Interpretation through Expectation

[Barry]

A new article is up at http://infinite-grace.com/expect.htm called Interpretation through Expectation.

It brings up several different topics at once in a short article. For example, the idea that we can separate our emotional response from our interpretation is called into question.
IMHO some who say that they are not doing this may be doing this very thing from feelings of insecurity. Fear and insecurity can play a part in how we "read" the scriptures. It is a deep subject that this article only touches on.

Also it briefly explores some of the more popular concepts of eternal security. The article gets a little facetious at times.
IMHO there are some points that some may wish to explore.
If so, please feel free to express yourself.
Peace,
Barry

[Amie]

Barry,

This reminds me some of something I read once about seeing the world through different "goggles". We can look through goggles like "victim", "guardian", "nerd", "athlete", "intellectual", etc. The goggles that we wear can affect how we experience the world around us.

I try to consciously put on other goggles and sit with a point of view as if it were true for a bit, in examining issues. Sometimes I struggle wearing other folks goggles. I worked a long time sitting with Bill's point of view on mankind making the choices it did to please God. I'm glad that I did though.

I wonder if there is any way not to be wearing goggles of some sort.

You said:

The one who accuses the other of being highly emotional in reason and logic is often the very one who is.

Isn't that how it goes! When I find myself thinking about how judgemental someone is for example, I'm being judgemental.

I think this whole "being emotional" thing is a great area to explore. I think it's true that folks can become "reactive" and be less than in charge of their own responses. At the same time, folks can "respond" with emotion, and be in charge. I usually suggest that the former is being "irrational", though I'm not sure that describes it accurately..

Amie

[Barry]

Good points Amie.

99.9999 percent of everyone that says that they are simply being rational about their view of scripture are in fact hiding a storehouse of emotions and feelings about the points and issues that they speak of. It in the end tends to become a cover up. What is being hidden is the insecurity of the ego-man (the perceived reflection of one's self that is fragile and must be protected).
If they could embrace their emotional person that they are, in acceptance of what God has already accepted, they could make better head way because there would be less hiding and cover up. Really no further need too.
Hope this made sense LOL.

We see this in "Christian behavior". In one way, yes the Christian won't do this and yes he Christian won't do that, (or say they don't) but in other areas they get away with far worse than what those in the "secular world" get away with.
Then those "in the world" see the Christian in their arrogance and ego trip and control issues hiding behind a really large banner that says "I'M A CHRISTIAN, JESUS SAVES". They see through it!
Then they may presume that this is what Christianity is. But they have presumed false.
Then however the cover story of the Christian is, "That is how God's election works, thank you God for letting me be one of the few, one of the proud, one of the elite" or just "That was just their choice". Convenient conclusions.

You said:
"Isn't that how it goes! When I find myself thinking about how judgemental someone is for example, I'm being judgemental."
Perhaps, but perhaps not. IMO depending.
If I say "women are easily led astray because they are overly emotional" that is probably an indication of deeper problems that I myself have. Sometimes such things need to be verbalized.
JMO.


Thank you for you comments and input sis. It is always welcome.
Forgive my rambling.

Barry

[christyG]

Great article, great discussion!

This seems to be the possible underlying reason (or at least one of them) why I have been searching lately. Exploring other traditions, other cultures, other ancient religions. I found myself saying that I had peace, infact thinking it, but NOT living it. I then began to wonder what I could do differently to LIVE in peace. ----I'm not talking about not fighting, no war, etc...----I'm talking about being ....calm (maybe that's a better word?).... I just couldn't seem to study enough in the Bible to make myself "calm" to really change my daily life and my daily struggles. Bible study was not addressing the needs I had of how to find peace with myself.---How to NOT try to control everything, how to NOT worry about things I had said or did, how to go to sleep when the house was a mess:eek: .

I found these answers outside of Christianity. I have begun Yoga and medetation and it is really working. I have explored the stories and teachings of various other religions and they all seem to address the issues that I felt were lacking in my Christianity. I think that that is very sad. I felt bad for Christianity, and also felt somewhat guilty for looking elsewhere.. That's why the book I read was so important to me because it opened my eyes to a Christianity that I had not known and it taught me that, when put in the proper perspective my Christianity can also have power.

