Empathy

[2PhiloVoid]

I would never read Dune that way, or Beowulf at all. I've read Dune a few times and did so for pleasure. I have no interest in "literary" or "critical? analysis. I worked hard to minimize my contact with literary analysis in college and that was a long time ago.

I can very well understand the desire to merely read a work of literature for pure, personal pleasure. However, occasionally, some authors actually intend to imply various types, motifs or other semiotic ideas within the body of their work, and if we 'miss' those devices and homages, we might be missing some deeper aspect of their intention for having written that work in the 1st place. This essential hermeneutical principle---one which our public high school teachers tried to drill into us---has a role to play when reading various portions of the Biblical literature, and each of the Gospels is a point in case. Each writer had a different audience and overall literary goal to express in attempting to convey their common appraisal that "Jesus is the Messiah."

Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed Dune. But I'm sure Herbert was making a few insinuated homages along the way, for both positive and negative meaning, even if he wasn't really expressing sentiments for Judaism, Christianity or Islam in doing so.

Sounds more like he was challenging Paul's theology as too dismissive of tradition.

Nope. Not at all. Matthew was accentuating the typological role that Jesus had in "fulfilling" the Law and the Prophets. In fact, he mentions multiple occasions of Jesus' "fulfillment" more than any of the other Gospel writers. And, of course, many folks who read Matthew miss this point altogether and then move straight on ahead in pitting Matthew's writing straight up and against Paul, which to my interpretive position as both a hermeneutically and historically minded person, is an gross literary and theological error.

I might consider reading it...

Ok. Here. I'll help you out a little so you know what to look for in comparison..................

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: fulfill

www.biblegateway.com

Is this what happens when you do "literary analysis"? It has the structural strength of a hill of beans.

Very funny, Hans. No, if you study Hermeneutics (or in this case, part of which is Literary Analysis), I think any intelligent person will see that the coherency of the given narrative comes together more firmly. Whether or not the overall narrative becomes believable when taken as a whole is between you and God.

I still haven't figured out if the "abominatino" is a person or an event or what.

It's an "event," but a fairly long term event. Here, I know you hate videos, but here's one that represents the short form of the historical sources that I draw upon and by which I begin to evaluate and value the 'meaning' of the Abomination of Desolation, particularly where it invokes The Synoptic Gospels, The Arch of Titus and the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd Temple, all interlaced as historical and theological evidences which can then be eased into a theological connection with Paul's writing (and the book of Hebrews, which may have been written by Paul):

(What? Did he just say "empathize" in that video? ................Goodness gracious!)

Reminder: I don't offer sources as 'end point' arguments. They're simply meant to be a beginning point for further study. I have to make this clear since I keep running into folks who tell me point blank, "That's not convincing!!!" To which I say in academic form, it's not supposed to be, any more than jumping on a springboard all by itself is the actual act of diving into a pool.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus' teachings, and what he embodies in the Gospel narratives, about what fulfilling Torah means, are actually closer in some ways to some Hasidic Jewish ideas- devekut as orientation towards God over strict externalities, Torah as encounter with Hokmah, divine Wisdom, analogous to Logos. Not as instrumental rationality, but living, relational pattern. They don't fit neatly with exoteric religion focused on social order and clear boundaries, which is why certain forms of Catholicism might struggle to understand what "fulfilling the Law" means. It's not a strictly forensic accounting of rule-keeping.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's an "event," but a fairly long term event.

Oh Kay, then. I guess Matt needs better translators or something.

Here, I know you hate videos,

I don't hate videos. I was literally had to pause on I was listening to in the background to start this one.

but here's one that represents the short form of the historical sources that I draw upon

Perhaps it does get there, but the insufferable preacher-bro thing was too much to take.

and by which I begin to evaluate and value the 'meaning' of the Abomination of Desolation, particularly where it invokes The Synoptic Gospels, The Arch of Titus and the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd Temple, all interlaced as historical and theological evidences which can then be eased into a theological connection with Paul's writing (and the book of Hebrews, which may have been written by Paul):

I don't care what is in "Hebrews". We are discussing "Matthew". I also don't care what is in the other gospels other than how Matthew differs from Mark.

