|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 3, 2014 17:26:14 GMT -5
There is no mention of salvation -- the end for all is the same. As an aside, I would really recommend Lee Harmon's new book to you. Does he disagree with what I just wrote?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 3, 2014 17:31:57 GMT -5
As an aside, I would really recommend Lee Harmon's new book to you. Does he disagree with what I just wrote? Both he and I agree that salvation in the after-life is actually not a central theme in the teaching of Jesus as understood at that time, and even less so, in the Old Testament.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 3, 2014 18:52:32 GMT -5
Does he disagree with what I just wrote? Both he and I agree that salvation in the after-life is actually not a central theme in the teaching of Jesus as understood at that time, and even less so, in the Old Testament. You are both correct.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 3, 2014 21:41:59 GMT -5
I like your comments about myths. I think of myths as a sort of "structured vocabulary" (a vocabulary that enables an exchange of experiences between laymen in the absence of "tangible evidence"). I often regret that the value and utility of mythological structures has been depreciated and lost in our modern society. I wonder if we may have lost some of the cohesion in modern society because we have lost effective symbolic vocabularies to formulate some of our questions and express some of our understanding. I think this is the kind of stuff that Joseph Campbell and Jung used to worry about. Although the media did a yeomen's job trying to explain the nature and meaning of the recent events relating to the "God Particle", I have not had the sense that the layman (myself included) is able to relate to the science on a visceral level. I believe this gap between experience and understanding is unhealthy in a society. My fear is that it is leading to a new "priesthood" revering scientific "facts" (much as religious "priests" revere transcendent "facts"). It is not the reverence that concerns me as much as the misapplication of knowledge (power) toward manipulation of the uninformed. So I am torn between a desire for a functional vocabulary that would enable the effective exchange by lay-persons of inexplicable experiences - as myths might have done - and a fear of the manipulative power vested in the personification of a putative transcendent consciousness. There is a rich historical record documenting such abuse dating from the dawn of recorded human history and playing out in the headlines of our daily news today. It is a sundering similar to my desire to appreciate the intricate mechanics of the reality I experience (a verifiable explanation of how "things work") and a fear of the manipulative power vested in the "high priests" of materialism. While I highly respect and greatly appreciate science (I am typing this on a computer and planning to post it on the internet!), I do feel that we have given scientific "facts" an absolute (Tillich) quality, thus limiting what we "believe" to what can be quantitatively measure with our instruments. And perhaps they have been given a further, sacral quality, reigned over by the "priesthood" of facts you reference. Has this manner of seeing the world perhaps allowed the heightened misuse of power? It seems to me the insistence on a "rational," objective understanding has led to a literalization of biblical texts, with some then insisting on what I see as an absurd, "literal" interpretation, which asks us to have "faith" to believe something that our own eyes (or someone else's eyes, augmented by a microscope or telescope) tell us is not so. I came across this yesterday in Marva Dawn and Eugene Patterson's The Unnecessary Pastor, and it seems to relate to the topics being discussed in this thread: Does this bring us to the use of myth? "More meaning than we can comprehend"? How else are we to speak of God, other than through myth and metaphor? We want to believe that modern science can unlock all meaning, and it has opened much! But why limit ourselves?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 3, 2014 22:51:16 GMT -5
