What Do You Think?

May 7, 2007

I thought believing that humans were primarily good was hippy/bhuddist talk.

Nope. Buddhist believe "good" and "evil" are human creations. Humans are primarily... human. That's about it.

Buddhism is not dualistic and therefore does not divide phenomena into "good" and "evil." In fact, there is no term in Buddhist usage which exactly corresponds to the term "evil" in European/Abrahamic religious usage. In Buddhist thought, "evil" is most characteristically seen in its three root forms: greed, hatred, and delusion.

In the Abrahamic religions, the words for good and evil aren't like those in Classical philosophy... Evil is 'unfinished', 'unripe', 'incomplete'... Good is the converse 'finished', 'ripe', 'complete'... at least they were. Post AD 70 the death grip of Hellenist culture changed the way Jews viewed their own definition...

Way back in AD 70 huh? Do you mean when evil was just "wrong" and good was "right"... before they became "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil!!!!" and "Holier than thou" through superstition and pride?

In one... the reall problem was when they managed to make the Orthodoxy not only embrace the basic tenets of both Gnostic thought and Tarsean (Three gods) thought while making both a heresey. One of the greatest cons ever pulled... to use the teaching of a Terrorist, supporting democratic ideals, into a religion to control an Empire... even down to today...

May 7, 2007

As with any metaphor there are layers of “truths” that someone can see; many ways to look at it or interpret it, either for positive things or for not so positive things. All I am suggesting is that there are many ways people look at the metaphor, and it seems possible that they can do so without walking away from it with an image of self-depreciation. However, if taken literally, that would in fact be the logical conclusion.

The problem I have with metaphor and its interpretation is context. I've raised this concern on here before. If you notice the quote of yours that I agree with below you can see how this can be an issue. We will, or perhaps must, interpret the garden myth according to what we need to take away from it unless we step back and make an effort to do otherwise. So with that in mind is all that you said in your original response to me what was to be taken away from the story when whoever penned it some 2500 years ago or is that something that we can take away from it today? Are they the same? It could be the same lesson although I would think that would be unlikely.

When they rewrote the story from their source (since it's pretty much agreed this isn't an original story) what lesson did they "miss" or "alter" that was in the one they copied? We're assuming a lot when we say that this is going from a myth to literal since we don't know the intent of the person who wrote this. They may have meant it quite literally and the person before them meant it as myth. It's that version we should then be concerned with since there is a "gap" in presentation (although it's all essentially myth the rewrite altered essential details so that we cannot, through no fault of our own, properly interpret it).

This is why the people that came along 2000 years ago, using shoddy translations to boot, couldn't understand all of what was being said. The serpent imagery was lost to them. They couldn't know that this was likely not "evil" but a god of "wisdom" (Ishtar or the like). Their "god" (YHWH...probably Ea or Enki...some Sumerian god) was really another deity that is now lost to us all so we can't really say who is playing against the other god in the story. It's like the bringing of fire to mankind through Prometheus. A great gift or a curse? A little of both really. Is wisdom such a great thing? It's a dual-edged sword but we chose it...we listened to wisdom over <unknown deity/other choice/ignorance>. So what happened as a result? Mankind became "evil" and had "the fall." It justified their beliefs and look at their legacy. Interpreting the story within the proper context, or not at all, may have prevented that. At least at the literal level people see the story of a talking snake and just might steer clear of it because it is silly.

It’s all a language to express how we view ourselves and the world. Our image of God is an image of ourselves.

I can agree with this.

mwc

May 7, 2007

How is god 'infinite good'? I see nothing in the observable universe to back up the posited idea.

You're correct. However we're not talking the observable universe. We're talking about human emotional conceptions. God is a symbol of the ultimate of human desire. Poetry is not science. Poetry is irrationality, yet tastes good to the senses. It's about access to the "spirit", not linear thought.

As someone who understands mysticism better than literalism, I'd agree, however, the problem is that people take it literally. As my old mate Fr. Charlie points out 'Myth is not a lie, it's a metaphor. It only becomes a lie when one takes it literally.'

I don't think this place would exist if folk were taught that God is a metaphor not a literal stalker who'll kill you or torture you literally forever for breach of arbitrary rules....

Indeed. When the myth is accepted as literal truth, it is contradicts itself. When these contradictions are dismissed, the entire myth is usually dismissed as a lie. Both are missing what the myth is.

May 7, 2007

Ruby,

My world view on human nature is that each of us constantly struggle between choosing what is good for each individual and what is good for everyone.

To be more accurate and less clear, I’d argue that our lives are a set of social circles, (picture a multi-dimensional venn diagram) each with different interests that overlap each other with us in all of the circles and one circle that has only us in it.

When it is in our interests to contribute to a social circle, we offer support. Each persons ability to perceive a foreign social circle as being within a larger one that contains us is different for everyone.

For example, as someone who is not a victim of social prejudice, I still see those who are encircled by prejudice as being together with me in a much larger circle as myself. I try to speak up against prejudice.

I believe people are inherently self-interested. Well Duh! I don’t however see selfishness as inherently evil or depraved.

Xtian doctrine, religion in general, takes natural self-interest and turns it into something ugly. Sex becomes bad, saving your ass is ignoble and failure to share your abundance is evil.

I also believe that people benefit from social circles and working together. Xtian doctrine, religion in general encourage individuals to contribute to the welfare of others. However, how this happens is where religion goes wacky. Fundies transpose this into service to god for which you will be rewarded in eternity. It is such a perversion of reality.

Xtianity of all flavours believes in original sin. For some denominations original sin is merely an indication that we are not perfect, not that this is a revelation to the average person. For other denominations, it means that people are completely unable to do any good and unselfish deed. This is essentially “utter depravity”.

Some liberal churches ‘bury’ this kind of doctrine in their web pages and do not emphasize these concepts so they can emphasize god’s goodness. I think this is a difficult situation and it seems to me that this is where ‘cherry picking’ is crucial and difficult.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada website does not emphasize a doctrine of faith or statement of belief but rather an ‘Evangelical Declaration’. This statement says nothing about ‘original sin’. I presume the depravity report them using is something they reserve for college studies.

The Mennonite Church Canada website lists 24 articles in their Confession of Faith of which ‘sin’ is one. Total depravity is not mentioned but it is said that sin affect all aspects of the human. The organization in general practice does not emphasize the depravity of man and prefers to focus on Jesus as our ‘friend’.

You ask whether xtianity rests on or requires human nature to be evil…

In answer I don’t know how one can be a xtian and not use that construct in some facet. How does one explain away:

Hebrews 11:6 “But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” or

Isaiah 64:6 “But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

There is a lot of ‘all or nothing’ language in the bible. I think a more liberal xtianity would require that some of these doctrinal ideas are considered “less important” than others but it seems to be to be very very difficult to eliminate this concept and not corrupt the doctrinal foundations of any xtian church.

Without delving back into the Cherry Picking thread, I can see just how difficult it is for non-literal xtians to grapple with such topics and not get sucked into literal interpretation. Perhaps I still don’t get it.

Of all posts, I find Antlerman brings me closer to understanding the variations in these views. The variations of ‘bad’ human theology, is a mental construct built around flawed words intended to emphasize gods goodness rather than our depravity.

It would seem that the degree that one believes in depravity of humanity is closely related to denomination. However the level of discussion is important too - be that in the congregation, from the pulpit, establishment of church doctrine and/or mission statement or whether at seminary - venue changes everything in the non-literal church world. Isn’t that a point you wanted more of us at Ex-C to embrace?

I think your comment that “I'm saying christianity got it all backward because humans are inherently good” got me all balled up. I don’t see people as being inherently good. My kids convinced me that they are not inherently good but rather share the same instinctive first concern for self that I see in all of humanity. I see my job as a parent to teach them about the various social circles to which they belong including the one that encircles the entire planet. By including them in my circles and being part of theirs, I teach them the benifits of being good to others, sharing and forgiveness.

