God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

Touché. I wouldn’t say the line is crooked, I’d call it a metaphorical representation of reality. I think of heaven and hell as two different perspectives of the same reality. If God is like consuming fire, the “fire” language may be the reality of God’s presence itself. The story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego seem to serve as a demonstration—the fire burns the guards, the three are unharmed, and God is present. The burning bush is a similar representation, in my mind.

It’s an interesting train of thought because fire, as you know, can destroy but can also create - just ask a Raku potter.

That fits with imagery throughout the book.

[I Have Questions]

It’s an interesting train of thought because fire, as you know, can destroy but can also create - just ask a Raku potter.

That fits with imagery throughout the book.

It also fits with the idea that when people state that their God writes straight with crooked lines, they are discounting all of the times when He didn’t, and just retrospectively cherry picking things that they think fit with their claim.

[Limnor]

That fits with imagery throughout the book.

It also fits with the idea that when people state that their God writes straight with crooked lines, they are discounting all of the times when He didn’t, and just retrospectively cherry picking things that they think fit with their claim.

True. I think it’s important to be cautious about looking backward and shaping interpretations into a narrative that fits preconceived theological ideas. It’s easy to identify the “straight lines” after the fact and claim prophetic authority to support those ideas.

[I Have Questions]

It also fits with the idea that when people state that their God writes straight with crooked lines, they are discounting all of the times when He didn’t, and just retrospectively cherry picking things that they think fit with their claim.

True. I think it’s important to be cautious about looking backward and shaping interpretations into a narrative that fits preconceived theological ideas. It’s easy to identify the “straight lines” after the fact and claim prophetic authority to support those ideas.

If only you’d made the case for that 124 pages ago

[Limnor]

True. I think it’s important to be cautious about looking backward and shaping interpretations into a narrative that fits preconceived theological ideas. It’s easy to identify the “straight lines” after the fact and claim prophetic authority to support those ideas.

If only you’d made the case for that 124 pages ago

Yeah but then I wouldn’t have learned about “hoppy taws” lol

[MG 2.0]

It also fits with the idea that when people state that their God writes straight with crooked lines, they are discounting all of the times when He didn’t, and just retrospectively cherry picking things that they think fit with their claim.

True. I think it’s important to be cautious about looking backward and shaping interpretations into a narrative that fits preconceived theological ideas. It’s easy to identify the “straight lines” after the fact and claim prophetic authority to support those ideas.

Why is your own retrospective narrative (Bible meaning, teachings of Paul, etc.) not subject to the same bias you’re warning about?

Can you draw us a straight line as to why your narrative is the preferred one? I mean, any religious person that follows a certain dogma/belief is going to be looking back in time to coordinate/connect with the here and now and with the future.

That's kinda' what religion does.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

It also fits with the idea that when people state that their God writes straight with crooked lines, they are discounting all of the times when He didn’t, and just retrospectively cherry picking things that they think fit with their claim.

True. I think it’s important to be cautious about looking backward and shaping interpretations into a narrative that fits preconceived theological ideas. It’s easy to identify the “straight lines” after the fact and claim prophetic authority to support those ideas.

I find it interesting that the strongest proponent of a particular religion responded to your point about 'looking backward and shaping interpretations' with this admission:

"...That's kinda' what religion does..."

[Limnor]

True. I think it’s important to be cautious about looking backward and shaping interpretations into a narrative that fits preconceived theological ideas. It’s easy to identify the “straight lines” after the fact and claim prophetic authority to support those ideas.

I find it interesting that the strongest proponent of a particular religion responded to your point about 'looking backward and shaping interpretations' with this admission:

"...That's kinda' what religion does..."

I think it’s a fair question. I don’t think anyone escapes retrospective interpretation, including me. But then again that’s part of the reason I think everyone should be careful to test their beliefs, and I believe I’ve demonstrated that tendency.

I’m not convinced a perfectly straight line or prophetic authority is required, especially if personal revelation is part of the picture, but some interpretations are still more historically grounded than others.

[MG 2.0]

I find it interesting that the strongest proponent of a particular religion responded to your point about 'looking backward and shaping interpretations' with this admission:

"...That's kinda' what religion does..."

I think it’s a fair question. I don’t think anyone escapes retrospective interpretation, including me. But then again that’s part of the reason I think everyone should be careful to test their beliefs, and I believe I’ve demonstrated that tendency.

I’m not convinced a perfectly straight line or prophetic authority is required, especially if personal revelation is part of the picture, but some interpretations are still more historically grounded than others.

Thank you for that response, Limnor. Out for a run and to do some other stuff. I may get back to you later.

And yes, I do agree, it is a fair question. Even for critics of the Restoration narrative that were once active members of the church.

By the way, my comments were taken totally out of context (not by you) and reinterpreted, then regurgitated.

Classic strawman/setup.

That's why I don't talk to people that do that. It's an absolute waste of time and energy. Let them do what they do, I guess.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Thank you for that response, Limnor. Out for a run and to do some other stuff. I may get back to you later.

If you do, let’s focus on how closely faith claims align to the historical record.

Also, from what I saw, Marcus seemed to be asking for clarification about what your response was supposed to demonstrate, not create a strawman.