Evolution it's not some idea that Creationism can slide in alongside and call itself an alternative suggestion. It's not at the same level, and is not scientifically validated. If it could be, whatever scientist that could do that would have his career set for life! He would have overturned mountains of data into a new understanding of life and reality! Any scientist would love that! Talk about discovery! So the motive would be there, just not the facts supporting it.

Here's an interesting discussion about this: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/theory.htm

Where did you get this tack from my post? I wrote hypotheses (plural) since I accept Evolution as fact but not all aspects of Evolution. I’m aware of rapid speciation among dogs, for example, but I do not accept components of Evolution that are illogical.

Oh dear. God judges us on our scholarship?

I don't share that view of God with you.

God judges as to whether—applied to our lives and those we speak to—we use eisegesis/proof texting/twisting the Word or adhering to/accepting the Word.

But since you disagree and constantly put terms like “salvation”, “sin” and “Jesus of the gospels” in quotes, please tell me what you think God judges? I’m on record that fallible people need a literal Savior.

 

[Windwalker]

The other things attached to it came from where?

From ourselves. From culture. From faith. We are the ones who create meaning. I think I'm going to need to devote a post solely about symbols and symbolism for you as it seems apparent you don't track with the meaning of what I am talking about, which is what I said at the outset about how when I talk about symbols with those of fundamentalist thought they typically don't get it, saying I'm saying things like "nothing but a mere symbol" and whatnot. Your responses give me the impression you don't understand either, though I could be wrong and you're just not communicating them in a way that shows you do.

I'll have to devote some time to putting that together for a post as there is a lot there, but that's fine as it's apparent it may be helpful for me to do so others get a better picture of what I'm talking about. In the meantime, are you familiar with the field of research called semiotics? If not, you should familiarize yourself with it as I'm coming from that understanding of the role of language in meanings, people like Ferdinand de Saussure and Roland Barthes, for example. Once you begin to have an understanding of these things, words and meaning become just a tad less concrete, or concrete-literal to put it into context. Truth is a whole lot less fixed that what it appears to us. Words shape our ideas of reality, as well as reflect them.

HOW and from WHAT TEXT do we know this One of tens of thousands crucified is love and redemption?

The symbol of the cross from the perspective of Roman rule, for instance is a sign of absolute control and authority. It doesn't come from texts, it comes from our uses of them. Once it becomes embedded in it, then in an instant it communicates a host of ideas. This is how marketing and advertizing works, by the way, tapping into that and exploiting it for commercial, or political gains. In religion they're used to communication religious truths and values. They are symbols of our transformation, as Carl Jung spoke of them, archetypal forms, and such.

Understand when I'm speaking of symbols, this is where I'm coming from. The topic goes quite deep.

I do and also for ME to believe non-literally. I’ve been a popular writer and lecturer for giving allegories and word pictures. My most common prayer is “open my eyes to see marvelous new things from your Word”.

And I come back to what I've said for about six times now, one can in fact speak literally, or figuratively, allegorically, metaphorically, and all of those within a given overall symbolic framework. The whole framework itself is symbolic. That doesn't mean we cannot speak in terms of literal, factualities within it. It's the "invisible backdrop" that we as people do not see as it's it the framework of reality itself to us. But that framework is different for different people at different stages of their development. Refer back to Gebser, or Fowler whom I've mentioned.

I think you’re stuck, and for some reason, which I admit I cannot yet fathom, because it would upset you greatly to learn the Bible is literal…?

It doesn't upset me. I just can't unlearn, or unknow what I know about these things in order to force-fit an earlier understanding into my mind which would need to disregard what I know. For me where I'm at now, it's would be a form of intellectual suicide. That's why I had to leave my fundamentalist background. You can't put "new wine into old wineskins" as the saying goes.

Stop trying to save me from being anti-science, and admit you are afraid of being counter-cultural.

So do you accept the Theory of Evolution as valid science? If you don't, then I don't know what else to call rejecting valid science in favor of a very narrow relgious interpretation of the book of Genesis. I'm sorry, I just do not know what else to call it.

As far a me being afraid to be counter-cultural? I have to smile. There are not many who track with this, but they are there to be sure. We are quite few in number. So if being afraid of stepping out of the pack was my concern, I'd simply ignore my thoughts in favor of conforming to the group. I'd be a fundamentalist again, where we're all one big united group rally around common doctrines and beliefs. I'm all about smashing through that to find God beyond the symbols. That's one of the main things about those who are mystics. We are a fish out of water in very many ways. It's a lonely place, but full of the riches and wealth of God.

Stop trying to save me from being anti-modern, and admit you are afraid of being a watchman on the wall calling to a lost generation… as they ARE lost.

I consider "lost" to be out of touch with the Spirit of God within us, not theological doctrines and beliefs. You can certainly know God believing as you do. As can I believing as I do. As can they believing as they do. If they don't have a spiritual life, then certainly how you speak of an approach things may be what they can relate to and it might speak to them to help them on their path. But, if they are unable to wrap their minds around things that deny modern science because that defines their overall worldview itself, the framework of reality for them, then it's not going to help them find God. To demand that to believe that way is to create a stumbling block for them. You should instead point them to other groups who might be able to talk a language they could relate to. That is my entire point to everything I'm saying.

How we talk about God is relative, not absolute. What we believe about God is relative, not absolute.

I rub shoulders with people for the gospel all the time. Forums are a terrible place to share. A great place to share is one-on-one, where people tell me as I share that the gospel offers the only logical solution to the problem of sin even when they don’t trust Christ for salvation!

I think there are many paths that lead from the foot of the mountain, but at the peak we all gaze at the single bright moon, as my signature line goes. What matters is seeing the Light, not which brand of mountain-climbing gear we buy.

 

[Windwalker]

It means something as do all theological terms. All heresy means is “non-Orthodox” and “non-scriptural”.