I now no longer feel guilty as I continue to explore and introduce my children to the wisdom of the ancients. It is no longer an us and them mentality, but a humanity issue, with answers everywhere for those who search.

Tying it in....I feel that fear and insecurity drive many people. We think we need to have all the answers because we are afraid of what might happen if we don't. We think we are being rational and open minded, but when challenged we become defensive and insecure.

Great discussion.

PS: I still want all the answers---working on my control issues:D

Christy

[Amie]

Barry,

I think accepting feelings in a given situation helps one to think with a clear mind (not clouded with repression, or the stress thereof). Otherwise, the very feelings a person denies themselves can be doing the driving. I don't feel that reacting based solely on first feelings is always rational.


Perhaps, but perhaps not. IMO depending.
If I say "women are easily led astray because they are overly emotional" that is probably an indication of deeper problems that I myself have.

Hmmm, maybe it depends, OR perhaps you would say such a thing because you were led astray and are overly emotional in your mind.. in some of those cases, any emotion is "overkill" in their minds. Those may be the deeper problems being indicated.


Sometimes such things need to be verbalized.

Well let's talk. I hear how it is for boys and men societally - that "feelings" are seen as no-nos and weaknesses. Emotions are called "the feminine side" and completely disassociated with being male. I teach my son that those emotions are his, and therefore masculine. I do not believe any of you fellas have a "feminine side", as you are not female.

Although feelings are talked about in such a way, they are more than shown from the boys/men. After a football game IE you can witness all kinds of acts of friendship - pats on the back, hugs, arms around one another, etc.. and that is win OR loose. I would venture to bet that when you meet some of your online brethren, you will give on another a hug. Y'all show affection.

Y'all also behave angry, frustrated, sad, happy, etc - you act out emotions.
So tell me, why the hard work in arguing with reality as per the lip service? Why do so many men/boys SAY that emotions are weak, girlish, pink, sissy, etc?

I can tell you that girls/women who believe what those men say (about emotions being weak), work to identify with those men. They don't see strength therefore, in that which is feminine because it is associated with being emotional. They then work to become more masculine, and less feeling. They get in touch with their "masculine side" - which imo is just a big of farce as the "feminine side".

What do you think?

Amie

[Amie]

Ps- I've always rather enjoyed your "rambling" :)

[Amie]

Tying it in....I feel that fear and insecurity drive many people. We think we need to have all the answers because we are afraid of what might happen if we don't. We think we are being rational and open minded, but when challenged we become defensive and insecure.

Today was my daughter's field day. She sat next to her Jehovah's Witness friend again. That friend told her as I sat there, that she was going to teach her about her God (her words). He was going to come one day, she said, and only the good people would live, the bad people were going to be killed. She said that the world would be so great that even sharks would be nice and let you pet them. She said that she wanted to teach Amanda (my daughter) about her God so Amanda could be there too.

I didn't say anything because I couldn't think of anything that wouldn't make her feel bad. Amanda seemed to mostly ignore her. I plan to talk to her about it later.. but talk about fear driven! Not only for herself, but for those she cares for. It really is sad.

Amie

ps- Amanda didn't win any events but had a blast. I got to anchor the tug-of-war. We won one, and lost the next. There were only three classes, and we had to pull right after winning. I'm telling ya, had we had time to rest... ;)

[Barry]

IMHO where all this will lead us is that we are emotional beings as much or more than rational. If indeed they can be separated!

The emotion itself then is not the problem. [And I have no problem showing mine :)] The deeper question may be then, to what are my emotions relating too? It it me? It is the imagined image of myself that I see in my mind? [What I call the ego-man] IMHO he is far more negative less genuine or real.

This is what I was getting at in the hypothectical of male superiority. IMHO this comes more from men who are not really in touch with themselves but rather the ego image of themselves that one has of themselves that must be fed constantly. Not encouraged and accepted which we all need. But constantly fed, protected, covered lest the shame be exposed.
JMO
Barry

[Amie]

Barry,

In a VERY long way, I was asking "why".. Why are they not in touch with themselves. What's the root of this?

