Dinner Doodle - What Do You Believe?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I notice that of the eight topics chosen for the doodle, none of them deal with social issues, such as "Helping the poor."

I realize that obviously not every possible topic could be included, yet room was found to include two topics (6 and 7) on the subject of hurting others and none on the subject of helping others.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I notice that of the eight topics chosen for the doodle, none of them deal with social issues, such as "Helping the poor."

I realize that obviously not every possible topic could be included, yet room was found to include two topics (6 and 7) on the subject of hurting others and none on the subject of helping others.

Ernest, would you care to walk a little further out on that limb and just spell out, loud and clear, what you are insinuating?  Just take a couple of more steps so that the thud at the end of your drop will be louder than the innuendos of your all-knowing wisdom.  

That both you and to a lesser extent, this doodle, emphasize the "do not" portions of Christian doctrine at the expense of neglecting the "do" portions.

I hear fairly little from you about loving thy neighbor (and to be clear, and to forestall you taking this off on that tangent, I am not referring at all to sex) or helping the less fortunate.  You spend a lot of time here complaining about the motes in the eyes of others and come across as being proud that you make those complaints.

I find you being so worried about what can be broadly categorized as the sins of commission while you seem to be ignoring the sins of omission.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

See, Nathan, I told you, if given a little time, he’d be back…

You asked for a reply, and I had one to give.

As for the doodles.

1.  Love  -  Didn't like that doodle much.   The commandment is "love thy neighbor" not "love thy neighbor so they will like you and be nice to you"  As Matthew 5:44,46 reports Jesus as saying, "'But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. [...] If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?"   Also, I would think you'd want your children to think of Christ as a friend and buddy, rather than condemn such thoughts as being arrogant as that doodle does.

2. Charity -  A pretty good doodle.  I have a slight concern that taken alone this doodle could promote the concept of 'works alone' because of the way that it talks of charity as a "ticket to Heaven" but I know that's not what you believe in, and the subject of the interaction of faith and works is probably a bit too heavy for even a five-course doodle.

3. Loyalty - the best of the four you posted.

4. Bullying - An unobjectionable doodle on a needed subject, tho I notice this one would work just as well in any household, not just a Christian one, due to the lack of Biblical content in it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I wait to see if you have any response to my response on the four additional doodles, I may may well give you my answer to question 1.

The answer depends on how you deal with the two different creation narratives included in Genesis.

Genesis 1:27 has mankind being created male and female by Elohim.  Hence in the first creation account, mankind was sexual from the moment of their creation.

Genesis 2:7 has a singular man being created by YHWH Elohim.  Only later in Genesis 2:22 is woman formed.  It is not sensible that God  would give man a sex drive he could not use, so in the second narrative, man would not have been a sexual being any earlier than the creation of woman. From Genesis 3:16, since childbirth is made painful for the woman, rather than childbirth is made, and it will be painful, a reasonable inference can be made that man and woman had been engaging in sex, as had various animals who had had not only been having sex, but had sufficient time in the garden to give birth, since God does not need to explain the concept of childbirth to her. Therefore, man was a sexual being before the fall. Since no other significant event is recounted between the creation of woman and the fall of mankind, once can conclude that in the second creation account man becomes a sexual being with the creation of woman.

The difference in the treatment of human sexuality in the two creation narratives is but one of the reasons why I do not consider the early portions of Genesis to be literal truth, but parables intended to illustrate certain concepts in a manner comprehensible to the ancient Israelis.

Of course, if one insists on trying to combine the two accounts into one indivisible whole, then since the lack of a sex drive prior to the creation of woman in the second narrative is an inference, one would have to conclude on the basis of Genesis 1:27 that man was always a sexual being who had to forgo those urges until woman showed up.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So, once again, your attack on the bible places you in opposition to the way Jesus interpreted the bible.

Wat I wrote was not an attack on the bible, but I can see how you could view it as an attack on your interpretation of it.  However, I find your rebuttal of my view is without merit.

First and foremost, both Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 are consistent with viewing the two parts as one whole or viewing them as separate parables as I have advocated.  The essential point Jesus raised in his answer to the Pharisees was that marriage was intended to last so long as the man and woman were flesh.

Second, no matter whether mankind was male and female from the very beginning, or only after woman was created from man, which is still early enough to be considered to have been done "at the beginning", it remains the case that God was responsible for the division and thus marriage serves as a method of uniting the two.  The question of exactly when man became a sexual being does not impact Jesus' response on the question of divorce.

Third, when Jesus referred to God having "made them male and female" there is no way of concluding whether he was referencing Genesis 1:27 or Genesis 5:2, so one cannot claim for certain that the quote came from the former.
But enough of this for the moment.  Let us get back to what this thread was created for: Dinner Doodles!

