Posted by Helen on: 07.18.2006 /
Marty recently e-mailed me about a speech he gave called “God Is A Projection”. Quoting (with permission) from his e-mail:
Projection is not a word that I have ever been comfortable with, but that is the word that came to me in the Ah Ha moment and I had to deal with it. I learned that this was a term that apparently Carl Jung coined to describe “an unconscious quality, characteristic of one’s own which is perceived and reacted to in an outer person or thing.”
That revelation was that God Is A Projection
Marty goes on to suggest that
This ties in with something I’ve noticed. Many times I’ve found myself disagreeing with a course of action a Christian takes. I eventually realized that the disagreement usually originated with us having different pictures of God. We both pictured God as the ultimate attainment of all we saw as good — yet our specific beliefs about good weren’t the same.
We had different pictures of God and so we had different ideas about what words and/or behavior would please God. We were both trying to please him but that looked different and perhaps even brought us into conflict because of our different starting points.
Questions for people who believe in God:
If your answer is “Stick with what the Bible says”, then:
For people who don’t have a belief in any god:
Comment by: Bob
1 07/18/06 7:05 AM | Comment Link |Hmm… Very intriguing question, Helen. It’s got me thinking.
Carefully reading Jung’s definition it seems you have the direction of the projection backwards. His definition is:
I read this to say that projection is a characteristic of mine that others perceive. In this way, God is a projection: He impresses His characteristics on people, creation, events, etc. Your questions seem to indicate that our perception of another is what defines a characteristic of them; that we project our image onto them rather than the others’ image being projected and perceived by us.
I think this is a significant reversal and is better known as “creating a god in our image”.
This reversal is at the root of the difference between religion (a choice of worldview or concepts about life by which we make decisions) and faith in a God who exists as a unique, distinct, and existant entity.
Or am I all wet here?
Comment by: Helen M.
2 07/18/06 7:18 AM | Comment Link |Hi Bob,
Thanks for your response. Actually Marty wrote the part about projection. But anyway, I have understood it to mean the same as Marty does i.e. that we unwittingly react particularly to something about someone else which in fact is a characteristic of our own.
I agree that ‘creating a god in our image’ is exactly what people are doing when they project their own ideals onto a supreme being and say that’s what God is like.
Comment by: Julie Marie
3 07/18/06 7:22 AM | Comment Link |the way projection has been described to me is an unconcious foisting of your own motives or qualities onto someone else.
The classic example, in my mind, is the drunk who starts acting like an ass and then says “you picked a fight.”
or, that hate-filled example of a human who says “God hates fags”
I find it an interesting quesiton too, Helen…I think I’ll start evaluating people I meet who are believers in light of their conception of God…see if it holds true. Do more gracious people have a grace filled God? Do judgemental people have a more judgemental God?
I can say for myself that as I have grown as a woman, my concept of God has changed from powerful father figure in the sky to more of an ideal of how life can be if we internalize the thought that the kingdom of God is here. If that is so, then we have it in our power to dry every tear HERE and NOW. Gods not going to come and do it for us; we have to learn to care for each other and through us and our actions, the ideal will be realized.
Comment by: Bob
4 07/18/06 7:47 AM | Comment Link |Julie Marie,
I agree. If you would have asked me to define projection, I would have said it is me projecting my perception on another. But it looks like the originator of the term defined it differently.
Interesting how the meanings of words evolve over time. But more interesting than their evolution is the impact those changes have on the underlying truths. The damage caused over the years by albeit well-intentioned people usurping God’s identity for themselves speaks for itself. Until we restore the intended meanings, we will live with a perversion.
Comment by: Marty
5 07/18/06 7:48 AM | Comment Link |Here is a bit more from what was in my speech:
“That revelation was that God Is A Projection
What specifically this means I am now wrestling with. The thoughts that are rattling in my mind are:
? God is a projection of who we are. If we are loving, compassionate and forgiving, God will manifest him/herself in our lives as loving compassionate and forgiving. If we are judgmental, rewarding good and punishing evil we will find that God is judgmental, rewarding good and punishing evil.