Orthodox is what a group of people decide is "right thinking". In Christianity, there were in fact many "Christianities" going on, and the "proto-orthodox" group was just one of them. When the time came to consolidate these differing interpretations, or rather what I would call "expressions" of Christianity into a centralized manageable single entity via Roman hierarchical structures, that proto-orthodox group became the winning branch. That's all this was, and is. Everyone interprets the Christianity message in differing ways, and expresses and practices their faith that way too. For right or for wrong, it had it's place to help organize these groups. It had it's benefits, as well as its losses.

I could cite quite a few scholars who understand this and demonstrate how this happened historically. What you believe is a myth which is called the "Master Story", that Jesus descended from heaven with his Gospel message fully formed from birth, who taught his disciples, who then taught their disciples, and wrote the Gospels as eye-witness accounts, preserving in pristine fashion everything we need to know to come to faith and be saved.

That's all a "story" imposed upon events, which did not happen that way in reality. It does serve however symbolically. It does for you. It does not for me. The story I see, or imagine, takes into account these understandings that have come to light today, and incorporates them in such a way as they allow me to draw inspiration from them, while at the same not denying what we understand today. The latter is not important to you. It is to me.

Philo is heretical as far as the Jews of his day were concerned. However, there is no NT quotation demonstrating that Jesus was ever accused of heresy.

You don't think calling him a blasphemer and trying to stone him to death qualifies as "heresy" in their minds?

And he proved He was in line with the Hebrew scriptures in each case.

Not to them. Not in their eyes, just as others who run against your beliefs are heretics in your eyes. You question my relationship with God, and God's relationship with me. I see a pattern.

I agree in part, then. But there is in the scripture movement through milk to tougher meat.

Exactly. I'm glad you see this. Here's the difference. I do not see growth stopping at a certain point. We continue to grow. We continue to evolve. This is what I mean by truth is not a static end-point you arrive at and are finished. It's dynamic and evolving, because WE are. I will probably devote huge portions of my book on that very thing.

Just as an aside, I shared a thought with a Christian friend of my a couple nights ago to provoke his good thoughts he was sharing at the time. I said to him that we use language that speaks of God as Creator, which I agree with, but that we speak of Creation as an event that happened in the past. I said that how I see it, how I relate to it is that Creation is happening moment to moment, it is all Creation, not a static event of the past. And that actually fits what we know of evolution. Evolution, is God creating. And the story in the book of Genesis is simply a way to talk symbolically of that Creation. It is not literal. That really took him back, and his eyes lit up with inspiration of faith. That was a wonderful moment!

You see? The story can be told in other ways, than the language and modes of seeing reality from 3500 years ago. You can tell it in modern language too, when people struggle with believing things like a 6000 year old earth, or a literal 6 day creation, which he could not and was trying to figure out ways to understand it in light of him accepting what we know to be true through science.

Adam and Eve were two of the many figures cited by NT writers in allegories, parables and doctrines expressing 1) the nature of eternal life for the saved 2) the nature of perdition for the damned. Calling it a science or theology lesson is less important to us that whether or not we are saved or damned for eternity. Again I ask why it’s so very important to you that the stories of the scriptures are not literal?

You're apparently still missing my point. I talked a little about this in my post that I did today, as we cross-posted over each other. I also answered why it's important for me to not be restricted to a literal interpretation. Let me know if you don't see that and I'll direct you to it.

Even while being persecuted? The “symbol” of our imaginary Jesus will comfort you during heinous tortures?

I'm really going to have to delve a lot deeper than I wanted to, as it's clear you're not understanding these things.

Where did you get this tack from my post? I wrote hypotheses (plural) since I accept Evolution as fact but not all aspects of Evolution. I’m aware of rapid speciation among dogs, for example, but I do not accept components of Evolution that are illogical.

Do you accept that human beings evolved from an earlier animal species? Or do you believe contrary to the evidence we have that supports that, that we instead were created out of thin air, that all animals popped into existence via magic or miracles, and then later on evolution took over? There is no other valid, support explanation out there, and the evidence all says we evolved, that all animals evolved from a single lifeform. You reject that. That's denying the evidence. That's denying the science. If I'm incorrect, then show me how I am?

God judges as to whether—applied to our lives and those we speak to—we use eisegesis/proof texting/twisting the Word or adhering to/accepting the Word.

As I said, that's not the God I believe in. That's your interpretation of God. Being "right" is in fact being wrong. Missing the point. That's serving the ego, not the Spirit of God.

But since you disagree and constantly put terms like “salvation”, “sin” and “Jesus of the gospels” in quotes, please tell me what you think God judges? I’m on record that fallible people need a literal Savior.

I put those in quotes to be clear that while I find truth and value in those terms, my understanding of them is different than yours. I don't want there to be a misunderstanding, such as often I will say "God" in quotes when speaking with an atheist, so they understand I am not imaging an old man in the sky with a white beard sitting on a throne watching your every move. I don't think of God like that.

How do I think God judges? With Love. With Grace. Not with a list of criteria you must pass muster with in order to be let into the doors of heaven. God judges the truth and sincerity of our hearts, and loves all unconditionally, for God is Love. This I know from direct experience. "In him there is no darkness" is a perfect expression of that experience. It's us who judge ourselves and others, and it is that which creates sin and separates us from God. It's not God's doing. The Door is open.

 

[BilliardsBall]

From ourselves. From culture. From faith. We are the ones who create meaning. I think I'm going to need to devote a post solely about symbols and symbolism for you as it seems apparent you don't track with the meaning of what I am talking about, which is what I said at the outset about how when I talk about symbols with those of fundamentalist thought they typically don't get it, saying I'm saying things like "nothing but a mere symbol" and whatnot. Your responses give me the impression you don't understand either, though I could be wrong and you're just not communicating them in a way that shows you do.

I'll have to devote some time to putting that together for a post as there is a lot there, but that's fine as it's apparent it may be helpful for me to do so others get a better picture of what I'm talking about. In the meantime, are you familiar with the field of research called semiotics? If not, you should familiarize yourself with it as I'm coming from that understanding of the role of language in meanings, people like Ferdinand de Saussure and Roland Barthes, for example. Once you begin to have an understanding of these things, words and meaning become just a tad less concrete, or concrete-literal to put it into context. Truth is a whole lot less fixed that what it appears to us. Words shape our ideas of reality, as well as reflect them.

