Protestantism

» paper_turtle - understanding

In response to understanding posted by redback:
I wrote:
"In one sense I agree--people who meet each other at a spiritual level, recognizing that each person carries the divine spark, do tend to communicate better with each other."
.
redback responded:
Can't say we trip over them every day, but I find that people who tend to communicate better with each other seek a mutual respect..an inclusive goal for in-common benefit. Are fair dinkum in spirit even if clumsy in delivery. Those that make the extra effort where it's not really an "effort" in the negative sense of the word...probably make better inroads into greater understanding. And I intended 'greater understanding' to be a few notches up from 'better communication'. I'm not sure tho' of a "divine spark" on my understanding of the term...as a determinative factor.
.
I was intending "better communication" to imply greater understanding, not simply felicitous use of words. "Divine spark" is simply one way of saying each person carries divinity within him or her, is a manifestation of the divine. This belief seems to be pretty universal among people of faith regardless of the name of their God.
.
.
In Genesis, the Bible seems able to be read at a number of levels. Of course, we can overlay our discussions with broader concepts...the genesis of ego and negative traits like "human pride, hatred, prejudice, and intolerance" and other issues raised by Pink.
.
I raised those issues in post #48 above--the same post to which you are responding here.
.
I'm trying not to do that. Here, I'm simply trying to understand what is intended by the Bible message without first declaring any undying belief in it. I try to suspend the judgement of 'belief' and other (negative) judgements until Babel et al makes better sense. Who knows how flawed that approach is...but it's the way I'm looking at it. And I don't come here with a clean slate but a developed moral compass so maybe Genesis may never make better sense.
.
I'm not sure I quite follow you here. The people who composed the words which appear in Genesis as we know it now were primarily interested in telling stories for the purpose of education and moral guidance. The early Hebrew people had lengthy oral interpretations/explications of every part of their scripture, and these were aimed at finding how a particular passage related to the living of one's daily life. This is how I approach the reading of all the Bible. Its not about obeying the dictates of an ogre God, but what makes sense in living a worthwhile and satisfying life.
.
.
Paper...your deep thoughts are always valued to me. But, I have to tell you...I don't read much affirmations of it in our current travels through Genesis. Maybe Genesis' context cannot be undeerstood without New Testament input...and if so, we're on a hiding to nothing here.
.
Thanks, redback. As I see it, it is impossible for anyone who has read the New Testament to completely set it aside when reading the Old Testament. We cannot return to the particular knowingness of pre-New Testament times. On the other hand, it is not necessary to overlay references to Jesus when reading the Old Testament. Still, both testaments, as **I** read them, contain a consistent message of God's love.
.
.
What part does our "God-given" 'intelligence' play in the development of ego and pride? We are given conditional 'free will' or allowed to keep what we always had? Both human AND divine consequence? Tis hard to remove the God Factor.
.
From what I have observed of animal behavior, animals appear to be incapable of artifice. They do not pretend, and yet they have intelligence. While animals may preen and strut, it seems to me they do this not out of pride but as a display of power, to subdue an opponent without having to resort to fighting, or to win a mate and perpetuate the species.
.
Human imagination seems, to me, to be more responsible for ego and pride than intelligence. Imagination allows us to work ourselves into a froth of fear, or place ourselves in a position of wealth and power and thereby chase away the demons of fear and inadequacy.
.
I don't believe in hell. We create our own hell here on earth. We are always more harsh with ourselves than anyone else would be, and certainly more harsh than God.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Think About It