Taking a look at this one again, I have to say I find it creepier than I did the first time I looked at it.

Besides encouraging the view of Jesus as remote and impersonal by calling people arrogant if they consider Jesus to be a buddy, the doodle doesn't see anything at all wrong with a fifth grader falling in love with his teacher!  Thankfully the teacher in the doodle story didn't offer the kid some private tutoring in biology.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sigh.  I had doubts about including my third point, as it wasn't particularly important compared to the first two (which is why I gave it last), but I thought I'd include it anyway for the sake of completeness.  Alas, it gave you an opportunity to evade my first two points.

You still haven't pointed out how it makes any difference in what Jesus or the twelve apostles said or meant if the beginning of Genesis is taken as literal history or as parables.

As for the story about the fifth grader, even with the added background, it is still creepy.  It also demonstrates a profound misunderstanding about love on the part of your pastor, both back when he was a fifth grader, which is understandable given his youth then, but since you say he still holds it up as an example of love, it sounds as if he is missing the point even now.  What he recounts as what he felt for Miss Carstarphen was not love, but desire, which is not the same.  Desire is but one aspect of love, but it is also an aspect of a number of sins such as lust, avarice, and pride.  Fortunately, nothing particularly bad seems to have happened as a result of that boy's great misadventure in desire.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You still fail to show how it makes a difference to Jesus' message whether one regards the pre-Abrahamic portions of Genesis to be literal history or moral stories.

1Cor 13:4 “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

Which one of those attributes was lacking from my pastor’s actions towards his teacher?!

By his own admission, his desire was self-seeking.  He desired for them to someday wed.  Yet, apparently he never considered once during that whole year whether she would want to wed him or if wedding him would be in her best interests.  His failure to consider the teacher's interests was what was lacking in his desire that failed to keep it from being love.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We're talking past each other here, and I don't think that's going to change, but I'll give it another try.

You still fail to show how it makes a difference to Jesus' message whether one regards the pre-Abrahamic portions of Genesis to be literal history or moral stories.

1)   I have shown that Jesus treated Gen 1 and Gen 2 as complementary parts of one account of creation.

2)   I have shown that Jesus and Apostles treated all parts of Genesis with the same historical significance as the rest of the OT.

No.  You have asserted those things, but you have not shown them.  You have not demonstrated how what Jesus or the Apostles said or did would be inconsistent with treating the pre-Abrahamic portions as something other than literal history.

3)   I have shown that parables NEVER include God as an actor (God is God, he doesn't need to make up stories about himself), but rather only personify God in another character or object…this is in contrast to the literal historical sections of the bible where God is cast in his own identity.

If you're going to keep quibbling about the definition of parable, I guess I'll just have to use the word that fits the creation narratives somewhat better, but hesitated to use because it has become associated with tales that are false and fantasy, and I'm not saying that the early parts of Genesis are false or fantasy (save perhaps in the wider sense of the word fantasy which relates to anything beyond normal human experience).  They are not literal, but they were included for the purpose of demonstrating moral truths about the origin of man in a form the Ancient Israelis were capable of understanding and accepting.  That word I was trying to avoid is 'myth'.
[/quote]

---
 

1Cor 13:4 “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

Which one of those attributes was lacking from my pastor’s actions towards his teacher?!

By his own admission, his desire was self-seeking.  He desired for them to someday wed.  Yet, apparently he never considered once during that whole year whether she would want to wed him or if wedding him would be in her best interests.  His failure to consider the teacher's interests was what was lacking in his desire that failed to keep it from being love.

Dang, it is clear I am going to have to spell this out for you:  

Point 1)   My pastor used the story of his own first love as an analogy to teach about Love’s power to change one’s attitude and behavior.

Point 2)   The bible itself uses first love as analogy in the same way: Rev 2:4 "Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5 Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first.”

after you compare Point 1 to Point 2, if you still have a problem with the use of ”first love” as an analogy for the believers love of God, take it up with God himself.

My problem is with your pastor's use of the words 'first love' to describe his experience with his teacher, and not at all with its use in Rev 2:4.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  You have asserted those things, but you have not shown them.

Well, all you have to do is come up with a single instance to prove me wrong.

You are the one asserting that what was said in the NT is inconsistent with treating portions of Genesis as myth instead of history.

I am not stating as you seem to be thinking I stated that they are inconsistent with treating them as history.  I am stating that the use of early Genesis in the NT is consistent with treating it as either myth or history. My reasons for believing that early Genesis is Jewish myth have nothing to do with the NT.

Indeed, if one were to show that there was an instance in the NT where early Genesis was clearly treated as myth and definitely not history, it would prove both of us to have been mistaken.