joedad

You are failing to see Toto's point, which is that Christianity is everything except those two absolutist positions you infer. Chritianity is precisely "shades of grey" and nothing else.

joe

joedad

Amos,
I'm actually not sure exactly what you're saying but am willing to give it a try.

I think you are saying that an allegorical, metaphorical bible proves that there is a reality, which is begging to be discovered, explained and experienced. In your view, this reality is metaphysical, spiritual, mystical, somewhat incomprehensible, at least highly emotional .

In my view, however, all this mythmaking and story-telling also points to a reality, one that is quite comprehensible, without mystery and magic, and which is simply humanity's history embedded in a larger history of all events within our universe - and all quite physical and understandable. I do not deny that it also provides a rush for the discoverer.

And I also understand that there are people who see this physical reality instead embedded within their myths.

But I see your position and Nomad's as a default position. That's what we're set for because we are all born without knowledge, although quite alive with potential, as our individual development and our collective history clearly illustrate. A "talking snake" and gods springing from other gods foreheads are quite imaginative inventions, and "proof" that humanity is capable beyond these genetic default settings. But why relegate the physical universe to an aside in this discovery process?

This board is a haven. If anything it encourages a kind of "intellectualism". That intellectualism produces art, just as it did thousands of years ago. That is at least one reason why Nomad gets drawn to a board like this, and why I get drawn to other boards which are more decidedly "christian". We are looking for an outlet for that intellectual urge. Don't you think?

Those of us who first invent talking Devil snake and Minerva myths aren't doing anything unusual, only something rare, which is the creation of popular art. Perhaps the reasons these creations are so engaging is because of their rarity. But of course they are also not so rare once cultural and religious illiteracy is surmounted. That's where the knowledge comes in.

Also, it is worth stating that when we talk about these myths we are commenting and criticizing the artwork and the artist. It is certainly all "inspired", just as are our commentaries. But I don't see why it need be supernatural, unless of course, that is the only interpretation possible given one's experiences and knowledge.

I hope I've not misinterpreted your position. Feel free to correct.

joe

Amos

Thanks for your response Joe and I very much agree with your first paragraph except that I would say that the bible does not "prove" anything but contains truth that will confirm our mystical experiences and is therefore "begging to be discovered" to become the proof of the reality we encounter. Encounter is the right word because the experiences are mystical, somewhat incomprehensible and very much everwhelming at first and therefore emotional. They are overwhelming because they are non-rational (rational and irrational combined are opposite to non-rational) and are therefore incomprehensible for outsiders.

They are spiritual, metaphysical and mystical only to the extend we are outsiders because when we do have the mind of God -- which is the aim of religion -- all will be clear. This now means that to the extent we know God do we know our own self as "the Lord your God." From this follows that there are no mysteries in heaven or on earth after we have been given the key to the richess of our own soul, which is the kingdom of God.

I very much disagree that we are born without knowledge because our soul is purely knowledge that has been tied down (purified from data) in previous generations. Our soul is woman from Gen.2, which is the womb of man in which all of creation is conceived to further the evolution of reality (only life is real). The TOK (tree of knowledge) is needed to provide the soul with data to be purified and tied down with existing knowledge to become the omiscient soul of the next generation(s), (behavior trends skip on generation).

Now, if the TOL is our soul and the TOK is our conscious mind, the woman is the receptive negative stand of our mind in need of wisdom to nurture the TOL (personified as Mary in Catholicism and therefore venerated with a long lithany of desirable attributes). The serpent is part of our conscious mind (TOK) as a quality of Eve for the purpose of gaining wisdom for the TOL (Mary is blue and strikes at the head of Eve who in turn strikes at his (Adam's) heel.

Because mythology is real it cannot be rare but must be transparent between mythologies and is, for example, why Catholicism can encompass and overshadow Voodoo. There may be original concepts presented in our articulation of these realities to make them artistic and unique, but never ever rare.

This board is fun but kind of flat, I think, and much like the old concept of the world when it was flat. I sometimes wonder why they ever changed that if when we criticize myth we comment on the artistic expression of the artist.

Amos

Papaver

OK, this has gotten into the realm of ridiculous.

The author(s) of the Genesis story, were early Semetic people. They did NOT, I repeat did NOT believe in a Satan or any kind of evil diety.
So how could they, figuratively or metaphorically be referring to Satan or some other icon of evil ? ANSWER - THEY DIDN'T !!
You all are reading things into the story that are not there. But, that is par for the course for scriptural interpretation, proceeding from the stupid to the ridiculous !

excreationist

Amos, are you saying that people can know things that didn't come from life experience or animal instincts? e.g. have knowledge of past lives? Are you saying that the memory of their past life (or all lives) is erased or supressed? BTW, do you believe that your next rebirth depends on how good or enlightened you are in this life? But when you're reincarnated you might forget your past life, so it is if you died anyway.

Amos

John, I would say "yes" to your question if you did not lump "animal instincts" with "life experience." Our intuition is the same as animal instinct but goes beyond animal instinct because of our expanded faculty of reason needed for the composite recollection of past knowledge. Beyond that they are the same, just the same by the fact that beyond our faculty of reason we are the animal man. This makes the instinct of animals the memory of their soul and our intuition the memory of our soul. For a soul to come into being a conscious mind is needed and it is for this reason that all sentient beings must have both, a conscious and a subconscious mind.

