• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Has a friend ever tried to convert you to Christianity?

The point? Christians are the last people who should be acting as if they have a handle on the "Truth," let alone the" ONLY Truth."

yet i do not see one point in there that undermines their claims at spiritual (metaphorical) truth. While translations and copying yields lots of subjective word interpretation, it does not mean that the 'sense' and context of what is said is lost. if people insist on believing 'the letter' of what is said, i'd say that is a poor excuse for not digging. people shouldn't expect profound spiritual truths to be fast food offered to them on a plate without having to do anything for it.

and i am also curious to know what is up with this "G-D" thingy
 
if people insist on believing 'the letter' of what is said, i'd say that is a poor excuse for not digging. people shouldn't expect profound spiritual truths to be fast food offered to them on a plate without having to do anything for it.

Amen to that! Spiritual fulfilment takes effort, and to expect otherwise is simply lazy.
 
Raw: Nobody "censors" anything. Jews do not write out the full name unless it will be ina totally permnanat form. To do so otherwise is viewed as disrepectful to the Creator.

There is a minority view with regard to cyberspace that holds that since nothing is ever totally erased in cyberspace, it is permissable to write the name fully. The majority view, which I hold to, feels that it is better safe than sorry.

Azzaza: How do you see THAT? All you have to do is read just about any English version of the NT to see how false the faith is. Look at Matthew 15, when Jesus is walking in Sidon or Tyre (it is not specific), and the gentile woman begs his mercy for her demon posessed daughter.

What does Jesus do? He totally ignores her. A disciple asks why he is ignoring the lady and what does Jesus then say? He equates her with mangy bitch (well most English versions simply put it politely as a mere "begging dog").

If Jesus existed, and IF the NT is accurate we have a religious Jew who despised non"Jews." His message, in his own words, was ONLY for the Jews!

This only changed when Paul got hold of it (OR invented it).

I agree with you and others who say spiritual fufillment takes A LOT of work but I go one further and say that UNLESS 1 is willing to seriously study Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, as well as intensely studying other faiths they can never hope to ever really have even the remotest understanding of "truth."

(Edited for spelling)
 
Last edited:
Azzaza: How do you see THAT? All you have to do is read just about any English version of the NT to see how false the faith is. Look at Matthew 15, when Jesus is walking in Sidon, and the gentile woman begs his mercy for her demon posessed daughter.

What does Jesus do? He totally ignores her. A disciple asks why he is ignoring the lady and what does Jesus then say? He equates her with mangy bitch (well most English versions simply put it politely as a mere "begging dog").

i don't see your point. do you believe a spiritually enlightened being cannot tell someone that they are doing something wrong? is he supposed to be some kind of fluffybunny? perhaps the daughter was not possessed at all, but the woman believed so because she did not agree with how her daughter acted? would it not be evil of Jesus to participate in her game and strenghten her belief in something that is wrong? i can view the passage as a lesson that a good person has to watch out that his person is not to be abused as to act as a strawman in someones manipulative behaviors.

as for "if Jesus existed, and IF the NT is accurate we have a religious Jew who despised non"Jews." His message, in his own words, was ONLY for the Jews!"

from the top of my head; the passage of the good samaritan? Luke, i believe?
 
Last edited:
Raw: Nobody "censors" anything. Jews do not write out the full name unless it will be ina totally permnanat form. To do so otherwise is viewed as disrepectful to the Creator.

but "God" isnt His name, so whats the issue with using it?
 
Tahtra: We consider G-D to be so powerful as to deeply respect any descriptive.

Azzazza: You are making up things now and asking me "What ifs." Mark 15 is explicit in the original Middle Greek that the non-Jewish lady sought help for a truly posessed daughter. IF you have read this verse you will know that Jesus also said that his message is ONLY for the Jews. Ergo what would your supposition do to change that definative statement?

You can surmise all you want but when there is a definiatively articulated statement you must deal with it as it. We are not talking about allegory or parable but a simply expressed sentiment that is reiterated elsewhere in the Christian canon.

As for the 2nd part of your post, it may behoove you to know that Samaritans were and are Jews, though despised by the majority of Jews as awhole due to a couple of factors (progent of Assyrian colonists who took Israelite wives, who were themselves viewed as collaborators, competing claims for the Priesthood and Temple, etc.).