I find myself abandoning the good/evil construct in favour of the view outlined at the beginning of this post. I guess I’m a little more Buddhist these days but I wasn’t aware of that until Jun et al, pointed it out.

Mongo

May 7, 2007

As with any metaphor there are layers of “truths” that someone can see; many ways to look at it or interpret it, either for positive things or for not so positive things. All I am suggesting is that there are many ways people look at the metaphor, and it seems possible that they can do so without walking away from it with an image of self-depreciation. However, if taken literally, that would in fact be the logical conclusion.

The problem I have with metaphor and its interpretation is context. I've raised this concern on here before. If you notice the quote of yours that I agree with below you can see how this can be an issue. We will, or perhaps must, interpret the garden myth according to what we need to take away from it unless we step back and make an effort to do otherwise. So with that in mind is all that you said in your original response to me what was to be taken away from the story when whoever penned it some 2500 years ago or is that something that we can take away from it today? Are they the same? It could be the same lesson although I would think that would be unlikely.

I agree absolutely that many important things that add a layer of meaning get lost in history. Plays and literature from other cultures and generations have deeper meanings to those who understand the history and politics of the day. In fact it can put an entirely different face on it.

I write music. People who listen to it will speak of things they “see” as they listen to it. Sometimes it’s quite different from anything I was thinking or intending to convey as I wrote the piece, but I’ve learned the fact that if it evokes anything is what’s really important. Isn’t mythology sort of the same? It’s not that you understand exactly what the author meant, but that it evokes something?

When they rewrote the story from their source (since it's pretty much agreed this isn't an original story) what lesson did they "miss" or "alter" that was in the one they copied? We're assuming a lot when we say that this is going from a myth to literal since we don't know the intent of the person who wrote this. They may have meant it quite literally and the person before them meant it as myth. It's that version we should then be concerned with since there is a "gap" in presentation (although it's all essentially myth the rewrite altered essential details so that we cannot, through no fault of our own, properly interpret it).

Again, what is the purpose of the interpretation, academics or personal meaning? To me, I think it’s perfectly valid to say something can be “true” to one individual while it isn’t to another. “That’s how I see it” can’t be disputed. “This is what it means objectively”, is of course open to debate. The things you bring up (regularly) are greatly valuable to that discussion, and I personally enjoy feasting on your insights.

However if someone says to me, “I hear little kitty cats playing with a ball of yarn”, in one of my pieces of music I wrote, can I say to them “You’re wrong! That’s not what I meant at all!”? Of course not, it’s what they heard. If they boldly claim to speak to my mind and say “I think this is what you meant when you wrote it”, well then I can then say “You’re wrong. That’s not what I was thinking.”

I agree with you that to get back as close to the original authors’ mind is most valuable. However, just because people use the vehicle of myth to say something different, doesn’t necessarily make it invalid.

This is why the people that came along 2000 years ago, using shoddy translations to boot, couldn't understand all of what was being said. The serpent imagery was lost to them. They couldn't know that this was likely not "evil" but a god of "wisdom" (Ishtar or the like). Their "god" (YHWH...probably Ea or Enki...some Sumerian god) was really another deity that is now lost to us all so we can't really say who is playing against the other god in the story. It's like the bringing of fire to mankind through Prometheus. A great gift or a curse? A little of both really. Is wisdom such a great thing? It's a dual-edged sword but we chose it...we listened to wisdom over <unknown deity/other choice/ignorance>. So what happened as a result? Mankind became "evil" and had "the fall." It justified their beliefs and look at their legacy. Interpreting the story within the proper context, or not at all, may have prevented that. At least at the literal level people see the story of a talking snake and just might steer clear of it because it is silly.

Just quoting this because I like it. But again, “proper context”? Did the interpretation of the myth create the belief, or gave voice to it? People see what they want to see. Again, in the beginning people create God in their image, not the other way around.

May 7, 2007

The problem I have with metaphor and its interpretation is context. I've raised this concern on here before. If you notice the quote of yours that I agree with below you can see how this can be an issue. We will, or perhaps must, interpret the garden myth according to what we need to take away from it unless we step back and make an effort to do otherwise. So with that in mind is all that you said in your original response to me what was to be taken away from the story when whoever penned it some 2500 years ago or is that something that we can take away from it today? Are they the same? It could be the same lesson although I would think that would be unlikely.

Hi there mwc! Have we discussed this before?

Does it really matter? If it is taken literally, it is a lie isn't it? If the original authors didn't understand it, they came away with a lesson that was detrimental to life itself. That can be proven over the course of history. The methaphoric lesson is positive to life.

I may have said this before, but I think many of the original authors were a lot wiser than many give them credit. I think that all myths have an inward meaning and when those meanings are directed as an outside occurance, they are misread.

When they rewrote the story from their source (since it's pretty much agreed this isn't an original story) what lesson did they "miss" or "alter" that was in the one they copied? We're assuming a lot when we say that this is going from a myth to literal since we don't know the intent of the person who wrote this. They may have meant it quite literally and the person before them meant it as myth. It's that version we should then be concerned with since there is a "gap" in presentation (although it's all essentially myth the rewrite altered essential details so that we cannot, through no fault of our own, properly interpret it).

Yes, that is a problem. But, if one can look at it as an inward journey of their own lives, the parts that don't seem to fit probably won't and can be identified as misunderstanding on the author's part? I'm just speculating...

This is why the people that came along 2000 years ago, using shoddy translations to boot, couldn't understand all of what was being said. The serpent imagery was lost to them. They couldn't know that this was likely not "evil" but a god of "wisdom" (Ishtar or the like). Their "god" (YHWH...probably Ea or Enki...some Sumerian god) was really another deity that is now lost to us all so we can't really say who is playing against the other god in the story. It's like the bringing of fire to mankind through Prometheus. A great gift or a curse? A little of both really. Is wisdom such a great thing? It's a dual-edged sword but we chose it...we listened to wisdom over <unknown deity/other choice/ignorance>. So what happened as a result? Mankind became "evil" and had "the fall." It justified their beliefs and look at their legacy. Interpreting the story within the proper context, or not at all, may have prevented that. At least at the literal level people see the story of a talking snake and just might steer clear of it because it is silly.

I think they should look for a deeper meaning because it is silly on a literal level. I do see what your saying though. This is just what the story tells about, I think. The story tells about people that have become dualistic in thought and they start to judge others and themselves as being good or evil. This is exactly what they did and continue to do because they don't hear the message as an inward revelation of themselves. They hear it as an outside entity that tested humanity and humanity failed and there can be no relief from the failure of mankind.

So along comes a sacrifice...God himself. Once again, they take the metaphor and project it outward onto the literal occurance of the fall, and mankind is saved from without by a literal god-man.

The death of God in human form can mean that any images of God held in the mind of humans must die in order to have a inner meaning for the person. This is a unifying concept that forces the mind to acknowledge that no one can judge another. It's a return to Eden (so-to-speak).

It’s all a language to express how we view ourselves and the world. Our image of God is an image of ourselves.

I can agree with this.

mwc

Indeed it is. One that was supposed to die when the human form of God died on the cross, IMO (metaphorically of course). Is that what it was supposed to mean? I don't know, but it makes a world of sense to me. Many god-men were killed for humanity in myths. It must mean something!

May 7, 2007

You made some very good points and I'm going to quote a couple of things you said that touched on what I was trying to say but apparently failed getting across. Hopefully by expanding on your words I will do better this time around.

I write music. People who listen to it will speak of things they “see” as they listen to it. Sometimes it’s quite different from anything I was thinking or intending to convey as I wrote the piece, but I’ve learned the fact that if it evokes anything is what’s really important. Isn’t mythology sort of the same? It’s not that you understand exactly what the author meant, but that it evokes something?

This is an important point that you make here and not one to be taken lightly. It's one I understand and agree with. So let's keep it in mind.