Amie

[Barry]

The need to nourish the false self image! (IMHO) This guy needs to be right. He must compare himself to others to seek out and establish value.

Women have the same problem just expressed differently because of cultural and perhaps some biological reasons.
He and she are jeoulous to the core. This is the "evil in the heart of man" that Christ addressed in the official status of the old covenant man (ego man) and produced the "idle words" that would come from that heart problem and judge them in the last day.
JMO
Barry

[christyG]

Help me follow please.....Barry you are saying that emotions are related to "the ego man"? Are you saying that the "ego man" is equalled to the OC?

I would consider myself a very emotional creature. Sometimes this is good and sometimes not so good. I do feel a need to center myself just a bit and come to a feeling of balance. Balance again seems to be the key. IMO emotions can be very real and very genuine and very positive.

Help me understand what you are saying in relation to the ego-man.

Thanks, Christy:)

[kevinbeck]

99.9999 percent of everyone that says that they are simply being rational about their view of scripture are in fact hiding a storehouse of emotions and feelings about the points and issues that they speak of.

Barry,
I agree with one small exception. I think the number is much close to 100%. ;)


Christy,
Not to speak for Barry. As I see it emotions can be ego-centric or not. Hows that for noncommittal? For example. You tell me you think my response to you is great. So, I fell pretty good, like I've accomplished something and I am very important. That might be a sign of ego-related emotion.

Yet, if I feel love for you and look to contribute to your life regardelss of your response....that's emotional but with much potentially much less ego.

Here's another possibility. Last night, I watched Free WIlly 3 with my kids. Early on in the movie some whalers killed 2 whales. I know it was just a movie, but I was struck with profound sadness. Reflecting back, I don't see that as ego or egoless. It arose from somewhere deep within, sympathy/empathy/love.

How do you see things?

Blessings,
Kevin

[Amie]

The need to nourish the false self image! (IMHO) This guy needs to be right. He must compare himself to others to seek out and establish value.

Women have the same problem just expressed differently because of cultural and perhaps some biological reasons.

You're wrong! LOL!

I'm finding that my issue is in the wording "need to be right".. personal baggage stuff I'll be working on. But eh, my issue doesn't seem to be with the conclusion :)


self= Our inner core (Also "soul", "ID")

ego= Our interpretation of reality (There can be serious break-downs in this area imo. Consider the formation of reality based on dysfunctional surroundings, absent critical thinking, or based soley on the "eyes of the flesh".)

superego= Rules/laws protecting our interpretation of reality.

Let's make up a scenerio:

Ego interprets that self's eyes are brown, other's eyes are blue. The self is now "brown-eyed". It's really no big deal if ego learns that their eyes are really hazel (they were wrong) unless brown eyes and hazel eyes hold a special meaning to them.

If ego (brown-eyed) further places the law (calling on "superego") on the original interpretation that brown-eyed people are nice, and hazel eyed people are hostile, self then becomes "brown-eyed, therefore nice".

Now they have evolved in such a way that to be wrong means to be hostile - The idea of being wrong creates feelings of anxiety in the person which creates a need.

Typically, we don't jump off of cliffs because of a natural fear within us, created to protect us (from dying in many cases). Folks who have genetically less of this fear, are the ones more apt to sky dive and stuff like that - although I feel strongly that environment directly affects genetics. Anyhow, the anxiety stimulated by the idea of being wrong is interpreted by the body to be protection on the survival level. We're talking about very basic instincts here.

To explore even further, we can look into what it means to people "to be" hostile. I would bet that there would be a single theme, though it could be worded in a million different ways: "Not good enough", "unlovable".

This demonstrates faithlessness in love.

Gen 4
6 ¶ And Jehovah said to Cain, Why have you angrily glowed, and why has your face fallen?
7 If you do well, is there not exaltation? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is toward you; but you should rule over it.

Cain's "evil works" was not killing Abel imo.

Hebrews 11
4 ¶ By faith Abel offered a greater sacrifice to God than Cain, by which he obtained witness to be righteous, God testifying over his gifts; and through it, having died, he yet speaks.

