AletheiaRivers

I thought it was a funny story, that's all. I thought it illustrated all the "infighting" between different Christian sects (or Jews, Muslims, Pagans, etc) very well. Don't avoid fellowshipping or starting your journey because of not being able to please everyone. You never will.

Once, an old man, a boy, and a donkey were traveling from one town to another. They decided that the boy would ride the donkey, and the old man would walk alongside. While moving down the road, they passed a group of townsfolk, who began speaking among themselves, saying what a shame it was for such a strong, young boy to be riding on the donkey, leaving this old, frail man to walk alongside. The boy overheard their words, and, feeling ashamed, suggested that the old man should ride the donkey, and that he would walk alongside. A while later, they passed another group of people, who began commenting on how shocking it was to see this man riding the donkey, while making such a small boy walk. The two overheard their comments, and decided that they should both just walk and put an end to all these opinions. Eventually, they passed some more villagers, who began to laugh at how silly it was for these two to be walking when they had a perfectly good donkey to ride. The man and the boy decided that maybe the critics were right, and they decided to both ride the donkey. Soon, they ran into another group of people who were aghast to see such animal cruelty. What a load to put on this poor little creature! Hearing their words, the man and boy felt terrible. They wanted to give the poor donkey a break, and decided to carry the donkey for the rest of their way. While crossing a bridge, they lost their grip on the animal, and he fell into the river, to be seen no more. The moral of this story: If you try to please everyone, you will eventually lose your ass!

Wu-Men? Are they related to Mu? Kidding.

Thanks everybody for your suggestions! I'm not trying to get a perfect list, just the gist, to help me appreciate why some things are in some books but not in others. Actually, what got me wondering was the comment in a book I'm reading as to why Paul wouldn't mention some of the "miracles" of Jesus if they were so all fired important. I'm neutral about the miracles, myself, but still I find it interesting that Paul wouldn't mention the miracles Jesus performed as a way to convert his listeners. The book brought miracles up as an example of how Jewish story telling starts out simple and then gradually gets more complex. The synoptic Gospels plus John are examples. Also the book mentions the progression from polytheism to monotheism by the Jews as is indicated by the way Yahweh "evolves" in his interactions with the Jews. Yahweh changes from a god that walks and talks with Adam in the Garden and wrestles with Jacob to a trancendant GOD (with a capital G).

The definition of literal provided by the dictionary I used seems to not quite work, but it's pretty close. One websight has a very good article. Some of it is quoted below: The fact that theologians historically argued about the proper way to read the Bible is supported by other scholars. Garet asserts: It should also be noted that one of the major themes of the Protestant Reformation was a belief that the Bible should be interpreted literally, because this would enable lay readers to free themselves from papal rule and lead to a truer, personal understanding of God's will. Apart from its historical origins, we can examine the practical effects of reading the Bible literally. In short, it can create just as many conflicts as does reading it liberally. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._61/ai_78966507 One literal interpretation websight had this to say: Reading the bible "hyper-literally" has led to young earth creationism, pre-millenialism, subordination of women, the witch burnings and the inquisition, an "eye for an eye" corporal punishment mentality, etc... But in all fairness, most literalists are not "hyper-literalists" and are willing to adjust their views on some things. However, this begs the question: Why some things and not others? Literalism is very inconsistent.

OK, I've "googled" just about every word combo I can think of to find what I'm looking for, but I can't find it! I'm trying to find a list of the Bible books in the order in which they were written. I don't want a list of the books in the order of when they were supposed to have taken place, but when they were written. It hasn't made the search any easier that different websights are using the terms "historically" and "chronologically" interchangeably. The Christian scriptures I had pretty good luck with, but not so much on the Hebrew scriptures. Here is what I found on the NT: Galatians James 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Romans Mark Philemon Colossians Ephesians Luke Acts Philippians 1 Timothy Titus 2 Timothy 1 Peter 2 Peter Matthew Hebrews Jude 2 John 1 John 3 John John Revelation I don't think this list is correct though. It has Luke before Matthew and some of "Pauls" letters after the gospels. (One websight mentioned that some books that were attributed to Paul were written well after his death?) Can anyone correct the order of this list for me? Does anyone have a similar list for the Hebrew scriptures? Any websight suggestions? Cynthia: are all my questions going to be answered in my other Teaching Co lecture? LOL.

Ahhh, I love Landover Baptist Church. When I was in the process of leaving JW's and wasn't sure I believed in God anymore, I read Landover and The Onion everyday. They helped me keep a sense of humor instead of becoming hateful.

Yes, but "ditto" is not nearly as interesting to read.

Wow! Awesome article. Does he write that well all the time? I'm going to have to check him out. Thanks!

