[Fung Koo]

Unfortunately, for us to hash out those mutually acceptable terms we would have to shift to a discussion of epistemology and consciousness.

Not really. I doubt we could set it up so that we were in the same room (to stick with the analogy). For one thing, I don't think you'd ever accept that I could understand what you mean by blanket without presupposing that I also believe that I have a blanket which is of the same type as your blanket. There's no way we could ever even verify if our blankets were the same even if I thought I had one. Consciousness for you likely comes from God, so in that we'd start off on the wrong foot. Epistemologically I'd say we'd also be at loggerheads since I'm of the opinion that there is no "knowledge" in the classic sense and that there's really nothing fruitful to be gained from such a discussion. "Knowledge" is only really a issue in a world where there is a God.

It might be much more fortuitous if we started with Julia Kristeva's theory of the subject-in-process. That is pretty important to my worldview.

[Gary Wassner]

Great stuff, you two! Keep going. I'm sure whoever's reading this is learning as much as I am from it. Very informative on all counts.

I admire both of you for taking Scripture as seriously as you do. I've never expected much from it, so I've never spent the time to analyze it in depth. When the basic premise of a text, the given, is alien to me, it's hard to study it with the same perspective as when it mystifies and thrills me.

[Dawnstorm]

Great stuff, you two! Keep going. I'm sure whoever's reading this is learning as much as I am from it. Very informative on all counts.

I admire both of you for taking Scripture as seriously as you do. I've never expected much from it, so I've never spent the time to analyze it in depth. When the basic premise of a text, the given, is alien to me, it's hard to study it with the same perspective as when it mystifies and thrills me.

Seconded. I'm enjoying this from the shadows. :cool:

[zorobnice]

Me too. guys I am amazed by the names an theories you mention, I have never even heard half of them, but I am learning :)

Adding to that though. I am not highly learned in this subject. I come to it much as any person who has not studied it. I go to experts on the subject, friends of mine who have degrees and Doctorates on the subject. I go to my Bishop who has many years defending his faith behind him. Before I get shot out the water, and told I am being brain washed by these men and women, you should know I am a thinking man, ask Gary and Kged and others on this forum who know me. I do not just swallow any BS. I collect data, sort it out and take my direction from there. I do believe in God and, yes Gary, the Devil, I do believe in Heaven and Hell. Does this make me worse for believing, does it make me better?? I believe better, but I know not all of you think it is important. It is not a crutch I lean on to spare myself from taking responsibility for my life and my actions, it FORCES me to to take responsibility for those things.

Scripture keeps me more focussed on others and their needs, before my own. Is this not a more important than whether I believe in the Man in the Moon??

[Fung Koo]

So now, what do those passages mean.....

Well one of them means that "the earth and heaven will pass away." And then when they pass away, the other line means "Jerusalem will descend from God." Now I know that Salem means peace or harmony, and Jeru might mean something like history, or story. So maybe to be totally precise it means that a History of Peace will descend upon the earth from God... But no, wait, it specifically says the Holy City of Jerusalem. And it says that heaven and earth will be one. The leaves of the tree of life will heal all nations, and there will be no sun and no darkness, only the light of God. So that's what it says, and that seems to be what it means...

Different methods of interpretation include -- Preterism, futurism, chilliastic-utopianism, millennianism (which breaks down into pre-, post-, and pan-), idealism, historicism..... and a whole lot of other isms.

With few exceptions, examples of each of these can be found in all Christian denominations.

You forgot one: Revisionism. Oh, and relativism. And New Historicism. And Feminism. And Contextualism. And Surrealism. And Marxism... many more -isms... With enough -isms you can make anything mean anything. And we don't even have to stick with -isms. We can also deconstruct and psychoanalyze. We can apply narratology, intertextuality, gender theories (pick one)...

The list of ideological premises from which we interpret the bible is expansive -- pretty well all-encompassingly so. But fundamentally, either all of them are valid -- in which case we have to approach the bible as Text first, and Truth second -- or none of them apply and the Word is the Word, in which case we have to use that nasty little device we call Literalism and deal with the paradoxes and contradictions in their complete forms.

