Epoisses
New member
...and you worship a symbolic god and keep a symbolic law as well. You're religion is make believe.
Different Understandings of Eschatology
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
...and you worship a symbolic god and keep a symbolic law as well. You're religion is make believe.
Bociferous
New member
1. Because the Bible, both Testaments [including almost all of Jesus' teaching], contains multiple books that are either clearly symbolic, are largely figurative or contain passages and stories that suggest the propriety of a figurative interpretation.
2. Because any predominantly "standard" or literal interpretation of the Bible runs into tensions (unsolved propositions, incoherence, contradiction, etc.) which require the spiritual or metaphoric meaning to resolve. Resolved tensions = higher degree of truth.
3. Because some believe that God speaks yet today through metaphor in His word in both subjective/personal and objective/universal ways despite the fact that attempts by persons trying to hear and respond to a higher spiritual union or relationship with God have always been beaten down by organized religion which attempts to control what God is allowed to say.
Because God uses literal elements as the basis for teaching higher spiritual principles, it's possible that the literal elements themselves--the "clear...physical, earthly reign of Christ on the throne of David"--may be symbolic of something higher.
That God has chosen to speak to us strongly in metaphor is likely because He designed us to receive information this way:
In classical theories of language, metaphor was seen as a matter of language not thought. Metaphorical expressions were assumed to be mutually exclusive with the realm of ordinary everyday language: everyday language had no metaphor, and metaphor used mechanisms outside the realm of everyday conventional language. The classical theory was taken so much for granted over the centuries that many people didn’t realize that it was just a theory...
As a cognitive scientist and a linguist, one asks: What are the generalizations governing the linguistic expressions re ferred to classically as poetic metaphors? When this question is answered rigorously, the classical theory turns out to be false. The generalizations governing poetic metaphorical expressions are not in language, but in thought: They are general map pings across conceptual domains. Moreover, these general princi ples which take the form of conceptual mappings, apply not just to novel poetic expressions, but to much of ordinary everyday language. In short, the locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another. The general theory of metaphor is given by characterizing such crossdomain mappings. And in the process, everyday abstract concepts like time, states, change, causation, and pur pose also turn out to be metaphorical. The result is that metaphor (that is, cross-domain mapping) is absolutely central to ordinary natural language semantics
The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, George Lakoff (1992)
Is this the teaching of God or man, and why does it seem to run contrary to our design?
Choleric
New member
I would be interested to see some examples of places where literal interpretation tensions are resolved by allegory or metaphor.
maybe this is what you mean. Like how in galatians Paul uses the story of Hagar and Sara, which was a literal story that is 100% historically true, yet we draw a deeper meaning from it as well by Pauls example.
But that in no way renders the story of hagar and sarah as untrue or less than literal.
Bociferous
New member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePVHVPgQp3k&list=PL9cB5V7RUwdw6yHgiUdWT2aRTdq1cW_hn
Yes, good example. Your taking pains to point out that the story was "100% historically true But that in no way renders the story of hagar and sarah as untrue or less than literal" suggests you suppose I approach the metaphoric as a means to eliminate literal or historical truth. This is incorrect. I believe God uses literal elements (people, places, literal things) as paints on His canvas of history (and also uses non-historical stories) to show both whom and how He saves.
Grammatical-historical literalism has turned into a control method, it's champions decreeing that only the literal and its included, obvious symbolism is valid. I believe this is false, that it's a manmade doctrine that stands in direct opposition with the grand design of the most symbolic, spiritual book on earth. Fallen man has always tried to control what God is allowed to say. Unfortunately modern Christianity is no exception.
there is no official catholic view of eschatology
-and
-I suspect there never will be
-there are many catholic writers who do have a view of it
-and
-we are all free to reject those views as I do
Interplanner
Well-known member
The new Jerusalem is not a symbol. It is the name given to the community of all believers. It is not on earth, but it matters dearly to Paul who calls it 'our mother.'
There are no NT sections in ordinary language (ie aside from the apocalyptic of the Rev) that say that there is to be events in modern Israel or that God 'goes back' to dealing with Israel and not the church. Part of that is because the Rev was about the conflagration of 1st century Israel.
Epoisses
New member
The new Jerusalem is a physical city with physical foundations and streets of gold. It is also symbolic of the new covenant or 'our mother' and God's people or the bride of Christ. It is a physical and spiritual city in heaven.
genuineoriginal
New member
You have proven that you twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them.
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes.
This was done without a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic, and anyone that studies Christology with a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic has been labeled a heretic since the fourth century.
This too was done without a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic, and anyone that studies soteriology with a consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic is also labeled a heretic by many denominations.
A consistent literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic will not work for eschatology if the framework for understanding scripture violates that hermeneutic in Christology, soteriology, and/or covenantology.
genuineoriginal
New member
Of course He will.
Epoisses
New member
He will have a literal physical reign on the earth after the millennium when the earth is made new.