.
Paper Turtle makes the following comment:
.
As I see it, it is impossible for anyone who has read the New Testament to completely set it aside when reading the Old Testament. We cannot return to the particular knowingness of pre-New Testament times. On the other hand, it is not necessary to overlay references to Jesus when reading the Old Testament. Still, both testaments, as **I** read them, contain a consistent message of God's love.
.
However a person views the Bible makes little difference. The fact of the matter is that it is a major force in the development of our Western Culture.. It behooves us to take the Bible seriously; so, the idea that non-believers have no business discussing it is out the window.
.
We are discussing redemption--the Bible is all about it.
.
So, we can apply the messages to our daily experiences.
.
What--exactly--is it that we mean by redemption?
.
The biblical story begins with humanity in a situation that God considers to be "good" and it makes no difference how "good" that was. It was "good" and that is enough.
.
But, what happened then was that humanity fell from that place. So, somehow, redemption comes in; but, at great cost. And, that is the story we're going to see made clear over and over again. Humanity is in a "good" place and then it falls and finds itself in need of redemption. Redemption comes over and over again and again. Every one is always guilty--there's no way out--it is a never ending theme of Old Testament theology. "YOU! You are no good. You deserve to be swept into ever lasting separation from good and are absolutely unworthy of what God has provided. Get it through your thick skull that you are a worthless piece of pig manure!" That's the point, isn't it?
.
But, in spite of your unworthiness, God loves you. And, finally, by the time God sends his son to redeem the Jews and they reject him, He (God) finally figures out that humanity is just as disrespectfully worthless as it always has been. Humanity is utterly useless in anyway to redeem itself--it is doomed to complete and abject failure--period.
.
The point of all that is that YOU instinctively know that it is true. YOU walk around knowing that you are a worthless piece of camel dung. Your thoughts are polluted by your worthlessness. You cannot raise yourself up in any way.
.
You are so worthless that you do not have any reason to believe that you even have purpose to believe you can ever appeal your worthlessness. Just shut your mouth and admit to it. If you dare to stand up and claim any value in and of your own, you are a blasphemer and that proves your worthlessness. So, go to hell. Go directly to hell and do not collect any benefits whatsoever.
.
Pretty much, that's the message we get from the Bible.
.
Until, Jesus comes into the picture.
.
But, now that he has come into the picture, that creates a problem for anyone who used to benefit from the old situation; because they're out of work.
.
Think about it.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by paper_turtle:
.
God said it was good--he didn't say it was perfect.
.
Heh heh. Not his best work, ay?
.
And what God created did not remain static. Things have changed, a great deal, since the world was first formed.
.
I think God was first to invent the phrase "there's nothing constant except change".
.
And I wonder--doesn't evolution imply some kind of choice, at least on an organic level?
.
I don't think a proto-bird made a ~conscious~ choice to evolve/change into a modern duck or eagle.
.
If we look at the natural world, isn't the lesson one of constant growth and change?
.
Yes... but that's NOT the POV of Bible Creation literalists i.e. God created everything exactly as it exists today. No changes.
.
How could humankind grow and change without **both** conscious minds and free will?
.
Same way a dog, horse, and whale grew and changed without consciousness and free will.
.
...In one sense you forced him--but looking at the larger picture, he consented out of love for you, and no doubt he did so willingly and happily.
.
In every sense, I forced him. He consented begrudgingly, and feared escalating consequences if he didn't comply. If he'd happily consented just by my asking, ~that~ would've been love, and I wouldn't have resorted to other measures to enlist his cooperation.
.
Humankind derives no joy from the things it is forced to do. When we do not perceive ourselves as being free we are miserable, and keep fighting to be free as long as we can. This seems to be wired into us. Animals are the same: a wolf in a trap will chew off its own leg rather than die a captive.
.
Our freedom is limited, and our joy. We are indeed ~forced~ to do things. We've come to enjoy some of them - like sleeping and eating. Some don't bring us joy - like changing poopy diapers (nappies) and paying taxes.
.
A free-ranging wolf fears confinement. A wolf raised in confinement fears freedom. Humans are the same.
.
I believe it is the same with God. God is not a petty ogre who demands abject obedience. God does not use fear. Fear and love cannot coexist. And God is Love.
.
What Bible are you reading?
.
Migisi responded:... Allegedly, the angels were God's first test subjects for free will. The results clearly showed the idea was a flop. So, God tested the concept on humans, and again, the results failed to please him...
.
Paper: See what I said above, about evolution. Also, consider genetic mutation,...
.
Confused. Are you suggesting that the angels and humans obtained free will through an evolutionary process or a mutation?
.
... Your view of God is apparently quite different from mine--and I assure you I am far from the only person in the world who sees God in this way. If I believed God were as you depict God, I would want nothing to do with this being. No same person would, IMO.
.
In this thread, and others, we've studied verse by verse, story to story. It's always fascinated me how people perceive the same story so differently. The mind is truly an amazingly creative thing.
.
Migisi responded:
The ego is one's sense or awareness of self. Who created that in Man?
.
Paper: Since self-awareness in innate in humans, it is (obviously) something we are born with. If one believes in God, then God designed us to be self-aware.
.
God created Man, and designed Man to be self-aware. Therefore, God created Man's ego. Earlier, you said the ego was/is the root cause for "the angel's rebelling, Adam and Eve disobeying, evil not being eradicated, and human amibtion still flourishing". Boiling it down, since God created the ego, God is the root cause, no?
.
And if God designed us to be self-aware, then how could the same God condemn us for being how we were designed to be?
.
Good question.
.
...And the concept of hell was developed much later than Genesis. In fact, much of the concept of hell was developed after the Bible was written by extrapolation of what I consider some rather obscure and arcane texts.
.
Jesus specifically mentioned 'hell' a few times (Mat, Mark, Lk), and so did James and Peter. The OT Hebrews believed in She'ol or Gehinnom. Read Psalm 88:4-7.
.
As I indicated above, it hardly seems sane for God to give us free will and then punish us for using it.
.
But Paper, that's just what he did in the stories.
.
I don't believe in hell--and as before, I am far from the only person who holds a similar view. Once again, if I believed in hellfire and brimstone I would want nothing to do with such a God. I'm sorry this is the God you see.
.
In this, you and I agree.