I like your comments about myths. I think of myths as a sort of "structured vocabulary" (a vocabulary that enables an exchange of experiences between laymen in the absence of "tangible evidence"). I often regret that the value and utility of mythological structures has been depreciated and lost in our modern society. I wonder if we may have lost some of the cohesion in modern society because we have lost effective symbolic vocabularies to formulate some of our questions and express some of our understanding. I think this is the kind of stuff that Joseph Campbell and Jung used to worry about. Although the media did a yeomen's job trying to explain the nature and meaning of the recent events relating to the "God Particle", I have not had the sense that the layman (myself included) is able to relate to the science on a visceral level. I believe this gap between experience and understanding is unhealthy in a society. My fear is that it is leading to a new "priesthood" revering scientific "facts" (much as religious "priests" revere transcendent "facts"). It is not the reverence that concerns me as much as the misapplication of knowledge (power) toward manipulation of the uninformed. So I am torn between a desire for a functional vocabulary that would enable the effective exchange by lay-persons of inexplicable experiences - as myths might have done - and a fear of the manipulative power vested in the personification of a putative transcendent consciousness. There is a rich historical record documenting such abuse dating from the dawn of recorded human history and playing out in the headlines of our daily news today. It is a sundering similar to my desire to appreciate the intricate mechanics of the reality I experience (a verifiable explanation of how "things work") and a fear of the manipulative power vested in the "high priests" of materialism. While I highly respect and greatly appreciate science (I am typing this on a computer and planning to post it on the internet!), I do feel that we have given scientific "facts" an absolute (Tillich) quality, thus limiting what we "believe" to what can be quantitatively measure with our instruments. And perhaps they have been given a further, sacral quality, reigned over by the "priesthood" of facts you reference. Has this manner of seeing the world perhaps allowed the heightened misuse of power? It seems to me the insistence on a "rational," objective understanding has led to a literalization of biblical texts, with some then insisting on what I see as an absurd, "literal" interpretation, which asks us to have "faith" to believe something that our own eyes (or someone else's eyes, augmented by a microscope or telescope) tell us is not so. I came across this yesterday in Marva Dawn and Eugene Patterson's The Unnecessary Pastor, and it seems to relate to the topics being discussed in this thread: Does this bring us to the use of myth? "More meaning than we can comprehend"? How else are we to speak of God, other than through myth and metaphor? We want to believe that modern science can unlock all meaning, and it has opened much! But why limit ourselves? Alan, You say, "Why limit ourselves?" Perhaps it would be a good idea to limit ourselves for the reason that otherwise it causes a dysfunction in our minds that keeps us unsure of anything and constantly keeps us in a state of angst. Riding a fence can be very uncomfortable.
We can enjoy "myths and metaphors" but understand them for what they are, constructs of our own mind and not the mind of any god.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 3, 2014 23:19:19 GMT -5
It may be a few days before I answer these posts, as we're into Toronto for the weekend. I have read them however. Please bear with me.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 3, 2014 23:25:04 GMT -5
Alan, You say, "Why limit ourselves?" Perhaps it would be a good idea to limit ourselves for the reason that otherwise it causes a dysfunction in our minds that keeps us unsure of anything and constantly keeps us in a state of angst. Riding a fence can be very uncomfortable. With all due respect, this has not been my experience at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Alan, You say, We can enjoy "myths and metaphors" but understand them for what they are, constructs of our own mind and not the mind of any god. I agree they are the constructs of human minds, to express something they consider a "truth." I do not necessarily agree with the "truths" of all myths, but some resonate deeply with my own experience.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 4, 2014 10:26:35 GMT -5
I am thoroughly enjoying reflecting on the last couple of pages of this thread. The sharing of insight that so often lies well below the surface is deeply refreshing.
In particular, I am struck by the deep and abiding desire to find meaning and purpose and the intense drive to understand and the many different paths we each take toward those ends. But perhaps the most profound insight I have gained today is the insight offered in Alan’s citation. The suggestion that in addition to “approaching life as a problem” a person might also “enter life as a mystery” strikes me as a really cool concept.
It seems to me that the suggestion is not an either or proposition. I read the citation as suggesting that a person can choose to follow both paths at different times depending on different needs and expectations. The enabling part of the quoted passage is the definition of mystery offered by the author: "Mystery is not the absence of meaning, but the presence of more meaning than we can comprehend."