They are NOT "non-Jews." IF you have the proper background you will see THAT parable in an entirely different way. Though the NT is full of inconsistencies (just not on his message being only for the Jews).
 
you see this is what i ment. you are attacking the physical book. you attack the writers, translaters etc, in short you are attacking the letter. books don't speak; you speak the book. when you read a text you enter a hermeneutic circle. if you read a book benevolently so to speak, with good intention, the book will speak to you in that manner as well. you are telling me that IF i have the proper background i will see that parable in a different way. of couse i will see it in a different way. but does that mean that your 'proper background' is the right way to read that book? who are you to say that? i can interpret a line such as "my message is only for the jews" has the intention of stressing that what his message is tailored for the jews, ie. it should be interpreted in the judaic context of living. or it can even mean that the jews are the only ones willing to listen, or that his speaking is a speaking to the jews, or... . and again who cares that the samaritans were jews? you do! the message of that passage is clearly one of reaching out to people one might feel an aversion to. what does it matter that it is written in a jewish context?

you are placing everything you read in a historic context i can make equally dubitable using your own line of argumentation against you. where do you get this historical context? from books with writers. do these writers have their own agenda's, focuses, backgrounds and interpretations? of course they do! are they really purely 'factual'? is your reading even 'factual'?

but more importantly: does factual equal right? i fact, i can effectively wipe your entire argument for the 'falsity of the christian belief system' off the table with Hume's guillotine.

which brings me to my point. intention. who are you to tell someone else that the intention you read a book with is the only proper way to read it? in fact, that is exactly what a fundamentalist position is. you assume that the glasses through wich you read the book are the only proper background through which to read this text. if your heart is set on uncovering 'the falsity of the christian belief system'; that is exactly what you will see and how the text will speak to you. but that is your intention to do so. does that mean that anyone who reads these texts will read the same thing you do? does it mean they have to? should they? who are you trying to prove something to in the first place?

de te fabula narratur
 
Last edited:
Raw: Nobody "censors" anything. Jews do not write out the full name unless it will be ina totally permnanat form. To do so otherwise is viewed as disrepectful to the Creator.

IMO, if such a being is in fact all-powerful, then He's a big boy, and doesn't need puny humans to look after him, or his name.

Edit: hold up, this is off-topic anyway.
 
^ It's for your own sake, not G-d's. :)
I think daring not to speak the name of someone that you recognize as far more powerful than yourself is an exercise in awe and reverence, and that's the whole point.

It's like when traditional Japanese say that the proper response if one ever finds oneself in the presence of the emperor is fear and trembling. Saying and believing this is not tantamount to expecting to ever actually meet the emperor face to face. Nor is it a way of saying that the emperor of Japan would be realistically willing and able to harm you if you ever came face to face with him. Rather, it's the cutivation of a certain sort of view and relationship.

Orthodox Jews are simply not on a first name basis with the supreme being, and see that as the right and proper sort of relationship, based on their traditions and mythology.
 
Personally, I would envision being friendly and on a first-name basis with any being to be the ultimate form of respect.
 
First, on the permanent representation of G-D's name, or proxy-term...

Raw: I)"The ultimate form of respect would be to be on a 1st name basis with any being.": OK, 1st, G-D is not "any being," nor even a "being." HE is beyond any human objectification or conceprualisation as far as a specific form of existence goes.

II) As far as treating a being with respect by maintaining a 1st name basis with them or any other form of familiarity, do you call your parents by their 1st names? Most people shudder at the thought because it is beyond disrespectful. The sacrifice and onus they have assumed to bring you into this world and nurture you deserves a very real sense of respect. How much more so for G-D who has brought not only you but each and every one of your ancestors to bear? If we respect our biological fathers how much more so should we respect the father of ALL?

MyDoor: I) "Not speaking the name of G-D.": That is not the subject, since we are discussing the REPRESENTATION of that name, or its proxy. However it IS very closely related to this subject and in fact, #II in my response to Raw holds true for this point as well. There ARE a scant few who dare to call their biological (or even adoptive) father's by their 1st name, but most recognise that as a hugely disrespectful gesture. With Jews, we treat our biological father's with an amazing amount of respect (in comparison with any Western Culture). A son may be killed for sassing a father, once that son has reached maturity (age 13). Today we rarely kill for that, literally, but still literally treat such a child as dead so that IF we place that modicum of respect on the interplay between child and father, again, how much more so between 1 and the Father of All?


