anti-christ discussion, from middle p. 3 to end.

[honorentheos]

Explain to me how if the story including the concept of a fallen world if metaphorical is garbage if it offers an explanation of the state of the world and in particular the darker side of human nature? I'd like to hear more from you on that.

Assuming the world we observe is the world as it is, what are we to compare it to?

To put this another way, Jersey Girl, what prevents us from telling children that don't behave like mature and self realized adults they are fallen and corrupt?

[huckelberry]

Stem, I appreciate the passion of your last post. You make good points about the ambiguity in the idea of judgement in the gospels.
A fairly standard interpretation of the oil some of the virgins lacked is that the oil is faith and trust in God. This would not be saying yes to a religious formulae but an open hope in Gods good purpose and in his caring judgement. The parable of the talents point out a judgement not on the quantity of good deeds but the heart within the deeds.

[Jersey Girl]

Explain to me how if the story including the concept of a fallen world if metaphorical is garbage if it offers an explanation of the state of the world and in particular the darker side of human nature? I'd like to hear more from you on that.

Assuming the world we observe is the world as it is, what are we to compare it to?

Are you asking me what are we to compare the darker side of human nature to? Or are you asking me a different question having little to do with my reply? I'm not at all certain but let me try based on how you worded your question.

Assuming the world we observe is the world as it is, we can compare our observations to the activity/behavioral outcomes we see therein.

If I misunderstood you, you could try posing your question in a different form. I'm trying to think on the same page as you while expressing my own ideas. If that helps. I do want to continue this with you.

[Jersey Girl]

Assuming the world we observe is the world as it is, what are we to compare it to?

To put this another way, Jersey Girl, what prevents us from telling children that don't behave like mature and self realized adults they are fallen and corrupt?

The same thing that doesn't prevent parents from telling their children they are losers, evil, screwed up, hopeless, ugly, worthless, stupid, pieces of crap, and idiots.

Nothing.

Parents “F” with their children's heads every day of the week. Not all parents. But there are plenty who emotionally and psychologically abuse their children probably because the parents themselves lack skill and competency.

[honorentheos]

To put this another way, Jersey Girl, what prevents us from telling children that don't behave like mature and self realized adults they are fallen and corrupt?

The same thing that doesn't prevent parents from telling their children they are losers, evil, screwed up, hopeless, ugly, worthless, stupid, pieces of crap, and idiots.

Nothing.

Parents “F” with their children's heads every day of the week. Not all parents. But there are plenty who emotionally and psychologically abuse their children probably because the parents themselves lack skill and competency.

Thanks, Jersey Girl. This is the same reason I disagree with describing the world we observe as fallen or corrupt. The world wasn't ever something "higher". It is what it is, and there is no other reality to compare it to. What fantasies people envision for the world are highly subjective and narrowly based on individual beliefs about what it means to be better. Where we as humans have the potential for greater, higher things as a child has the potential of their entire adult life before them, isn't improved by saying we are fallen and require redemption. Rather, what potential we have needs nourished, and we ought to nourish it in one another. And what that potential ultimately looks like is highly individual.

[Jersey Girl]

The same thing that doesn't prevent parents from telling their children they are losers, evil, screwed up, hopeless, ugly, worthless, stupid, pieces of crap, and idiots.

Nothing.

Parents “F” with their children's heads every day of the week. Not all parents. But there are plenty who emotionally and psychologically abuse their children probably because the parents themselves lack skill and competency.

Thanks, Jersey Girl. This is the same reason I disagree with describing the world we observe as fallen or corrupt. The world wasn't ever something "higher". It is what it is, and there is no other reality to compare it to. What fantasies people envision for the world are highly subjective and narrowly based on individual beliefs about what it means to be better. Where we as humans have the potential for greater, higher things as a child has the potential of their entire adult life before them, isn't improved by saying we are fallen and require redemption. Rather, what potential we have needs nourished, and we ought to nourish it in one another. And what that potential ultimately looks like is highly individual.

I understand where you are coming from, honor, but I do think I need to say more about my perspective. When it comes to the Old Testament I lean heavy towards an allegorical perspective. So with regard to the fallen or corrupt world, I think this was an attempt on the part of ancient tribes to make sense or understand what they saw and experienced in the world around them. In other words, their observations and conclusions based on the knowledge at hand.

When I wrote in another post about observations and outcomes, I think there is plenty of room to fit those ancient observations into what we know today as sociology and if you take that back to bare bones reasoning, I see it as the same type of cause/effect reasoning from which a toddler learns about their environment and the people in it. Essentially saying that the ancients were thinking at toddler level and what we see as sociology is the development of thought/reasoning based on layer after layer of new discovery.

I hope that doesn't sound too "out there", but it is what makes sense to me.

I want to give an example but I don't want to discuss this particular subtopic at length because I've been there and done that many times over the years, especially during my early years of posting on boards like these. It's the passage about the Flood that people use to challenge the Flood story where the whole world is described as being covered by waters and then certain folks see that as describing a global flood when the ancients had no knowledge of the globe itself. Does that make sense? You can't yank the story out of the context in which it was written.

