Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

What Do You Think?


R. S. Martin

Recommended Posts

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? :HaHa:

 

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 :HaHa:, but here it is:

 

Custodians of Truth

 

If my wife divorces me due to me buying another book, I'm moving into your garage! ;)

 

I'm familiar with the Rex Deus stuff, and usually find it's imaginative nonsense based on Lincoln, Baigent, and Leigh (The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, The Messianc Legacy) TBH, one probably could get as much from Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Grandpa Harley

    25

  • NotBlinded

    22

  • mwc

    22

  • Antlerman

    13

If my wife divorces me due to me buying another book, I'm moving into your garage! ;)

 

I'm familiar with the Rex Deus stuff, and usually find it's imaginative nonsense based on Lincoln, Baigent, and Leigh (The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, The Messianc Legacy) TBH, one probably could get as much from Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned

HA!

 

I could probably squeeze you in there somewhere! ;)

 

That looks like a cool game. My computer at home probably isn't fast enough even though I upgraded the RAM (ROM) whatever it is... :HaHa: I put two new memory sticks in somewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

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... :shrug:

 

 

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

 

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

Or do weeeee??????????? :HaHa:

 

The "proper" meanings, IMO, are the ones that elicit a certain response and ahhhh haaaa moments. Everything ties together, without much work, and contradictions disappear or become meaningless.

 

The secret to the political people, I think, is to know the secret but not to let others know it. This keeps them in check. The Catholic church didn't allow people to read the bible. They were told how to interpret it. They freakin' knew and used that power to presuade others. (My opinion of course).

 

We are saying about the same thing aren't we? ;) We are just coming at it from different directions leaving a gulf in there somewhere. I think one part is that I believe having others interpret it for you does nothing to gain your own understanding. It is a shift in consciousness that allows the meanings to come through. The church didn't/doesn't want anyone to look at it differently because they would no longer be needed.

 

:) (you know i :wub: ya)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :grin:

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

 

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! :HaHa:

 

mwc

Me an audiophile? Never.. :grin:

 

 

 

Actually your hearing is probably getting worse because of MP3's, not so much age. It's like jaming little razors into your ears over and over with an ice pick. That's what MP3's do for me. I would rather listen to a dog barking for 10 hours, that listen to an album in that format. At least it's real sound. :grin: I actually found my hearing improve once I cut back on the digital assualt against my ear drums. Though they're much better over CD's, I even find SACD's to offensive after a while, depending on what the music is, the female voice in particular. If they start doing music on blueray without all the information loss of traditional transfers in digital of either 44.1khz, 16bit in redbook CD'; or 192khz, 24bit in SACD, then it might rival pure analog, but until then I'll stick with the natural sound of analog. (speaking of purists, huh? :wicked: )

 

I'll offer a more on topic response later as time permits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "proper" meanings, IMO, are the ones that elicit a certain response and ahhhh haaaa moments. Everything ties together, without much work, and contradictions disappear or become meaningless.

 

The secret to the political people, I think, is to know the secret but not to let others know it. This keeps them in check. The Catholic church didn't allow people to read the bible. They were told how to interpret it. They freakin' knew and used that power to presuade others. (My opinion of course).

 

We are saying about the same thing aren't we? ;) We are just coming at it from different directions leaving a gulf in there somewhere. I think one part is that I believe having others interpret it for you does nothing to gain your own understanding. It is a shift in consciousness that allows the meanings to come through. The church didn't/doesn't want anyone to look at it differently because they would no longer be needed.

In this part we are saying about the same thing. I'm not saying that it is a good idea to spoon feed someone the answers. Especially when those answers are just a set of answers that someone, or some group, wants them to have.

 

As much as I hate to do let's go back to the jesus example. There's lots of variation (in my opinion it's because there's a number of authors) but let's say in G.Mark he tells a story about whatever (doesn't matter really). Then he would say to his disciples that he gave them the lesson why is it they aren't putting the pieces together? What's their problem? (He's kind of a jerk and their slow on the uptake in G.Mark) A few stories have answer keys but others don't.

