The UNholiness of the Bible

[Eponymic]

 

What else can I say?

 

You can say you really don't believe in Christianity, just spirituality, because by taking the Bible, and everything you learn and interpreting it as you see appropriate, you're following spiritual guidelines, not Christian doctrine.

[NotBlinded]

I’m not finding any real problem for myself with the ideas of what you’re saying. I’ve been suspecting it’s a matter of terminology and that’s what I’m hoping this discussion will flesh out for me. I don’t like having unnecessary road blocks getting in the way of hearing what someone may be saying. Plus it may also help both of us in communicating our thoughts better to others.

 

To offer a couple thoughts to the above: What we are really talking about here is dealt in the study of Semiotics. Various Semioticians have different theories of how language works, but it’s essentially examining how words become signs, and how signs become myth, and how we derive meaning from language.

 

When someone speaks of a sign, it is broken down into two components: Signifier and Signified. The “signifier” would be for instance, “a rose”. The “signified” is the idea of “love”. The signifier plus the signified equals a “sign”. The rose caries the idea of love, though it has nothing to do with a rose’s essential nature. A rose is a sign of love. Next, if you take a sign, and add another signifier to it, you move into the beginning of myth, where the original meanings of words as signs begin to be tossed into a huge morass of meanings that are difficult to separate.

 

Here’s a brief blurb I was just reading that might add some light to the discussion:

 

The interpretation process in the receiver's mind may attribute meanings completely different to those intended by the senders. Why might this happen? Neither the sender nor the receiver of a text has a perfect grasp of all language. Each individual's relatively small stock of knowledge is the product of personal experience and their attitude to learning. When the audience receives the message, there will always be an excess of connotational meanings available to be applied to the particular signs in their context (no matter how relatively complete or incomplete their knowledge, the cognitive process is the same).

The first stage in understanding the message is, therefore, to suspend or defer judgement until more information becomes available. At some point, the individual receiver decides which of all the possible meanings represents the best possible "fit". Sometimes, uncertainty may not be resolved so meaning is indefinitely deferred, or a provisional or approximate meaning is allocated.

More often, the receiver's desire for closure (see Gestalt psychology) leads to simple meanings being attributed out of prejudices and without reference to the sender's intentions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29

Hi there Antlerman,

 

What I have bolded above in your reference is what I think it means when speaking of 'keys' to understand. As you mention below about finding what a talking donkey could stand for is what I think is being referred to when these keys to understanding is mentioned. It is indeed a mystery until one can find that key.

 

Many animals are symbolic (in Christianity) of different aspects of human nature. The sheep is seen as a gentle animal therefore representing the genleness of the nature of whom it is addressing. When Theosophy speaks of the keys to the mystery language, they say animals represent all the natures of mankind including the sheep to the wolf. Water represents emotions and so forth. These were the commonalities that religion has and this is the best fit.

 

So… you see there really is in a way as you say a “mystical” understanding of words, but I would call that more just the nature of language. In dealing with concepts such as God or Love, we are dealing with emotional experience that is best accessed using language through the use of signs. Best example: poetry. It is not the words; it is the rhythm, meter, connotations, etc. Poetry is best understood through experience, not analysis. I would say the same of music, but we’re speaking of spoken or written words here. However, having an understanding of its construction or the history and meanings of the words used can deepen one’s experience of it.

 

But again my point in all of this, I take care not to take the nature of the complexity of communication in human experience and deify it. I have a knee-jerk reaction to terms like “hidden meaning” in a mystical context. It smacks of mystery religions, seeking the knowledge their god had deliberately masked from the world through various esoteric “keys”. There’s just way too much baggage that comes along with that system that I feel sends people off on ultimately distracting paths.

I think this mystery 'is' in the language and the meaning associated with symbolic words. I don't think, IMO, that it should be connected to a god sending anyone any knowledge about word use and deliberately masking the meaning. Although, what was seen as a natural occurance within language was noticed and taken advantage of by those who seek power. The meanings remained with the ones chosen to lead others.

 

What I’m hearing you really saying is you’re seeking a deeper experience of its message. You are seeking greater “meaning”. Maybe it’s just the word choice that’s the problem.

Yes, and also it is the perspective that one has when reading any spiritual document. Alan Watts says it like this, (paraphrase) "It's like some that view a rudamentary form of consciousness in minerals vs those that view consciousness as a complicated form of minerals." Aaahaa! Ones view can completely change the meaning of the same document even though both are saying the same thing!

 

I really do think that we are talking much the same thing here as you say. What you say above is in fact what we do need to do in approaching anything in any form of communication. We have to step back and try to strip off all the accumulated baggage of cultural connotations and prejudices, and try to understand the best we can contextually and culturally the meaning of the words. The donkey example, I would try to see if there was any sort of contemporary sign of talking donkeys in other literature, etc. and see if they are using it as a “metaphor” so to speak (give the benefit of the doubt that they may have had a serious intention), then if nothing else added up, put in into a category of tall tales to tell the story of a hero figure – like Jesus walking on water.

Yes, that's the 'key'! No intended message from god that was written in a mysterious way. IMO, I don't think that is what is being put forth by the mystery schools, but I could be so wrong! The language that is used is from mankind and the effects are just a natural following from symbolic word usage. Regardless, even if they think it was a message from god to use such words, the outcome would be just the same as that which has occurred...no matter what they think! Mankind chose the symbols based on the nature of the animal...so to speak!

 

See... I was nice to you, wasn’t I?

Yes, you always are but your knowledge is vast and I worry that I can't keep up!

[Saviourmachine]

To offer a couple thoughts to the above: What we are really talking about here is dealt in the study of Semiotics. Various Semioticians have different theories of how language works, but it’s essentially examining how words become signs, and how signs become myth, and how we derive meaning from language.

 

When someone speaks of a sign, it is broken down into two components: Signifier and Signified. The “signifier” would be for instance, “a rose”. The “signified” is the idea of “love”. The signifier plus the signified equals a “sign”. The rose caries the idea of love, though it has nothing to do with a rose’s essential nature. A rose is a sign of love. Next, if you take a sign, and add another signifier to it, you move into the beginning of myth, where the original meanings of words as signs begin to be tossed into a huge morass of meanings that are difficult to separate.

Actually this is Saussure's division. More commonly in use is the threefold division from Peirce.

Sign:

• Sign vehicle: the form of the sign; (something perceptable)
  
• Sense: the sense made of the sign; (something mental)
  
• Referent: what the sign 'stands for'. (something ontological)
  

I'm creating a framework for visual languages for my master thesis. So I did some study of semiotics. Sorry if the correction is very much off-topic.

 

See for intro: Semiotics for Beginners

[Antlerman]

Actually this is Saussure's division. More commonly in use is the threefold division from Peirce.

Sign:

• Sign vehicle: the form of the sign; (something perceptable)
  
• Sense: the sense made of the sign; (something mental)
  
• Referent: what the sign 'stands for'. (something ontological)
  

I'm creating a framework for visual languages for my master thesis. So I did some study of semiotics. Sorry if the correction is very much off-topic.

