Re: tsunami impact on animals

In a message dated 1/13/2005 9:05:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> writes:

>In comments below I'm not trying to debate (though I know we disagree at some points) but simply clarify.
>
>Shalom
>George
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: RFaussette@aol.com
>  To: gmurphy@raex.com ; CCarriga@olivet.edu ; asa@calvin.edu ; donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org
>  Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:23 PM
>  Subject: Re: tsunami impact on animals
>
>
>  In a message dated 1/12/05 7:34:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, gmurphy@raex.com writes:
>    1)  You would have to say more fully what you mean by a "core religious
>    idea" but I think some care is needed with theological use of it.  One of
>    the most "core" of religious ideas is the belief that we save ourselves in
>    one way or another via our religious, ethical, &c works or qualities.  &
>    that of course contrasts sharply with the core Christian belief that we are
>    saved entirely by the grace of God.
>
>  Faith and works were not part of the discussion. That is a contentious area and I wonder why you present it. I was fleshing out an interpretation of genesis using non-canonical texts to aid in understanding the "fall." The example I gave was Jesus' reference in the NG texts that indicate his understanding of the fall is identical to the nature of the fall in genesis.
>
>  I wasn't trying to apply the faith-works issue to the Genesis topic but just to point out, with the clearest example I can think of, that the concept of a "core religious idea" needs to be treated with care.

rich:
I agree.

>  & if I may, another need for care:  It's not clear when you speak as in your last sentence here whether or not you are claiming that what Jesus is reported to have said in the NG texts is in fact something that the historical Jesus said.

rich:
No, I don't make that claim. It's very hard to prove the historicity of passages in religious texts, especially when they are redacted and/or cloaked in allegory, so I follow the ideas that guide behavior because our religious beliefs determine our behavior to a great extent, (if not completely in a person doing God's will "intuitively").

>
>  2)  Having said that - sure, there are significant influences of the modes
>  of expression of other faiths on Jewish & Christian throught & scripture.
>  (E.g., the LXX translation of Gen.1:2, in which the earth was "invisible" -
>  /aoratos/ - may show Zoroastrian influence - & probably in turn influences
>  Heb.11:3.)  But the fact that an idea is found in a lot of other religions
>  doesn't mean it's compatible with Christianity.
>
>  But when the idea is found in an earlier religion, with a historical route that shows there was contact between the earlier religion and the later one, then the later religion may be based on the core idea of the earlier one. This is a difficult thing to accept for IDers, but when you go back as early as you can, you find that the primary religious idea is the self sacrifice and Jesus is the only central religious historical figure I know of to have deliberately demonstrated it which raises him above the great religious figures of the world rationally, not because I am a believer. I have made it impossible not to believe it by rationalizing it. The Buddha for example, only intuited the self sacrifice.
>
>  I'm not sure how IDers (of whom I'm not one) fit into this.
>
>  3)  At least as far as Christianity is concerned, I wouldn't say that the
>  battle between light & darkness is not a "core theological idea" but an
>  important metaphor used to express theological concepts.  Where it's most
>  prominent, in the 4th Gospel, verses like Jn.1:5 clearly aren't to be taken
>  literally.
>
>  Shalom
>  George
>
>
>  Some of the OT should not be taken literally, (so say the kabbalists who say genesis is allegorical). We needn't debate whether or not dualism is a core idea. I myself find it important. The 6 days of creation, the earthly paradise and the ruse of the serpent over our primal parents, the punishment of our primal parents (Adam and Eve), the last judgment, the apocalypse when the sons of light conquer the sons of darkness and the resurrection of the spirit and the flesh all can be found in the Bundadesh, according to the Zend Avesta the oldest religious book of the Parsees, (present day Zoroastrians) and there is evidence that the law book of Ezra that was read in Jerusalem upon the return of the exiles was deliberately imbued with Zoroastrian ideas. The sons of light and the sons of darkness are the good and evil of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil who will fight until the sons of light (we pray) overcome the sons of darkness. It is the dualism of good and evil !
that is personified in these "sons."
>
>  Certainly there is a kind of dualism - good/evil, light/darkness, God/Satan &c - in the NT.  But it isn't the kind of ontological  dualism found in Zoroastrianism or later Manichaeism.
>

rich:
Good/evil, light/darkness, God/Satan, are all in Zoroastrianism and in the OT and the NT. We'd have to look in more detail to see how they differ.

My paper True Religion ignores the historical route of these core ideas to focus on the ideas themselves, rationalizing genesis by interpreting the allegory the way it was meant to be interpreted, in a rational way that helps me guide my personal behavior until the right behaviors are "written on my heart" and I can live intuitively without shame and fear in the face of God.
>  Let's look at the ontology. If we are a subject in a world of objects and give up our selves (our subjectivity) all that is left are the objects since the subject is gone. Seem far out?
>
>  “In heaven, however, no creature will stand between God and the soul. He himself will be the immediate object of its vision. Scripture and theology tell us that the blessed see God face to face.”
>
>  Notice the word "object" in this Catholic encyclopedia description of heaven. When the creature is gone (your self) only the soul is left and God becomes the immediate object of your vision. Get yourself (the subject) out of the way and see God face to face. So, the psychology works and I can see it in the OT, the NT and the Gospel of Thomas. I can also see it in Buddhism and the Vedas. This particular core idea of the self sacrifice is a universal found in all the major religions. Universals usually have a scientific basis since science holds true no matter where you are. In my paper True Religion I reveal the science in genesis, because that's what is there.
>
>  "When the creature is gone (your self) only the soul is left ... "?  Is not the soul a creature?

What you're saying in and of itself is reasonable but it does not agree with the Catholic encylopedia definition above if you read it carefully. Creature does not stand between God and the soul. I am assuming of course that the soul is something more than the corporeal body. I could venture that the part of a man that allows him to give his body up in deference to his beliefs is the soul.

Thanks, George.
rich
Received on Thu Jan 13 12:24:53 2005