What Factors Do You Consider When Interpreting the Bible (or any other scripture)
There's been a long-standing debate over whether there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the teachings given, primarily, in the bible but, also, in other scriptures.
My query is, "should we consider the circumstances involved as providing additional directivity to the teachings given?"
I find that, if we don't consider the 'outside' factors such as psychological states of those involved, whether the teachings are given from a political, social, religious, etc standpoint, what symbolism is used and what meaning is intended vs those which are not intended, etc, you get the drift; after such considerations, to me, there's very little contradictions, inconsistencies, mistakes, etc, in the teachings themselves. Most of the problems I often have is with peoples limited perspective. Some of these people are those who wrote the scriptural texts, some are those who translate them, some are those who analyse and interpret them, etc.
What are we looking to find in the scriptures. If it's the truth, then, amidst the many interpretations, which do you pick as truth?
Personally, I choose the least contradictory interpretation or the most harmonious to be closer to the truth. This is because I believe reality to be in absolute harmony in the way it unfolds. This does not mean phenomena don't interact with each other but, there are laws/principles which govern such interactions and resolve them logically. Therefore, for me, the path of least resistance, the path of greatest harmony or unity or freedom, is closest in approximation to reality.
I don't know how you choose what is significant in any teachings but I would like to know. Please share your thoughts.
My query is, "should we consider the circumstances involved as providing additional directivity to the teachings given?"
I find that, if we don't consider the 'outside' factors such as psychological states of those involved, whether the teachings are given from a political, social, religious, etc standpoint, what symbolism is used and what meaning is intended vs those which are not intended, etc, you get the drift; after such considerations, to me, there's very little contradictions, inconsistencies, mistakes, etc, in the teachings themselves. Most of the problems I often have is with peoples limited perspective. Some of these people are those who wrote the scriptural texts, some are those who translate them, some are those who analyse and interpret them, etc.
What are we looking to find in the scriptures. If it's the truth, then, amidst the many interpretations, which do you pick as truth?
Personally, I choose the least contradictory interpretation or the most harmonious to be closer to the truth. This is because I believe reality to be in absolute harmony in the way it unfolds. This does not mean phenomena don't interact with each other but, there are laws/principles which govern such interactions and resolve them logically. Therefore, for me, the path of least resistance, the path of greatest harmony or unity or freedom, is closest in approximation to reality.
I don't know how you choose what is significant in any teachings but I would like to know. Please share your thoughts.
Comments (128)
And, do you take the literal or direct translation or do you factor in indirect statements which use some symbolism or infer a larger context than may be expressed in the meaning of a singular word?
The Bible is not a history book, or a science book, or a political text. It is also not a how to instruction manual. It is, for us believes, the inspired word of God - inerrant in its purpose - which is to save our souls. This is more an emotional journey, than a cerebral one. In a more secular view it is a book, taken in its totality, that is teaching us to love. That is not a journey of the mind, it is a journey of the heart.
Sermon over.
I agree with you. I share the same sentiment because I often think what people misjudge as contradictions and inconsistencies easily fade away with the right context.
Agreed.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Quoting Rank Amateur
This, as I have discovered in my investigations, is the kind of notion that leads to bias. In my opinion, the bible teachings demand both right feeling and right thinking. Not one or the other.
ok - no argument from me - it is a personal journey - enjoy the trip
A journey of the heart refers to developing understanding (or wisdom) which becomes a part of one's life-activity. It is different from a journey of the mind which refers to mental exercises or reason, which in itself is a necessary process towards understanding but not as definitive or comprehensive. This is because reason can differ with circumstances even when the underlying motive is the same.
For example, in the bible, the disciples come to Jesus and tell him of people who've been playing at casting out demons and providing healing in the name of God but they don't seem to be of the same spiritual 'school' as Jesus. So they ask Jesus if they (the pretenders) should be rebuked and he (Jesus) denies their request. The reason for that is later seen when the pretenders meet actual demons and they suffer the consequences of their ineptness. They had managed to replicate actions which reflected certain spiritual connotations but because their faith was not developed (through understanding) their actions could not match up to their intentions. Hence, they were more of conmen than men of God. Jesus saw through their hearts and must have seen that they deceived themselves just as the others (if they did not deceive themselves, they would not have thought to face real demons) and knew that the best remedy was a dose of reality. That reality being that, activity was derived from a corresponding degree of faith (understanding).
To develop the heart (understanding/wisdom), one must be willing to sacrifice time and effort. It is not enough to think and to feel, one must do. And all these parameters take time to mature into significant endeavours, which is why Jesus took his time educating the disciples until he knew that they were ready. And he taught them how to evaluate themselves to know when they would be ready and gave them instructions on what to do and how to go about it.
Also, I think that, as humans, we're always feeling and thinking simultaneously and there is no mastery to be achieved by denying any one in favour of the other. Such an endeavour can only lead to suffering due to an imbalance.
And I must say, it was a fine sermon. Seriously.
But as you can see, the Bible, all holy books, are just begging people to get lost in all this interpretation analysis. It's been going on for 3,000 years, it never ends, each new generation gets sucked in to it.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Then why has the Catholic Church been piling up all the intricate doctrinal documents for 2,000 years?
Here it comes again, yet again. John said, "God is love". Three words. All anybody really needs to know. All the billions of other words are not bringing us closer, they're a hiding place. They allow us to circle safely around what matters and pretend that we're participating.
We go to church and the full text of the priest's sermon is...
God is love.
But, but, but, we say, we have many questions!!
And the priest says...
And then the priest has to get another job, cause there's little market for getting down to business. :smile:
I wish. It's more like the priest keeps saying the same things over and over again until... Oh, wait, they're not done yet. And that's the downfall of religion - that, beyond the bible (scriptural) teachings, most people do not want to take the necessary efforts to develop their own faith.
Ecclesiastes 9:4 ... to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
Ecclesiastes 9:9-9:11
[b][i]Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy futility, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy futility: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.[/b][/i]
Ecclesiastes seems to me to be quite unlike much of scripture in that it emphasizes the futility of existence. Enjoy life, because that's all there is, and in the end there is the grave where there is nothing. The best do not win. The wise are not rewarded. Life is futility.
Pairing the Micah and Ecclesiastes verses one gets "You only have this life in which to do justice, love tenderly, and keep God company. This one life is not a dress-rehearsal; it is the main, and only event. So, mortal, if you are going to do justice, love mercy, and keep god company, you had best get on with it.
Life may be futile for God too. Hosea was ordered to marry a prostitute who, after the marriage, continued to behave like a whore. What is the point of this exercise, a frustrated Hosea asks. God says that being the God of Israel is a lot like being married to a whore--extremely disappointing.
My unsupportable opinion is 99% of this is for human aggrandizement and 1% for the greater glory of God. But I could be a little to cynical
Yea, but they have that in persona Cristi thing - big time job security there
@BrianW
For all the contradictions there are otherwise reasonable interpretations consistent with the overall message in the scriptures. Most people often ignore them because they're more interested in proving "God" to be wrong. In the end, they just reveal their motives. There are many reasons why statements from different people would be contradicting, the better question would be, are their teachings in contrast?
Quoting Rank Amateur
The trouble starts at the moment we say the word God. The word "God" is a noun. It has to be defined so we can draw the imaginary boundary between "God" and "not-God". Then various people will declare themselves experts on the subject, and those who can master the job of projecting authority will be able to make a living at being such experts. Once they know how to play the role of expert, and probably forgot how to make a living any other way, the authority generating machine has to be promoted, typically by an ever growing pile of definitions and explanations. And the authority generating machine has to be defended, which typically involves conflict of various kinds. Then people's egos become attracted to and addicted to the conflicts, and the circus unfolds from there.
Rather than attempt to unravel the circus bit by bit, it seems more efficient to return to the "original sin" of taking the real and turning it in to the symbolic. That is, the shift of focus from the experience to explanations of experience.
Ok, so some of that shift is inevitable, this is granted. But instead of building an ever higher pile of interpretations we should be seeking to reduce the pile to the lowest possible level so that the pile of interpretations doesn't get confused with the experience itself, at least to the degree that is humanly possible.
This is why I keep chanting John's statement that "God is love". It's an interpretation of course, but it seems to get to the bottom line in the most efficient manner. But then John, like me, wasn't content to leave it there and went on to say a million other things, and so the circus continues.
Yes, but to be fair to the priest, this is what their audience wants. If we keep talking about love, love, love and God, God, God then we can create the impression that we are faithful to the religion, without having to actually do anything that is scary or challenging.
You know, when I was young my Mom dutifully took us to Mass every Sunday, and we sat there and did the routine, and then never spoke a word about it the rest of the week. We had checked the God box, we were done until next Sunday.
It seems the reality the priest is faced with is that this is what most of us want to do most of the time, and if the priest rocks that boat too much he won't have a congregation.
At least the priests have their priorities in order.
Apparently, for some people, it doesn't matter why the statements might contradict as long as they do. Why should reasons matter?
Where do you want to go from there ?
It's a good question so allow me to provide a reply.
Quoting Rank Amateur
The contradictions are fact. However, the bible is not a collection of historical or scientific facts. The main aim of the scriptures is to teach morality which it does to a very high degree of success. Other factors are at best 'filler material'. In fact, we could ignore the 'who said' and 'when it was said' part and the 'what was said' would still qualify as proper moral teachings.