? God is a projection of what we believe her/him to be. If we believe God is loving, compassionate and forgiving, God will manifest him/herself in our lives as loving compassionate and forgiving. If we believe God is judgmental, rewarding good and punishing evil we will find that God is judgmental, rewarding good and punishing evil
If we see ourselves and God and others as one, we will see God and all humanity as one. If we look to God and wisdom from within, we will find God and wisdom within. “
Comment by: Julie Marie
6 07/18/06 8:42 AM | Comment Link |So Marty, thinking of your AhA moment in light of what I’ve been taught, would you say the thought of God is a projection correlates with the teaching that God will meet you where you are?
Thinking back to my obsession with understanding the Abraham/Issac story - Abraham projected his own ideals of what a God would want onto God?
But then God stepped in and said NO. Use the ram.
How in the world do we re-connect with God so he can step in and say NO you’ve got it wrong, today? Most of us on the blog who are Cs think much of Christianity has it wrong now.
Comment by: Helen M.
7 07/18/06 8:53 AM | Comment Link |Awesome question, Julie Marie!
Well, God can say whatever he wants to Bible-believing Christians as long as it agrees with what they think the Bible says
Otherwise I think he’s in for a very icy reception. Unless he can prove it’s really him.
Comment by: Bob
8 07/18/06 9:10 AM | Comment Link |Are you saying that sacrificing Isaac was Abraham’s own idea? He just decided that this is what his god would like?
I think you’re skipping some of the details of the story.
Is there another option here?
If we see God for who He is, we will be forced to face that reality and either reject it or be forever changed by it. In either case, our reaction changes us not Him. When you look at the characters in the Bible, I think you see this pattern (rather than a pattern of people who recorded their impressions of what they thought God was like).
Of course, to “see God for who He is” we have to be read by the Bible rather than reading it for ourselves. It isn’t a matter of making sense of every action and being able to state why things happened. It is a matter of letting His revelation of Himself change us. The goal of the Christian life (IMO) is transformation not understanding. If we read to be transformed rather than to understand, I think we’d go a long way towards “re-connecting” with God.
Comment by: Marty
9 07/18/06 9:37 AM | Comment Link |Julie Marie writes:
Hmmmmmmm - for me they are two different things - I am leaning strongly (based upon observation and experience) to God is a projection (that does not mean to me that God is not real in some way that we don’t understand and is mystery) in the ways that I described. In the days that I feel most drawn to a belief in God - I strongly believe that God meets us where we are at - and I feel that Christians who refuse to meet others where they are at and start by treating them respect (rather than only truly giving them respect when they come to believe the same as they do) are not representive of what I believe a Christian is.
For me thinking about this type of thing I don’t fully understand and don’t find myself being drawn to focusing on it.
My measure is how well we (I) am/are doing in making the world a better place. When I am doing well with this - I feel fulfilled - as I now think/Atheists or anyone else does.
Certainly what we observe in the most outspoken Chirstians does not seem very Christian to me - and imho is making the world a worser place (MTWAWP :-0 ). While at the same time, reading about those Christians that OTM is working with, the people leading these blogs and many of the Christians blogging - it makes me appreciate the good that Christians can do - at what I believe to be there very best. What delights me just as much is to see and understand the good that Atheists also do.
Comment by: Julie Marie
10 07/18/06 10:46 AM | Comment Link |(MTWAWP :-0 ). LOL Marty!
Comment by: Helen M.
11 07/18/06 11:31 AM | Comment Link |Me too, Marty!
Comment by: NCxian
12 07/18/06 12:21 PM | Comment Link |I don’t think I would use the word projection. It gives a sense of humans being a transmitter (dynamic) and God being a receiver (static). Which seems to me to be kind of backwards. That we make God in our image.
I think I agree, though, with the underlying point that you are making Marty (I think). If I accept the metaphor of a transmitter, it seems to me that what may be happening is that God is projecting, and we can only receive information in a format that we are equipped to receive. And we are all equipped to receive differently. Perhaps genetics equips us differently. Certainly our culture equips us. Some people are equipped to see God only as male. So people are equipped to see God as an angry judge who will right the wrongs they perceive on earth. Some people are equipped to see God as a loving parent who will ultimately be reconciled to all his children. People growing up Hindu are equipped to see multiple manifestations of God. Muslims are equipped to see only one, and he is Allah. There as many different types of receivers as there are people and everything about us prepares us for what we think we see when we experience “God”.
