What am I spiritually??

Yes, it does take thick skin to discuss either one. Obviously your father didn't know my family, we would fight almost to the death on the issue of politics.
 

AZ Jim said:
you must believe it all or none.
Click to expand...

Well that would depend on what you think the scriptures are - they are writings (Latin: scripto - I write) that are found in a collection of books (Greek: biblos - a scroll, book) that we know as the Old and New Testaments.

Given that the books were written separately and often contain discrepancies and contradictions it is impossible to "believe" it all but that does not mean that there is no value in studying the texts in context to understand what the writer is trying to convey.

Shakespeare's plays contain many anachronisms but that does not diminish their value as great art. All or nothing is a very simplistic approach to anything , especially something as complex as bible study.
 
QuickSilver said:
I feel the belief in Karma is VERY spiritual.. or even humanistic. IF you believe your actions will affect you in the future or how you treat people will come back to bite you... that's pretty spiritual in my book... or maybe I just don't think of spirituality the same way others do.
Click to expand...
I think the verse about reaping what you sow is saying the same thing.
 

AZ Jim said:
Yes, it does take thick skin to discuss either one. Obviously your father didn't know my family, we would fight almost to the death on the issue of politics.
Click to expand...


WHY should it take "a thick skin"?


Of course my father couldn't possibly have known your family but its obvious he knew others like you described, which is why he gave me that advice in the first place! There is no need to " fight almost to the death".

Peace, Jim.... No further comment here from me.
 
Walking on eggs topic. Baptized Methodist. Confirmed Congregationalist. Churched on again, off again until 14. Very active then. Choir, Church newspaper, Senior deacon.Moved to suburbs at about 35. Dropped church in favor of family time.
Complete non-believer now. Never was what I would call "spiritual", even during my most religious period. Humanism, and Buddhism light, have some appeal. Respect to other's beliefs. My own current ones; Nothing is "supernatural", everything is connected. We are all "star stuff". Being "One with the Universe" is good enough for me.
Looking forward to a long nap.:eek:fftobed:
 
SeaBreeze said:
I have to think of myself as an agnostic. I was raised Catholic and spent 8 yrs. in Catholic school, almost every day of the week in church for one reason or another. When I became an adult, I had no need or desire to be involved with any organized religions. I was born with a good heart, and raised by my parents to respect and be kind to other people and animals. I believe in karma to a great degree, but sometimes see that with evil people who kill and torture, that they don't always get what's coming to them, in other words, what goes around doesn't always come around in those instances.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Hitler had everything his own way for over four years, and popped a pill at the end. The Universe does not care in the least.
 
Lara, I can. "Love your enemies" from Matthews 5:44 and "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" from Exodus 21:24...That sound like love?
 
AZ Jim said:
Lara, I can. "Love your enemies" from Matthews 5:44 and "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" from Exodus 21:24...That sound like love?
Click to expand...
That is not a contradiction but thank you for trying to post a contradiction, Jim. Exodus 21:24 was a figurative command in the old testament…not literal. it means that secular justice is suppose to be equal…not too harsh, not too lenient. There is no maiming going on in this passage.

If you look, in context, in Exodus 18: 13-26, just before God said this you will find that He had just established a judicial system to hear claims and to determine penalties. If "eye for an eye" was meant to be literal then there wouldn't have been any reason for that system to be set up by God in Ex 18. Besides, typically, payment in goods was usually the penalty in the OT.

Feel free to post another contradiction, Jim and Dame Warrigal
 
Off the top of my head, Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis.

Read each one carefully and draw a time line of the creation.

Some people, who have a literal approach to scripture try to reconcile the two accounts and end up tying themselves in knots. It isn't necessary to do this. Each story has its own message.
 
Re Karma. Many of us attach different meanings to this concept. For me it implies learning, ie life is school. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. Hopefully we learn to be kind and loving people. As my son says, these are the things I teach myself until I get it right. For some, this learning curve is specific to a particular religion/religions, for others, myself included, it is the highest spiritual/evolutionary path. That is my take on reincarnation/karma/learning curve.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Off the top of my head, Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis.

