But, your body is only a temporary vessel. Spending a bunch of time and energy worrying about a temporary vessel seems counter-productive. I'd spend more time worrying about your eternal soul. -Big Man
Gee-Chee said ...But Big Man,
Dietary prohibitions have always been an integral aspect of spirituality. The Roman cultural rendition of Christianity has reinterpreted ancient exegeses.
However Semitic traditions support the convergence of the physical world with the transcendental in the journey towards spiritual excellence.
The act of fasting is not done so metaphorically. The stipulation for this spiritual "cleansing" is obtained ONLY through a strenuous physical dietary deprivation. So if the dietary act of fasting, with these "temporary vessels" are regarded for its spiritual significance, why then is the acquisition of pure foods discarded as meaningless acts without any spiritual merit or benefit?
14 comments:
Post my response homie.
The one where I referenced the Bible and addressed the spiritual assertion.
Thanks.
Big Man,
Your response sounded a little too safe for me. I know you like to be the one who sits on the fence and granted you were responding in a certain context, but I'd like to know what your thoughts are on the body and the flesh as addressed above - not in defence mode.
KW
I don't sit on the fence, I really do say what I think.
Gee Chee's comments were about the dietary stipulations handed to the Jews in Mosaic law. I referenced two reasons given for those laws, he referenced another.
I don't disagree with him that fasting is an important part of religion and that ancient Judaism had strict dietary guidelines. That's a biblical fact.
Where we disagree is in respect to what types of fasting are appropriate and what the Bible says now.
Gee Chee cites ancient biblical norms or Semetic traditions. The two main sources for those traditions are the Bible and Torah. With the Torah, what you see is what you get. But, with the Bible, you see a development of the spiritual theory. So, it's important to know what book we're dealing with.
I assumed Gee Chee is dealing with the Bible since he has quoted that book in the past to buttress an argument. Therefore, using the Bible, I pointed out that New Testment scripture clearly outlines changes that were acceptable in the dietary restrictions of the Torah. I also pointed to comments by Jesus on the subject of what is acceptable to eat.
Now, I did ignore Gee Chee's comments about faulty translations of scripture. Why? Well, if he's fine with the accuracy of the translations of the Bible and Torah when it comes to establishing Semetic dietary guidelines, why would he suddenly become uncomfortable with that same Bible when it changes does guidelines and provides an explanation for a change. That seems like accepting a source material when you agree with it, then discarding that same source material when you disagree with it. In essence, the contents of the source material and the research done by the researcher aren't important, what's really important is whether you agree with what they said. That's an opinion thing not a fact thing, so I ignored it.
Finally, as I said in my response, I never said that taking care of your body was a bad thing, which is what Gee Chee seemed to be attributing to me.
I just disagree with the idea that you have to eliminate wholesale so many things from your diet. Limit them, yes. Eliminate them, no. Plus, I find that folks get obesssed with things like health and fitness to the detriment of other areas that are far more important. That doesn't mean everybody does it, just some folks. So, I put my warning out there to give folks something else to think about.
Forgot to say.
Gee Chee has advocated not eating any beef or pork. I don't know if he advocates a strict vegetarian lifestyle, but I know he's spoken against consuming those two things. Therefore, I took his comments abotu fasting and cleansing to pertain to eliminating both of those items from your diet. Thus I made my point that the Bible does not call on us to do that, and in fact says the exact opposite. The question remains, do you believe the Bible in total, or just certain parts? That's a faith thing.
Certainly these books stipulate many things as order or divine law and the faithful masses obey what is more convenient for them in physical aspects and others focus more in spiritual aspects. The bible states the consumption of any animal is allowed, every animal and beast is allowed to be sacrificed for the service of men. Now, let me remind you that most texts in the Old Testament come from Sumerian scriptures, that civilization that worshiped the stars as their absolute deities.
But besides that, the Quran "prohibits" the consumption of animal flesh. So while some consider the act of sacrificing animals as a divine act and a "thank you note" to god, others believe is an abomination.