Please don’t waste time with such a post unless it pleases you. I’ve been an Umberto Eco fan for decades and am familiar with semiotics. I’m fascinated with this study, actually. Have you studied the symbols of the ancient rabbis as used in the liturgies? Fascinating!

The problem is people are going to a literal paradise or perdition after death. This world is a rescue mission and also a symbolic picture of universalism of spirit for all men.

So do you accept the Theory of Evolution as valid science? If you don't, then I don't know what else to call rejecting valid science in favor of a very narrow relgious interpretation of the book of Genesis. I'm sorry, I just do not know what else to call it.

For goodness’s sake, I’m not a troglodyte (pun not intended). Evolution can be observed today. Just not switching between families or types and I believe in original Creation (many life forms in one week).

I could cite quite a few scholars who understand this and demonstrate how this happened historically. What you believe is a myth which is called the "Master Story", that Jesus descended from heaven with his Gospel message fully formed from birth, who taught his disciples, who then taught their disciples, and wrote the Gospels as eye-witness accounts, preserving in pristine fashion everything we need to know to come to faith and be saved.

That's all a "story" imposed upon events, which did not happen that way in reality. It does serve however symbolically. It does for you. It does not for me. The story I see, or imagine, takes into account these understandings that have come to light today, and incorporates them in such a way as they allow me to draw inspiration from them, while at the same not denying what we understand today. The latter is not important to you. It is to me.

There are one dozen NT writers. I noticed they all adhere to the master story and none show an evolving gospel over time. Why would that be?

You don't think calling him a blasphemer and trying to stone him to death qualifies as "heresy" in their minds?

No, it was blasphemy, blasphemy is not heresy. Heresy is not blasphemy.

You see? The story can be told in other ways, than the language and modes of seeing reality from 3500 years ago. You can tell it in modern language too, when people struggle with believing things like a 6000 year old earth, or a literal 6 day creation, which he could not and was trying to figure out ways to understand it in light of him accepting what we know to be true through science.

Of course the story can be told in alternate ways. However, when facing life and death, say in a court of law under threat of execution, one takes an oath to tell the truth. Jesus was asked if He was the Messiah of Israel and testified He was! This is a singular person who offers redemption to the entire world, and was prophesied to arrive at a certain time (483 years after the famous Daniel 9 decree)! This is a person, not a myth. I worry for you because Jesus said “Unless you believe that I am He, you will perish” and clearly, you don’t believe Jesus was omniscient or even near-omniscient.

Do you accept that human beings evolved from an earlier animal species? Or do you believe contrary to the evidence we have that supports that, that we instead were created out of thin air, that all animals popped into existence via magic or miracles, and then later on evolution took over? There is no other valid, support explanation out there, and the evidence all says we evolved, that all animals evolved from a single lifeform. You reject that. That's denying the evidence. That's denying the science. If I'm incorrect, then show me how I am?

Let’s be clear. 1) There seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that we evolved from lower forms. 2) There seems to be a suppressed, nearly underground movement of evidence—quite a bit of evidence—that we have not evolved from lower forms. Now who is against more than one interpretation for a set of facts in evidence? If science says “True fact!” it’s unfair for me to interpret symbolically. You are an enlightened man who believes NO science is mythic but ALL religion is mythic? Does that seem enlightened as a stance?

Two POTUS candidates—one said global warming is mythic, the other fact. BILLIONS of dollars in research, conservation, property loss, even loss of life—hang in the balance! But woe to us who love the scriptures and want to share the facts of the literal death and resurrection so that men can be saved. Woe to us for being so backward, for being so unenlightened to not appreciate the glories of mythic interpretations that deny the saving reality… of the One called by Isaiah, “Savior”. Or better yet from the Hebrew, “Savior!”

As I said, that's not the God I believe in. That's your interpretation of God. Being "right" is in fact being wrong. Missing the point. That's serving the ego, not the Spirit of God.

I’m indeed aware that under your system, no one can ever be right regarding any doctrines. I get it. The point isn’t to serve my ego or my humility but the lost souls who cry day and night for help, for hope, for redemption, for the ending of existential crises, too!

I put those in quotes to be clear that while I find truth and value in those terms, my understanding of them is different than yours. I don't want there to be a misunderstanding, such as often I will say "God" in quotes when speaking with an atheist, so they understand I am not imaging an old man in the sky with a white beard sitting on a throne watching your every move. I don't think of God like that.

How do I think God judges? With Love. With Grace. Not with a list of criteria you must pass muster with in order to be let into the doors of heaven. God judges the truth and sincerity of our hearts, and loves allunconditionally, for God is Love. This I know from direct experience. "In him there is no darkness" is a perfect expression of that experience. It's us who judge ourselves and others, and it is that which creates sin and separates us from God. It's not God's doing. The Door is open.

You are not far from the Kingdom, brother. I LOVED most of your quote until I got to the last line. The Door is open conditionally upon KNOCKING. Meditate on scripture. Pray for understanding! I beg you, you have so much to offer, artistically, creatively, intellectually. Repent and be! Not “be saved” but “repent and be!”

 

[Windwalker]

I'm going to slowly work my way through your response. As our custom has grown to be where you wait until I finish before you consolidate all of into your response, I will appreciate. Bear with my installments approach...

Please don’t waste time with such a post unless it pleases you. I’ve been an Umberto Eco fan for decades and am familiar with semiotics. I’m fascinated with this study, actually.

Excellent. Then I will make assumptions of your knowledge when I am inclined to go more in depth about symbols, expected your understanding to be on a close level with mine. I'd really not rather waste my time explaining all the parts of it, as best I can.

The problem is people are going to a literal paradise or perdition after death.

I do not agree with that.

This world is a rescue mission and also a symbolic picture of universalism of spirit for all men.