This video is unavailable. (What? Did he just say "empathize" in that video? ................Goodness gracious!)

It played just fine. It was clearly designed to be shared with your "bros" from bible study. That was never me. If it is some sort of history at the end, a framing like an actual documentary airing on PBS or basic cable (History, Disco, etc.). The Jesus signs the the garage is *way* too much. A preacher or religious teacher should stay in whatever place they are stored until it is time for church or RE.

I've got other things to do, so I will likely come back to the rest of this tonight.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh Kay, then. I guess Matt needs better translators or something.

Yes, something.

I don't hate videos. I was literally had to pause on I was listening to in the background to start this one.

My apologies for the inconvenience.

Perhaps it does get there, but the insufferable preacher-bro thing was too much to take.

Sure, the presentation of "preacher-bro's" content is a little cheesy, but that doesn't undercut whatever coherent veracity there may be present (or 'is present' in my view) in that historical and theological content.

I don't care what is in "Hebrews". We are discussing "Matthew". I also don't care what is in the other gospels other than how Matthew differs from Mark.

Well, you should care if you're going to handle interpreting and valuing the potential evidence for Christianity that is available, because where doing the work of the historian is concerned, some things, whether they're narratives, artifacts or testimonies, do tie together and that's one of the things we're looking for in our Abductive approach to the Bible. While I can engage critical study of the Bible fairly well myself, I'm not going to simply hand over the reigns to folks like Bart Ehrman simply because he has a voluminous reputation as a skeptical scholar of the Bible.

As for Matthew specifically, as can be seen from the list I linked in my previous post, Matthew apparently may not have been happy with how little Mark demonstrated any "fulfillment" that Jesus' ministry represents, all of which in turn affects the extent to which we understand the meaning of "every jot and tittle of the Law" and the end thereof that Matthew cites in his own Gospel. But despite what a large number of people attempt to proffer otherwise, there's little reason to think that Matthew on the whole was flat out contradicting Paul, or anyone else in the New Testament.

And of course, all of these considerations become complicated and even convoluted at times, but that's just the price of trying to approach the past through our modern disciplines of Historiography and Hermeneutics.

It played just fine. It was clearly designed to be shared with your "bros" from bible study. That was never me. If it is some sort of history at the end, a framing like an actual documentary airing on PBS or basic cable (History, Disco, etc.). The Jesus signs the the garage is *way* too much. A preacher or religious teacher should stay in whatever place they are stored until it is time for church or RE.

It doesn't matter if it was 'designed for the 'bros'. .... if he's right on some things, then he's right. And I think he is, even if obviously much more could be said.

I've got other things to do, so I will likely come back to the rest of this tonight.

That's fair. At your leisure, and only if you want to. I'm just trying to be academically helpful.

At the end of the day, it's still all about Empathy and Truth-----Jesus' Empathy and Truth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, something.

My apologies for the inconvenience.

It was no problem. I was only saying that I do listen/watch many videos including ones posted here. It is not the inclusion of video content that I have objected to. The only real problems with videos are that i can't watch them while watching TV [which I am doing right now] and they are hard to skim through to find the interesting parts.

Sure, the presentation of "preacher-bro's" content is a little cheesy, but that doesn't undercut whatever coherent veracity there may be present (or 'is present' in my view) in that historical and theological content.

I guess I should say that it was the the "preacher" more so than the "bro" part that I objected to. I have zero interest in being preached to. That's why I contrasted it with things you might see on basic cable.

Well, you should care if you're going to handle interpreting and valuing the potential evidence for Christianity that is available, because where doing the work of the historian is concerned, some things, whether they're narratives, artifacts or testimonies, do tie together and that's one of the things we're looking for in our Abductive approach to the Bible.

I'm not looking for evidence for Christianity. Never have been. The question was about one particular claim about Matthew.

While I can engage critical study of the Bible fairly well myself, I'm not going to simply hand over the reigns to folks like Bart Ehrman simply because he has a voluminous reputation as a skeptical scholar of the Bible.

I rarely use his content.