However if someone says to me, “I hear little kitty cats playing with a ball of yarn”, in one of my pieces of music I wrote, can I say to them “You’re wrong! That’s not what I meant at all!”? Of course not, it’s what they heard. If they boldly claim to speak to my mind and say “I think this is what you meant when you wrote it”, well then I can then say “You’re wrong. That’s not what I was thinking.”

This is where things went off track and it's obviously my fault because I do tend to focus on academics so it's only natural to head that way when speaking with me.

I haven't thought my example all the way through but I hope it's still a workable one. Let's say you make an album, but it would have to be a few years back so that it's vinyl. It gets played and played and moved about so that in some future time some people discover it and they play it and hear exactly what you say above "little kitty cats playing with a ball of yarn." So far there are no disagreements with our stories. But here's the thing. By now there's a scratch in the song. A dispute arises on what the scratch means. Not that it belongs there but what the deeper meaning of the scratch is in the overall composition of the album. All sorts of people find all sorts of meaning in something that isn't in your original composition at all. And while this might be fine in theory, in practice, the people who are "victorious," are the group that decides the scratch is somehow related to the evil nature of mankind and they come up with a doctrine that casts the world into another dark age.

A silly idea? Maybe it already happened? Because people tried to find meaning in a flawed piece of work. The original composition didn't have the scratch. They didn't try to discover that or ignored those that did because the search for "meaning" was more important.

So all I'm saying is that we know, for a fact, that the composition that is the story of the Garden of Eden has a huge scratch in it. Did the person who wrote it put the scratch there on purpose or did it get there some other way? I think we should figure that out before we assign meaning to the scratch. Then we can decide what to do with the rest of the composition and the little kitties (if that's what we still hear).

mwc

May 7, 2007

Hi there mwc! Have we discussed this before?

Does it really matter? If it is taken literally, it is a lie isn't it? If the original authors didn't understand it, they came away with a lesson that was detrimental to life itself. That can be proven over the course of history. The methaphoric lesson is positive to life.

We have. It's a real sticking point with me for any number of reasons.

I'd like to see some Jewish examples of metaphoric lessons, from say Ezra's time, that were positive to life. He wasn't such an upbeat guy and a likely candidate for doing the editing on the texts so we have what we have today. He must have missed the point even though, if he is to be believed, was in Babylon where these lessons should have been learned.

I may have said this before, but I think many of the original authors were a lot wiser than many give them credit. I think that all myths have an inward meaning and when those meanings are directed as an outside occurance, they are misread.

Well, that's just it, isn't it? Who are the "original authors?" They may have been extremely clever but the hacks that got ahold of their stories, the very stories everyone is desperately trying to find deeper meaning in today, aren't the people we think they are. People are confusing Beethoven's 5th Symphony with the disco version "A 5th of Beethoven." It's not the same (did I just date myself?). Try as you might you will never hear the original in the cheap copy (it's not a remake of the song by any means...watch Saturday Night Fever if you want more information...I think it's in there).

Yes, that is a problem. But, if one can look at it as an inward journey of their own lives, the parts that don't seem to fit probably won't and can be identified as misunderstanding on the author's part? I'm just speculating...

I don't know how many people 2500+ years ago were doing this. Of course I can't say how many were hearing the stories either. They were supposed to go to Jerusalem 3 times a year for feasts so maybe then?

I think they should look for a deeper meaning because it is silly on a literal level. I do see what your saying though. This is just what the story tells about, I think. The story tells about people that have become dualistic in thought and they start to judge others and themselves as being good or evil. This is exactly what they did and continue to do because they don't hear the message as an inward revelation of themselves. They hear it as an outside entity that tested humanity and humanity failed and there can be no relief from the failure of mankind.

I assume you mean now. But then we come to the point where I say "Why not just find another story?" The point with that is this one has had a good run and, well, hasn't it done enough harm? Let someone take the good bits and roll it into "nicer" story and lets just hang this other one up. As long as people are using the bible people will be misusing the bible. So let's remove the temptation by relegating it to the myth bin where it belongs as opposed to the "deeper meaning" pile where it still has power.

So along comes a sacrifice...God himself. Once again, they take the metaphor and project it outward onto the literal occurance of the fall, and mankind is saved from without by a literal god-man.

The death of God in human form can mean that any images of God held in the mind of humans must die in order to have a inner meaning for the person. This is a unifying concept that forces the mind to acknowledge that no one can judge another. It's a return to Eden (so-to-speak).

So then I read this and I have to ask you if this is a modern interpretation of these things or an ancient interpretation of these things? Are you saying "From the modern perspective we can see that the ancient peoples simply missed the point when it came to <topic> and the proper interpretation is ..."? Now, I realize that sounds a little pompous, and that's not you (maybe with a pipe? ) but these are the kind of things that come to my mind when I hear these types of things. If I were in their sandals what would I really be thinking? Literal god-man or mystical inner-being (like we speak of today and not like the texts I've read which differ)? The question is far from easy to answer. I guess that's why my topics are so tedious compared to others.

I guess I have no need to find deeper meaning in my life in that I don't need to look to these old bible stories. I want to figure out why those people did what they did. What drives me is to know what drove them? They are a puzzle to solve not a path to follow.

Indeed it is. One that was supposed to die when the human form of God died on the cross, IMO (metaphorically of course). Is that what it was supposed to mean? I don't know, but it makes a world of sense to me. Many god-men were killed for humanity in myths. It must mean something!

It meant good eatin'!

Because dying for someone is the ultimate sacrifice. If you push someone out of the way of a car, and they live but you die, then you gave the ultimate sacrifice. But is that always the context? A dying/rising god-man, in general, could mean many things. A lot of the myths seem to borrow on the same origins so I wouldn't be surprised if there were similarities.

mwc

May 7, 2007

As I understand it, Christians use 'depravity'--and Calvinists in particular 'total depravity'--in a soteriological sense only. I'm not sure if the distinction exists in non-Catholic theology, but as I recall Catholic theology distinguishes between 'natural good' and 'supernatural good'. The former does not benefit the individual's salvation, and is inspired by her will alone. The latter, however, is inspired by Grace and not the will and does benefit salvation.

So, to me, Christianity's attitude towards humanity's good/evil does not fall because it considers us unable to do anything good as we are totally evil, but because it has an absurd idea of what the important good is. It emphasises good that is inspired by God's grace and is pleasing to Him to the detriment of everyday good actions by humanity.

And, strictly speaking, I would suggest that any Christian who thinks human beings are inherently evil either has an extremely poor understanding of his own theology or is using terminology much too loosely. Human beings are, according the Christian theology, extrinsically evil. The Fall and the subsequent effects of original sin are what make human beings evil.

Think about it...for human beings to be inherently evil, we cannot be seperated from evil. It is consequently essential to our very beings. The whole message of Christianity is that we can be seperated from our guilt, sin and evil by salvation through Jesus. This would not be possible unless evil were something extrinsic to ourselves.*

Moreover, the Creation account states several times that creation was 'good'. It is only the Fall that made it evil. Thus something non-essential made us depraved (i.e. unable to please God of our own volition). We are, according to Christianity, inherently good.

*I have read that Luther and subsequent Protestant theologians believed in atonement through the concealment of sins, whereby Christ's death covers our sins, yet we still remain evil at the core. However, this was from Catholic sources so it is quite possibly a misrepresentation, and the point about humanity before the Fall still stands.

May 7, 2007

We have. It's a real sticking point with me for any number of reasons.

I'd like to see some Jewish examples of metaphoric lessons, from say Ezra's time, that were positive to life. He wasn't such an upbeat guy and a likely candidate for doing the editing on the texts so we have what we have today. He must have missed the point even though, if he is to be believed, was in Babylon where these lessons should have been learned.

The book I read about Judaic mysticism has this dating back to Egyptian mysticism. I read a library copy, so I can't reference it. But, I just bought it (I've been meaning to anyway!).