I believe those who get stuck at the contradictions are the type who are inclined to believe God exists because the bible says so. They forget they have a duty to themselves to question everything and to analyse everything in order to extract what is significant and useful. So the question to ask is, "what significance do the contradictions have in light of the purpose of the bible and its narratives?"
As you read, the words and sentences are being converted into a narrative in your mind by your understanding. That is what I mean by interpretation. This means that whatever report is in the bible (scriptures) must be given a reasonable and critical processing before its value can be determined.
As I've mentioned (in the previous post), the contradictions are fact. Yet, they do not diminish the value of the scriptural narratives. The contradictions are just a proof of human participation. Only those who wish to direct ridicule or scorn to God seem to dwell on them. Ask those same people if they believe in God, or who/what God is, and their silence or lack of logical responses would be quite uninspiring.
Hello preacher - meet me the choir
How about the story of Adam and Eve should be interpreted abstractly as should all the parables be interpreted abstractly.
Interpreting the Bible literally is very problematic! Yes, we should wash our hands before eating and demons do not possess us unless you want to be abstract about those demons meaning fear and anger, not literally supernatural beings of evil.
I am the person who started the contradictions thread and in there I did not make any claims about Gods existence. My primary question is how truth can exist with contradictions.
I am personally an agnostic and I have argued a lot with atheists and materialists.
The issue bible inerrancy is a valid theological topic with a long history that a lot has been written about not something invented by the "New atheists"
My thread was targeted at people who claim the bible (or some other work) is infallible.
Contradictions are most problematic for people who believe in Biblical infallibility. The infallibility doctrine tends to be preached by groups like the Evangelicals and The Plymouth Brethren sect I grew up in.
When I have discussed this with my parents they often supported infallibility but when you push them they admit they are using interpretation. But then they claim their interpretation is true because the holy spirit revealed it to them
Contradictions in what? Statements may have truth value but are not truth in themselves, are they?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Why should the bible be infallible? Doesn't that point to God and not the humans who wrote the bible?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Again, what is true? Or truth?
Agreed. I find people who find fault with scriptures are at fault themselves for not evaluating the nature of what they're extracting from those scriptures. Most people can't give an absolute definition for truth, yet they want to accuse the scriptures for not portraying that truth they do not fully understand. And often they're the first to claim falsity in others.
Contradictory claims abut the same topic leading to confusion.
Quoting BrianW
I am not claiming it is or should be. But many people still make this claim. I think if you believe the bible is just something to be interpreted and not lawful then anyone can interpret it as they see fit or based on their sense of revelation.
However if you interpret it using notions of logic and fact and commandment or law then your interpretation is going to be criticized using these tools. I have no problem with positive and non harmful interpretations of scripture. I had this interpretation myself as a child as I mentioned in the other thread I focused on verse like "Turn the other cheek" I think that you can get some kind of inspiration from the Bible by interpretation but I wouldn't call interpretation fact.
There are long and detailed Wikipedia articles on all this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
I think in a democracy our faith is supposed to be a faith in humans, however, with this faith is an understanding of the importance of education that enhances the human good, and that is not education for a technological society with unknown values.
It is also a concept of equality that does not mean being same, for we are as different as the gods, but the sun shines equally on all of us, so we aim for equal opportunity to fulfill our individual potential and make our best contribution to the whole. This is not compatible with the hierarchy of authority of religions and the notion that some are closer to god than others, or that a god has a chosen few.
You opened the door for that comment by inferring a goal should be to develop our own faith. Humanism and faith in humans is preferable to some of us.
so how about we all just stipulate, that basis some reasonable interpretations of the Bible there are passages that can be shown to be contradictory to other passages. Let's all assume that is 100% true for this discussion -
Where do you want to go from there Andrew ?
I think if people perform their due diligence of employing their reasoning faculties then the confusion fades away. And it begins with knowing what one is looking for. If the confusion arises from some relation to truth, then one must know what truth is for them to know what truth isn't.
If the confusion arises from different statements, given by different people at different times, in different circumstances, etc, then I think it should have very little inconvenience for one who is unbiased in their criticism and open to all reasonable interpretations.
Liberal education taught people how to think, not what to think. Unless we learn how to think abstractly, we don't. Nothing is wrong with anything said in the Bible when it is understood abstractly. However, a lot is wrong with the Bible when it is understood concretely. I want to stress, we need education in the higher order thinking skills if we are to use our brains most effectively for the better of mankind and all life on earth. Relying on a god to take care of us is a big mistake, however, understanding how God works (science) is pretty important.
What is your idea of how to judge truth? My idea of judging truth is to use the scientific method. I also try to remain aware that I should never be too sure of what I think I know. I am afraid those who think they can know absolute truth are absolutely dangerous.
Yeah, I believe developing faith is similar to developing understanding. And part of it is, as you say, realising the relation between the abstract and the concrete.
Quoting Athena
Truth for me is in seeking and learning that which in reality is constant and unchangeable.
Quoting Athena
True. There's a question, "how can relative existence (such as humans) claim possession of any absoluteness (knowledge of truth). I think the best tool to uncover truth with is logic, patience and constant effort. Because we're limited, we should avoid the pretense of attaining to absolutes. This makes our values just as fluid as our nature, and why should it be any different?
:chin: I am not sure we want our values to be too fluid? :cool: you tickle me with the idea our values should be fluid because it causes me to think. If our math values were fluid they would be no good to us, and perhaps civilized values are the same? Perhaps we should allow for civilizations having different values, just we might allow for individuals to have different values? And yet we need constant and shared values if we are going to get along.
We value being responsible human beings, but is not caring for children being responsible? Should we support mothers who want to stay home be full-time homemakers? Personally, I think nothing is more important than raising our children. But we seem to think people who are not working for the beast do not deserve the necessities of life. :worry: That is having shared values but not exactly the same values. Because we are not in agreement we have many children growing at risk and this becomes a costly social problem. Before the New Order World, we had family order, and I think the New World Order is about serving the beast, not the family. I mention this because the beast is mentioned in the Bible. We are warned against the beast and yet we seem to be supporting it 100%.
I think people should stop promoting biblical infallibility and stop proselyting and should teach people the bible in a critical way without making false claims.
Personally my interpretation of the bible and my examination of the contradictions leads me to reject most of Christianity especially in a literal sense.
I am a not assuming the bible contradicts itself. I know it does. Like I said in the other thread I think contradictions are a good tool for examining somethings truth.
Some of the Bible may be true. If someone wants to make this claim I want to see the evidence.
I don't think "interpretation" should be an excuse for completely twisting statements in the bible or being tactically vague.
Christians are trying to spread Christianity around the world and trying to translate the bible into every language. In the face of this I think people being targeted to in this way by proselytizing and evangelicalism have a right to response and challenge. I think children have a right to chose their own religion and not to be indoctrinated.
What do you think is true in the bible. It seems like you are prevaricating. And if something is true in the bible what is it and why is it true?
I think people should be able say whatever they believe about the Bible, and leave it to the discernment of the audience to agree or not.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
As is your right, enjoy
Quoting Andrew4Handel
As is your right - enjoy
Andrew - It is big world of ideas out there, some good - some bad, some we chose to believe some we don't. In a tip of the hat to Terrapin Station - we are all going to leave this broke down palace someday - there are lots of paths to chose from where we are to there - we are all free to chose - pick well and enjoy the ride.
You're the one who brought up the notion of contradictions and truth. My questions to you are attempts to find out what you mean by truth and how you determine their relation to the contradictions.
By truth I mean the factual. Factual claims. Factual values. I think that most historical atrocities have some relation to false truth assertions.I am an agnostic. I don't think saying "I don't know" can lead to atrocities.
I think if there is a contradiction then either A or B is true or neither, but they can't both be true. So I was asking how you find truth in contradiction.
No Christian I have met has followed the bible literally nor could they, even when they claim to do so. But people use the infallibility doctrine to convert people.
I have lived this for my entire childhood 'til I was 17 so this is very real for me. As an adult you can adopt a religion and choose which bits you like and how to interpret it but this has not been the reality for many children like myself.
I think the truth is relevant wheninfallibility and truth claims are made. There are lots of Christians that don't believe in infallibility and they pose no problem to anyone I imagine.
BTW I did not invent the infallibility or inerrancy doctrines but I was subject to them my entire childhood.
There are those who use reason to justify bias. Personally, as a believer, I often find myself questioning some of the bible statements but I never question its teachings on morality. I think some of the leaders in the bible were more intense in their judgements than others but their overall stance on morality in terms of right and wrong seem to be the same.
In common use, the terms facts and truth are very fluid in their definitions. Personally, I define truth as the part of reality that is constant and unchangeable; and fact is a statement which defines status or the state of a circumstance. I think facts can change with change in circumstances while the truth never does. This is one of the problems I have in relating fact to truth. Because of this, I also don't consider people's claims as truths.
Therefore, on the query of contradictions vs truth, I think facts are obscured by contradictions but the truth remains untouched.
There are those who use reason to justify bias. Personally, as a believer, I often find myself questioning some of the bible statements but I never question its teachings on morality. I think some of the leaders in the bible were more intense in their judgements than others but their overall stance on morality in terms of right and wrong seem to be the same.
