 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 7:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | One day, a young girl looks up at the stars and wonders how they got there. She goes and asks her grandfather, who happens to be a very poetic and creative person. He spins a tale talking about how the god Trekani created the world from a huge battle with the monster Cibiseni. As a result of the battle, the stars formed, and something else happened. A drop of blood from Trekani hit the crusty hard earth and a human being was formed! Trekani lookes at this little being with love and called it Mumani. But Mumani was terribly lonely. So, the gracious Trekani put Mumani to sleep and took a rib from Mumani and placed it in the ground. Another being was formed called Tumani. When Mumani woke up and saw Tumani, he said “Damn, you fine!” and thus began the saga of human existence. The story actually answered a lot of questions for the young girl. How the earth came to be. How the stars got there. Where human beings came from. It even explained why all the men were leaders and why women experienced so much pain in childbirth. All that.
5,000 years later, certain descendents from the little girl have established an religion, Takondi, that honors Trekani and thinks of Mumani as the first created human being. Not only that, but Trekani’s relationship with Mumani is seen to have determined how ALL human beings relate to Trekani.
10,000 years later, certain adherents of Takondi break off and form another religion, Wocimi, that fundamentally relies on the Takondi worldview. One new Wocimi convert, who is especially adept in Takondi religion, sees how their religious locus, Teti, actually FIXES what Mumani, the first created being, messed up. In fact, the theologically astute believer calls Teti…the NEW Mumani.
Over thousands of years, a story to a little girl that explained a worldview and gave meaning…has become more INCARNATE that understood previously.
Let those who have an ear, hear what is being said.
Heh.
“Myths, on the contrary, have a vital meaning. Not merely do they represent, they are the psychic life of the primitive tribe, which immediately falls to pieces and decays when it loses it mythological heritage, like a man who has lost his soul. A tribe’s mythology is its living religion, whose loss is always and everywhere, even among the civilized, a moral catastrophe” (Carl Jung).
"Without myth we are like a race of brain-injured people unable to go beyond the word and hear the person speaking. There can be no stronger proof of the impoverishment of our contemporary culture than the popular - though profoundly mistaken - definition of myth as falsehood." (Rollo May)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Here’s the point, Iconoclast. Over time, understanding of myths CHANGE. We see this in many different contexts. What may start out as a myth that imbibes a culture or ritual with meaning may actually be considered, YEARS LATER, to be more ACTUAL than even the original storytellers believed. This is what sometimes makes it so hard to tell between myth and history. Both contain deep truth and one can morph into the other over LOTS of time.
Isn’t it POSSIBLE that this happened with the Creation myth(s) and Paul, a Pharisee THOUSANDS OF YEARS REMOVED from the origins of this story? Isn’t it possible that Paul, like his teachers, truly DID believe in the actuality of the Adamic couple…even though our CURRENT understanding of mythology (from our vast research of numberous creation accounts and whatnot) indicates that the biblical Creation account(s) have FAR too many mythological components to ignore?
I think it’s VERY possible.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | | But when did truth and myth become divorced? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Just because I dig his honest answer. From Scott Jorgenson...
*********************
Just in case anyone is interested:
I suspect the apostle Paul believed in a historical Adam and Eve, and that essentially all of his Jewish contemporaries and predecessors did as well. So I answered "yes" to that survey (see companion thread).
But I do not believe Paul, or Jesus, or anyone else recounted in scripture, specifically taught - in passages recounted in scripture to which we are bound - the historicity of Adam and Eve. I do not believe such historicity is an essential of the faith or requisite for understanding back-references to the Adamic couple on the part of Paul, Jesus, or etc. Rather, I believe there is good literary reason to see the genre of legend, and a wealth of inspired theological meaning, behind the story of the Adam and Eve. And I further believe that the only well-supported scientific evidence generally disproves the historicity of the Adam and Eve account. So I answered "no" to this survey.
Do my votes seem inconsistent? Not really. People of Paul's culture and time (and earlier) lacked the epistemological tools that would lead them to doubt the historicity of the story: ie, they lacked modern critical methodology, including scientific method (let alone knowledge of specific scientific evidences) and literary-critical method (by which literary genre is discerned). Beyond this, they also lacked the modern positivist value system: in which it is considered important to segregate history from legend and believe in nothing any further than concrete supporting evidence permits.
So naturally the ancients were open to incorporating into their earliest accounts certain cultural legends, co-opting them (under inspiration, I believe) to serve the purpose of teaching basic right theology regarding God, man, sin, judgement and mercy. That they further generally believed the accounts to be literally true was of no import in an age that lacked both the tools and the concern to surgically separate actual history from legend. God was only being true to their cultural context when doing inspiring the accounts in this way, and we are anachronistic to project our philosophically-modern expectations of historicity back upon them.
Even so, the teaching point behind each passage of scripture which refers to Adam and Eve still stands as valid for us today, since those passages (to my knowledge) never make their teaching point as such to be Adam-and-Eve-as-historical-persons, but rather employ them pedagogically to teach theological truths (such as Paul teaching Christ the savior for all, etc). Just as with the parables, Adam and Eve are employed to teach something very real, despite their literal non-historicity.