I really do understand where you are coming from mwc, I just think that these are not insights that come easily to people especially when put into another language; one that splits the person doing the action and the person themselves. If I understand correctly, Hebrew was at one time (may still be) a language that nouns were implied in the verbs instead of having a verb force an action on a noun.

Maybe it wasn't his error, but the natural error of language and how a person thinks with that language system?

Well, that's just it, isn't it? Who are the "original authors?" They may have been extremely clever but the hacks that got ahold of their stories, the very stories everyone is desperately trying to find deeper meaning in today, aren't the people we think they are. People are confusing Beethoven's 5th Symphony with the disco version "A 5th of Beethoven." It's not the same (did I just date myself?). Try as you might you will never hear the original in the cheap copy (it's not a remake of the song by any means...watch Saturday Night Fever if you want more information...I think it's in there).

Dang...you're old! Just teasing!

Maybe if we could think in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, it would be easier? I really don't know, but how could they express concepts of a unified language in a language, such as Greek and English, that splits the mover from the movement?

I know there is more to it than just language barriers especially when the Romans got a hold of the teachings of Jesus. But again, I think, there is an opening of 'play' there when the translations took place.

I assume you mean now. But then we come to the point where I say "Why not just find another story?" The point with that is this one has had a good run and, well, hasn't it done enough harm? Let someone take the good bits and roll it into "nicer" story and lets just hang this other one up. As long as people are using the bible people will be misusing the bible. So let's remove the temptation by relegating it to the myth bin where it belongs as opposed to the "deeper meaning" pile where it still has power.

Well, we could say that, but we could also say that for any story that one takes too literally. There are people misusing the Vedas I'm sure along with the teachings of Buddha. We can't dispose of valuable insight because of the misuse and abuse by people that don't understand it, or are willfully ignorant of it, IMO. (And PLEASE note that I do NOT mean you!)

So then I read this and I have to ask you if this is a modern interpretation of these things or an ancient interpretation of these things? Are you saying "From the modern perspective we can see that the ancient peoples simply missed the point when it came to <topic> and the proper interpretation is ..."? Now, I realize that sounds a little pompous, and that's not you (maybe with a pipe? ) but these are the kind of things that come to my mind when I hear these types of things. If I were in their sandals what would I really be thinking? Literal god-man or mystical inner-being (like we speak of today and not like the texts I've read which differ)? The question is far from easy to answer. I guess that's why my topics are so tedious compared to others.

I'm not sure there is a proper interpretation other than what is applicable to the person's life. I would have to venture that a proper interpretation isn't going to cause harm to others.

I love your topics mwc and I don't have an easy answer either except to say that the power of a myth lies inside the person whether it actually occured or not. It really doesn't matter what image brings this inner "awakening" as long as it brings about the same emotion in the person. If I like vanilla and you like chocolate then both of these will have the same response in us...just a different medium. Yes, that is far from the response I mean, but hopefully it makes sense. If a person never applies the myth to their own inward 'self', then it doesn't work for them.

I guess I have no need to find deeper meaning in my life in that I don't need to look to these old bible stories. I want to figure out why those people did what they did. What drives me is to know what drove them? They are a puzzle to solve not a path to follow.

I can respect that and I'm glad you do what you do. I learn a lot from you!

Because dying for someone is the ultimate sacrifice. If you push someone out of the way of a car, and they live but you die, then you gave the ultimate sacrifice. But is that always the context? A dying/rising god-man, in general, could mean many things. A lot of the myths seem to borrow on the same origins so I wouldn't be surprised if there were similarities.

mwc

One could look at it like that indeed. But dying for someone is an outward act. Myths are about inward emotions and psychological states, IMO.

May 7, 2007

Hi there mwc! Have we discussed this before?

Does it really matter? If it is taken literally, it is a lie isn't it? If the original authors didn't understand it, they came away with a lesson that was detrimental to life itself. That can be proven over the course of history. The methaphoric lesson is positive to life.

We have. It's a real sticking point with me for any number of reasons.

I'd like to see some Jewish examples of metaphoric lessons, from say Ezra's time, that were positive to life. He wasn't such an upbeat guy and a likely candidate for doing the editing on the texts so we have what we have today. He must have missed the point even though, if he is to be believed, was in Babylon where these lessons should have been learned.

I may have said this before, but I think many of the original authors were a lot wiser than many give them credit. I think that all myths have an inward meaning and when those meanings are directed as an outside occurance, they are misread.

Well, that's just it, isn't it? Who are the "original authors?" They may have been extremely clever but the hacks that got ahold of their stories, the very stories everyone is desperately trying to find deeper meaning in today, aren't the people we think they are. People are confusing Beethoven's 5th Symphony with the disco version "A 5th of Beethoven." It's not the same (did I just date myself?). Try as you might you will never hear the original in the cheap copy (it's not a remake of the song by any means...watch Saturday Night Fever if you want more information...I think it's in there).

Yes, that is a problem. But, if one can look at it as an inward journey of their own lives, the parts that don't seem to fit probably won't and can be identified as misunderstanding on the author's part? I'm just speculating...

I don't know how many people 2500+ years ago were doing this. Of course I can't say how many were hearing the stories either. They were supposed to go to Jerusalem 3 times a year for feasts so maybe then?

I think they should look for a deeper meaning because it is silly on a literal level. I do see what your saying though. This is just what the story tells about, I think. The story tells about people that have become dualistic in thought and they start to judge others and themselves as being good or evil. This is exactly what they did and continue to do because they don't hear the message as an inward revelation of themselves. They hear it as an outside entity that tested humanity and humanity failed and there can be no relief from the failure of mankind.

I assume you mean now. But then we come to the point where I say "Why not just find another story?" The point with that is this one has had a good run and, well, hasn't it done enough harm? Let someone take the good bits and roll it into "nicer" story and lets just hang this other one up. As long as people are using the bible people will be misusing the bible. So let's remove the temptation by relegating it to the myth bin where it belongs as opposed to the "deeper meaning" pile where it still has power.

So along comes a sacrifice...God himself. Once again, they take the metaphor and project it outward onto the literal occurance of the fall, and mankind is saved from without by a literal god-man.

The death of God in human form can mean that any images of God held in the mind of humans must die in order to have a inner meaning for the person. This is a unifying concept that forces the mind to acknowledge that no one can judge another. It's a return to Eden (so-to-speak).

So then I read this and I have to ask you if this is a modern interpretation of these things or an ancient interpretation of these things? Are you saying "From the modern perspective we can see that the ancient peoples simply missed the point when it came to <topic> and the proper interpretation is ..."? Now, I realize that sounds a little pompous, and that's not you (maybe with a pipe? ) but these are the kind of things that come to my mind when I hear these types of things. If I were in their sandals what would I really be thinking? Literal god-man or mystical inner-being (like we speak of today and not like the texts I've read which differ)? The question is far from easy to answer. I guess that's why my topics are so tedious compared to others.

I guess I have no need to find deeper meaning in my life in that I don't need to look to these old bible stories. I want to figure out why those people did what they did. What drives me is to know what drove them? They are a puzzle to solve not a path to follow.

Indeed it is. One that was supposed to die when the human form of God died on the cross, IMO (metaphorically of course). Is that what it was supposed to mean? I don't know, but it makes a world of sense to me. Many god-men were killed for humanity in myths. It must mean something!

It meant good eatin'!

Because dying for someone is the ultimate sacrifice. If you push someone out of the way of a car, and they live but you die, then you gave the ultimate sacrifice. But is that always the context? A dying/rising god-man, in general, could mean many things. A lot of the myths seem to borrow on the same origins so I wouldn't be surprised if there were similarities.

mwc

Most of the Dying-Resurrecting Man Gods were solar cults... it's why they're born in mid winter (birth of the new sun - it's getting higher in the sky) and why their death/resurrection is almost always around the third moon after winter solstice... usually a few nights after equinox, when the light 'defeats' the dark in a noticeable fashion (it's been driving it back, now it's won) Jesus became a solar god at Nicaea... although the religion, in it's orthodox form, had been Finlandising itself for a few years prior... moving the sabbath from Friday PM to Saturday PM to all day Sunday being key... and a major move away from Judean Christianity, and toward a wholly Gentile organisation... The later move of the Eastern Church power from Jerusalem to Constantinople, followed by the wiping out of the Desposyni sealing it. Orthodox Christianity has NEVER been a spiritual discipline, and has ALWAYS been a political one, more concerned with temporal power than people's 'souls'... It's been one of the best cons ever pulled that people think it speaks to their spirit, when actually they are indetured to the image of Constantine, and Theodosius cementing it as the religion of the Empire almost 100 years later...

