Bront's Forums

From another topic: "So DI would you like to talk about it some more?"

It might be a good idea to agree upon some ground rules. Otherwise, the discussion likely could get sidetracked into name calling and other unproductivity. I offer some examples:

"it's clear you haven't looked at a Bible in a while".

"you are using a convenient logic of picking and choosing what you'd like to hear or not hear."

"I'm willing to expose my typical Christian world view, if you are willing to have an honest discussion of base assumptions that lead to some of the conclusions at play here."

Words such as "clear", "convenient", "like", and "typical" all offer commentary, but provide no real enlightenment- other than your opinion.

And, while you may qualify yourself to be a typical Christian, I can make no claims to represent a typical Heretic and Blasphemer.

So let me turn the other cheek here and ask what we can discuss, other than to state and restate our own opinions?

 

 

To paraphrase, its miles wide but only inches deep in many places.
I can be quite annoying as well. But the older I get, the less interested I become in word games. No apology necessary.

And as I probably will get off track in hyperbole or rhetoric sooner or later, let me apologize in advance! Just call me on it.

A topic I am interested in pursuing is: comparing and contrasting the message vs. its medium.

One example might be: the word of God vs. its means of conveyance to its target population (the Bible being one).

And I can understand an impulse to respond that the Bible is the most important one. However, if one were to argue that it is the only one, then I will have nothing to discuss. And this will be a short topic.

Actually, I'd like to start out in very general terms. Perhaps simplistic and all too obvious, but I'd like to extend a few yards to my miles of width of knowledge first, rather than try to go even a fraction of an inch deeper at this point.

The general topic I proposed was: comparing and contrasting the message vs. its medium.

I was going to propose examining the right-hand side of the equation, rather than the left! After all, if it comes down to specificity concerning Revelation of God in the Bible, I won't have a lot to discuss compared to you- will I?

The medium, of course, begins with the Bible, but there are many versions from which to choose. Plus there is not only the written word, but there also must be audio Bibles out there too (right?). Then there are commentaries, essays, journals, treatises, et.al., both historical and contemporary. And, if you won't think me blasphemous for expanding the variables, there are novels, short stories, poetry, movies, cartoons, centuries and centuries of all sorts of religious art, music, architecture, and so on. All of these relate the message, and in many different and diverse "languages".

When I was very young, I came to the realization that the written words of the Bible did not work for me. I have gone back several times since- without success. Like the plays of Shakespeare, the words are elusive; I can appreciate the words, but not the meaning. And if I can gain little from reading the Bible itself, why not look at these other media?

So, Crispin, are you still interested in a discussion? If the parameters aren't quite what you were expecting, is there still enough to interest you? Perhaps the answer is for you to work with the left side of our equation, I'll work with the right, and then maybe we both can work on that depth.

Sorry. What I write and say usually are clear to me! But I'm all too aware that that may not be the case for others.

I wrote: "One example might be: the word of God vs. its means of conveyance to its target population."
You wrote: "what qualifies as a meaningful Biblical verse?  What is from God? What is soiled by mankind?  (My typically Christian answer to these questions is "the whole thing". )  All of the Bible is meaningful.  All of it is from God.  All of it is soiled by
mankind."

That's a good start.


Sorry again. I just love hyperbole. I'll try to cut it out.
 

Yes.


I don't have a problem with messages or verses such as these. They are pretty clear and straightforward. One can learn the message once, perhaps get a refresher every now and again, and have a firm foundation on which to progress thereafter.

At some risk of controversy, I offer the following as being a problem for me:

Hebrews 6:4-6
"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

This message is not clear IMO. The medium gets in the way. The words are English, but the order in which they are written obscures the message. That there was a lot of discussion as to the passage's meaning under another topic would seem to confirm this.

Is this a case where the message was soiled by mankind? Did the author, or the translator, or the collator get carried away by his human desire for brilliant imagery and sparkling language- and the message got confused? I would argue yes.

If people want to take God's message and add sparkling language and brilliant imagery for their own purposes, that's may not be a lot different than Michaelangelo or Johann Sebastian Bach embellishing one of God's messages with art or music, but losing much of the population along the way who can't understand the medium, don't have the background to appreciate it, or prefer not to be bothered with it.

I may have some understanding of the medium and the background to understand and appreciate that which Michaelangelo and Bach may have attempted in order to embellish one of God's messages. But the language and the imagery of the Hebrews passage does nothing for me. If anything, it seems intentionally obscure and counterproductive.