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 4, 2014 10:33:41 GMT -5
Whathat, I completely agree with your comments regarding Lee Harmon's book. I downloaded it a couple of days ago and I am really enjoying it. The folksy sort of style is engaging and the scholarship is interesting. I am put very much in mind of Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" in terms of goals and approaches for both books. Strong recommendation from this corner as well.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Oct 4, 2014 16:08:50 GMT -5
I don't see the perfection. Animals developed as they did because of the environment in which they were developing. Millions of species did not make it because they could not develop in the environment. It all works wekk now because of where we are right now. Over time the CO 2 concentration could become so high that respiration would no longer be possible. Perfection goes out the window. Ebola is presenting a situation that does not seem to demonstrate a "perfect fit and form". I think you have distorted your vision of "perfect fit and form" with selection bias. The kind of wonder and awe that I am asking about does not exclude ebola. Some terrible things can still have a terrible majesty as we well know from volcano explosions, thunderstorms and tornadoes. My favourite scientist biologist is british dark hair forget his name. He speaks with such passion and enthusiasm. Describing eg: what happens when A DRop of water touches and spreads on a stone or how a horse evolved. Im always captivated with awe at so much we take for granted but the designers brilliance and attention to detail second to none it makes me love the almighty source more. The exquisit detail that I would think is just form has a history that clearly had been thought through and mapped out.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 4, 2014 16:54:58 GMT -5
I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Thank you yknot for starting the thread. My thoughts about life and beyond have changed considerably the past two years. While reading and considering the posts made on this thread I have formed a few questions and would appreciate responses from any who are willing to express them. 1) I hear the word "paranormal" used frequently. In truth, what IS normal? Can anyone honestly define "normal"? Is our perception of "normal" something we have created from our limited experience? 2) What is "perfection"? Can anyone honestly define "perfection"? Again, is our perception of perfection a result of our personal biases? 3) What is "truth"? Can anyone honestly define "truth"? 4) What is honesty if nothing more than a point of view or conclusion based on one's observation? I feel so connected with many who have expressed their thoughts on this thread. I hope you'll continue to share. As I see it, God is fundamental to all of reality, not the least of which is our minds. Therefore we can remonstrate with authority what is "normal", what is "perfect", what is "truthful", and what is "honest", though our "filters" may be imperfect, and no doubt they are. We're vehicles of truth. We're not God himself. But we are "children" if we truly are.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 4, 2014 19:32:03 GMT -5
As I see it, God is fundamental to all of reality, not the least of which is our minds. Therefore we can remonstrate with authority what is "normal", what is "perfect", what is "truthful", and what is "honest", though our "filters" may be imperfect, and no doubt they are. We're vehicles of truth. We're not God himself. But we are "children" if we truly are. I would note the vital importance of connecting this with love. Statements that "God is love" become meaningless for me if the connection with God's judgment is lost, but just as importantly, love must be bound with statements of truth. I am finishing Jacques Ellul's Ethics of Freedom, in which he insists on the importance of binding Christian freedom with the criteria of love and the glory of God. Disassociating these various aspects has historically led to some extremely hurtful practices, for which Christians are rightly questioned.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 4, 2014 20:56:03 GMT -5
Alan, You say, "Why limit ourselves?" Perhaps it would be a good idea to limit ourselves for the reason that otherwise it causes a dysfunction in our minds that keeps us unsure of anything and constantly keeps us in a state of angst. Riding a fence can be very uncomfortable. With all due respect, this has not been my experience at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Alan, You say, We can enjoy "myths and metaphors" but understand them for what they are, constructs of our own mind and not the mind of any god. I agree they are the constructs of human minds, to express something they consider a "truth." I do not necessarily agree with the "truths" of all myths, but some resonate deeply with my own experience. Alan, You say, "Why limit ourselves?" Perhaps it would be a good idea to limit ourselves for the reason that otherwise it causes a dysfunction in our minds that keeps us unsure of anything and constantly keeps us in a state of angst. Riding a fence can be very uncomfortable. With all due respect, this has not been my experience at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Alan, You say, We can enjoy "myths and metaphors" but understand them for what they are, constructs of our own mind and not the mind of any god. I agree they are the constructs of human minds, to express something they consider a "truth." I do not necessarily agree with the "truths" of all myths, but some resonate deeply with my own experience. Alan, you do seem to just enjoy the study of "myths." So did I.
I really enjoyed Joseph Campbell's book The Power of Myth. (It's probably still around here somewhere)
It was very interesting to see how such myths developed & interlaced with each other .
Bullfinch's The Golden Bough is another book I have enjoyed.
To me, more interesting than anything, is the question of why people seem to have such a need to create those "myths."