II) "Still, it is more for humans than it is for G-D.": It benefits both us AND G-D BUT the act is undertaken out of love, concern and respect fo G-D. The benefit to humanity (building a more cognisant {of G-D} society and a more considerate {of humanity} society) is not really factored in to the equation.

IF you mean to say we avoid out of concern for OUR OWN well being, I disagree. Jewish religious onservance is not concerned with a "hear after." We do not believe in Heaven OR Hell, and our belief in the Reseurrection is quite different from the Christian conceptualisation (I.e. "It not being linked to one's sin and good deed spread sheet").

Finally, we do not believe G-D involves HIMself in our affairs on a day in,day out basis (re: conundrum of Freewill versus Predestination), but we certainly DO believe that HE does and CAN take the perogative to do so. We also believe that HE is completely accessible and not at all remote as say, a Japanese person may conceptualise the Emperor.

We respectfully argue with
G-D on a daily basis, just as we would with our father (we do NOT accept HIS will unquestioningly but we engage in this without rancor and without taking OR causing umbrage).

We fully EXPECT to interact with G-D whereas a Japanese person would never even assume themself worthy to do so with their Emperor, let alone remotely imagine that it was even remotely possible.

(Edited for spelling as well as to erase a redundant point in reply to MyDoor {original #II})
 
Last edited:
Azzazza: I) "Rachamim is attacking the translators of the New Testament, the veracity of the claims made therein, but books do not speak. People speak the book!": OK, I am hoping that by now you recognise how silly that sounds but something tells me that you remain quite "proud" of that faux-philosophical nonsense. People speak the book" according to how the book is WRITTEN.

IF you read a book about Humpty Dumpty you will not then use it to pontificate upon 19th Century European Liberalism. The New Testament deals with particular subject matter. Anyone studying the tome will, for better or worse, be deailing with THAT particular subject matter!

II) "IF one reads the book with 'good intentions,' one will then understand the book in a benevolent manner." (As strains of Ravi Shankar waft on an incense laden breeze) Uh, no. One should ALWAYS approach an unread/unstudied book with an as objective mind as humanly possible.

The idea is, despite the biases inherent to every human that has ever existed, to consider the materiel with an uncorrupted viewpoint. If you begin studying it with some Deepak Chopra bullshi* on your mind, yeah, you probablly WILL come out of it spouting tulips and daffodils.

III) "Bit IF someone goes into it with a highly objective mind, how can they have boned up on the cultural and historical issues at work and gain the neccessary accumen that Rachamim has claimed is neccessary for a more accurate understanding of the New Testament?": Knowing the historical and cultural issues pertienent to 1st Century CE/AD Judea and the Jewish People should have no bearing what so ever on what an unitiated reader will gain so far as a "positive" or a "negative" orientation.

IV) "The statement, by Jesus, in Matthew 15 that has Jesus saying that his message is ONLY for the Jews can be read a number of ways; It can be seen to say that Jesus' message should be accepted with an understanding of Judaic though, Jews were the only ones willing to listen OR that his 'speaking' was actually a 'speaking to the Jews' !": In your line of reasoning it CAN indeed mean ANYTHING. Yet unlike you, I explained exactly why I understood it to mean what I said (it did not hurt that Jesus himself said it absolutely explicitly). All you bothered to do was call me incorrect and toss out non-sensical "what ifs".

Tell us why it would mean any one of those things, or alternatively, something else.

Let us recap:

A) Jesus is approached by a distraught woman who begs him for a favour.

B)Jesus will not even look at her.

C)Jesus' companions ask him why he totally ignored the distraught woman.

D) Jesus compares her to a mangy bitch (I.e. disgusting dog).

E) When the woman acknowledges her status as a begging dog Jesus haughtily grants her that 1 favour.

Please feel free to show why it does NOT mean what I have stated, and why it DOES mean something else. Just tossing out "coulds" and "maybes" is intellectually bankrupt.

V) "Only Rachamim cares that the Samaritans are Jews!": Right, because YOU were NOT the person using the parable of "The Good Samaritan" as proof positive that I was wrong in my claim that Jesus despised non-Jews (sarcasm).