That's an interesting thought to me. You see it as a rescue mission. Do you think that maybe you are projecting your ideas of what other needs for themselves, based on what you needed for yourself? Of course, it's wonderful you feel compassion for them. But in our assumptions of others, maybe we miss the truth of ourselves?

For goodness’s sake, I’m not a troglodyte (pun not intended). Evolution can be observed today. Just not switching between families or types and I believe in original Creation (many life forms in one week).

It pains me to point this out, but this "not switching between families or types", language is in fact not being informed by what credible modern science teaches. It's jamming door stops into it which do not deserve to be there in a discussion about science. That, I consider science-denial.

There are one dozen NT writers. I noticed they all adhere to the master story and none show an evolving gospel over time. Why would that be?

Bauer. That was the name of the German theologian who first spoke about this "master story" he observed in his analysis of history and scripture. While you do not, I believe, accept that not all NT writings are in fact written by whom their authorship is attributed to, such as the pseudo-Pauline texts from the 2nd century, the choices of which of these texts were chosen to be included is in fact part of that creation of the myth of the "Master story" as Bauer called it.

In fact you can see an evolution of the Gospel over time. I am particularly attracted to a sociological analysis of the mythmaking of the emergence of the "Jesus movement" which morphed into the organized form of "orthodox" Christianity you identify with today as reflective of actual historical events. I enjoy Burton's Mack's contributions to that view. I feel it carries great weight to it, in however we can continue to disect it that way. Humans are humans, and you see mythmaking all the time, which is why I cited semiotics and the like.

No, it was blasphemy, blasphemy is not heresy. Heresy is not blasphemy.

I guess to me I don't see a difference. Boil you in oil for heresy. Nail you to a cross for blasphemy. To me they are simply different words for the same violent response to those who challenge your beliefs.


More later....

 

[Windwalker]

Of course the story can be told in alternate ways. However, when facing life and death, say in a court of law under threat of execution...

You need not go any further. When you face your own death, staring into the face of the Infinite, this is not what it looks like. This image you present is a very, sadly, modern invention began, I can't recall at the moment, by some priest in the 17th century or something where he liken it all to some legal system. I completely reject that portrait of it. That is definitely not the reality of what it looks like as you stare death in the face and meet God on the other side of that.

Jesus was asked if He was the Messiah of Israel and testified He was!

Which is the story we have from those who believe Jesus with that understanding of him...

This is a person, not a myth.

I've never once asserted Jesus was a myth. I believe he actually existed. I do not however believe that all the images of Jesus we see in the Gospels are historical facts. I do believe however they are genunine expressions of faith. And that carries vastly more weight than historical facts. A point you have yet to appreciate, I believe.

 

[Windwalker]

I worry for you because Jesus said “Unless you believe that I am He, you will perish” and clearly, you don’t believe Jesus was omniscient or even near-omniscient.

We are back to you worrying about me. Do you worry about others as well, I presume? I find that troublesome. Why is it the Gospel message you creates anxiety? Could it be your understanding of it is not quite in tune with it? "Peace I give unto you, not as the world gives, give I unto you." This is not something you earn.

Let’s be clear. 1) There seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that we evolved from lower forms. 2) There seems to be a suppressed, nearly underground movement of evidence—quite a bit of evidence—that we have not evolved from lower forms.

Please present that evidence and the sources for it. Otherwise, this statement is not valid.

Now who is against more than one interpretation for a set of facts in evidence?

I haven't bothered to go after those who worship Science, with a capital S, yet. But be assured, they are simply switching sources of Authority with a capital A from belief in the Bible to belief in Science. Both are badly flawed in their thinking.

If science says “True fact!” it’s unfair for me to interpret symbolically.

Again, I'm suspicious despite you claiming to know about these things that you grasp what I'm saying. You saying you interpret "symbolically" what science says does not make a lot of sense to me. Unless you're realizing that Scientific "truth" is simply a higher form of metaphor than the mythic language of the Bible is? If you do understand that, than I'll be rolling up my sleeves and pouring myself a nice beverage to enjoy some truly intersting disscuions with you!

You are an enlightened man who believes NO science is mythic but ALL religion is mythic? Does that seem enlightened as a stance?

Well, there are some technical points here. Science is not mythic. It's metaphoric. Mythic systems, such as is the language spoken in the Bible, is also metaphoric. It's a little challenging to go there in explaining that better, but I can if you need me to.

I'll need to pick the rest up later. For now, have a good evening.

 

[Windwalker]

Two POTUS candidates—one said global warming is mythic, the other fact. BILLIONS of dollars in research, conservation, property loss, even loss of life—hang in the balance!

I'm sorry to have to come back to this, but the way use are using "mythic" in this context shows me you have not been understanding what I mean when I use the term. I thought I had been very clear about it early on that I do not use "mythic" to mean a lie, or a falsehood, or fraudulent, or any of those uses.

I stated at the outset that by mythic, or mythologies, they are a type of story. Great truths can be spoken using mythic language. If I believed myth means a lie, then that statement cannot be true. Great truths cannot be spoken through lies. There are great truths in the myth of Adam and Eve in the Garden. Adam and Eve in the Garden is a mythology. It speaks truths, even though it never happened literally as the story is written. It expresses truth though, nonetheless.

But woe to us who love the scriptures and want to share the facts of the literal death and resurrection so that men can be saved. Woe to us for being so backward, for being so unenlightened to not appreciate the glories of mythic interpretations that deny the saving reality… of the One called by Isaiah, “Savior”. Or better yet from the Hebrew, “Savior!”

I've never called you unenlightened. You however do assume I cannot see the truth. And that really is the core of much of our conversation here. Am I hearing you projecting on me what you are doing yourself? Assuming I'm unenlightened?

I’m indeed aware that under your system, no one can ever be right regarding any doctrines. I get it.

Not exactly. There can certainly be consistency and a working valid system that serves a purpose, such as a doctrinal view or teaching. It serves as a truth and has importance to those who find use in it. But it is not therefore an absolute truth for all others. In another context that "truth" may be invalid, a contradiction, do harm rather than help. You can be "right" in a relative context.