Now then, you've argued that pre- and non-Christians have the opportunity to go to Heaven and to be right with God on the inside. I thus must surmise that you believe the veracity of the biblical text to be fundamental to the laws of nature, or else that premise would fall flat. So we also have to apply multiculturalism to the text. The second largest religion in the world views Jesus as a mortal prophet, and Jews likewise think he was just a dude. Hmm...

Example: Revelation 21:12 uses the imagery "of the eternal city" or "eternal Zion" found in the book of Isaiah.

And Rush uses the image of 21:12! Ah, intertextuality, how I love you! :p

I still can't tell you exactly what the "New Jerusalem" is going to look like.

It says it's going to have a wall that's really thick with three gates on each of its 4 square walls. Its going to have like 12 layers of foundation named after the apostles and made of various precious materials. And it's going to have a river than flows from the foot of God's throne, which is a river of the water of life, I believe. And there will be the tree of life living next to the river. And the New City of Jerusalem will be both heaven and earth, and man will be immortal, and there will be no more death or sorrow, or light and dark... Revelations is pretty clear about what it's going to look like.

Now, the fact that it's 144,000 cubits thick, and has 4 walls with another 144,000 somethings, and 144,000 Jews are going to get sucked up to God sometime before the sh!tstorm hits might indicate some deeper meaning going on with the numbers... Like maybe the New City is composed of those Jews. But of that I can't be certain.

Is the new creation going to be like our earth, will it be a metaphysical "heavenly" earth, is this going to be a world with new laws of nature???? I honestly don't know.

Revelations says it will be heaven and earth. Which I presume, based on everything that you've said before, will mean that it is fully imbued with God's presence. The lake of fire, meanwhile, won't have God's presence at all.

In order to write a fictional narrative around these events I'm going to have to make certain assumptions about how literal some passages should be taken or how symbolic.

This is the point: you're making assumptions. On top of that, you're making assumptions based on assumptions. All those -isms you cited earlier apply as assumptions. You're also applying a judgment in determining the literalness and symbolism of different passages. My judgment may be radically different from yours. Now who is correct? In order to apply judgment, you have to allow the human element into the bible. If there were no contradictions or problematic interpretations, none of the -isms would be required. The bible would be solid. But it requires interpretation. And as the New Historical perspective tells us, nothing can be known about an historical text or it's context for certain.

So is it text, or is it truth? And, if it is truth, why can we generate conflicting truths with the various -isms? For that matter, why do we need a fictional narrative? Can't we just take it literally? Why can you read revelations and tell me the world won't end, when I read it and see that it plainly does? Sure, it might continue in a new form afterwards (it says that too). But what we've got now will be gone.

What's the time delay between the first third dying and the next third? 3 years? 10? 100? 1,000?

Honestly, given the structure of the text, I'm inclined to believe that there is in fact no time delay, and that each time a third is mentioned it is actually referring to the same third, over and over. The mentioning of thirds appears to be more of a conceptual marker by the author to let us know that he's still talking about the same part of the prophecy. But that's a structuralist argument.

The passage doesn't say "plague and torment".

Well, it does say plague just a little later. Plague of hail... Seven vials of plague... And fear of "her torment" - that is, Babylon's, while she's being crushed for her immorality.

How is Satan "loosed upon the earth"?

Well, he's imprisoned for a thousand days and then has to be ("loosed") let out for a time ("season"). The he goes "out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth". Then he goes about gathering his armies that "the number of whom is as the sand of the sea."

Are we talking about Satan singular here, or is this a referrence to the plural use (ie: Satanic world system).

It doesn't really matter, as Satan plural is predominantly a reference to the Force (singular will) of Evil, which includes its entirety under one edict. Satan singular is likewise the same reference. Satan is plural at all times in my understanding, even when represented by an individual devil, demon, or angel.

Also, it doesn't say that he kills them. It says he gathers them for war. Then it says a huge army is destroyed by fire from Heaven. Again, is this a literal war, or a spiritual contest of those for God vs. those against God? Is this "fire" localized or this the worldwide calamity that is referrenced in chapter 16?

Does it matter? The "intended meaning" is to show that Satan is vanquished by God. And not 4 or 5 lines later the author tells us that heaven and earth are passed away.

Very possibly.... Now, equal how?

I can't say. But Revelation has some ideas, most of which I've already mentioned in this post (no light or dark, etc).

