The Symbol IS / IS NOT The Thing

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How can the literal water do anything more than rinse you off. 

 

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why would the water need to clean anyone off spiritually?  Can the spirit not do it well enough?

Because God won't consider you completely clean spiritually if you don't enter the waters of Baptism.
The act of being immersed in the baptismal waters (assuming you have repented and accepted your Savior) literally makes you clean before God.

Do you believe you can be in clean through entrance into the covenant with Christ without being washed in authorized baptismal waters?
 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, up to a point.
I do believe in a literal Noah and a literal global flood.  For the simple reason that the prophet Noah is on record as appearing to several people and I believe the earth was baptized by water just as it will be baptized by fire (end of Revelation).
Now, as to whether he actually had 2 of every animal, floated for 40 days, and only saved 8 people...I'm willing to see a little metaphor in that.
Kind of like Adam, Eve and the rib.

Even though science has pretty much shot down the notion of a global flood?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Even though science has pretty much shot down the notion of a global flood?

Yes.  Not because I am a science denier on most things.  But rather because when speaking of acts of God scientific law doesn't have to apply.

Science says the dead don't come back, water can't turn to wine, and humans can't walk on water.  God says they can.  Why should any other act of God be restricted to scientific understanding?

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm trying to come up with some situations where the symbolic item in the gospel actually is what it represents.  

This is like asking when what we see through a glass darkly IS "REALLY" face to face.

The above gospel phrase makes it clear that confusing what is "real" with what is "through the glass darkly" is a major problem with humanity.

Cearly we see through the glass darkly and live in a world of symbols, so FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES- the "symbol" IS the only reality we can know now as godlings.

On the other hand, from God's perspective, HE who lives in a world BEYOND the mirror though which we see darkly,  NOTHING is symbolic because he sees things as they are, "Face to face"

We do not and cannot see things as they are, we can see things only as our human minds and language will allow us to see them.

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Yet of course this is from an atheist.  

He is speaking as a natural man, but his point is that natural humans, we never see things face to face

So from that we can conclude that when we are no longer "natural man" we CAN now and WILL in the spirit world see things "face to face"

Edited September 15, 2021 by mfbukowski

[ksfisher]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The act of being immersed in the baptismal waters (assuming you have repented and accepted your Savior) literally makes you clean before God.

What does the literal water actually cleanse?  I don't think anyone would say that water is the actual agent that cleanses us from sin.  Being immersed in the water symbolizes the cleansing power of the Spirit that is acting upon the individual being baptized.

The Spirit purifies.  The water is the physical symbol of that cleansing. 

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The title of this thread just made Mark‘s day 😁 @mfbukowski

Not really 

This is my quandary: Explain to the world why "lucid" philosophy (Rorty has been called the "lucid" philosopher) favors a paradigm I have found to eliminate virtually all these questions about language and religion AND spend numerous hours doing so ("Martha, there's someone wrong on the internet ") which I have done a thousand times before, OR have a happy life, ignoring those who have never heard of these paradigms I consider obvious.

Meh.

Hey what was that "definition of insanity" I've heard over and over?

 

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What does the literal water actually cleanse?  I don't think anyone would say that water is the actual agent that cleanses us from sin.  Being immersed in the water symbolizes the cleansing power of the Spirit that is acting upon the individual being baptized.

The Spirit purifies.  The water is the physical symbol of that cleansing. 

The act of being immersed in water actually cleanses.  It is the only act that cleanses a penitent believer.
Just because the physical water doesn't remove the sin doesn't mean the physical act of being immersed in the water has no effect beyond symbol & metaphor.

Saying that the act doesn't actually create the response doesn't make much sense to me.  Cause and effect.  It's quibbling to say that the water doesn't remove the sin if being immersed in baptism actually does.
That's like saying the sealing ceremony doesn't unite man and wife, God's approval does that.  Well, yeah, except without the sealing ceremony God doesn't.  So the sealing ceremony actually does.
Or saying that praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true doesn't give you a testimony, the spirit does when it witnesses.  Well, sure, but to get the spirit to witness you need to pray.  So prayer actually does.

To quote Joseph again: "we can not obtain the blessing by pursuing any other course, except the way marked out by the Lord."

We can't ignore the so called metaphorical or symbolic acts that bring about blessings as being just representative.  They are the catalyst for the blessings, even if they aren't the delivery system.
The material of the garment doesn't protect us.  But wearing the physical garments according to the covenants does.  So the garments protect us from harm.  That's not metaphor or symbolism.  That's literal.

