What Exactly Is The Bible To You As A Pc

[rivanna]

Yes it is sad about the anti-gay prejudice, especially if the place was liberal in other ways.

I’m reminded of a line from a DVD I saw recently—

 

“Some things in life, like the color of a house, don’t really matter. But lifting someone’s heart? Now that matters.” --August Boatwright to Lily Owens, in The Secret Life of Bees

[minsocal]

I like what you've said here, Myron. I would want to rephrase it slightly and say, "If respect (or integrity) follows LOVE/HEALING, that is fine. But it does not always work out that way and one needs to stick with the first principle of LOVE/HEALING no matter what."

 

I would have to disagree with you -- strictly from a factual point of view -- about your statement that "the Bible warns us to keep the order of events in the form you suggest." There are certainly some places in the Old Testament and the New Testament where we're advised to put LOVE/HEALING first. But there are also many places in the Bible that say the opposite, that say that LOVE/HEALING will be given to us by God only after the proper STATUS/HONOUR observances are first fully obeyed.

 

This very principle goes to the heart of Jesus' teachings. Although no official Jewish canon existed in the early first century, Jesus "cherry-picked" the parts of Jewish scripture that taught us that LOVE/HEALING must come first, and that respect (integrity) will follow, even though STATUS/HONOUR (as they were understood in an honour/shame culture) have to be completely forsaken.

 

I like your point about Mother Theresa's determination to try to follow the path of LOVE/HEALING first. We need modern examples of this, since no one can agree on what examples from the Bible are helpful for today's exigencies.

 

Jen

 

Jen,

 

I believe there is always a good reason why the Bible presents us with conflicting views. Drawing from the body of historical evidence accumulated by Jung in "Psychological Types", it has long been noted that there are two basic personality types that function according to different sets of moral intuitions and survival strategies. Johnathan Haidt and his reserch team have shown the following:

 

"Fig. 1. Liberal versus conservative moral foundations. Responses to 15 questions about which considerations are relevant to deciding "whether something is right or wrong." Those who described themselves as "very liberal" gave the highest relevance ratings to questions related to the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity foundations and gave the lowest ratings to questions about the Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity foundations. The more conservative the participant, the more the first two foundations decrease in relevance and the last three increase [n = 2811; data aggregated from two web surveys, partially reported in (41)]. All respondents were citizens of the United States. Data for 476 citizens of the United Kingdom show a similar pattern."

 

The survey can be taken at http://www.yourmorals.org/

 

As I have noted elesewhere, perhaps not very clearly, I view the Bible as a fairly accurate history of the emergence of these two types and the conflicts that continue to result today. Haidt and others are trying to find ways to overcome the conflicts which, to me at least, sounds very Christian. (Haidt, by the way, uses the Bible to illustrate his research.) As far as I know, Jung and William James were the first to pose the question as to whether BOTH types must to be viewed as equal and necessary. Jung went so far as to say that the moral answer must to be "yes", noting in 1913 that "doing justice" to the type antithesis would belong to the future. This issue was the main reason for his break with Freud.

 

The poet Robert Bly has writes about how we have lost our passion for justice and I tend to agree. Over the years, I have managed to maintain friendships with people of both types. This was a value I was taught in Sunday School in the 1950's. Consequently, this is the lens through which I see the world. If it is a bit distorted, then I'd say I'm comfortable with the distortion.

 

Myron

[minsocal]

Jen,

 

I extracted this from the research of Paul Valent, a Holocaust survivor. I am still working out my reaction to it, but thought I'd share it here since I have a positive "gut feel" concerning what he has to say:

 

"Reason and Soul; Existential Meaning and Purpose

 

The pinnacles of human potential have been seen by philosophers as reason (or mind), and soul.

 

Reason includes truth, knowledge and wisdom, which may be seen as highest level left brain scanning of the universe. In terms of consciousness, reason shows a high degree of awareness of self and others. I would add that it also shows awareness of unawareness, that is of unconscious roots of thought and behaviour.