 

See for intro: Semiotics for Beginners

Am I becoming out dated in my age? By all means please jump in and help me out here. What I'm striving as a lay person to understand is the nature of signs and mythologies in language, and how this all ties into epistemological approaches. Esotericism in particular in their approach to finding meaning in language. So much to learn, so little brain left...

[NotBlinded]

Am I becoming out dated in my age? By all means please jump in and help me out here. What I'm striving as a lay person to understand is the nature of signs and mythologies in language, and how this all ties into epistemological approaches. Esotericism in particular in their approach to finding meaning in language. So much to learn, so little brain left...

Age? You speak of age and your in your early teens? Phooey on you! (Unless of course you were fibbing about your age????)

[Amanda]

 

What else can I say?

 

You can say you really don't believe in Christianity, just spirituality, because by taking the Bible, and everything you learn and interpreting it as you see appropriate, you're following spiritual guidelines, not Christian doctrine.

 

 

Eponymic, Thank you! Because of this site, I have already come to realize that!

 

I have refined my thinking dramatically!!! Although, I do give merit to these scriptural messages in a spiritual way, which I have discovered in a method of seeking taught to me. Of course I don't agree with what the label 'Christian' has come to mean, nor agree with their present doctorines, nor feel it defines me as part of that sect at all! It took me awhile to realize that, because I didn't understand the value of the labeling process till I got here. I like much of ALL these worldwide philosophies, and the more I'm here, the more I learn and appreciate the other perspectives.

[Eponymic]

Eponymic, Thank you! Because of this site, I have already come to realize that!

 

I have refined my thinking dramatically!!! Although, I do give merit to these scriptural messages in a spiritual way, which I have discovered in a method of seeking taught to me. Of course I don't agree with what the label 'Christian' has come to mean, nor agree with their present doctorines, nor feel it defines me as part of that sect at all! It took me awhile to realize that, because I didn't understand the value of the labeling process till I got here. I like much of ALL these worldwide philosophies, and the more I'm here, the more I learn and appreciate the other perspectives.

 

Brilliant!

 

Great to hear it love. Glad to see you thinking for yourself & in positive terms. Much love to you sweetums.

[Saviourmachine]

Am I becoming out dated in my age? By all means please jump in and help me out here. What I'm striving as a lay person to understand is the nature of signs and mythologies in language, and how this all ties into epistemological approaches. Esotericism in particular in their approach to finding meaning in language. So much to learn, so little brain left...

Maybe the terms object (referent), representamen (sign vehicle) and interpretant (sense) are better known. An object may be an abstract entity or fictional entity. The interpretant as something mental is actually a gross simplification, only true for humans. Peirce was very careful not to use such antropocentric terms. In biosemiotics there are for example biosemiotic interpreters. Biosemiotics does also give some clues about how concepts as knowledge can be defined in a 'naturalist' way. From Peirce's traidic sign it is less difficult to come on the concept of self-referencing. An interpretant can become the representamen for a second interpretant.

A myth is not necessarily false in semiotics. However, considering the Peircean school I would say that in a myth, the representamen is the story and 1.) the object can be fictional or 2.) the interpretant is a "misinterpretation".

[Antlerman]

 

What else can I say?

 

You can say you really don't believe in Christianity, just spirituality, because by taking the Bible, and everything you learn and interpreting it as you see appropriate, you're following spiritual guidelines, not Christian doctrine.

 

 

Eponymic, Thank you! Because of this site, I have already come to realize that!

 

I have refined my thinking dramatically!!! Although, I do give merit to these scriptural messages in a spiritual way, which I have discovered in a method of seeking taught to me. Of course I don't agree with what the label 'Christian' has come to mean, nor agree with their present doctorines, nor feel it defines me as part of that sect at all! It took me awhile to realize that, because I didn't understand the value of the labeling process till I got here. I like much of ALL these worldwide philosophies, and the more I'm here, the more I learn and appreciate the other perspectives.

I've been thinking about this and wanted to bring up a thought I've had (I'm planning to get back to the discussion about "hidden" meanings in the Bible). As far as someone calling themselves a Christian: Why is it necessary for someone to believe what traditional Christianity has taught to call themselves a Christian?? To me, if someone in the practice of their spirituality embraces Jesus as their symbol representing God in their faith - then that makes them a Christian. Did the apostle Paul believe what Pat Robertson, or Billy Graham, or ever the Pope of Rome believes? Did all early Christians believe the same way? Do all current Christians? Exactly which Christians define for all Christians what to believe? It sounds to me like its one body of believers judging all others by themselves as the standard!

 

I think the whole thing is about which mythology appeals to you. If you embrace Jesus as the central focus of your mythology - you are a Christian. And just because branch X doesn't like you, well... reclaim the title from them. Who says they own it? Not all Christians are traditionalists, and nor do they need to be. That's a mindset of mental conditioning of everyone put forth by the institution: call everyone else heretics to keep control over the masses. So now even we who are outside the church still apply their definitions they created.

 

The church has killed plenty of Christians in it's day - those Christians they claimed were not real Christians. This is not the dark ages anymore and they can't burn you as a heretic - at least not in this country. If feel you are a Christian, I wouldn't let anyone take that from you because you don't see things the same. It's up to you.

 

Personally, all I care about is attitudes and actions. Are you genuine, respectful, and sincere? Great, then you are my friend.

[Amanda]

 

Hi Antlerman!

 

You do make a good point. However, this is the way I've come to think about it... I do research the Bible, NT, and find these interpretations I get very meaningful and significant in my life. This technique was taught to me, and I have known only about 4 other people who use it... and 1 has passed away. It shows the scriptures in a whole different light than the KJV and other interpretations seems to reveal.

 

When I am with "Christians", they get very upset with me about my beliefs! Many refuse to associate with me, or refuse to discuss these interpretations. OK. When I am with my groups of other interests, when they hear I'm a "Christian"... they want to stay away from me till they hear how I really believe.

 

Having said all that... it makes me think of something like the KKK. I understand that initially they were really held in high regards, and were something similar to the Guardian Angels. They were known to maintain the rights of what would be victims, against the lawlessness that threatened communities... for no compensation for their services! However, the KKK have taken a drastically wrong turn with horrible implications! Would I call myself a KKK now if I only believed in the initial movement, but disgusted with what it evolved to be today? The answer is no, as it would be a totally wrong representation of who I really am! Actually, I seriously think that if Jesus were here today, he wouldn't call himself a Christian either!

[Antlerman]

Actually, I seriously think that if Jesus were here today, he wouldn't call himself a Christian either!

Point taken. I understand a little better now. Then may I ask, do you consider yourself a Christian - as you would understand what being a Christian is? I realize that sounds somewhat odd, but I ask that in the context that what I understand Christians to be is not what I see in traditional Christianity. I would not consider myself Christian inasmuch as I do not hold Jesus as a symbol in a mythology. But if I were to, I would then consider myself to be a Christian, and I would simply live with clarifying what that really means. IMO, it would be a way to combat what others want to define as Christianity - solely because they are the dominant ones. I guess I would consider it my way to be a part of change in society, and way to bring positive change against the mainstream, but that's not for everyone.