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - understanding

In response to understanding posted by paper_turtle:

What is helpful for me is where you are coming from in your beliefs. Simply, while many Christians may share your belief, I know many don't. Whether it be the relative truth of Hell or the purpose and historical truths within Genesis or other beliefs.

I apply the rule of 3C - context, compare, contrast - and your comments on the meaning of Genesis etc are factored in here when I aim for a higher understanding MY brain is comfortable with.

"I'm not sure I quite follow you here...."

Too much cut & paste involved. I'll condense/restate what I think you questioned. Before I 'listen' to variable Bible interpretations and judgements, I make no conclusions. A lifetime has taught me that disbelief and belief are both judgements. I repeatedly ask for any idea of the 'higher message' as the literal or other meaning may not make sense by itself.

When I stated: "I don't come here with a clean slate but a developed moral compass so maybe Genesis may never make better sense." related to Genesis, my current level of sense of it and to the fact I am 60 years old having left Sunday School a few lifetimes ago.

"We cannot return to the particular knowingness of pre-New Testament times."

See my preceding sentence. I agree with you we can't exclude objective knowledge already gained...or a moral compass (founded on facts) already developed. Not just between OT and NT but mankind's relative 'gains'. Simply, I've repeated elsewhere my belief the Bible contains a mix where everything is not restricted to a literal meaning nor instructional for all mankind today.

I think I've also repeated often enough here a difference I see from the restrictions seemingly placed on a Biblical God and what a God may be. Sorry...I didn't mean to be pedantic over the term 'greater understanding' but we were in the middle of Babel and a gentle reminder of our differences wasn't intended to hurt.

Your comments re 'animal behaviour' are confusing re the context of my post.

The concepts of 'free will' and God's apparent (agape?) love for all mankind are IMO too confused by man's flawed interpretations of those concepts and which parts of the Bible need to be ignored, judged irrelevant or judged highly instructional. BTW: I don't believe God seeks instruction from or is restricted to...an ancient Bible.

And tis why the Bible is not the sole source document for me.

-- posted by redback

» paper_turtle - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by Migisi:

I wrote:
And I wonder--doesn't evolution imply some kind of choice, at least on an organic level?
.
Migisi responded:
I don't think a proto-bird made a ~conscious~ choice to evolve/change into a modern duck or eagle.
.
I didn't say "conscious;" I said "organic." Species evolve in order to assure their survival. How does the species "know" it needs to evolve? It doesn't, on a conscious level, and yet somehow the species does change to meet the challenges to its perpetuation. Isn't it possible that there is some kind of sentience within (perhaps) DNA which responds to the need to change?
.
.
I wrote:
How could humankind grow and change without **both** conscious minds and free will?
.
Migisi responded:
Same way a dog, horse, and whale grew and changed without consciousness and free will.
.
BUT human growth and change is much different than in animals. We have the capacity to imagine and create and and evolve intellectually and spiritually. Although I believe there is much we don't know about animal intellect, humankinds have potentials for development much beyond animals.
.
.
I wrote:
Humankind derives no joy from the things it is forced to do. When we do not perceive ourselves as being free we are miserable, and keep fighting to be free as long as we can. This seems to be wired into us. Animals are the same: a wolf in a trap will chew off its own leg rather than die a captive.
.
Migisi responded:
Our freedom is limited, and our joy. We are indeed ~forced~ to do things. We've come to enjoy some of them - like sleeping and eating. Some don't bring us joy - like changing poopy diapers (nappies) and paying taxes.
.
A free-ranging wolf fears confinement. A wolf raised in confinement fears freedom. Humans are the same.
.
I disagree. We can choose to look upon some tasks as odious, or we can choose to find some reason to do them which does bring us joy. Dirty diapers aren't fun, but seeing my child's delight when it was clean and dry did bring me joy. Since my income is very small I don't pay a lot of taxes--but I don't mind paying what I do pay as a symbol of my being a full citizen. Whether or not life is a pleasure or a burden is always our choice.
.
I also disagree (in a qualified way) about fearing freedom. In one sense many humans fear freedom--that's why they become enslaved to ideologies, and why they blame the devil (or some other bogeyman) for their own evil, and why they love scapegoats.
.
On the other hand, there is some indomitable spirit within humankind which--sooner or later--will rise up and throw off its shackles. If you haven't read Victor Frankle's Man's Search for Meaning I would recommend it. The book describes his experiences in a concentration camp, and many of these experiences describe those similar to those to which I have just alluded.
.
.
I wrote:
I believe it is the same with God. God is not a petty ogre who demands abject obedience. God does not use fear. Fear and love cannot coexist. And God is Love.
.
Migisi responded:
What Bible are you reading?
.
The same one you are reading, but apparently from a vastly diferent perspective.
.
.
I wrote:
Since self-awareness in innate in humans, it is (obviously) something we are born with. If one believes in God, then God designed us to be self-aware.
.
Migisi responded:
God created Man, and designed Man to be self-aware. Therefore, God created Man's ego. Earlier, you said the ego was/is the root cause for "the angel's rebelling, Adam and Eve disobeying, evil not being eradicated, and human amibtion still flourishing". Boiling it down, since God created the ego, God is the root cause, no?
.
But you left out a key piece of my statement here:
.
I was thinking about ego in the common, everyday sense as those **impulses** which are only about the preservation of the self. These are not always bad, but when they are governed by fear, they can become downright evil.
.
The sense of self resides in the brain--BUT infants are apparently lacking in a clear sense of self, and those who study child development theorize that the "terrible twos" signal the beginning of one's true sense of self. However, the impulse for survival appears to be operant even in very young infants who will scream with terror at the sight of a snake even though no one has ever told them to be afraid.
.
We begin making choices from the day we are born. God does not program us with everything we need to know, nor does he control our every thought. We are not computers. He does not control those early decisions we make, which ultimately determine our perception of reality and hence govern our responses to the world around us.
.
In other words, God gives us the potential, but we shape this potential through our choices. Therefore, your line of reasoning doesn't hold up--at least, not to me.
.
.
I wrote:
...And the concept of hell was developed much later than Genesis. In fact, much of the concept of hell was developed after the Bible was written by extrapolation of what I consider some rather obscure and arcane texts.
.
bMigisi responded:
Jesus specifically mentioned 'hell' a few times (Mat, Mark, Lk), and so did James and Peter. The OT Hebrews believed in She'ol or Gehinnom. Read Psalm 88:4-7.
.

I could find plenty of scripture and exegitical material to back up what I've said--borh from Jewish and Christian sources, but this question is much beyond the pruview of this particular discussion, adn I doubt I'd change your mind anyway.
.
.
I wrote:
As I indicated above, it hardly seems sane for God to give us free will and then punish us for using it.
.
Migisi responded:
But Paper, that's just what he did in the stories.
.
ONLY if one persists--as (forgive me) you appear to do--in sticking solely to the literal meaning of the words. If one looks **below** the surface of the words its possible to find many, many more meanings. I have said, more than once, that the early Hebrews did not intend these stories to be taken literally. You have consistently dismissed this as untrue, but I assure you it IS true.
.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - understanding

In response to understanding posted by redback:

redback wrote:
A lifetime has taught me that disbelief and belief are both judgements. I repeatedly ask for any idea of the 'higher message' as the literal or other meaning may not make sense by itself.
.
From what you said, I think we're approaching the text (i.e., Bible) in a similar way. I'm not interested in its "literality," therefore belief/non-belief of the material itself isn't an issue. My belief in God is experiential, relational, not dependent upon factoids--because, in truth, there is no absolutely empirical evidence. What I'm looking for is the link between what I'm reading and my own life. Maybe I won't find one, and maybe I will.
.
.
I think I've also repeated often enough here a difference I see from the restrictions seemingly placed on a Biblical God and what a God may be.
.
Exactly! God is too big and mysterious to fit into any human conception of God's identity/nature. And yet, we all still try to "contain" God in some way.
.
.
Sorry...I didn't mean to be pedantic over the term 'greater understanding' but we were in the middle of Babel and a gentle reminder of our differences wasn't intended to hurt.
.
No harm done. I didn't take offense; I was just going for clarity.
.
.
I don't believe God seeks instruction from or is restricted to...an ancient Bible.
.
And tis why the Bible is not the sole source document for me.
.
I agree, the same is true for me--and I find that each document (indlucing experience) penetrates and sheds light on the others.
.
.
Your comments re 'animal behaviour' are confusing re the context of my post.
.
You asked about intelligence in relation to the development of pride and ego. My comments about animals were intended to illustrate that intelligence might not be the decisive factor. Animals have intelligence (at least some do), and yet they appear not to be "ego-driven." Therefore, some factor other than sheer intelligence must be at work. I believe this factor is imagination (which animals don't seem to have, or, if the do have it, not to the extent that humans do).
.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - Think About It