Once I worked through that question, it gave me one of the facets I needed for the grounding of my conclusions about the psychological needs of why people believe in myths, -myself included.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 7, 2014 22:04:46 GMT -5
This process of 'giving meaning' needs explanation. It's not a process of providing answers to questions. How was the Earth created? Who created the Earth? What physically happens when we die? It's not for that. I would first argue that all humans impart meaning to life that we have no right, purely through science and logic, to impart. Why does a father or mother love their children? Some construct out of evolution that keeps the species going? A survival strategy? Perhaps, but those mechanics don't give the answer. If they do, then my question is why did the evolutionary construct produce something so powerful, so emotional, so overwhelming, as a mother or father's love for their children. There is no answer to that question. Does not need to be. It's just something that we accept and that awes us. Most of what concerns us in life, and what we say and do, is far beyond science. Tomorrow I will see an old friend, we'll talk about old times, is there enough gas in the car at the moment to make the trip? What does science have to say about that? Nothing. So, why are there cars, gas stations, roads and maps? Where is all this going and why? Most of the physical world is an artificial construct made out of the human imagination, but very real all the same. And then the social world, seeing my old friend .. why do that? Probably the highlight of this week, and my life is constructed, and I feel blessed, because of such events. This also is beyond explanation. So my experience as a Christian, which above all, I really enjoy and find fulfilling, even though at times it is also a cross to bear, why do that? I think the answer is that I'll just continue doing it, because I find it fulfilling, and it 'provides meaning' in my life. At the same time, there are aspects of the Christian experience, as commonly understood some hundreds of years ago, that I can no longer accept. But the experience for me does involve dealing with a personification of God, and at the same time, I do pray in a certain kind of way. I'm going to look for Lee Harmon's quote. First I'd like to say that I have enjoyed reading your last two posts describing what God means to you and why it means that. Again, it is about people deciding what life means for them in order to be fulfilled. At least that is how I see it. Your comment about a father/mother's love for their children was interesting to me. It does explain why Gods are viewed as parents in religion because the father mother love is one of the purest we have experienced and it makes sense that we would want it to also be attributed to a being we worship. You make the statement that it seems to be over and above the explanation of evolution. I don't think it is though and here is why. Not all fathers and mothers have this kind of love for their children. In fact I would go as far as to say that it is a recent phenomenon that we experience our children in the way we do now. It wasn't that long ago that father's sold their children for profit. It is still a tradition within some cultures to kill daughters if they have disgraced the honor of the family. Children were worked at extremely young ages in coal mines etc not that long ago. So based on this I think that we are still evolving what it means to love our children. I think the maternal love has evolved faster than the paternal love and that makes sense since the women carry the child for 9 months and were the sole nurturers and care givers for many centuries. It is only recently that we see men taking more of an interest in their offspring over and above them being heirs to them and providing a legacy. It isn't known when men were even considered to have anything to do with the conception of a child. Hence the predominance of Goddess worship for a very long time. The woman was the provider of life and therefore a mystery. So when the Hebrews decided on just a God and no Goddess, this was a huge step away from tradition. Most other religions had a Goddess. The Hebrews had a Goddess at one point before abandoning all their other Gods for their God of War. That got a bit more involved than I first anticipated, but that is in a nutshell why I think it is evolutionary and that this kind of love is still evolving. In a lot of ways I believe early humans had an instinct to protect their young for reproductive/survival reasons and I don't think we were much different from other animals in that sense. We still see some animals that reject their young and we also see some humans that reject their offspring also. This is another reason why I believe it is something we have evolved to express. That doesn't really tell us why we have evolved to where we are in our interactions and love for our children, but it could just be something as simple as we are slowly becoming more conscious of what it takes to make us happy and fulfilled and love is definitely one of those things that make us happy. Sorry about the delay in replying, snow. I've had this at the back of my mind for a few days. The question to me, seems to be whether our human existence, or rather, our state as humans at the present time, can be entirely explained as a product of evolution. You