 

BTW, Jesus would never call himself a Christian in any context. He was Jewish, and his followers were "little Christ’s" or "Christians".

 

BTW, BTW... Speaking with whom I consider Christians on this forum, such as yourself and Open_Minded, has had a very positive effect on my attitudes towards Christianity (fundamentalism totally and absolutely excluded in that statement!). I feel much more at peace with it now as opposed to the animosity I've carried for many, many years; more clear about what is should be at its heart, even though I cannot share the system that you find meaning in. Not everyone who believes in Jesus is an arrogant, self-righteous, a*h*. This is what Christianity should be IMO: a system that people use for positive growth within themselves and towards others around them. I just wanted to say that publicly. Thanks.

[thunderbolt]

Speaking with whom I consider Christians on this forum, such as yourself and Open_Minded, has had a very positive effect on my attitudes towards Christianity (fundamentalism totally and absolutely excluded in that statement!).

Ditto, Ditto!

[Amanda]

Then may I ask, do you consider yourself a Christian - as you would understand what being a Christian is? I realize that sounds somewhat odd, but I ask that in the context that what I understand Christians to be is not what I see in traditional Christianity. I would not consider myself Christian inasmuch as I do not hold Jesus as a symbol in a mythology. But if I were to, I would then consider myself to be a Christian, and I would simply live with clarifying what that really means. IMO, it would be a way to combat what others want to define as Christianity - solely because they are the dominant ones. I guess I would consider it my way to be a part of change in society, and way to bring positive change against the mainstream, but that's not for everyone.

 

Antlerman, I've found people here, like you, seemed more like the Christ mentality I have come to know, than the "Christians"! ...btw, that's intended as a compliment. I still give very high regards to what I've learned through these scriptures, however no one else needs to take the path I did. Everyone is a unique person, has had a unique path, and I look at where they are instead of how they got there. If I respect them, then I am interested in the way they think. It's boring if everyone thinks alike anyway!

 

I've changed dramatically since being here! Nothing that takes away from these core messages, but I use to be more unsure about what was a metaphor/allegory, and was unaware of the mythology seemingly superimposed upon some of these narratives, among many other things. I think this site is bringing positive change against the mainstream traditional Christianity, and its influence, right here. I can't deny my spiritual teachings for me, but why should I support a group that has evolved against almost everything I've come to believe in these regards? That is one of the most astounding revelations I've made here. I've already tried to make an impact on this fundamental mentality, and it has only made me want to hang out with you all here even more.

 

 

Antlerman and Thunderbolt, thank you both very much for the compliment. I'm very honored!

[Open_Minded]

BTW, BTW... Speaking with whom I consider Christians on this forum, such as yourself and Open_Minded, has had a very positive effect on my attitudes towards Christianity (fundamentalism totally and absolutely excluded in that statement!). I feel much more at peace with it now as opposed to the animosity I've carried for many, many years; more clear about what is should be at its heart, even though I cannot share the system that you find meaning in.

 

Wow... Antlerman (and Thunderboldt) ... high praise indeed. Thank you

 

On a larger note... I've not read through the entire thread - it is quite long - so I came in and read the first few and the last 3-4 pages. The title of the thread includes a question: In what way is the Bible a "Holy" document?

 

The reason I've stayed out of the thread thus far (besides the recent influx of fundies) was because on a certain level I feel the need to tread gently around such issues raised by that question. Not for my own needs - but because since I've come here I've learned how extreme fundamentalist and literalist Christianity is. Coming out of the that type of extreme theology - many may feel the only thing they can do is toss the Bible as well as the system. This is a healthy and legitimate response to extremism and I don't wish to get in the way of the response.

 

But reading the last few pages, I've also learned that you all recognize this dynamic and are willing to deal with it in your own lives....

 

So... first to answer that question from my own perspective. In what way is the Bible a "Holy" document?

 

Well for me... the Bible is sacred, or Holy, because thousands of years after its writing it is still here... still challenging people.

 

Look at this discussion ... now long eleven pages long ... and the discussion is still continuing. What have you learned in this discussion? What have you learned about your own personal search for the Sacred in life - or the overall human search for the Sacred?

 

The Bible does not care what you think of it, It does not care if you burn it - or worship it (And I sincerely think that both responses are extreme) - but that is not the point. The Bible is here, it has survived both extreme responses for hundreds of years.

 

Other texts from other world religions have survived as long, or longer. They have invoked the same types of introspection that you can find in this thread for hundreds and hundreds of years. They have invoked discussion upon discussion about the search for the Sacred. And for that they ALL deserve to be called "HOLY".

 

They have survived misuse, they have survived being used to harm instead of heal. Year after year, century after century they have been interpreted so many different times in so many different languages that it is darn near impossible to get underneath all the layering to original intent... and yet with all that abuse the world's sacred literature is still here. Still provoking these types of discussions.... still demanding by their very existence .... that the search continue on.

 

Ah... yes... IMO....the Bible does deserve to be called "Holy".

 

The Bible does contain "the word of God", in the sense that "God" is that divine ideal, that transcendent desire of human beings that we personify or hang the sign "God" on to expresses our notions of the "sacred". So reading the Bible, when "Jesus" says, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself", is this meaningless?

 

I am an atheist, and I say it is not meaningless. It does have great spiritual value. But the approach I would take to glean value from it, would not be not find a secret meaning to the words to avoid the literal or traditional teachings, but to simply understand first, contextually what idea, what principle it's original authors were actually trying to convey. Then secondly, philosophically that what the idea of God was/is all about from the human notions of it, and take it to say that their ideas of the fulfillment of a spiritual life centers around two basic connected principle: To set your mind upon the sacred (to transcend one's thoughts outside the mundane cares of everyday life to focus your energies towards the ideals of love, peace, hope, etc). Secondly, from that higher thought and emotional mindset (spiritual mindset), let your actions then flow outward to others, through the ideal of love. "Love works no ill". If you love others, you will not steal from them, harm them, maliciously deceive them, etc. Love is the fulfillment of all the principles of the Bible. "Jesus" "said", "On these two laws (or I would call them principles and approaches), hang the Law and the Prophets (the entirety of their Bible of their day).

 

Wow - Antlerman - I couldn't have said it better myself (and I'm Christian)

 

The only way I've ever been taught to read the Bible is in context. I've been taught to look at literary context, cultural context, historical context, all the same things you all have been discussing here. But - recently I have also learned the value of letting go of the very same things. At some point - it is ok to do this - and let yourself sink into the text (for lack of better wording). What you said above, Antlerman, is an example of this though

 

I am a very rational person, sometimes too rational. And so it has taken me a long time to learn this lesson - that it is ok to let go of all the critical analysis. In reading Amanda's posts, I'm somewhat envious - Amanda, you seem to have an easier time of this "letting go".