This, at least, is my considered view, and I mean no offense to those who believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve (indeed, my wife is one of you). Yours is a well-considered view, certainly a traditional one, and though I simply disagree I honor your view nonetheless.
Best regards,
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | POW,
"Truth" and myth are not divorced. That's the problem. Truth is NOT NECESSARILY actuality, if you know what I mean. Myths can contain truths in the form of stories that were not meant to be interpreted at historical events. But over time, some myths' truths become ACTUAL CHARACTERS in the minds of later hearers. That's where things get hairy. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/26/2003 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | |
OPTION #1:
Jesus and Paul apparently believed in a literal, historical Adam and Eve. For that matter, it seems most all Judiasm believed so and had believed so for as long as the account had been in existence. However, Adam and Eve are not literal and the event is not historical, because there was myth and legend in existence when the account was written--God was working with the minds of the then known ancients; no one back then was able to think things through at the most basic level: "Gee, is it true or not true that Adam and Eve were real?" There simply were no epistemogolical tools to think like this. Besides, it was only the theology of the account and not the account's historicity which was supposed to convey the real, historical problems for the human race. The ancients were able to think in legend and myth and understand well the theology, but were not able to think beyond this to ask the basic questions. Indeed, we have concluded that not only could they not have thought about these questions, but they wouldn't even if they could have.
Jesus and Paul thought there was a real Adam and Eve and wouldn't have been bothered by the fact that Adam and Eve really weren't real, had they found out, nor that the whole account was unhistorical and only myth and legend--it was the theology that was important. Apparently, Jesus and Paul were either igorant of these myths and legends or didn't believe them because they (Jesus and Paul) thought the Adam and Eve account to be historical and reliable. It is we who know better now. So, Paul, Jesus, and most everyone else was mistaken about the historicity of the first two people. Further, Jesus and Paul lead others to believe that Adam and Eve were real. They just weren't able to think things through and ask the most basic epistemological questions, and they wouldn't have asked these questions even if they could have.
Finally, it's conclusive that Adam and Eve could not have been real, because myth and legend were in existence when Genesis was written--which means the Biblical account has to be myth and legend--and because there's just too much proof that Adam and Eve couldn't have been real. It's simply unacceptable that the literality of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve be historical and accurate; there was myth and legend around that had to be the base for the Adamic account.
OPTION #2
God really did create Adam and Eve just as He said He did, the first two people on planet earth. Myth and legend surrounded the times and cultures when the account was recorded, but that's only because the core of truth was deeply imbedded in the minds of the then populace, just as we note similarities of the Flood in many cultures around the world. Jesus, Paul, the Bible and Judiasim in general clearly insinuate that the accounts recorded in Genesis are both reliable, historical and true, because they came from the one and only true God, who had no need to use myth and legend to convey the truth of the Adamic couple. God communicated very clearly and concisely. He didn't speak in ways beyond the thinking capacity of any culture of any time. Jesus, Paul and the the Bible are not mistaken, thinking that the account should be taken literally when, in fact, God never meant that to be. Further, the Adamic/Christologic theologies of Paul and Jesus (and everyone else) can only stand for the reasons Paul and Jesus were able to deliever their theologies: on historical and reliable accounts of a literal Adam and Eve. Otherwise, it's really anyone's guess as to how Jesus, and Paul specifically, could have understood such deep theological truths, but couldn't possibly (or want to have) thought through the basic epistemological questions, such as "Were Adam and Eve real people?"
Finally, the Biblical Adamic account bares no reason to not be taken literally. One has no justification to rearrange and redefine communication and meaning just because someone else has another account of the same incidence. It won't do to claim conclusivity for evidence suggesting otherwise; for every argument against the realities of a literal Adam and Eve, there are just as many sound and cogent rebuttals and questions in return to the skeptic. (How many times does it have to happen that what was first thought to be a false or fallible account in Scripture eventually is shown to be quite true and reliable? Granted, not ALL Biblical accounts have been proven, but it's far more in the favor of the Bible to be considered a trustworthy, historical and reliable document because of the many, many times it has been proven correct than to believe otherwise.) It is not near conclusive that the myths and legends were the sources of the Biblical accounts of either the creation or Adamic accounts. The language is clear, and until otherwise, it should be believed for what it says. Jesus and Paul sure did.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Eli
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/26/2003 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, I read the Entropy thread. I'm still not buying it  . It all sounds really well thought out, and I can see the logic behind it. It just appears to me that at some point you decided fallen angels isn't going to cut it anymore, I want something that I can explain. So you went and redefined things from the western world's point of view, eliminating the the threat of demons and what their existence might call you to do. A battle you aren't willing to fight? Maybe dignity (pride?) you don't want to lose.
Now don't take me as an antagonist, I can see where you're coming from. I feel that part of me wanting to believe your theories. But if I stop believing in demons. I stop believing in a spiritual war. If there is no spiritual war, no hidden forces (unseen agents), where is my purpose? Why should I be willing to be persecuted? No... for what reason am I being persecuted, if the god of this world is only an underlying mental anger towards our creator, and not an entity "hellbent" on destroying the children of God? No... more importantly, what did Jesus accomplish then by going to hell for 3 days?
