Interpretation of Texts (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 05, 2010, 15:00 (5161 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: The second reason, and ...-I'm Tony, but no worries :)
 
 
> a)	In all honesty, I can't summon up much enthusiasm over whose laws are whose; my main concern is the biblical picture of God as a fearsome disciplinarian whose sense of justice appals me. A subjective view, of course, and that's why I'm so interested in your personal criteria for right and wrong (my post of 30 September).-I think part of any good study or research is sifting through and finding what was said or done by whom. It makes it a little easier to keep track of things, and gives us a little more insight into individual or group personalities.-> 
> b)	If the Gnostic Gospels pooh-pooh the concept of a virgin birth, good for them. Both genealogies end (Matthew) or begin (Luke) with Joseph as Jesus' father, so I don't see how it can be argued that one of them is Mary's.
> 
> ... I don't know how all this links up with the question of God's existence, but it certainly suggests that we should be wary of accepting current views of human history. It only needs one sensational discovery to turn received wisdom on its head. -It is not a direct link to the existence of God, and I don't *think* I gave the impression that it did, or at least I didn't mean to. That discussion was more in the spirit of re-framing current historical and scientific paradigms to account for the ALL of the data, not just what they want to see. Part in parcel with that, is admitting that in ancient literature, there are things that can not be easily dismissed as fantasy because they *should* have lacked the frame of reference to even dream it up. -> ... I share your scepticism towards materialism, and also towards the established religions (I suppose that's why I've kept badgering you about your devotion to the Bible). If I actually believed in God, it would have to be my own concept of him, but that would be hugely influenced by the randomness of joy and pain in the world I see around me. As I've already mentioned, the simplest explanation for that would be the deist God or no God at all.-God should always be personal. However, just like three children can each have a different relationship with the same parent and take note of different aspects of that parent, various forms of spirituality will understand and acknowledge different aspects of God. I don't think that any one mind can comprehend God. As I note when talking about ancient writers, we simply have no frame of reference to even begin. Try visualizing nothing. No luck? Try visualizing everything.-> 
> The "push to learn more" is what binds all of us on this forum. Maybe we're all nutcases together!-It is always nice to be in good company, even when walking to the asylum.