VI) "Rachamim's stance that the historical context of the New Testament is vital to a proper understanding of that work is vulnerable to Rachamim's very same line of reasoning! Just as the New Testament is a book written by humans, so are the historical accounts upon which Rachamim maintains one must be well versed BEFORE tackling the New Testament!": Uh, your entire point is senseless. Let us do another recap:

A) Rachamim says that understand the NT, one must be knowedgeable of the historical dynamic contained there in.

B) Azzazza counters that in order to gain that proper historical background, one must do so through books! Ergo Rachamim has argued himself into a corner!

Easily enough summed up but just as easily showing that your point makes absolutely no sense. The only way it may remotely make sense is IF you are claiming that ALL historical accounts are suspect in every way. That is an astronomical "IF."

History is a science. It can be approached in a highly methodical manner and can be reasonably explored sans the usual hyperbole and brouhaha associated with dogmatic subjects like the New Testament. There are a multitude of historical sources so that even as A, B and C get disqualified there will always be a multitude of others with which to work with.

I will continue my reply to you in a subsequent post...
 
^please, don't bother.

1. Humes guillotine.
2. before dismissing the hermeneutic circle as faux-philosophical nonsense, you may want to actually read some philosophy. more specifically; Schleiermacher, Heidegger and Gadamer. i don't even know who ravi shankar is personally.

de te fabula narratur
and history is a science, written by the victorious
 
Azzazza Part II...

VII) "Azzazza can 'wipe the table' of Rachamim's entire argument that Christianity is a 'fake religion' by merely utilising 'Hume's Guillotine'.": Please do so. You can SAY anything you want but putting that claim to action is an entirely different endeavour.

VIII) "Who is Rachaminm to tell any other person that Rachamim's intention in reading the New Testament is any better than the intention of any other person reading it?": What does "intention" have to do with actual subject matter? If you read that, "On 12/07/1941 Japan bombed Pearl Harbor (sic)," what would anybody's intetion in reading it have to do with claims made?

More to the point, instead of pointlessly saying (over and over mind you) that Rachamim is wrong, tell us just how I am wrong Do not list alternatives, simply cut the cock and bull and explain just how anything I have stated is wrong.

Then, please pointedly explain just how having "different intentions" when reading the NT would change any of the substance there in.

IX) "What Rachamim is doing with Matthew:15, is exactly what Fundamentalists do! Rachamim believes that ONLY Rachamim's understanding is the correct one and all others be damned.": Except that we are not discussing an interprative portion. Matthew:15 is NOT a parable. It is as if, in discussing Jesus casting the Moneylenders out of the Temple after flipping their tables, we were to say, "Well maybe he did not flip their tables, that is just code for..." We are discussing a reported event. IF you base your position upon the platform that the event reported in Matthew:15 did NOT happen at all (assuming anything in Jesus' life ever took place), you will then have to outline what the event symbolises.

All you are doing is saying, "Rachamim is wrong!" In fact, all you are doing is fufilling the claim you made against me! I made a point, I backed it up (explained just why I see it that way). You took great umbrage but that is ALL YOU DID! At best your position can be broken down as, "Rachamim's point is just as valid as any other point, no more nor less valid than any other take on Matthew:15, or the NT at large." That, to me, just seems to be a bunch of empty words and wasted space.
___________________________
Raw: "IF G-D is such an omnipotent entity, HE certainly does not need any human looking out for HIS well being (re the whole "G-D" issue).": It has nothing to do with "protecting" G-D. Would you let someone rip up a photo of your loved one? More to the point, would you yourself rip up such a photo?

(Edited for spelling)
 
Last edited:
Azzazza's last post: I always "bother" and do not do so for YOU, but for myself and for any other people reading this thread. Civility is a virtue one might expect an aficionado of Philosophy 101 to be acquainted with.

As for the reading list, I might be going out on a limb but I suspect I was reading them in university before your parents met. Either way, you may just want to consider what your subjective take on any one of those philosphers represents when you have castigated another person for "narrow viewing."
 
your ad hominems speak volumes really. and please don't put words in my mouth i did not say in your personal reiterations of them. if you do wish to approach a text with an objective mind, you can muster the courtesy to quote my own words.
also, im not giving you a reading list. im showing you that what you first deem 'faux-philosophical nonsense' has been written by a few highly regarded philosophers. if you would have read them, in any way, shape or form, you would certainly not have dismissed my referencing you to the hermeneutic circle in that manner.


