Greg, you are in the wrong classroom. You have not demonstrated the right to skip 5 grades, so go back to GO.
The bible is the bluntest book imaginable. Why do you both, insist on taking the word of God literally, while at the same time derogating to yourself the option to take plain text, and turn it into bloody nonsense, that even a ten year old can appreciate for the evasion that it Is? Many people in the bible saw God's face, they saw God face to face;, God walked with them, God ate with them. If the bible says, God was angry, it does not mean that God had blisters on his skin, or a toothache. It simply means, He was angry. If it says He talked with Moses FACE TO FACE , it means just that. Plain words do not require interpretation. You have never heard of Occam's Razor, have you?
Obviously, you do not understand how Hermeneutics fits into the philosophical spectrum; you certainly don't know what it means. Let us go back to the idea of first principles: I had told you that the most singular problem in philosophy has always been the need to assume something as fact, at the genesis of any set of tenets. The rationalists (beginning with Aristotle) assumed self evident first principles: principles that were simply understood The problem is, however, that self evident FP's always amount to subjective premises, simply by virtue of that damn word SELF. The later empiricists also assumed self evident FP's. They, however, used experience as the intuitive foundation of knowledge. This was no better, as the first principle was different for different people--duplicating the problem of the rationalists.
It is now almost universally excepted that the finite part cannot understand the infinite whole, that there can be no absolute basis for human knowledge. This does not mean that there are not absolute facts, only that we must always be cognitive that what we believe--has uncertainty as a given.
Your foray into hermeneutics as a method was amusing--particularly since you insist upon an absolutist picture of life. You assume the first principle of God. Unfortunately, God is not a philosophy that will tell you how to think or live. The first principle of God is in fact, all principles. Don't pretend to know anything for yourself; and don't pretend to know what is good. God has left you the rule book. Follow them.
However, you DON'T follow his words. You change His words whenever it suits your pleasure. How convenient for you!
Like your superiors in the Church body, you apparently do not understand that hermeneutics is a philosophy of RELATIVISM, and properly understood makes God, the bible, and everything else, into chameleons. Because reality places no limits or boundaries, upon interpretation, this means that reality can be anything you want it to be. Does that sound familiar, Greg??
Relativism is also the philosophy that the universe is just what you think it is; therefore, like hermeneutics, it strives for meaning rather than for Truth. For the Church, of course, hermeneutics is a defense against Truth.
Now listen close: I am using hermeneutics when I ask "Should God be replaced?". I am noticing that your interpretation of God is, to many people, a foolish interpretation, and one not having any correspondence to REALISM...which I am not going to get into here. Thus, my question can be rephrased thusly: "Can God be reinterpreted, so that the concept is not bastardized and mocked, and so that, as a guide to meaning and morality (for those who are so inclined)--the belief in such a Deity will encourage co-operation, kindness, and sympathy, and will discourage exclusion, hate, superiority, and destruction. My thread header is not confusing. May I ask you to discontinue the experience of confusion, and the disseminating of that interpretation?
You will not even admit that the bible claims God has a body. God says He does, but that is not good enough for you. The same re- invention of the bible occurred with Evolution. When they were no longer able to deny evolution, the biblical apologists simply reinterpreted the Word of God. I shudder to see the new interpretations coming as the new physics continues to break the gossamer threads that currently carry the biblical message. Why do you call it the Word of God? Look at the message you posted to me: It is the Word of Greg, not God!
You mentioned that there was consensus here, that there was no ultimate reality. There is not consensus. I for one, believe that if there were no such thing as human beings and minds, ultimate reality would probably be what it IS, not what it is THOUGHT to be.
Your God has asked you not to be a relativist, but to follow and obey the WORD OF GOD. What do you do? You simply crush His words into a bunch of unrecognizable nonsense, stuff it into a glad bag, and then state with a Godlike certainty: "That seems like it fits the universe better...to me". You want to have it both ways...
God was seen in the bible many times. Moses talked to God face to face. How did Moses talk to God? Answer: FACE TO FACE. Now what do you think God could possibly mean by that?? What do you think Greg?? Here is another question for your mind to wrap itself around. If God wanted to tell you that He talked to Moses FACE TO FACE??? HOW WOULD HE POSSIBLY BE ABLE TO CONVEY THAT TO YOU?? Would he say, "I talked to Moses out of a cloud? Or, I talked to Moses from a burning bush?? What would he say to let you know, that he talked to Moses FACE TO FACE?
He tried saying: "FACE TO FACE". That didn't work. What do you expect God to say?? Make sure you interpret it correctly, God is extremely clever at keeping His people OUT of Heaven. Maybe give it to the Pope for the latest Divine interpretation; Or to the Church Council for the latest Divine Spin.
Greg, Greg, Greg. I want to know if you will trust the Word of God that God has a body. In the meantime, I want you to draw a pentagram on your living room floor; Light 6 candles, turn 6 times, say "NataSha" six times walking backward. Afterward we can both interpret the results. |