May 8, 2007

The book I read about Judaic mysticism has this dating back to Egyptian mysticism. I read a library copy, so I can't reference it. But, I just bought it (I've been meaning to anyway!).

I really do understand where you are coming from mwc, I just think that these are not insights that come easily to people especially when put into another language; one that splits the person doing the action and the person themselves. If I understand correctly, Hebrew was at one time (may still be) a language that nouns were implied in the verbs instead of having a verb force an action on a noun.

Maybe it wasn't his error, but the natural error of language and how a person thinks with that language system?

Egyptians were "ruled" by symbols so it's far easier to understand the ability for mysticism to exist within their society. Even there it seems that the people managed to understand where one concept ended and another began.

The Hebrews, being a bit more "literal" of a culture (meaning to my knowledge that unlike the Egyptians their symbols could spring to life and other such things), while they might have language that conveys meanings that are different than what we're used to that doesn't mean that they understood its usage the same way we might looking back. An example of this is the blessing of Jacob story. From what I understand the word used by Isaac in the story is that the blessing would come from an inner essence of some sort that we don't really have a way of easily explaining today. Later in the story it is a blessing before "the LORD (YHWH)" meaning many things depending on how you view the authorship of the text (I accept the many authors J, E, P, D, R theory as being reasonable so I think someone stuck YHWH in there). This means the blessing should not come from a god but truly from the special inner essence (not soul) of Isaac to his sons (and reading the story that is really where it seems to come from). But even with the Jewish word for this concept the person who edited the text altered it so that blessings came from their god. Is it because by that time only god could give blessings? Is it because the word meant something slightly different? Is it because it means something different now in 2007? Is it because in the original semitic text it meant something different? You see how many possibilities there are for just that word? With the Jews not afraid to alter things to their theology this muddies the waters quite a bit.

I also think that there is a fine line (if that) between mysticism and superstition. Were these people mystics or just superstitious (or some of both)?

Dang...you're old! Just teasing!

Maybe if we could think in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, it would be easier? I really don't know, but how could they express concepts of a unified language in a language, such as Greek and English, that splits the mover from the movement?

I know there is more to it than just language barriers especially when the Romans got a hold of the teachings of Jesus. But again, I think, there is an opening of 'play' there when the translations took place.

The "teachings" of jesus? Those would have been easy since it's a fair bet they were all written in Greek to begin with.

In fact that's probably why he wasn't readily accepted in his "home" country. No one could understand what his purpose really was when they tried translating him back in the local language. "Jesus who did what now?"

Well, we could say that, but we could also say that for any story that one takes too literally. There are people misusing the Vedas I'm sure along with the teachings of Buddha. We can't dispose of valuable insight because of the misuse and abuse by people that don't understand it, or are willfully ignorant of it, IMO. (And PLEASE note that I do NOT mean you!)

I miss lots of points...no need to sugar coat it. However, as I said, by stating this book has "deeper meaning" it gives it lots of power. Take those items out and roll them into something else because it's obvious the meaning isn't clear and/or consistent in its current state. Also, I never said to "dispose" of the texts, but to put it with the other myths where it belongs. It would still be around for people to access, right along side the stories of Zeus and all the other long forgotten gods, on a shelf in a library to be checked out for some school assignment.

I'm not sure there is a proper interpretation other than what is applicable to the person's life. I would have to venture that a proper interpretation isn't going to cause harm to others.

I love your topics mwc and I don't have an easy answer either except to say that the power of a myth lies inside the person whether it actually occured or not. It really doesn't matter what image brings this inner "awakening" as long as it brings about the same emotion in the person. If I like vanilla and you like chocolate then both of these will have the same response in us...just a different medium. Yes, that is far from the response I mean, but hopefully it makes sense. If a person never applies the myth to their own inward 'self', then it doesn't work for them.

But unfortunately, and I didn't discuss this in other posts, when it comes to theology like this there is a very good chance that there is a "proper" interpretation. I realize that certain lines of thinking teach us that there is not. Whatever works for you is what is "right." So why did those who follow YHWH destroy others and their gods? Obviously it was because of these texts. Can you tell me if it was a later group, the group who wrote them or the group who just edited them? Probably not. The "prophets" in the bible sure were active in going after the "others" and doing them in. The mythical patriarchs sure did a lot of people in for not adhering to these words. These words must mean something to someone and it doesn't seem to be "whatever you take away from it is good enough." This is a recent view. If it ever was an ancient view I still haven't seen evidence for it other than the general theory that mysticism existed in ancient times. Perhaps, but that doesn't mean "to each their own" in every community (or any community).

One could look at it like that indeed. But dying for someone is an outward act. Myths are about inward emotions and psychological states, IMO.

GH took this where I didn't want to go (since I did something similar in another thread...I also tried to relate my answer to the simple replacement sacrifice which doesn't appear in early rituals to my knowledge) but he proves the point that myths, most ancient myths at least, were nature myths. They weren't about the "human condition" so much as just nature. They used humans/gods to explain how it all worked.

mwc

May 8, 2007

The 'Jesus' tradtions were oral and likely remained in parallel for some years parallel to the Greek... The issues with the Greek texts are manifold and have been addressed here many times. The probable reason that there wasn't much of a local uptake by the Hebrews was that it was just another Messiah who got nailed to a tree... like that was impressive. The Romans were still there and he was dead. Not really a 'success' story.... so why should there be local interest?

For the interested, Greek was the lingua franca of the time and the region and most 'literate' scribes could manage it.

May 8, 2007

The 'Jesus' tradtions were oral and likely remained in parallel for some years parallel to the Greek... The issues with the Greek texts are manifold and have been addressed here many times. The probable reason that there wasn't much of a local uptake by the Hebrews was that it was just another Messiah who got nailed to a tree... like that was impressive. The Romans were still there and he was dead. Not really a 'success' story.... so why should there be local interest?

I used to accept this viewpoint but now I tend to reject it. The "oral tradition" stance for jesus is much like the same used in the OT. For some reason the story remained unwritten by the people involved while "others" wrote similar versions for no apparent reason. Paul, for instance, could be considered one of those "others" if you like (if we accept his early existence). The Essenes or whatever label you'd like to place on the community at the Dead Sea could be another.

My point is that this POV is simply the most dominant one and it seems to exist because we need to have a "jesus" to spark the whole movement. So, in 33AD, here he comes (or goes rather) and then the ball starts rolling. The oral tradition fits that evidence so there must have been an oral tradition. But it's just so backwards from what seems to have happened and what the theology reveals. It doesn't read Jewish. Even the messianic movements that we know about, and the bits and pieces of those that remain today, at least those read Jewish. You can understand why those are there. This is foreign in so many ways but since jesus was supposed to be a Jew then the whole thing must be Jewish and that's that.

I don't think the problem was getting this messiah out of the Jewish understanding but trying to get him into it. The Jews fully understood their "native" messiahs just fine it was this "Franken-messiah" they had problems with.

I know this puts me at odds with many, many people out there but so far I think that this aspect of their argument is the least compelling. Once the religion "spreads" (basically jumps) outside Judea, then it all slots into place fairly well but the origin is not at all on that solid of footing.

mwc

May 8, 2007

If Christianity had not made that leap out into the Pagan world, it would have died out when the Romans crushed out the Jewish Rebellion. Jews have a no nonsense approach to their messiah...he was to be the next Moses, not competing for God's attention.