Abel's sacrifice was NOT the lamb, it was his trust in love (which is God).

1 John 3
12 not as Cain was of the evil one, and killed his brother. And for what did he kill him? Because his works were evil, but the things of his brother were righteous.

Again the killing itself was not the evil work, but because of the evil works. Wasn't the "evil one" the one lacking trust? This is no different than the lack of trust demonstrated by the adversary in the book of Job. It has been the same story all along, though those of the "evil one" can no longer kill his brother (and hey, I'd still love to know how that was possible to begin with - but suspect that's another thread).

"Jealous" is to protect what is ours. God guarded his people jealously. It isn't necessarily a bad thing. Often though, people associate jealousy with Cain's motivation for killing Abel. So was he sooo angry that God loved him less (in his mind), that he killed that which God did love - to get back at God - the motivation being repayment. Or, did he believe that by killing Abel he would gain God's love for himself?

The adversary in Job was allowed to hurt Job so the adversary would learn that the adversary was wrong. Job would love God whether he had reward or not. The adversary's hope was to show God that he would not. Why? What does this reflect in the adversary's mind? Maybe that God only loves the adversary if the adversary rewards that love?

Jude 1
11 Woe to them, because they went the way of Cain, and gave themselves up to the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the speaking against of Korah!

What was Cain's desired reward?

Amie

[Barry]

Help me follow please.....Barry you are saying that emotions are related to "the ego man"? Are you saying that the "ego man" is equalled to the OC?

I would consider myself a very emotional creature. Sometimes this is good and sometimes not so good. I do feel a need to center myself just a bit and come to a feeling of balance. Balance again seems to be the key. IMO emotions can be very real and very genuine and very positive.

Help me understand what you are saying in relation to the ego-man.

Thanks, Christy:)

Hey sis, sorry to take so long. Busy weekend for me!
The "real" person is emotional and doesn't mind showing it. Not afraid to feel, fully and completely.
I can tell you I love you dearly and don't care what anyone thinks about it. I tell you that I love you with tears of love in my eyes and could care less if anybody thinks it's strange or weird or abnormal.
The most "real" person on the face of the earth is going to look strange. Right?
The problem then IMHO is that there is a ego related or attached image of who we are or who we think we should be that also forms our emotions. IMHO that "person" had covenantal status in the old economy. That "person" came "to nothing" in AD 70. Now we are learning that.

I'm still looking for terms and descriptions and definitions to express these ideas. They are for me, in their infancy and need working on. That may give you a general idea of the my thoughts.
I do like Kevin's "ego-centric" and what he said about it. Kevin may have more and or different insights on this as we go along.

This is IMHO one of the most important topics.
IMHO we have come to the highest, seemingly insurmountable wall or barrier to relationships that humanity has ever come too. But we are now or almost there.
A wall that need to be addressed and talked about. We'll bring in the bulldozers and the dump trucks after a little more time.
Barry
PS, any thoughts?

Also: Amie good thoughts. Back latter but don't wait for me! :)

[ozark]

Barry,

I think the New Testament is full of different images and ways of expressing what you are talking about. One of the easiest for me to grasp has been the issue of self-righteousness vs. the Righteousness of Christ. The ego man is steeped in self-righteousness. The New Covenant man in the righteousness of Christ.

[christyG]

Thanks all for the responses.

I see and agree with what you said Kevin as emotions can be eco-centric or not. I would agree with that.

Honestly, I am not really following your since of urgency, Barry. I'm sorry, if I'm being a little thick. I don't like not understanding things. Are you saying that we as humans are at a crucial crossroads in our relationships with each other, or with the divine? (or both:)).

As far as covenentally, I can see that the Jews saw themselves (defined themselves) completely within the framework of the OC. IOW, they could not comprehend their lives outside of the OC. I would think that they thought very little about those outside of the OC. I can see that that came to an end. They then were faced with redefining themselves. The importance of Jesus to them was in a since to help show them a way to redefine themselves.