Do what works for you, but we must all remember that we are a part of a community, so always keep the community in mind, too; and I think the best way to do this is to always try to follow the Golden Rule and admit that we can be wrong.
The best we can do during our short lives in our benighted world is take care of one another as well as we can. The best we can do will not get one into heaven (which I doubt exists); it will not earn us special treatment after death (the dead stay dead); and we may get no thanks for our efforts -- but that is still what we should try to do.
I believe it's the intelligent way since it reflects self-discipline and personal responsibility over one's endeavours.
I think the beast represents the ways of association along the lines of bias (such as racial, cultural and historical, economic, social, religious, geographic, sexual, mental, emotional, physical, etc) especially when unity and harmony is not the main aim of these interactions.
Personally, I think, as a collective humanity, we're at that point in development where we are becoming aware of our biases and negativities. We have managed to come up with a few quick solutions or ideas to alleviate some of them (the biases and negativities) but we're not yet ready to undertake the main 'cleansing' process. The best we can do now is ensure those who depend on us for wisdom and direction understand the plan and continue with the preparations. At the moment, the inertia (which is a natural part of all motion) within certain factions and individuals seems to mask the collective progress but only outwardly and, at best, is just a momentary setback.
This explains the rise of literary cults. Cults where books are considered divine, or epyphanies of the Divinity. Since then, we have characters in written stories are our gods, and the voice of Heaven is no longer in the signs Nature as Celts, Egyptians or Iberians or Mesopotamians believed, but in published books.
Thus, we learnt to see time not as a circle or spiral (Time has fractal qualities, which manifest in patterns that repeat and that is how calendars are made and how all pre-alphabetic societies viewed time), but as a literary story: with a Beginning, a Development that builds up a climax, and an End of the World. The end of the World is not a new beginning, is the real end of the world: the literary deities promise that. That is why Christianity and post-Christianity (socialism, capitalism), Luciferian logias, Islamism and Judaism all work for a much awaited and desired Doomsday or end of History; and not for the preservation of Nature and the Human race, which is the purpose of religion and History in circular or spiral (scientific) conceptions of Time.
Part of Literary idolatry, is the idea that written pages can convey the thoughts of God: so "Scripture" is used as an oracular object, seeking information about when the end of the world will come and what can we personally do to bring it closer; also what we can we do personally to be in good terms with the deity when the (probably nuclear) Final Chapter comes.
The truth that makes most sense considering it's context. Words by themselves are meaningless, words get their meaning by the context they are placed in.
Hence to understand the word, one must read the sentence.
To understand the sentence one must read the paragraph.
To understand the paragraph one must read the chapter.
To understand the chapter one must read the book.
To understand the book, one must know the society/culture it was written in.
To understand the society/culture one must know it's circumstances like:
existence in time, geographical location and (pre)history.
All those are minimum requirements in order to understand them in an even greater context like the devine.
I am not sure I am understanding your post. The book "Suicide of the West" speaks of a return to tribalism and the education that prevents that. Would the word "tribalism" work in an explanation of the problem?
Quoting BrianW
When we were not aware of biases and negatives? Is what you said a positive or a negative? Awareness of our faults brings us closer to resolving them. Awareness of the faults of others can make matters worse of better depending on how we deal with that. For example prejudice against native Americans, Asians, people of color, immigrants from Italy and Irland have been serious problems in the US at different times. Cultural differences are problematic and the US used education for transmitting a culture to resolve the cultural conflict problem but that stopped in 1958. Without education for culture and the conditions of poverty, there are countercultures and these can become a serious social problem.
I watched a program documenting a school's struggle with underachieving children in a city school in a neighborhood with severe poverty and addicted parents who were failing their children. Most of these children will drop out of school because they are not learning and cannot keep up when the schools require more of children, and there are fewer labour jobs for them. These children do not have life skills and may never become part of mainstream society. We do not have quick solutions for dealing with this, but a rapidly increasing homeless population and increasing prison population. It is not a problem that can be managed by police, jails and prisons and the point of the document is these schools are underfunded and are not given the resources necessary for correcting the problem.
Yipes, this thread is about interpreting the Bible. Oh gee, the problem is God has allowed Satan to come to earth. We are not seeing the number people possessed by demons that were the problem during the hundreds of years of witch hunts, but we are seeing the problem with humans being degenerates who cannot possibly govern themselves and must have authority over them, and aren't we lucky that Trump is being such a good father to our nation? Ah, that Biblical explanation is not exactly how I understand the problems, but who should we believe, anthropologist and socialogiist or the Bible?
I so remember when I thought it possible that sounds/words could have magical power. I also remember I was afraid I was possessed by Satan. That was a very bad time in my life. I had a choice, I could start killing people because I was too weak to oppose Satan, or I could decide those religious notions were false, there is no Satan and whatever I do falls totally on me and the need for me to be responsible for what I do. At the time Satanism was popular and quite a few young people went to prison because of killing someone under the influence of Satanism. I am glad I decided the whole God and Satan story is not a good explanation of reality. But when we are young, we are impressionable and there is a tendency to be attracted to the occult, magic spells and magic potions. There is a dark side to Christianity and I think it has contributed to social problems throughout history.
Quoting DiegoT
Yes, if I understand you correctly, superstition followed a period of time when people were not superstitious and didn't study a holy book but nature. It is so paradoxical that a book that is 100% supernatural is supposed to be the truth. This is a political problem. Democracy depends on understanding nature, not supernatural forces. When our gods were nature gods we had a better understanding of nature, and opposed the notion that a man could be a god. Granted we could be sons and daughters of a god, and this belief gave Alexander a strong following of men willing to follow him into war, but the folks in Athens, who were pulling away from superstition, didn't find it believable that a human could be a god. But we do have a problem with Egypt. At least Cleopatra was able to convince some that she was the incarnation of Isis. Wasn't her attraction to Ceasar in part the possibility of being considered a god? Something that was not possible in Rome.
Didn't Mesopotamia go back and further on the notion about gods and man? It seems to me, in places where priests had a lot of power the people had a story that justified the priest having a lot of power, but the Greeks didn't have powerful priest did they? We learn a lot about Greek philosophers without hearing of them having powerful priests. However, when the Greeks moved into Egypt they took advantage of Egypt's religious beliefs to gain power and greatly improve the economy by developing a market for religious paraphernalia? Then we move on to a later date and Byzantine tears itself apart fighting over religious if icons are to be considered holy and have power or considered taboo.
With Christianity, I am sure the biggest draw is a belief in immortality. At least I sure struggled with the fear that I would loose my immortality if I turned against Christian belief. Eastern religions and the notion of reincarnation helped me get over that. However, I have a Christian friend who totally believes Jesus is a supernatural power that answers our prayers. She handles all her life fears by clinging to Jesus and a belief in the power of prayer. I believe that works, but not because there is a supernatural power. Facing a challenge and saying "I think I can. I think I can." also works.
I find Christianity confusing. How does a person know if life is bad because God is punishing them for their sins, or because Satan has power?
:up: :ok:
BrianW
Those words are worth repeating. What can you tell us of Tomseltje? What is his geography and time?
Concerning negativities and biases, there was a study conducted to investigate whether our lives at present is much improved compared to the 18-19th centuries. (I don't remember the name of the study or the link to it.) The study goes on to show that the number of rapes has gone down by almost 80-90% but the reason we don't see it that way is because our awareness of even the little that is occurring is so much greater. Basically, the study goes on to say that the average person is much safer at present than in those old days but because our awareness of current affairs is so much improved, it often feels like we're dealing with crime and violence all the time. (I think the study refers primarily to those countries whose governments have a semblance of stability, which is most of them.)
Anyway, my point is, it is easy to get worked up when focusing on the negatives but, the level of human interaction we have achieved is such that even those who do not attend school are capable of knowing which direction to head towards in terms of morality, destiny, profession, etc. The main problem is not institutions but the values which the average human chooses. Yes, governments and institutions do play their part in directing people but, they are run by people who must have proper values in the first place. We've replaced humility with popularity, discipline with ambition, intelligence with victory, etc both in home values and institutions. And, what most people won't agree to, is that, home values are more important because the young and impressionable humans are sent from home into those institutions. How come those caring care-givers don't question the institutions? And before we get into parents and care-givers trusting the institutions, remember that it's parents and care-givers who work at those institutions.
What I'm saying is, the short-sightedness is a symptom of a collective ignorance which is being alleviated at the speed at which we can move. It is not a fast pace but most of us are not that fast either. Very few humans are intelligent enough, with the capacity to accumulate enough resources in time to change the small environment around them. And, unfortunately, instead of the rest of humanity rallying behind them and their efforts, they would rather sit back and receive the benefits instead of work even harder when incentive is given.
It's a universal disease and it will take a while before the patients can heal themselves. But, the fact of it is that, undoubtedly, there is progress.
He's a member of tpf, I just appreciated his contribution.
What are the values held by international banking and how do you feel about the bankers determining what our children learn? Which do you think is playing a stronger role in determining our reality, religious organizations or the bankers? Do you think these people share the same values?
I think we're lost the moment we fail to realise our ability in determining our circumstances. The parents and care-givers determine to a far reaching extent what the children learn. When the children see their superiors subjecting themselves to institutions as if they (the institutions) have any real power over them, then most of them (the children) suppose they have no choice but to comply with the stat quo.