 

And maybe the lesson in all of this is the need to find a balance in our approach to reading sacred literature (all of it, not just the Bible).

 

I do hope that I've offended no one in my reasons for considering the Bible "Holy". As I said, this forum has taught me much - most of all how utterly intense literalist theology can be for people. So... I do know there will be those who look at the Bible and feel that it is anything BUT holy

[Antlerman]

Other texts from other world religions have survived as long, or longer. They have invoked the same types of introspection that you can find in this thread for hundreds and hundreds of years. They have invoked discussion upon discussion about the search for the Sacred. And for that they ALL deserve to be called "HOLY".

 

They have survived misuse, they have survived being used to harm instead of heal. Year after year, century after century they have been interpreted so many different times in so many different languages that it is darn near impossible to get underneath all the layering to original intent... and yet with all that abuse the world's sacred literature is still here. Still provoking these types of discussions.... still demanding by their very existence .... that the search continue on.

 

Ah... yes... IMO....the Bible does deserve to be called "Holy".

 

Ok, I'm back! Thanks for jumping into this, this should be fun. First of all the term "Holy": I would use this as a classification as I would "sacred". "Sacred", or even "divine", does not have to do with a deity necessarily, but rather a category of transcendent ideals in the human experience. I always look at "God" as part of the category of the sacred, the non-mundane, the non-temporal, and the higher ideal of human thought. So in this context, yes of course the bible would be considered a "holy" book, as there are many such writings or collections of writings in this category.

 

Trying to get back to Semiotics, Mythology, Epistemology, and Esotericism: First on that: Savior Machine, on the footnote of Peircean being more common the Saussurean Semiotics, do you think this is true more in Europe than here in the States, or is this more a trend towards Peirce universally in the last 15 years? Would you agree that for discussion limited to human perceptions, that Structuralism is still valid?

 

I believe that Roland Barthes viewed mythology as a bad thing. From what I understand in his view, he was more concerned with the purity of language, and to him mythology obscured meaning. But as Open_Minded points out that these "sacred" works, being all about mythology actually do serve a valid purpose in that they "create dialog". Mythology, even non-sacred mythology serves the purpose of creating dialog.

 

Look at the discussion that just happened concerning the word "Christian". A sign plus a signified becomes a new sign. We have a mythology that all Christians are bible banging, arrogant literalists. The word “Christian” has come to mean all that to us through our experiences. That word is one example of a mythology. We all use theses words, then in order to us to be able to find meaning, to gain understanding, it becomes necessary for us to stand back, examine, and dialog with others. Then as a result we learn, we grow, we become more connected to each other through the experience. Is mythology bad? Yes and no. Yes in that meaning becomes very confused, but “No”, in that myth creates dialog and plays an important role in the human experience and the evolution of ideas.

 

Again, and I stress, I'm a lay person on this and not doing a masters thesis, so be easy on me.

 

P.S. That the sacred texts have survived is a testimony to the importance of mythology in the human experience. If belief wasn’t important to us, they would have no meaning to us and would be as irrelevant as a cheap novel written only make to make a buck. They are our “sacred” texts, not some outside Being’s words. (wow, if only the fundi’s comprehended that!)

 

The only way I've ever been taught to read the Bible is in context. I've been taught to look at literary context, cultural context, historical context, all the same things you all have been discussing here. But - recently I have also learned the value of letting go of the very same things. At some point - it is ok to do this - and let yourself sink into the text (for lack of better wording). What you said above, Antlerman, is an example of this though

 

I am a very rational person, sometimes too rational. And so it has taken me a long time to learn this lesson - that it is ok to let go of all the critical analysis. In reading Amanda's posts, I'm somewhat envious - Amanda, you seem to have an easier time of this "letting go".

What you describe in the first sentence is what I also understand as the best way to approach any piece of literature: Carefully and objectively using the best research tools available to us. But now here’s where we come back to the question of epistemological mysticism on an experiential level, and now add to this the reading of text? I understand the “leap” beyond reason into the plane of experience in the pursuit of an internal knowledge, or sense of meaning, but this is text! Isn’t this like saying, I’m going to analyze the molecular structure of a piece of acrylic by trying to divine what it means to me through the eyes of faith??

 

Alright, I’m having a little fun there. We are in fact dealing with mythologies in language usage here and not cold, hard science. But in part I am making a point. I see people say “In the Aramaic, this word can mean X, or Y, or Z, so therefore it could mean…” Now everything inside of me screams “be careful!” You cannot be that loose in the use of original languages in interpretation. There is a whole raft of legitimate considerations that must be addressed before offering possible meanings.

 

As I’ve said, once these considerations have been carefully respected, then we can stand back and say, “Oh, from this it is very possible they were trying to convey this meaning. To me then I find it has meaning to me in my life in these following ways…” I guess it’s about the two questions: “From a reasonable study, what were the ideas the writer was trying to communicate?’; Then secondly, “What meaning does that have to me?” It’s the second question that I would think you mean when you say “letting go”. Is this correct? If so, this is really nothing more than what happens in any homily.

 

My biggest knee jerk reaction to “mysticism” as you are well aware of is that of wild tangents. Anti-Reason, not leap of faith into the experience of meaning.

 

I do hope that I've offended no one in my reasons for considering the Bible "Holy". As I said, this forum has taught me much - most of all how utterly intense literalist theology can be for people. So... I do know there will be those who look at the Bible and feel that it is anything BUT holy

I have to chuckle. If anyone needs to be concerned, I’m the one who will use terms like sacred and hold or divine, but I’m the atheist! I always take care to define what that means because of all that history “meaning” that is heaped onto the words, and back we are to the beginning, “signifier + signified = sign; sign + new signified = new sign and the beginning of a myth. Holy does not mean God.

[Amanda]

Holy does not mean God.

 

Antlerman, you're so wise... and so articulate!

 

Yet... can I ask you, couldn't the 'essence' within us, of what we call holy, signify God to some? NOT that God is a supernatural being... but something we label that altruistic essence that calls us ALL, at some level, to a higher standard of respect for ALL?

[Open_Minded]

Wow... Antlerman

 

I jumped in late in the game and so much of your last post I can't put into context (no pun intended) I'll focus on what I can, OK

 

Ok, I'm back! Thanks for jumping into this, this should be fun. First of all the term "Holy": I would use this as a classification as I would "sacred". "Sacred", or even "divine", does not have to do with a deity necessarily, but rather a category of transcendent ideals in the human experience.

 

Yes - when I use "Holy" it is very much the same to me as "Sacred"

 

But as Open_Minded points out that these "sacred" works, being all about mythology actually do serve a valid purpose in that they "create dialog". Mythology, even non-sacred mythology serves the purpose of creating dialog. ..... That the sacred texts have survived is a testimony to the importance of mythology in the human experience. If belief wasn’t important to us, they would have no meaning to us and would be as irrelevant as a cheap novel written only make to make a buck. They are our “sacred” texts, not some outside Being’s words. (wow, if only the fundi’s comprehended that!)

