RE: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

Clarifications appear below CWCs responses:
  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Charles Carrigan
  Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 13:03
  To: asa@calvin.edu; donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org
  Subject: RE: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

  a couple of comments below:

>>> "Don Perrett" donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org> 11/20/2004 10:44:03 PM
>>
  Concerning "pain", does anyone have knowledge or evidence to suggest that
other species can feel pain on an emotional level? I realize that many
other species may feel pain on a physical level. Even a cat cries out
during child birth, but do they have any long lasting emotional consequences
of it? Humans of course have memories of such events on an emotional level
and as a result may fear situations where pain is anticipated (i.e.
anxiety).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  CWC
  is there any reason to think that animals are so fundamentally different
that they DON'T experience this? To me, the fallback, logical starting
position would be "yes, they experience emotional pain", and it would have
to be shown instead that it were not the case. I think there are numerous
animals have much more intelligence than we give them credit for (e.g., the
famous Border Collie that made an issue of 'Science' earlier this year for
learning words associated with objects by process of elimination).

DON:
I didn't say they do not experience pain (physically). I would also agree
that they are far more intelligent than we give them credit. A computer can
be trained (programmed) to do many things yet it has no emotion. I suppose
if one classifies emotion as merely a chemical response in the brain, then
they do have them. What I refer to is such things as self sacrifice.
Recently in Fallujah, Iraq, a Marine who was already wounded, gave his life
by cradling a grenade and thus saving the lives of his fellow Marines.
First he would have to have the intelligence to know this was a threat. An
animal can do this. Second he would have to know the outcome of his chosen
action. An animal can do this. Third he would have to be willing to go
against his own natural judgment/instinct of self preservation. I know of
no animal that will do this. Some animals will chose a lesser of two evils.
Fear will drive an animal to do things that appear to be against its
instinct, but this is the lesser of two fears. Or the benefit of reward is
greater than the fear. Sounds like human emotion, right? But fear, hate,
and other such negative emotions are evil by biblical standards and for good
reason. They are animal emotions, not spiritual ones. But humans such as
the Marine, can chose love of others to out way his natural, animal,
physical emotion of fear of death. Does anyone believe that Christ's
sacrifice could be equated to just an emotional response, or even an
intellectual choice? Perhaps the misconception is due to my misuse of the
word emotion.

Let me clarify my view of the levels of "self"
BODY - that which gives us the ability to exist in the physical world and
provides us with a connection to it.
MIND/SOUL - that which gives us the ability to disseminate the experiences
of the physical world
                    and provides us with a conduit to it. This also gives
us animal emotion, intelligence, reasoning, and other
                    other physical manifestations of self.
SPIRIT - that which we ARE and gives us a reason for being in the physical
world. This part provides us with a means
             to choose a direction/path/action contradicting the normal
responses of the mind/soul/body. With this we can experience emotions on a
level
             which cannot be done by animals. From here comes the spiritual
love which is spoken of by Christ. Not the love that we seem to be more
inclined
             to hold as real. Animals can develop attachments and even miss
someone when they are not there. This is not love. When humans or animals
have a fear
             it is usually the result of a conjuring of past
memories/experiences which have a fear attached/related to them. They are
not necessarily fears of the present
             situation. If as a child you were yelled at extensively and
developed a fear as a result, then as an adult you may have a fear of loud
sounds. This is not due
             to the loud sounds themselves, but rather the remembrance of
the past experience. The emotional pain associated with that past
experience. In this way
             animals do experience emotion.

But as spiritual beings, we can change that negative emotion of fear into a
spiritual emotion of love. Example: the horror of witnessing a death (such
as 9-11) can cause anger, hatred, fear, and various other negative emotions.
But as spiritual beings, we can change that into love. Yes, LOVE. Most of
us do so without noticing. When we feel pity and remorse not only for those
who lost their lives or for those who have lost a loved one, but for the
terrorists themselves. We can feel this because we know in our spirits
(hearts) that the murders not only took the lives of those in NY/DC, but
also the spiritual life of the terrorists. Their ultimate expression of
animal emotion and behavior will only lead them to eternal death, and not
the heavenly life they believe it will bring them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
   While I would agree that at the very least most parts of Genesis 2 are
figurative, they may not necessarily be mythological. The serpent even in
Egyptian mythology is considered the opposition to Ra (the sun god). Where
the sun god and YHWH are considered good, Lucifer and the serpent are
considered evil. Evil does exist and so does Lucifer. As for whether he is
in fact a serpent, doubtful. Would this then be mythology or just a
metaphor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

   CWC
   what's the difference between myth and metaphor? all mythology is
metaphor. I suppose not all metaphors are mythology, but when discussing
Christian scriptures, why should we care to make such distinctions? are we
just uncomfortable with the word 'myth'?

 DON:
First I'll give some Webster definitions from their website:
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that
serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice,
belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or
someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society
or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde
Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

Main Entry: met.a.phor
Pronunciation: 'me-t&-"for also -f&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French metaphore, from Latin
metaphora, from Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to
bear -- more at BEAR
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind
of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or
analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative
language -- compare SIMILE
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : SYMBOL 2
- met.a.phor.ic /"me-t&-'for-ik, -'far-/ or met.a.phor.i.cal /-i-k&l/
adjective
- met.a.phor.i.cal.ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

While myth usually has some truth, as suggested by Rich, it nonetheless
relies on a portion (#1 and 2 of myth) or complete falsehoods (#3 of myth).
#3 is what gives most a bad feeling with the term MYTH. Metaphor of course
is not necessarily related to myth. Allegory, as mentioned by Rich,
contains a great deal of metaphors. Christ himself used parables. These
contain metaphors. Simply said, myth, allegory, parable, poetry, etc can
contain metaphors. This does not construe that a metaphor is not historical
or based on truth. "All men are dogs." for example. This does not mean
that there are no dogs, nor no men. It simply expresses the behavior of
men. Or in some cases the unsightly looks of some men. :)
The question then, I suppose, is whether or not Genesis 2 is mythical or
parable/allegory. Rich views it as allegory, others as myth. In either
case it may employ history.
What I meant when I said, "Would this then be mythology or just a
metaphor?", was referring to the following choices:
1. Myth - Based on some truth. Otherwise, just an elevation of a
historical story, but containing a great deal of falsehoods, exaggerations,
etc.
2. Metaphor - Based on mostly truth (all men are dogs) but employing a
writing style which is used to highlight the actual events (Lucifer as the
serpent).

Hope this clears things up. Sorry for the lengthy explanation, but it gave
me a chance at the pulpit.

Don P
Received on Tue Nov 23 12:20:58 2004