 

If we were in the mystery and this was a teaching tool the early parables could be considered examples and the later ones were the actual "test" parables. As a student we'd need to know how to decipher them or suffer the same fate as the disciples in the story (be berated or worse). Each parable is a "step" along the way. Maybe they are progressively more difficult or maybe they're not. Maybe once you understand them all you understand a bigger picture or maybe you don't. They've been altered so badly it's hard to tell. Most of the stories are "after the fact" it seems and apply more to "the church" and that theology than anything of real "value."

 

I want to know what they thought was so important such that they created all this over it. I know that coming up with some "alternate" solution won't get me there. Maybe what they did all this for is simplistic compared to what the modern take on it is but I think discovering it will be far more satisfying than anything I can attribute to it.

 

This is why I've said that I can find "deeper meaning" in other places. These aren't ancient solutions to modern problems. This has been as much as admitted since modern interpretation is applied. It is simply a framework to apply modern solutions to modern problems. Tearing an old house down to its framework or foundation and rebuilding just so it seems there's some connection to the original old house.

 

But no matter which is more important to a person I still think that once the details are sorted out that having all the variations, but most importantly, whatever the closest to the original might be available to base some "deeper" beliefs off of that would be best. Why base your beliefs, no matter what they are, on a flawed foundation? The wise man build his house upon the rock and not the sand (and the rain came down). I'm sure you've heard that. I'm just trying to dig away to the rock is all (the problem is sand is so darn shifty).

 

:) (you know i :wub: ya)

I have a complex because of you. :(

 

;)

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me an audiophile? Never.. :grin:

 

[pic snipped]

Nice. I like the 'shrine' look.

 

Actually your hearing is probably getting worse because of MP3's, not so much age. It's like jaming little razors into your ears over and over with an ice pick. That's what MP3's do for me. I would rather listen to a dog barking for 10 hours, that listen to an album in that format. At least it's real sound. :grin:

Actually, you're right. My hearing loss is from young age and the "it can't happen to me" attitude. So loud music (concerts and headphones...damn it...Ozzy demands to be played loud) did me in. Took the test. Have a whole range of frequencies just...gone. Replaced with a pleasant ringing. Keeps me company. Maybe it's god? ;)

 

As for your request, well, there's this dog next door...

 

If they start doing music on blueray without all the information loss of traditional transfers in digital of either 44.1khz, 16bit in redbook CD'; or 192khz, 24bit in SACD, then it might rival pure analog, but until then I'll stick with the natural sound of analog. (speaking of purists, huh? :wicked: )

I don't know if they've defined any audio (especially lossless) codecs for either HD format. My suggestion to you is loud music and headphones (the big studio kind that don't distort when turned way up and not cheap ear buds...I'm sure you know what I mean...If you don't already own some). Before you know it MP3's will start sounding better. I promise. :)

 

I'll offer a more on topic response later as time permits.

Whenever you get the chance.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this part we are saying about the same thing. I'm not saying that it is a good idea to spoon feed someone the answers. Especially when those answers are just a set of answers that someone, or some group, wants them to have.

 

As much as I hate to do let's go back to the jesus example. There's lots of variation (in my opinion it's because there's a number of authors) but let's say in G.Mark he tells a story about whatever (doesn't matter really). Then he would say to his disciples that he gave them the lesson why is it they aren't putting the pieces together? What's their problem? (He's kind of a jerk and their slow on the uptake in G.Mark) A few stories have answer keys but others don't.

 

If we were in the mystery and this was a teaching tool the early parables could be considered examples and the later ones were the actual "test" parables. As a student we'd need to know how to decipher them or suffer the same fate as the disciples in the story (be berated or worse). Each parable is a "step" along the way. Maybe they are progressively more difficult or maybe they're not. Maybe once you understand them all you understand a bigger picture or maybe you don't. They've been altered so badly it's hard to tell. Most of the stories are "after the fact" it seems and apply more to "the church" and that theology than anything of real "value."

 

I want to know what they thought was so important such that they created all this over it. I know that coming up with some "alternate" solution won't get me there. Maybe what they did all this for is simplistic compared to what the modern take on it is but I think discovering it will be far more satisfying than anything I can attribute to it.

 

This is why I've said that I can find "deeper meaning" in other places. These aren't ancient solutions to modern problems. This has been as much as admitted since modern interpretation is applied. It is simply a framework to apply modern solutions to modern problems. Tearing an old house down to its framework or foundation and rebuilding just so it seems there's some connection to the original old house.