Humes guillotine, commonly but a bit inaccurately reffered to as the naturalistic fallacy.

there is a book we call the bible. the bible is not an historical account of things that happened. the bible is a spiritual manifest. its texts are read as allegories to which people can relate in their lives, and as such, find meaning and guidance in.
there are historical accounts that deal with the time about which the bible is talking. a person can thouroughly acquaint himself with the history of the time. he can use this perspective to look at a book that was written in that time. perfectly valid. can bring up interesting points of consideration.
said person then commences to use his historical perspective on the spiritual content of a book which is not an historical account. said person makes a categorical mistake. from your historical accounts, you cannot make any claims as to the spiritual validity of the content of the spiritual book. said book has long left the historical context in which it was originally written. and it continues to do so. more so said book has been copied, translated, edited for over almost 2 millenia. said spiritual book and its interpretation has meandered along with the times. and continues to do so. said person uses his learned historical viewpoint to lay claim to an objective(!) interpretation of a current day spiritual book. what i am attacking is this. your claim to objectivity in refuting not only a spiritual text, but the entire present day liturgy around it. by means of an historic interpretation of a book that is not an historic account. this is preposterous. you force a book from its spiritual context into a category of historic fact, on the basis of which you lay claim to an objective point of view, and then proceed to refute the spiritual truths in the book with an air of objectivity, on a basis to which that book doesn't even belong to it is not because you force that book in an exclusive historical context, that your historical claims about it serve any objectivity regarding its spiritual truth. the book is not an historical account. Jesus is not even an established historical fact. its truth is not historic; it is allegoral. exit your 'backing' of your point of view.


is it really that hard to grasp that you can't refute a claim at spiritual truth that is essentially non-historical by means of historical accounts? because the story was written that way? The meaning of the bible is enormously influenced by the present day liturgy around it (another one of those completely whacky hermeneutic circles). im all ears to your point of view, i try to learn as much as possible; but don't billow it up with a claim of objectively refuting christianity. if your view on the sprituality of christianity has merits, those merits will speak for themselves without you having to resort to the 'objectivity' of your point of view.

you really might want to have a look into hermeneutics. it might greatly advance your understandings. don't trust my subjective interpretations of it, please do read for yourself.

[edit]

as for matthew 15,22: here is a copypaste from a chritstian thinktank site. just to illustrate my point of the power of intention; what do you want to see? it is that intention that will guide your reading and learning.
also, i in no way shape or form pretend to be a learned bible scholar, my own personal "what ifs" were intended to illustrate that ones reading and research is determined by the presuppositions you approach a text with; in other words, by what you wish to see. furthermore you have no historic access to anything other then the events themselves. there are many nuances and tones that cannot be put into a text very well (especially considering Jesus' way of teaching), or worse, that are simply overlooked (consciously or otherwise). in fact, the entirety of ethics escapes historical material events (ie. Wittgensteins big book, a nice illustration of Hume's guillotine).

christian thinktank site.

let's look at the flow of the text:

Jesus hides in a house with his disciples, presumably in the countryside, to get the rest Jesus had promised his disciples in Mark 6.31.
News of Jesus' proximity reaches the woman, who immediately drops what she is doing and seeks out the house in which Jesus is staying (Mk 7.25)
She is apparently outside of the house, where she cries/yells out to Him, using the messianic title "Son of David"
Jesus doesn't yell an answer back to the woman from inside the house (Mt 15.23), nor does he speak to the disciples about the matter (they are SUPPOSED to be resting).
They decide to approach Jesus about her, and ask him to grant her request and send her away (Mt 15.23)[Notice that this is the kind of behavior God wanted the Jews to have--to intercede for Gentiles (although it might likely be motivated more by their desire for 'quiet')! Was Jesus silent at first, to provoke the disciples to do this ministry?]
Jesus makes a theological comment, to the disciples (ONLY), about Him being sent "publicly" only to the house of Israel, but this remark (or its tone--which cannot be conveyed by the text) SOMEHOW encourages them to let the woman inside the house!
The woman, only now with full access to Jesus (Mt 15.25), makes her appeal in humility. (The standard understanding of the nature of demonic exorcism--involving physical proximity, cf. Mt 17.14ff-- would have made her request into a 'please come to my house, and drive out the demon'. Cf. Also Jairus in Mark 5.22ff..
Jesus uses a mini-parable or household image about children getting temporal priority at feeding time over their play-pet "puppies" (He actually doesn't even say 'no' to the woman--only something like "something else must be done first").
Seeing exactly the subtle hint that Jesus has provided in the image, she agrees with Jesus (the adversative 'but' in many English translations is simply NOT in the text at all--the kai gar is everywhere else in the NT translated "for even"!), and points out that sometimes the puppies get little morsels BEFORE their regular feeding time, by simply hanging around the dinner table and catching the parts not used by the kids.
Jesus is deeply moved by such a powerful faith--He addresses her in Matthew with "O, Woman!"--a Greek construction (in Hellenistic Greek, not Classical) indicating deep emotional response (Carson, EBC, Matthew, p.356).
Jesus compliments her on her great faith, and explains that the demon has already left her daughter--(and that, by implication, there is no need for Him and the disciples to travel to her home.)
She leaves (apparently trusting Him with that powerful faith--like the Centurion in Luke 7) and finds her daughter cured.