Koo, we need to get you a better translation. That passage reads: "He measured the wall and it was 144 cubits thick, by man's measurement, which the angel was using.

Maybe in your revised New American version, which I should point out has been revised to reduce confusion, most of which comes from the fact that it is difficult to make a single accurate translation from the source. I'm using King James, which has a level of cultural predominance, though is equally fraught with problems.

We already know both good and evil. And there's nothing that says that Adam and Eve were physically immortal before the fall.

Well, God doesn't tell them not to eat from the tree of life in Genesis, but Revelation tells us that man will have access to it and the water of life in the second earth.

There's nothing that says we take on any of God's (big G) properties of omniscience, omnipotence, etc.

True.

Apathetianity??

It's all the rage :)

[Fung Koo]

Great stuff, you two! Keep going. I'm sure whoever's reading this is learning as much as I am from it. Very informative on all counts.

I admire both of you for taking Scripture as seriously as you do. I've never expected much from it, so I've never spent the time to analyze it in depth. When the basic premise of a text, the given, is alien to me, it's hard to study it with the same perspective as when it mystifies and thrills me.

Wow, I thought people might be getting annoyed that we've hijacked the thread! :)

If, as you started this thread out with, you take the Bible as literature, there is still a lot to be said for it. If you can suspend disbelief for a fantasy novel, you can also do so for the Bible. And when you do, you find out things like as a bildungsroman, the bible interestingly skips most of Jesus' transition from boy to man, or even from man to God. As an adventure story, Jesus is more anti-hero than hero.

Have you read A Canticle for Leibowitz? It made me want to know more about the bible.

[Gary Wassner]

Has anyone ever taken the story of the bible and turned it into a real fantasy novel? When I say real I mean really readable?

I read Scripture like I read Shakespeare. I find much of it insightful, certainly worth reading, in the case of Shakespeare often quite profound, but also far too often, boring. Sorry.

When you come to your read of Scripture without any sense of awe it changes the read. I don't think of it as sacred or holy. Those words have little meaning for me. It's always been just a book, written by different people long ago.

I understand the utility of it. Zorobice, you echo that utility with regard to your daily life and your relationships. But I don't feel that I need the support of some fantastical history and some frightening future prognosis to live my life morally, or at least according to the principles that I've spent so many years attempting to establish for myself and my children.

[Fung Koo]

Has anyone ever taken the story of the bible and turned it into a real fantasy novel? When I say real I mean really readable?

I'm sure there are many examples. Lots of movies, that's for sure. Perhaps the greater difficulty is that there's just so many stories. Personally, I'm a fan of retellings, like Timothy Findley's "Not Wanted On the Voyage." Have you read it? It's brilliant.

I read Scripture like I read Shakespeare. I find much of it insightful, certainly worth reading, in the case of Shakespeare often quite profound, but also far too often, boring. Sorry.

You don't have to apologize :) If you enjoy the production of Shakespeare (it is meant to be seen, not read), I highly highly recommend Julie Taymor's "Titus" (she also did "Across the Universe," "Frida," and a brilliant version of "Oedipus Rex"). It is Shakespeare the way nature intended. Brutal, gory, savage, and eloquent.

Someone once analyzed "Titus Andronicus" and found that in the play, there is one brutal act of murder, rape, mutilation, or something otherwise depraved for every 97 words. 97!!! There's triple that in this post alone! And it was Shakespeare's most often produced and most financially successful play.

But I don't feel that I need the support of some fantastical history and some frightening future prognosis to live my life morally, or at least according to the principles that I've spent so many years attempting to establish for myself and my children.

Not to pry, but can I ask what parables you do use? Are there any particular cultural theories that you use? I'm just curious :) I figure I'll be facing fatherhood relatively soonly, so it might be nice to have an idea of what someone else has done who holds some similar (non)beliefs. Anything you'd do differently? Any surprises?

[Abby]

I read Scripture like I read Shakespeare. I find much of it insightful, certainly worth reading, in the case of Shakespeare often quite profound, but also far too often, boring. Sorry.

Ha, that's the way I see it. Booooring. I love to read fiction, but I never got through that book cover to cover. I think you need to be a believer to enjoy it.

Has anyone ever taken the story of the bible and turned it into a real fantasy novel? When I say real I mean really readable?