 

But no matter which is more important to a person I still think that once the details are sorted out that having all the variations, but most importantly, whatever the closest to the original might be available to base some "deeper" beliefs off of that would be best. Why base your beliefs, no matter what they are, on a flawed foundation? The wise man build his house upon the rock and not the sand (and the rain came down). I'm sure you've heard that. I'm just trying to dig away to the rock is all (the problem is sand is so darn shifty).

 

Oh my gawd! I lost my whole post to you because of an IPS drive error. I usually copy it before I post, but noooo, not this time! I'll try to remember...

 

You are so patient and tolerant!

 

One should never base their beliefs off of anyone else's understanding, IMO.

 

Sometimes I can be reading something over and over and I just don't know what they are talking about. I try and try to work it out in my mind, but I just end up saying, "that just doesn't make any sense!" So, I move on and read something else by someone else and all of a sudden what that person says makes sense and in a second of recognition, the other person suddenly makes sense also. It's not the words that changed so much, but my perception.

 

I was reading something one time about someone that said something like, I know what I know but when I open my mouth to speak it, I have no words. This is where words become more symbolic than normal; when one tries to speak about something that can't be spoken about. It no longer matters who said what because once this shift happens, you can find this same theme in many religions and philosophies.

 

The factual, material details no longer seem to matter so much because it has to do with human emotions and feelings. These are pretty constant to the human. The details are just icing on the cake. :D

 

If the diciples didn't undertand Jesus, they may have understood someone else trying to say the same thing but using different symbols. A person can't force another person to understand, hell even the person trying to understand can't force it. It just happens in a flash of insight that isn't in the words.

 

Religious institutions hate that because they know (some do) that if people understand that that understanding can be had anywhere, what power do they have?

 

Let them tear down the house all they want because what remains constant is the frame of mind (hehe...a little pun!) and human emotions. Build a new house! It's needed. Whatever it takes to make the shift in consciousness.

 

 

I have a complex because of you. :(

 

;)

 

mwc

nuhhh uhhhh :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my wife divorces me due to me buying another book, I'm moving into your garage! ;)

 

I'm familiar with the Rex Deus stuff, and usually find it's imaginative nonsense based on Lincoln, Baigent, and Leigh (The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, The Messianc Legacy) TBH, one probably could get as much from Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned

HA!

 

I could probably squeeze you in there somewhere! ;)

 

That looks like a cool game. My computer at home probably isn't fast enough even though I upgraded the RAM (ROM) whatever it is... :HaHa: I put two new memory sticks in somewhere!

 

It ran plenty fast enough on my Win 98 lappie back in 2000. And yes, it's an adventure game. However, the information in there is as reliable as the Rex Deus crew... I think my book collection can live without. If the Jesuits say they wiped out everyone of them, because they claimed Jesus was a man and a prophet, but not a God, I'll take their word for it... They even admit they were related to Jesus, by his brother, James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I see discussions in this thread about MP3s, hearing loss, etc. How does that relate to the good or evil human nature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Mongo, I dug around a bit. I found one of the things you are looking for and copied the paragraph relevant to this discussion (emphasis added):

 

There is a problem in trying to explain God who really cannot be explained with human terms. To help us, we affirm the collective wisdom of the churches throughout the ages as expressed in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed.

 

That is taken from What We Believe.

 

Here you can find links to all of the creeds. And MUCH more.

 

More on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

 

I think I found what you are talking about re "Evangelical Declaration." I found it here. On the same page, in the top section "Introduction," there is a link for "creeds." Unfortunately, the link doesn't work. But there's another link on the same page A Guide to the ELCIC. That brings up a table of contents for that book. Fourth item from the top is a link: What We Believe.

 

That is the standard website link churches use on their websites. I've seen many of them on fundy church websites in the US. I didn't know if Canadian and/or liberal churches use the same term but this one does.

 

Mennonite Church Canada

 

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'.

 

The Mennonite Church would definitely want to distinguish itself from the Lutheran Church. The Mennonite church is an Anabaptist church. The Anabaptists and Lutherans were mortal enemies back when it all started about 1525. That was bedlam back then. Cathlics killing Lutherans. Lutherans killing Anabaptists. Anabaptists living in hiding but defying the law to baptize infants, which effectively evaded the registration of citizens. This last point was raised by a Mennonite historian of today and adds much weight to the persecution of the Anabaptists. Apparently it was not all about religion as Mennonites like to think. It was civil disobedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I see discussions in this thread about MP3s, hearing loss, etc. How does that relate to the good or evil human nature?