Edited September 15, 2021 by JLHPROF

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  Not because I am a science denier on most things.  But rather because when speaking of acts of God scientific law doesn't have to apply.

Science says the dead don't come back, water can't turn to wine, and humans can't walk on water.  God says they can.  Why should any other act of God be restricted to scientific understanding?

Well, I get the faith-based belief in your examples, especially since such things don't leave behind an evidentiary record other than testimony of witnesses (which is a pretty consistent element of faith-based assertions).  When the scientific evidence world-wide is clearly against the Biblical narrative, that seems (to me) to be a completely different situation altogether.  Even as a believer my beliefs had shifted to a more local flood idea than a world-wide one.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, I get the faith-based belief in your examples, especially since such things don't leave behind an evidentiary record other than testimony of witnesses (which is a pretty consistent element of faith-based assertions).  When the scientific evidence world-wide is clearly against the Biblical narrative, that seems (to me) to be a completely different situation altogether.  Even as a believer my beliefs had shifted to a more local flood idea than a world-wide one.

I understand this.  There are literally billions of scientifically valid precedents that once we die we're dead.  There an unbelievable mountain of scientific evidence against the possibility of anyone who is dead returning to life and their remains reanimating.
It's the subject of zombie movies, fantasy films, and fiction.

Yet we go to Church every Sunday and worship in the name of someone we believe did exactly that.
Scientific evidence doesn't stop us believing the dead can rise again.  Why should it stop us believing that God can cover the earth with water and leave no physical evidence?  There is still cultural evidence in many cultures that share similar "flood myths".
 

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I understand this.  There are literally billions of scientifically valid precedents that once we die we're dead.  There an unbelievable mountain of scientific evidence against the possibility of anyone who is dead returning to life and their remains reanimating.
It's the subject of zombie movies, fantasy films, and fiction.

Yet we go to Church every Sunday and worship in the name of someone we believe did exactly that.
Scientific evidence doesn't stop us believing the dead can rise again.  Why should it stop us believing that God can cover the earth with water and leave no physical evidence?  There is still cultural evidence in many cultures that share similar "flood myths".
 

You are definitely willing to expand your faith more broadly than I was.  Perhaps that helps explain why you're still in and I'm out.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Because God won't consider you completely clean spiritually if you don't enter the waters of Baptism.
The act of being immersed in the baptismal waters (assuming you have repented and accepted your Savior) literally makes you clean before God.

Do you believe you can be in clean through entrance into the covenant with Christ without being washed in authorized baptismal waters?
 

It doesn't actually make anyone clean though, right?  Because if you get baptized under false pretences, you are still not clean before God, despite the water of baptism.  Baptismal water, on an unworthy person, cleans nothing.

I don't believe that I can become clean without baptism, but that's not because I believe the water is literally cleaning my spirit.  I believe it's because that's how God has declared it.  Children who die before the age of 8 do not need to be baptised to become spiritually clean, so to me that means the water is not necessary to literally clean anyone.   People (children) can be cleansed of their sin without it because Christ has declared that He will apply His atonement to them in that way. 

He has declared something different for the rest of us.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The material of the garment doesn't protect us.  But wearing the physical garments according to the covenants does.  So the garments protect us from harm.  That's not metaphor or symbolism.  That's literal.

Reminds of the time I was falling off my roof and my garment wrapped around a nail and saved me.

I think of that Isaiah scripture sometimes in the temple

Edited September 15, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You don't consider there to be any symbolism in one person assuming the guilt and paying the price for another.  It literally happened, but Christ taking upon him my sins?  Do you see any symbolic act in that since he really wasn't actually culpable or guilty of the sin.  I am genuinely curious on this one.  He stood in our place, he was the symbol for our guilt.

Not the person you responded to, but I heavily lean to the idea that the atonement was an actual physical process, not just literal.  Not just the suffering part, but the assuming of the guilt part.  The paying of the price part.  So I don't see it as symbolic.  I see it more like I literally hand a basket of my sins to him and then he caries them and does...something with them.  So not symbolic to me.

Even if I did see it as symbolic I wouldn't put him in as a symbol for our guilt.  He would be/is the person weighed down by our guilt so it doesn't make sense to have him be a symbol of it.  Rather he would be a symbol of us paying the actual price on our own.     

