Protestantism

» pink101 - How The Leopard Got Its Spots

In response to Me Too posted by Migisi:

..
It's a story about how the leopard got its spots.
.
This is how people got scattered all over the world and struck with different languages that make it difficult to travel and to do trade with neighboring tribes. So, you better watch out, you better not shout your own abilities. Instead, you must be humble and obedient to the persons God has put in positions over you. That's the only way you're ever going to have unity and peace.
.
There is a definite threat in all of these stories and each one leads to a need for redemption.
.
That's my take and I'm sticking with it until some one shows me the error of my ways.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - How The Leopard Got Its Spots

In response to How The Leopard Got Its Spots posted by pink101:

So, you better watch out, you better not shout your own abilities. Instead, you must be humble and obedient to the persons God has put in positions over you. That's the only way you're ever going to have unity and peace.
.
I refer to hubris, you talk of shouting your own abilities. I think there's a huge difference between healthy self-esteem which is based on healthy self-love (rather than a fear-based need to be more and better).
.
If you look at some of the other figures in the Bible, ones I mentioned in a previous post, such as Deborah, and Elija, you see people with healthy self-esteem. They had pride in who they were, but they didn't have hubris. They didn't need hubris because they weren't eaten up with feelings of inadequacy. I don't believe either the OT or NT God wants us to be groveling worms. I believe God wants us to have healthy self-esteem, healthy self-love. He wants us to dream dreams and see visions. He wants us to aspire--but not for selfish ends, not for the sake of putting ourselves above others.
.
A person with healthy self-love can talk about his abilities without strutting or flaunting or putting others down.
.
You talk about threats and obedience. But nowhere are either of those things specifically mentioned in the story of the tower of Babel.
.
I don't see a persistent theme of threats in the Bible, I just don't see it. Sure there are passages like that, but I don't see it as a predominant element. I see God repeatedly calling out to his children. I see him stretching out his hand, beckoning, inviting, persuading--much more often than he threatens.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - How The Leopard Got Its Spots

In response to How The Leopard Got Its Spots posted by pink101:

.
Yep, the book of beginnings... from nothingness to great human civilizations. Fun stuff.
.
Continuing in Chapter 11, we read more geneology - a continuation of Chapter 10 about Noah's son Shem and his descendants. The Shem list leads us to God's champion Abram aka Abraham. Note how the lifespans shorten from Shem's 500 years down to Nahor's 119 years. And it's as if Babel had been stuck between the geneologies to add some interest to an otherwise boring list of tribal names.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Correction

In response to PT & Migisi posted by Migisi:
.
In my post #84, I wrote: "It would be Seth and Japheth's descendants who would 'lord over' them."
.
It should read "...Shem and Japheth's..."

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - understanding

In response to understanding posted by paper_turtle:

"But it seems to me the Bible wants us to accept underlying events as facts."

I stand corrected...lazy language again. It is people who tell us what they want us to get from the Bible...not the Bible per se. It is also self-diagnosed Christians by whatever make-up who tell us what the Bible says and as it is 'their' Book, I'm interested in their modern take. (Methuselah's is largely irrelevant to me)

I've always questioned the variable interpretations placed on the Bible. I catch glimpses from Pink when he seems to give his take on what fundamentalists believe...altho some of it gets lost on me. Not all fundamentalists are sparrows?

But what somebody else believes somebody else believes are simply conclusions based on truncated reasoning...and tis reasoning I'm after for my own conclusions.

If truth is a poor third as you state, the question of the existence of eg Jesus raises a higher question at least to me. According to populist Christian belief, Jesus was born, crucified etc.

"No, this is what modern, conservative theologians want."

One of the challenges in having any reliance on the various versions of the Bible at any level and the various versions of 'Christian'...is how to bet on the 2-bob each way. Brian has expressed concern before that devaluing specific aspects of the Bible does not debunk its entirety...if I've paraphrased correctly.

Thanks for the link. I recall reading something similar. a quick check indicates this book was left off his bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

-- posted by redback

» redback - Migisi POV

In response to Migisi POV posted by Migisi:

I understand what you are saying. But the add-on factor is that somewhere along the way and closer to "evidence" ie witness affirmations (as claimed by the New Testament) is the claim of underlying or underpinning 'truths' within the Old Testament.

Who says the metaphor stops at the Great Flood? Maybe mankind's sinful behaviour and God's response to it...Biblically speaking...are also false images in impressionable minds in an ancient social manipulation. Maybe myths et al are the 'firsts' for the kind of social manipulation we've come to love or loathe.

-- posted by redback

» paper_turtle - understanding

In response to understanding posted by redback:

Not all fundamentalists are sparrows?

Noe being a Fundamentalist, I can't say for sure. My first husband's parents were/are Fundamentalists; that's how I know most of what I know about Fundamentalism. The rest I've deduced through observation of reading, televangelists, and discussions with friends.

If truth is a poor third as you state, the question of the existence of eg Jesus raises a higher question at least to me. According to populist Christian belief, Jesus was born, crucified etc.

I believe Jesus was a real, "literal" being. As far as the literalness of many other things, it just doesn't really bother me. I think some of the things reported in the OT are based on fact, or have factual elements. For example, there really is a plant in the middle east which will spontaneously burst into flames (Moses' burning bush). And there is strong archaelogical evidence for a cataclysmic flood in the middle east in the right time frame to correspond to the Biblical account of the flood. But I don't see amy point in quibbling over the details. The "real" truth is "inside" the story (just as with a poem or a piece of art).

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - Migisi POV (redback)

In response to Migisi POV posted by redback:

Maybe mankind's sinful behaviour and God's response to it...Biblically speaking...are also false images in impressionable minds in an ancient social manipulation. Maybe myths et al are the 'firsts' for the kind of social manipulation we've come to love or loathe.
.
Yes--I can see an element of "ancient social manipulation" in the early parts of the Bible. And in one sense perhaps all myths contain an element of manipulation. But myths also express truths which cannot be expressed through straight prose. Poetry is the same. Myths and poems engage our imaginations, they challenge us to reach beyond our usual assumptions. They speak to heart and spirit and not just intellect.

I think modern man relies altogether too much on intellect and tends to downplay the importance of knowingness which arises from heart, intuition, creative insight.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - devil's in the details?

In response to understanding posted by paper_turtle:

.
But I don't see amy point in quibbling over the details.
.
Seems Paul didn't see any point in discussing details. He directed his followers to pay no attention to Jewish myths (Titus 1:14); not to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies (1Tim1:4); and have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales (1Tim4:7). By these verses and his use of 'myths' (in the NIV, "fables" in KJV), Paul clearly acknowledged that Jewish myths/fables existed and he warned them about believing them.
.
Perhaps Paul's instruction is reason why most Christians don't examine the details in the OT Jewish legends (myths/fables) and genealogies?

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Migisi POV

In response to Migisi POV posted by redback:

.
But the add-on factor is that somewhere along the way and closer to "evidence" ie witness affirmations (as claimed by the New Testament) is the claim of underlying or underpinning 'truths' within the Old Testament.
.
Jesus and his apostles were practicing Jews. As adherents of Judaism, it wouldn't be unusual for them to claim and affirm the Hebrew Scriptures were God's 'truth'. Christianity is rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, hence the OT and NT were included together in one Book.
.
But, are the adherents' claims and religious beliefs 'evidence' that everything written is true? Any truer than the Qu'ran? Or truer than the Gnostic scriptures? Or any other sacred text?
.
Who says the metaphor stops at the Great Flood?
.
Clearly, metaphor didn't stop at the Flood. Jesus used metaphors a lot (i.e. "I am the bread of life" - John 6:35). And so did the authors of Acts and the Epistles (i.e. "uncircumcised hearts and ears" - Acts 7:51; "The poison of asps is under their lips" - Rom 3:13) And many of Jesus parables are metaphors. I especially enjoy his story about the evil spirit returning to the clean house, bringing more evil spirits with it (Matthew 12:43-45).
.
Maybe myths et al are the 'firsts' for the kind of social manipulation we've come to love or loathe.
.
Indeed. Teaching stories. Every culture has them, and some are shared... Santa's watching, he knows if your naughty or nice, so be good or he'll leave coal instead of gifts.

-- posted by Migisi