 

It's a 'side bar'... it's something that happens in conversations... it was discussion of a metaphor used in one of the posts.... for single pointed focus, I think we'd need a few Buddhist masters and perhaps some Vedic ones... and then the conversation would be about how duality is meaningless...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think you are saying two different things here. In the first statement you say you don't see selfishness as necessarily evil or depraved. In the other statement you "prove" that humans are not inherently good (I guess this means they are inherently depraved/evil/bad) because all your kids showed self-interest. So which is it? Self-interest is bad or self-interest is good? Or self-interest is neutral? Or none of the above?"

 

I think he's saying 'none of the above' since self interest just is... it 'benefits' others (or at least doesn't harm them) as often it 'harms' others... In the end co-operation in community is enlightened self interest... if you watch the back of your neighbour, and they watch yours, you live in stable society in which you're safe. It's just a matter of learning the level of abstraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my gawd! I lost my whole post to you because of an IPS drive error. I usually copy it before I post, but noooo, not this time! I'll try to remember...

That was god telling you that I am right. :grin:

 

Sometimes I can be reading something over and over and I just don't know what they are talking about. I try and try to work it out in my mind, but I just end up saying, "that just doesn't make any sense!" So, I move on and read something else by someone else and all of a sudden what that person says makes sense and in a second of recognition, the other person suddenly makes sense also. It's not the words that changed so much, but my perception.

I feel that way too...only with this topic. :lmao:

 

If the diciples didn't undertand Jesus, they may have understood someone else trying to say the same thing but using different symbols. A person can't force another person to understand, hell even the person trying to understand can't force it. It just happens in a flash of insight that isn't in the words.

So to try to bring this back around a bit the more specific point. We were talking myths and interpretation. Jesus can interpret them one way and if that didn't work for his followers then John down the street might interpret them differently and they could follow him. That's a free market alright but it really addresses the problem differently than where I was going with it. My point was that some guy 500 years before jesus or John got to the story had to write it and he lifted it from an even early story. For the two J's to interpret it right or wrong he had to get it right or wrong (and on up the line). People seem to stop at the Jewish version at 500BCE and look to it for their "deep" meaning. Like he got it "right" but there's no evidence for that. So I'm told that people should get whatever makes them happy from the story and that's good enough. I'm not buying that line of reasoning.

 

I'm looking at it more like, say, Aesop's Fables. They have symbols and the like but they have a point. An intended meaning. If the story gets corrupted the meaning does too. The teaching tool is ruined. The final lesson can be "updated" for modern use considering the stories are simple enough but the basics have to remain intact. I think these stories were used in an oral tradition (since people were illiterate) so rather than memorize lists they learned these stories. It was easier. Which came first? Oral or written? That doesn't matter really. What does matter is that they learned the stories and the meanings just like a fable. This also meant that they couldn't simply take what they wanted from the story since it meant something just like a fable does. Altering the meaning could mean missing a feast or sacrifice or something like that. A very bad thing.

 

But here's the thing. As people came together and technology improved each person wasn't left on their own to remember each minor detail anymore. So some of these "details" were "forgotten." What date does that event occur on? Well, before you'd run through the story and when a certain person did a certain thing that was the date. You had better do whatever you need to do. But with others around, especially a priest, and they have access to "signs" to let everyone know when that date was you no longer know or care what that part of the story is about. Someone just does something and that's all that gets passed on to the next generation unlike before.

 

Time passes and people notice that some parts of the story can relate to other things. They wonder if more of the story might too. So they apply meanings that never existed to the story for no other reason than they want the story to have meaning. This is where we're at today. What were the names of the GODS in The Garden of Eden? I can promise you it wasn't YHWH and talking snake (Satan/the devil in the "whatever meaning you get from it" version). Any meaning is lost since the story is corrupt. If the story made sense, as in it was an original story, then I wouldn't be so hung up on this, but it's a hack job. They didn't bother to do a very good rewrite. They left two creation stories intact. If they're doing that then what is/isn't there that should/shouldn't be? The Tree of Life isn't even mentioned until after they get kicked out. It can't be considered by the reader. It's a mess.