The end result is, perhaps, that God embodies for us what we have been genetically, culturally, and individually designed to see. Which is why I think I am agreeing with the underlying sense of what you are saying, Marty.
The metaphor that I use (vs. projecting) is that we all have an internal stucture in our brains that controls how we perceive God. (In my mind, it is our brains, because despite my mystical bent, I am a pretty logical person). This structure molds our perception of God. Like a mold you use for concrete or something. Because of the way my structure is laid out, I don’t experience God in a very dramatic, direct way. I sense God out of the corner of my eye. And then I examine and question and think of other things that that glimmer could be besides God. And I am intensely curious about what other people’s structure’s look like, and how, therefore, they process their sensations of God. All of what I just said is born of my own structure, so that is how God, heck, the entirety of spiritual experience, looks to me.
I heard on NPR one day several years ago–Science Friday, maybe–a guy talking about squirrels. Have you ever wondered why squirrels run in front of your car, then stop, turn and run three steps, turn back and run three steps, so you can’t help but run them over? He said that squirrels’ historical predators do not include cars, or anything remotely as big as a car. Their eyes and the parts of their brains that control their vision are not prepared to understand a car. They simply CAN NOT SEE a car. They sense something , but they don’t know how to locate it or get away from it. I don’t know whether some people are designed to “see God” and others not, but I do think each of our insides are designed to see God uniquely.
Comment by: Bob
13 07/18/06 1:44 PM | Comment Link |Hear hear!!!
Marty what do you think of the question I originally directed at Helen in comment #1 and reiterated here by NC. Do you have Jung’s original definition of “projection” pointed the wrong way?
Comment by: Bob
14 07/18/06 1:52 PM | Comment Link |NCxian,
I like what you’ve said here.
But I wouldn’t use the analogy of a concrete mold. I’d choose a water balloon–as we are filled we take the shape He gives each of us. The shape we were when we first encounter Him is not the shape we have when He “finishes” with us.
(Besides, with the heat wave, a water balloon sounds refreshing…)
Comment by: Eliza
15 07/18/06 2:28 PM | Comment Link |I don’t have much to add here, so will stick with collecting information & definitions relating to projection. It sounds like the meaning of “projection” in psychological circles is more negative than the use here (maybe reflecting the world-view of psychoanalysts more than anything else!). From Wikipedia’s page on Psychological Projection:
Carl Jung refined the Freuds’ ideas on projection, but the best discussion I found on a quick search, here, says it can’t be copied w/o permission.
The type of “Projection” y’all are discussing here, less negative than Freud had in mind, seems to fit what’s called “Projective Identification”. Again from Wikipedia:
Not, of course, that anyone needs to change their terms, or the definition they’re using, if it works!
Comment by: Bob
16 07/18/06 2:38 PM | Comment Link |All I want to know is: why doesn’t Alice like me? :-(
Comment by: NCxian
17 07/18/06 2:45 PM | Comment Link |My home page says it was 98 degrees here today. With our ultra-high humidity, I’m sure the heat index is, like 120 or something.
Comment by: Julile Marie
18 07/18/06 2:53 PM | Comment Link |These thoughts make sense to me. But I still plan to informally assess for any correllation between what my believing friends say God is like, and what their personal behavior and attitudes are.
That was just a thumbnail sketch, to which I applied Marty’s AhA. There’s actually a long discussion on the DB in which I worked through the issue with Nutrideath, Keith, and Tom awhile ago.
Comment by: NCxian
19 07/18/06 5:36 PM | Comment Link |I think that will be really interesting. I don’t think it is inconsistent with what I was trying to say. The same factors that cause certain folks to see God in a certain way would certainly also affect their own values and behaviors. I am going to try it too, since you suggested it!
Comment by: Helen M.
20 07/18/06 6:49 PM | Comment Link |Julie Marie wrote:
Have fun with that - I found it to be a fascinating exercise ;)
I kept the results to myself except that I did share them with a friend who was very hurt when Christians didn’t respond to her need in the way she expected. I explained to her it’s because their view of God is different from hers. As I recall she found that helpful.