The problem is when we assume our understanding of truth is The Truth. Our thoughts and beliefs become Absolute, and all others who do not think and believe as us, use our group's doctrines, etc. are therefore wrong and in danger of banishment into hell. That's a problem on many levels. It's a challenge for most to realize that the things they hold as truths, are relative to the context in which they are being held.

The point isn’t to serve my ego or my humility

Again, language use and terms present a challenge for us in communication here. When I speak of the ego, serving our egos, I am not talking about things like pride and arrogance versus humility. I'm speaking of ego in the sense of all the things that go into defining us as individuals, the "I" that make you you and not another. Ego is of course the word "I" we use in English.

So when I say "being right" serves the ego, I'm talking about it as part of the projects we engage in to build up and define this sense of truth and reality that the "I" can fit itself into and navigate the world with. We construct truths using different things that serves the ego that way. But it does not translate into absolute truths for all others, as those truths change depending on the overall frameworks we are building them up within for ourselves. It literally, ironically actually, is different worlds, but I won't go down that train of thought here.

You are not far from the Kingdom, brother.

And here you are assuming I'm not fully immersed within it and it within me. Why is that? Is it because I believe differently than you?

I LOVED most of your quote until I got to the last line.

I write these words coming from a place of experience as expressions in language. I'm glad you heard that. That says something. But then you get hung once you can't reconcile some uses of words within the frameworks you use, and you no longer hear from the heart. That's what the problem is.

The Door is open conditionally upon KNOCKING.

The Door is open unconditionally, at all times, to all. It is never closed, nor will be, nor can be. The Door doesn't open because we "made it" open by knocking, or seeking. It doesn't swing open and shut, blocking us from it. It is simply a matter of us opening to it. It is we who close ourselves off from it when we turn our eyes, and hearts, away into our separate little worlds.

Think of language like "Take not your Spirit from me", as an expression of what it feels like as a human to be in that state of disconnection from God. It "looks like" God left, but in reality God is still there, and cannot be anywhere other than fully here. But it feels like God "walked away". In fact viewing God as wholly external to us, is again language spoken from the sense of the separate self, that "ego" I explained more about here. It's not literally true though. It's not "factually" true. But it certainly can be expressed as true though, since that's what the experience of it feels like or looks like through our eyes, from our relative perspective.

I've learned that, to put it in my worlds, when we bring our gaze back, when we "seek" God, God never went anywhere. We did.

Meditate on scripture. Pray for understanding!

I do all the time. That's why I'm sharing and saying what I do. My understanding is growing and becoming more open and understanding, inclusive. It begins with the heart illuminating what the eyes see and the mind thinks. But nothing I am saying is meant to say this is how you should think and understand. You need to do what you need to that is helping you.

The only thing I hope to accomplish is for you or others to hear with the heart, not judge where others are at by comparing them to some doctrinal checklist you believe measures Truth itself.

I beg you, you have so much to offer, artistically, creatively, intellectually.

Well, thank you. I consider that a kind compliment. Yes, it's my personal challenge, rather my work, right now to bring all these together in some way to help others where what I have come to see may be of some light to them in their own paths feeling their way through the maze of voices out there all claiming they have the answers.

All any of us can be is someone pointing a finger at the moon. I encourage them not to stare and my finger and wonder if it that finger is "right" or not. They're not looking where they should.

Repent and be! Not “be saved” but “repent and be!”

You know I kind of like that "repent and be". Repentance is actually, simply nothing more than changing direction. If I say, as I did above, that all we have to do is simply change our focus, change the direction of a gaze, God is fully there, that is "repentance". And when we do that, and allow God to fill us fully, rather empty ourselves fully, open OUR door of our heart, mind, and will in surrender to God, than who we become is that Light. And that is the condition of all conditions, we simply BE, as God simply IS.

I chose those words in part to challenge how you hold them and see them from a different perspective. It depend with which ears you hear them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The problem is people are going to a literal paradise or perdition after death.

I do not agree with that.

That’s the crux (pun not intended) of our discussion. All scholars agree that Jesus was a real person who was crucified. But if He literally rose from the dead, we absolutely must take His statements on the afterlife and this world both as facts, all of them, utterly. I would regard your stance differently if you told me, “Jesus rose from the dead to save us but there are different ways to expound on His [commonly believed] doctrines.”

**

This world is a rescue mission and also a symbolic picture of universalism of spirit for all men.

That's an interesting thought to me. You see it as a rescue mission. Do you think that maybe you are projecting your ideas of what other needs for themselves, based on what you needed for yourself? Of course, it's wonderful you feel compassion for them. But in our assumptions of others, maybe we miss the truth of ourselves?

I have considered this at some length. My current conclusion is if this saving gospel is fulfilling a need in me I’m a huge masochist, as were the apostles. And I’m no masochist. I have been subjected to ridicule, personal and telephoned threats, loss of grades in school, hassles at work—I have family who didn’t speak to me for over a decade, etc.

Further, since I believe in assurance, it is not necessary for me to risk more by offering the saving gospel. I don’t have to share, I like to share. Though I would be a brute if I didn’t share—who am I to walk quietly by a tower on fire while occupants are trapped within? Shouldn’t I find a megaphone to preach to them to flee the flames?

Further, I have the facts of Christ’s glorious resurrection and His love and mercy. Do I really need to have some internal neurosis, in your opinion, to become convicted of the need to share because I have freely been given to, first? Don’t people who love and have a great movement of the heart become expansive, giving and loving to others?

**

It pains me to point this out, but this "not switching between families or types", language is in fact not being informed by what credible modern science teaches. It's jamming door stops into it which do not deserve to be there in a discussion about science. That, I consider science-denial.

Fine, I’m a science denier. But if you want to talk about the science, that could be helpful. Though it’s outside the scope of this discussion about whether I’m saved or you’re saved and whether the magnificent Jesus Christ rose from the grave, literally, not figuratively.