Why not just state its message in simple language that everyone (or almost everyone) can understand!?

(done)

As you pointed out before there are a few translations:

NLT:
 4 For it is impossible to restore to repentance those who were once enlightened – those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come – 6 and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people to repentance again because they are nailing the Son of God to the cross again by rejecting him, holding him up to public shame. 7 When the ground soaks up the rain that falls on it and bears a good crop for the farmer, it has the blessing of God. 8 But if a field bears thistles and thorns, it is useless. The farmer will condemn that field and burn it.

RSV:
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

These translations tend to be a litte less litteral but written so that a modern person might better understand.   I don't think it's all that hard to understand.  In a nut shell, it is possible, even for a person who is saved, to reject that saving grace to the point where repentence and Christ's redemption are little more than a mockery.  That person can't be saved and won't be redeemed.  Having said that I would like to make clear that it is truely difficult, maybe impossible without the help of the deciever, for a saved person to fall away to that point.  There is scripture that says those given to Jesus by the Father can't be taken away.   As I said in the other thread this is a sign post, not a trap.  This is saying redemption is serious business don't take it foregranted, and don't abuse it. 
I don't find it confusing at all, but I read the Bible almost every day and so have context to place it in.

So can we broaden the scope of this?  Do we have another medium to view it from?  Do we have a way to construct a model and test it? 

I have to go pick up my son from football practice, but let's see if we could move this concept into the left side of our equation. 

1) Don't worry about stepping in at any time when you get an inspiration. Write it down so that you don't forget it and so that you can share it with others. Precedence can be sorted out later.

I have this problem all the time. My ideas greatly exceed my ability to verbalize them and/or to put them down in writing. That's  probably why I'm going to frustrate you (or infuriate you) and seem pretty elusive.

2) I believe God's message is simple enough for (most) all to understand. It's when man gives us many differing viewpoints, in the Bible and elsewhere, that the message gets confused, becomes uncertain, or seems unclear.

I prefer to build upon certainty, extrapolating from the finite towards the infinite. For me, the Bible is terribly confusing because man must constantly interpolate the meaning of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and so on, with no assurance that his latest interpretation is any better than his last.

So, it may be that we are just too far apart to continue. I view the Bible (those literary entities that are available for us to read) to be not unlike a CD or DVD of music by Bach that is available for us to listen to, or a poster or reproduction of a work of art by Michaelangelo that is available for us to view. All represent man's inspiration and interpretation of God's message to us, through widely differing and diverse media.

(This is the end of this post. I'll post again on your last two, perhaps tonight.)

I worry about "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" when we talk Ninja turtles. 

I thought it was "do unto others before they do unto you."   

Sorry for the delay. I thought it might be enlightening to read the rest of Hebrews 6 for some context. My Bible is still packed away somewhere from my last move- and I can't find it. (Perhaps God is telling me something: stick to your own point?)

Anyway, I checked a copy of the RSV out at the library.... More later.

If you want to read the bible online try http://bible1.crosswalk.com/



Hebrews 5
11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

I don't think he was talking to the other Main disciples, they were teachers, they removed demons, and healed the sick.  In short they were mature.  This is not about having a Havard Degree or 1st century equivalent, it's about being Mature in the Faith.   He's talking to Hebrews that he feels should be farther along (as we say today) in their walk.  These people don't get it yet, and they are in danger of turning away from the faith, hence Hebrews 6.   

I don't think he is saying milk is for a class of people.  He is saying, "OK, you babies, it is time to grow up."



Just like babies grow up and graduate to solid food, so should Christians start with milk and grow stronger, then chew on some of that solid food.  In the context of the whole Bible, there is no class, there aren't milk drinkers vs food chewers.  There are people being drawn by God to be the very best they can be. 

Let me try a different Image.  I have four boys.  One could group them or order them by age, academics, atheletism, height, social skills, etc... But ask me if I love one more or less than the others, the answer is NO, I love them all the same.  That is to say I love them as much as they allow me too.  I think this is part of the Image of God in me.  Hence, I think God looks at us this way.  He does not put us in groups of drinkers and chewers, but loves us as much as we allow Him to.  He is always drawing us closer.  He is always helping us to grow more mature.  This is the natural progression of His plan, reflected in the natural order of His creation, which shows us a general revelation of God.   