Well, Anne Rice recently wrote a novel about Jesus's childhood and formative years. I predicted it would have child molestation in it, and from what I've heard, it does. But that's latter day Anne Rice for you.

It seems like culture now wants everyone to live like the troubled celebrities we see plastered all over the news. Our culture seems to be quickly losing any of the "Godly" elements it may have once contained.

To me, that's a very cynical view. Every generation bemoans its loss of respect and dignity. What would you consider a "Godly" culture ... Puritanism? They were so afraid of witches, they hung innocent women. Menonites and Amish? I wouldn't want to live with so many rules. Good ol' 1950s America? They had rampant racism, and criminals just like we do today.

After 12 years of police work, though, I can see how you'd have this view, and I won't try to dissuade you. That's a hard line of work.

For what it's worth, I think our culture does still try to plant moral values. There are still family friendly shows on TV, and family feel-good movies that come out every year. If the news these days is full of Britney Spears, it's because people want to hold her up as an example of BAD MOM and DON'T DO THIS. It's unfortunate that the news caves in to that kind of sensational celebrity gossip, but that's what they've always done. If you read old newspaper articles from the 1950s and before, you'll find all kinds of factual errors and sensationalism.

But I would say that your conscience, and those aspects of society/culture that encourage people to do good are in fact aspects of God's nature. So no, I couldn't go as far as to agree that those things are possible without God.

Okay, here's were we definitely disagree. And this is the impasse at which most believers and non-religious people arrive at. I can't argue with you past this point. You believe it's God, and I believe it's nature.

There's lot of people in the city where I work that I would love to take revenge upon. That's my desire. (...) in my line of work I've come across many people who are consumed with hate over some perceived wrong. Seeing the effects that it has had on them, I can see why my Judge would want me to just avoid it altogether.

I don't get it. So you feel hatred for certain people, but your Judge (God) wants you to avoid hatred altogether ... can you? Do you? That sounds like an inner conflict.

I've found that many religious people seem conflicted. You want or feel something one way, and God wants you to feel another way. God is, in essence, telling you what to feel. Does that work? Or is it a constant, daily struggle?

[Gary Wassner]

Haven't read 'Not Wanted'. Tell me more about it in relation to this thread, would you?

I've struggled to find ways of justifying my moral choices. Some things have always just 'seemed' right to me. But that's no more than cultural conditioning. I've grown more cynical regarding inherent 'right' and 'wrong' in things themselves. So I do struggle all the time, as I said. For the sake of wanting to live in a stable world, I accept certain types of behavior, but I have no illusions that the rules are anything more than utilitarian. In the end, I think it's arbitrary. It's all about what we choose. I choose to avoid cruelty. I evaluate my actions based upon that premise. Of course it requires a definition and I'm not sure that any definition would stand up to philosophical scrutiny. Nevertheless, it works for me in most cases.

The fact is, I can see both sides of the moral quagmire. I can see a perspective where just about anything is acceptable. In the end, absent an almighty judge, there is no 'truth' when it comes to ethics.

So I see the value of Scripture. I don't have any sense whatsoever that it's coming from God, that there is a God, that there are metaphysical forms that are the foundations of our ethics. I find that way of thinking naive. But I quest for some way of making moral choices that feels right. Again I revert to the word 'feels' for lack of a better way of putting it. And I know that my feelings in this regard are nothing more than inaccurate thermometers that essentially record something totally other than the moral objectivity of a situation.

I am a father three times over. There's little I wouldn't do for my children. So in many respects, parenthood make you relativize ethics even more. But it also give you a compassionate eye and forces you to empathize with everyone who is also a parent. These are very hard issues. This is what I write about. This is what my books are about. This is why I start threads like this one and so many others on my forum. I'm searching all the time, and it's sad and depressing that it's not as clear to me as it may be to people of faith. I envy them to an extent, but I also truly believe that they're sadly mistaken.

Still, I say often that if you believe in God, then anything is possible and the world loses all sense of stability and reason. But if you don't believe, it loses all the foundations of right and wrong. Hence, where do you turn? What do you do? Those are the conflicts that I confront in my books. And that's why I can't seem to finish the series!!! :) How do you resolve what may be unresolvable?????