A Sacred View

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

...I know that none of the Bible was written to be taken as an objective factual recording of events that happened. It was written to convey the experience and understandings of people interacting with God. I don't think it has ever been a Christian belief that the Bible dropped out of the sky fully formed by the Mouth of God as the Quran is viewed to be. I think it has until recently been understood as a sacred history, one in which we are meant to be drawn out of our 'literal' world in into a sacred world.

I think that probably is true of the gospels, but the the saga of the Hebrews in the OT, I think, was written to create a literal history of a people. Not necessarily the foundational myths in Genesis, but from Abram on it's definately written to be a historical account. That said, though, I think that people of that era had an entirely different idea of what "history" was. I think they saw events as the playing out of larger, cosmic even, themes which were partly, or mostly beyond their comprehension, not as a record of exactly what happened and when. In that sense it's far more important to paint an accurate spiritual landscape and place the appropriate players within the story than to simply record events accurately and chronologically.

JMO

Chris

I like Karen Armtrong a lot too. Have you read Holy War?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that probably is true of the gospels, but the the saga of the Hebrews in the OT, I think, was written to create a literal history of a people. Not necessarily the foundational myths in Genesis, but from Abram on it's definately written to be a historical account. That said, though, I think that people of that era had an entirely different idea of what "history" was. I think they saw events as the playing out of larger, cosmic even, themes which were partly, or mostly beyond their comprehension, not as a record of exactly what happened and when. In that sense it's far more important to paint an accurate spiritual landscape and place the appropriate players within the story than to simply record events accurately and chronologically.

JMO

Chris

I like Karen Armtrong a lot too. Have you read Holy War?

Hi Chris, Yes, you are correct about the OT--my focus was on the NT. Guess that's where most of my attention usually is, but I have studied the Pentatuech in a pretty intense Bible study, and also Isaiah. Not what you would call scholarly studies (more evangelical), but still pretty detailed. However, Kings etc, are still not something I am very familiar with. I am far far far from a Bible scholar, although the Episcopal Church offers a very good course called Education for Ministry that I hope I can do once my girls are a little older. It's a four year course.

I like Karen Armstrong, it is sad (to me) that she has lost her faith over the course of her life. I read her autobiography, Spiral Staircase, or at least most of it. For some reason I did not want to read the end. But I will. I've read the History of God and The Battle For God. Very interesting reading, those. Really explains how the Bible literalism we see today is really a new literalism, formed in reaction to the Enlightenment.

luna

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that probably is true of the gospels, but the the saga of the Hebrews in the OT, I think, was written to create a literal history of a people. Not necessarily the foundational myths in Genesis, but from Abram on it's definately written to be a historical account. That said, though, I think that people of that era had an entirely different idea of what "history" was. I think they saw events as the playing out of larger, cosmic even, themes which were partly, or mostly beyond their comprehension, not as a record of exactly what happened and when. In that sense it's far more important to paint an accurate spiritual landscape and place the appropriate players within the story than to simply record events accurately and chronologically.

JMO

Chris

I like Karen Armtrong a lot too. Have you read Holy War?

I'm falling out of my chair...You're defending part of the BIBLE (OT), as being more or less literal?

Will wonders never cease...

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I'm falling out of my chair...You're defending part of the BIBLE (OT), as being more or less literal?

Will wonders never cease...

Um...no.

This is what I said: "...the saga of the Hebrews in the OT, I think, was written to create a literal history of a people."

To qualify: I don't know for sure. I mean, I haven't gone and dug up the artifacts myself so I'm going by my sense of what's historically provable. I'm not a scientist, I'm not that well read. I accept my limitations.

If you look at a timeline of the events in the OT you'll see that they really start to bunch up around the time of the Babylonian exile. I think that it is from that perspective, and for that contemporary audience that the material in the OT was written/compiled. I doubt that the exodus or the conquest of Caanan are in any way historical. I doubt that there was ever a unified kingdom under David and/or Solomon. I think that the OT material is designed to support a monotheistic theocracy invented by a middle Iron Age Judahite monarchy. I think that regime invented a "Hebrew" identity to support its aim of unifying the southern kingdom of Judah with what remained of the then extinct Northern Kingdom if Israel. For a brief period of time this Judahite state, a vassal of Assyria, achieved its own mini golden age-only to be crushed by the Babylonian empire. That bitter defeat, the ensuing exile and return, and the question of how and why God would allow that to happen to his "elite" people are the basis for understanding the OT saga IMO.

What's utterly amazing is that the politics of that ancient time, preserved in the sacred scriptures of a unique group of people who never again achieved that level of sovereignty over their own affairs until the creation of the State of Israel some two millenia later, has had, and continues to have such a powerful affect on so much of the world. What an amazing achievement!

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by myself

What's utterly amazing is that the politics of that ancient time, preserved in the sacred scriptures of a unique group of people who never again achieved that level of sovereignty over their own affairs until the creation of the State of Israel some two millenia later, has had, and continues to have such a powerful affect on so much of the world. What an amazing achievement!

Make that nearly three millenia later.

Chris

[mee]

For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope." (Ro 15:4)

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

IWill wonders never cease...

Yes. That is until we attain the realization that what we call wonders are normal...just above our current conceptual continuity...

[Prober]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Huh? O.K., so long as we don't have to accept that which is unreasonable based on someone else's opinion.

Chris

Wouldn't you agree that the concept of "unreasonableness" is a subjective origination of the individual mind?

My point is - everyone in the world could consider something unreasonable and it might not be.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Prober

Wouldn't you agree that the concept of "unreasonableness" is a subjective origination of the individual mind?

My point is - everyone in the world could consider something unreasonable and it might not be.

What would you suggest should be a person's criteria for deciding what is unreasonable, or is it all just relative?

Chris

[Prober]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

What would you suggest should be a person's criteria for deciding what is unreasonable, or is it all just relative?

Chris

From a secular standpoint, I believe it's all relative and most of the "weird stuff" in the Bible is unreasonable (logically). From a spiritual standpoint, when the logic of something escapes you, you allow the Holy Spirit to lead you to the truth. Faith, then (and trust),creates reasonableness.

I'm open to comments.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Prober

From a secular standpoint, I believe it's all relative and most of the "weird stuff" in the Bible is unreasonable (logically). From a spiritual standpoint, when the logic of something escapes you, you allow the Holy Spirit to lead you to the truth. Faith, then (and trust),creates reasonableness.

I'm open to comments.

If it is weird or unreasonable I believe there exists an underlying story. There are parables within parables and metaphor within allegory... for example if I can't replace the word G-d with the word love...and have the sentence still make sense...I look for something else to be the meaning... or wishing to give your two virginal daughters to the mob...there is more there...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

If it is weird or unreasonable I believe there exists an underlying story. There are parables within parables and metaphor within allegory... for example if I can't replace the word G-d with the word love...and have the sentence still make sense...I look for something else to be the meaning... or wishing to give your two virginal daughters to the mob...there is more there...

I believe that is where God's warning that he who loves other more than God, shall lose both. It is a test. In the lesson offered in the italicized, there were men who would attempt to violate the very messangers of God. Lot, in an attempt to appease the physical desires of men in order to protect the message (or messangers) of God Himself, made a desperate move to do so. However, I believe that God was showing the reticent Lot, that the people of his city were too far gone in their evil nature. Remember, Lot was desperately trying to save his city from the wrath of God, and so debated with Him about the righteousness of even a few men. I believe God, in His infinite wisdom, allowed Lot (through the debate and the townfolk's final insult to the messangers), to see the finally see futility of his efforts to save his city.

God was telling Lot, he needed to choose between God or man...

my thoughts.

v/r

Q