Comment by: SezMe
21 07/18/06 9:27 PM | Comment Link |My limited experiences with the OP questions has been quite unsatisfactory. The response to the question “How do you know that X is true (or right, depending on the context)” is some form of “God told me” or “I have faith” which are, of course, non-answers and which essentially end the conversation.
Comment by: SezMe
22 07/18/06 9:31 PM | Comment Link |Julie Marie asked:
Maybe you can help me out here in light of my above post.
When god says “yes” or “no” or whatever is communicated, how do you know it is god speaking? How do you distinguish god’s voice from your own conscience? Or are they identical?
Comment by: SezMe
23 07/18/06 9:37 PM | Comment Link |Continuing my questions, Bob wrote:
I’m really glad you added this last paragraph but it raises a related (to the above post) question. How do you know that god “for who he is” is revealed in the bible? And, given that god takes on nearly every human emotion, does great and awful things, performs great acts and just plain silly ones, how in the world do you know “who he is” from such a rich buffet of choices?
Comment by: SezMe
24 07/18/06 9:41 PM | Comment Link |And I’ll close by quoting from Marty:
Marty, that is a lofty ideal of a Christian but tell me, do you think Fred Phelps should be treated with “respect”? And, another posted noted that Phelps was “hate-filled” but he honestly believes he is following the word of god. Jihadists who carry suicide bombs honestly believe they are doing god’s will. Are they, too, to be respected?
Comment by: Eliza
25 07/18/06 11:01 PM | Comment Link |Those are really good questions, SezMe.
In that vein, this comment of Helen’s from above struck me as really key for Christians to consider:
What a dilemmma that would pose…what/who do you believe, how would you know, & how would you convince others with similar beliefs?
Comment by: SezMe
26 07/19/06 3:12 AM | Comment Link |Well, it’s a couple of hours later and I realized that I had asked a series of (loaded?) questions but did not stake out any territory of my own so that others could point out my inconsistencies. So here goes….
Is god a human projection?
Yes. But I’ll take an even stronger position, namely, that god is only a human projection. What is my evidence for this position? Consider that the bible describes god as being “jealous”. Since the christian god is nominally described as omnibenevolant, how could such a being be “jealous”? Jealous of what? Of our possible idolatry of other gods (as implied by the first commandment)? Surely an omnipetent god has no room for such petty jealousy.
For clarity’s sake, I’ll pose just this one position. Where am I going wrong on the god concept?
Comment by: Helen M.
27 07/19/06 4:29 AM | Comment Link |SezMe, thanks for your comments. Good point about God and jealousy. I’ve heard the Christian explanations and if no-one else posts them and some time opens up in my day, maybe I can later.
And I’m not sure you’d find them more convincing than that God’s jealousy is simply a projection by jealous humans of how they are onto God.
Since I’m not sure I do.
Comment by: Julie Marie
28 07/19/06 5:00 AM | Comment Link |well that is the problem, isn’t it? I don’t really know anymore. The best plan for me at this time is to own my own thoughts and conscience. Sure, I think I get subtle guidance from God, some sort of understanding of what happens in my life…but I’m much less likely to take a firm stand about it being God anymore. I compare what I think with what my interpretation of the Bible and strive to remain consistent.
But it pays to have a measure of humility about it, since there are so many interpretations out there. Of course I think mine is right, because its mine. But everyone else rolls along with the same conviction about their own beliefs.
But wouldn’t it be great if EVERY person of faith all at once got the same message - put down your weapons, take off your armour, sit down in the shade and lets talk to one another.
Comment by: Marty
29 07/19/06 5:39 AM | Comment Link |Sez me states:
I had to look up who Fred Phelps is - and in doing so he is definately NOT my kind of guy. I certainly do not support and actively reject the Fred Phelps of the world and the Jihadists of the world.
Not really knowing how to handle these types - I no doubt go on my way and try to do what I can where I have some inkling about how I can make a difference. But if I was to ever become inclined to try and do something directly with these type of people - I would have to try to meet them (not support them) where they are at. I do have a passion to understand what has brought these people to be the way they are and maybe if I could get a glimpse of life from their perspectives I (or we) just might be able to make a positive difference in working with them.
Comment by: Bob
30 07/19/06 7:21 AM | Comment Link |Good question. I’m sure I’ll end up fulfilling you’re prophecy and eventually say “I just have faith”. So you’ll have that to look forward to. ;-) In the meantime, I’ll try to answer best I can.