Neither banks nor religions determine our reality. We (humans) have given them too much influence over us but, if we determined to, we could reclaim it. The only deterrent is, unlike the collective handing over of power, those who wish to reclaim are often individuals who cannot muster the resources of the collective.
My answer to those who seek a revolution which they can't seem to propagate is to nurture strength of spirit to shield them in misfortune (from Desiderata). The current state of affairs of the world is such that people will lose money, people will lose their houses, people will lose their loved ones, people will lose their livelihood and even their lives. Only those who can muster the resolve to keep fighting are worth anything to humanity. (That is what I tell my family - It's not what you have that determines who you are but who you are determines what you have. Also, that it's more important to be than to have because, in the end, all you have is who you are.)
People complain due to many reasons, primarily desperation, and all those reasons are signs of weakness. I have it and so do many others too. The only solution is to fight against the weakness and resolve to fight even if by oneself. But if someone is only willing to fight if supported by others then they should also be willing to wait until those others are ready and willing, even if it means never.
However, as far as interpreting religious books, even that approach might fall short. I think it´s better to not consider any book sacred and divine. Before writing people were very superstitious; but they also were less prone to take simple words for granted. Even Egyptian scribes, who thought that they were the literal vessels of Djehuti more or less like the Sacred Form is supposed to be the vessel of Christ and considered written texts magical, still wrote that true wisdom is not to be found in books, but in the observation of Nature. The hieroglyph for "to be high, to exalt", for example (a28), is derived from the gestures than babuins do at daybreak. These animals were considered special and their warm-up routine perfectly symbolized visually the glorification of Ra in its rising sun manifestation. Nature informed literature, and not the other way round. With literary cults such as the Torah or Mani´s Living Gospels, the hierarchy is inversed, and from then on we learnt that if Nature is at odd with the Written text, is Nature that is wrong. This is not exactly superstitious, is idolatrous: because the text becomes more than a text, it becomes a divine manifestation and the writers and characters in the stories become divine.
This strange idea is so ingrained in our Piscis era psyche, that even atheistic people think like this. For example, a feminist reads de Beavoir or Judith Butler and says to herself: "something is wrong with Nature!" (Physical reality). Ancient peoples were incredibly superstitious, however they did not worshipped books. Very ironically, Christian, Jewish and Muslim people call people who don´t worship books and images (characters in texts) "idolatrous".
Ha, your first post was far too full of wisdom; consequently (and unsurprisingly) no one responded to it.
May your posts always find positive response (or at least interesting negative response).
We can always hope, and that hope does seem to be fulfilled at least some of the time...otherwise why would we bother?
Not saying you are incorrect, but if you claim my approach might fall short, please do state what is missing. I merely mentioned some obvious requirements from the top of my head, since in most discussions I have about the subject, most people who disagree with me tend to not have taken those into consideration.
Ability to read the language and characters used in the book is another obvious criterium, though I consider it to be part of being familiar with the culture the book was written in. Do you have an addition criterium that can't be seen as part of the requirements I mentioned already?
The water consisting of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom you describe isn't always fluid, it can also be solid or gasious and even viscosious if mixed with other stuff.
It's not the quote that matters, it's the interpretation. People who dislike biblical quotes unfortunately are so poor of mind in that regard generally, that they can't imagine someone having a different interpretation than they are already familiar with. And since they dismissed that interpretation as useless, they can't imagine someone bringing up a biblical quote leading to something usefull.
I'm still hoping for the moment of someone actually prooving me wrong. This may sound arrogant, but when one has dealt with as many strawmen of my positions as I have, it becomes quite understandable.
Luckily I also have many sensible discussions, but for some reason, when no logical fallacies are being made, most people tend to agree with me.
I said that it falls short (after writing that your guidelines was the correct scientific approach) because when you think that a text contains the real literal words and deeds of human beings and God, any approach is insufficient. There is just no way that a text, no matter how well written, could convey the minds of people or supernatural entities that lived thousands of years ago. Or in the XXI century.
Quoting Tomseltje
The above statement (which I believe bears repeating again) is significant because there's much wisdom in it's precise and concise form. It portrays a semblance of logic in it's hierarchy of seeking meaning from an overarching frame of reference. It's almost as if to say:
To find the value of an individual consider the family (close associates, even close friends) they belong;
To find the value of the family consider the society (also culture) they belong;
To find the values of the society consider the nation they're in;
To find the value of the nation consider the world;
* (By consider, I do not mean make a direct connection or surmisation e.g. that the individual is identical to the family in character. It just means that the role of the individual in the family expresses much about one's individuality.)
Even though it is not definitive, it is comprehensive and there is also some consistency, in principle, about it. Perhaps, it's that we cannot escape the influence of our collective associations, therefore, everything about us has a connection which is also a reference point to others. This means, to suppose that an individual (also an individual's words, actions, etc) can have utility independent of everything and everyone else, would smack of a lie. Therefore, to understand any aspect, its frames of reference also matter, and that applies to the bible's teachings too.
True enough; I can't experience your consciousness, but I can sample it by way of your words, physical expression, emotive affect, and so on. Even people who have lived together for decades are up against the brick wall of the skull inside of which consciousness takes place. Separate the person and his words by 2 or 3 thousand years, and Tomseltje's method is the most one can do.
As for the thoughts of divinities, well... Supposing divinities exist, they don't operate printing presses where their words flow from the mind of the gods onto paper for our edification. They are expressed through persons in particular times and places. One would think that all powerful deities could set up a printing works. After all, their highly fallible finite fickle followers manage to do that with aplomb. Fortress Publishing for Lutherans, Cokesbury Press for Methodists, etc.
Your method is sound. So sound, it's foundational.
But... you say "minimum requirements". What more can one do to determine the meaning that a divinity may or may not have expressed? Some divinities (Jesus, Buddha...) were present here as men, so we can apply your method to what they had to say. God almighty? I don't quite know how to get more certainty from him, her, it, them.
But I´m telling you it is not enough at all. For example, when we read in Genesis that there was a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the scholarly likely conclusion is that the translation was wrong, and it is better to translate "The tree of all knowledge". Because we do not have a pre-biblical tradition of trees of good and evil, but we do have a tradition of trees of knowledge: Hom tree, Soma tree, and there are also Egyptian examples. So a biblical translator can suppose that "good and evil" is used as a merism, as in "I traveled far and wide", or "I shivered from top to toe", to signify "to the entire extent". However, we also know that biblical authors, like most scribes in Ancient times when paper and ink were very expensive, liked to give double and triple meaning to words and sentences. So the possibility that the actual translation was a moral one can not be discarded for sure. In fact, Genesis was the last book to be introduced in the Jewish canon, when the Persian religion with its manichean and escathological themes was influencing strongly the Levant.
If the interpretation has only a scholarly or literary value a footnote would be more than enough; however, it so happens that from the translation of the name of this tree theological teachings are derived. It´s not the same at all to say that God wanted to prevent humans from developing ethics, than to say that God did not wanted us to develop science. Consider how today we debate if technology and scientific knowledge is neutral or must be examined ethically; or if ethics should be subordinated to science, etc.
The point is, that the level of certainty in the interpretation that a religious, or oracular reading of the Bible requires to avoid making the Bible say what we want to say is excessive, even impossible for us.
Of course, a religious person will contend that you can count on the Holy Ghost´s influence upon your mind to interpret it right; but if the Holy Ghost can inspire you in such a direct and particular way, why the need for a book?
If the 'hom' and 'soma' tree can represent the same idea, why can't the term 'good and evil' be used alike? It's not about identical words or terms just equivalent meaning. Why would "the scholarly likely conclusion" be that the translation was wrong?
The tree of good and evil is not about God denying humans knowledge or anything of such significance and necessity.
It was about God knowing that humans were not ready for the choices that come with free will, and so He (God) asked them (adam & eve representing humanity) to trust His (God's) judgement and decision on their behalf. In the bible, the tree of good and evil represent choices which we acquire through knowledge. God was ready to share knowledge with humans but asked that they trust Him to make their choices for them until they understood enough to make choices for themselves.
Substitute 'tree of good and evil' with 'acts of good and evil' or 'words of good and evil', what we get is that whatever they became a part of (signified by consuming the fruit), would entail choices. Choices they were not ready for. Having 'eaten' of the 'tree of good and evil' they realised they were naked and hid. That means they were introduced to perspective outside of God's, which would imply a limited perspective and consequently somewhat born of ignorance, hence, shame and fear as consequences.
It's like when children realise they can make choices beyond their parents control. The parents often have no choice but to give them the freedom to experience the consequences of their choices. Except in the case of adam & eve it meant denying themselves the choices that derive from divine wisdom instead of parental wisdom as is the case with children.
Quoting DiegoT
My point is, there is no certainty, so the best that can be done is determine which interpretation is most logical, in the sense of least chaotic or most harmonious and comprehensive, and work with it until better understanding is achieved. This is primarily aimed at those who seek faults in the bible (or any scriptures) without realising that it's their understanding which is often at fault.