 

In traumatology, we know the truth of trauma, and we know things about trauma. For instance, we know that unawareness is a way to mitigate trauma, but it carries costs in the personality. Awareness of trauma and suffering may be painful, but it preserves the personality and may expand wisdom.

 

In terms of the current discussion, reason includes awareness of “the tree of life”, including the fulfilling and traumatic manifestations of survival strategies through its branches and fruits.

 

The soul we may speculate, is a more emotional right brain term that encompasses fulfilment of desires from the physiological to sacred universal levels. It includes everything from satiety to what is called mystical consciousness, and every level of love, from harmonious physiological reverberations of baby with mother, to a mature person’s reverberations with the universe.

 

Trauma disrupts all levels, including reason and soul. Evil may be the perverse pleasure of someone doing so on purpose. A patient said, “My father disrupted my continuity with nature. He destroyed my soul.”

 

Trauma therapy restores reason and soul by revisiting traumatic situations, and their tree-like projections to all function levels. They are all gathered and translated into a new whole brain story. It includes new and enlarged truth, knowledge,

awareness, and wisdom, and a regenerated soul. The person regains their path in life.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Attempts to savour of the tree of knowledge of good and evil cannot result in us being thrown out of paradise. That has already happened. But we can continue Eve’s curiosity, when she started to doubt the power of God.

 

As traumatologists, we are in a unique position to continue the enquiry. We have privileged views of good and evil, we see the building, shattering and regeneration of moral views, and people’s minds and souls.

 

Sometimes we are compared to latter day priests. That is unfair, because priests provide illusions against trauma. We face the music, and by helping to reveal the truth, we heal the mind and soul. We provide mind and soul therapy. The benefits

are in this world. To the extent that they are in the next world, they are in future generations.

 

We should not shy away from the wholist perspective, which I tried to provide today. I hand you back to our forward looking organisers who chose the theme of “Body, Mind and Soul” for this conference."

 

Myron

[Realspiritik]

Hi Myron,

 

Thanks for the interesting material you posted above. I find a lot of truth in the statement from Paul Valent that says, "Sometimes we are compared to latter day priests. That is unfair, because priests provide illusions against trauma. We face the music, and by helping to reveal the truth, we heal the mind and soul. We provide mind and soul therapy. The benefits are in this world."

 

I think, though, that you and I are mostly talking "apples and oranges," Myron. I see what you're saying about the two basic personality types described by Jung (and others) and see what you're saying about the Bible being "a fairly accurate history of the emergence of these two types and the conflicts that continue to result today" (an interesting point). Your basic position is that you agree with Jung that these two types exist, and that both types "must be viewed as equal and necessary," and that's one of your starting points as you wrestle with the big questions. This is okay, because it works for you, and you understand it.

 

My basic position is that I don't agree with Jung. It's been almost a hundred years since Jung and William James made their assessments, and Jung and James have not always been proven correct by later research. Other researchers have found ways of describing different "dimensions" of human experience and personality that are less "linear," if I can put it that way.

 

Also, I don't understand the relevance of Robert Bly in your post: "The poet Robert Bly has writes about how we have lost our passion for justice and I tend to agree."

 

Are you saying you think that only the people in the "conservative" category (as defined in your post above) have what it takes to show a passion for justice? If that's what you're saying, I'm afraid I can't agree with you, unless you have a very different understanding of the phrase "passion for justice" than I have.

 

Jen

[rivanna]

OA,

 

You mentioned earlier that it would be easier to discuss particular parts of the bible rather than the entire work - I agree. Would you care to start a thread on progressive interpretations, any book or passage you like? You must have a lot to offer from your seminary experience – especially if it was liberal and open minded. I’d be interested to hear what scholars / theologians you studied.

Or perhaps Adi Gibb – a bible passage or book you’d like to focus on?

Just a thought.