God Did Not Write the Bible

wil said:
That! Is the crux of the bisquit. In writing, math, science, we don't teach BS first and then truth later.
Click to expand...
Chalk and cheese, Wil.

And one man's BS is another man's illumination. As you say, your mileage might vary ...
 
I see no reason to have to change the mythology as kids age... Start with counting, then addition, subtraction, the basics...

Tell the kids the stories are stories.. Do we teach that a lady stuck the kids in the oven a d the wolf ate grandma for reals?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
wil said:
Thomas....expound upon this realised symbol and actualized myth if you would.
Click to expand...
Well the pre-eminent symbol in that regard is the Incarnation, in which God is actually present 'here and now' in the world in a manner which from our perspective is 'more real' than the manner in which the Divine Presence underpins the existence of ... existence ... as both its source and its end.

In all man's religious traditions there is the struggle between the finite and the infinite, in that man is in every respect a finite, created nature, yet he is open to the infinite, the uncreate.

This distinction is often presented as the idea of 'transcendent' or 'higher' or 'spiritual' realities which are separate and distinct from the 'here and now', the 'lower' or the 'corporeal' reality in which we live and move and have our being.

So I can argue that each and every one of us is a symbol, because we are finite and yet the infinite can manifest Itself in us and through us to others. (As ever, the critical metaphysical distinction between a 'symbol' and a 'sign' is that the sign points towards the signified, outside of itself, whereas the symbol embodies the signified within itself.)

But, if that is true, then two things are necessary:
The first is that the union of which I'm talking, the marriage of the spiritual and the physical, must be prefigured in the Divine, even though the Divine is One, Simple, Absolute, Infinite ... and there is the dichotomy ... how is multiplicity, how is self-and-other prefigured in the One if the One is, simply, one?

How can union with the Divine exist, if the idea of union is not already prefigured in the Divine?

The second is that if the possibility of a union between matter and spirit, man and God, is prefigured in the Divine, then the Divine can manifest that prefiguration in the real, in the world, in the here-and-now and the everyday.

The existence of the cosmos and everything in it is made possible by, and subsequent to, that prefiguring. It must exist in principle before it can exist in fact.

You, me, the tree outside my window, the stars in the night sky, the cat who insists on sitting on my keyboard, we are all sons and daughters of the principle of existence in the Divine in the sense that we are the product of the Divine will that chooses, for no reason other than it chooses, to being creation into existence out of nothing.

Creatio ex nihilo in the sense that creation is not manufactured out of some pre-existing material (whereas everything in creation is) but also creatio ex nihilo in that there was no causative reason, no need nor necessity in the Divine, to create. We are not necessary ... life went on, goes on, and will go on, with or without us.

So everything that is created is subsequent to and thus other than the Divine, brought into being by the Divine, and held in being by the Divine, in that creation is not a one-time event, it is a continuum.

The Incarnation however is not subsequent in the same way. It is not simply an exemplar of that symbol, or someone who has realised we are all symbols, the Incarnation is not another symbol, the Incarnation is the manifestation of the principle of the symbol as such, not, as we are, the product of it.

Put another way, the Divine is Immanently present to the soul as spirit, and this presence, this I and Thou, is prefigured in the Trinity before creation, and figured in Christ in creation.
 
I think Ive got the realised symbol, but am confused as to the actualised myth...are you saying they are one in the same depending in your perspective of the text? If so, I am on the same page...
 
wil said:
Tell the kids the stories are stories..
Click to expand...
But that's a simplification in itself, one that fits your beliefs.
Some things are hard to understand and too big to understand the first time around, so simplifications are made to have something to work from. It's the same in chemistry, well it was for us anyway. Every year we had to relearn some things that only make sense when you have gone through all the basic things. I clearly remember having to realize that electrons don't circle perfectly around the core in separate layers. And 'mole' don't get me started on that, it almost broke my brain. I don't like having to shed older understanding for new, emptying the cup as I think you would like to say, but I don't see any way around it.
 
wil said:
But they told you no lies along the way
..
Click to expand...
This is where I think we just disagree. You often go to truth/lie where I would go to intent/reception. Simplified models don't contain enough to be "true" but that don't make them lies. To me.

If we go back to 'When I was a child my Sunday School teachers used to say that God whispered the words of the Bible, and someone wrote them down' I assume this instils a very clear picture in you of a bearded man dictating the Bible word for word. It does not for me. 'God', 'whispers', 'the words' are all full of meaning depending on background and interpretation. Again mileage.

Of course, educators can actively and explicitly tell complete fabrications. And though I hope their intentions are good I question the method. But you and I will often disagree on what constitutes a 'lie'.
 
wil said:
I think Ive got the realised symbol, but am confused as to the actualised myth...are you saying they are one in the same depending in your perspective of the text?
Click to expand...
Hmm ... yeah ... myth has so many meanings, it might have been better that I not use that term.

My point is that myths (in their religious context), are analogous stories, extended metaphors. The Greek myths, for example, have become some of the foundation stones of psychology, I suppose one could say that body of myth was the first compendium of psychological states.

But the point is the myth doesn't point at nothing, or simply an intellectual construct. The risk of opening Pandora's box is very real, more real, in that sense, than the story. Or Narcissism, a very damaging and destructive trait.

So I would dispute that the stories are 'just stories', they are way more than that. A lot of work has been done on the understanding of 'fairy tales' as a means of inculcating moral values, and also of pre-arming children against the vicissitudes of life. They're certainly far too deep and serious to be treated as 'fairy tales'!

The Hebrew myths, on the other hand, offer an holistic anthropology in relation to the Cosmos and in relation to God. (Whereas the Greek and other mythologies of the region are dualist, to a greater or lesser degree.) So the myths lay the foundation for understanding an holistic psycho-spiritual dynamic of being.

The 'old white-bearded man in the sky' analogy of God might offend your sensibilities, but I would say that in itself is symbolically precise and correct in every aspect. It is not who or what God is, but it makes God accessible in a sensible manner, and conceiving of God that way is no more harmful than any other, and is richer and more meaning-full than the abstract concepts in which I so often delight, 'the Absolute', and so on ... and those terms in themselves do miss out the fundamental aspect that, heart-to-heart, it is subjectivity that transcends objectivity — it is another flaw in the modern mind that holds 'objectivity' as a supreme virtue, even though the science of the Enlightenment assures us that true objectivity is not possible.

So myth, analogy, metaphor, are bridges between two worlds. A symbol, on the other hand, is that other world immediately, immanently and accessibly present in the symbol.
 
Perhaps the purpose of the Bible is to teach people how to approach in prayer a personal God who responds personally to every soul, in a way that soul understands?

Then all the discussion falls away.

Jesus taught profoundly through parables.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lux
I'd say most religious books... Have some sort of how we got here creation story, thousands of years old attempts at understanding the physical world using thousands of years old understandings...this why they don't stand the light if today.

Then there is the govt concept...some rules of living...some.way to refer to for who is right and who is wrong during a disagreement, a way to keep order and folks on the straight and narrow.

And yes, readings to help one connect with all that is holy.

The uniqueness of the Bible is that it is composed of 66 books, 2/3 of them Jewish, the other third mostly written by Jews that believed in this new messiah.. This last third was composed of books that were selected out of the hundreds that were being circulated at the time (the Jewish canon having already been established)

So they selected a few hundred years after Jesus...selections of writings spanning a thousand years...which they deemed inspired (not written) by G!d....and bound them together..
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top