 

Then we move onto a story about farmers versus ranchers, a land use story. In the earlier version gets worked out somehow (that part is lost to us) but in this version introduces "sin" to the world, introduces meat sacrifice, introduces murder and exile as punishment and by doing so also brings in all sorts of illogical elements if taken even slightly literal (Cain gets married to someone...maybe incest?, starts a "city" even though he's doomed to wander and so on). I think the earlier version where people worked out their problem successfully would be more helpful (especially in hindsight).

 

Religious institutions hate that because they know (some do) that if people understand that that understanding can be had anywhere, what power do they have?

 

Let them tear down the house all they want because what remains constant is the frame of mind (hehe...a little pun!) and human emotions. Build a new house! It's needed. Whatever it takes to make the shift in consciousness.

They stop doing that and write books telling people that Egypt had a symbol that looked like a symbol that India had and so did this other group and so that means that this story in the bible must mean ...? It's all the same. Someone will always tell others what to think. We're doing it right now. If you accept any of my argument I just told you how to think and vice-versa. If you shut out the world and investigated all things for yourself, using only original materials, and came to these conclusions on your own then it would be a different story.

 

 

nuhhh uhhhh :D

Uh huh. :lol::P

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I see discussions in this thread about MP3s, hearing loss, etc. How does that relate to the good or evil human nature?

If you should read closely you would see. It's a side note that related to a metaphor about LP's, in which I also said clearly in that post would come back on topic as time permits as to not derail the topic. Respectfully, this is also a social venue with each other inside these discussions. The topic was not getting derailed, and I'm always careful not to let side points go too far, which this did not.

 

I would be careful to not call people out on just one slightly off topic side bar in these discussions. I try to cut people some slack, as it makes for a more open feel to discussions, and consequently allows much more discussion to occur. If discussions get overly controlled and monitored, people will likely find themselves loosing interest in participating. I know I would. This is afterall an informal discussion community, and that's what makes it enjoyable for everyone to participate in, and what makes for great discussions to occur, like this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But no matter which is more important to a person I still think that once the details are sorted out that having all the variations, but most importantly, whatever the closest to the original might be available to base some "deeper" beliefs off of that would be best. Why base your beliefs, no matter what they are, on a flawed foundation? The wise man build his house upon the rock and not the sand (and the rain came down). I'm sure you've heard that. I'm just trying to dig away to the rock is all (the problem is sand is so darn shifty).

I wish I had to time to do this discussion justice at this point, but I'll quickly inject a thought here (forgive me if it was addressed elsewhere and I missed it). The thought popped into my head that the whole "building his house upon the rock" metaphor is really itself a misnomer. No mythology is bedrock of truth in any objective sense. Its bedrock is that of individual truth. If anything this building your faith on a sure foundation, realistically is what I would call "being sincere".

 

People use myth as symbols of something "true" inside of them. It also relates to what's surrounding them in their society. People share the language of myth, as it gives voice to something inside of them, then it reinforces something real to them. Faith, so to speak is what saves you because if you have doubt about the symbols, it calls into question your belief in the things they represent. This is why when I say to someone that I don't believe in God, it's usually met with some comment like, "You think it's ok to just go kill someone then?" Obviously in my mind one doesn't follow the other, but to them "God" symbolizes morality. To me it doesn't. But I still believe in moral behavior.

 

So the foundation is really what things the symbol or myth represent, and that will always change because cultures change and people create the symbols to represent those current values.

 

Sidebar: Yes it does look like a shrine. One of the many reasons I love vinyl is the whole ritual aspect of it: the tactile experience; the removing from the sleeves, the brushing, and the careful placement of the stylus on the rotating groves, all enhance the experience of the music itself. It's an interesting look at many of the forms in religion that makes it appealing. I'm hoping at some point for there to be a discussion on ritual. Like it or not, we all respond to these sorts of things daily. So, how bad is religion really? May the gods of music bless thee always with 200 gram Vinyl. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to try to bring this back around a bit the more specific point. We were talking myths and interpretation. Jesus can interpret them one way and if that didn't work for his followers then John down the street might interpret them differently and they could follow him.

That's not what I'm saying mwc. They would be saying the same thing with different symbols or words or style to get the point across. As Antlerman said, "it's something true inside of them". That is what myths address. Not what is outwardly true.