used the expression "over and above". To me, there is something "over and above", but it's not what some people call "intelligent design". The way the human body works, the wonders of mountains and rivers, and so on, their material being, can all be explained as the product of physical forces, and evolution explains the biological state of the natural world. I don't get hung up on the idea that God had to be involved. But, I still think there is something "over and above". I find the idea of evolution as an explanation of our advancement as loving human beings lacking. I hope we are advancing as history progresses, but surely this is more a product of experience, intention and logic, than pure 'natural selection' based on random chance. It strikes me that the way we see ourselves and our lives, has some kind of divine spark to it. And even the way we see beauty, as opposed to the way in which the beautiful things have evolved, is not explained as the result of a natural, mechanical process. The other question is whether our notions of love have really changed over the course of human history. I think not. You've mentioned some parental practices with children that don't seem like an expression of love. What about the Spartans who would leave a new born child out in the elements for a while to see if they "deserved" to live? It strikes me that some of these are cultural practices that stand against the more basic feelings parents have for their children. In Sparta, parents might submit to such a process because they feel it's right, or it's best for the child. But if the child died, I can't imagine that a Spartan parent wouldn't deeply feel a sense of loss. I suppose that I do believe in some absolute notion of care and love that is a common denominator in humanity across time and across cultures. Without that belief no belief in a God is really possible, in my opinion. And this common denominator is not a universal, but represents a point to which humanity is striving or being directed. The Bible of course admits that love is not a universal, which is why Cain slew Abel. But it is a yardstick, and an aspiration, and the basis of a belief.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 7, 2014 22:08:30 GMT -5
I am thoroughly enjoying reflecting on the last couple of pages of this thread. The sharing of insight that so often lies well below the surface is deeply refreshing. In particular, I am struck by the deep and abiding desire to find meaning and purpose and the intense drive to understand and the many different paths we each take toward those ends. But perhaps the most profound insight I have gained today is the insight offered in Alan’s citation. The suggestion that in addition to “approaching life as a problem” a person might also “enter life as a mystery” strikes me as a really cool concept. It seems to me that the suggestion is not an either or proposition. I read the citation as suggesting that a person can choose to follow both paths at different times depending on different needs and expectations. The enabling part of the quoted passage is the definition of mystery offered by the author: "Mystery is not the absence of meaning, but the presence of more meaning than we can comprehend." Yes, Alan nailed that quite well. I've been struggling to say something similar.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 7, 2014 22:15:46 GMT -5
So what's the word on prayer with reference to Lee Harmon's book? Is it something like 'prayer doesn't change God's mind' as some are disposed to think? Rather prayer is willing and wanting according to his will? IMO the best form of prayer is "doing something about it."
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 7, 2014 22:25:25 GMT -5
Both he and I agree that salvation in the after-life is actually not a central theme in the teaching of Jesus as understood at that time, and even less so, in the Old Testament. You are both correct. Jesus said, "Something more than Solomon is here". Surely the vanities Solomon observed were the characteristics of sin's paradigm. So what is 'eternal life' composed of, as opposed to 'eternal vanity' and death? I hold they are the eternal, personality traits of JC. Surely 'God' or 'Evolution' are resolving to something. Is the planet being procreated for naught?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 7, 2014 22:27:32 GMT -5
With all due respect, this has not been my experience at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I agree they are the constructs of human minds, to express something they consider a "truth." I do not necessarily agree with the "truths" of all myths, but some resonate deeply with my own experience. With all due respect, this has not been my experience at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I agree they are the constructs of human minds, to express something they consider a "truth." I do not necessarily agree with the "truths" of all myths, but some resonate deeply with my own experience. Alan, you do seem to just enjoy the study of "myths." So did I.
I really enjoyed Joseph Campbell's book The Power of Myth. (It's probably still around here somewhere)
It was very interesting to see how such myths developed & interlaced with each other .
Bullfinch's The Golden Bough is another book I have enjoyed.
To me, more interesting than anything, is the question of why people seem to have such a need to create those "myths."