A side note to something you said Amie:
Typically, we don't jump off of cliffs because of a natural fear within us, created to protect us (from dying in many cases). Folks who have genetically less of this fear, are the ones more apt to sky dive and stuff like that - although I feel strongly that environment directly affects genetics. Anyhow, the anxiety stimulated by the idea of being wrong is interpreted by the body to be protection on the survival level. We're talking about very basic instincts here.
I read in a book a month or so back about "finding yourself" (a "right livelihood" as the Buddists call it --- doing what you love do to each and every day, from career to leasure, to bring peace and balance to your life). Anyway, the book mentions this topic and says that actually the same chemical/biological reaction that your body uses to help regulate your body temperature--keeping you at a standard of 98.6 degrees---is the SAME CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL reaction that kicks in when you do something that would be considered "out of your comfort zone." IOW, it seems that your body forms biological connections from your daily activities (ie driving to work, coming home, fixing dinner, etc...) Let's say you decide one day to skip work and go skydiving. Your body's biological connections do not recognize this activity and behavior and thus determine it to be unsafe and dangerous. They then kick in with their biology to send out red flags that stimulate our minds with thoughts of worry and panic. The same could be said for any "big move", a new job, a new house, a career change, etc... We have to become aware that this is a biological reaction, and fight past it or we would never be able to take risks of any kind.

In the same way, emotions seem very biological to me. This doesn't make them good our bad in my belief, but simply natural. A result of our physicalness. I would think that without a physical body our emotions would be very different, or would there be any? I often think about why we are physical beings? Why not just spiritual beings? Emotions seem to have something to do with the answer to that for me, but only because they are the one thing I can identify right now as something that is completely tied to our physicalness. But I'm probably way off, I'm not sure it really matter.:)

Christy

[Barry]

Christy
You said,
"Honestly, I am not really following your since of urgency, Barry. I'm sorry, if I'm being a little thick. I don't like not understanding things. Are you saying that we as humans are at a crucial crossroads in our relationships with each other, or with the divine? (or both)."
Yes. That is my view. IMHO I see signs of paradigm shifts everywhere. These shifts are related to growing knowledge and information.
Printing press
Internet (present)
Language barriers (just starting, to be eliminated)

IMHO this loosely follows the precedent set in BC history going backwards as relates to knowledge.
Law given
Abraham (all the families blessed)
Babel

Freedom and availability to exchange information, ideas, concepts, knowledge, wisdom, ECT. fuels the paradigm shifts whether the BC to AD connections prove to be purely coincidental or are proven to be a natural and necessary evolutionary developments of human history.
For a side track little idea of this take a look here
http://infinite-grace.com/judges.htm
Barry

[Barry]

Barry,

I think the New Testament is full of different images and ways of expressing what you are talking about. One of the easiest for me to grasp has been the issue of self-righteousness vs. the Righteousness of Christ. The ego man is steeped in self-righteousness. The New Covenant man in the righteousness of Christ.

Good point Doug. Also what Amie said IMO touches on this.
Is this where we will find the "after all I've done for you" feelings that we get? Not that some are not legitimate but is much of it related more to a false ego view of ourselves?
The, "you know owe me" thinking?
Is this where we will be able to place the "anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God" meaning?
What anger? What source? Angry about what?
Not that "anger" as an emotion is wrong but what is the "context"?
Is it, "you treated me unfairly" or was it "you treated my ego unfairly"? What really made us mad?
These are my questions. If the answer is yes than this may be a very important line or idea or connection to explore.
Any thoughts?

[christyG]

Barry,
Interesting.
I happened across a website today that echos much of what you are saying about humanity. However, this site deals with astrological signs of the ages throughout human history. I've only read the one article so far on the site, the site seems a little non-traditional should I say, but I can give you the link later if you want to check it out.
Christy

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
I am mostly lurking here and not understanding, but do wonder about emotions. We don't know much about Adam and Eve that way. I would say they felt shame when they realized they were naked, but before eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge, do you think they had an ego problem?
I guess I would like to understand more, what the new covenant and how 70 AD changed things for us emotionally?
Sorry if this is confusing:confused:
Nancy

[Robert]

Another WOW!!!! So much on this thread we are currently talking about. Speaks so much to emotions on here. Hope to hear more updated thoughts, I need to think on what i have read here.

Robert