Fasting seems to me a more decent, moral and merciful sacrifice, since no being is slaughtered in order for one to feel more spiritually connected to god. It is personal inner sacrifice to a fun pleasure. It is a cleansing of the body as well with a spiritual significance.
I am not religious or attend any church, neither I am part of any religious group, but I do read the Quran and Bible here and then. None of them of course are absolute truth, but both contain part of it. It is in us to answer these contradictions and look for the answers, not for the world, but for ourselves.
Aww naww!!! Dee-Vision put that "Kill at Will" image on me and Big Man as Wilford Brimley waiting on some oatmeal to drop out the sky. Cold blooded. Man, I'd be pissed.
Spending a bunch of time and energy worrying about a temporary vessel seems counter-productive - Big Man
Arguably that's a concept founded in Paul's dreams grounded in the abolishment of textual evidence i.e. New Testament (Paul's interpretation) negating the Old, which leads into the topic of Paul, Judaic Christianity & Roman Mithraism, which takes us into the final stage of the Holy Ghost clearing everything up.
But the Holy Ghost lead me away from the "poak bone" and nasty heterophobic mens all in the choir "poke'n their bones" at each other. Naw just kidd'n.
Some consider being saved by the acknowledgment of faith alone, whereas others believe not only in the acknowledgment of faith, but the tenets that play the application of faith. Kungfu's architectural make up of form and application for example. Form ofcoarse are the movements and the application of form is the actual striking or physical engagement (which some Tai Chi practitioners argue, if you can't fight with it, it isn't Tai Chi).
-No I'm not using the Bible to argue the Bible. I just don't draw parallels between Semitic exegeses and Paulism.
-The Bible is not everyone's interpretation of spirituality.
-Semitism is not defined by Judaism. Where were Jews before Abraham? "Semitism" extends beyond the popular Jewish media definition.
-Quran does not prohibit consumption of animal flesh.
Gee Chee
Jews didn't exist before Abraham.
The people of that region exised, but they weren't Jews. You know, the cats who got circumcised at eight days old.
But, that doesn't mean that humans weren't serving God, just meant they weren't "Jews." That was a specific group created for a specific purpose. Jews have never had a stranglehold on God.
The people of the ancient world often had relationships with God outside of Judaism, in fact this is discussed in the Bible. However, my understanding of the term Semetic has always been applying it to the sons of Shem, which are typically modern day Jews and Palenstinians
I'm well aware of the fact that many cats don't use the Bible as their spiritual Guide.
But you have quoted from the Bible. So what's your purpose for doing that?
I've heard the Paulism crack before. But, Paul made a point of using ancient Jewish texts as the guideposts for his letters to Gentiles. His main point, the one repeated in all of his works included in the Bible, is that the Jewish model of salvation through works is void. Thus he fought mightly against Jews establishing dietary restrictions on Gentiles in an attempt to create man-made hurdles for salvation.
Like I said before, Jesus spoke on the issue of diet and other restrictions. Paul and Peter's comments on the topic just echoed what Jesus had already said when addressing the Pharisees in Matthew 15: 8-12
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[d]"
10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
The idea that Paul's writings negate the Old Testament don't work for me. Paul goes to great lengths to stress that is not the case, Jesus stresses that is not the case. If the comments by those two men about the validity of the Old Testament aren't enough for cats, then I don't know what is in the Bible.
I believe in you Big Man, I know you can do better than that definition of Semitism.
I could do the Jesus vs. Paul quotes for a good 10 or 15 post. At the end of the day both of us will be quoting from an ATTEMPTED translation of a text of a text and so on. Leaving only misleading terms and phrases because of a literal rendition when it is known languages do not translate word for word.
Example: Jesus regarded as the begotten son. "Begotten" suggest offspring that has been sired through the process of reproduction. No, it doesn't mean that? OK then the wording is wrong. Yes, this is an accurate? Then that negates God’s attribute of Eternal because He would be in a state (fatherhood) that He did not posses before, which means he has changed. “Change” indicates imperfection. “Well begotten is not a literal begotten.” But the “son” part is literal. Says who?
Well, the Holy Ghost guided the translators, scribes etc. Yet the fact remains there is no original text to refer to confirming that statement. As for text that HAVE been discovered (Dead Sea Scrolls etc), Israel in alliance with the Catholic Church keeps it under lock and key in Tel Aviv & the Vatican. “Those books don’t count though.” So I guess the books VOTED out of the Bible didn’t count either. So can’t add but can subtract according to what fits the politics of the time.
So Gee-Chee's "Holy Ghost" inspired read of the Bible has just as much merit as Big Man's "Holy Ghost" inspired read or the Catholic Church’s, Baptist's, Farakhan's, Drew Ali's, 5%'s, Hebrew Israelite's, Jehovah Witnesses' "Holy Ghost" inspired read of the Bible.
Gee Chee said:
"So Gee-Chee's "Holy Ghost" inspired read of the Bible has just as much merit as Big Man's "Holy Ghost" inspired read or the Catholic Church’s, Baptist's, Farakhan's, Drew Ali's, 5%'s, Hebrew Israelite's, Jehovah Witnesses' "Holy Ghost" inspired read of the Bible."
So, if my view has as much merit as your view, why the need by you to challenge my view?
If I'm not mistaken, you took it upon yourself to challenge my view as if it was incorrect. Matter of fact, you took it upon yourself to misinterpet what I wrote, and then challenge that new interpetation as incorrect. After all, I never said acquiring pure foods was without merit or benefit. I questioned the degree of attention, not the existence of attention. There is a difference.
Like I've said before to many cats on this site and others, if you don't believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, then that's fine. You don't believe it, no skin off my back.
I only get involved when cats use the Bible to justify particular viewpoints, then ignore the Bible when it comes to other viewpoints.
Because then it's not the Bible that's important, it's just a prop to add credence your own beliefs. You don't need that crutch.
Your beliefs are strong enough without the Bible, let them stand without a selective co-signing from the Bible.
If the Bible is a bunch of rubbish, then let it be a bunch of rubbish. Don't tout it as a voice of wisdom when you agree with it, and then downplay it as ridiculous when you disagree with it.
That's just cheeky.
I don't see it as a challenge but adding to the discussion.
When I quoted the Bible verse that wasn't congruent with the "Jesus deity" comment you made, that was something that was apropos.
Any book or song that you see me quote does not mean that every thing that writer or artist has to say in their cosmology is inherently my position. You know how it goes, "The statements and views expressed in this film does not necessarily reflect the blah, blah, blahness...
Your argument is a perspective that the Bible is in total balance and their are no overt contradictions. My position (when I quoted the Bible in another thread) was a verse that was apropos for THAT discussion. What am I going to quote the sacred I Ching, the Holy Quran, the Torah? No, I quote the text that's apropos for that comment. You made the comment, I recognized the origins of that cosmology, knew it wasn't coming from "Hot Grits" Rev. Al Green, hence the Bible quote.
DV post quotes from Negroes up repeatedly...next thread the very person he "co-signed", is the very person he's in debate with. I'm not in the pulpit getting 50g's a year in salary & 500g's in "love offerings" that don't show up on taxes. So I'm not obliged to agree with the Bible in totality. That's not the kind of paycheck I draw. My paycheck allows me to quote something and disregard a portion of it.
I didn't see some disclaimer in Genesis. If you see it that black & white "I'm quoting to justify particular viewpoints, then ignore the Bible when it comes to other viewpoints", implying I have to agree with it completely, then that is a principle I've absorbed from the Baptist way. Throw out the Old Testament when it goes against Churchanity, and use it when it doesn't threaten membership.
I'm not on the war path I'm only explaining the phenomenon of the 'quote.' That said, you made a statement on a thread addressing not only addressing food selectivity but the act itself as liberation from the plantation theme on DV-dot-Oh-Are-Gee (as in O.G. not Gee-Chee).