Once I worked through that question, it gave me one of the facets I needed for the grounding of my conclusions about the psychological needs of why people believe in myths, -myself included.You don't 'believe' in myths, per se, and they don't provide explanations. I like Plato's description of our lives being lived as if we were shackled in a cave. Behind us is a light and our chains prevent us from looking at and analyzing it. But on the wall, we can see the shadows made as the light plays against the figures of our lives. It's not unlike the Bible verse "Now we see through a glass darkly ... " explaining the limits of our understanding. A metaphor has two parts, a tenor and a vehicle. For example, we might say, "life is a journey". The vehicle of the metaphor is "journey" and the tenor is "life". The reason it's called a vehicle, is because one idea is being driven or carried across to another in order to say something about the tenor. We take a known thing, "a journey", and throw some light on an unknown thing, "life". This is how metaphor works in the religious realm. In one common metaphor, we take a known thing, say, "marriage" and use it to shed light on an unknown thing, "the union of Christ and his church". People often think of metaphor (and myth) as strictly a product of the imagination. But I believe that when they work, they're explaining something that is very real, but also .. unknowable in its literal sense. Think of metaphor as the shadow on the cave wall; it doesn't exist unless the light also exists. Of course, you can reject the metaphor, which means rejecting what it stands for. But the Bible and Christian experience are entirely made out of metaphors and these can have a very rich meaning for Christian believers.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 7, 2014 22:32:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 7, 2014 22:35:18 GMT -5
Goofing around here, but playing off of Alan's expression, "Ground of all being". .... an agronomist or agriculturalist .... I need to play my JT records again
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 7, 2014 23:24:01 GMT -5
Jesus said, "Something more than Solomon is here". Surely the vanities Solomon observed were the characteristics of sin's paradigm. So what is 'eternal life' composed of, as opposed to 'eternal vanity' and death? I hold they are the eternal, personality traits of JC. Surely 'God' or 'Evolution' are resolving to something. Is the planet being procreated for naught? ........ the planet being procreated ?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 7, 2014 23:46:07 GMT -5
Alan, you do seem to just enjoy the study of "myths." So did I.
I really enjoyed Joseph Campbell's book The Power of Myth. (It's probably still around here somewhere)
It was very interesting to see how such myths developed & interlaced with each other .
Bullfinch's The Golden Bough is another book I have enjoyed.
To me, more interesting than anything, is the question of why people seem to have such a need to create those "myths."
Once I worked through that question, it gave me one of the facets I needed for the grounding of my conclusions about the psychological needs of why people believe in myths, -myself included. You don't 'believe' in myths, per se, and they don't provide explanations. I like Plato's description of our lives being lived as if we were shackled in a cave. Behind us is a light and our chains prevent us from looking at and analyzing it. But on the wall, we can see the shadows made as the light plays against the figures of our lives. It's not unlike the Bible verse "Now we see through a glass darkly ... " explaining the limits of our understanding. A metaphor has two parts, a tenor and a vehicle. For example, we might say, "life is a journey". The vehicle of the metaphor is "journey" and the tenor is "life". The reason it's called a vehicle, is because one idea is being driven or carried across to another in order to say something about the tenor. We take a known thing, "a journey", and throw some light on an unknown thing, "life". This is how metaphor works in the religious realm. In one common metaphor, we take a known thing, say, "marriage" and use it to shed light on an unknown thing, "the union of Christ and his church". People often think of metaphor (and myth) as strictly a product of the imagination. But I believe that when they work, they're explaining something that is very real, but also .. unknowable in its literal sense.Think of metaphor as the shadow on the cave wall; it doesn't exist unless the light also exists. Of course, you can reject the metaphor, which means rejecting what it stands for. But the Bible and Christian experience are entirely made out of metaphors and these can have a very rich meaning for Christian believers. I disagree, I believe that myths are just a product of the imagination. I don't think they explain anything that is real.
The only things that are real are the thing that actually take place. Then people attempt to understand them. The conclusions they come to are all about the psychological needs of people.
One of the factors that happened when a part of our brain development came to the point we begin to be able to use it we begin able to think in the present. We also could remember what happened in our past.
Using those two abilities, people begin to extrapolate a possible happening in our future. Both the present & the past both weren't all that wonderful and actually was very bleak.