As for Matthew specifically, as can be seen from the list I linked in my previous post, Matthew apparently may not have been happy with how little Mark demonstrated any "fulfillment" that Jesus' ministry represents, all of which in turn affects the extent to which we understand the meaning of "every jot and tittle of the Law" and the end thereof that Matthew cites in his own Gospel. But despite what a large number of people attempt to proffer otherwise, there's little reason to think that Matthew on the whole was flat out contradicting Paul, or anyone else in the New Testament.

And of course, all of these considerations become complicated and even convoluted at times, but that's just the price of trying to approach the past through our modern disciplines of Historiography and Hermeneutics.

This was the item and I'll get to it responding to the other post.

It doesn't matter if it was 'designed for the 'bros'. .... if he's right on some things, then he's right. And I think he is, even if obviously much more could be said.

As I said, I have zero use for preachers and preaching.

That's fair. At your leisure, and only if you want to. I'm just trying to be academically helpful.

At the end of the day, it's still all about Empathy and Truth-----Jesus' Empathy and Truth.

I'll have to read it again to see if the empathy is there. It's been a long time.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure what the point is being made here... some kind of "gotcha" moment? Christian religion is not necessarily dependent on any modernist notion of biblical inerrancy or exacting historical accuracy in every detail. The Gospels are portraits of an individual through communal memory, they contain compressions of narrative and dialogue, and don't need to be exactly uninform in every biographical detail.

A good example of compression in our own time: Most people remember Darth Vader saying "Luke, I am your father" in the film The Empire Strikes Back, but in fact the character never says this exactly in this manner. He says to Luke, "No, I am your father". But the two phrases are roughly analogous, one just compresses the entire scene into a simple mnemonic.

Seen in that light, Matthew isn't contradicting Paul. Matthew is working in the realm of historical memory, whereas Paul is dealing with mystical theology and ethics. The Matthaean community rembers Jesus as one who honored and fulfilled Torah, there is no inherent contradiction with Paul's theology.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can very well understand the desire to merely read a work of literature for pure, personal pleasure. However, occasionally, some authors actually intend to imply various types, motifs or other semiotic ideas within the body of their work, and if we 'miss' those devices and homages, we might be missing some deeper aspect of their intention for having written that work in the 1st place.

Some times I get 'em. Some times I don't.

This essential hermeneutical principle---one which our public high school teachers tried to drill into us-

My HS teachers did what?

--has a role to play when reading various portions of the Biblical literature, and each of the Gospels is a point in case. Each writer had a different audience and overall literary goal to express in attempting to convey their common appraisal that "Jesus is the Messiah."

Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed Dune. But I'm sure Herbert was making a few insinuated homages along the way, for both positive and negative meaning, even if he wasn't really expressing sentiments for Judaism, Christianity or Islam in doing so.

As it says in the OCB: "Thou shalt not make a machine in the image of man."

Nope. Not at all. Matthew was accentuating the typological role that Jesus had in "fulfilling" the Law and the Prophets. In fact, he mentions multiple occasions of Jesus' "fulfillment" more than any of the other Gospel writers. And, of course, many folks who read Matthew miss this point altogether and then move straight on ahead in pitting Matthew's writing straight up and against Paul, which to my interpretive position as both a hermeneutically and historically minded person, is an gross literary and theological error.

In my experience all theology is error, but I don't think that was your point. Oh, yes, you want to talk about how hard "Matthew" works to jam Jesus in to a particular slot. Since you haven't gone to the extreme of "Strong's Concordance" but have some examples, let's see how those go...

Ok. Here. I'll help you out a little so you know what to look for in comparison..................

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: fulfill

www.biblegateway.com

Ooh boy. That was quite a list. We start with a prophecy that was "fulfilled" in the days of the prophet and turns a prenant woman into one that will get pregnant. (The linked NIV back ports the "error" into the OT hoping we don't know better. SMH.) We can't blame that one on errors he makes because uses the Greek text, nor the later ones where he manufactures prophecies that weren't in the original text. (Then there is the double-donkey ride caused by not understanding poetic forms.) This is the author I should take seriously?

Very funny, Hans. No, if you study Hermeneutics (or in this case, part of which is Literary Analysis),

Part of me wants to open ramen place called "Herman's Noodles" to see if anyone gets the joke.

I think any intelligent person will see that the coherency of the given narrative comes together more firmly. Whether or not the overall narrative becomes believable when taken as a whole is between you and God.