I know you have a degree in religious studies but I urge you to look more closely at the science when you have time, rather than take a collective word for all of it. Evolutionary biology and geology have at their core a limited number of experts from whom the rest of the field goes lock step, rarely questioning assumptions.

Bauer. That was the name of the German theologian who first spoke about this "master story" he observed in his analysis of history and scripture. While you do not, I believe, accept that not all NT writings are in fact written by whom their authorship is attributed to, such as the pseudo-Pauline texts from the 2nd century, the choices of which of these texts were chosen to be included is in fact part of that creation of the myth of the "Master story" as Bauer called it.

In fact you can see an evolution of the Gospel over time. I am particularly attracted to a sociological analysis of the mythmaking of the emergence of the "Jesus movement" which morphed into the organized form of "orthodox" Christianity you identify with today as reflective of actual historical events. I enjoy Burton's Mack's contributions to that view. I feel it carries great weight to it, in however we can continue to disect it that way. Humans are humans, and you see mythmaking all the time, which is why I cited semiotics and the like.

But hearing from God directly or being inspired by God would overcome these concerns. Yes, I’m aware of man’s desire to myth-make. When a speaker asked recently what happens if people stop storytelling, I said, “We lose our souls”. However, if God and Moses literally chatted for days at a time I expect more than half-truths or even deeply veiled truths from the reporting of the conversation. But the Bible says the veil comes from disbelief if we wish to be disbelieving, and veiled.

You need not go any further. When you face your own death, staring into the face of the Infinite, this is not what it looks like. This image you present is a very, sadly, modern invention began, I can't recall at the moment, by some priest in the 17th century or something where he liken it all to some legal system. I completely reject that portrait of it. That is definitely not the reality of what it looks like as you stare death in the face and meet God on the other side of that.

Then thank Jesus Christ for the gift of His Spirit. I’ve been in a near death situation and felt quite calm. But atheist friends and family have certainly not felt the Spirit at (each and all of) those times!

I've never once asserted Jesus was a myth. I believe he actually existed. I do not however believe that all the images of Jesus we see in the Gospels are historical facts. I do believe however they are genunine expressions of faith. And that carries vastly more weight than historical facts. A point you have yet to appreciate, I believe.

I appreciate this point but am trying to be practical as well as theological with you. If my spouse has terminal cancer, prayer to Jesus will depend more on whether a risen Jesus is able to respond than all the faith in the world. Faith is a great lever but faith in the correct person is paramount.

We are back to you worrying about me. Do you worry about others as well, I presume? I find that troublesome. Why is it the Gospel message you creates anxiety? Could it be your understanding of it is not quite in tune with it? "Peace I give unto you, not as the world gives, give I unto you." This is not something you earn.

To be frank, I’m less worried about you than your hearers. You would be quite a force for good if you were on the side of the angels. I like to stand up for right doctrine where I can. However, you might as well ask the apostles why the gospel seemed to cause them anxiety, yes? They spoke of sleepless nights, of concerns, of fervent prayers for others. I have great peace about some things and yet great desires. I have a great desire for you to come to a different place of refreshed thinking so please don’t imply I’m anxious because of some (imagined) neurosis.

Again, I'm suspicious despite you claiming to know about these things that you grasp what I'm saying. You saying you interpret "symbolically" what science says does not make a lot of sense to me. Unless you're realizing that Scientific "truth" is simply a higher form of metaphor than the mythic language of the Bible is? If you do understand that, than I'll be rolling up my sleeves and pouring myself a nice beverage to enjoy some truly intersting disscuions with you!

I’m merely pointing to your double standard. I cannot go against what science “says” but I can go against what the Bible “says”, yet you offer no proof that the Bible writers were being symbolic in any way, and I have found evidence to the contrary, in large amounts. I’ve asked repeatedly of you for documentary counter-evidence to the twelve NT writers. I often encounter people who say the writers didn’t really mean what they wrote yet each writer affirms the others in turn and those who oppose the message have no textual evidence. I appreciate you “go with your gut” and even “you go with your prayer and meditation” but not if and when it contradicts scripture.

I'm sorry to have to come back to this, but the way use are using "mythic" in this context shows me you have not been understanding what I mean when I use the term. I thought I had been very clear about it early on that I do not use "mythic" to mean a lie, or a falsehood, or fraudulent, or any of those uses.

I stated at the outset that by mythic, or mythologies, they are a type of story. Great truths can be spoken using mythic language. If I believed myth means a lie, then that statement cannot be true. Great truths cannot be spoken through lies. There are great truths in the myth of Adam and Eve in the Garden. Adam and Eve in the Garden is a mythology. It speaks truths, even though it never happened literally as the story is written. It expresses truth though, nonetheless.

I believe I do understand, because you are adamant that the Bible offers truth but not truthful stories. For example, whereas Luke claims to have interviewed only eyewitnesses, they didn’t see what they really saw, in your opinion. Or when Jesus asked if He is the Messiah and He said He is both the Messiah and leading the Judgment, but you ask me to interpret that not as fact but as “something more”, which sounds somewhere between sheer heresy and a crooked politician. The Chief Rabbi adjured Jesus in the Name of Ha Shem to tell the truth! Or when Jesus says “I go where you cannot go” and you say he rots in the same earth as the apostles do, thus making Jesus a “liar” and not merely a “mythic figure”. If Jesus merely died without rising, the apostles went straight to where he went, too, without being transfigured at the Rapture! HE LIED and people died and shant rise. That’s Paul’s point in 1 Cor 15, is it not?

**

You are not far from the Kingdom, brother.

And here you are assuming I'm not fully immersed within it and it within me. Why is that? Is it because I believe differently than you?