I think the fact that God takes on every human emotion in the Bible is what makes Him a real character–not just a concept. Not that He has flaws but more that He is a being. Now in human terms, all of us are jumbles of emotions, greatness, awfulness, and silliness. Sometimes our actions seem to contradict themselves. Yet, those who know us best understand how even those “contradictory” actions consistently represent who we are. I can discern from the rich buffet that is my wife what it is that makes me love her and how she lives her love for me.
So, I read the Bible holistically–as one continuous revelation of God from Genesis to Revelation–and let that reveal what God’s essence, His core, is. I cannot pick some elements (say the loving ones) and discard others (the wrathful ones). They are all elements of the whole. It has been my experience that as I research this “core”, my life, my relationships, and my view of the world have been transformed.
Comment by: Eliza
31 07/19/06 11:12 AM | Comment Link |To quote John Shelby Spong: “…to talk about God you may as well look in a mirror. Every human being that describes God will inevitably do so as a human analogy. We recognise that is the best you can do. If horses had Gods they would look like horses.”
From: http://www.episcopalian.org/CCLEC/paper-spong-980710.htm
Comment by: Helen M.
32 07/19/06 11:26 AM | Comment Link |JSS - “If horses had Gods they would look like horses.”
LOL I love it!
Thanks for that quote, Eliza.
Comment by: Helen M.
33 07/19/06 11:27 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
Thanks for sharing that, Bob. No matter where I am in my beliefs, I wouldn’t want to take anyone else away from what is proving to be life-transforming for them.
Comment by: NCxian
34 07/19/06 11:30 AM | Comment Link |I hope this is not changing the subject too much . . .
Bob, you wrote:
I don’t know who coined the phrase “be read by the Bible”, but I have heard it several times and I can never make any sense of it. I’m sure it is some kind of gap in my brain–people say it like it is the most self-evident thing, but I can’t cogitate on it hard enough to make sense out of it. It has a poetic ring to it, but the metaphor is lost on me. What kind of image do you have in your mind when you say it?
Comment by: Eliza
35 07/19/06 12:16 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for asking this, NCxian - I too wondered what this means, what it looks like when its happening.
Comment by: Julie Marie
36 07/19/06 12:46 PM | Comment Link |Me too; its one of those phrases I gloss over because I don’t understand it. I’m trying to learn to focus in on those and figure them out rather than just forget about them.
Comment by: Bob
37 07/19/06 12:50 PM | Comment Link |NC,
I think it is language that came out of New Kind Of Christian by Brian McClaren. I’m sure Neo did a better job of explaining it but when I think of it I try to be aware of the the framework from which I approach Scripture as I read. (Forums like this really help me do that as well as introduce me to other frameworks.)
If I remember the illustration from the book, he described the framework as a box in which we neatly place all we know. When we encounter a piece that doesn’t “fit” it is either discarded or it “sticks out”. If our framework is defficient, our “box” will look pretty messy. We can ignore this or get a new box.
Letting the Bible read you is to resist the temptation to do this.
Comment by: Bob
38 07/19/06 1:12 PM | Comment Link |I remember a conversation I had with JaysonB a long time ago about this.
Start with this. God is wholly “other”. He is a form of existence that we cannot understand fully simply because we do not share that form. So the best that can be done is to describe elements of His existence using analogies that are familiar to us. (Thus Jesus speaking in parables. The Kingdom of God doesn’t really look like a mustard seed.)
With Jayson, I asked him to describe “infinity” to me. This is purely an idea and cannot be described in concrete terms. The only way to describe infinity is to use inifinite language (forever, unmeasurable, really really big, really really small, never-ending, etc.)
So when we describe God, we use terms we understand. Being human, human analogies are what we know best.
Comment by: NCxian
39 07/19/06 1:52 PM | Comment Link |Which one is the right way, according to this metaphor? Do you ignore what sticks out or get a new box? Which one is “letting the Bible read you”?
Comment by: Bob
40 07/19/06 1:55 PM | Comment Link |You read without a “box” at all.
