Religion IS Man-Made

[jam2001]

And I would like to ask again what is the great aspiration of mankind or revlation to mankind expressed in the bible that you think hints of a divine author?

[alyoshka]

And I would like to ask again what is the great aspiration of mankind or revlation to mankind expressed in the bible that you think hints of a divine author?And I would like to ask again what is the great aspiration of mankind or revlation to mankind expressed in the bible that you think hints of a divine author?

I don't think it hints of a divine author. The bible reveals God, or it contains God's word, but I don't take this to mean that it was God-authored. Rather I take it to mean that human beings are capable of speaking of/for God, or of producing God-revealing works.

Do you think the new covenant then was unnecessary?

Only necessary in the sense that prior covenants were not upheld, and so a new and everlasting covenant was required.

Again, in the NT we see the fulfillment of a lot of things that could best be described as latent in the OT, or as initiated and worked at in the OT but not quite fulfilled. One of those is the fulfillment of what it means to be human in Jesus Christ. (And with this the covenant that was always meant to be.)

Everything is discernable in the OT though. It's all there. Whether latent or fulfilled it is still present.

[jam2001]

I wonder if you could tell me exactly why you think the bible is Gods word. What part of it do you think exemplifies that or is it just another, I hold this to be self evident. Make no doubt I think every bible scholar in the world would agree with you that the OT foreshadows the NT in the literary sense. Don't you think that means growth or development of an Idea. I would surmise that you feel the cross was necessary because the Israelites broke the covenant to circumcise. What would lead you to think that?

[alyoshka]

I wonder if you could tell me exactly why you think the bible is Gods word. What part of it do you think exemplifies that or is it just another, I hold this to be self evident.

God's word is wisdom and throughout the Bible, in the various histories that it depicts, we see wisdom in God's rule. We see wisdom being practiced. Is it self evident? Yeah. Look at God's speeches to Job. The wisdom! Look at God's creation: how gentle and participatory! Look at Solomon who speaks with wisdom, when he discerns the baby's true mother... Who can deny it? Look at God's forgiveness and constant willingness to take Israel back, to give Israel another chance, a chance that resulted in wonders of our kind like Jesus Christ?

I can't prove to you that there is wisdom in the Bible. You have to see it yourself. I think its obvious if you give it a chance though, and don't suppress the truth of it.

Make no doubt I think every bible scholar in the world would agree with you that the OT foreshadows the NT in the literary sense. Don't you think that means growth or development of an Idea.

I don't just mean foreshadow. That's too soft. The 'idea' of the Bible may be presented in bold new ways in the NT but it is not developed. The basic idea remains the same. The life that we are called to fulfill. God's way and plan for creation. Nothing changes here.

I would surmise that you feel the cross was necessary because the Israelites broke the covenant to circumcise. What would lead you to think that?

I suppose I could say that. You have to understand that circumcision is like nudity. It's being open and out there, trusting, fearing, believing that God will take care, and be all the covering that we need.

So yeah, if we break this covenant and put our trust someplace else, if we run and hide and put up barriers, then things like the cross don't quite become necessary but at least possible. The realm of possibility expands to include such horrors as the crucifixion, which is a possible descendent of such behaviour. (It didn't take long before brother was killing brother...)

It's also true that in the cross, or in Jesus' example as he walked that path, we see a circumcised heart and perfect nudity/fear/trust/belief in God. We see the perfect fulfillment of the covenant, or at least this part of the covenant. (Circumcision/nudity/fear of God is just the beginning of wisdom.)

[jam2001]

I can't help but you think everyone shoud agree with the vision you see unfolding in the bible. It seems to me that you want your path chosen for you by the bible story. WhaT about freedom? If you really seek wisdom you would know that a human being can only be fully human if free. You want to keep following a path that has never produced anything but division and the illusion of righteousness. The inherent assumption in your belief is that mankind is a fallen race that cannot be trusted and therefor must follow the inhuman illusions you see and call wise when they are never freely chosen and must be commanded to people. Unfortunately your perspective doesn't even merit the logical train of thought that exists in the story to at least attempt an answer that assumption. I really don't think you understand Christianity. You want to find a path of wisdom that will leave you blameless and able to judge others. The Christian message is to live free of all your worries and accept justification by Jesus cross. I mean I don't believe it but that is it in a nutshell. It is a far more freedom based religion than you imagine.

[alyoshka]

I can't help but you think everyone shoud agree with the vision you see unfolding in the bible.

You asked questions, I answered. I'm telling you how I see it. Agree with me or not.