Just checked with my bible and it's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I must also point out that your interpretation of the passage is personal and not justified hermeneutically. I think you just want the passage to mean that, or you read what another person would like it to mean. For example, the nakedness more easily means change of status when they get dressed; when we invest somebody with a role or position, we dress him or her, for that is what the verb investire means literally in Latin. Adam and Eve, when are dressed in animal skins, become separated from the rest of the animals; the sacrifice of the totem animals and the act of wearing the skin is the ritual of passage. So you can read that God recognizes this change of status, derived from culture (knowledge) that expels us from Paradise, that is union with Nature. Animals don´t know death, or labour, because their consciousness is not split in their mind from the here and now. This interpretation is more reasonable, because we know from Persian myth and Gilgamesh Epic that people in the Fertile Crescent believed that the transition from animal to human was due to the new consciousness that is provoked by self-domestication induced by socialization; and was culminated by the construction of cities as separated spaces from Nature (Cain was the founder of the first city).
Quoting BrianW
Sorry about this. It only matters because I kept omitting the words 'the knowledge of' and I had to check to remind myself what the correct designation is. Anyway, I mentioned it to avoid any confusion that might arise.
We can't ignore the reference of good and evil because it is made explicit in the conversation between God and adam &eve. Also the change in perspective is clearly explained by "their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked." Further conversation between God and adam & eve shows that their latter state of awareness is not considered ideal by God (hence somewhat 'evil') and so God gives them instructions or directives on how to deal with the consequences of their choices, a life considered cursed.
Quoting DiegoT
What do you mean by this? There is much context in support of my interpretations.
Quoting DiegoT
Considering the story is about the primordial state of life (mainly human), I don't think culture is a factor. I believe it's more about naivety (perhaps curiosity) than inclinations and trends.
I think culture (inclinations and trends) are properly dealt with in the Noah story (or in the story about Lot and his family in sodom and gomorrah).
The second one is the historic and literary approach, in which we want to compare the valuable texts in the Bible with other ancient texts and the archeological record, to understand the evolution of ideas, symbols and customs. This is my favourite!
The third is the oracular interpretation. An oracle is a communication from the Divine to mortals, via diviners who act as mediums, or different natural signs such as the aspect of a goat´s liver. It comes from orare, to speak, so it is when you ask God for answers and he gives you a reply. When we seek answers to our personal problems, spiritual doubts, or hints about God´s will, we are doing the oracular interpretation, similar to use the tarot. I´d rather use the tarot to the Bible for this purpose, because it´s more fun and there are no so many goats everywhere; however a Christian will prefer to use the Bible because in a book cult the selected book is considered a divine manifestation.
El Quijote works just as well; some people in Spain have El Quijote by their bed, and you can open the book randomly to read a passage. They are always meaningful and seem to be speaking to you and what is going on in your life. That´s partly why El Quijote is the most read novel ever: it is so attuned with human nature. Cervantes and Shakespeare died the same day, 23rd of April: World Book Day.
Check out this article:- https://www.goldcountrycalvary.com/images/pdf/HAClass7Principles.pdf. It shows there are many more considerations in hermeneutics.
It is important to mark this distinction, because the corresponding interpretations are different and even opposed; and also that the religious, divinatory (from Latin divinare, to consult the gods) or oracular interpretation is only valid in the sense that interpretations of what tarot cards mean is valid. They mean what you want them to signify.
I also think that Protestant sects or churches, are not Christian, precisely because they rely on book idolatry even more strongly than Catholics or Anglicans. Consider this: If I download the Vedas with a good translation, or say I learn Sanskrit to read them proper: and I derive articles of faith and commandments from my own reading, am I a Hinduist? Or am I creating an entirely new religion using the text as a personal or communal oracle?
If the personal interpretation has nothing to do with the teachings of the scriptures in terms of principle, context, related teachings and texts, etc., then it can be said to be contrary to the scriptures. But, if there's a relation, then it's not really separate from or in contradiction to the scriptures because the scriptures (all of them as far as I know) allow and ask us to consult our own understanding and to transcend limitations born of bias by applying the wisdom to as wide a variety of circumstances and factors as possible. What you're saying is that there are those who have the sole authority in determining what and how the scriptures should be understood. That is shown to be the wrong impression by Jesus when he gave an interpretation of the laws (ten commandments) different from what the 'churches' had been teaching and accepting. In fact, a common feature of the bible is the re-interpretation of the teachings given by different men of God to suit the variable circumstances. I think validity is determined by the relation which the interpretation bears to the texts of the scripture. If the relation is flimsy (logically, practically, etc), then there's a case for fallaciousness but, if it matches several factors (the right principles, comprehensive context, historical and cultural associations, psychological consideration, etc) and is logical and practical, I see no reason not to accept it, even if in a provisional capacity.
I don't know how you can interpret a bald statement like that, or a commandment and it is clearly an incitement to kill which I cannot offer the principle of charity to.
And suppose, like Jesus said, the laws were made for man, not vice versa. Also, those commandments which direct to kill a witch also demand that adulterers be killed. Then, consider Jesus' example with the adulteress. In the end, it's about logic, practicality, context, purpose, and many other considerations.
Humans are not machines and are expected to act with forethought and sentiments like compassion and forgiveness and such, according to moral and logical wisdom.
could resist:
“But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going around who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did.”
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (end of Chapter 2)[/right]
Excuse me, where do you get your information? It is different from the information I have. The World Bank has influenced education around the world and the citizens in all countries are unaware of why education was changed.
And for religion, my goodness teachers took the Texas school system to court in a fight over if science book should include the Christian creation story, and the teachers won at the supreme court level.
And 2012 Texas Republican agenda was Christian school interference. This gauntees students will not learn independent thinking skills.
Because Texas buys so many textbooks, makers of textbooks cater to Texas.
Quoting BrianW
What you have said is very important, and I want to know what education do you think leads the character you speak of? Greek and Roman classics lead to that kind of character and there may be other sources of education of which I am not aware.
Quoting BrianW
At this point, I have no idea what you think we should fight for and what we are fighting against. Of what do people complain? I am saying without the education the Christians stand against, everyone is prepared to be owned by the banks. We may be saying the same thing in different ways? If not we need to continue the argument until we have an agreement.
za
The world bank has acquired its power from what people collectively have given it (the implicit trust in the financial institutions which latter, modern, doubters have failed to convince people otherwise). Banks didn't just roll out of hell and begin to subjugate people. They offer services and people were, and still are, blinded by comfort so much so that they would set aside work for pleasure and enjoyments. It's that kind of mentality that presents that other 'ugly' side of reality. Institutions operate as designated by governments and governments are run according to people. The larger percentage of people are 'mindless drones', which is a bad commentary on their hard work but sadly true in terms of why and how they work. Your statement is testament to that, "and the citizens in all countries are unaware of why education was changed." There's no collective responsibility without personal responsibility. Governments and institutions don't work for people, people work for themselves through them. These (the governments and instituions) are just tools and means. I think it's sad when people turn up in the tens or hundreds of millions to vote for a leader without realising that it's more important to vote for leadership.
Yes, there's lots of statistics about which institutions have the capacity to do what and where but, the truth of it is, against the collective power of a united people, all that ability means nought.
My point is, people keep wasting their energies in all the wrong activities. If we wanted to regain the power and resources which institutions have and which is obviously denied to the majority, the answer is not to beg for it. People must first realise their power, and then use it to take what's theirs, what they're owed.
Our biggest liability is our lack of unity. We speak of many human societies which exist ideally but not practically. Practically, there's no collective humanity against oppression, no collective humanity against racism, no collective humanity for environmental protection and recovery of ecosystems, no collective humanity against world hunger, no collective humanity for any of the far better ideals we find being thrown around everywhere. There's many semblances but no practical collective endeavour. There is, however, in practice, a collective humanity for accumulation of resources and not with the collective in mind, a collective humanity for pleasure and entertainment (the likes of sports, music and video industries) whose main contribution is distraction from the real important issues, and so on and on.
I have worked in institutions, and as far as I can tell, one could go up the ladder seeking the 'devil' and all you'll find is people who claim, "what else can we do? That's the way it's done everywhere."
So, I'm not about to shift responsibility away from those who must bear it - each one of us. At some point, we must realise the collective failure of all humanity and partake of our individual shares of it no matter how undeserving we think we are. It's our fault that there are biases, negativities and bad mentalities being propagated within our communities; it's our fault that we have such inadequacy in our governments, institutions, facilities, etc, etc.
However, it doesn't end there. If the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. had stopped at just complaining then we wouldn't have even the little there is to be proud of. So before we think to change the bigger or biggest picture, we must make damn sure we've changed the smaller picture, our selves and the environment of closest proximity (our families, friends, neighbourhoods, etc). If we all have equality at home, then there's no way it could be denied elsewhere, not for long anyway.
Quoting Athena
For me, that's a good win. We need to learn to see everything, religious teachings included, from an investigative, analytic, logical, idealistic and practical perspectives, which is something science (philosophy included) does better than other fields of knowledge. Science is, at present, one of the biggest propagators of a 'think for yourself' mentality, far superior to religion in that respect.
Quoting Athena
First, we are saying the same things. Our difference is the perceived point of impact or the pivot point of all this madness. I'm saying it begins with us individually before it can build to a collective. We need to communicate better and about more significant issues. We need to focus more on what is important than the frivolous and biased. I wish we paid less attention to celebrities and controversy than to how the people of the world fared. I wish our governments and institutions had the duty of equalizing resources according to need and purpose. And, most of all, I wish we could reconsider what merit meant to a collective humanity because in a society where people have different capacities, merit runs the risk of being another connotation for bias. Therefore, I wish we could establish a limit for personal merit in favour of the collective because nobody can earn millions or billions of anything by themselves.