Christians should be thankful Pagans were there to help keep Jesus alive in he hearts and mind of men. But, they are not.

May 8, 2007

The 'Jesus' tradtions were oral and likely remained in parallel for some years parallel to the Greek... The issues with the Greek texts are manifold and have been addressed here many times. The probable reason that there wasn't much of a local uptake by the Hebrews was that it was just another Messiah who got nailed to a tree... like that was impressive. The Romans were still there and he was dead. Not really a 'success' story.... so why should there be local interest?

I used to accept this viewpoint but now I tend to reject it. The "oral tradition" stance for jesus is much like the same used in the OT. For some reason the story remained unwritten by the people involved while "others" wrote similar versions for no apparent reason. Paul, for instance, could be considered one of those "others" if you like (if we accept his early existence). The Essenes or whatever label you'd like to place on the community at the Dead Sea could be another.

My point is that this POV is simply the most dominant one and it seems to exist because we need to have a "jesus" to spark the whole movement. So, in 33AD, here he comes (or goes rather) and then the ball starts rolling. The oral tradition fits that evidence so there must have been an oral tradition. But it's just so backwards from what seems to have happened and what the theology reveals. It doesn't read Jewish. Even the messianic movements that we know about, and the bits and pieces of those that remain today, at least those read Jewish. You can understand why those are there. This is foreign in so many ways but since jesus was supposed to be a Jew then the whole thing must be Jewish and that's that.

I don't think the problem was getting this messiah out of the Jewish understanding but trying to get him into it. The Jews fully understood their "native" messiahs just fine it was this "Franken-messiah" they had problems with.

I know this puts me at odds with many, many people out there but so far I think that this aspect of their argument is the least compelling. Once the religion "spreads" (basically jumps) outside Judea, then it all slots into place fairly well but the origin is not at all on that solid of footing.

mwc

It presupposes one community... there wasn't there were a lot, and the scatter of stories indicates (at least to me) the recording of competing traditions that were oral to begin with (possibly chanted or sung, like the early versions of the Quran)

The canonical Gospels don't read Jewish, because they're not. Thomas does... it's a straight sayings gospel, Matthew, Mark and Luke are Greek theatrical narratives wrapped around a sayings gospel or two... John is a Greek mystic narrative, wrapped round a sayings gospel or two. Thomas is raw... The idea that they form a cohesive whole is specious... the earliest versions are clearly not cohesive...

The New Testament is a random collection of books form different sects. Sympathetic^* translation has covered the cracks, and heresey denunciation has largely removed the voices from history that spoke out that the Emperor was actually naked...

* - Sympathetic - Right speak for lying toads who'd sell their mother for glue if it would advance their cause...

May 8, 2007

If Christianity had not made that leap out into the Pagan world, it would have died out when the Romans crushed out the Jewish Rebellion. Jews have a no nonsense approach to their messiah...he was to be the next Moses, not competing for God's attention.

Christians should be thankful Pagans were there to help keep Jesus alive in he hearts and mind of men. But, they are not.

Gratitude? Christians? what a quaint thought...

May 8, 2007

But unfortunately, and I didn't discuss this in other posts, when it comes to theology like this there is a very good chance that there is a "proper" interpretation. I realize that certain lines of thinking teach us that there is not. Whatever works for you is what is "right." So why did those who follow YHWH destroy others and their gods? Obviously it was because of these texts. Can you tell me if it was a later group, the group who wrote them or the group who just edited them? Probably not. The "prophets" in the bible sure were active in going after the "others" and doing them in. The mythical patriarchs sure did a lot of people in for not adhering to these words. These words must mean something to someone and it doesn't seem to be "whatever you take away from it is good enough." This is a recent view. If it ever was an ancient view I still haven't seen evidence for it other than the general theory that mysticism existed in ancient times. Perhaps, but that doesn't mean "to each their own" in every community (or any community).

There’s so much to respond to but little time so I’m going to try to respond in a fell swoop.

The discussion seems to hinge on deeper meaning versus proper interpretation. The meanings of myths change because people do. Did the Creation story that was adopted by the Hebrews reflect what its original creators “intended”? In other words, the story that was floating about when the Jews nabbed it, was the message of that story exactly the same as it was from its original creators, say a thousand years earlier? I’d say it was highly improbable.

Just as that story changed in its culture of origin, it changed and continues to change in external cultures that adopted it. The point is that the “truth” isn’t in the original myth, but in the culture that uses it. It’s a mirror of culture. This is why I always contend that God evolves, and fundamentalism is an illusionary attempt to hold onto the past. Even fundamentalist “truth” changes.

I’ll contend the only “proper” interpretation is the one that accurately reflects the culture that’s doing the interpreting at the time. Using the music analogy, it’s like someone scolding a jazz musician for not playing “nice music”. They’re not playing the notes “right” to them, because it doesn’t reflect how they relate to music. To them listening to music played in complex time signatures sounds like so much chaos. Yet to those who “hear” that style of music, the simplistic meter of traditional “pop” music is quickly boring and unsatisfying.

You do have a point about the purity of the original composition, but we’re not talking about an authoritative source such as Ludwig Van Beethoven. His score is his score. Myths however are collective creations of human societies. Think of it in terms of language. Does language evolve, or do words have static unchanging meanings? It’s the same thing with a myth. People create it, and adapt it to culture. It’s not an authoritative anything.

To be a mythological purist is as much an act of futility as being a linguistic purist and saying how we use words today is wrong because it’s not how they were used in colonial days. Language evolves when the words are adapted collectively to express the views and values in a changing culture. Beethoven’s 5th symphony is a work of Beethoven. But the creation myth is a cultural myth, and like language it’s constantly evolving.

As far as the abuse aspect of the Creation myth in your anaology above, indeed it is a case of whatever works for you when it comes to the YHWH’ists destroying competitors. It worked for them to exploit the myth for political gain. Let’s talk about patriotism. Is patriotism something bad because it’s been exploited time and again by politicians to go to war for whatever reasons reside in their asses? Mythology is powerful, and as such it will be exploited. However, get rid of the Creation myth, and something will be found to replace it. The problem isn’t the myth, but people.

Footnote: In your "scratches on the LP" analogy, I’d like to add that as a Vinyl enthusiast who listens almost exclusively to the superior sound of vinyl over CD’s, the priests who were responsible for caring for the medium should be flogged for not using their carbon fiber brushes religiously before each playing, for not replacing their styluses as they wore, for not properly adjusting the VTA of their tone arms, etc. Even so, when this culture 10,000 years in the future hears these added pops and clicks as a result of negligent priests, if they find the pattern of random noises pleasing to them, then isn’t there value in that? I’ve heard kids today who buy records say they like scatchy albums because it gives it a “nostalgic” feel to them. Who am I to say this is wrong? In all things, the gods of Vinyl are served, and I am pleased.

May 8, 2007

The later move of the Eastern Church power from Jerusalem to Constantinople, followed by the wiping out of the Desposyni sealing it.

The Desposyni wasn't wiped out...the bishops keep impregnating in order to carry on the blood line. Where have you been?

Orthodox Christianity has NEVER been a spiritual discipline, and has ALWAYS been a political one, more concerned with temporal power than people's 'souls'... It's been one of the best cons ever pulled that people think it speaks to their spirit, when actually they are indetured to the image of Constantine, and Theodosius cementing it as the religion of the Empire almost 100 years later...

I couldn't agree more.

May 8, 2007

But unfortunately, and I didn't discuss this in other posts, when it comes to theology like this there is a very good chance that there is a "proper" interpretation. I realize that certain lines of thinking teach us that there is not. Whatever works for you is what is "right." So why did those who follow YHWH destroy others and their gods? Obviously it was because of these texts. Can you tell me if it was a later group, the group who wrote them or the group who just edited them? Probably not. The "prophets" in the bible sure were active in going after the "others" and doing them in. The mythical patriarchs sure did a lot of people in for not adhering to these words. These words must mean something to someone and it doesn't seem to be "whatever you take away from it is good enough." This is a recent view. If it ever was an ancient view I still haven't seen evidence for it other than the general theory that mysticism existed in ancient times. Perhaps, but that doesn't mean "to each their own" in every community (or any community).