 

:shrug:

 

nuhhh uhhhh :D

Uh huh. :lol::P

 

mwc

No way Jose... :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I had to time to do this discussion justice at this point, but I'll quickly inject a thought here (forgive me if it was addressed elsewhere and I missed it). The thought popped into my head that the whole "building his house upon the rock" metaphor is really itself a misnomer. No mythology is bedrock of truth in any objective sense. Its bedrock is that of individual truth. If anything this building your faith on a sure foundation, realistically is what I would call "being sincere".

I'm beginning to think another problem we're having is that of terms and just language in general. It seems to be causing us (not just us two but everyone I've had this discussion with) to dance around these same points over and over. I'm going to have to try to come up with some better ways to communicate my thoughts since I seem to be the constant in this.

 

People use myth as symbols of something "true" inside of them. It also relates to what's surrounding them in their society. People share the language of myth, as it gives voice to something inside of them, then it reinforces something real to them. Faith, so to speak is what saves you because if you have doubt about the symbols, it calls into question your belief in the things they represent. This is why when I say to someone that I don't believe in God, it's usually met with some comment like, "You think it's ok to just go kill someone then?" Obviously in my mind one doesn't follow the other, but to them "God" symbolizes morality. To me it doesn't. But I still believe in moral behavior.

 

So the foundation is really what things the symbol or myth represent, and that will always change because cultures change and people create the symbols to represent those current values.

Here again, it's not that I necessarily disagree with this...as stated. It's when it's applied to a specific case that I start to question things. To this end I started doing a little more reading to hopefully clarify my position. The obvious (meaning easiest) place to go was Wikipedia:

 

A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It differs from a fable in excluding animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as actors that assume speech and other powers of mankind.

 

A fable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that features animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature which are anthropomorphized (given human qualities), and that illustrates a moral lesson (a "moral"), which may at the end be expressed explicitly in a pithy maxim.

 

The word mythology (from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, from μυϑολογείν mythologein to relate myths, from μύϑος mythos, meaning a narrative, and λόγος logos, meaning speech or argument) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In modern usage, "mythology" is either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion (as in Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology or Norse mythology) or the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths.

...

Myths are narratives about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally, and linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community, endorsed by rulers or priests. Once this link to the spiritual leadership of society is broken, they lose their mythological qualities and become folktales or fairy tales.[3] In folkloristics, which is concerned with the study of both secular and sacred narratives, a myth also derives some of its power from being more than a simple "tale", by comprising an archetypical quality of "truth".

 

Myths are often intended to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths" and "founding myths"), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions or rituals, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. This broader truth runs deeper than the advent of critical history, and it may or may not exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story" (preliterate oral traditions may vanish as the written word becomes "the story" and the literate class becomes "the authority"). However, as Lucien Lévy-Bruhl puts it, "The primitive mentality is a condition of the human mind, and not a stage in its historical development."[4]

 

Since meaningful stories are nearly always applicable to larger issues, allegories may be read into many stories, sometimes distorting their author's overt meaning. For instance, many people have suggested that The Lord of the Rings was an allegory for the world wars, while in fact it was well underway before the outbreak of World War II and J.R.R. Tolkien emphatically stated in the introduction to the American edition: "It is neither allegorical nor topical... I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."

 

Obviously there is no hard and fast rule and, especially in the bible, we deal with all of these (a mixture really), so the term "myth" can mean many things and can be mis-applied. A parable isn't necessarily a myth and so forth.

 

Anyhow, it's the last quote that I find most interesting. That is close to my point in that it deals with "reading in" and people taking from a story things that simply aren't there just because they want to and not because they are justified in doing so. The snake in the garden is not Satan/the devil. That's a misuse of the story and symbols as much as anything else.