I always think that they were giving account of that which they could see right in front of them, not knowing the expanse of the planet itself. When I view the account in that way, the account makes sense with no need for extremes unless the miracles or what have you contained therein can be considered extreme thinking as they stand on their own.

So when we see descriptions of the world as fallen or what have you, I try hard to put myself in that period of time (knowing that I can't fully do that) and try to decipher what and where the message is coming from and how it was understood by the ancients.

Remember when we talked a bit about early religions and resurrection? And I inserted a bit of commentary about the concepts of sky god, thunder god, etc.? I can easily see how ancient humans would attach what they saw in the natural world as judgments handed down by the almighty sky god. Of course, if I had the time and intellect to understand the information on the chart you supplied about the development of world religions in any amount of depth (would take a life time I am sure) ...I would probably be able to do less spitballing than I do!

I appreciated these exchanges. I wish you could have been on my first board, because I think you would have contributed much to those old discussions!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean, isn’t this really boils down to what people do with the scriptures? It’s allegory when needed, literal when wanted, and anachronistic when inconvenient? I think Honor is asking some pretty straightforward questions that are being, well, rudely brushed aside or ignored. Answering simple questions with, perhaps, esoteric hot takes seems like dodging.

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

I mean, isn’t this really boils down to what people do with the scriptures? It’s allegory when needed, literal when wanted, and anachronistic when inconvenient? I think Honor is asking some pretty straightforward questions that are being, well, rudely brushed aside or ignored. Answering simple questions with, perhaps, esoteric hot takes seems like dodging.

- Doc

Cam I see that all the time myself and it irks me. Not that I have a complete handle on everything because I am certainly no scholar, but I see weird uses and twisting on the part of the religions communities, too. At least I think they are twisting. I just supplied an example about the Flood story that is used on the part of challengers and also on the part of the religious communities. How can you interpret scripture as describing a global flood when the ancients had no knowledge of the globe to start with?

If you are talking about me when you say dodging, I did the best I could to explain as thoroughly as I can how I think about these issues without devoting a ton of time to it. I expect that from myself and others. I try to deliver the goods and be as straightforward as best I know how.

So if your above comments are about my approach, put something right in my face and show me the dodge.

[Jersey Girl]

I mean, isn’t this really boils down to what people do with the scriptures? It’s allegory when needed, literal when wanted, and anachronistic when inconvenient? I think Honor is asking some pretty straightforward questions that are being, well, rudely brushed aside or ignored. Answering simple questions with, perhaps, esoteric hot takes seems like dodging.

- Doc

Cam I see that all the time myself and it irks me. Not that I have a complete handle on everything because I am certainly no scholar, but I see weird uses and twisting on the part of the religions communities, too. At least I think they are twisting. I just supplied an example about the Flood story that is used on the part of challengers and also on the part of the religious communities. How can you interpret scripture as describing a global flood when the ancients had no knowledge of the globe to start with?

If you are talking about me when you say dodging, I did the best I could to explain as thoroughly as I can how I think about these issues without devoting a ton of time to it. I expect that from myself and others. I try to deliver the goods and be as straightforward as best I know how.

So if your above comments are about my approach, put something right in my face and show me the dodge.

I'm making another run at this. Cam, show me where I failed to respond on point to honor's statements. If you are talking about me, I would appreciate it if you would single me out by name and show me what you are seeing in my posts that I am not aware that I'm doing. If you are talking about huck or whomever else might have replied, would you please name them? I haven't been reading anyone else's remarks here but honor since I posed one question to huck.

I felt good about my exchanges with honor.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean, you ARE having a good exchange. You're both being thorough and thoughtful. Perhaps I was reading too much into your lengthy answer to Honor as a dodge. To recap:

Hey huck. What do you think about calling it a corrupted world? That's how I think about it.

Assuming the world we observe is the world as it is, what are we to compare it to?

To put this another way, Jersey Girl, what prevents us from telling children that don't behave like mature and self realized adults they are fallen and corrupt?

You said:

The same thing that doesn't prevent parents from telling their children they are losers, evil, screwed up, hopeless, ugly, worthless, stupid, pieces of crap, and idiots.

Nothing.

Parents “F” with their children's heads every day of the week. Not all parents. But there are plenty who emotionally and psychologically abuse their children probably because the parents themselves lack skill and competency.

I took that as a sidestep to the question at the heart of the matter, which is something to the effect that this is the world as we have it, have always known it to be, and it'll forever be based on observable data - so how do you tell kids the world sucks because humans, them, suck?

Within Christian theology there exists a LOT of philosophy that we humans are totally the worst, we did this to ourselves, and unless we're not the product of the natural course of events, but rather because we're inherently flawed.

So. Honor basically said two things:

1) We have nothing but this world to compare reality to.

2) Within Christian theology you're left with telling children, who will then become adults, that they're the worst.

You then basically said:

1) ?

2) Naw, dawg, that's effed up.

That feels like a dodge. My apologies if I missed a clear answer to his two questions.

- Doc