The inherent assumption in your belief is that mankind is a fallen race that cannot be trusted and therefor must follow the inhuman illusions you see and call wise when they are never freely chosen and must be commanded to people.

What did you draw this from? It couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm all about a humankind made to image God, not a depraved humanity.

Unfortunately your perspective doesn't even merit the logical train of thought that exists in the story to at least attempt an answer that assumption.

Would you care to enlighten me? It's not my assumption but if it was, my answer would be, again, that we are made to image God. That is the answer to human depravity.

Finally, I don't know what you're talking about when you say "The Christian message is to live free of all your worries and accept justification by Jesus cross." I sort of do but I really don't. You'll have to unpack that.

Christians who say we are saved or justified by the cross (or those who say this as defining of Christianity) need to explain themselves. They need to say what this means. Or show how this works.

[jam2001]

Yes Alyoshka I would be happy to enlighten you. I see in your vision that you carry a heavy burden of urging yourself and others to somehow model themselves after a kind of antiquated idea of perfection you hear in the bible. That is the trouble with interpreting an age old collection of texts that were written for another time and consciousness. I hear your desire to live blameless and perfect according to the image you see. And don't get me wrong if that is what you freely choose you have my best wishes. But its been done so many times and it almost always ends up with despair. I see that you love the idea of mankind made in Gods image and it is a beautiful idea. However the entire story even the covenant with Abraham is an attempt for God to make ammends with mankind for the fall of Adam. The entire idea of the covenant of Abraham is that God is preparing the way for the one who is to reconcile all things. A savior. I understand you do not agree with the fallen concept and neither do I. But the message of the story and being liberated from sin and death that came with the fall of Adam is that it is impossible for a man to make himself righteous or pleasing to God. That is why original sin is something that applies to everyone at birth. And quite honestly Jesus abhors the idea of anyone being self righteous meaning not needing forgiveness. Real freedom from sin in Jesus is the idea that we are now Gods children again and need not worry ourselves about such things. We are instructed to think of God as the father of the prodigal son. All He wants is you to be happy, forget about mortifying yourself and accept forgiveness as the free gift from a living father.

[alyoshka]

I see in your vision that you carry a heavy burden of urging yourself and others to somehow model themselves after a kind of antiquated idea of perfection you hear in the bible. That is the trouble with interpreting an age old collection of texts that were written for another time and consciousness.

I'm really not trying to urge others. I'm not at that point yet. Rather I see something in the Bible, something that I think has been lost or poorly represented, something that I believe is too quickly dismissed and that I'm still trying to work out. That's why I'm not urging anything. I'm still trying to figure it out for myself. And that's just what irks me: how can you (and not just you) say these texts were written for another time and consciousness unless you have worked them out? No offense to you, as I'm sure you're intelligent, but these are incredibly rich and difficult texts, and I highly doubt that you or anyone else on this board for that matter has worked them out. I don't even think top Biblical scholars or philosophers have worked them out. In fact I'm quite certain they have not.

But maybe you're right. I ask myself the same thing everyday. Lord knows I have no real reason to trust the Bible or to pursue its teaching above all others. But I can't say that you're right. All I can say is that it still holds me in its grip and I'm still trying to understand. And that it deserves more credit than it is often given.

What did Caldrid say recently in reference to a certain part? "It makes no sense"? We're so full of ourselves sitting at the leading edge of history that we think, because it makes no sense to us, that it must make no sense. We don't take the harder approach and assume that we are the fools. That is what I am doing. Maybe I'm a fool for it, but I think there is an incredible consistency there and an important truth being revealed. Thankfully there is no harm pursuing it. A man needs to put his mind to something.

[jam2001]

Alyoshka you are incredibly accurate in seeing the profound questions and attempts at answers that appear in the bible. When I say that things were written for another time and consciousness I don't mean in general. I mean only in the particular. Particular answers to certain questions are written to people that can only really be understood by knowing the mind of the writer and his audience. By consciousness I also mean that many people were working out their answers to the questions but they were limited from knowing about things like freedom. They lived under kings and they truly believed that was the best way to live. They had no concept of something like a democracy. Their minds could not see freedom or self rule as a good thing. You would not expect someone like that to see things the way we do.They had no idea of concepts like evolution, if they did their answers might have been very different. Because of these things it is good to remember that every character in the bible lived at a particular time and place. They are seeing the same questions you see unfolding but from a very different mindset.

[alyoshka]

By consciousness I also mean that many people were working out their answers to the questions but they were limited from knowing about things like freedom.

