etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Interesting argument with a lot of "ifs". I agree with you but it is all those ifs that get in the way for people. And then as Kevin points out- there is still ambiguity. "Thou shalt not kill"- does that include defending your country? Other biblical commands given to kill Canaanites? Self defense? Does the commandment against adultery include other sexual activities? Which precise activities fall under "coveting"? Oh my. Mosiah 12 25 And now Abinadi said unto them: Are you priests, and pretend to teach this people, and to understand the spirit of prophesying, and yet desire to know of me what these things mean? 26 I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord. 27 Ye have not applied your hearts to understanding; therefore, ye have not been wise. Therefore, what teach ye this people?
waveslider Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 This verse doesn't mention the word Alms. If someone is putting, "...up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not and [you] condemn him...." What is the difference if you don't 4 hours ago, etz said: Give to him that asketh thee.... because you say it isn't because of a need?
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 Benjamin didn't mention the word alms; I'm referring to the commandments of Jesus Christ, as written in 3 Nephi. Is it not Christ's commandments we have agreed to follow? And if one sees a conflict between, say, Benjamin, or any other man, and Christ, why is not the conflict resolved in favor of Christ?
Gray Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 1 hour ago, etz said: And Jesus always flagged his parables as parables. Did he? What about being "born again" or the "living water" in the gospel of John? Those were not flagged and the literalists (Nicodemus, the woman at the well) completely misunderstood because they were focused on the literal level of the story. 1
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 As those who have been born again may attest, it is literal, even if one's physical body is not stuffed back into his mother's womb and expelled therefrom. Just as are having the law of God written upon one's heart, and the doctrine of the priesthood distilling upon one's soul as the morning dews.
Gray Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, etz said: Calling things which aren't flagged as parables "parables" spares us the difficulty of explaining that we don't believe what God has said, or that we don't believe what the prophets have reported God has said. But we really don't have that option with respect to the commandments, do we? "Give to every man that asketh thee." Metaphor? Simile? Parable? Simplistic and naive idealism? Or literal instruction? How would a little child understand such a command from his parents? The gospel writers obviously didn't take previous gospels as the literal word of God, otherwise they wouldn't have altered the stories that came before. Matthew is full of allusions to Old Testament stories. His gospel is constructed in such a way that the early Jewish Christians would have understood the allusions very well. They might have understood, given the context of hearing these stories in the synagogues, that the writer of Matthew was not passing on a literal history of Jesus, but was rather trying to say things like Jesus is the new Moses or the new Elijah, but Jesus is also greater than either of them. Edited October 20, 2016 by Gray 1
Gray Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 1 hour ago, etz said: So it comes down to this: is there any genuine confusion about the commandments of Christ as contained in the Sermon on the Mount? It doesn't seem so. If therefore Christ lived on the earth as the scriptures say, and this literally, taught what the scriptures say he taught, and this literally, and was actually the Son of God, and this literally, and if his commandments are understood, then what is stopping you, whoever you are, from actually doing the things you understand Christ to have commanded you to do? I don't know anyone who literally gives away all their possessions or literally will never defend themselves if physically attacked. 1
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 What seems obvious to you, is not so obvious to me, and certainly the inverse is true as well. For example, and this is a fun one, the fact that a story is told as a parable does not mean that the events recounted in the story did not literally occur.
Gray Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, etz said: As those who have been born again may attest, it is literal, even if one's physical body is not stuffed back into his mother's womb and expelled therefrom. No, if it were literal, you would literally emerge from your mother's womb, as Nicodemus seemed to think. 3 minutes ago, etz said: Just as are having the law of God written upon one's heart, and the doctrine of the priesthood distilling upon one's soul as the morning dews. Great, now you're moving beyond the literal and into the symbolic
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 1 minute ago, Gray said: I don't know anyone who literally gives away all their possessions or literally will never defend themselves if physically attacked. That's probably true. Will you be the first among your circle of acquaintances to do so?