No, where you are on the path is not the point.  IMO food chewers deceive themselves just as much.  Where one is on the path, does not make one better.  The comparison is apples to oranges so to speak.  God does not look at it this way.  I'm sure God is happier with the Atheist that is softening to the idea that God might exist than the weekly church goer that is luke warm in their faith, but Loves both as much as they will let Him.

14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

It is the constant use that trains us (through the Holy Spirit) to distinguish good from evil.   People walking the path, not so much where they are, but the constant walk.  If one is on milk they might not recognize certain aspects of good or evil and stumble.  The constant walk, in repentence and with forgiveness is the thing.
 
The image (Heb 5:11-14) is to help us understand that we naturally grow in the faith.  God may have gifted us with Intelligence beyond anyone in a congragation, but that doesn't mean we don't have to walk the path.  If one is smarter than the Pastor, it doesn't mean they should start with solid food.  They, as smart as they are, should start with milk and grow naturally onward to solid food.  They can't skip ahead because they are gifted, they need to walk the path.  It the case of Hebrews 6:4-6, its the other way, they can't just sit around forever drinking milk, they need to naturally grow up.  They NEED to take it seriously or they might fall away to the point it is impossible for them to comprehend repentence and gain God's Kingdom through Christ's redemption/salvation at the Cross.

So true, but sometimes I have the screen handy and not the book.


Having such a brief description, I'll have to assume more than I'm comfortable with.

All three have natural attributes, as they grow, these attributes change, (hopefully) growing toward maturity.  This is natural, normal, we don't worry that the three girls are perhaps different heights, because we know that until they mature we don't really know who will be the tallest.  The same should apply to people on their spiritual walk.  We don't worry to much about where they are on the path, just that they are walking in the right direction and at a natural pace.  Only God really knows what they will be like when they reach spiritual maturity.  So the different levels thing simply doesn't matter.  What matters is that each one grows toward spiritual maturity.  The point isn't to try to figure out who is on milk or food, the point is to illustrate that it is natural to grow and be mature. 

Hmmm, a rebellious young woman, seem stereotypical to me.   All people test limits.  A young woman has a blizard of changes, social and physical, to learn and test and grow into.  Each one has a reset on her relationship with Mom, Dad, and even God, at least from her prespective it does.  The rules need to be tested and changed to fit her growth.  She likely doesn't see things the way her parents do and really isn't sure how to act, what is correctly hers to choose and what is still the domain of her parents to dictate.  This growth is normal and until she is mature the changes will keep resetting the rules.  That's Ok, because in the end you're still Mom and Dad, and of course God is still there. 

But wait.... Hebrews 6 clearly says maybe God won't be there!  Yeah, but the natural trials of the teenage years are not apostacy.  Even screeming at God, that he is unfair, doesn't love us, can't understand us, is evil or really anything else you can think of to say is not apostacy.   Just like anything she says and almost anything she does, can not make her not your Daughter.  If you love her that much certainly God, whose image in your heart is why you can love at all, loves her even more.   
 
It is not a matter of our skill.  There is no middle ground.  There is only what is righteous and good, everything else falls short.  It is not of our own power that we overcome evil, our enemy is too great.  It is by standing closer to God that the enemy can't reach us.  It is God's glory not ours.   

So let God use you for his purpose.  Pray, turn to Him to solve your problems, and your Daughter will see this, and test this, and learn of it and gain the habit of turning to God and likely her earthly father with her problems. 

Of course it will not go so simply or smooth, she will test you on it, and like our heavenly Father you will still have to set rules which will be resisted.  So you will have more to pray about.  As you pray you'll be walking the path...


I think you mean that worming and weaseling train us for something else.  So, "Hebrews 5: 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.", has it exactly wrong.  Not so, the constant use is being on the path walking toward God.  Worming and weaseling is like stuggling against God drawing you closer.

I'm not sure why you think the medium is the problem.  What other book can you pick up read a paragraph out of the middle and expect to understand it?  The Bible is a fairly large book, covering a fairly difficult topic, in great depth, it takes some time to chew and digest. 

By the way, I offer a link to a site that may be of general interest to the Bront community. It doesn't represent further understanding of our topic from my perspective, and I probably won't have any more knowledge or familiarity with the performances presented than anyone else reading this; but it is an interesting cross section of music.

http://www.festivalofsacredmusic.org

Ok. Sorry for the delay.