Choleric
New member
, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Bociferous
New member
Don't express opinions. Opinions are worthless in the realm of intelligent discussion. Give me examples of where and how I "twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them".
any time two or more are gathered in His name
-He will be with them
-they have already reigned with Him a thousand years
-the byzantine empire
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
genuineoriginal
New member
He will have a literal physical reign on the earth for the millennium, which is followed by the Judgment and then the earth is made new. Revelation 20-21
genuineoriginal
New member
Why impose limits on others that you refuse to impose on yourself?
That is your opinion and it is worthless.
But, even though this stated opinion of yours is worthless, there are many opinions that are worthwhile, especially in the realm of intelligent discussion.
After all, you can have no intelligent discussion without the sharing of opinions.
Thread: Traditional Salvation Violates God’s Justice
Bociferous
New member
The claim for the worthlessness of opinion is epistemological. Your comment, "You have proven that you twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them."lacked value because it failed to make any argument. It included no reasons.
Your charge that my stated opinion was itself "worthless" failed to take into account that after posing my opinion, "Opinions are worthless in the realm of intelligent discussion" I went on to show by inference why reasonless opinions have no value: "Give me examples of where and how I "twist scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them." I.e., I inferred that without reasons opinions are only subjective comments that carry no weight in rational argument.
Now let's examine your response. For "evidence" that I "twist Scriptures into a metaphor as a means to eliminate any truth in them" you post a link to the thread neither you or anyone else were apparently able to rebut. Stating an opinion and posting a link with no explanation why or how this alleged "twisting" occurs is a classic example of posting valuless opinion.
Do yourself a favor and study the differences between truth, knowledge and opinion.
Some examples:
"The difference between opinion and truth is that opinions are personal truths, while truths are an undisputed fact. Common misconception about undisputed truths and personal truths lead, to the confusion between opinion and truth. The confusion is caused by the closeness of relation the words hold, and not so much by the differences between the two."
Link removed.
"An opinion is like a belief but where a belief would refer to one's views towards an objective proposition an opinion is subjective and thus has no objective truth value."
Link removed
Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"We have constant and recurring problems distinguishing between matters of faith and opinion. Yet, as can be readily seen, there is a vital and observable difference. Matters of faith have to do with revelation, the will of God, the expression of truth, necessary things. This truth is knowable, identifiable, and complete as a body or unified whole. It is uniform in every age (since its revelation), applicable to every society and circumstance and able to be obeyed by every accountable creature. God will hold us responsible for our treatment of it (Gal. 1:6-9; Jude 3; Eph. 5:17; 3:4; etc.). But with opinion, we enter the realm of human judgment, faulty reasoning, biased conclusions and traditions 'handed down from the fathers.'"
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/GOT034065.html
There are a number of distinctions between these terms [knowledge, truth, opinion] and even more differences between secular and religious handling of them but understanding the basics should be a requirement for posting to theology boards.
Last edited by a moderator:
genuineoriginal
New member
You fail to consider that even "reasoned" opinions can be worthless and that opinions given without stating the reasons for them can also be worthwhile.
I rebutted your twisting of scripture, but you were not able to accept the rebuttal as valid, since it went against your opinion.
The author's opinion about what are opinions and what are truths is lacking in truth.
Truth is often disputed and lies are often accepted as facts.
You need to remove that link, because it is an undisputed fact that links to other forums are not allowed on TOL.
You should probably remove the quote, since it is a subjective statement with no objective truth value.
And facts are often non-truths that have been accepted as if they were truths.
That is very appropriate, since your faulty reasoning and biased conclusions on that other thread are a result of your opinion.
There does not need to be any requirement such as that, since that requirement is a sure way for the board to turn into some kind of Intellectual Elitist board that has no relevance at all.
_____
The Dangers of Intellectual Elitism and Narcissism
. . .
the gaze of an intellectual almost always turns inward to the strength of her ideas or his interpretations of someone else’s ideas and not the source of those ideas. Abstract, conceptual theories themselves can appear equally pretentious and narcissistic.
. . .
To misquote a professor, academia is a long and tricky road; reaching the top is an achievement in and of itself. Yet far too often this pride turns into intellectual narcissism and it is this sort of elitism that has led to eugenics, slavery, manifest destiny and the scientific “proof” of social constructs like race or sexuality. Presumably, we do not know the current extent of our elitism now because as the privileged few, we are trained not to see those who pave the way for us. We cast aside and ignore the janitors, the technicians, the grocers, the farmers, the average taxpayer, our middle-school teachers and the various other individuals that allow us to lead a life of relative luxury.
. . .
The Dangers of Intellectual Elitism and Narcissism
. . .
the gaze of an intellectual almost always turns inward to the strength of her ideas or his interpretations of someone else’s ideas and not the source of those ideas. Abstract, conceptual theories themselves can appear equally pretentious and narcissistic.
. . .
To misquote a professor, academia is a long and tricky road; reaching the top is an achievement in and of itself. Yet far too often this pride turns into intellectual narcissism and it is this sort of elitism that has led to eugenics, slavery, manifest destiny and the scientific “proof” of social constructs like race or sexuality. Presumably, we do not know the current extent of our elitism now because as the privileged few, we are trained not to see those who pave the way for us. We cast aside and ignore the janitors, the technicians, the grocers, the farmers, the average taxpayer, our middle-school teachers and the various other individuals that allow us to lead a life of relative luxury.
. . .
Last edited: