This is an interesting way to think about the problem. But to want to mature, one first has to be led to want that. In John we're told that the Father must lead before we can desire to change. I know plenty of people who have zero desire to change, so all I can do is pray for their hearts and eyes to open. It's quite mysterious to me because all my life I've thought about these things, even when I was quite happily heathen. I have a sibling that claims she would never have thought God up had she been alone on the earth, another who became disillusioned and bitter over promises she thinks religion broke, and a third who never questioned God and never will. He's the happy one. We all had the same religious upbringing. None of this is to dispute what you wrote, just my musing on why some search out the narrow gate and others just don't care that it exists. They don't think about it. Apparently, according to John, they can't because the Father hasn't drawn them. Is this where our prayers come in (sometimes very desperate, because of how much we love these people)? Does God then say oh very well, because you just won't stop badgering me about so and so, I'll do a little knocking on them?
I'm trying here to use plain language to point out certain things that also appear in Romans 1, but without quoting it directly, partly because a certain understanding is required to appreciate the particular passage rather than be repelled by it, and partly because it has become fodder for various translators pushing their particular interpretations.
I don't know who is or isn't being drawn, and it isn't mine to know. My prayer is that I won't make a mess out of what I write, and that it will reach whom it should reach. I have not been faithful throughout my life -- I was a terrible skeptic for many years, and I understand why many other people would feel much the same way. I write accordingly, not knowing who is in what place at the moment. I don't really even know how doing this could possibly accomplish anything.
I was looking at the Greek and the English just now in Rom. 1:19-20, taking a plain reading of the Greek, and being quite surprised at the twisting taking place in the English translations. This passage is part of the inspiration for what I write. The passage , partially elided, is:
Rom. 1:19-20 [Mounce translation] "... what can be known about God is plain to them, for God has revealed it to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. ..."
So a basic understanding of where we came from is possible and accessible.
But then we get into translations, and abuse of scripture. Even a simple phrase like "what can be known about God" or "is plain to them" can easily be distorted by choosing a technically valid translation that doesn't fit the context. Bill Mounce does a very nice job here of avoiding that kind of thing, which is why I used his instead of a more common version. I'm using the NIGTC Romans commentary as a reality check and guide, because there are nuances in the Greek with which I am not well acquainted but yes, the plain meaning is the one that fits. The translation situation becomes even more interesting in v. 20, and here I will quote from the commentary:
"... it needs to be noted that much of the language in 1:20 reflects more the religious language of the Greek world and Hellenistic Judaism during the first Christian century than it does the language of Paul himself. For example, certain key terms are either absent from or extremely rare in Paul and the rest of the NT, such as the noun θειότης (“divine nature”), which appears only here in the NT, and the adjective ἀΐδιος (“eternal”), which can be found only here and in Jude 6. Both of these terms, however, seem to have been fairly common in the Greek and Jewish Greek writings of the day — which, of course, raises questions about how Paul understood these terms when he used them here in 1:20."
Paul appears to have been doing something in this verse vaguely akin to what I am trying to do, using language familiar to his readers rather than his own preferred language! I go a little further and shift the language from religious toward that of engineering and science, for the sake of this audience. All three are native forms of language for me.
There are basic truths about this world that can be seen by people that have their eyes open and are actually using them. Like the people here in these connected Substack blogs. Paul's target was not that of the readers here, which is why even in this comment I excerpted only a certain part, to avoid misunderstanding.
There are a good many people here that are curious and are trying to understand both what is going on and why. Many of them understand the "what" better than I do, while I am trying to offer a "why" to go with it that makes sense. The understanding of "why" requires examining and revising certain basic assumptions. This is a common kind of thing to consider here in these parts of Substack.
"...his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." This much is possible for anyone, I think. Recognizing and acknowledging that "we" are the problem is harder, as is recognizing that we can't solve the problem but must ask for help. People will sort themselves out as to whether they do ask or not, and if they do ask it might be now, but it can also be later as the course of world events becomes clearer.