Comment by: Eliza
41 07/19/06 1:59 PM | Comment Link |Bob, can you elaborate a bit more on what this means, practically, as you are reading and reflecting, and as you are trying to be Biblically aware throughout each day?
Comment by: Eliza
42 07/19/06 2:09 PM | Comment Link |And, I get stuck on what seems to me like 2 different approaches to God:
I can understand this, that God is infinite, wholly other, cannot be grasped by the human brain (or the brain of any earthly being). But then I get confused by this:
If I were trying to describe infinity I might certainly use analogies and terms that come close but can’t truly do it justice. But then why would describing God using basic, even flawed human characteristics, including “jealous”, not be itself a flaw? It’s hard for me to read the Old Testament and see that “God is love”, as I hear Christians sometimes describing God (again, aiming for an analogy that does Him reasonable justice). Any insights into how these both work for you would be much appreciated…thanks!
Comment by: Bob
43 07/19/06 4:25 PM | Comment Link |Eliza,
Maybe you’re answering your own question. You are working with some of the most simple boxes there are: is God transcendant and unknowable or is He immanent and a friend. Is He without flaws…but isn’t jealousy a flaw? Can He be described or not?
The “unboxed” answer to all is yes.
I just remembered another illustration from the book. Neo drew two points on the ground. One point represented something like “God is love”. The other point represented “God is just/wrathful”. Our “box” minds know that neither is purely true so we begin to look for the answer somewhere along a line connectiing the two points.
But the true answer isn’t on that line, it (figuratively) is in space above the ground. On a different plane. If you look at the questions Jesus was asked in the Gospels, I think you’ll find that most of His answers were “on a different plane” from the question and the questioner. But they were always “right”.
I guess this is how I have tried to approach reading without a box–I try to hold two disparate concepts in tension and look for an answer outside of each. Right now for example, I am participating in an atheist dialogue (and reading some atheist philosophy) while I’m also researching Reformed theology. These two streams participate in my reading.
I definitely don’t have it all down but I do look for certain warning flags. A big one for me is trying to avoid statements like “The main point of Christianity is _____”. Or “Really all that matters is _____”. Those are just boxes in disguise.
Comment by: NCxian
44 07/19/06 4:48 PM | Comment Link |I am now wondering (to myself and within earshot of you all) if a belief that the Bible is “true” (in any human understanding of the term) is not just part of one’s box? Is there any sense to be made at all of a debate over whether the Bible is literally true, inerrant, trustworthy, blah, blah, blah?
And if your understanding of the “truth” of the Bible is just one manifestation of your “box”, how can you read it? You just read and let the Holy Spirit move you? What about orthodoxy?
How does “Christ crucified” fit into “the main point of Christianity is . . .” or “Really all that matters is . . .”? Box?
Comment by: SezMe
45 07/19/06 6:48 PM | Comment Link |Well, I gotta tell you if all christians were as thoughtful and thought-filled as this bunch, it sure would be a better world.
Joseph Campbell said something relevant here. I’ll probably butcher it but he said something like god or myths are ways to talk about things we can’t talk about. Concepts like god are just too large, complex and different to allow our language and heads to get around them. So we talk about things that, in turn, “talk about” god. It’s the best we can do, but it is useful to keep the thought in mind.
Comment by: Bob
46 07/19/06 6:55 PM | Comment Link |ROFL. I knew either you or Julie Marie would bring that up. You’ll note I said “trying to avoid” statements like that. But of course, some things are unavoidable. Without maintaining the identity of Christ, there is no Christianity.
Great quote, Sez. Even in it’s butchered state…
Comment by: Bob
47 07/19/06 7:14 PM | Comment Link |I was thinking about the Bible being “true” a little while ago (again). I rested more with the Bible being true (in the sense of a true friend) rather than true (in the sense of being scientifically accurate). It is reliable, trust-worthy and true for it’s purpose–to reveal God.
I think true=scientific accuracy can turn into a box, though. People can become quite flustered when it is challenged or inconsistencies are found. Makes me wonder if their faith is founded on the Bible rather than God.
Comment by: Helen M.
48 07/19/06 7:34 PM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
Yes, when Christians make inerrancy of the Bible into a huge big deal I sometimes wonder this too.
I can relate - that used to be how it was for me too.