So they attempted to create a picture of something better for out future, -If not a better life on this earth, a better one after death.
To me, that is more interesting than anything. The question of why people seem to have such a need to create those "myths."
The created the myths, because they couldn't accept NOT knowing! Myths were created because they needed to have a reason for something happening. They simply couldn't accept the fact that the instances might be random and there simply wasn't any reason! So, they created a myth of a rosier future
In a nut shell, you nailed it when you said :
"The Bible and Christian experience are entirely made out of metaphors and these can have a very rich meaning for Christian believer"
However , for me, there wouldn't be any " rich meaning" because I would know that I be deceiving myself!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 7, 2014 23:57:43 GMT -5
Jesus said, "Something more than Solomon is here". Surely the vanities Solomon observed were the characteristics of sin's paradigm. So what is 'eternal life' composed of, as opposed to 'eternal vanity' and death? I hold they are the eternal, personality traits of JC. Surely 'God' or 'Evolution' are resolving to something. Is the planet being procreated for naught? ........ the planet being procreated ? Sure! The more humans to size it up, the greater the collective consciousness. And more consciousness means more fecundity.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 8, 2014 0:01:58 GMT -5
Jesus said, "Something more than Solomon is here". Surely the vanities Solomon observed were the characteristics of sin's paradigm. So what is 'eternal life' composed of, as opposed to 'eternal vanity' and death? I hold they are the eternal, personality traits of JC. Surely 'God' or 'Evolution' are resolving to something. Is the planet being procreated for naught? NO. There really doesn't need to be any "resolving to something," by either a 'God' or 'Evolution!'
It all really could have came about for naught!
People are intentional beings. We have goals to meet and intentions of meeting what ever goal that may be.
Therefore, we tend to think that everything else is done by intention.
We believe that everything that happens, happens for a reason by some intention.
However, That doesn't mean that everything else must have a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 8, 2014 0:19:30 GMT -5
Jesus said, "Something more than Solomon is here". Surely the vanities Solomon observed were the characteristics of sin's paradigm. So what is 'eternal life' composed of, as opposed to 'eternal vanity' and death? I hold they are the eternal, personality traits of JC. Surely 'God' or 'Evolution' are resolving to something. Is the planet being procreated for naught? NO. There really doesn't need to be any "resolving to something," by either a 'God' or 'Evolution!'
It all really could have came about for naught!
People are intentional beings. We have goals to meet and intentions of meeting what ever goal that may be.
Therefore, we tend to think that everything else is done by intention.
We believe that everything that happens, happens for a reason by some intention.
However, That doesn't mean that everything else must have a reason.
I'm glad to meet you God. I'm glad to know (though it makes me sad) that you know that nothing happens for any particular reason.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 8, 2014 10:37:01 GMT -5
You don't 'believe' in myths, per se, and they don't provide explanations. I like Plato's description of our lives being lived as if we were shackled in a cave. Behind us is a light and our chains prevent us from looking at and analyzing it. But on the wall, we can see the shadows made as the light plays against the figures of our lives. It's not unlike the Bible verse "Now we see through a glass darkly ... " explaining the limits of our understanding. A metaphor has two parts, a tenor and a vehicle. For example, we might say, "life is a journey". The vehicle of the metaphor is "journey" and the tenor is "life". The reason it's called a vehicle, is because one idea is being driven or carried across to another in order to say something about the tenor. We take a known thing, "a journey", and throw some light on an unknown thing, "life". This is how metaphor works in the religious realm. In one common metaphor, we take a known thing, say, "marriage" and use it to shed light on an unknown thing, "the union of Christ and his church". People often think of metaphor (and myth) as strictly a product of the imagination. But I believe that when they work, they're explaining something that is very real, but also .. unknowable in its literal sense.Think of metaphor as the shadow on the cave wall; it doesn't exist unless the light also exists. Of course, you can reject the metaphor, which means rejecting what it stands for. But the Bible and Christian experience are entirely made out of metaphors and these can have a very rich meaning for Christian believers. I disagree, I believe that myths are just a product of the imagination. I don't think they explain anything that is real.