There’s so much to respond to but little time so I’m going to try to respond in a fell swoop.

The discussion seems to hinge on deeper meaning versus proper interpretation. The meanings of myths change because people do. Did the Creation story that was adopted by the Hebrews reflect what its original creators “intended”? In other words, the story that was floating about when the Jews nabbed it, was the message of that story exactly the same as it was from its original creators, say a thousand years earlier? I’d say it was highly improbable.

Just as that story changed in its culture of origin, it changed and continues to change in external cultures that adopted it. The point is that the “truth” isn’t in the original myth, but in the culture that uses it. It’s a mirror of culture. This is why I always contend that God evolves, and fundamentalism is an illusionary attempt to hold onto the past. Even fundamentalist “truth” changes.

I’ll contend the only “proper” interpretation is the one that accurately reflects the culture that’s doing the interpreting at the time. Using the music analogy, it’s like someone scolding a jazz musician for not playing “nice music”. They’re not playing the notes “right” to them, because it doesn’t reflect how they relate to music. To them listening to music played in complex time signatures sounds like so much chaos. Yet to those who “hear” that style of music, the simplistic meter of traditional “pop” music is quickly boring and unsatisfying.

You do have a point about the purity of the original composition, but we’re not talking about an authoritative source such as Ludwig Van Beethoven. His score is his score. Myths however are collective creations of human societies. Think of it in terms of language. Does language evolve, or do words have static unchanging meanings? It’s the same thing with a myth. People create it, and adapt it to culture. It’s not an authoritative anything.

To be a mythological purist is as much an act of futility as being a linguistic purist and saying how we use words today is wrong because it’s not how they were used in colonial days. Language evolves when the words are adapted collectively to express the views and values in a changing culture. Beethoven’s 5th symphony is a work of Beethoven. But the creation myth is a cultural myth, and like language it’s constantly evolving.

As far as the abuse aspect of the Creation myth in your anaology above, indeed it is a case of whatever works for you when it comes to the YHWH’ists destroying competitors. It worked for them to exploit the myth for political gain. Let’s talk about patriotism. Is patriotism something bad because it’s been exploited time and again by politicians to go to war for whatever reasons reside in their asses? Mythology is powerful, and as such it will be exploited. However, get rid of the Creation myth, and something will be found to replace it. The problem isn’t the myth, but people.

Footnote: In your "scratches on the LP" analogy, I’d like to add that as a Vinyl enthusiast who listens almost exclusively to the superior sound of vinyl over CD’s, the priests who were responsible for caring for the medium should be flogged for not using their carbon fiber brushes religiously before each playing, for not replacing their styluses as they wore, for not properly adjusting the VTA of their tone arms, etc. Even so, when this culture 10,000 years in the future hears these added pops and clicks as a result of negligent priests, if they find the pattern of random noises pleasing to them, then isn’t there value in that? I’ve heard kids today who buy records say they like scatchy albums because it gives it a “nostalgic” feel to them. Who am I to say this is wrong? In all things, the gods of Vinyl are served, and I am pleased.

Antlerman, once again you say what I want to in a way that makes sense!

Next time could you just zap your thoughts my way??? Please???

May 8, 2007

The later move of the Eastern Church power from Jerusalem to Constantinople, followed by the wiping out of the Desposyni sealing it.

The Desposyni wasn't wiped out...the bishops keep impregnating in order to carry on the blood line. Where have you been?

Orthodox Christianity has NEVER been a spiritual discipline, and has ALWAYS been a political one, more concerned with temporal power than people's 'souls'... It's been one of the best cons ever pulled that people think it speaks to their spirit, when actually they are indetured to the image of Constantine, and Theodosius cementing it as the religion of the Empire almost 100 years later...

I couldn't agree more.

Link? IF the Jesuits say the Roman Church wiped out the blood line, you know the truth of the matter is always bloodier than what they admit...

May 8, 2007

I miss lots of points...no need to sugar coat it. However, as I said, by stating this book has "deeper meaning" it gives it lots of power. Take those items out and roll them into something else because it's obvious the meaning isn't clear and/or consistent in its current state. Also, I never said to "dispose" of the texts, but to put it with the other myths where it belongs. It would still be around for people to access, right along side the stories of Zeus and all the other long forgotten gods, on a shelf in a library to be checked out for some school assignment.

Really mwc, I didnt' mean you because I knew what I bolded above was true.

I agree that it should indeed by in the "myth" pile but maybe remove some of the sayings and call it "The Spiritual Sayings of Jesus" or something like that. I guess there is the Jefferson Bible...

If he lived, I feel sorry for what people have done to his name. Talk about being used on a grand scale!

When thinking about the deeper meaning giving it lots of power; maybe that is why the mystery schools required so stringent initiation procedures? Not supernatural power but political power by means of understanding how the human psyche works and then manipulating it.

May 8, 2007

The later move of the Eastern Church power from Jerusalem to Constantinople, followed by the wiping out of the Desposyni sealing it.

The Desposyni wasn't wiped out...the bishops keep impregnating in order to carry on the blood line. Where have you been?

Orthodox Christianity has NEVER been a spiritual discipline, and has ALWAYS been a political one, more concerned with temporal power than people's 'souls'... It's been one of the best cons ever pulled that people think it speaks to their spirit, when actually they are indetured to the image of Constantine, and Theodosius cementing it as the religion of the Empire almost 100 years later...

I couldn't agree more.

Link? IF the Jesuits say the Roman Church wiped out the blood line, you know the truth of the matter is always bloodier than what they admit...

No link other than a book. You will probably rip me a new one , but here it is:

Custodians of Truth

May 8, 2007

There’s so much to respond to but little time so I’m going to try to respond in a fell swoop.

No problem. I personally think this is not as easy subject as it appears on the surface. It would probably be much easier in person but we don't have that luxury.

The discussion seems to hinge on deeper meaning versus proper interpretation. The meanings of myths change because people do. Did the Creation story that was adopted by the Hebrews reflect what its original creators “intended”? In other words, the story that was floating about when the Jews nabbed it, was the message of that story exactly the same as it was from its original creators, say a thousand years earlier? I’d say it was highly improbable.

So far we're pretty much on the same page. But with the added bit that not so much was the story the intact but did they understand this fact and did they then intend to alter it into its current form. If they didn't understand the story and/or the changes were unintended then what we're trying to understand today is simply nonsense. If they did understand and the changes they made were intentional then what we're trying to understand today has a reasonable basis for our attempts at understanding. There is an assumption that the latter is the case. I'm simply saying that perhaps, using some of what has been said about fundamentalists of our own day and how they interpret myth, that maybe whoever dealt with these stories then missed the point entirely and we're now trying to gather meaning from what is nonsense. In the old computer terms "garbage in garbage out."

Just as that story changed in its culture of origin, it changed and continues to change in external cultures that adopted it. The point is that the “truth” isn’t in the original myth, but in the culture that uses it. It’s a mirror of culture. This is why I always contend that God evolves, and fundamentalism is an illusionary attempt to hold onto the past. Even fundamentalist “truth” changes.

This I can agree with.

I’ll contend the only “proper” interpretation is the one that accurately reflects the culture that’s doing the interpreting at the time. Using the music analogy, it’s like someone scolding a jazz musician for not playing “nice music”. They’re not playing the notes “right” to them, because it doesn’t reflect how they relate to music. To them listening to music played in complex time signatures sounds like so much chaos. Yet to those who “hear” that style of music, the simplistic meter of traditional “pop” music is quickly boring and unsatisfying.