Quoting Athena
I have no problem with the kind of education systems available. It's not about the system, it's about people's expectations. People think that systems do things, they forget that systems are tools for people to work with. If we realise that systems are just tools, then there would be less opposition to changing them to fit our needs and purposes. Personally, I think there should be as many education systems as possible, and we could teach our young ones how to discern according to suitability, purpose, etc.
I don't know how you can interpret a bald statement like that, or a commandment and it is clearly an incitement to kill which I cannot offer the principle of charity to.
— Andrew4Handel[/b]
Bold interpretation challenge accepted: In Ancient times the prison system, like many other institutions of the State as we know it, was not developed. If you don´t have prisons, what do you do with serious offenders? There were some options, none of them ideal, and killing the offender was the most sensible when the crimes were terrible. You can take as slave a thieve or a fraudster; but who wants to have a serial murderer taking care of your home?
Witches DO EXIST. And they are the worst type of criminals. These are people, mainly women but also men, that lie, steal, poison, kill, perform black magic to control people (like poor Nigerian prostitutes sent to Europe) and use real body parts of babies and adults in their human sacrifice rituals. These are the witches that Ancient legal codes did not want to spare, and not Sabrina or The Wicked Witch of the West. Nor Wiccans or New Age tarotists. Notice how witchcraft legislation in Rome or Egypt or the Levant, has nothing to do with the Maleus Maleficarum and the "witch" hunts in Protestant Europe throughout the early Modern Age.
In India, Central and South America, and very especially in Africa witches are still terrorising villages and buying albino bodies, genitals from adult men, and the like. Sometimes is the family that sells their own offspring to these witches, before they have given a name to the newborn, as the money is good. South African witches are supposed to be the ones that pay more for human bodies. We are civilized and we would be content with imprisoning these evil human beings for life; but in the Iron Age there were no prisons. What would you do?
Let us start with how are the masses suppose to know what you said? Unless we have education for democracy, the masses will not know what you have explained, right?
Secondly, this is all about organization, and the more efficient a government is, the less power the people will have. The US had a creative but inefficient bureaucracy, and this was changed when the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy that shifts power and authority from the individual to the state. I have attempted to get this discussion going for years, and people just don't talk about the important things like education and bureaucratic order. At least not with information. Everyone has opinions but opinions are not going to give us power.
Democracy is a state of mind and only when we have education for democracy and our employers use the democratic model instead of the autocratic one, will we have the state of mind essential for democracy. I am not willing to accept it is my fault we are failing, when for years I have attempted to get the necessary discussions going and people do not participate in the necessary discussions. Maybe in this forum there is a chance of having the discussion we need?
Quoting BrianW
I think today we have technology confused with science. We have education for a technological society with unknown values. The International Bank has promoted this around the world. I believe Diego is aware of the change in education in the 1980's when the Military Industrial Complex was strong enough to make the International Bank very strong. You know, the New World Order that Hitler and Bush enjoyed ruling.
Confusing education for technological society with education for science is not good for democracy or liberty and it is not education for science. The driving forces of education are International banking and the Military Industrial Complex and our ignorance that leaves us wide open for being ruled by authority. Education for technology has always been for slaves. If we go back 200 years, People didn't rely on college educations as much as they relied on self-education and communicating with each other. The Military Industrial Complex uses merit hiring and that requires a college education, being self-taught does not work in a nation that is authoritarian and relies on authority and documentation from authority. On top of this, we have specialized and this is disastrous to democracy, and we have no idea how authoritarian we have become. Science is essential to our liberty and it was promoted by liberal education along with the idea that democracy is about responsibility, and life long, independent learning.
Anarchy begins with individuals. Democracy begins with education and the transmission of a culture that civilizes us and promotes working together. Education for technology does not transmit a culture for self-government and results is anarchy controlled by authority. Education for technology leads to anarchy and authoritarianism, not rule by reason.
Bottom line, we have about as much power as the people in North Korea because we have education that has prepared us for the New World Order and we are ignorant of the controlling powers and therefore powerless against them.
We don't know what the word Witch meant when this was written.
But if you want to have a death penalty commandment it would be unjust to use a vague term like witch and not actually clarify specific offences.
However in the context of the commandment lots of crimes we consider either trivial or non offences faced the death penalty. So the death penalty was not only used for the most destructive of crimes for example:
Numbers 15:
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.
35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.
Also these actions were given the death penalty:
Adultery. Cursing your parents. Hitting your parents. Adultery (sex before marriage). Anyone who blasphemes and curses. A priests promiscuous daughter. Homosexual acts.
"If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both. 20:11 Leviticus
Home values. Charity and learning (education) must begin at home then advance to institutions. Seeking equality, knowledge, compassion, etc, all the values we deem virtuous, must begin with the individual before it can be shared with or transmitted to others. By the time people meet to interact, it's too late to comprehensively instill values because their instinctive mechanisms have already been initiated. However, if those instincts can be modified by knowledge and proper discipline from an early and more personal stage ('home') then there's the possibility of less chaos and conflict in human interactions.
Quoting Athena
This is a misleading idea. A government is only effective if it can transmit its power to the people. This means that the people should be better informed, better prepared for duty, there should be better channels of association and communication, etc. The idea that a government is so efficient that people don't do anything is a lie because it perpetuates laziness/complacency. A government should teach everyone to be fully responsible for every aspect of their lives. It doesn't mean that a person is supposed to do everything but they're supposed to know and choose (accept-initiate-conduct-appreciate) everything in their lives.
Quoting Athena
People can't be forced to be ready for situations just because you are. That's why in my previous post I mentioned that there is progress even though it is slow. We may not make a step in our lifetime but even a fraction of it is okay because it is still movement. Also, you should realise how insufficient your ability is in influencing others and work on improving it (it applies to me too, attempts without success means back to the drawing board).
Quoting Athena
This is not an all-consuming problem. Look into domains where some success has been achieved (look into countries like Sweden, or possibly all scandinavian countries, Japan, Canada, etc). They're not perfect but they've realised some of these problems and are somewhat working away from it. Other nations will eventually follow suit when they realise they're lagging behind. For now, that is also part of how we progress.
I don't know if you are really as negative as you seem to me, but you miss the point of what it means to interact with others. It's not just about one person or faction and their ideas, values, purpose, etc., everyone should get equal consideration. We cannot ask of people to do or be more than what they choose (it's part of the equality package). I believe when enough people get on the right track then the rest will follow and even then, it's still a long way to nirvana. For me, what I see around is a consequence of our collective influences and capacities.
In some domains, my influence will dissipate to nothing as soon as I apply it because of the counter-influences in that sphere of interaction; in other domains, my influence may last a decade or more because of the complementing influences. The best I can do is realise the best mode of work for the outcome I need. And, sometimes, the best is not good enough but it still must be done. Sometimes, in some circumstances, all you need is to benefit just one other person; in others, all is needed is your participation regardless of any positive outcomes. To deny oneself those opportunities to provide that little which is necessary because one is too focused on a 'picture' that is 'too big for one's britches' is a crime against integrity.
Yes, institutions and governments are a problem, but we (humanity) have had problems for more millennia than we could name. Just remember, the way forward is one small step at a time, which could mean one small step every few years, decades or centuries. The positive take on things is that, every human wants what is best for them and as we learn how bias is detrimental to the collective and the individual, we begin to work towards eliminating it.
The solution to a global problem will be a global revolution. It begins with a few movements which build to a larger movement and so on. Right now, according to the state of the world, we're not yet ready for a world-wide revolution, so we should learn to be content with the little we have.
To those who can engineer global movements, then god-speed to them, otherwise, we just play our little part and learn to appreciate our efforts and lives. What's the point of life without happiness and, from personal experience, humans are tenacious and we can learn to be happy in whatever situation we're in.
I think education for a technological society is a problem only if we think technology will solve all human problems which we (as a human collective and especially governments and institutions) have began to realise the limitations.
What we now have is governments, institutions, companies rushing to reach the technological 'limit' which was initially the ideal. However, there are many other movements which are rising to fill in the gaps being left behind and your concerns are a part of that wave of thought.
Education for technology should not be stopped but it should be complemented with other practical values. I think the whole intense focus into one channel shows where we are as a humanity and it's just part of our progression. Near history shows a time when we had education for industries, further back and we can observe education for statecraft and philosophy (greeks and romans), there was also education for religion/spirituality (egyptians, babylonians, chaldeans with their astrology and stuff), etc.
We're not at an unprecedented state or stage in human development (we're within reasonable margins) and I believe we're gradually working towards a better way of life.
I agree with you that there was a level of arbitrariness and above all, lack of proportion in the penalties: this is in part resulting from adapting Mesopotamian Law and the Purity norms of priesthood, making them eternal offences to God that no punishment can really expiate, and not just human affairs with proportional penalties.
This said, consider how the Bible is really a good collection of books from different periods of History, from late Bronze Age to Late Hellenistic and Roman times. The "you should not suffer a witch to live" quote, might have to do (I really don´t know, we´d need to check with an expert) with editions done during Josiah´s reforms, that gave us Deutero-nomy or "Second Law", where even the Ten Commandments were changed. In this legal reformation I believe, human sacrifice was for the first time prohibited, even sacrifices made for Yahweh. It might be that witchcraft was suspicious of maintaining this tradition, that were also being expurgated from other regions of the Mediterranean in the time. Also, consider how hexes were considered real; if you believe in supernatural entities, why not believe in supernatural spells and hexes? and therefore the practice of witchcraft was consider dangerous for people and a threat to the monarchy.
[b]. "The world of A.D. 2014 will have few routine jobs that cannot be done better by some machine than by any human being. Mankind will therefore have become largely a race of machine tenders."
"All the high-school students will be taught the fundamentals of computer technology, will become proficient in binary arithmetic and will be trained to perfection in the use of the computer languages that will have developed out of those like the contemporary 'Fortran.'"
"Mankind will suffer badly from the disease of boredom, a disease spreading more widely each year and growing in intensity. This will have serious mental, emotional and sociological consequences, and I dare say that psychiatry will be far and away the most important medical specialty in 2014. The most glorious single word in the vocabulary will have become work!'[/b]
If we change ordinary boredom for lack of purpose and healthy ways to build a meaningful vital project, the quote makes a lot of sense to us I think. Especially for males, as men were the ones bringing the bread home and taking pride in their tough professions and capacity as economic providers. Three out of four suicides are male, both in the U.S. and Europe (that is why feminists never talk about suicide, the first cause of death in people under 35, as a social problem) and the suicides peak at the teen age and with men beyond their fifties (that is, when professional prospects are the worst for job seekers).
Ah yes, but whether a text should be interpret literally, figuratively or metaphorically, or perhaps even all three at once is something that can derrive from studieng the culture the text was written in in my vieuw. Assuming we can find enough leads to study said culture.
If we don't know anything about the culture a text was written in, even the used alfabeth will be unfamilar to us, hence we won't be able to say a sensible thing about the content of the text.
Luckily in case of the bible, we have quite some leads to go by. Though still not enough to be conclusive about the entire content of the bible.
Since even today, after the discovery of the scientific method as we now know it and the importance for it to state claims in a literal sense, most people tend to speak in metaphores and figures of speech daily. Hence to assume the bible should only be interpret literally would be a mistake.
Stricly literal statements in a book can only be found after we started applieng the scientific method as we do now, not before. At least I'm not aware of even a single book over 500 years old that does.
I didn't mean to imply that there must be something else when I said minimum. Though if you can think of something else, I'm open to suggestions.
Quoting Tomseltje
'the devine' in this sentence was merely intended as 'the devine context' as in 'the ultimate context' or 'the greatest context that might even exceed our imagination'.
Thanks you for your compliment, I guess this discussion forum is my debut then, though I may have expresses part of the idea in youtube comments before. So glad I found this place where the ideas I post get more appreciation.
Because your words were so profound, I didn't expect you to be a real person here and now. :grin:
I wish we all had agreement on twhat you said. When I read a book explaining what was written in Sumer, it was so obvious at least five biblical stories originated in Sumer. And Isis was the bread and water before Jesus was the bread and wine. And Jesus is a retelling of Mithra mythology. The Romans used Roman law of nature that was used to settle legal disputs between people from different city/states to get agreements for the Christian religion. Blending the most common and popular beliefs into one religion. Like if God spoke to anyone, He spoke to everyone, and those who heard him explained the word of God in his own way.
Thankyou the reply :smile:
Oh my goodness and by what magic do individuals hear this word of God? I am afraid you and I got off topic, but we can get back on topic with the notion that out of the ether an individual will become aware of the virtues. I don't think it happens that way. For centuries everywhere in the world, the learning came from spiritual leaders and grandmothers and then was formalized into religion. We learn the virtues from others and when we don't know people who know them, we don't learn them, and when we don't learn them, we can not teach them to our children. I think the chant that parents must teach their children is rather new. The original purpose of education in the US was teaching citizenship, knowing the immigrant parents would learn citizenship in our democracy from their children. Vocational training was added to education in 1917, That education is like religion only instead of relying on a mystical god it relies on the goodness of humans that can be learned and then manifested is self-government. But first it must be learned and it is bad logic to expect parents to teach what they have not learned.
I think we've both gone off topic. How about another discussion about, "where do values come from?"
What if all the churches put their holy books on a shelve and focused on teaching the technical skills of reading and writing and preparing the young to hold jobs? What would happen to Christianity then? You, and perhaps everyone else, are living with a false notion of citizenship and who must teach it. Education for technology does not transmit a culture. There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Which do you want? If you want liberty then it is pretty important you understand what education must do transmit the necessary culture.
We had education for good citizenship and good moral judgment until 1958, Now people are talking about Satan being on earth and the last days. No, education for technology will not manifest a liberal democracy. In fact, at least half of our nation thinks liberals are the enemy of democracy and we need a strong man like Trump to do what needs to be done even if he has to shut down our government to get things done, ending the democratic process. The population that elected Trump is the result of education for technology. This education is not going to make us a strong and united democracy.
The mentality for democracy and the values essential to liberty came from the Greek and Roman classics. The immigrants who came to the US were mostly Christian and they did not come with an understanding of democratic institutions and citizenship in a democracy that granted everyone liberty. Democracy does not come from the bible. Believing humans are capable of ruling themselves and they should have liberty, sure does not come from the bible! Christian beliefs are not compatible with democracy and all religions teach people to nice to one another but do not prepare people for liberty and democracy. Literacy in the Greek and Roman classics, or Americanize versions of Greek and Roman thinking, is essential to our liberty and democracy.
I think we have a problem because of Christianity and also because textbooks Americanized the essential lessons for democracy and the masses became ignorant of the source of that knowledge coming to believe it was okay to stop transmitting a culture and leave moral training to the church. Oh my God! Our deist forefathers must be turning over in their graves because education for technology leaves moral training to the church and we no longer have a clue what moral judgment has to do with science and logic.
I see you are Australian. :grin: Australians have a history that should make them very aware that Christianity is not about liberty and democracy because good Christian England used the island for a prison colony. Young women were picked up for minor offenses and sent to Australia to civilize the men. These people pretty much had to figure out how to manage on their own and from what I have heard they have done a great job of that and have a better voting system than in the US. Who picks the leaders in the Bible?
I don't know if it is clear, that the factors I use in interpreting the Bible are a knowledge of history, including the history of education, and different religions?
Hello :smile: yes, in Australia we are very relaxed and layed back. A lot of people were brought to Australia from England for pettie and serious crimes. Isn’t it funny, the people who disobeyed the law created a country that did even better? :lol:
Yes, it is one of my favorite lessons from history! A lesson we might consider when considering we are born in sin and need someone appointed by God to rule over us, and that to honor this God we should be obedient and good slaves.
I am impressed by the notion that Australians are pretty strong on human dignity and self-reliance. Compared to a Christian reliance on God and the idea that a God has chosen people and only a select few are allowed into heaven. :lol:
What is earth, an apartment for low-income people, that by law, can not discriminate against undesirables? We all know, the people we associate with influence us, and I suppose we all want to be among the select few who are chosen for heaven. But think about how much easier it would be to be among the deserving people if we didn't have to share our planet with so many undesirables. :rofl:
Thank you :cry: I can not watch it because it is too upsetting but we should know it was not that long ago when we beat the devil out of our children, and our criminal justice system in the US is still based the Christian mentality of evil people and punishment and saving souls by forcing them to do penitence, the reason we have penitentiaries instead of a system of counseling and socialising people and a school system that reduces the number of people who get into trouble in the first place.
I have to stress the main reason I oppose Christianity is the failure of education for technology and inhuman correction system. Both based on false Christian notions of human worthless.
It is true that Education for Citizenship is paramount. We can not be just biological parts of machinery and bureaucracy. The problem to have education for citizenship proper, is that first we need to have common values and the idea of citizenship very clear. I agree that reading the Classics would help; it might feel that Latin and Greek authors are too far from our Modern societies, but they are the authors the people who shaped our world read and study carefully, both secular and spiritual leaders; and not so long ago, they´d do it in the original Latin and Greek, something I was lucky enough to experience myself in our state high school. Citizenship for example, is the Roman concept of Civitas as Cicero explained it. Plus, you have the advantage of checking in history books if their political and philosophical ideas really worked or were fiascoes.
Science and Religion can not be separated. That was a historical mistake! Science has no soul and Religion has no brain. We have a Faustean, fascist Science and religions that are simply crazy. Schizophrenia. XX and XXI centuries.
Thanks for the compliment. Though I didn't actually come up with that idea myself, all I can take credit for is the way the statement is formulated, the actual idea I got from talking to my dad and priests who all spend way more time studieng theology and the biblical texts than I have.
Quoting Janus
Whether something is controversial is in the eye of the beholder, it's a subjective qualification, not an objective one, unless you are taking an argument from popularity fallacy as objective proof for such a qualification.
Since I don't know you, other than what you posted here, I have no means to tell te difference between whether something I state would by you be considered as controversial or commonsense. To me all my statements seem commonsense or I wouldn't be making them though often they are seen as controversial by others.
Usually what is considered a controversial topic is a topic that is greatly misunderstood. Like statistical proof on demographics for instance, when it's about income differences between plumbers and lumberjacks hardly anyone cares but lumberjacks and plumbers, but when it's about the income difference between races it's controversial, even though the statistics applied are exactly the same, a lot more people who don't understand a thing about statistics are interested.