Please be aware that the longer that you make your posts, the more quotations and citations from the Bible that you include, the more paraphrasing from general and specific Christian doctrine that you list, the more difficult it is for me to deal with it. It's like if I were to refer to specific items that you might be unfamiliar with, which you have classified as General Revelation, that would make things difficult for you.

For example, if I were to refer you to a quotation or citation from a passage in the music of Michel Richard De Lalande's motet on the 130th Psalm, and unless you happen already to be familiar with it or have a copy of a recording of it that you can refer to (I doubt if it is available right now for sale anywhere), your knowledge of the text may help you to appreciate its tone and presentation, but you may have as difficult a time understanding my point as I have  in understanding yours.

And so, back to your last post:


I think you are making my point. Spiritual maturity has nothing to do with intellectualizing moral concepts, but more in knowing right from wrong. One doesn't have to be able to understand Biblespeak, only know what it means. And one doesn't have to read the Bible, only know God's message.

While there may be some human beings who can understand little or nothing at all, most, even many of the intellectually challenged, can understand God's message if it is explained in their own terms.


Much of this is beyond my understanding.


I believe that we must differ as to how one can define Revelation, whether it be called Specific, General, or Other. I'm assuming that you mean that God has inspired those Biblical scholars who have gathered, translated, and interpreted, what we know today as various versions of the Bible. And there are a lot of these nowadays. Is one of these more inspired than another? Is one more correct than another? Are they all equal, or are some more equal than others (my allusion is from Animal Farm)?

Now here is where it gets a little awkward. Who is to say that the written word is the only way in which God has sent his message to us in the past- or is sending it to us today? After all, this is the 21st Century. Wouldn't a multi-media presentation have its advantages plus being more appropriate for today's technology? Is there any reason why God might not send his message through more than just one medium? Do those professionals who specialize in ancient languages and/or have a superior understanding of vocabulary (that they themselves have given us) have the inside track on refining that version of God's message that they publish? Why would this be? Are Biblical scholars today the High Priests of the 21st Century who are our intermediaries today in informing us of God's message?

Is God's message unchanged from that which was revealed 2000 years ago? Or is God's message the same now as it was then, but men are interpreting it differently today? If I may be permitted an analogy, we have the strict constructionists of the  constitution of the United States who believe it should be interpreted the same way today as its meaning 225 years ago, and we have those who believe that its meaning changes with the times. I am more inclined to lean towards the latter, but each has its merits. After all, we now have politically correct Bibles, gender neutral Bibles (the status of women is vastly different than it was 2000 years ago), and probably others with which I am unfamiliar. I believe that we have established that God is infallible, but men (and now women as well!) are not.


This is beyond my understanding.


I agree with the statement, but am not sure that milk vs. solid food is an apt analogy.
 

My problem is that the definitions of individual words in the Bible are not necessarily difficult by themselves; but, when they are strung together, as in many passages in the Bible, the overall meaning can becomes obscure (at least to some of us).


Yes.

 
To me, some parts of the Bible seem more important than others. In some passages, God's message is pretty clear; in others, the words that man has included (for whatever reason) just seem to drag on and on...


My submission has been a little long. It serves no purpose for either of us get bogged down in the quote/response mechanics. Can we each make these posts shorter in the future!? 

Edit: I was wrong. There are no fewer than half a dozen entries for De Profundis by Lalande on Amazon.com! I'm impressed.

However, don't go rushing out to purchase a copy quite yet. If the time should come, try a library first.

If you don't mind, I'd like to inteject a perspective from another topic, that entitled "How can a loving God allow evil".

Having read through the discussion in this other topic twice, and probably missed a lot of Biblical references, perhaps I have an over-simplistic view. But, it seems to me that it all comes down to something that Rakor and Bad Ash have said: God gave us free will.

I believe we can choose to follow Christ's (and God's) message- or not. I believe good and evil are human concepts and perspectives, not God's. God does not allow evil - or good either. We are the ones that create good or evil, follow good or evil, and fight good or evil. God has given us everything that we need; it is now up to us.

I'll follow up in a day or two, as I am able.

I should have been more precise here and clarified that I believe there to be a distinction between right vs. wrong, and good vs. evil. God's perspective is the former while Man's is the latter. Right vs. wrong is crystal clear. Good vs. evil is murky and confused with all of Man's self-interest, self-deception, bodily urges, and rationalization.

I would prefer that any discussion of this be postponed for some time, and it likely may come down to each of us agreeing to disagree.