It was better knowledge about the writing o the bible that destroyed my faith. I don't think better understanding of text is going to pull me back. (The last couple years illustrate that clearly to me.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Some times I get 'em. Some times I don't.

That's to be expected. We all have to work to comprehend what is written or said, from anyone, anywhere, including from the Bible.

My HS teachers did what?

What? Yours didn't? .... of course, then again, I took 'College Prep English,' so I might have gotten teaching that wasn't exactly standard fare back in the day. I don't know.

As it says in the OCB: "Thou shalt not make a machine in the image of man."

Y'know, I'm going to have to sit down one of these days and actually read at least the first Dune novel. I've only seen the movies and they didn't include the little nuanced details like the OCB (which I had to look up just now---that's what a Hermeneutics minded person would do, and it's interesting you brought it up-----so, literary kudos to you! I learned something.)

Religion in Dune: What is the Orange Catholic Bible?

A Deep Dive into Religion in Dune's Worldbuilding, and What Herbert Might Have Actually Thought on the Subject

rayimgrund.substack.com

In my experience all theology is error, but I don't think that was your point. Oh, yes, you want to talk about how hard "Matthew" works to jam Jesus in to a particular slot. Since you haven't gone to the extreme of "Strong's Concordance" but have some examples, let's see how those go...

Biblegateway is essentially the Strong's Concordance of the internet. But that's a side note.

Ooh boy. That was quite a list. We start with a prophecy that was "fulfilled" in the days of the prophet and turns a prenant woman into one that will get pregnant. (The linked NIV back ports the "error" into the OT hoping we don't know better. SMH.) We can't blame that one on errors he makes because uses the Greek text, nor the later ones where he manufactures prophecies that weren't in the original text. (Then there is the double-donkey ride caused by not understanding poetic forms.) This is the author I should take seriously?

You're missing the literary point, Hans. I suggested that you appraise the book of Matthew as you would a work of fiction, so whether Matthew interpreted the Old Testament ".................correctly.................." or not doesn't have a bearing on his intention as an author to utilize a particular narrative mode, a mode that Mark, his predecessor didn't use.

Part of me wants to open ramen place called "Herman's Noodles" to see if anyone gets the joke.

It's not funny. That sort of joke suggests that your merely and all too casually dismiss other academic disciplines other that the one you work in or are interested in. I try to dismiss none of them and, hermeneutically and historiographically speaking, assume an interdisciplinary approach to reading and evaluating the contents of the Bible.

So, while i can understand your joke, it comes off in the same way that a luddite would come off in hand-waving away all that you're currently devoted to in your working life. (i.e. SCIENCE)

It was better knowledge about the writing o the bible that destroyed my faith. I don't think better understanding of text is going to pull me back. (The last couple years illustrate that clearly to me.)

I get that. And it is what it is. I believe you when you say that your ability to believe was affected by your learning. Just keep in mind that it was "better knowledge about the bible" AND my ability to apply critical thinking to both Fundamentalism, on the one hand, and to the work of Critical Deconstructive Skeptics, on the other, that has facilitated my faith. I don't think I'm better or smarter than you in all of this, but I have gone down a different academic road than you and that, I think, has contributed to my outcome.

Anyway, I think the "Jot and Tittle" bit in Matthew ties into and coalesces with everything else I've brought up here (and I guess in another thread), even ending still with Jesus' Empathy as expressed in the book of Hebrews: The Arch of Titus, The Destruction of the 2nd Temple, the Olivet Discourse, the book of Matthew, and Paul's writing.

At this point, I guess I'm done since you seem like you're wanting to move on. I know those science threads are calling you.................

 

[zippy2006]

You're interpreting parables meant to gesture towards something abstract, representational, or formative and treating them as literal blueprints.

No, I am just reading the text and providing the obvious interpretation. Your "open-borders" read is the abstraction here. Christianity is not ultimately about open borders or open boundaries. It is not concerned with such strange abstract concepts.

 

[zippy2006]

Seen in that light, Matthew isn't contradicting Paul.

If Protestantism didn't exist people wouldn't focus so much on this tension. But it does, and the U.S. is by and large a Protestant country.