I noticed that in David’s writings he seemed to equate the Bible with God and talk about the Bible almost as if it were the same as God. I guess it was because the Bible revealed God to him, so he loved the Bible for bringing him closer to God in that way.
His going into raptures over the Bible almost as if it were the same as God didn’t make me concerned like the way some Christians cling to inerrancy made me concerned.
Comment by: Helen M.
49 07/19/06 7:35 PM | Comment Link |SezMe wrote:
Thanks, SezMe!
Comment by: jim
50 07/20/06 12:09 AM | Comment Link |Helen
I agree
wow
Comment by: Bob
51 07/20/06 4:19 AM | Comment Link |But David didn’t have a Bible. He had the Pentateuch which he loved to meditate upon. Ps 119 is a clearly tribute to the Pentateuch and its role in his life, the rest not so much. (IMO)
Comment by: Bob
52 07/20/06 4:20 AM | Comment Link |BTW, any good King of Israel would have followed the explicit instructions given in the Torah to meditate upon it every day. He was just being a good covenant member.
Comment by: Helen M.
53 07/20/06 5:54 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
Bob, I was just thinking that I should have been more accurate about what David’s Bible was. Of course you’re right - his Bible was the first five books of the old Testament.
I take your point. It wasn’t the regularity with which he studied it which struck me. It was rather the way he goes into raptures over it.
Here for example he refers twice to loving God’s law and once to loving God’s statutes. (For those who don’t know, “God’s law” is an expression referring to the entire first five books of the Bible, not just, say, the ten commandments).
Wouldn’t you say that “I love this narrative history and set of rules” is a rather odd use of the word ‘love’, unless it really means all of the following:
“I love you (God) and I love how what I learn in this book about you, and how what I learn from following these rules of yours, brings me closer to you”.
And by the way, John picks up on the mysterious and very close connection between God and God’s Word by calling Jesus ‘the Word of God’.
The part that’s tricky for me is getting from there to a) certainty that every word that currently comprises the Bible is actually “the Word of God” and b) certainty that what comprises the Bible is clear and consistent enough to have the certainty some Christians do about all sorts of things which are touched on to some extent in the mix of narrative history (supposedly), poetry, prophetic utterances and personal letters we call ‘the Bible”.
Comment by: Helen M.
54 07/20/06 5:55 AM | Comment Link |Jim - thanks!
Comment by: Bob
55 07/20/06 6:22 AM | Comment Link |Hmmm… Don’t really want to argue but John didn’t have the Bible either and I’m sure you’re familiar with the depth of the term logos employed by John in his Gospel. He wasn’t saying “In the begining was the Bible, the Bible was with God and the Bible was God.” Logos (from my recollection) represented not only a spoken word but the full meaning and action behind it. There is a very close connection between God, His Promises, and His action on those promises. That promise was fulfilled in Jesus. That’s what John was talking about.
Of course, if you read with a “box” that sets the Bible on a pedestal you’ll miss this.
I don’t want to make a huge point of the theology but it brings up the concept of the perversion of the meanings of words and the impact it has on our beliefs. Maybe it’s just a pet-peeve (we get into arguments about semantics) but language is all we have to communicate.
Comment by: NCxian
56 07/20/06 11:06 AM | Comment Link |It’s funny that we’ve gotten back to the “Word” thing. The conversation we had several days ago–”Do you talk to yourself”– prompted me to google “Jesus as the Word” or some such thing. “Logos” is a very deep word–and it is not easy at all to put your finger on the most likely thing John had in mind when he said it. There are Greek definitions, there are Jewish notions of Logos as Wisdom, there is Philo, a Jewish Greek philosopher who combined the two–all about the time John was written.
The first few verses of John are my favorite in the whole Bible, I think (excepting maybe the first few chapters of Genesis)–”In the Beginning was the Word . .. ” and so on. I think it is one of the more interesting things to think about in the Bible–Jesus as the Word. I do think that words are not only all we have to communicate, but that words ARE (potentially) the “box” or “structure” that we use to understand things. At least for word-y people like me!
So the metaphor works extremely well for me that Jesus is the “word” or “box” that I use to understand God. Even if I don’t understand how Jesus is that box.
As you can tell, I am not yet convinced that we can think anything very complex at all if we don’t have a “box” to put it in!