Read each one carefully and draw a time line of the creation.
Click to expand...
Thank you for trying to post an example of a contradiction but I have to ask, you want me to do all the work to find out for you what you may or may not find to be a discrepancy or contradiction? :) I say all this with a tone of humble helpfulness but not wanting to make guesses as to what your questions might be. I can assure you that I won't find any contradictions.

I have an idea, how about if you "read Chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of Genesis carefully", and you "draw a timeline", and then let me know if you "find any discrepancies or contradictions", and then I'll give you my opinion.
 
I believe that reaping what you sow has a different connotation depending on whether one espouses fundamentalist Christianity with it's Hellfire forever concept, or Karma which, although similar, speaks to a gradual deepening and progression in a soul's journey toward a higher consciousness. Not punishment, learning. Everybody gets there, just at their own pace. I know what works for me, but respect other's beliefs also.
 
I am out. Lara, I can go into a deep search and find other contradictions I am sure but I take what the bible says literally. If we are going to dismiss the finding with our "interpretations" then any argument can be rendered moot without documentation. I am not going to bother that being the case. I respect your opinion. Peace.
 
Re Jim being labeled as spiritually confused, and not a seeker? I thought denying absolutism, paint by number beliefs, in favour of the painful inner struggle to find a set of beliefs/principals that resonated with one's sense of personal ethics truly defined the essence of a seeker with or without a label. It certainly is spiritual enough for me.
 
Shalimar said:
I believe that reaping what you sow has a different connotation depending on whether one espouses fundamentalist Christianity with it's Hellfire forever concept, or Karma which, although similar, speaks to a gradual deepening and progression in a soul's journey toward a higher consciousness. Not punishment, learning. Everybody gets there, just at their own pace. I know what works for me, but respect other's beliefs also.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the "what goes around, comes around" remark.
 
AZ Jim said:
I am out. Lara, I can go into a deep search and find other contradictions I am sure but I take what the bible says literally. If we are going to dismiss the finding with our "interpretations" then any argument can be rendered moot without documentation. I am not going to bother that being the case. I respect your opinion. Peace.
Click to expand...
I did not "dismiss the finding with interpretation and without documentation". My documentation was a previous chapter (Exodus 18:13-26) that put your alleged contradiction of Exodus21:24 in context. It's all about context Jim. You may review my post #35 to see that if you wish. No problem if you don't want to "go into a deep search to find other contradictions". I understand. Peace to you as well, my friend.

But really, there are no contradictions, no flaws, in the Bible. I can prove it if anyone else wants to post an alleged contradiction.
 
Shalimar said:
Re Jim being labeled as spiritually confused, and not a seeker? I thought denying absolutism, paint by number beliefs, in favour of the painful inner struggle to find a set of beliefs/principals that resonated with one's sense of personal ethics truly defined the essence of a seeker with or without a label. It certainly is spiritual enough for me.
Click to expand...

I have never thought of Jim as confused about anything. I think Jim knows exactly who Jim is. Can not be said about everybody. Bible interpretation discussions never end well.
 
Lara said:
Thank you for trying to post an example of a contradiction but I have to ask, you want me to do all the work to find out for you what you may or may not find to be a discrepancy or contradiction? :) I say all this with a tone of humble helpfulness but not wanting to make guesses as to what your questions might be. I can assure you that I won't find any contradictions.

I have an idea, how about if you "read Chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of Genesis carefully", and you "draw a timeline", and then let me know if you "find any discrepancies or contradictions", and then I'll give you my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm in hospital atm after a hip replacement. I could look for a commentary that will do the same thing but it is an exercise best done by yourself if you want to see what I mean by discrepancies.
 
Here you are Lara. This is a commentary, not necessarily the best one, that looks at Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis and talks about the differences.

