Studies In Theology - 12/06/2006 (continued) (Vows, Divorce, Contradiction In Battle Leadership & Philosphy Of Religion?)

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity 12/06/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

12/06/2006 (continued)

Chapter 30 is in concerning vows.

Most judgement concerning vows is placed upon the men concerned - especially regarding females having made vows. it is presented here that the men can nullify or allow such vows to stand - unless she is widowed or divorced - then she must fulfill her vows - which seems odd considering the sort of vows being violated within the social action of divorce (presumably) - which I might say is another rather progressive social trait, for not only the time period - but the area as well. ~

This would seem then, in the context of this work (this version) - that marriage vows are set apart somewhat - perhaps something of their own consideration in a manner not commonly thought of pertaining to marriage vows? peculiar area for consideration which this seeming contradiction sets up.

If it is not to be seen as a contradiction, then there must be other purpose(s) it serves. If nothing else, it would indicate a wedding vow being somewhat different than a vow to the Lord. (Not to be confused with in the presence of the Lord, but only as per it being directed)~

Notably, this then further removes any possibility in those suggested mimicry's of the feminine element being seen as God - given the different level of concern obviously for vows to the Lord and wedding vows. ~

In chapter 31, much of it is dedicated to the description of finishing off the Midianites - and again states that after that, Moses will die! ~

Oddly, it was a priest chosen here to lead them in battle instead of Joshua (who was recently chosen to lead Israel) - which was one of Moses' specific requests in choosing a successor - being battle worthy. ~

It is said that they carried along the holy objects of the sanctuary into battle, and sounded the trumpets as well. ~

In the description of vengeful conquest - it is noted that the Israelites killed Balaam as well. specifically, with a sword. ~

Balaam is the guy who's donkey started talking to him - then further being the man that blessed the Israelites 3 times at great personal loss of wealth - now, further resulting in loss of his life as well. Even after presenting those blessings as per request of the Lord. ~

If memory serves, it was the angel on the road (3 times) that was going to kill Balaam to begin with as he reluctantly made the trip to cast 3 blessings upon Israel. ~

Again, perhaps that dichotomy? Further in relation with the Angel appearing as is becoming consistent?

Most definitely another inconsistency being suggested here - unless of course, killing Balaam was politically motivated? ~

The reasons presented here for doing so are stated to be that it was Balaam's advice that lead the Midianite women to cause the Israelites to rebel against the Lord. Inferring perhaps that his blessings where somehow connected to the sexual encounters and the feasting which resulted in plague. ~

It was then that only the virgins were spared of the Midianites. ~

In seeing such an action depicted brazenly - even seeming to be in a treacherous tone - I have to then give thought to the reasons why such depictions (and other odd inconsistencies) were left in this work (The Bible) over the centuries?

Especially in looking at modern efforts toward what is known as revisionist history with much else - and then further considering the degree to which similar efforts have occurred throughout history.

There must be a reason of some sort that such discrepancies have been left to be seen from generation to generation?

The chronological off sets - the inconsistencies. ~

It definitely shows some potential in reasoning pertaining to the points of contact aspect. ~

Further, this consistency of leaving such in the work - supports the idea of considering the work as a whole, as well. Then of course such coincides with the idea of points of contact as per variations of transference. ~

I found earlier, a thought pertaining to the difference between something such as the Bible - religious works - and philosophy (the idea of philosophy).

I realized that my own perspective sees a philosophical quality within religion (religion itself being classifiable as philosophy) - the Bible for instance - but this only becomes apparent when it is considered on the whole, perhaps even in an applied state on the whole.

The idea of the Bible for instance (most commonly) is that of worship - intended worship in that sense.

The idea of philosophy is human idea - perhaps even applied.

Within religion, there is symbolism and ceremony, which then begets a sort of social consistency. ~

Within the idea of philosophy, there is human realization, symbolism wrought from consideration beyond the consistencies of immediate ceremony and worship - though very much of (and as of influence) from the result(s) of religion in many cases. simply as a matter of human progress and conditioning. Especially very early on - and most notably (concerning recent studies of my own) within the 1700's area.

Though this influence is not direct in many cases - it is still there, simply as result of existence. ~

To apply religious text to one's life religiously is very much of religion and the idea of it. such is very much the social design of such structures as desired result. ~

To apply philosophical ideas in such a manner, is to remove even the idea of philosophy from itself in that sense, through relegating it to a religious like bent. ~

I have met with strange responses when approaching the idea that religion(s) are a form of philosophy (and conversely then - philosophy being no form of religion).

I realize now, my difference in perspective concerning such a comparison. ~

It would seem that religious text applied - produces a form of living, unspoken philosophy beyond its own perception.

Philosophy is the result of experience and insight (thought) resulting in something between observation and idea. ~

Pomething such as the bible for instance - could be considered a form of philosophy if considered on the whole - as result of the ideas proposed (and not of the applied ceremony per say) - but moves from such a potential in the application of specifics in the form of worship - ceremony for instance; applied, resulting ideology on the whole as opposed to applied literal action. Which, within considering the results of applied literal action through out a given social grouping (ceremonial consistency) then results in an observable philosophical element - though not necessarily within the rigid confines of the religious ceremony. ~ Perhaps an extended result of conditioning in so many words. ~

In regard to philosophy - it seems to have an inverted effect through attempts to apply it literally - that effect being similar in the more literal attempts at application, as within those areas of rigidity within religion.

In my opinion, such then renders less efficiency pertaining to the idea(s) presented. ~

The potentials within the approach to idea from idea, then being hindered in literal rigidity. the effect perhaps of resulting imposed limitations to which we tend as a species? ~

While such works in religion - I believe such an approach to philosophy forsakes it, if not transforms it into a mimicry of existing social structural dynamics. ~

12/30/2006 ; As a note it does present a rather precarious area of consideration between the two ideas of approach - though obviously on simple consideration, it is that they are of kindred cloth so to speak.

A person can approach the resulting effect of religion as idea. Areas of idea even in which to find further inspiration while such may not be readily observable within those rigid confines of ceremony.

It is possible to do so with and within the idea(s) of philosophy without the rigid ceremonies producing the other consistencies.

To approach the idea(s) of philosophy in a similar manner as to those of religion, then only relegates those potentials to a similar area of cognitive existence which then produces a distinction between approaches; that area within the idea(s) of applied literal meaning - which of course is imposed limitation - and that area resulting from idea(s) as and in existence.

Existing as a rigid re-application of literal interpretation(s) opposed to inhabiting existence as it were - of and as such ideas having been applied.