Indeed, the objection was already present in Paul's own time, as is seen in places like Romans 6:1, 15.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's to be expected. We all have to work to comprehend what is written or said, from anyone, anywhere, including from the Bible.

What? Yours didn't? .... of course, then again, I took 'College Prep English,' so I might have gotten teaching that wasn't exactly standard fare back in the day. I don't know.

I had "English 3" and "English 4", just like everyone else who graduated with me.

Y'know, I'm going to have to sit down one of these days and actually read at least the first Dune novel. I've only seen the movies and they didn't include the little nuanced details like the OCB (which I had to look up just now---that's what a Hermeneutics minded person would do, and it's interesting you brought it up-----so, literary kudos to you! I learned something.)

Religion in Dune: What is the Orange Catholic Bible?

A Deep Dive into Religion in Dune's Worldbuilding, and What Herbert Might Have Actually Thought on the Subject

rayimgrund.substack.com

I should do like Jr High and get some orange construction paper and make a book cover for my bible so I'd have my own "OCB".

Biblegateway is essentially the Strong's Concordance of the internet. But that's a side note.

You can see some interesting things about how different translations made their choices, but that's not our discussion (I think).

You're missing the literary point, Hans. I suggested that you appraise the book of Matthew as you would a work of fiction,

I already do appraise as such.

so whether Matthew interpreted the Old Testament ".................correctly.................." or not doesn't have a bearing on his intention as an author to utilize a particular narrative mode, a mode that Mark, his predecessor didn't use.

"Matthew" seems bent on trying to jam Jesus in messiah prophecy and is willing to go to great lengths to do so.

It's not funny.

Sure it is. Here are a few more from other disciplines:

Slice of Pi (math, pizzaria)
H-bar (physics, tavern/coffeeshop/juice joint)
Survival of the Fittest (gym)

We could go on, but I'd like to get to the rest of the post.

That sort of joke suggests that your merely and all too casually dismiss other academic disciplines other that the one you work in or are interested in. I try to dismiss none of them and, hermeneutically and historiographically speaking, assume an interdisciplinary approach to reading and evaluating the contents of the Bible.

So, while i can understand your joke, it comes off in the same way that a luddite would come off in hand-waving away all that you're currently devoted to in your working life. (i.e. SCIENCE)

Having seen the "hermeneutics" of biblical and literary interpretation in religion and lit class, it is a topic I have a hard time taking seriously. I see a lot of extraction from texts of what the reader *wants* to see with out regard to the author putting it in. It's fine to say "art means what it means to you" and I'd agree, but it is hard to take that as a serious academic position.

I get that. And it is what it is. I believe you when you say that your ability to believe was affected by your learning.

I do appreciate your acceptance of my personal story. There are other parties here who insist on arguing with me about me.

Just keep in mind that it was "better knowledge about the bible" AND my ability to apply critical thinking to both Fundamentalism, on the one hand, and to the work of Critical Deconstructive Skeptics, on the other, that has facilitated my faith. I don't think I'm better or smarter than you in all of this, but I have gone down a different academic road than you and that, I think, has contributed to my outcome.

I'm glad your academic path helped you find your faith place. Mine academic path had nothing to do with mine. Different paths it seems.

I'd never heard of these "Critical Deconstructive Skeptics" until recently. I have no idea why they call "deconversion" "deconstruction". Fundamentalists (like their cousins, the YECs) were some sort of rare oddity I'd never encountered when my faith formed and strengthened, so I didn't have any need to respond to them.

The key to my faith was "trust". I trusted the people who told me about God and then took me to the community of believers. Over the years on that scaffolding was laid church doctrine, readings from the bible, connections all the way back to the disciples, and the general sense that so many people wouldn't believe a false thing. The other side of that was though I believed it, it held no interest from me. I did what I needed, but the other 167 hours of the week I gave virtually no thought to it. I had no curiosity about it as there were a nearly endless list of more interesting things out there to learn about. I was by my nature a naturalist and practical. I didn't consider divine intervention in our lives or anything supernatural. I put the psychics and ghosts in the same bin with the faith healing frauds like Peter Popov and the Marian apparitions. God's interventions and miracles were in the Bible. God may have created the Universe and life and souls, but the rest in between formed as I'd learned from cosmology, star and planet formation, geology, and evolution.