Hmm. How do you think they were limited in regards to their concept of freedom? Look at Exodus for example. That experience was a deep part of Israel's history and worldview. In fact I would say they knew more about freedom than we do today (at least in the West). They had visceral experiences of subjugation and liberation. The original call is not for us to be slaves but to be kings. Israel always knew this. They just didn't want the responsibility that comes with such elevated freedom!

They lived under kings and they truly believed that was the best way to live. They had no concept of something like a democracy.

Yes, they desired a king during a time in their history. They wanted someone who could be a light to them and lead them just as they were chosen (and accepted!) to be a light to the rest of the world and to lead the world. This clearly hinders the original calling (pushing responsibility and freedom onto one person) but it does not quite violate it.

That said, I do think they had an idea of democracy. Not Greek democracy but a participatory model of governance nonetheless, one where we are all called to ascend to leadership and to participate in the edicts issued.

Look at Genesis 1. Look how God rules there.. For starters, Elohim (God) is indicative of a council, a divine council, not a single divine being issuing edicts. (We must keep in mind that the children/images of God constitute this heavenly council and that we are called to take our place on this council as kings of creation.)

Also look at Elohim's edicts. They are not strong commands but rather jussives. They are imperatives, yes, but they are also callings, or biddings. "Let there be..."

Elohim, this divine council which we are all called to ascend to, calls for the willing participation of creation in its edicts/jussives. And note the result: it is the sea and the land that bring forth living creatures of every kind. It is not God, but rather these others who step up and participate in God's (our!) rule.

Anyways, not democracy, no, but something like it. Something more powerful and more empowering I think.

They are seeing the same questions you see unfolding but from a very different mindset.

Undoubtedly. If there are eternal questions though then might there not be eternal answers? Might there not be something to the political theology we see at work in Genesis 1 and that we see Israel struggling with throughout Biblical history? Something that might still apply today to the same questions we face?

I don't see how something like evolution changes anything. Or our latest physical theories. Interesting stuff though.

[Philosopher8659]

At the foundation of any language is a convention of terms, of words, names used in that language.

Now, if one can not, or will not, comply with the convention of terms, then what they say does not comply with the principles of grammar.

Now, a parrot can produce many sentences, however it cannot comply with the principles of grammar. A printing press can produce more sentences than one can read in many life times, however, it cannot comply with the principles of grammar. In fact, there is no written or spoken language that can comply with the principles of grammar, such a belief is an anthropomorphism.

If one wants to know anything about "God", lucid dreaming is back, however, if a parrot goes, a parrot will remain a parrot. Why argue with someone who don't know while refusing to go to the "man" himself and asking? Numbers 12:6 and many other places. It is not easy, and it takes years.

I don't get all excited over what the tree in my yard believes, or does not believe, what is important is where i have have been and what i can do.

[jam2001]

Alyoshka, I like that you see struggle in Israel between slave and freedom. As you say Gods rule is gentle in Genesis because the actors are considered to exist different than we do now. They live a sheepish existence that is apparently void of any struggles and seem to be even unaware of sexuality until the fall. A shepherd has little reason to be hard on his sheep. They are a docile species. They enter Egypt as a clan under clan authority but leave as a free people. Moses freaks because he sees the new freedom becoming anarchy and idolatrous to his beliefs. He is sure that Israel cannot handle freedom so he creates the ten commandments. One might say that God tried to get the Israelites to cold turkey their addiction to authority when they were set free but they could not handle it. So he gives the commandments as a type of therapy to help them find self governance. But they do not like even the freedom of the ten commandments.They want to return to a king and multiply the ten into an endless list of laws and rules. Two steps forward one step backwards. The rest of the history is pretty much a refusal to grow any further. They want everything life can offer as long as they can remain governed by a king. Even the messiah is envisioned as a just king who will rule. There is much forgiveness of sin in the old testament but it is only in the specific. People are forgiven for particular sins by their sacrifices to God. But there is a knowledge that there can be no freedom from the way God cursed them in Genesis until the messiah comes. They are still a fallen people. They are a people who tasted freedom but really did not like it and prefer to be governed. The advancement of moral consciousness away from this position is Jesus. He has a vision of no judgment of any kind for his followers. His followers are offered freedom from being a fallen race as well as forgiveness in the particular. Both he and Paul preach against relying on the law for forgiveness in the particular. They think it is pointless because freedom from a fallen race is what is needed to live eternally. That is why they say self righteousness by the law is pointless. Jesus teaches no man may live eternally lest he be born again. I offer these thoughts only to show the progression of moral development in the old testament and that it is as necessary a part of human consciousness as physical development. It is usually a struggle and that is what we see in the Israelites. Personally I am not a Christian but I really respect Jesus as a philosopher because he had this vision of freedom from any judgment. Unfortunately he believed it was only for his followers but still it was a radical leap forward to the land beyond good and evil.