This might be but this is also like scolding one artist for "sampling" another. What did the person doing the sampling "do" to what was being sampled? Or perhaps this is more like a cover or tribute band?

You do have a point about the purity of the original composition, but we’re not talking about an authoritative source such as Ludwig Van Beethoven. His score is his score. Myths however are collective creations of human societies. Think of it in terms of language. Does language evolve, or do words have static unchanging meanings? It’s the same thing with a myth. People create it, and adapt it to culture. It’s not an authoritative anything.

Now how can you be so certain? When this person wrote this story how can you say that he wasn't writing the be all end all story for whatever it was he was trying to say for all the ages and it was letter perfect (or as letter perfect as someone could get it at the time)? Can we say that this person sat down and said to himself that he was going to write a myth and that he wouldn't mind it if people reinterpreted his work?

Just because he used symbols or things we'd consider "mythic" to make his points doesn't mean that was the case. Perhaps it's because people failed to understand his message, and others like it, that the whole concept of "myth" formed in the first place? People couldn't understand the meaning (for any number of reasons) so they invented their own because they felt that there simply must be meaning in those words and symbols. What was "literal" became symbolic. The literal in quotes because the person who wrote the original words is the only one who is aware (and perhaps the people he informed) of the actual meaning of those words. So if he believed in talking animals then we're talking about literal talking animals. If he saw the talking animals as something else then that was the "literal" meaning of those words. Perhaps he was just being silly and finding people getting anything more than a good laugh out of this story would be a source of amusement?

To be a mythological purist is as much an act of futility as being a linguistic purist and saying how we use words today is wrong because it’s not how they were used in colonial days. Language evolves when the words are adapted collectively to express the views and values in a changing culture. Beethoven’s 5th symphony is a work of Beethoven. But the creation myth is a cultural myth, and like language it’s constantly evolving.

As far as the abuse aspect of the Creation myth in your anaology above, indeed it is a case of whatever works for you when it comes to the YHWH’ists destroying competitors. It worked for them to exploit the myth for political gain. Let’s talk about patriotism. Is patriotism something bad because it’s been exploited time and again by politicians to go to war for whatever reasons reside in their asses? Mythology is powerful, and as such it will be exploited. However, get rid of the Creation myth, and something will be found to replace it. The problem isn’t the myth, but people.

To follow this line of reasoning would allow me to toss our Declaration of Independence and the rest. We need to understand why they wrote them and whether or not our versions of them are close to the originals. The right to keep and bear arms has been a real problem for many people. The reasons for doing so seem clear in the documents so we should remove all weapons from our people since the threat is long gone. However, the documents outside the "canon" (so to speak) tells us that we might need to use these same weapons to rise up against our own government if this little experiment doesn't work out. So knowing all these bits and pieces together allows us to build a more complete picture. We need to know what was meant otherwise we're just guessing.

Now I realize that this is a different kind of document but to go back to what I said above we don't know what "type" of document we were dealing with originally either. It's now a myth. It's a myth that borrowed from another story...possibly another myth. What did that "myth" deal with? The same things? Gun control?

Based on the type of book it is now it seems the second person was very caught up with Law, "history" (real or imagined for nation building...and I can't speak to whether they knew if it was real or not) and religious feasts/festivals. Getting a deeper understanding of "god," "the universe" or one's self did not seem to be part of the agenda. Just looking at the beginning of the book it seems the first law is just like in the ten commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods but me." As evidenced by choosing the snake over YHWH. Law two is "No public nudity." Law three is "Thou shalt not kill" or you'll be marked and exiled for life. The sacrifice of choice is meat not wheat.

But I'm only speaking as someone that can't see the Sumerian version of the story where the snake isn't a Sumerian goddess but a talking snake. I've missed the point. And thanks to me and my rewrite...so have you. You'll find a meaning, and it will mean something to you, but it possibly have meant a lot more had I not gotten in your way. And perhaps the Sumerians got it from somewhere else and so on (although they seem like they did originate most of these).

I realize that it's easy to focus on the "bad" which in turns allows the counter argument that another "bad" will be found to exploit. True enough. But how about a "good?" Taking the "grim" out of the Grimm fairy tales and watering them down has the same effect. People don't learn the hard lessons. Watering down the bible and the "evil" god that it contains by "cherry picking" through it sends the message that YHWH="GOD" (the "real" God for whatever that's worth) and God is good and only good. Let's say that there is a "real" God. Can you or anyone else tell me (with a straight face) that it is an all-good creature? If the answer is "no" then taking these stories to the other extreme is just as "wrong" as when they were "fire and brimstone." This is just one crutch being replaced by another at this point. "Find your own meaning" are meaningless words in this case.

Footnote: In your "scratches on the LP" analogy, I’d like to add that as a Vinyl enthusiast who listens almost exclusively to the superior sound of vinyl over CD’s, the priests who were responsible for caring for the medium should be flogged for not using their carbon fiber brushes religiously before each playing, for not replacing their styluses as they wore, for not properly adjusting the VTA of their tone arms, etc. Even so, when this culture 10,000 years in the future hears these added pops and clicks as a result of negligent priests, if they find the pattern of random noises pleasing to them, then isn’t there value in that? I’ve heard kids today who buy records say they like scatchy albums because it gives it a “nostalgic” feel to them. Who am I to say this is wrong? In all things, the gods of Vinyl are served, and I am pleased.

I had a real feeling that I was going to hear from an audiophile as I was typing that.

I still have all my LP's but my turntable is long dead. I bet I still have the brushes and the spare styluses and all that stuff in boxes somewhere. It got way too expensive. Went to CD. Didn't mind the sound (the early stuff was crap). I use MP3 but I do hate the quality (love the convenience). On the plus side my hearing gets worse as I age so MP3's sound better each and every day. By the time I'm ready to die I bet they'll sound fantastic!

mwc

May 8, 2007

Really mwc, I didnt' mean you because I knew what I bolded above was true.

You meant me. Admit it! Now I'm going to just take everything personally. I hope you're happy. I have a complex now.

I agree that it should indeed by in the "myth" pile but maybe remove some of the sayings and call it "The Spiritual Sayings of Jesus" or something like that. I guess there is the Jefferson Bible...

If he lived, I feel sorry for what people have done to his name. Talk about being used on a grand scale!

When thinking about the deeper meaning giving it lots of power; maybe that is why the mystery schools required so stringent initiation procedures? Not supernatural power but political power by means of understanding how the human psyche works and then manipulating it.

I would think this is exactly why there are initiations into these types of places. Being free to interpret things for yourself is a powerful thing. I feel it is both good and bad. Look at how some of these words are when we've looked them up and that's with a cross-language dictionary available. Now there's all this imagery available and what is there to reference it with? The universe? Other like symbols? Where to begin? Who knows where the person who put that symbol in front of you borrowed it from? Egypt? China? Greece? What time period? This will all impact what message they were trying to relay to you and what message you were to take away from them. The initiate should get this "training" but not the person on the street.

So is we are to learn anything from "jesus" it is that the stories have secret meanings and even though the answers seem obvious they are not. It's only because we've been exposed to these parables over and over again that we "get it" and it helps that a number of the stories have the answer key built in (or right after). Otherwise we'd be just as lost as the passerby wondering "What did the vine represent?" Assigning a meaning to this might allow us to feel good that the vine now has a meaning but it's not the meaning. We've missed the point. It might be enough that we're happy but why assign meaning, if it's the wrong meaning, instead of just walking away if you can't find the "proper" meanings for these symbols? The "proper" meanings possibly "unlock" the greater mystery but the "wrong" symbols are just there to satisfy our own need to have something plugged into those holes.

mwc

What Do You Think?

Recommended Posts

Grandpa Harley

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotBlinded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mongo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotBlinded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

robbie

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotBlinded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Grandpa Harley

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Grandpa Harley

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Robbobrob

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Grandpa Harley

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Grandpa Harley

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotBlinded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotBlinded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Grandpa Harley

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotBlinded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotBlinded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment