|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5610 days) Posts: 44 From: billy's puddle, BC Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is to be taken literally? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6022 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Thanks for the input, Arachnophilia...
I still don't see that the only conclusion that can be made from such passages is that God exists in a physical, human-like body (as others have suggested). Personally I can interpret the passages you reference as allegory or metaphor - to "wrestle" with God, or see God "face-to-face" does not necessarily have to mean in a simple physical sense. If someone today stated, "I've come face-to-face with God," it would be taken in a spiritual, not physical sense. It may simply be a reflection upon the narrative style of the authors of those books, or the level of abstraction that the audience was capable of dealing with...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6022 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
No, what I see as obnoxious is your continuation of the same exact question, after it has been answered over and over again. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't make you right. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make me right... You asked for an explanation of why I FELT it was literal, and I answered how I FELT it was literal. I asked the question repeatedly because I never got an answer, NOT because I thought I was right and you were wrong. (I also never claimed that you said you were right and I was wrong, and I never said the opposite - so I'm not sure why you repeat such things). When I asked you why "no other conclusion" then yours could be made, you simply answered that it was the conclusion you had made. That alone doesn't tell me why you made that conclusion. I was interested in the "why", not just the conclusion. If you are interested, this reply to my question was more of the kind of discussion I was interested in having (since I was apparently unable to communicate such without an example). I guess I'm not sure why you are taking part in a discussion if you don't want to go into any more detail than "I think this, you think that, and it's okay that we think differently." To me it's not much of a discussion if the participants don't discuss the foundation of their thoughts. In any case, I reiterate that it is poor form to call someone an unbeliever over such a disagreement. (You claim you can tell by the wording of my rhetorical questions; but I honestly didn't ask any rhetorical questions, so I have no way of knowing what you are referring to...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Angel Inactive Member |
quote:In message 21 I said this: quote:then you asked: quote:and I replied: quote: Now I ask you, how doesn't that answer your question? What exactly are you wanting to know? You also asked:quote:This is the list of explanations given to you: quote: Then this is your question again:quote:Messages 32, 40, and 44 should have answered why: quote:This is why, why is it so hard for you to accept my answer, do you have proof otherwise, because as I said before, I would love to see it! quote:Though I agree this isn't much of a discussion, seeing as how I am doing all of the discussing. It's funny that you keep saying that I haven't answered your question, which I have, but when you are asked a question, you ignore it. Why is that? quote:And on this point it may be valid, IF you are then I apologize, however, in the future you should probably refrain from questions such as this if you are.... quote:So, if that isn't a rhetorical question, it sure was posted to sound like one. Angel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Just struck me. First, humans saw God face to face. Gen 18:1,2--Gen 32:24--Gen 32:30 (Thanks, Arach)Then, He tells them not to look, keep away. You don`t think He picked up one of those contagious diseases He created, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Angel,
By any chance you are a Mormon??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Angel Inactive Member |
quote: No, I am not a Mormon. I do not believe in organized religion period. Jesus was/is not a Mormon, JW, Baptist, Catholic, etc. So why should anyone else? Just a thought. Angel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Angel Inactive Member |
quote: No, I am not a Mormon. I do not believe in organized religion period. Jesus was/is not a Mormon, JW, Baptist, Catholic, etc. So why should anyone else? Just a thought. Angel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I still don't see that the only conclusion that can be made from such passages is that God exists in a physical, human-like body (as others have suggested). oh no, i didn't mean to say that it was the ONLY conclusion to be drawn. there is no part of teh bible (or any document) that can only be read one way. i was just suggesting that upon re-reading genesis i got the impression that the authors did think of god a physical being. i can't really say "this proves it" as it's more of an impression from reading the whole book.
Personally I can interpret the passages you reference as allegory or metaphor - to "wrestle" with God, or see God "face-to-face" does not necessarily have to mean in a simple physical sense. no, it certainly doesn't. the passage is set up in a very literal way, and describes a fight. but there is a metaphorical way of reading it. and it does have another purpose as well -- it tells the origin of a certain custom that was already in practice at the time of writting. (a "just so" story. i forget the technical term) like i think i said before, the jews have a system that says there are four ways to read each passage: simple/literal, applying to modern life, symbolic, and mystic.