After asking for help, it becomes important to understand what Jesus has done. I think this can be at least partially understood in terms of a creator/created relationship in a way that makes plain sense. I suppose there is a future post there somewhere. The bigger problem is how to write about "sin" when that word has been so badly abused, but I think it is quite possible. These matters do not need to be complete mysteries. What God has done makes a great deal of sense, much more sense than the alternative explanations that leave God out.
Religious language can express truth very precisely, but it also can be a major turn-off for some or many in the audience, although I can only guess at that, based on the language that I see being used elsewhere. The fact is that religious language has been terribly abused by certain "religious people" as a tool for condemning others, rather than for sharing truth with them. I understand this well because I was and am one of their targets! This passage in Romans is numbered among the LGBT "clobber verses" for a reason.
It would be easy to read the entire passage and understand it as condemnatory, and it certainly was meant that way for certain people, but not for people that are honestly seeking truth. This is why I quoted only a certain span of words above. I am repurposing these words of Paul to present to a different audience, hopefully without changing their meaning (never mind the job that some of the translators do on them).
I'm not condemning anyone. Paul clearly was. "Though they understand the righteous requirement of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only continue to do them but also to heartily approve of others who practice them." That's a different target. If the shoe fits, wear it, but it's a whole different attitude from what I typically encounter here.
Out in the culture, there is a lot going on that parallels what was going on in the ancient Roman culture. That a whole other thing. I just want to be pointing out some basic observable things that can easily be overlooked but that, when understood, clarify what we are doing here and how we can effectively respond to what we see happening around us.
Solzhenitsyn, in Gulag Archipelago, after reasoning how he ended up in the hell of the gulag system, ultimately concluded that it was his own fault, though today he would be the perfect'victim'.
All day long I need and ask for divine advice and help. I cannot afford to ignore my Heavenly Father because when I have, I am full of regret for my pride in thinking that I can do life without Him.
Isn't old age an amazing misery? Wisdom and self-control arise as the muscles and sinews begin to hand in their notice.
"...as the muscles and sinews begin to hand in their notice"? Love it!
This is an interesting way to think about the problem. But to want to mature, one first has to be led to want that. In John we're told that the Father must lead before we can desire to change. I know plenty of people who have zero desire to change, so all I can do is pray for their hearts and eyes to open. It's quite mysterious to me because all my life I've thought about these things, even when I was quite happily heathen. I have a sibling that claims she would never have thought God up had she been alone on the earth, another who became disillusioned and bitter over promises she thinks religion broke, and a third who never questioned God and never will. He's the happy one. We all had the same religious upbringing. None of this is to dispute what you wrote, just my musing on why some search out the narrow gate and others just don't care that it exists. They don't think about it. Apparently, according to John, they can't because the Father hasn't drawn them. Is this where our prayers come in (sometimes very desperate, because of how much we love these people)? Does God then say oh very well, because you just won't stop badgering me about so and so, I'll do a little knocking on them?
Just some thoughts to add to yours.
I'm trying here to use plain language to point out certain things that also appear in Romans 1, but without quoting it directly, partly because a certain understanding is required to appreciate the particular passage rather than be repelled by it, and partly because it has become fodder for various translators pushing their particular interpretations.
I don't know who is or isn't being drawn, and it isn't mine to know. My prayer is that I won't make a mess out of what I write, and that it will reach whom it should reach. I have not been faithful throughout my life -- I was a terrible skeptic for many years, and I understand why many other people would feel much the same way. I write accordingly, not knowing who is in what place at the moment. I don't really even know how doing this could possibly accomplish anything.
I was looking at the Greek and the English just now in Rom. 1:19-20, taking a plain reading of the Greek, and being quite surprised at the twisting taking place in the English translations. This passage is part of the inspiration for what I write. The passage , partially elided, is:
Rom. 1:19-20 [Mounce translation] "... what can be known about God is plain to them, for God has revealed it to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. ..."
So a basic understanding of where we came from is possible and accessible.