No. It is because you believe contrary to the gospel and not merely differently than I believe. Jesus’s people have a big, universal tent, but you have invited me repeatedly to find a different Jesus in some strange, other tent. This is antichrist in spirit IF I understand your points of view accurately. I hope I don’t misunderstand but the scriptures say those “testifying” against Jesus’s bodily resurrection and divine person are the spirit of antichrist set loose in this world.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Hello brothers and sisters
EDITED
I met today a Christian he said :" God could have created Adam (pbuh) and the other creatures using evolution."
I am not deny God created univers by steps,"6 days" but I am mention to creatures , and especially Adam(pbuh) and Eve (pbuh)

Then what is Bible said about creation of creatures ? does Bible support creation of creatures or support evolution of creatures ?

IMO God the creator which is all the Gods that all religions are based on created the universe to run on natural law without too much interference from him. The design criteria for our life sustaining universe is permeated into every bit of matter, from quantum up to macro and into all fields such as gravitational and all plasma's, energies and woven into the fabric of space time. In other words Gods design is the material universe.

 

[Windwalker]

That’s the crux (pun not intended) of our discussion.

As I've identified what I thought were several cruxes, I think it's safe to say there's a least a trinity's worth of cruxes.

All scholars agree that Jesus was a real person who was crucified.

Not to nitpick, but no, not all. There are those who belive he never existed, let alone was crucified. I don't side with that view, but that's not my point.

But if He literally rose from the dead, we absolutely must take His statements on the afterlife and this world both as facts, all of them, utterly.

Why? Why must you take the words as what amount to scientific facts, rather than expressions of something utterly beyond such modes of thinking?

I would regard your stance differently if you told me, “Jesus rose from the dead to save us but there are different ways to expound on His [commonly believed] doctrines.”

In other words, you'd hear my words if you heard me interpret the resurrection as a physcial resuscitation of a corpse?

I have considered this at some length. My current conclusion is if this saving gospel is fulfilling a need in me I’m a huge masochist, as were the apostles.

I was a little taken aback that your interpretation of what I was saying was I was pointing to some imaged "neurosis" you have. That thought never entered my mind. When I said it filled some need in your life, that's an obvious statement. Any of us who invest ourselves into something, some belief or path, are doing so because it meets a need. We don't invest ourselves in something that has no reward to us. I can't think of an example where we would.

And I’m no masochist. I have been subjected to ridicule, personal and telephoned threats, loss of grades in school, hassles at work—I have family who didn’t speak to me for over a decade, etc.

That you experience negativities as part of it, is simply the price you are willing to pay for the rewards it's offering you. Yet, you do this for a reason. What reason might that be?

Further, since I believe in assurance, it is not necessary for me to risk more by offering the saving gospel. I don’t have to share, I like to share. Though I would be a brute if I didn’t share—who am I to walk quietly by a tower on fire while occupants are trapped within? Shouldn’t I find a megaphone to preach to them to flee the flames?

To me knowing that there is no hell, yet people choose to live their lives in their own hells results in a motivation of compassion, an invitation to know Love regardless of how they might need to realize that in their lives, in whatever form that needs to take for them. As I've said, it's about Love, not beliefs.

I don't believe people need to be made to be afraid of God to come to God. I would argue if that is the motivation, then it's about themselves, not about desiring God. It detracts and distracts them away from the Love of God, imagining he might do such a thing to them or anyone else.

Further, I have the facts of Christ’s glorious resurrection and His love and mercy. Do I really need to have some internal neurosis, in your opinion, to become convicted of the need to share because I have freely been given to, first?

As I said I'm really not sure where you get this idea of some "internal neurosis" being a part of what I was saying. Why are you bringing that up? Is this something someone else has suggested to you previously?

I write and play music. I shoot photography. These are deep expressions of Beauty for me. I love to share these because they express and emote Love and Truth, without words. This desire is hardly a neurosis! It's what Love does. Love gives. Love creates. Love births. Love grows as it is released. What these are, are themselves also a "need". These are "abundance needs".

Fine, I’m a science denier. But if you want to talk about the science, that could be helpful.

I did ask you for the links from credible scientists that points to evidence that we did not evolve from earlier species, that humans have always been humans, and so forth. What sort of scientific evidence is that suggestion based upon? I would like to see the science that shows that. Did you share that and I missed it?

I know you have a degree in religious studies but I urge you to look more closely at the science when you have time, rather than take a collective word for all of it. Evolutionary biology and geology have at their core a limited number of experts from whom the rest of the field goes lock step, rarely questioning assumptions.

I think this statement invalid. It is not a "limited number of experts from whom the rest of the field goes lockstep, rarely questioning assumptions". That is a false statement. I'm going to quote a few parts from a wonderful Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America that is quite poignant.

"Scientists may jump on a “band wagon” for some new explanation, particularly if it has tremendous explanatory power, something that makes sense out of previously unexplained phenomena. But for an explanation to become a mainstream component of a theory, it must be tested and found useful in doing science.

"Over and over again, evolutionary theory has generated predictions that have proven to be true. Any hypothesis that doesn’t prove true is discarded in favor of a new one, and so the component hypotheses of evolutionary theory change as knowledge and understanding grow.

....

"What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge. This demonstrates the scientific uselessness of creationism. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.

"Is it fair or good science education to teach about an unsuccessful, scientifically useless explanation just because it pleases people with a particular religious belief? Is it unfair to ignore scientifically useless explanations, particularly if they have played no role in the development of modern scientific concepts? Science education is about teaching valid concepts and those that led to the development of new explanations."​

[emphasis mine]

I would suggest reading the other details of that correctly framed discussion of the veracity of the Theory of Evolution as opposed to these fringe voices offering nothing other than objections and criticisms. Evolution is not just a few voices that other blindly follow in lockstep behind. It's been proven out again and again across multiple fields of the sciences. If there is credible science arguing against it, then where is it? Has it been tested and confirmed?

 

[Windwalker]

But hearing from God directly or being inspired by God would overcome these concerns.

Forgive me for saying this, but this is pulling a "magic" card out in the same way that one would deny evolution was responsible for the existence of our human species. It swipes away all the evidence we see in one movement and says "magic overcomes this". It pays lip service to the evidence, but says in effect "while that's true over there it's not here. Our's is different because God did a miracle here." But yet, the evidence it happened still exists there as everywhere else it happens.