It may simply be a reflection upon the narrative style of the authors of those books, or the level of abstraction that the audience was capable of dealing with... well, the best date for the authorship of genesis i can come up with is circa 600 bc (when camels were domesticated, ur belonged to chaldeans, and they were babylonian captivity). i don't think people then were exactly stupid. in fact, i think they probably had a more educated way of understanding the text than we do today. i just think that intended for god to be a physical figure in the book, at least when read in the simplistic literal way. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-12-2004 01:09 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Because God said that to look upon His face meant death. For me to be able to see His back, would be the greatest gift ever, a blessing, which is an oppinion, IOW you do not have to feel the same, and thats ok. eh, no.
quote: something has changed about god, or the way the hebrews think of god, between this verse and the one you reference. i'm not positive if exodus was written after genesis, but reading in the order the bible is set in, the intent of the authors appears to be that god is becoming more and more abstract and less and less physical. in exodus, even coming near the mountain god is on with moses becomes deadly, yet joseph wrestled with him in the desert.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Hi,Prob, you realise the figtree was the emblem of the Zealots? kind of screams symbolism and political motivation, don't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi, Arach, why would an all-knowing God inspire a book with such obscure interpretations for the use of far-flung societies across the world, unfamiliar with Jewish metaphors, symbollism, etc(etc borrowed from Whatever )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
hey, don't look at me. i don't think god had anything to do with the writing of the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6022 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Again, and for the last time, I take it literally because that is what is taught in the scriptures. It leaves room for no other conclusion but a literal one (when speaking to Moses). You indeed wrote a lot, but still didn't get to the 'why' or 'how' I was interested in. The above quote is the closest you got - I could have been more clear by asking - How is "it" taught in the scriptures? (And who is doing the teaching?) If you've read the exchange between Arach and myself in this thread, do you have any thoughts on an allegorical reading of those passages?
This is why, why is it so hard for you to accept my answer, do you have proof otherwise, because as I said before, I would love to see it! I never claimed to have proof negating God's physical, human-like body. You used the phrase "no other conclusion" to describe the existence of His body; since you made such a strong statement, I was wondering about its foundation.
So, if that isn't a rhetorical question, it sure was posted to sound like one. I'm not sure why it sounded like one. Was it simply the fact that it dealt with the 'penis'? We obviously have different mindsets. If someone tells me God has a physical body, I wonder if He wears pants, along with all of the implications that brings along with it. That may seem absurd to you, but it is the first question I think of. Is God male because He has male genitalia, or because He has a masculine character? To me it is an obvious follow-up question to the statement 'God is male'. To me the idea of God having a physical body brings to mind cartoonish images of a grey-haired berobed guy sitting in a gilded throne floating on a cloud...
Exodus 3:2-4 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight-why the bush does not burn up." When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am." Why isn't God physically made of "flames of fire"? A literal reading of this passage would suggest such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Again, and for the last time, I take it literally because that is what is taught in the scriptures. It leaves room for no other conclusion but a literal one (when speaking to Moses). You indeed wrote a lot, but still didn't get to the 'why' or 'how' I was interested in. The above quote is the closest you got - I could have been more clear by asking - How is "it" taught in the scriptures? (And who is doing the teaching?) i actually think that MOST of the time god is portrayed speaking to moses, he's NOT in a physical form. he's portrayed as having a physical location (the mountain, the top of the ark, the pillar of fire/smoke, the burning bush) but not a body. it's only when moses asks that god shows his physical form. granted, there are other ways of reading it. but to say that the ONLY way to read it is that god has a literal body is absurd. i think the text does indicate that he does, but it can also be read metaphorically as well and literally. the passage about seeing god's back but not his face is actually very important symbolically. what it's saying is that you can't just see god directly, you have to look at indirect evidence. it's message about the backwards nature faith.
We obviously have different mindsets. If someone tells me God has a physical body, I wonder if He wears pants, along with all of the implications that brings along with it. That may seem absurd to you, but it is the first question I think of. Is God male because He has male genitalia, or because He has a masculine character? To me it is an obvious follow-up question to the statement 'God is male'. i think god is both male and female. what does that imply? seriously, i don't know if god really has or had a physical body. i don't really know for certain that god exists. and i'm not sure what i believe about his genitalia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Angel Inactive Member |
Pink Sasquatch,
I remember talking about God's 'physical' appearance, but I can't find the original post where I wrote it. To answer your question, really I am trying as best I can, When I read that scripture, it leaves me with no other conclusion, but that God does indeed have a 'body' that is shaped/formed like a human being. It isn't just that particular scripture either, but we seem to be stuck on this one, so I will stick with it. The only reason I can honestly give you, is that, that is what I understand when I read it. Again, I could be wrong, it will not be the first time, and I hope it isn't the last. Even still, if I am wrong about that particular scripture, there are others still that say that we were made in His own image.
quote:......Fair enough. .
quote:To my understanding of that particular scripture, is that the flame, was the Holy Ghost, and the voice was of God. Angel
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024