And since they don't know a thing about statistics they misinterpreted the research statements, thereby making strawman fallacies against said research, making the topic controversial.
In other words, all I can tell about controversial topics, is that there seems to be a correlation between how misunderstood a topic is by the ones discussing it and the lever of the topic to be considered to be controversial.
I seldom have people actually disagreeing with my statements while demonstrating they understood my statement proporly. Usually when someone disagrees with my statement, they do so on basis of a strawman fallacy.
So my question is, why should my statements be controversial? Isn't it more imprortant that what I state at least makes sense to me?
It seems to me you are incorrect in your assesment that if something stated is commonsense, that then no one will disagree. My experiences tell me otherwise. I stated something similar on youtube and I got mobbed by atheists accusing me of being an apologist to stupid to be able to understand science since i didn't agree with their vieuw of the bible being nothing but bullshit. Hence what to you seems commonsense, to many others is greatly controversial.
Hence in order for me to make a controversial statement, I first need to know more about your positions, since I don't, asking for a controversial statement seems abit too much to ask under the circumstances.
If you happen to have a specific topic or text in mind on wich you like to know my position, please do name it.
Quoting Janus
Within the field of theology it's common knowledge, any decenty educated priest could have told you what they told me, you seem to have understood my statement correctly.
The opposite position is just as sensible, perhaps even more:
All good books in their correct interpretation are a communication from God.
God may not write books, but people do, and if the spark of devinity that each person has gets involved (wich in this case makes the book 'good') when writing the book, then the word of God is in the book.
I think there is merit in both of these positions. No book and no interpretation can be a pure communication from God, but by the same token all books contain within them an opportunity for communication from God (yes, even those that aren’t very ‘good’) because they are each an expression of the human experience, which includes a personal relationship with God (regardless whether they name it as such or actively ignore it).
So I think each book of the bible contains either a personal or collective expression of humanity’s relationship with God, imperfectly enacted and entangled with personal and political motivations to communicate with others. I think more than most books, the writers of these texts were motivated (among other things) to express the nature of their relationship with God through their experiences, and in doing so try to understand the nature of what they understand to be God and its connection to their lives.
In interpreting scriptures, I try to take into account the historical, political and cultural context and motivations of the human authors as much as possible, especially their limited awareness and understanding of the universe, and my limited awareness of their language and life experiences, and then try to remember that these were real, imperfect human beings putting pen to papyrus and attempting to express what - let’s be honest - is almost impossible to completely and accurately put into words in any language, let alone in a way that billions of unique human beings across millennia will understand.
If we can forgive human errors in judgement, misunderstanding, ignorance, poor use of language, ulterior motives, fear, hurt and anger - and also recognise that God doesn’t communicate using words but through subjective experience - then yes, communication from God is in the book for us to experience for ourselves.
But it’s impossible to then duplicate that experience completely in someone else’s life, because we are all so unique...
That’s my take on it, anyway.
Harmony can be found in falsehoods too. A collection of lies may fit together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle, yielding a picture most beautiful to behold but false in every piece and as a whole.
Internal consistency is what you're looking for and that's a good thing but the Book must also have external consistency - it should fit well with the other pieces of the puzzle we have such as science, paleontology, archaeology, etc.
Why would we assume/recognize this? this seems rather opposite to what the bible sais about god.
especially John 1:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Wich seems to suggest that god doesn't only communicate using words, but even that god is the word.
How do you reconcile that? I'd rather conclude that god is to be found in what we tell each other about our subjective experiences.
‘The word’ is how humans communicate thoughts, feelings and subjective experience with others. It is one of the many ways that we express this truth of ourselves - encompassing how we interact with the universe.
God, on the other hand, does not ‘express Himself’ through the written or spoken word, but through the unfolding universe itself, which is the expression of who/what God is - the ‘Logos’. We then experience that expression subjectively in various ways, and attempt to communicate it to others using words.
I don’t think this is the opposite of what the Bible says at all. And I don’t think ‘the Word was God’ is necessarily the same as ‘God is the Word’ - but that’s another debate.
God is certainly to be found in what we tell each other about our subjective experiences, but what we tell each other is only a part of our subjective experiences, and our subjective experiences only a part of God...
A. God is most likely a human made up concept.
B. The Bible was written in a time when people had absolutely no scientific knowledge about our world, and no scientific approach to validation, thus any rumours they heard would be taken as a truth.
C. As nothing could be understood or explained at the time the Bible was written, and I mean nothing. Believing whatever happened that they couldn't explain was the will of a God was the only explaination they had.
Thus everything that happened could only be interpreted as if it was the will of that God.
D. If God doesn't exist there is very little point in reading the Bible other than as a historic study, when you can read philosophy that support itself with sound logical reasons instead of simply dogma.
If that God does not exist you most likely only have one life and if so you have a limited time and would be better of spending that on studying what is most likely to give you and other people real value whether that God exists or not.
Therefore in order to minimise the risk of wasting your time, you need to intellectually honestly evaluate the argument for and against the existence of that God.
Without being affected by unsupported belief, social pressure, and wishful thinking.
Once you have understood most of the atheist arguments and come to a sound position from which you can give sound answers to why you believe or do not believe in that God, you can study the Bible from several perspectives.
But you are free to study it and interpret it in whatever way you want.
That is just the way I would use to ensure I do not waste my time.
I’m personally more agnostic than anything else, and it was a thorough reading of the bible that led me to realise that the important thing is not so much whether or not God exists, but the value of sharing experiences that point to something larger than ourselves.
But I understand that most people would prefer to know one way or the other and, frustrated with the not knowing despite their intelligence, they seek a ‘sound position’ from which to engage intelligently in any discussion of the topic. I’m not trying to convince you one way or the other - I am under no illusion that my approach to ‘God’ or the bible is based on any sound argument for or against the existence of God. All we really have is unverifiable subjective experiences, whether our own or those documented in the bible.
Just as I have found value in reading and understanding the history of philosophical thought, so I find value in reading the bible, and see it as documenting a specific cultural progression of philosophical and theological thought and experiences in narrative and other forms.
I consider it all to be myth - but that doesn’t make it a waste of time, in my opinion.
We’re really dealing with an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation...
The majority of the bible writings were stories and teachings passed down in oral tradition for many years before they were written down, including the gospels. The ‘source’ can also be understood as more experiential than verbal, making any attempt to ‘read out from the bible its meaning’ problematic to say the least - although I agree that this is a good place to start, at any rate.
To add to your examples, I’ve noticed that are a number of different Greek verbs that translate as ‘to see’, and that the author of the gospel of John uses three main ones, often together to illustrate the differences between simply looking, attributing meaning to what we see and recognising the ‘truth’ of what we see. This distinction and depth of meaning is lost in the English translation, obscuring in particular the author’s understanding of the resurrection (which incidentally might surprise most Christians).
?????? - theoreo refers to seeing as in observing, discerning, considering. It describes more than simply looking - it includes thinking and deciphering what the visual cues mean. Theoreo is the root of the English word ‘theatre’, where spectators concentrate on meaning, as well as ‘theory’, in which a meaning is offered without confirmation. The seeing action is to attribute meaning through observation. The verb is used to describe someone not just seeing, but attempting to make sense of what they see - e.g. recognising a person or mistaking that person for someone else, recognising that what they observe has meaning, but not necessarily grasping the true meaning.
???? - horao is described as seeing with the mind, seeing spiritually, or with inward perception. The verb is used in the imperative to instruct the disciples or readers to do more than simply look with their eyes. The seeing action is to grasp the truth of an observation.
Horao is also used in the aorist form (eido) to describe knowing, or a seeing that becomes knowledge. Like the English expression ‘I see what you mean’, eido is described as ‘a gateway to grasp spiritual truth (reality) from a physical plane’ - a bridge to mental and spiritual seeing.
Both of these verbs are distinct in meaning from ????? (blepo) which refers to one’s physical sense of sight only. When this verb is used, the intention is to look at what is objectively visible, without necessarily associating what one sees visually with any meaning or knowledge in the mind. It describes a physical ‘looking’ or noticing. When someone is said to ‘see’ in this manner, there is no sense that they are processing what they see, deriving meaning or realising the truth (from the perspective of the author).
FWIW, John 6, 9, 16 and 20 illustrate these three ways of seeing.
Yes, but it’s more than that.
It’s also a culturally and historically located expression of the metaphysics of human experience - a collection of attempts to substantiate or objectify what is insubstantial and subjective, yet immanent in our experience. Whether we agree with how they’ve expressed it or for what motives, it remains a testament to humanity’s experience of this insubstantiality or ‘spirituality’ nonetheless, along with our failure to adequately define, control, manipulate or harness ‘it’ for our own ends.
It’s a cautionary tale, a documenting of what not to do in many respects: of wrong turns and dead ends, of promising starts led astray. But in doing so, it also provides some experiential clues as to how we might best respond to or interact with this peculiar dimension of experience or awareness, in light of everything we’ve learned about the human experience since then.
Personally I don’t think it’s ‘God’ we should be looking for in our lives, but the experience people have called ‘God’ and unsuccessfully tried to substantiate in their own cultural, historical or ideological context.
We have recently begun to recognise (through modern scientific and philosophical exploration) that existence does not necessitate substantiality. This seems like a good time to revisit the metaphysics of the bible without being dismissive or judgemental, and Quoting xyz-zyx.