That worked fine for me for a while, then I moved to the Bible Belt and things weren't quite so easily maintained. The Belt (Bible, not asteroid) is filled with evangelicals and fundamentalists who don't have the common decency to keep their religion to themselves as it was back home. It was then I learned the country (some parts more than others) was filled with YECs and biblical literalists. I had Cousin Martin's notions of "solo fides" and "solo scriptura" shoved in my face. Sure I worked out that they were wrong headed, but it forced me to think about "doctrine" for the first time. Then there was a documentary series airing Saturday afternoons on cable when I got home and not much else was on...

Mysteries of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There were discussions of history, archeology, texts written and interpreted, and somehow it caught my attention. I heard all sort of things I'd never heard before. The more I heard, the more the foundations of my religion seemed just another product of human hands. (That and the piercing of the veil around the miracles of Jesus in a particular sermon.) It slowly crumbled away with out me realizing it. Unfortunately, some here would denigrate my prior faith because it wasn't like theirs and that it could be eroded away as such. I'm glad you're not one of them.

Anyway, I think the "Jot and Tittle" bit in Matthew ties into and coalesces with everything else I've brought up here (and I guess in another thread), even ending still with Jesus' Empathy as expressed in the book of Hebrews: The Arch of Titus, The Destruction of the 2nd Temple, the Olivet Discourse, the book of Matthew, and Paul's writing.

Ah, yes. The reason we had this conversation...

I don't know the contents of Hebrews. Despite the other items, the heaven and Earth haven't passed away yet, and according to Matthew's Jesus, the law.

At this point, I guess I'm done since you seem like you're wanting to move on. I know those science threads are calling you.................

I thought you deserved a response, and in the interim I'd been dealing with "conversations" branching off our two threads filled with assumptions about my former belief. Cheers.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I am delighted that a thread on “Empathy “ brought us to hermeneutics, the most critical issue of our time, in my opinion. Can one read the Gospels and not see empathy personified in Jesus? Of course, that does not mean he is simply a literary theme or devise. He can also be the real deal in the flesh.

Fulfillment, the “fullness of life” requires relationships, requires vulnerability, solidarity and for any of that one needs empathy.

Empathy informs our interpretations of all things, what we read, what we witness, what we hear and experience.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I had "English 3" and "English 4", just like everyone else who graduated with me.

I'm sure there must have been some units on Literary Criticism (which is a part of Hermeneutics) tucked in there somewhere.

I should do like Jr High and get some orange construction paper and make a book cover for my bible so I'd have my own "OCB".

Lol!

I already do appraise as such.

.... to be more specific, I mean apply academic Literary awareness to the book of Matthew like you would to a work of fiction (or to a work of non-fiction, if you're into that sort of thing. I know I am. )

"Matthew" seems bent on trying to jam Jesus in messiah prophecy and is willing to go to great lengths to do so.

Yes, and that fact should temper how we interpret the presence of the "jot and tittle" bit in Matthew 5; Matthew 5 is just one part of the whole and shouldn't be isolated from the whole.

Sure it is. Here are a few more from other disciplines:

Slice of Pi (math, pizzaria)
H-bar (physics, tavern/coffeeshop/juice joint)
Survival of the Fittest (gym)

We could go on, but I'd like to get to the rest of the post.

.................. lol!

Having seen the "hermeneutics" of biblical and literary interpretation in religion and lit class, it is a topic I have a hard time taking seriously. I see a lot of extraction from texts of what the reader *wants* to see with out regard to the author putting it in. It's fine to say "art means what it means to you" and I'd agree, but it is hard to take that as a serious academic position.

I actually agree with you here, and when I cite "hermenuetics," just know that I'm NEVER, EVER referring to what is called 'reader response hermeneutics.' I'm on only interested in hermeneutics that fits with both the "historical-critical method" and/or the "historical-grammatical method," both of which concentrate on, if possible, cullling the original meaning and intent for writing that an author likely had. I can't stomach anything else...................................

I do appreciate your acceptance of my personal story. There are other parties here who insist on arguing with me about me.