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 Just now, Gray said: No, if it were literal, you would literally emerge from your mother's womb, as Nicodemus seemed to think. Great, now you're moving beyond the literal and into the symbolic "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Or can be imagined without experience. And while I spoke literally, you decided I was lying. You didn't believe me, in other words. And that's when one starts talking about symbols where none is flagged.
waveslider Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 10 minutes ago, etz said: Benjamin didn't mention the word alms; I'm referring to the commandments of Jesus Christ, as written in 3 Nephi. Is it not Christ's commandments we have agreed to follow? And if one sees a conflict between, say, Benjamin, or any other man, and Christ, why is not the conflict resolved in favor of Christ? I personally don't see the conflict. Both scriptures say to give. It's only that Benjamin is saying that if there is nothing to give, then at least be willing to have given if you had the opportunity. 2
Gray Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Just now, etz said: That's probably true. Will you be the first among your circle of acquaintances to do so? Probably not. I think it's a fine ideal. Maybe not very practical, but there are some principles behind those teachings that have value. It's something you can perhaps approach but never reach. Jesus taught some radical concepts - including a love that is so full that you give your life away rather than even resist violence. A love so complete that you return love for hate and peace for anger. What a revolutionary idea. One begins to understand the devotion that early Christians must have felt, and how they began to experience God through Jesus. 1
Gray Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 1 minute ago, etz said: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Or can be imagined without experience. And while I spoke literally, you decided I was lying. You didn't believe me, in other words. And that's when one starts talking about symbols where none is flagged. No one is calling you a liar. To literally be born again is to actually emerge from your mother's womb. If it means anything else to you, it's no longer literalism. 2
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 And one learns of this love by doing what Jesus asked. Remember, he gives no commandments unto the children of men save he shall prepare a way whereby they may accomplish the thing he has commanded.
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 Just now, Gray said: No one is calling you a liar. To literally be born again is to actually emerge from your mother's womb. If it means anything else to you, it's no longer literalism. Or I'm speaking of a literal rebirth experience that you haven't experienced and can't imagine except in terms of one's earthly birth. How, pray tell, can you rule that possibility out a priori?
Gray Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 1 minute ago, etz said: And one learns of this love by doing what Jesus asked. Remember, he gives no commandments unto the children of men save he shall prepare a way whereby they may accomplish the thing he has commanded. But remember that scripture is written by men, not by gods. We find in the teachings of Jesus the means to discern truth from error. The scriptures are not the literal words of God. Each teaching from the scriptures must be judged by its own merits, not by some unsupportable claim that scripture is the "word of God." We might experience the word of God in the process of reading scriptures, but on a literal level scripture is just the reaction of human beings to God.
Gray Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, etz said: Or I'm speaking of a literal rebirth experience that you haven't experienced and can't imagine except in terms of one's earthly birth. How, pray tell, can you rule that possibility out a priori? lit·er·al taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory. If you speak of birth as anything other than physical birth, you've already moved beyond literalism. That's what "literal" means, right?
CV75 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 3 hours ago, etz said: The decision is always to obey whoever is offering the greater reward. Actually, as a nominal disciple of Christ, I obey whoever I love the most since I seek no reward. 1
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 "The scriptures are not the literal words of God." Except when they are. You can't rule out the possibility that God spoke the words recorded exactly as they are recorded, can you? One might, for example, perform a test on the words of Christ - as Alma taught, and as Christ himself suggested - and see what happens.
waveslider Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, etz said: As those who have been born again may attest, it is literal, even if one's physical body is not stuffed back into his mother's womb and expelled therefrom. Just as are having the law of God written upon one's heart, and the doctrine of the priesthood distilling upon one's soul as the morning dews. What about when Jesus said: ".....I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." (Matthew 26:61)? Didn't Jesus mean the temple of His body, but didn't flag it as a parable? Edited October 20, 2016 by waveslider I had to edit part of the quote
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: lit·er·al taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory. If you speak of birth as anything other than physical birth, you've already moved beyond literalism. That's what "literal" means, right? As Jesus said, we speak that which we know of, and you receive not our witness.
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, waveslider said: What about when Jesus said: ".....I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." (Matthew 26:61)? Didn't Jesus mean the temple of His body, but didn't flag it as a parable? Will you claim his body was not, or is not, the literal temple of God?
waveslider Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 1 minute ago, etz said: Will you claim his body was not, or is not, the literal temple of God? Will you claim that Jesus didn't use the word, "temple," in a parabolic way so that only the spiritually aware would realize that he meant the temple of his body?
etz Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 1 minute ago, waveslider said: Will you claim that Jesus didn't use the word, "temple," in a parabolic way so that only the spiritually aware would realize that he meant the temple of his body? I'm not concerned with literal stuff being used as parables - as I pointed out above, the fact that a thing is a type and a shadow, or even a parable, does not preclude its literality.
Recommended Posts