In response to Think About It posted by pink101:

Phil--I'm still thinking about this. I'll tru to get back to it later today.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by paper_turtle:
.
... Isn't it possible that there is some kind of sentience within (perhaps) DNA which responds to the need to change?
.
Sure, it's possible. But, as yet, there's no evidence for it. Tomorrow may bring new discovery and understanding. Free will implies ~conscious~ choice. If DNA is sentient, and plays a role in growth/change, then God did not bestow free will upon humans alone, but on all living creatures.
.
.
BUT human growth and change is much different than in animals. We have the capacity to imagine and create and and evolve intellectually and spiritually. Although I believe there is much we don't know about animal intellect, humankinds have potentials for development much beyond animals.
.
Certainly, intellect may play a role in altering growth and change in humans. And we use our intellect to alter growth/change in other things - food animals, vegetables, fruit trees, etc. Man ~appears~ to have evolved/developed far faster than other living creatures. However, perhaps extinct species (without intellect) progressed at an even faster pace than humans, and came to their natural end quicker? Like a hotter fire burns out quicker.
.
I'll be back later to respond to the remainder of your post. My grand kids are here for the day. Time to play!
.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Gen 11: 8 (pretend)

In response to Gen 11: 8 (pretend) posted by Migisi:
.
Sure, it's possible. But, as yet, there's no evidence for it.
.
Actually, there is evidence to the contrary. Neural pathways and neural networks are created during the first period of time after the human being leaves the womb.
.
Surprise of all surprises, the brain is still developing after birth just as the rest of the body is doing so. We are not dropped into reality as completed beings. As this cranial process evolves the brain is influenced by the culture into which it is born. The brain is still in the process of forming itself physically as well as building memories that are what we call our intelligence. Ignore it if you wish.
.
And, THAT is where we develop the sensitivities that bring up such a statement as Paper Turtle expresses with, "... Isn't it possible that there is some kind of sentience within (perhaps) DNA which responds to the need to change?.
.
And, then PT comments, BUT human growth and change is much different than in animals. We have the capacity to imagine and create and and evolve intellectually and spiritually. Although I believe there is much we don't know about animal intellect, humankinds have potentials for development much beyond animals.
.
Actually, it is amazing just how much we are like animals; but, PT is correct in that we have developed beyond animals--it is our potential. Yet, evolution continues. Give the lesser and slower animals a chance--they'll make it. It would be veeerrrry interesting to meet a dog that had finally broken into the language area of their evolution--or a cat. What IF they could talk? Would we have to declare war on dogs?
.
What sets us well apart from the animals IS our ability toward language which is our greatest invention. My personal belief is that it is what the opening passages of Genesis are all about--the discovery of language.
.
There are any number of good books appearing on the market that deal with neurological discoveries and about how our brains work. It behooves each one of us to learn about the subjects involved.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - understanding

In response to understanding posted by paper_turtle:

"From what you said, I think we're approaching the text (i.e., Bible) in a similar way. I'm not interested in its "literality," therefore belief/non-belief of the material itself isn't an issue."

My poor choice of words and my entrenched misunderstandings of others posting here.

To me "in a similar way" denotes a process rather than a purpose or program. To me, whether or not the Bible is believable or not...IMO...IS an issue. Why do Christians believe all or parts of it or parts of parts of it goes to purpose. And for a greater understanding of them, I'm interested in their (disparate) views. There is some mysterious aura or connotation to the term "belief". Does one believe in the Bible? Does one believe in Jesus? Does Jeff believe the miraculous story of Babel makes sense? Etc.

100% literal vs 100% metaphorical and all points in between: If the stories of Adam, Ark, Babel are analogous to contemporary facts of life but based on ancient myth rather than true events, I'd as soon draw inspiration from the existing healthy pool of ancient philosophers. But it seems to me the Bible wants us to accept underlying events as facts.

Clearly, 'First Man' had to start somehow and sometime...even if 'Adam' was not truly first. The Earth was 'Great Flood'ed or not. etc etc. And a myriad other examples in other Books of the Bible. There is something about the 3 identified stories here that do not make sense to me. These stories do not live in a Biblical vacuum. Migisi's posts remain on topic for my purpose.my

In context to my post and the topic of Genesis, post 58 "intrigues" me.

-- posted by redback