Judy wrote: > God can give people visions and communicate by > way of the parable but He doesn't have to. He can > speak directly to our human spirit without mental > imagery. This is what I am saying.
Most excellent point. Nevertheless, the fact that he can speak directly without mental imagery does not mean that this is the only way in which he speaks. I suspect you understand something here that some others don't understand, but such does not negate other aspects under discussion. David Miller wrote: >> ... man does COMMUNICATE spiritual truth by >> way of images. So does God. When Torrance says >> "imageless images," it seems to me that he is talking about >> words (language). Judy wrote: > The historical church has done this which is why the iconoclastic > break with the eastern church happened but this does not mean > that it is God's way. Do you think he communed with Abraham > and Moses using pictures? Yes, most definately. The law itself is imagery, in my opinion. For example, when the Lord said not to eat swine, this was imagery concerning not to associate with men who acted like swine. Now this is not to say that Moses did not have a greater revelation of the Lord than others. He certainly did, and God spoke to him with much less imagery than with others. Following is what is written for us in this regard: Numbers 12:5-9 (5) And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. (6) And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. (7) My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. (8) With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? (9) And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. David Miller wrote: >> What God has left us is "imageless images" (words) >> to communicate with one another about him in a >> respectful way, so that people will turn inward to >> their hearts to know him rather to outward forms >> of worship. Judy wrote: > He has given us His Word which we > receive and act on by faith. Right, and if you think about what his Word is and how it communicates to us, there are various aspects that ought to be considered. There is the aspect of imagery, and there is the aspect of direct knowing which someone spiritual like yourself understands but others may not understand not having had experience with it. Pictures communicate in one way; words in another way. Yet, there is similarity in how they communicate. Words in themselves are never the exact representation of what is being communicated. I think this is a noteworthy point in regards to the division that happens among us over what words we choose to use to communicate spiritual reality with one another. Judy wrote: > I don't believe we need commentary; > God has given us an understanding. True enough, but we all do engage in commentary, right? What are we doing right now, you and I? Are we not providing commentary? None of this changes spiritual reality one bit, but by our commentary we come to understand what each other knows about that which is not seen. Sometimes our own understanding takes a leap by what another person says. God gives us an understanding, but he also helps us to communicate that understanding with one another, and we call that commentary because it comes from us. Judy wrote: > David I will pray about this but at this point I don't > see any spiritual reality behind a lot of words that are > used in religious circles. The spiritual reality is God's > Word and if there is no precedent there - I just put it > on a big shelf or let it go. There is enough I need to learn > that is there without dragging a load of other religious and > theological terminology and writings around with me. > What is the point of all this? You do have a valid point, that perhaps what is being discussed is not pointing toward a spiritual reality, but rather toward a fiction of one's imagination. This certainly happens a lot. Only on this point about language and its place in communication, I think Torrance is right. He just writes it in a very poor way, from my perspecctive. It makes it unintelligible to people like you, but at the same time, it seems to be a kind of wondeful poetry to others. Judy wrote: > Can you David show me the precedent for this > dance from scripture? If it is important and not > just "some new thing" it should be there. I have not read enough about this "dance" to know exactly what is being said by it. It may be nothing more than using non-English words to teach what you did by your use of the word "symphony." On the other hand, maybe it is trying to bring in imagery concerning the Godhead that does not exist. I'm not really sure at this point because the dialogue appears to have stalled. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