 

Sidebar: Yes it does look like a shrine. One of the many reasons I love vinyl is the whole ritual aspect of it: the tactile experience; the removing from the sleeves, the brushing, and the careful placement of the stylus on the rotating groves, all enhance the experience of the music itself. It's an interesting look at many of the forms in religion that makes it appealing. I'm hoping at some point for there to be a discussion on ritual. Like it or not, we all respond to these sorts of things daily. So, how bad is religion really? May the gods of music bless thee always with 200 gram Vinyl. :grin:

Don't tell me you're one of those people who put on the gloves before handling their albums. I can take handling by the edges (I insist on it) but the gloves are a little too much (unless it's an extremely rare album but then should it be played?).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's outward vs inward. What did Tolkien mean with his stories? If it wasn't an allegory for an outward event, what is the message? What is he saying? (I only watched one, so I couldn't tell ya! :HaHa: )

 

My man Campbell:

 

Campbell relied often upon the writings of Carl Jung as an explanation of psychological phenomena, as experienced through archetypes. But Campbell did not necessarily agree with Jung upon every issue, and had very definite ideas of his own.

 

A fundamental belief of Campbell's was that all spirituality is a search for the same basic, unknown force from which everything came, within which everything currently exists, and into which everything will eventually return. This elemental force is ultimately “unknowable” because it exists before words and knowledge. Although this basic driving force cannot be expressed in words, spiritual rituals and stories refer to the force through the use of "metaphors" - these metaphors being the various stories, deities, and objects of spirituality we see in the world. For example, the Genesis myth in the Bible ought not be taken as a literal description of actual events, but rather its poetic, metaphorical meaning should be examined for clues concerning the fundamental truths of the world and our existence.

 

Accordingly, Campbell believed the religions of the world to be the various, culturally influenced “masks” of the same fundamental, transcendent truths. All religions, including Christianity and Buddhism, can bring one to an elevated awareness above and beyond a dualistic conception of reality, or idea of “pairs of opposites,” such as being and non-being, or right and wrong. Indeed, he quotes in the preface of The Hero with a Thousand Faces: "Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names." which is a translation of the Rig Vedic saying "Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanthi."

 

Campbell was fascinated with what he viewed as basic, universal truths, expressed in different manifestations across different cultures. For example, in the preface of The Hero with a Thousand Faces, he indicated that a goal of his was to demonstrate similarities between Eastern and Western religions. In his four-volume series of books "The Masks of God", Campbell tried to summarize the main spiritual threads common throughout the world. Tied in with this, was his idea that many of the belief systems of the world which expressed these universal truths had a common geographic ancestry, starting off on the fertile grasslands of Europe in the Bronze Age and moving to the Levant and the "Fertile Crescent" of Mesopotamia and back to Europe (and the Far East), where it was mixed with the newly emerging Indo-European (Aryan) culture.

Wiki (just look for Joseph Campbell)

 

And:

 

A recent compilation of many of his ideas is titled Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor. In it Campbell writes:"...Mythology is often thought of as other people's religions, and religion can be defined as mis-interpreted mythology." In other words, Campbell did not read religious symbols literally as historical facts, but instead he saw them as symbols or as metaphors for greater philosophical ideas.

 

Campbell had previously discussed this idea with Bill Moyers in The Power of Myth:

 

CAMPBELL: That would be a mistake in the reading of the symbol. That is reading the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry, reading the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the connotation.

MOYERS: And poetry gets to the unseen reality.

CAMPBELL: That which is beyond even the concept of reality, that which transcends all thought. The myth puts you there all the time, gives you a line to connect with that mystery which you are (Campbell, 1988:57).

 

Frustrating aren't I? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's outward vs inward. What did Tolkien mean with his stories? If it wasn't an allegory for an outward event, what is the message? What is he saying? (I only watched one, so I couldn't tell ya! :HaHa: )

Exactly. What was his point? Was it exactly what we read (watch) or something different? He claims they aren't allegory but that doesn't mean they aren't another form like those I mentioned. A fable? A legend? A parable? A combination? Or just entertainment plain and simple. That people are turning into something more might be true but that's a different discussion although it seems to be one that is coming from the other side of the table and not really my side (which might explain why we're not having a meeting of the minds).

 

For example, the Genesis myth in the Bible ought not be taken as a literal description of actual events, but rather its poetic, metaphorical meaning should be examined for clues concerning the fundamental truths of the world and our existence.