 

Yes... Yes that is it. They are OUR sacred texts. They are OURS.... and the fact that Fundies have been allowed to co-op them (not just Christian fundies, fundies from all traditions) drags all of humanity down.

 

I am a very rational person, sometimes too rational. And so it has taken me a long time to learn this lesson - that it is ok to let go of all the critical analysis. In reading Amanda's posts, I'm somewhat envious - Amanda, you seem to have an easier time of this "letting go".

 

What you describe in the first sentence is what I also understand as the best way to approach any piece of literature: Carefully and objectively using the best research tools available to us. But now here’s where we come back to the question of epistemological mysticism on an experiential level, and now add to this the reading of text? I understand the “leap” beyond reason into the plane of experience in the pursuit of an internal knowledge, or sense of meaning, but this is text! ....

 

As I’ve said, once these considerations have been carefully respected, then we can stand back and say, “Oh, from this it is very possible they were trying to convey this meaning. To me then I find it has meaning to me in my life in these following ways…” I guess it’s about the two questions: “From a reasonable study, what were the ideas the writer was trying to communicate?’; Then secondly, “What meaning does that have to me?” It’s the second question that I would think you mean when you say “letting go”. Is this correct? If so, this is really nothing more than what happens in any homily.

 

Several months ago, Antlerman, I would have agreed with your summary. But, I've learned that there is another depth that is legitimate.

 

As I said, I am a very rational person, so this discussion is not new to me. This issue has come up in the meditative group I'm involved in as well.

 

There are members of our group who are more like Amanda, in the way they approach things. And I have learned - over the years - that the leap for them IS EXPERIENCING THE TEXT.

 

Do not get me wrong here... I have had all the same knee jerk reactions that you spelled out... being dragged off on some "wild tangent". But my close relationship with these people has convinced me that when they read the Bible this way they are educated about context, etc.. and have respect for it. They would be the first ones to say in a conversation - "this is only my personal experience, it can't be backed up by scholarly interpretation, etc... but this is what the text means to me on a personal level". They enter the realm of allegory much easier than I do, and yes very often what they find in that realm has nothing to do with rational analysis, but it is not illigitimate either. What I see in them is a willingness to balance things to accept that what they discover for themselves has no connection with rational or scholarly interpretation. But they've found something that connects, they've experienced the text as well as analysed it.

 

That is why I said earlier that I was somewhat envious of Amanda, she seems to experience the text easier than I do

 

This can get into very dangerous territory... as we all know extremists have used the Bible (and other sacred literature) to harm and manipulate people. As I said, what I find in the people I know who can read a text this way is a willingness to admit, upfront, that what they are seeing in the text has nothing to do with scholarship, context, etc.... They recognize the place for this type of reading - and respect the scholarship around sacred literature.

 

Does this begin to answer your question

[Antlerman]

Holy does not mean God.

 

Antlerman, you're so wise... and so articulate!

 

Yet... can I ask you, couldn't the 'essence' within us, of what we call holy, signify God to some? NOT that God is a supernatural being... but something we label that altruistic essence that calls us ALL, at some level, to a higher standard of respect for ALL?

In essence. Seriously, yes "God" would be considered "Holy", and that apparently universal aspiration in humans could be called God, or the essence of the Divine, or the Holy Spirit, or the cosmic harmony, or "the force" . They are all signs, or "symbols" to use that term instead (yes I know Symbol is a component of Sign along with Icon, and Identifier, but it can be used to describe Sign colloquially I believe). So yes, when someone says they commune with God, I understand it to mean that they are focusing thought on the sacred, the holy as it operates within the human mind. I understand this is what is happening when all Christians, Hindus, Muslims, et al, speak of their relationship to God.

 

So.... when my son who is a fundamentalist (didn't know that did you ), spoke to me yesterday about his relationship to Jesus, I tried to help him understand how all beliefs are about the same thing - human spirituality. He responds, "But you don't accept Jesus." I asked him if he likes to eat Avocados. He said he loves them. I answered that I don't care for Avocados. So does this mean I'm not a human being? He couldn't see outside the covers on his Bible. If doesn't fit what he's been taught, than it's just wrong. Tragically unfortunate for him. I certainly hopes he won't be satisfied with that for his whole life.

[Antlerman]

But as Open_Minded points out that these "sacred" works, being all about mythology actually do serve a valid purpose in that they "create dialog". Mythology, even non-sacred mythology serves the purpose of creating dialog. ..... That the sacred texts have survived is a testimony to the importance of mythology in the human experience. If belief wasn’t important to us, they would have no meaning to us and would be as irrelevant as a cheap novel written only make to make a buck. They are our “sacred” texts, not some outside Being’s words. (wow, if only the fundi’s comprehended that!)

 

Yes... Yes that is it. They are OUR sacred texts. They are OURS.... and the fact that Fundies have been allowed to co-op them (not just Christian fundies, fundies from all traditions) drags all of humanity down.

I'm just going to restate this to emphasis it. Sacred texts were created by humanity. Humanity owns them. Humanity has kept them alive because they are important to humanity. You are very correct that what fundamentalism does with the sacred texts is a perversion of its essence and a disservice to all of humanity. This is why I have said so emphatically and will continue to say that Fundamentalism is religions greatest enemy. Its fruits are spiritual death.

 

Genuine spirituality, those fruits listed in I Corinthians 13 would be a good place to start, are the exception and not the rule in fundamentalism. Personally, I feel those who do experience and exhibit a genuine sprit of humility and kindness will soon find themselves having little in common with those around them in fundamentalism who professes to so loudly to have "the Truth!" I hung on because it seemed like it should be a source of spiritual life, considering the single-minded focus on God. I figured the problem was with me, but the core motives that drive fundamentalism are not about love. They are at its heart a perversion of the human spirit and the essence of life itself.

 

Penny for my thoughts?

 

What you describe in the first sentence is what I also understand as the best way to approach any piece of literature: Carefully and objectively using the best research tools available to us. But now here’s where we come back to the question of epistemological mysticism on an experiential level, and now add to this the reading of text? I understand the “leap” beyond reason into the plane of experience in the pursuit of an internal knowledge, or sense of meaning, but this is text! ....

Several months ago, Antlerman, I would have agreed with your summary. But, I've learned that there is another depth that is legitimate.

 

As I said, I am a very rational person, so this discussion is not new to me. This issue has come up in the meditative group I'm involved in as well.

 

There are members of our group who are more like Amanda, in the way they approach things. And I have learned - over the years - that the leap for them IS EXPERIENCING THE TEXT.

 

Do not get me wrong here... I have had all the same knee jerk reactions that you spelled out... being dragged off on some "wild tangent". But my close relationship with these people has convinced me that when they read the Bible this way they are educated about context, etc.. and have respect for it. They would be the first ones to say in a conversation - "this is only my personal experience, it can't be backed up by scholarly interpretation, etc... but this is what the text means to me on a personal level". They enter the realm of allegory much easier than I do, and yes very often what they find in that realm has nothing to do with rational analysis, but it is not illigitimate either. What I see in them is a willingness to balance things to accept that what they discover for themselves has no connection with rational or scholarly interpretation. But they've found something that connects, they've experienced the text as well as analysed it.