Notice that there is not the slightest indication that the woman felt insulted, discouraged, or even frustrated in this narrative--and also notice that this woman's incredible faith is immortalized forever in the NT (cf. Mk 14.9!).

Now, let's make some observations about this flow:

First, Jesus has made an implicit commitment to allow the disciples to rest. If Jesus were to go with this woman, the crowds would be thronging them, and they would be right back where they were in the last 2-3 chapters. Jesus has to "draw the line" somewhere. There is a time to rest and a time to work.

Jesus' comment to the disciples about 'the lost sheep of Israel' does two things: (1) it 'sets them up' pedagogically on a different track for His dialogue with the woman; and (2) SOMEHOW, encourages them to let the woman into His presence.

This latter point could be accomplished in a number of ways, many of which are not able to be conveyed in the text. We know, for example, of several cases of irony/sarcasm in Jesus' words that can only be learned from the setting (cf. Luke 13.33: In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day -- for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem! or John 16.31: "You believe at last!" Jesus answered. ) For all we know, this verse might have been said with a 'tired irony'--something like the modern--"I was sent only to the Lost Sheep of Israel--yeah, right!". In any event, his words or his tone or his gestures encouraged them to 'let her in'.

The woman now makes a request "(come to my house and) perform an exorcism" which conflicts with Jesus' current 'mission' to provide rest for his disciples. But instead of saying "No," he turns the event into a three-pronged teaching and development session--for her, for his disciples, for us--WITHOUT compromising His commitment to his disciples' rest, or His compassion for this woman's need.

He responds with a mini-parable or image of supper-time, little children, and their inside pets. This image is so well chosen, that it will deliver two 'payloads' to two different audiences.

Remember, the disciples were 'set up' with the theological statement about 'to the Jew only/first.' They will 'process' the words of Jesus with the equivalencies of "children-Jews"//"puppies-Gentiles". They will hear Him speak about how God has a special place for the Jew in the salvation of the world.

The woman, on the other hand, has probably neither heard this remark, NOR has the theological sophistication to make this connection. She is not an Israelite, and although she uses the Son of David title for Jesus, probably has little or no understanding of the theological subtleties required to process the words in the same way as the disciples. But she has already had some interaction with the disciples, and they have probably told her that they are there to rest, not minister. So SHE will hear the words of Jesus and make the equivalencies of "children-disciples"//puppies-me". She will understand Jesus to be saying that she WILL GET FED, but that He must take care of His disciples FIRST. There is not a 'NO' in Jesus' words at all--just an implicit "WAIT."

This "WAIT vs. NO" scenario is what prompts the woman to persevere. Either the image or the tone of Jesus encourages her to make her quick-witted response.

The image Jesus has chosen is an image of endearment, not insult. The picture of supper-time, with little kids at the table, and their pet "puppies" (the Greek word for 'dog' here is not the standard, 'outside' dog--which MIGHT BE an insult--, but is the diminutive word, meaning 'household pets, little dogs'... see gooddoggy.html) at their feet, maybe tugging on their robes for food or play. The puppies, dear to the children and probably so too to the master (cf. 2 Sam 12.3f: but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.), were to be fed AFTER the children (notice: not DENIED food--there was no "NO" in Jesus image--only "WAIT"). But the temporal order is clear--Jesus must take care of His disciples FIRST, and if meeting her need involved interrupting their rest and GOING SOMEWHERE, then it was going to have to wait.