[alyoshka]

I think you've woven a coherent story but at the price of neglecting some important details. What follows is an indication of what these may be.

I like that you see struggle in Israel between slave and freedom. As you say Gods rule is gentle in Genesis because the actors are considered to exist different than we do now. They live a sheepish existence that is apparently void of any struggles and seem to be even unaware of sexuality until the fall. A shepherd has little reason to be hard on his sheep. They are a docile species.

Instead of "docile species" think more of Job, of Behemoth and Leviathan. Behemoth, "the first of God's ways," is far from a sheep. Same goes for Leviation (the sea). They do become putty in God's hands, but they are far from push-overs.

So I think you would be wrong to see no struggle in Genesis 1. Again, think more of Job. Think of how God describes His relationship with Behemoth and Leviathan. It's almost precarious. Think of Behemoth in the river Jordan, "the water rushes against it." It is precisely in this way that God later commends Job. Job is commended for speaking truly AGAINST God, just as the water rushes AGAINST Behemoth.

Struggle goes deep in the Biblical worldview. It would be wrong not to assume its activity in Genesis 1, as gentle sounding as it may be. (I would say that this struggle is at the heart of Elohim, or the divine council. Or it is out of this struggle that the jussives of Elohim are issued.)

They enter Egypt as a clan under clan authority but leave as a free people. Moses freaks because he sees the new freedom becoming anarchy and idolatrous to his beliefs. He is sure that Israel cannot handle freedom so he creates the ten commandments.

Interesting view. How do you reconcile Jacob's, or Israel's, wrestling with God though? Does that bespeak docility in Israel prior to Egypt? That Jacob wrestles with God sits better with my view, which sees struggle all along and at the heart of God's way.

Even the messiah is envisioned as a just king who will rule.

I think this messianic vision is less a symptom of Israel's continued shirking of responsibility and is more indicative of what we were meant to be all along. (Jesus was not envisioned as a king in the continuation of Israel's desire for a king but rather Jesus was envisioned as a king because we were, each and every one of us, meant to be kings all along.)

He has a vision of no judgment of any kind for his followers.

I would be careful with this. If we look at the sheep and goats passage, in the very separation there is judgment. Some are judged to be sheep and others goats, and so they are separated. Yes, the sheep go on to life and the goats to punishment. But this is only with a judgment. Jesus came to bring the sword (of judgment), not to bring a vision of "no judgment of any kind for his followers."

Anyways, interesting reading you have there. Thanks for sharing.

[jam2001]

Alyoshka I agree wholeheartedly with all the struggle you see in the OT. There is nothing that requires more struggle and includes a lot of shirking than maturing. I also agree with your vision of the godhead or kingship in all of us. I think the fullness of this is living the vision of no judgment. You keep recalling one quote of Jesus' where he mentions the sword. But it is not a metaphor for violence but for division. He uses it to say how brother will be divided against brother in their visions and maturity. Furthermore but for one or two exceptions his life and ministry are of a very docile acceptance of a perceived destiny.

[alyoshka]

Alyoshka I agree wholeheartedly with all the struggle you see in the OT. There is nothing that requires more struggle and includes a lot of shirking than maturing. I also agree with your vision of the godhead or kingship in all of us. I think the fullness of this is living the vision of no judgment. You keep recalling one quote of Jesus' where he mentions the sword. But it is not a metaphor for violence but for division. He uses it to say how brother will be divided against brother in their visions and maturity. Furthermore but for one or two exceptions his life and ministry are of a very docile acceptance of a perceived destiny.

I never meant to indicate violence with the sword but rather separation. The sheep from the goats. The true mother of the child from the false (in the case of Solomon). This separation is itself an act of judgment. And everyone must undergo it. Even Jesus' followers. (You may be right though that once separated/judged they "live the vision of no judgment".)

Also, I never meant to indicate violence by stressing struggle at the heart of the Biblical worldview either (in case that was your thinking). The struggle there is more of a competitive comradery than a violent engagement. It is a rivalry in the pursuit of wisdom where each admirer has their heart set on wisdom and open to wisdom. Injury and death is indeed possible (who can stand before God and live? even Jacob leaves with a permanent limp) but it is always life that is the goal.

Thanks Jam. It's been a pleasure.