But then we get into translations, and abuse of scripture. Even a simple phrase like "what can be known about God" or "is plain to them" can easily be distorted by choosing a technically valid translation that doesn't fit the context. Bill Mounce does a very nice job here of avoiding that kind of thing, which is why I used his instead of a more common version. I'm using the NIGTC Romans commentary as a reality check and guide, because there are nuances in the Greek with which I am not well acquainted but yes, the plain meaning is the one that fits. The translation situation becomes even more interesting in v. 20, and here I will quote from the commentary:
"... it needs to be noted that much of the language in 1:20 reflects more the religious language of the Greek world and Hellenistic Judaism during the first Christian century than it does the language of Paul himself. For example, certain key terms are either absent from or extremely rare in Paul and the rest of the NT, such as the noun θειότης (“divine nature”), which appears only here in the NT, and the adjective ἀΐδιος (“eternal”), which can be found only here and in Jude 6. Both of these terms, however, seem to have been fairly common in the Greek and Jewish Greek writings of the day — which, of course, raises questions about how Paul understood these terms when he used them here in 1:20."
Paul appears to have been doing something in this verse vaguely akin to what I am trying to do, using language familiar to his readers rather than his own preferred language! I go a little further and shift the language from religious toward that of engineering and science, for the sake of this audience. All three are native forms of language for me.
There are basic truths about this world that can be seen by people that have their eyes open and are actually using them. Like the people here in these connected Substack blogs. Paul's target was not that of the readers here, which is why even in this comment I excerpted only a certain part, to avoid misunderstanding.
There are a good many people here that are curious and are trying to understand both what is going on and why. Many of them understand the "what" better than I do, while I am trying to offer a "why" to go with it that makes sense. The understanding of "why" requires examining and revising certain basic assumptions. This is a common kind of thing to consider here in these parts of Substack.
"...his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." This much is possible for anyone, I think. Recognizing and acknowledging that "we" are the problem is harder, as is recognizing that we can't solve the problem but must ask for help. People will sort themselves out as to whether they do ask or not, and if they do ask it might be now, but it can also be later as the course of world events becomes clearer.
After asking for help, it becomes important to understand what Jesus has done. I think this can be at least partially understood in terms of a creator/created relationship in a way that makes plain sense. I suppose there is a future post there somewhere. The bigger problem is how to write about "sin" when that word has been so badly abused, but I think it is quite possible. These matters do not need to be complete mysteries. What God has done makes a great deal of sense, much more sense than the alternative explanations that leave God out.
Religious language can express truth very precisely, but it also can be a major turn-off for some or many in the audience, although I can only guess at that, based on the language that I see being used elsewhere. The fact is that religious language has been terribly abused by certain "religious people" as a tool for condemning others, rather than for sharing truth with them. I understand this well because I was and am one of their targets! This passage in Romans is numbered among the LGBT "clobber verses" for a reason.
It would be easy to read the entire passage and understand it as condemnatory, and it certainly was meant that way for certain people, but not for people that are honestly seeking truth. This is why I quoted only a certain span of words above. I am repurposing these words of Paul to present to a different audience, hopefully without changing their meaning (never mind the job that some of the translators do on them).
I'm not condemning anyone. Paul clearly was. "Though they understand the righteous requirement of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only continue to do them but also to heartily approve of others who practice them." That's a different target. If the shoe fits, wear it, but it's a whole different attitude from what I typically encounter here.
Out in the culture, there is a lot going on that parallels what was going on in the ancient Roman culture. That a whole other thing. I just want to be pointing out some basic observable things that can easily be overlooked but that, when understood, clarify what we are doing here and how we can effectively respond to what we see happening around us.
Thoughts to go with yours.
Solzhenitsyn, in Gulag Archipelago, after reasoning how he ended up in the hell of the gulag system, ultimately concluded that it was his own fault, though today he would be the perfect'victim'.
It applies to us all. Certainly to me.
All day long I need and ask for divine advice and help. I cannot afford to ignore my Heavenly Father because when I have, I am full of regret for my pride in thinking that I can do life without Him.