 

That is why I said earlier that I was somewhat envious of Amanda, she seems to experience the text easier than I do

Check my thoughts here: Would this be like saying that the "impressions" one gets from a reading that is purely on an intuition level becomes a vehicle for spiritual experience? I'll raise an analogy, but I wish to be clear I am not meaning anything disrespectful in this, but would this be like the role of Peyote in ritual enlightenment? Of course, the readers of sacred texts are not experiencing hallucinations, but in this analogy Peyote is a "vehicle". This may not be the best analogy, but it's what popped into my mind for some reason.

 

I guess I can see that from a reading of sacred text, certain impressions may occur, more of a psychological association of sorts that would have significance to the person whose thoughts provided it. "Why were my thoughts about this? What does this mean? What can I see from my thoughts that emerged from these words?" How's that? It's not about the contextual meaning of the words, but the readers own thoughts that were provoked by it? I'm thinking this sounds right. Your feedback?

 

This can get into very dangerous territory... as we all know extremists have used the Bible (and other sacred literature) to harm and manipulate people. As I said, what I find in the people I know who can read a text this way is a willingness to admit, upfront, that what they are seeing in the text has nothing to do with scholarship, context, etc.... They recognize the place for this type of reading - and respect the scholarship around sacred literature.

 

Does this begin to answer your question

Yes I think it does. But if approached as you mention above and is operating as I for the time seem to suspect it is, I can see the benefit to it. The major pitfall I could see with it is that outside personal experience, the communication breaks down if that meaning is communicated to others that are unfamiliar with that particular subjective meaning. I must admit, many times if I have heard certain "interpretations" that have no basis in language, or cite language as support that does not bear up, and I will simply scratch my head in bewilderment. But, there is a balance I suppose that must also be learned. If I heard someone preface it as you said, "I realize there is not basis for this other than what it says to me....", then I really wouldn't have an issue with that, understanding it's a purely subjective experience.

[Open_Minded]

Yes... Yes that is it. They are OUR sacred texts. They are OURS.... and the fact that Fundies have been allowed to co-op them (not just Christian fundies, fundies from all traditions) drags all of humanity down.

 

I'm just going to restate this to emphasis it. Sacred texts were created by humanity. Humanity owns them. Humanity has kept them alive because they are important to humanity. You are very correct that what fundamentalism does with the sacred texts is a perversion of its essence and a disservice to all of humanity. This is why I have said so emphatically and will continue to say that Fundamentalism is religions greatest enemy. Its fruits are spiritual death. ... the core motives that drive fundamentalism are not about love. They are at its heart a perversion of the human spirit and the essence of life itself.

 

Amen!.... Amen!!!!

 

There are members of our group who are more like Amanda, in the way they approach things. And I have learned - over the years - that the leap for them IS EXPERIENCING THE TEXT.

 

....What I see in them is a willingness to balance things to accept that what they discover for themselves has no connection with rational or scholarly interpretation. But they've found something that connects, they've experienced the text as well as analysed it.

 

Check my thoughts here: Would this be like saying that the "impressions" one gets from a reading that is purely on an intuition level becomes a vehicle for spiritual experience? .... I guess I can see that from a reading of sacred text, certain impressions may occur, more of a psychological association of sorts that would have significance to the person whose thoughts provided it. "Why were my thoughts about this? What does this mean? What can I see from my thoughts that emerged from these words?" How's that? It's not about the contextual meaning of the words, but the readers own thoughts that were provoked by it? I'm thinking this sounds right. Your feedback?

 

I think a large part of it is on the level of intuition ... and it is very subjective Here we are back at objective/subjective knowing

 

But... there is something else involved as well. Antlerman I am going to go back to the Silly Putty Thread... for those who are interested in reading the whole thread it can be linked to here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=5088&st=40

 

At any rate... following is what I wrote about my understanding of the Trinity - in that thread:

 

....But, there is more… as I’ve said the concept of the trinity is very real to me.

For me –

subjectively

– I see the trinity metaphysically defined in the first verses of John’s gospel

. I won’t quote them all here, but John 1:14 is immediately applicable, “And the

Word became flesh

and dwelt among us”.

 

The three words “Word became flesh” are a metaphysical way of looking at the Trinity. The “WORD” represents the “Father”, the original idea, the original mind, the first thought. “Became” metaphysically speaking is the first thought in action, energy (or the Sacred Spirit) proceeding out from the first thought. And “Flesh” metaphysically speaking is the manifested result of the first thought. “Flesh” could not happen if energy had not proceeded out from the first thought, the first Word.

 

Think about when an artist creates something. First – before anything – the artist has to have the idea. Or the first thought. Second – the idea must be acted upon – the artist takes a canvas and paint and expends energy (or the sacred spirit). Third – because the artist had the thought and because the artist expended energy from the thought – there is an end product, a painting (or the manifested result of the first thought). This whole process is trinitarian in the sense that the painting would never be without the original thought and the energy which proceeded out from that thought in order to produce a painting.

 

In short – when I look at creation – I see this dynamic in play. I can not work in my garden, walk in the woods, hold an infant and not see that first, before anything else there was an idea. (Not an idea in the limited sense that we humans think of) But a first intention, a first awareness that there could be something more. And then, there was spirit (energy) proceeding out from this first intention. Because that energy was expended we have life, glorious life. We have creation.

I see this dynamic at play in science, and I accept that there are those who study science and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in math, and I accept that there are those who study math and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in the arts, and I accept that there are those who study the arts and do not see it

.

 

First ... let's note that this interpretation is entirely subjective and has very little relationship to scholarly analysis or contextual considerations.

 

Also.. I do not often sink into a sacred text the way I have with the first verses of John. But, Antlerman these verses are intensely real to me.... when I say it is possible to "experience" words that can take many layers. The layer you referred to - intuition - is very valid and probably the most common way to "experience" a text. But.... well like I wrote above, "In short – when I look at creation – I see this dynamic in play......" On a very real level these words become "experience" in my everyday mundane life

 

But, I also know that this is subjective.... (reading through the above description please keep in mind I was writing this in an entirely different thread... I did not know that I would ever go back to it again.) Notice how often I acknowledged that this whole thing is subjective - that other rational people do not experience the same thing I do.

 

Also - you know, from repeated conversations with me, how seriously I take scholarship, literary analysis, cultural and archealogical context, etc...

 

As I said, most of the time I am very rational in my approach. On a very real level, though, I wish I had the ability to "let go" of it all and get "carried away" by the text

 

The major pitfall I could see with it is that outside personal experience, the communication breaks down if that meaning is communicated to others that are unfamiliar with that particular subjective meaning. I must admit, many times if I have heard certain "interpretations" that have no basis in language, or cite language as support that does not bear up, and I will simply scratch my head in bewilderment. But, there is a balance I suppose that must also be learned. If I heard someone preface it as you said, "I realize there is not basis for this other than what it says to me....", then I really wouldn't have an issue with that, understanding it's a purely subjective experience.

 

I agree completely with your observations about the "major pitfall". I think fundamentalism is very subjective in its approach to Bible interpretation and it scares the crap out of me. The way literalists twist things is very aggravating. Then they teach their BS to young kids who are unfamiliar with critical analysis - in any form.

 

Even in our own meditation group - where there is a higher than average understanding of critical analysis - we have to be careful of this pitful. But we have people in the group, not only our minister, but others who are well trained in the languages of the Bible and critical analysis. So, there is a natural check and balance happening.

 

This forum provides a natural check and balance system. There are enough varied opinions on this board that people's subjective experiences are consistently balanced by objective critique. And - for the most part - people are respectful here, so it is possible to have an honest discussion about these issues.

 

I guess, in the end, where I feel most concern is with peole who are unwilling to surround themselves with people who see the world from a different perspective. I think this dynamic is a very real problem with fundamentalists. Their attitude that they are "set apart" gives them permission to ignore other points of view. They can go blithely on their way believing they have the only "real truth".

 

I don't know if this post sheds light on our discussion, or obscures

 

If you've more questions, just let me know

[Antlerman]

Yes... Yes Check my thoughts here: Would this be like saying that the "impressions" one gets from a reading that is purely on an intuition level becomes a vehicle for spiritual experience? .... I guess I can see that from a reading of sacred text, certain impressions may occur, more of a psychological association of sorts that would have significance to the person whose thoughts provided it. "Why were my thoughts about this? What does this mean? What can I see from my thoughts that emerged from these words?" How's that? It's not about the contextual meaning of the words, but the readers own thoughts that were provoked by it? I'm thinking this sounds right. Your feedback?

 

I think a large part of it is on the level of intuition ... and it is very subjective Here we are back at objective/subjective knowing

 

But... there is something else involved as well. Antlerman I am going to go back to the Silly Putty Thread... for those who are interested in reading the whole thread it can be linked to here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=5088&st=40

 

At any rate... following is what I wrote about my understanding of the Trinity - in that thread:

<snip>

 

First ... let's note that this interpretation is entirely subjective and has very little relationship to scholarly analysis or contextual considerations.

 

Also.. I do not often sink into a sacred text the way I have with the first verses of John. But, Antlerman these verses are intensely real to me.... when I say it is possible to "experience" words that can take many layers. The layer you referred to - intuition - is very valid and probably the most common way to "experience" a text. But.... well like I wrote above, "In short – when I look at creation – I see this dynamic in play......" On a very real level these words become "experience" in my everyday mundane life

 

But, I also know that this is subjective.... (reading through the above description please keep in mind I was writing this in an entirely different thread... I did not know that I would ever go back to it again.) Notice how often I acknowledged that this whole thing is subjective - that other rational people do not experience the same thing I do.

Well, I don’t know that I would agree with you that your experience of reading John 1:1-14 is purely subjective. Personally from a historical perspective I don’t think John had the idea of a Triune God in mind in those verses (I believe that was a later historical embellishment), but the point is your reading would not be far off from what I think the author of John was trying to convey. Recall I spent several months on that one myself.

 

For relevance to the discussion at hand: I believe John used Logos to describe not so much “thought” or “idea” or “reason”, but manifestation, the agent that revealed God, the bridge between the unknowable God and His Creation. This was a Greek concept and also part of the Jewish thought with the Memra of God, the personification of the God in manifestation. The Logos fulfilled the role eternally with God, “In the beginning was (imperfect tense arka- already in existence) the Logos”. The Logos becoming flesh was a continuation of the role in eternity (in the mind of the author of John).

 

Now I can see someone reading Trinitarian thought into that, and I can also see other possible scholarly takes on it, but the point is, based on what you’ve said, the meaning that you derive about seeing the Trinity manifested in the world even if you’re functioning in the mundane world, is based on rationality as its center.

 

It’s not like reading John 1:1 -14 and divining that God is telling you that you should buy a new house! Now that is what I would call purely intuitive reading with no shred of scholarly support. What you have said, to me has a basis in research. The meaning of it to you personally, now that is a matter of subjectivity. Correct me if I’m missing the point.

 

As I said, most of the time I am very rational in my approach. On a very real level, though, I wish I had the ability to "let go" of it all and get "carried away" by the text

Wow, you and I are amazingly similar. I got involved in Pentecostalism (only because they promised to have the “Truth” about God to a young starving mind at the time), and I participating in their “spiritual” experiences. It is like a drug. It is a self-induced ecstatic experience that you move beyond rational thought into just “letting go” (“and let God as they called it). Of course we all know that this is not a Holy Spirit Christian thing, but a phenomenon of religions going way back before Christianity and experienced across many cultures and beliefs. It is a human experience of moving out of yourself into the “divine” (categorically speaking).

 

I’ve often mused that I’m now going to start up a church called; “First Pentecostal Atheist” and our slogan will be “We practice post-modern tribalism without God, and with full abandon!” Seriously though, where I’m at right now is I don’t really believe that “letting go” fits me very well, just as I don’t like the feeling over being overly intoxicated – I like to feel in control of my thoughts. But I hear you though, at times just escaping reason definitely sounds appealing to me, “Getting high”, so to speak. I think I’m just too damned stolid sometimes. Maybe I just don’t know how to have fun anymore. Mr. Serious, that’s me!

[crazy-tiger]

Holy does not mean God.

 

Antlerman, you're so wise... and so articulate!

 

Yet... can I ask you, couldn't the 'essence' within us, of what we call holy, signify God to some? NOT that God is a supernatural being... but something we label that altruistic essence that calls us ALL, at some level, to a higher standard of respect for ALL?

And at this point I just have to say that this is to what I believe...

[Saviourmachine]

Savior Machine, on the footnote of Peircean being more common the Saussurean Semiotics, do you think this is true more in Europe than here in the States, or is this more a trend towards Peirce universally in the last 15 years? Would you agree that for discussion limited to human perceptions, that Structuralism is still valid?

 

I believe that Roland Barthes viewed mythology as a bad thing. From what I understand in his view, he was more concerned with the purity of language, and to him mythology obscured meaning. But as Open_Minded points out that these "sacred" works, being all about mythology actually do serve a valid purpose in that they "create dialog". Mythology, even non-sacred mythology serves the purpose of creating dialog.

 

Look at the discussion that just happened concerning the word "Christian". A sign plus a signified becomes a new sign. We have a mythology that all Christians are bible banging, arrogant literalists. The word “Christian” has come to mean all that to us through our experiences. That word is one example of a mythology. We all use theses words, then in order to us to be able to find meaning, to gain understanding, it becomes necessary for us to stand back, examine, and dialog with others. Then as a result we learn, we grow, we become more connected to each other through the experience. Is mythology bad? Yes and no. Yes in that meaning becomes very confused, but “No”, in that myth creates dialog and plays an important role in the human experience and the evolution of ideas.