Allegory

That was what I was trying to do: Give popular definitions and which groups might use them. Plus it was fun playing with the colors. I've wanted to try that for a while. And looking up all the definitions taught me something. For example: I didn't appreciate the difference between an allegory and a metaphor. Now I know. I learned something and you made me do it.

in·er·rant 1) Incapable of erring; infallible. 2) Containing no errors. Someone who views the Bible as inerrant would, for example, say that rabbits chew the cud. in·spire 1) To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence. 2) To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion. 3) To stimulate to action. 4) To affect or touch. 5) To draw forth. 6) To be the cause or source of. 7) To draw in (air) by inhaling. Conservatives would usually say #1 and progressives perhaps 1-6. lit·er·al 1) Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. 2) Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation. 3) Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind. Literal=NO metaphor or allegory. For example: stars will actually fall from the sky during the last days. sym·bol·ic 1) Of, relating to, or expressed by means of symbols or a symbol. Symbolic=metaphor or allegory. For example: Jesus is not actually a lamb. Stars do not actually fall from the sky during the last days. myth 1) A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. 2) A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal. Myth=metaphor or allegory. Deeply true insights into humanity or divinity. met·a·phor 1) A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare). Metaphor=Jesus is a sacrificial lamb that takes away sins. (Jesus isn't literally a lamb. It's a symbol or a metaphor.) al·le·go·ry 1) The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form. 2) A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories. 3) A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice. Allegory=? Here is where most trouble starts, imo. Some take certain stories as being allegorical. Others take the same stories as literal. Was there literally a flood that wiped out the earth? Were there literally 10 plagues? Did the red sea literally part? Was Lazarus literally resurrected? Etc... I think most (but perhaps not all) of the miracles of the bible are actually allegory. It's not that I WANT them to be, I just believe that they are. I, like the author of the book, do think something very special happened in the resurrection of Jesus. Aletheia PS: Something I never noticed before, that was just brought to my attention is that Paul, whose writings came BEFORE the gospels were written, never mentions any miracle of Jesus other than the resurrection.

Ditto. I would have said socialism (and I have). Cool! Communitarianism. LOL. Say that three times fast.

You might check out the book "The God Experiment" that I've mentioned in about 6 posts today. LOL. Synchronicity is so cool.

I've owned the book "The God Experiment" for several years now, and just coincidentally, picked it up. The author is a member of the Templeton Foundation. The book is so far not what I thought it would be about, but it's quite interesting nonetheless.

A book I'm reading has a section regarding divine intervention and God's relationship to the world. It gives a variety of possibilities: 1) First it discusses God as both the Creator and the Sustainer - God's continualling upholding the world in existence; God's involvement in absolutely everything that goes on in the world. It is not that God performs this miracle and that miracle, but is otherwise not involved. Rather, it is the case that nothing at all happens without his direct involvement. 2) One way, it says, that God can influence the world is thru the "butterfly effect" at the quantum level. (I hope this doesn't come across as hokey. It's actually quite interesting.) Quantum uncertainty would allow God to "push" things in a required direction - while still staying within the probability limits allowed by the uncertainty relation. God's imput would remain undetectable. 3) It discusses the "mind over matter" approach, which is how most people think of miracles. There are other views as well. Those are just a few. So, do I think miracles happen? I'd say yes from a "persuasive" view, rather than an intercessory view. Heck, I think "being" is a miracle. It would be much easier if there was nothing at all. As a side note on miracles: Has anyone ever heard the view that the story of Jesus turning water to wine as told in John is actually referring to the Jewish law being fulfilled by Jesus?

I would be surprised if you could get 2 progressive Christians to agree about every single tenet of their faith. It's just the way we are. Some of your views are "progressive", some of your views are probably "moderate". I would think that would make you more at home in a progressive atmosphere as opposed to a more conservative one. No one with a progressive faith would or should ever tell you that you are NOT a Christian because of your views. However, many moderates and conservatives would be likely to tell you that you are NOT a Christian because of your views. I, for one, am glad you're here.

Beach The name of the author is N.T. Wright. I mentioned in the first post that he is a theologian that I'm interested in reading. He did a book with Borg called "The Meaning of Jesus". He has also authored several books on viewing Jesus and Paul in their historical Jewish context as opposed to the view we've been taught since the reformation.

Chao-chou's Dog A monk asked Chao-chou, "Has the dog Buddha nature OR not?" Chao-chou said, "Mu." If Chao answered "Yes" the monk would have to ask "Yes he does? or Yes he does not?" If Chao answered "No" the monk would have to ask "No he does not? or No he does." Neither answer would work. Poor monk! Koans make my head hurt. I'll just play with the puppy instead.

LOL! Thank you! However, I still insist that dogs have Buddha nature.

OK, that went completely over my head. Mu? Is that an oriental cow?

Seems like no matter how you slice and dice it: Puppies have Buddha-nature.

Thanks for both of your recommendations. I was coming at Zen and meditation from a Christian perspective, so I figured I was pretty safe as far as board rules go. I love Thich Nhat Han. I've got a few of his books on CD, so perhaps I'll just listen to them again. LOL! Actually, as I read that, all I could think of was "That puppy is totally living in the NOW, not worried about what he SHOULD be doing, but just living for the moment. How very Buddhist of him." Perhaps if we all chased more leaves and twigs or watched more snails or sunsets the world would be a better place.

Thanks Lolly. All the specific questions I had, you touched on. I studied just enough Zen to think that ALL Buddhism was like that and so got rather confused when I'd read something from the Dalai Lama or Lama Surya Das which would kinda contradict what I thought I knew. I'm definitely more attracted to Zen than Tibetan Buddhism. I brought it up because I'm had some rather amazing things happen the past couple of days that have gotten me in mind to study Buddhism again, but I wasn't sure where to start. We have a temple here in Utah, but I don't know what path it is. Can you recommend any books, CD's, anything to help get a general overview plus maybe some meditative practices?