Our soul is incarnate upon us, and yes, re-incarnate upon us for up to 1000 years. To live in the full knowledge of our own soul is to live in the 1000 year reign. It has nothing to do with Shirly Maclean's idea of reincarnation, in case you wonder, because "an apple does not fall very far from the tree" and "the bird that builts its nest is hatched therein" or you would not be your father's son. My favorite line with regard to this (by far) is found in "The Spire" where dean Jocelin was looking down a series of diminishing squares when he saw a round hole at the bottom [which was his own soul] that nevertheless was the top. See also "The child that is to become the father of man" or even "the holy offspring to be born will be called son of God."

The "memory of our past lives" is surpressed by our ego consciousness which is our tree of knowledge wherefore we are in oblivion, live in a Cave, or said to be in limbo (must rely upon our lymbic system for orientation) while banned from Eden (banned from the TOL or the memory of our past lives).

The next rebirth will not be mine but that of my soul, yes, and the contribution of my life will be imprinted on it. The death of my ego consciousness can happen before I physically die in which case I must be born into my eternal soul before this happens (which is obvious or I could not die, but is the reason why Magdalene [Eve] was left stranded at the tomb of Jesus who himself was resurrected in the soul of the prospering ex-Joseph now called Christ).

If you are reincarnated you cannot forget your past life because you are the manifestation of your past life to which your own life is added by means of resurrection and the recall of your own life's contributions (the re-call of your own apostles or eidelons).

John, I should add here that while you might not believe me you should be informed that I do not write what I believe but that I write that which I know to make sense.

Amos

excreationist

Amos:
"John, I should add here that while you might not believe me you should be informed that I do not write what I believe but that I write that which I know to make sense."

At the moment what you're saying doesn't really make sense. And are you saying that you don't believe what you wrote?

"Our soul is incarnate upon us, and yes, re-incarnate upon us for up to 1000 years. To live in the full knowledge of our own soul is to live in the 1000 year reign."
Why 1000 though? This is a base 10 number - we use base 10 because we have 10 fingers. Does the thing that is in control of reincarnation also have 10 fingers? And what is in control of reincarnation? A huge eternal conscious entity? Did it also create the universe?

Wyrdsmyth

Nice to meet you, as well.

It is not so much a "rejection" of his existence, as to a simple lack of belief. I don't have the belief that your god, or any god, or in fact anything supernatural, spiritual, etc. exists. Just as I regard Allah, Zeus and Odin to be mythological, so do I regard Yahweh. And the point I was trying to make earlier was that you can't get away from your own powers of discernment -- i.e., your own opinion, or judgment -- when it comes to conferring authority. You take it on faith that your interpretation is correct. Or, to push it back a step, you take it on faith that the church you belong to has the right interpretation. Or, to push it back another step, you take it on faith that your god exists, in the first place.

What you consider to be "revealed by god" I consider, at best, controversial and open to question. After all, has he revealed anything to you, personally? Have you had direct, experiencial contact with this god you claim to believe in, or to "know" the existence of? Or, are you taking it on faith from others who claim such?

I find it horribly suspect that all supernatural claims always come from somebody else, usually people that wrote scriptures thousands of years ago... And that is what is trucked around as the "hard evidence" for this or that god's existence. Contemporary miracles and sightings to me all have this veneer of being hoaxes, flim-flam, or conveniently ambiguous and untestable.

If your god (or someone else's) exists, and he is going to send me to hell for articulating these sorts of thoughts -- which I consider to be eminently reasonable -- then so be it. I'll stand before his court of judgment and say to him what I just said to you. I don't choose my beliefs. I believe what I do, and face it with honest appraisal. I don't "reject" your god, any more than I reject Santa Claus or ghosts or Zeus or Allah. I don't think there is enough evidence to warrant belief in any of them. Whether I want any of them to exist or not doesn't factor into it. I want a lot of things to be true... and there are many things I'd rather weren't true... but my assessment of what is isn't determined by what I want to be the case.

And thank you for yours.

[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]

Wyrdsmyth

I am afraid I can't add much to this. What you have said resonates to my own view, as well. Later tradition retrofits concepts of the "devil" into the earlier scriptural passages. But it should be pretty clear to anyone who actually reads the passages, that we are talking about entirely different myths. In Genesis, there is a talking snake, like something out of a fable. In Job we have the Satan, as sort of prosecutor who works for God. And still later, we get a rebel angel.

If one looks at it artistically, or with a literary eye, one sees three very different conceptions, that don't mesh well at all.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]

Amos

I object to your use of the word "all" because in the following lines I indicated in an earlier post that the serpent is desirable as a quality: "the serpent is smart and clever which are desirable qualities." I wrote further that there is not one but two serpents at work in our mind which is in the bible and interpreted with this line: "In Catholicism the serpent is cunning but much more cunning and clever is the woman that strikes at her head to motivate the serpents offspring called Adam ("She will strike at your head while you strike at his heel").

Amos