The only things that are real are the thing that actually take place. Then people attempt to understand them. The conclusions they come to are all about the psychological needs of people.
One of the factors that happened when a part of our brain development came to the point we begin to be able to use it we begin able to think in the present. We also could remember what happened in our past.
Using those two abilities, people begin to extrapolate a possible happening in our future. Both the present & the past both weren't all that wonderful and actually was very bleak.
So they attempted to create a picture of something better for out future, -If not a better life on this earth, a better one after death.
To me, that is more interesting than anything. The question of why people seem to have such a need to create those "myths."
The created the myths, because they couldn't accept NOT knowing! Myths were created because they needed to have a reason for something happening. They simply couldn't accept the fact that the instances might be random and there simply wasn't any reason! So, they created a myth of a rosier future
In a nut shell, you nailed it when you said :
"The Bible and Christian experience are entirely made out of metaphors and these can have a very rich meaning for Christian believer"
However , for me, there wouldn't be any " rich meaning" because I would know that I be deceiving myself!
Do you wonder why we CAN wonder about who we are, and a greater sense of purpose for the Universe? When you say "there simply wasn't any reason", it strikes me that you also can not accept NOT knowing. Because in truth you don't know whether the events of our lives are random or not. The least you could do is say, there might be a reason or might not; we really don't know. It sounds like your saying "there is NO reason" and that's all there is to it. If metaphors were purely an invention then there would be no way of saying one metaphor is better than another. Marvel Comics is as good as the Bible, by that line of thinking. (Although I sometimes think that some views based on the Bible are not much better than a Marvel comic.) We had a look at native spirituality recently, reading some tales from the lore of indigenous natives. I think there is something to it; the concept of a 'trickster' god, I find quite fascinating, for example. I thought I'd just throw that out as an example of a myth/ metaphor that have some validity.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 8, 2014 17:57:58 GMT -5
........ the planet being procreated ? Sure! The more humans to size it up, the greater the collective consciousness. And more consciousness means more fecundity. You must mean "life on the planet". I don't see the planet itself reproducing itself -- or is that where the moon came from? But fecundity isn't dependent on consciousness, unless you believe fungi have a consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 8, 2014 18:00:22 GMT -5
I disagree, I believe that myths are just a product of the imagination. I don't think they explain anything that is real.
The only things that are real are the thing that actually take place. Then people attempt to understand them. The conclusions they come to are all about the psychological needs of people.
One of the factors that happened when a part of our brain development came to the point we begin to be able to use it we begin able to think in the present. We also could remember what happened in our past.
Using those two abilities, people begin to extrapolate a possible happening in our future. Both the present & the past both weren't all that wonderful and actually was very bleak.
So they attempted to create a picture of something better for out future, -If not a better life on this earth, a better one after death.
To me, that is more interesting than anything. The question of why people seem to have such a need to create those "myths."
The created the myths, because they couldn't accept NOT knowing! Myths were created because they needed to have a reason for something happening. They simply couldn't accept the fact that the instances might be random and there simply wasn't any reason! So, they created a myth of a rosier future
In a nut shell, you nailed it when you said :
"The Bible and Christian experience are entirely made out of metaphors and these can have a very rich meaning for Christian believer"
However , for me, there wouldn't be any " rich meaning" because I would know that I be deceiving myself!
Do you wonder why we CAN wonder about who we are, and a greater sense of purpose for the Universe? When you say "there simply wasn't any reason", it strikes me that you also can not accept NOT knowing. Because in truth you don't know whether the events of our lives are random or not. The least you could do is say, there might be a reason or might not; we really don't know. It sounds like your saying "there is NO reason" and that's all there is to it. If metaphors were purely an invention then there would be no way of saying one metaphor is better than another. Marvel Comics is as good as the Bible, by that line of thinking. (Although I sometimes think that some views based on the Bible are not much better than a Marvel comic.) We had a look at native spirituality recently, reading some tales from the lore of indigenous natives. I think there is something to it; the concept of a 'trickster' god, I find quite fascinating, for example. I thought I'd just throw that out as an example of a myth/ metaphor that have some validity. You're talking about Paganism, you realize?
|
|