Implicit in Jesus' image, however, is a very obvious 'hint' to the woman as to how next to proceed. His word choices are interesting. He COULD HAVE SAID "it is not fitting to take the children's food and give it to the (outside) dogs", but instead said "it is not fitting to take the children's food and TOSS it to the (inside) pets." The image, using the different Greek form for "inside puppy-pets" rather than that of the "outside dog" (cf. Luke 16.21), makes the "toss/inside puppy-pets" stand out in the saying. If the woman had ever had any inside pet-related experiences, she would have instantly visualized the obvious--the little pets NEVER sit still away from the table--they are always (esp. the puppies) 'hounding' the children, with the often result of a morsel here or there BEFORE their real mealtime. The hint is there; and the quick-witted woman instantly seizes upon it.

And the woman apparently took no insult, nor was discouraged at all. Instead, realizing the dynamics of the image, she instantly saw the built-in "way out"--she didn't want to interrupt the meal--she only wanted a simultaneous 'bite'. She quickly agrees with Jesus ("You are absolutely right Lord, I do not want to interrupt that...") and develops a latent feature in the image ("...in fact, I want you to do that so abundantly so that some of it 'falls off the table' to me the puppy--that way I can eat my little bite at the same time")! This amazing statement amounts to believing (1) that Jesus can do the two things at once--bless His disciples with rest, while He heals her daughter; and (2) that the miracle she needs is a simple 'crumb-size' work for the Son of David! This is 'action at a distance' (without the physical presence of Jesus), an implicit version of the Centurion's faith in Luke 7:

"Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, `Go,' and he goes; and that one, `Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, `Do this,' and he does it." 9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel."
And, accordingly, earns the same praise and deep response from Jesus.

The woman, upon getting the 'your request in granted', maintains her great faith, and leaves without needing Jesus to return with her. Her faith has proven strong, but she has also learned something--that there will still be a BIG FEEDING time for the "puppies"--in the future. This notion of the future time for blessing of the gentiles is ALSO present in that image, and this would have been instructional both for her personal faith, and for the theological education of the disciples--they needed to know about the later mission to the gentiles that would occur (cf. John 10.16: 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.).

Thus the Teaching Master, in a masterful stroke, instructs the woman, heals her daughter, avoids the spotlight, grants rest to his disciples (while teaching them), and creates a masterful example to us all!

Summary: This passage proves to be a masterful teaching session by the Lord. It does not contain the traditionally-assumed insults to the woman, nor the insensitive rejection of her anxious request. Instead, it shows a sensitivity to her urgent need AND the disciples' needs. Through the skillful selection of a warm, household image, Jesus creates a situation that leads the woman to a more informed faith, a more precise hope, and the disciples to a greater appreciation of their role and of their privilege. Jesus has stayed true to His priority at the time (His disciple's needs), but was willing to interrupt that (briefly) to minister to a needy, faith-filled heart and to use that in leading His disciples to the greater rest that comes from greater faith in God. And this situation, recorded in scripture, challenges US to recognize His power and His willingness to meet our needs, although we MAY have to learn something in the process too...:>)

Such a Savior!

glenn miller, 10/22/96

i personally tend to argue at abstract levels only. if not for its general applicability, then for the sake of avoiding such time consuming textwalls of particularity.
 
Last edited:
This is what my thread i made last night says about my views on religion

crazynate: said:
;7718215]first off, i think religion is man's way of controlling people to do what their religion believes in, but not necessarily in a bad way, just to keep people on track. I think that once you get to a certain age, you should know the difference between right and wrong. People who question their religion are people who realize this, but some people aren't as confident which is why they continue to stay in church. Since 9th grade I began questioning religion and always wondered why there were so many.

Last year a well known kid at my school committed suicide and the funeral was held at a church. At the service the preacher said that since he was a good kid he would be off to a better place (assumingly he meant heaven). That made me think though. I always thought that in christianity suicide was an evil sinn and a sure path to hell... soo why would a christian preacher say something that completely goes against that? I also began thinking "damn, the bible has been translated for many many many many many many many many years, and there's no way that what is in scripture today is exactly what was originaly written". I mean damn, DNA can't even do that, so how could humans?