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not disagreeing with this.  But baptism in water literally cleanses us of sin, I would argue every bit as much as a change of heart, because it is the act that creates the covenant between us and Christ.  It is not merely symbolic of the change in heart.
And scripture says we must be "born of water" and Christ in Mark says the act of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  So the ordinance is not merely symbolic, even though there is much symbolism involved in our rebirth as "Christians".

And the garment is literally described as representing one garment but literally being the garment of the priesthood.  It both represents and is the garment given to man by God.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I suspect a lot of the disagreement on this thread will be semantic.

For example- Above you use the gathering of Israel as both symbolic and literal or both. I would suggest that there is no symbol there. Instead, I'd view that as being both literal and/or metaphorical. While there are some similarities between symbols and metaphors, they are not exactly the same things.

Fair enough. 
 

Would it be accurate to say that metaphors and symbols are each a form of literary device?

[Scott Lloyd]

Duplicate

Edited September 16, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Fair enough. 
 

Would it be accurate to say that metaphors and symbols are each a form of literary device?

A metaphor is definitely a literary device. A symbol in and of itself is not. However the use of symbols in writing would be a literary device.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A metaphor is definitely a literary device. A symbol in and of itself is not. However the use of symbols in writing would be a literary device.

One could say the same about metaphors, which are not necessarily used in writing. 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One could say the same about metaphors, which are not necessarily used in writing. 

True, but a metaphor is an actual figure of speech which could just as easily be used in writing.

Quote

metaphor

[ˈmedəˌfôr, ˈmedəˌfər]

 

NOUN

1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

A symbol is just a symbol, like a house is a house. You seem to be thinking a symbol is symbolism. The symbol itself is not a literary device but symbolism (the use of symbols to represent ideas or qualities) is.

Quote

symbolism

[ˈsimbəˌlizəm]

 

NOUN

1. the use of symbols to represent ideas or qualities.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True, but a metaphor is an actual figure of speech which could just as easily be used in writing.

A symbol is just a symbol, like a house is a house. You seem to be thinking a symbol is symbolism. The symbol itself is not a literary device but symbolism (the use of symbols to represent ideas or qualities) is.

 

A symbol does not become a symbol until one uses it as such in speech or writing. It is like a metaphor in that sense. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The act of being immersed in the baptismal waters (assuming you have repented and accepted your Savior) literally makes you clean before God.

The act, as you say, makes you clean, not the water.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

The act, as you say, makes you clean, not the water.

Please define the difference.
If being immersed in water makes you clean and not being immersed in water leaves you without that blessing it is absolutely quibbling to say the water is merely symbolic.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Please define the difference.
If being immersed in water makes you clean and not being immersed in water leaves you without that blessing it is absolutely quibbling to say the water is merely symbolic.

Being immersed in water doesn't make you clean though.  You only become clean when the Spirit accepts that act and cleans you.  The water (and being baptized in it) is the act that Christ has declared will signal to the spirit that you are worthy to be clean. 

It doesn't actually clean anything.  It's water.  It's not even blessed water. It's just plain water from the tap that goes into the sewer when we are done using it.  Water can't clean sin from someone's spirit.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Please define the difference.
If being immersed in water makes you clean and not being immersed in water leaves you without that blessing it is absolutely quibbling to say the water is merely symbolic.

 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Being immersed in water doesn't make you clean though.  You only become clean when the Spirit accepts that act and cleans you.  The water (and being baptized in it) is the act that Christ has declared will signal to the spirit that you are worthy to be clean. 

It doesn't actually clean anything.  It's water.  It's not even blessed water. It's just plain water from the tap that goes into the sewer when we are done using it.  Water can't clean sin from someone's spirit.

The cleanliness that results from the ordinance of baptism is a spiritual, not a physical cleanliness. Water, as such, can only bring physical cleanliness. The immersion of baptism is thus a physical act that symbolizes a spiritual cleansing. It’s true that the spiritual cleansing cannot occur without the physical act, but that is only because God has decreed it to be so. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Canadiandude]

On 9/15/2021 at 3:43 PM, ttribe said:

You are definitely willing to expand your faith more broadly than I was.  Perhaps that helps explain why you're still in and I'm out.

Blessed are the mentally flexible, for they shall adapt to the earth!!!

It takes courage and personal integrity to acknowledge that one’s model for the universe is greatly lacking in empirical support, and then to learn and change.

 

[Ipod Touch]

On 9/15/2021 at 1:16 PM, mfbukowski said:

so FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES- the "symbol" IS the only reality we can know now as godlings

Before Helen Keller met Anne Sullivan, should she taste, touch, or smell?