"...it is fools, they say, who learn by experience. But since they do at least learn, let a fool bring his experience into the common stock that wiser men may profit by it." -C.S. Lewis
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 8/27/2003 1:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast,
I'm glad to see that you have come out of the closet, hit the ground running, full speed ahead. You've poked your head out in the past, but lately you seemed to have found a new confidence in this message.
peace, don | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/28/2003 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Eli
Hey Icono - I just came across a verse that seems to contradict your 'inflation' theory. I'm in a hurry and haven't had alot of time to actually think this through, so I'm sure you'll counter it easily enough :), but erm, yah.
Iconoclast
Your language suggests to me that no matter what I say you will consider it to be nothing but a sophisticated rationalization.
If this is an accurate understanding of what you think then I must say that while I appreciate your confidence in my technical ability to make the false appear to be true I am frustrated that my poor communication has left you with the impression that this is my intent.
So, rather than simply suggest why I think that this verse does not contradict a metaphorical usage of the term ha-satan maybe you can help me understand what this verse means with an interpretation of Satan as a literal pure evil being.
Here is the full context:
Luke 22:31-34
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." And he said to him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death." He said, "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me."
Satan is demanding to do try and make Peter fall – that his faith may fail. God is giving in to Satan’s demand – in fact – it seems clear that God has NO CHOICE but give in to Satan’s demand. (Why is this?)
Jesus says that He has prayed that Peter’s faith will not fail him NOT that God stops Satan from doing this in the first place. (Why is this?)
Jesus already knows that Peter will, in fact, deny Him three times. Is THIS Peter’s faith failing Him? It cannot be since Jesus knows that Peter WILL deny Him and yet Jesus then presupposes that Peter WILL turn again – at some point.
How does this not mean that what Satan is demanding to do to Peter is to CAUSE Him to deny Jesus three times? That causing Peter to deny Jesus three times IS the test of Peter’s faith?
But wait. If Satan (a literal pure evil being) is allowed to CAUSE Peter to deny Christ then How is it that Peter is the one who denied Christ? And then, why is it that Peter would be faith challenged if it wasn’t him who denied Christ but if the devil MADE Him do it? Especially as Jesus just communicated this very fact to Peter (again, given a literal interpretation).
It seems to me that if it was truly the case that Satan is a literal evil being that can MAKE Peter deny Christ then Jesus just decoded this reality for Peter such that Peter wouldn’t really be faith challenged at all, but simply realize that this denial of his was forced upon him by the devil.
My problem is that this interpretation takes away any sense of Peter’s personal responsibility for denying Christ three times. But at the same time this very passage ALSO presupposes that Peter IS personally responsible for choosing to have faith in Jesus.
My confusion is that the Satan is a literal evil being interpretation seems to cause this passage to BOTH suggest that Peter is NOT responsible for His denial of Christ while at the same time suggesting that Peter IS responsible for NOT denying Christ AFTER He denies Him three times. It presupposes that Peter DOES NOT have a choice AND that he DOES have a choice.
And yet, Peter himself does not seem to understand it this way when it actually happens. Peter seems to realize that he IS personally responsible for denying Christ. Perhaps this is because earlier Jesus said the following to Peter:
Mark 8:33
But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Maybe Peter really knew exactly WHO Jesus meant when He said to him that ha-satan wanted to sift him like wheat?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Eli
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 9/29/2003 10:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Yah, you got me :). Unfortunately I don't believe your inflation theory, so yes, I find your answers to be a well thought out rationalization of false ideas to truth (bordering on humanism). Now, I'm still trying to approach this with an open mind because I'd hate to discard any actual principle that could improve my relationship or understanding of God. You know... that whole "the world is flat and always will be" mentality, I try to steer clear of it. Anyway, on to my rebuttle:
Satan as a literal being, demands access to Peter. Apparently God granted him this access. I see no evidence that it was forced upon God to grant this, who are we to question what he does? Maybe this was a test God knew Peter had to face and so He allowed it, who knows. The point is, Jesus prayed that his faith would not fail. Jesus knew the situation and so He asked for help where Peter needed it. Jesus also knew Peter's character well enough to know he WOULD deny Him under those circumstances, so that's an easy enough prediction.
Do you have kids? Can't you tell just from outside behavior how your child will respond in a given situation? How much more so, can God understand and predict our reactions since he knows us completely?
So yes, Peter had a choice in the matter, and yes, he WAS responsible for the choices he made. If you give me a gun and put me in the same room as one of my loved ones getting raped and murdered. I'll shoot. Now you know that about me. So knowing that, if you actually do it, does that make me any less responsible for pulling the trigger? I don't think it does.
Humm... yah, I think that addresses everything you mentioned. Again, this is just MY interpretation. I love debates, so don't take me as too much of an antagonist. I'm just trying to get you to admit I'm right ;), or visa versa.
"...it is fools, they say, who learn by experience. But since they do at least learn, let a fool bring his experience into the common stock that wiser men may profit by it." -C.S. Lewis
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|