You discussed "spending a bunch of time and energy worrying about a temporary vessel being counter-productive and the "eternal soul" and whatnot, leading me to inject how some may tie in eating with safeguarding their "eternal soul." You posted one view of food's level of significance with the "eternal soul", I posted the other. That position you took, often times references a history in the black church of "awaiting for some pie in the sky." Slave masters using the verse in the Bible "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" to remind slaves not to rebel against a system. Not saying you condone this, but the timing of your quote has historical overtones. What I believed to be in congruency with DV's position that the whole discussion of food on his blog is "10% food"&"90% freedom" highlights and is parallel to my response to your comment. Not an attempt to send the Bible through a meat grinder.
"If the Bible is a bunch of rubbish, then let it be a bunch of rubbish. Don't tout it as a voice of wisdom when you agree with it, and then downplay it as ridiculous when you disagree with it."
Big Man, this is hard not to do.
Some blatant contradictions in the Book....
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
Gen 9:3
"Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase."
Deut 14: 7,8
So is it o.k. to eat pork, accordning to God?
"I and my Father are one."
John 10:30
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
John 14:38
Is Jesus and God one and the same or not?
"The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works."
Psalm 145:9
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Isai 45:7
Evil is the doing of God?
"I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me."
Prov 8:17
"Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:"
Prov 1:28
Meaning... God answers your prayers when he/she feels like it?
"…and that there is none other God but one."
1 Cor 8:4
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Gen 1:26
There are multiple gods?
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." Ex 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
Rom 14:5
So... long as I’m convinced I’m doing the right thing, I’m cool and no one should judge?
NEA
Who is judging? Ain't me. We could go back and forth about the context of each of those verses and where they fit in the overall scheme of the Bible, but seems like a waste of time.
Nobody forces anybody to believe in the Bible or agree with Bible. It doesn't happen. I've found that most of the people who disbelieve in the Bible and quote scripture didn't actually study the Bible with the intent of seeing if it was true, but with the intent of proving it wrong.
Totally different mindset, totally different result. Personally, while I was raised in the church, I went through a period where I questioned the book and had to discover what it said and why it appeared contradictory at times. As I learned more about its origins, context and history, those contradictions disappeared and I grasped far more of the whole of the text. That doesn't happen for some folks. For some folks it remains balderdash, unless they agree with it.
Gee Chee
If somebody misuses information does that make the information a problem, or is the misuse the problem?
I said what I said in the other thread because no matter how much time you spend working on your body, its existence is finite. That is an indisputable fact.
However, a belief I hold is that your soul is eternal. Therefore, I thought it salient to note that focusing on the development of your soul is more important than the development of your body.
I stressed that caring for your body is important, it is your temple after all, but I pointed out that something else is more important. That was the point of my comment.
The whole pie in the sky argument is a misconception of Christianity, just like the current trend of prosperity preaching. People have used Christ's message for evil since he walked the Earth. When I see it, I call it out. But, that doesn't affect how I view the Bible because I've read and studied it on my own and come to my own understanding of its purpose.
You wrote this in response to my comment:
"...why then is the acquisition of pure foods discarded as meaningless acts without any spiritual merit or benefit?"
This directly contradicts what I have written many times and twists my words to create a conflict that does not exist in my opinion. My comment was a commentary on priorities, that's all. If you disagree with those priorities, that's fine, but discuss that with me, don't create an argument that doesn't exist.
That was my response from the beginning if you check the old thread.
Big Man,
Nah man, not saying you're judging, at all. And I respect you for your beliefs.
I know too many highly religious who do though. And somehow believe their way is the only right way. How they know that to be a fact is beyond me.
I thought you were suggesting that we throw out the Bible completely and not use it as a guide if we don't fully believe it nor believe it's divinely inspired in its entirety. Using the Book to justify a particular viewpoint, then ignoring it when it doesn't fit that same viewpoint is something that is done by all who mention it, including the pastors of churches.
I did try to read it with the intent of seeing if it made sense. Some parts do and give me good rules to live by, but some parts are nonsensical. I haven't quite grasped which parts I should take literally and which I shouldn't. This is the conclusion I came to when I studied it on my own and not depended on others to tell me what it says (which is something I have done for most of my life).
The development of your soul and body go hand in hand. Focusing on your physical health but ignoring your soul or mind leaves you unbalanced. And vice versa. It's kinda hard not to feel good and grateful when you're physically healthy.
Post a Comment