I've been reading through a kids bible with my son and trying to understand the stories as we go. I'm not very religious, but the stories are very interesting and multi-layered in the themes they express.
In Jeremiah 24, Judah had been conquered by Babylon, and many of the people of Judah were captured and taken back to Babylon. Jeremiah was shown two baskets of figs by God, and God said that the two baskets represented the two groups of people who stayed in Judah and those who were taken to Babylon. God said that the people who were taken to Babylon would know suffering and they would learn to follow God's teachings, but the people who stayed in Judah were like the bad figs, and they would ultimately be destroyed.
The thing I was trying to understand from an allegorical standpoint is why it's the people who were captured that are the good figs. Maybe it's because they suffered and they went through the journey and it's through their journey and their struggle that they will be equipped for the future, and they'll get the wisdom through that suffering to know they need to follow God's teachings?
The one thing I didn't get is... Did God choose the people who would be brought into captivity, or was it random? Or does it not really matter and the story isn't about that, and sometimes allegories contain things you shouldn't think too hard about?
In a literal sense, if God chose certain people to be taken to Babylon and certain people to stay behind, it sort of seems like a dick move -- like whether you had a chance for redemption would be totally random.
This sounds odd, but I read bible stories from a more secular viewpoint, where God is an allegorical vehicle for following morality, and those who follow god follow morality and those who do not follow god do not follow a robust morality. In that view, it's a more complicated thing to think about. In one viewpoint though, maybe it suggests that we shouldn't hate those who are immoral totally because sometimes the difference between a moral and immoral person is simply the journey they've travelled. If it was truly random, then the people who went through the tribulation of slavery in Babylon becoming more moral thereby wasn't their choice ultimately so while they ultimately made the right choice, you should recognize that they just as easily have made the wrong choice had their experiences been different.
In Jeremiah 24, Judah had been conquered by Babylon, and many of the people of Judah were captured and taken back to Babylon. Jeremiah was shown two baskets of figs by God, and God said that the two baskets represented the two groups of people who stayed in Judah and those who were taken to Babylon. God said that the people who were taken to Babylon would know suffering and they would learn to follow God's teachings, but the people who stayed in Judah were like the bad figs, and they would ultimately be destroyed.
The thing I was trying to understand from an allegorical standpoint is why it's the people who were captured that are the good figs. Maybe it's because they suffered and they went through the journey and it's through their journey and their struggle that they will be equipped for the future, and they'll get the wisdom through that suffering to know they need to follow God's teachings?
The one thing I didn't get is... Did God choose the people who would be brought into captivity, or was it random? Or does it not really matter and the story isn't about that, and sometimes allegories contain things you shouldn't think too hard about?
In a literal sense, if God chose certain people to be taken to Babylon and certain people to stay behind, it sort of seems like a dick move -- like whether you had a chance for redemption would be totally random.
This sounds odd, but I read bible stories from a more secular viewpoint, where God is an allegorical vehicle for following morality, and those who follow god follow morality and those who do not follow god do not follow a robust morality. In that view, it's a more complicated thing to think about. In one viewpoint though, maybe it suggests that we shouldn't hate those who are immoral totally because sometimes the difference between a moral and immoral person is simply the journey they've travelled. If it was truly random, then the people who went through the tribulation of slavery in Babylon becoming more moral thereby wasn't their choice ultimately so while they ultimately made the right choice, you should recognize that they just as easily have made the wrong choice had their experiences been different.
I think you can go a step further: During the hard times, that's when old morality is the most important. Frugality, hard work, working together, not harming your neighbors, and above all not coming up with some bullshit that's going to actively hurt you it's all really important at all times but when times are hard you don't have the extra resources to spend on something that isn't beneficial.
We can only afford to try new stuff that's probably wrong when there's enough excess that we won't die by getting it wrong. That's why the baby boomer generation, the generation born into the most material wealth of all time, also made the most changes of all time.
We can only afford to try new stuff that's probably wrong when there's enough excess that we won't die by getting it wrong. That's why the baby boomer generation, the generation born into the most material wealth of all time, also made the most changes of all time.