The final problem I had before making my decision was that there are sooo many religions out there. There's the major one's, christianity, judaism, buddhism... and many more within tribes and other cultures. I, being a person who reealy cares about other people, couldn't quite except the fact that of allllll the people in this world only christians will go to "heaven" and all others are screwed and go to hell.. just doesn't sound right to me. I mean I can bet money that buddhists or people in random ass tribes far away from society don't sinn neearly as much as christians do.

My conclusion is that it doesn't matter what you believe in but as long as you live life with a positive attitude, have good morals, and do your best to contribute to society, then whatever happens after you die should have no consequences for you. I mean that's racist if you think that "since I'm a christian I'm going to heaven, but you don't deserve to because you aren't" ... and I know some ofyou will say "that's why our job as christians is to inform as many as possible so that they do go to heaven" but who are you to judge whether or not they go to heaven? I mean noone has met god or jesus or know what will happen when we die. Heaven to me is a word that makes us feel better about what happens when you die, and since the only knowledge we have of what happens comes from a book that people living on earth wrote who claimed to have gotten the info from god (but damn i tripped bawls one time and thought I talked to god, doesn't mean i actually did), I think the best way to look at afterlife is by fairness. In the end I think religion's only purpose is to guide people and help them live a moraly positive life, but does not determine where you go in the afterlife
 
Judaism isn't much better than Christianity. It was actually the forerunner of the ancient pagan religions leading into the christian solar worship. My humble view, anyways...

People need to move away from these population control mechanisms of Religion. Why do people need a middle man to their God in first place, if God resides in all Things, including each person? People need to believe something because they themselves came up with that belief, not because some dude in religious attire told them to think that way.
 
First, on the permanent representation of G-D's name, or proxy-term...

Raw: I)"The ultimate form of respect would be to be on a 1st name basis with any being.": OK, 1st, G-D is not "any being," nor even a "being." HE is beyond any human objectification or conceptualisation as far as a specific form of existence goes.

I am curious as to how "G-D" can not be an entity, yet we can still both name "it"/him/Him and then proceed to not use that name. If something is not a being then how can anyone define its existence above that of a stapler or an iPhone?

And on your last point, if He is beyond objectification, how can we even acknowledge his existence? By fathoming such an entity in our minds, does that not inherently conceptualise his existence?

Or are you trying to tell me that such a conceptualisation is only approximate, which is not "worthy to be identified by his true name"? Pretty sure that kind of simplification and filtering of information has been crucial to our development as a species.
 
I am curious as to how "G-D" can not be an entity, yet we can still both name "it"/him/Him and then proceed to not use that name. If something is not a being then how can anyone define its existence above that of a stapler or an iPhone?

Check out process theology, it has some interesting (and pretty profound) ways of addressing this question. This school of philosophy did grow out of the Christian tradition, but is by no means limited to it or by it.

And on your last point, if He is beyond objectification, how can we even acknowledge his existence? By fathoming such an entity in our minds, does that not inherently conceptualise his existence?

Or are you trying to tell me that such a conceptualisation is only approximate, which is not "worthy to be identified by his true name"? Pretty sure that kind of simplification and filtering of information has been crucial to our development as a species.

%) Ah my friend, you wouldn't believe the number of books written and lives spent trying to come up with an adequate way of approximating and getting a taste of what an ineffable ultimate being might be like. I really think language is ultimately limited in this regard -- it's a great tool for exploring other human beings, since this is what we designed it, as a tool, to do. But language loses its efficacy the farther from a human being the subject of your verbal analysis is. In this regard, it's almost impossible to put something into words without putting it into human terms, or inherently comparing it to a person, whether you mean to or not. Everyone I've read or talked to who has been something of a seeker, has stressed that any words they use to express spiritual truths are ultimately crude approximations, and don't do justice to the firsthand experiences these writers have had.

I really think ethereal and awe-inspiring artforms that are wordless often do a better job getting one in touch with the ineffable than words, for many people. I think of that deep, almost black indigo color of the sky right after twilight on a clear day, or the sound of deep, rumbling bass reverberations in a place with good acoustics. Or echoes through a cavernous space.

That said, it is still VERY FUN, I find, to read theological, metaphysical, and other spiritual works, and challenge the writer to move me profoundly -- to do their best to use words to give me the sense of something beyond words.
 
Top