I take a far less "miracle-ladened" approach to all of these things, science as well as faith. I consider natural evolution to be a miracle in and of itself! It doesn't need to take magical forms to inspire the heart to God for me. To me it says something about God far deeper and richer than the supernatural motif. It's directly seeing the miracle itself, rather than relying on an imagination of a belief of some past supernatural intervention others put into their thoughts about God and recorded on the pages. While that holds value, this is more. We looked for God in our sciences, and He's written in every natural process we see.

Yes, I’m aware of man’s desire to myth-make. When a speaker asked recently what happens if people stop storytelling, I said, “We lose our souls”. However, if God and Moses literally chatted for days at a time I expect more than half-truths or even deeply veiled truths from the reporting of the conversation.

I've had direct experiences of God myself, "face to face" as it were. Yet it still is my thoughts and ideas wrapped around that experience, and those thoughts and ideas can take on many different expressions at different times of the same thing. When Paul writes of his experiences of God, I hear him framing his own thoughts and ideas around them. I don't hear a "dictation" from God. I hear what were real experiences for him, and his translation of them with his mind and personality.

But let's take this where I really wanted to go. Paul's ideas of God in his writings were also part of the evolutionary process of the formation of the Christian religion. It reflects not only Paul's personality, but the culture he was part of. Christianity in Jerusalem was understood against a different cultural backdrop for them than it was in Asia Minor. You see dialog between Paul and James and Peter, tensions of view, disagreements, battles for ideas, etc. It's there in the texts themselves. Taken from a higher perspective, a "bird's eye view" as it were, you see this same formation process happening all over the place. Threads of the miracle stories of John as oral traditions, Matthew's images of Jesus, Mark's images, etc.

There's a great quote I saved from a book from Burton Mack I love and think explains this well where he is critical of the Jesus Seminar's hope to find the "real Jesus" by stripping away the later layers of myth,

“A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.”

(the Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36)​

[emphasis mine]

What he is saying here, and what I would agree with mostly, is that these many and varied portraits of Jesus are reflections of an evolving faith, imaging this man in a wide variety of ways. The myths that stick reflect that faith and carry forward through the symbol created from ourselves. That to me, is the Spirit of Evolution itself, and how God grows and evolves through us. The resurrected Christ is all this. The awakening and unfolding of faith expressed in symbolic truths of something infinitely deeper and beyond them. They are forms of God, as it were. Jesus Christ is much more than Jesus of Nazareth.

There is a great PBS special called From Jesus to Christ. I've link to it here where you can read or watch the special if you wish. But that title to me perfectly captures this evolution of faith. From the historical person, to the symbol of our evolving faith. This does not minimize Jesus. It elevates him. He is much more than a human teacher, but living Spirit within us. I have another way I like to put this. We create God in our own image, so God can create us in His. If you are familiar with archetypal forms this might make more sense.

Alright, I'm sure you poised to throw me into the fire here. Trust me, its just a different way to understand these things.

I'll finish the rest of my response later. I do appreciate your editing to the most salient points in your replies. One of us has to keep this discussion in check. I am very much enjoying this with you.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Have you read Behe? He is a professor of biochemistry that holds a PhD and supports ID. He like I don't reject evolution entirely just bits of it that have no evidence to support claims . Here is a mini Bio and a source from the web;

1. Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University
   www.lehigh.edu/bio/Faculty/Behe.html
   Michael Behe, Ph.D. Professor . Research Interest: Biochemistry. Iacocca Hall 111 Research Drive, D221 Bethlehem, PA 18015 . 610-758-3474. Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for his stance on irreducible complexity,. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for his stance on irreducible complexity.

I try to keep my options open realizing that science is simply a method that chooses the 'best' answer from the available evidence (THAT SATISFY THE MINDS OF AN ELITIST EXCLUSIONARY GROUP) oops caps! Of course they prefer using their own evidence gathered by their own fellows and have a way of keeping out any evidences or anyone that does not think and speak like they do! They also weed out by ridiculing and destroying the career of anyone that strays too far off the established science line. The establishment fears change and so like to make sure no rocks their
nice boat because there goes the grant money!

 

[Windwalker]

Have you read Behe? He is a professor of biochemistry that holds a PhD and supports ID. He like I don't reject evolution entirely just bits of it that have no evidence to support claims . Here is a mini Bio and a source from the web;

1. Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University
   www.lehigh.edu/bio/Faculty/Behe.html
   Michael Behe, Ph.D. Professor . Research Interest: Biochemistry. Iacocca Hall 111 Research Drive, D221 Bethlehem, PA 18015 . 610-758-3474. email Dr

Yes, it's been reviewed by other scientists and shown to not be valid. There is a lot of information out there going into the details of how "irreducible complexity" is wrong.

 

[Windwalker]

BTW, I should add I do believe in "Intelligent Design", just not the magical form of it such as "irreduible complexity" might suggest. I believe evolution itself demonstrates intelligence, just not the cognitive, thought forming, premeditative type of intelligence which is a projection of our own image of ourselves upon God.

 

[Windwalker]

I try to keep my options open realizing that science is simply a method that chooses the 'best' answer from the available evidence (THAT SATISFY THE MINDS OF AN ELITIST EXCLUSIONARY GROUP) oops caps! Of course they prefer using their own evidence gathered by their own fellows and have a way of keeping out any evidences or anyone that does not think and speak like they do! They also weed out by ridiculing and destroying the career of anyone that strays too far off the established science line. The establishment fears change and so like to make sure no rocks their
nice boat because there goes the grant money!

Yeah, conspiracy theories don't carry a lot of weight with me. Yes, there are blind spots in science, yes there is pressures. Yes, it's not flawless. But all of that does not bring the Theory of Evolution into question. There's far too much evidence from multiple fields of the sciences, and it been proven repeatedly by rigorous testing to the point it can be used to make predictions. This is not some "idea" that's popular. That is a horrid misrepresentation of the science.