Case in point. Who decides this? Campbell? Why? Because he doesn't believe in talking snakes and magical trees? Since he doesn't then it must mean something different than what is written? That's a bit presumptuous of him. The author could have read/heard the story and thought that this is the real deal. This is how it happened. These aren't symbols at all. Now here we are 2500 years later and it's symbolic since people don't like the literal version. Now we just need to find concepts that fit the symbols that we can live with and we're good to go. So it really doesn't matter what was written since we're just filling in things as we see fit. The original author may have sat down and wrote a line by line history but now it's somehow myth and those symbols that had no meaning coming out of his hand suddenly are dripping with meaning that was never there. Why? Just because.

 

Just like people attributed, wrongly, the wars to Tolkien they are attributing "myth" to the garden author. We don't know he had myth in mind but myth it has suddenly become. He may have written for another purpose which is why in my post to Antlerman I pointed out that maybe I wasn't using the proper terms. Perhaps it's fable or some other thing? It's not meant to be redone for each new generation. It is what it is and we are to derive a meaning from it but we also know it has been edited (badly) and that meaning is long gone. I'd like to know it is an "allegory" or myth before trying to derive some deeper meaning from it in its "broken" state.

 

Since the Jews kept their midrash from their holy writings it seems reasonable to think they thought this literal but I don't know if it was always that way or how far back that tradition goes. Perhaps early on they were mixed and this is midrash on something else? I really don't know.

 

Frustrating aren't I? ;)

I think you'd be worse if we actually ended up agreeing on this. :grin:

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LR (I'd spell it out but I'm afraid I'd just mess up your name...sorry) in the "What the bible got right" thread (I think that's it) quoted the following verses:

 

Proverbs

 

13 Happy is the man who makes discovery of wisdom, and he who gets knowledge. 14 For trading in it is better than trading in silver, and its profit greater than bright gold. 15 She is of more value than jewels, and nothing for which you may have a desire is fair in comparison with her. 16 Long life is in her right hand, and in her left are wealth and honour. 17 Her ways are ways of delight, and all her goings are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to all who take her in their hands, and happy is everyone who keeps her.

 

To anyone paying attention this is the same story we're discussing but from the "other" POV. This person isn't anti-"wisdom" yet. There's no stigma attached to choosing wisdom (aka "the snake") over "god" here. In fact "wisdom" IS the Tree of Life. These bits and pieces help fill the "gaps" in the other story.

 

Since the other is a real hatchet job compared to this piece I'd be inclined to say this is closer to what you might consider the "original."

 

Oh, and I know according to xian theology "wisdom" here is just the "female" jesus, but I think we're all pretty much agreed that this is just Asherah (Ishtar/whatever name you want for this goddess).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I see discussions in this thread about MP3s, hearing loss, etc. How does that relate to the good or evil human nature?

If you should read closely you would see. It's a side note that related to a metaphor about LP's, in which I also said clearly in that post would come back on topic as time permits as to not derail the topic. Respectfully, this is also a social venue with each other inside these discussions. The topic was not getting derailed, and I'm always careful not to let side points go too far, which this did not.

 

I would be careful to not call people out on just one slightly off topic side bar in these discussions. I try to cut people some slack, as it makes for a more open feel to discussions, and consequently allows much more discussion to occur. If discussions get overly controlled and monitored, people will likely find themselves loosing interest in participating. I know I would. This is afterall an informal discussion community, and that's what makes it enjoyable for everyone to participate in, and what makes for great discussions to occur, like this one.

 

Who thought anyone would live long enough to see us agree? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who thought anyone would live long enough to see us agree? ;)

Actually, I agree with you more often that you know. I just don't tell you 'cause I want to keep you on your toes. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Antlerman's love of music is idolotry and therefore evil.

 

There, topic back on track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who thought anyone would live long enough to see us agree? ;)

Actually, I agree with you more often that you know. I just don't tell you 'cause I want to keep you on your toes. :grin:

Cheers... it's nice to be kept at the top of my game ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Antlerman's love of music is idolotry and therefore evil.

 

There, topic back on track.

Indeed it is! And I make no pretense that I am less than a worshipper of strange gods - the gods of technology and music. And I officially declare that I DO NOT wear white gloves when handling records! I do however raise them above my head and say a brief prayer to Zeus (or whoever's home upstairs at the moment) before putting them on the turntable, but that's a topic for a different discussion.

 

You see actually, this is on topic because I see the language of gods and whatnot are applicable to anything we find of value in life. It's just how we care to express it.

 

MWC, I'll get to a serious response later as I have time to put my thoughts together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.