Rowley, in his discussion of the contradiction between the two chapters, stated:

“The first two chapters of the Bible contain two irreconcilable accounts of the Creation. According to the first account, a man and woman were together as the crown and climax of creation, after the birds and animals, whereas according to the second account the creation of man preceded the creation of the animals and birds while the creation of woman followed their creation.” (31/18)

Rowley thus sees a disagreement as to the sequence of creation, a difference in the usage of the divine names, a different conception of God, and a difference in style.
Driver, who wrote just about the last detailed account of the differences, has this to say:

“Chapter 2:4b differs then firstly from chapter 1 in style and form. The style of chapter 1 is stereotyped, measured, and precise; that of 2:4bff is diversified and picturesque; there are no recurring formulae, such as are so marked in chapter 1; the expressions characteristic of chapter 1 are absent here (e.g., to create); and where common ground is touched (as in the account of the formation of man), the narrative is told very differently, and without even any allusion to the representation of chapter 1 (e.g., to the ‘image of God’).

“Chapter 1 displays, moreover, clear marks of study and deliberate systematization: 2:4bff is fresh, spontaneous, and, at least in a relative sense, primitive.… The present narrative differs secondly from chapter 1 in representation. Both the details and the order of events of creation (insofar as they are mentioned in it, for the narrator deals briefly with everything except what relates directly to man) differ from the statements of chapter 1.

“The earth, instead of emerging from the waters (as in 1:9) is represented as being at first dry (2:5), too dry in fact to support vegetation: the first step in the process of filling it with living forms is the creation of man (2:7), then follows that of beasts and birds (v. 19), and lastly that of woman (v. 21ff); obviously a different order from that of chapter 1.” (7/35)

Theodor Gaster, writing from more recent times, noted also, “Attentive readers of the Bible can hardly fail to remark a striking discrepancy between the two accounts of creation of man recorded in the first and second chapters of Genesis.” (12/8)

Though the conclusions the critics draw may be disagreed with, it is impossible to deny the following statement from James:

“A comparison between the two creation stories is full of interest, largely because of the striking differences between them, which though more apparent in the Hebrew, may still be recognized in the English translation.” (16/37–38)

The harmonists and critics both agree that the two accounts contain differences. The critics assume that the differences came as a result of a mechanical amalgamation by a later editor of two passages from two different documents.

The harmonists contend that the differences are based on differing subject matter and point of view, as Cassuto notes:

“It is manifest that the two sections differ considerably in character. About this there can be no doubt. The divergence is obvious if we approach the text without bias.

“In the first section, we are vouchsafed a sublime vision of the totality of creation, portrayed with great synthetic power, which unifies into a clear and comprehensible order all the endlessly changing categories of existence; we perceive there, enthroned on high, the idea that rises above the accidental, the temporal and the finite, and depicts for us with complete simplicity of expression the vast expanses of the universe to their utmost limits.

“God reveals Himself… as a transcendental Being dwelling in His supernal abode without direct contact with creatures.

“On the other hand, the second section contains a graphic and dramatic narrative that captivates the heart with its details, imbued as they are with the magic hues of the oriental imagination, and seeks to inculcate religious and ethical teachings under the guise of actual happenings, addressing itself more to the feelings than to the intellect of the reader.

“YHWH appears there, as we have already noted, in direct touch with His creature man and with the other created beings of His world. The difference, therefore, is profound from several aspects, and only one who closed his eyes to the obvious could deny it.” (6/70–71)

http://www.josh.org/resources/study...2-contain-contradictory-accounts-of-creation/
Click to expand...


The differences are only really a problem for people who insist that every word of scripture must be taken literally even when translated into English from the original ancient languages.

This site puts it all into some perspective: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2716/differences-in-genesis-creation-stories
 
Dame Warrigal said:
I'm in hospital atm after a hip replacement. I could look for a commentary that will do the same thing but it is an exercise best done by yourself if you want to see what I mean by discrepancies.
Click to expand...

Hope the replacement went well, DW. I have heard good things from people who have had it.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top