Hi Antlerman. This seems way off-topic, but anyway.

 

I think it's currently just post-Saussurean. We know a bit more yet. But - maybe - you shouldn't take me very seriously in this, because I'm speaking from the viewpoint of a programmer that provides a framework for visual linguists to write their visual languages. Just (verbal) linguists probably don't see the verbocentrism of Saussure. As this webpage states:

A valuable contribution of the volume is the account of how French structuralist semiologie has during the last decades been replaced by a Peircean inspired semiotics in Italy, a trend that can be observed also world wide, as nonverbal forms of communication are beginning to take centre stage. There appear to be two reasons why the Peircean tradition should be re-emerging so powerfully, not only in the writings of Italian theorists such as Umberto Eco, Petrilli and Ponzio. One has to do with the central importance of iconicity in Peirce’s writings, a feature that meets a pressing demand in the age of computer generated imagery; the other reason strikes me to go deeper to the philosophical principles underlying Peirce’s semiotics. At the same time, one of the effects of the linguistic imperialism exerted on cultural description by French structuralism has been a certain impoverishment of philosophical inquiry into signs. The exception here is of course the poststructuralist work of Deleuze and Guattari and of Derrida. Handing over language philosophy largely to post-Fregean analytical philosophy departments certainly has left semiotics without sharp weapons to defend its best insights. So the return to Peirce makes very good sense.

Saussure is just not exact enough, not differing between the interpretant and the referenced object, but only between that what is tangible and that what is conceptual. Search for triadic sign, if you want to know more. (Wikipedia about signs.)

 

I did a few courses in cognitive psychology. They do use structuralism indeed, of course. Trying to assign functions to certain parts in the brain only using one modality, or providing one tone, left/right, etcetera. But it's just one way. A perceptron (neural network) can be seen as a device able to perceive. It does discern patterns. It's interesting to know what patterns it can perceive, and which not.

 

Contrastive features are still used in linguistics. To be able to talk about sign language as a "real" language, scientists have shown that there are likewise features in sign languages. Are there two signs that differ only in one particular feature, than that feature is a distinct "letter" [cat - rat]. This is still common procedure. However, in the new field of visual linguistics it's maybe time to move the borders of the field again. It's where linguistics and semiotics really meet. Help is at hand. It is not sure that arbitrariness has to exist between form and meaning in linguistics. Sound symbolism (like in onomatopeic words) fights against the pillar of "double articulation" [payed pdf.] Because I'm programming for visual iconic languages, this caught my eye almost a year ago.

 

I like your description of mythology.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

Well, I don’t know that I would agree with you that your experience of reading John 1:1-14 is purely subjective. Personally from a historical perspective I don’t think John had the idea of a Triune God in mind in those verses (I believe that was a later historical embellishment), but the point is your reading would not be far off from what I think the author of John was trying to convey. Recall I spent several months on that one myself.

 

 

 

I have also read that a lot of scholars say that even St Paul did not believe in a Triune God, eg when he says "head of christ is God" or "when christ is sittting at the right hand of god". He must have also thought that he was God's angel(sort of JW). Many scholars say his writings is close to Gnostic writings.

 

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

[Open_Minded]

Well, I don’t know that I would agree with you that your experience of reading John 1:1-14 is purely subjective. Personally from a historical perspective I don’t think John had the idea of a Triune God in mind in those verses (I believe that was a later historical embellishment), but the point is your reading would not be far off from what I think the author of John was trying to convey. Recall I spent several months on that one myself.

 

For relevance to the discussion at hand: I believe John used Logos to describe not so much “thought” or “idea” or “reason”, but manifestation, the agent that revealed God, the bridge between the unknowable God and His Creation. This was a Greek concept and also part of the Jewish thought with the Memra of God, the personification of the God in manifestation. The Logos fulfilled the role eternally with God, “In the beginning was (imperfect tense arka- already in existence) the Logos”. The Logos becoming flesh was a continuation of the role in eternity (in the mind of the author of John).

 

Now I can see someone reading Trinitarian thought into that, and I can also see other possible scholarly takes on it, but the point is, based on what you’ve said, the meaning that you derive about seeing the Trinity manifested in the world even if you’re functioning in the mundane world, is based on rationality as its center.

 

You are correct in your assessment that John most likely was not thinking of a Triune God when he wrote those verses.

 

Clearly the interpretation is metaphysical... and that is the point. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad thing to metaphysically interpret sacred literature, just that we must be aware of what we are doing.

 

You see even though I grew up with parents who exposed me very early to critical analysis of the Bible, and even though I went to a Lutheran college and took theology courses where I was taught to read the Bible in context, I also spent many years of my early adulthood in a group that reads the Bible metaphysically. Over time I became concerned that they were a bit over the top. Don't get me wrong, I learned much through their books and literature that is still valuable to me today. But there was no balance.

 

What I wrote above is very real to me - but it is not standard scholarship and so if I am relating it to another person it is my responsibility to acknowledge upfront that it is not standard scholarship.

 

It’s not like reading John 1:1 -14 and divining that God is telling you that you should buy a new house! Now that is what I would call purely intuitive reading with no shred of scholarly support. What you have said, to me has a basis in research. The meaning of it to you personally, now that is a matter of subjectivity. Correct me if I’m missing the point.

 

Yes... I think you're getting what I'm saying

 

For what it's worth.... had I grown up under a different belief system with different sacred literature, different symbolism than the experience that elicited this connection would have been attached to some other text, does that make any sense?

 

Wow, you and I are amazingly similar. I got involved in Pentecostalism (only because they promised to have the “Truth” about God to a young starving mind at the time), and I participating in their “spiritual” experiences. It is like a drug. It is a self-induced ecstatic experience that you move beyond rational thought into just “letting go” (“and let God as they called it). Of course we all know that this is not a Holy Spirit Christian thing, but a phenomenon of religions going way back before Christianity and experienced across many cultures and beliefs. It is a human experience of moving out of yourself into the “divine” (categorically speaking).

 

I’ve often mused that I’m now going to start up a church called; “First Pentecostal Atheist” and our slogan will be “We practice post-modern tribalism without God, and with full abandon!” Seriously though, where I’m at right now is I don’t really believe that “letting go” fits me very well, just as I don’t like the feeling over being overly intoxicated – I like to feel in control of my thoughts. But I hear you though, at times just escaping reason definitely sounds appealing to me, “Getting high”, so to speak. I think I’m just too damned stolid sometimes. Maybe I just don’t know how to have fun anymore. Mr. Serious, that’s me!

 

Antlerman, may I ask you how fundamentalists used words like "mysticism", "ecstatic experience", "holy Spirit", or "let go and let God"?

 

Sometimes when you use this language it comes across in a different way than I would use it. To avoid miscommunication maybe we better figure out if we're on the same page

 

Looking forward to your reply