No problem. I believe you when you share your feelings and past experience about it all. I have not reason to dig into you over it our doubt you. Existence before Essence, I always say.

I'm glad your academic path helped you find your faith place. Mine academic path had nothing to do with mine. Different paths it seems.

Yep. Seems so.

I'd never heard of these "Critical Deconstructive Skeptics" until recently. I have no idea why they call "deconversion" "deconstruction". Fundamentalists (like their cousins, the YECs) were some sort of rare oddity I'd never encountered when my faith formed and strengthened, so I didn't have any need to respond to them.

The pop-deconstructionists are usually folks who come out of having been coddled within more fundamentalistic churches they were essentially born into, and one day they wake up to the fact that the Bible can be (and is) roundly open to alternative, critical evaluation that their pastors and probably parents never even let on existed. So.........................they "deconstruct" their faith, which typically means they begin listening to and exploring the works of various Bible Critics like Bart Ehrman or Richard Dawkins or Derek at Mythvision, ............etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Fortunately, I was raised in a more, shall I say, liberal family and my parents, bless their hearts, didn't engage church or the bible much at all. So, I didn't have the pre-conditioning to vast disappointment that so many are encountering today.

The key to my faith was "trust". I trusted the people who told me about God and then took me to the community of believers. Over the years on that scaffolding was laid church doctrine, readings from the bible, connections all the way back to the disciples, and the general sense that so many people wouldn't believe a false thing. The other side of that was though I believed it, it held no interest from me. I did what I needed, but the other 167 hours of the week I gave virtually no thought to it. I had no curiosity about it as there were a nearly endless list of more interesting things out there to learn about. I was by my nature a naturalist and practical. I didn't consider divine intervention in our lives or anything supernatural. I put the psychics and ghosts in the same bin with the faith healing frauds like Peter Popov and the Marian apparitions. God's interventions and miracles were in the Bible. God may have created the Universe and life and souls, but the rest in between formed as I'd learned from cosmology, star and planet formation, geology, and evolution.

That's an interesting self-account. Honest and detailed. I empathize with that, particularly the part we have in common regarding how Carl Sagan was formative for each of us, even if in perhaps different ways.

That worked fine for me for a while, then I moved to the Bible Belt and things weren't quite so easily maintained. The Belt (Bible, not asteroid) is filled with evangelicals and fundamentalists who don't have the common decency to keep their religion to themselves as it was back home. It was then I learned the country (some parts more than others) was filled with YECs and biblical literalists. I had Cousin Martin's notions of "solo fides" and "solo scriptura" shoved in my face. Sure I worked out that they were wrong headed, but it forced me to think about "doctrine" for the first time. Then there was a documentary series airing Saturday afternoons on cable when I got home and not much else was on...

Ditto, but I'm not going to elaborate.

Mysteries of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There were discussions of history, archeology, texts written and interpreted, and somehow it caught my attention. I heard all sort of things I'd never heard before. The more I heard, the more the foundations of my religion seemed just another product of human hands. (That and the piercing of the veil around the miracles of Jesus in a particular sermon.) It slowly crumbled away with out me realizing it. Unfortunately, some here would denigrate my prior faith because it wasn't like theirs and that it could be eroded away as such. I'm glad you're not one of them.

I'm quite familar with the Mysteries of the Bible series, both old and new-ish. As an academic dilettante who studies a fair amount of ANE material in relation to the Bible, I'd just say to not put too much stock into the work of the historical Minimalists, despite the interesting things that Archaelogist find and Historians then appraise.

Ah, yes. The reason we had this conversation...

I don't know the contents of Hebrews. Despite the other items, the heaven and Earth haven't passed away yet, and according to Matthew's Jesus, the law.

....there's actually a view on this from a theologian I've read who thought that, in a sense, where Jewish History pertaining to the 2nd Temple is concerned, "heaven and earth" could be seen to mean as 'passing away' upon the Destruction of the said 2nd Temple. But it's an open question.................

I thought you deserved a response, and in the interim I'd been dealing with "conversations" branching off our two threads filled with assumptions about my former belief. Cheers.

I appreciate the response, actually. You shared a lot of interesting details. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to find the bookmark in the copy of DUNE that I borrowed to read from my son.