Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JohNeo · 09-29-2004, 04:20 PM

If the stoixeia or forces of nature and the earth is to be considered bad and owned by the devil, to me it contradicts the language in the story of Creation in Genesis, where God created everything and "saw that it was good."

So then the devil somehow became powerful enough to corrupt god's creation, or was god in details to turn his good earth evil, and to turn man made in his image evil? Was it just the later influence of Zoroastrianism that caused people to re-evaluate the quality of god's creation closer to the Common Era? Interesting to me is that somehow these covenants become stale over time, and people seem to have to create new ones in order to rekindle belief in god, or re-shape their god (such as in Paul's teaching in the letter to the Colossians).

Zoroastrian influence came about from the time the Hebrews spent in Persia--is that thought to be the case?

JohNeo

JohNeo · 09-29-2004, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lulay

I am wondering then what does the human do, having access to knowledge of this patriarchal apppropriation of earlier understanding that didn't denigrate Nature into a 'bad' category?

What has this indoctrination actually done to us?

Is anyone aware of a fear in experiencing a deeper awareness of Nature?

Strange that the Catholic Church felt so threatened by ideas contrary to the geocentric universe model and fought so hard to keep it in place. You'd think they would have actually liked to have affirmation that the earth is insignificant...

JohNeo

Casper · 09-30-2004, 01:53 AM

Isn't stoixeia, or something like it, the word used for demiurge?

And while I am remembering hazy things that I probably have all confused, I also seem to remember some discussion about stoixeia, demiurge and prometheus.

Was that a thread on here? I could be completely mistaken of course.

Toto · 09-30-2004, 11:18 AM

The index does not list any threads mentioning stoixeia.

A little googling finds this:

Review of The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface Between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae

Quote:

In Arnold's view, the main relevant feature of the religious background of Colossae was the prominence of heavenly beings that were variously called "angels" or other designations, and were invoked to give aid and feared as powerful threats. Arnold sees concern about these beings reflected in the reference to various categories of created beings in Col 1:16, the mention of stoixeia (2:8, 20), and in the thrhskeia twn aggelwn of 2:18 (which, Arnold insists, must refer to veneration directed to these angel beings).

. . .

. . .The stoixeia may well be (or include) angels, but if so it is not clear that the stoixeia are "demonic" or represent more than a now inferior regime or authority for living. Christ is presented as superior to all creatures, including various ranks of beings (1:16). But does this assertion of superiority over them mean that they are necessarily malevolent?

And this:

from bgreek

Quote:

>I had a prominent Greek professor (I won't mention his name) at a TH M level
>course who taught that TA STOIXEIA TOU KOSMOU referred to spiritual beings
>such as demons. He came up with this from some obscure reference in an
>extra-biblical reference, The Testament of Solomon, where it referred to the
>stars of the sign of the Zodiac, which were believed to be spiritual beings.
> He ignored the context of Colossians 2, Galatians, Hebrews, and 2 Peter and
>preferred this _secular_ extra-biblical reference.

Fortunately or not, this particular argument marks the point distinctly at which I must part company with Jim White. I don't know at all who the "prominent Greek professor" may have been, and there may well be a fluke coincidence here, but I began Greek in 1952 at Tulane University under the tutelage of a man then doing Ph.D. research at Tulane on the word KOSMOKRATWR in the NT; Carlton Winbery knows him. I know that his conclusion ultimately was precisely that TA STOIXEIA TOU KOSMOU referred to "spiritual beings such as demons"--and I think he was very likely right. I can't be dogmatic about it, but on the other hand, I could not conscientiously rule out such a possibility on grounds that Christian Greek language is far removed from the secular language of the Hellenistic world.

I realize that this is a matter upon which there can be widely divergent opinions. And it wouldn't surprise me to learn that a person's theological views may govern the judgment one makes on such a matter. . . .

Casper · 10-01-2004, 02:59 AM

Well, I can't find anything that looks familiar. It may not have been a thread here, maybe something else. But the only reason I remember that word was because I assumed it was pronounced like "stoic" and had some kind of connection. Its not like I can speak greek or anything.

lulay · 10-01-2004, 03:42 AM

from my experience, when trying to understand all this....it is better to research further afiled than just biblical references........
for example, when we talk about 'good' and 'bad' spirits, surely it can plainly be seen that this belief arose from a lter version of animism.
i am exploring the idea that EARLY anmism experiences a MYSTERIOUS AMBIGUOUS SPIRIT that was within Nature....even to say 'within' actually is an abstraction, because it gives the sense of an 'outer casin' which 'houses' 'spirit'----as we shall see, that idea proliferated into Nature denying dualism

but keeping with 'good' and 'bad' spirits for the moment. cannot it be too implausible to suggest that that idea developed into the Zorastrian belief of a prime evil spirit versus a primal good spirit?..........so i am seeing this as a literalism of an INNEr split, beteween 'body' and 'spirit'

We are all aware of the profound influence of this belief on Judaism, and Hellenists ideas. And this ingrained belief still holds sway in so-called modern times

In modern times we have also gotten reports from the new NDE field of research. Th is research is interesting, because i reckon it throws light on how literalisation affects ones Imaginal experience. And unlike pre-scientific times when death would have probablyy been less 'saveable' with technology, we can get a gist of what peoples deep beliefs are

ANd how the seem similar to ancient reports of spirital experience....an example:

one NDe report was about this guy who had been an athiest, and had had a very cynical attitude about everything. he 'dies'....he says he found himself in a kind of foggy atmosphere, just barely seen were some human like figures urging him to follow him.......they had a bit of a nast insistent manner and swore a lot

so this guy follows them.....they then ounce on his and rape him!.....leaving him feeling battered in pices on the ground, in agony he calls out to 'God'....and as suddenly he feels this light and love come over him, and he is restored
when he 'retruns' to life, this experience very much changes him

now contrast with this shamanisc 'crisis' much reported about shamanic initiation. shaman 'dies' and ancestors or evil spirits get him, and tear him to bits, screaping all meat from bones...etc. THEN they restore him/her and when he returns he feels he has power and can shamanize for the community

so what has all this to do with this thread? i am trying to bring all this to the individual. the meaning of myth, rather than reading it literally, i am seeing the essence of myth is meaning you and me, EXPERIENCE. that this 'good' and 'evil' isn't 'angels' and 'demons'. THAt is the lieralization of what is in US. Is us. it is we who have abstracted this into a 'good' and a'bad' 'out there'

10-01-2004, 03:42 AM	#26
lulay Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: manchester, England Posts: 916	generalism from my experience, when trying to understand all this....it is better to research further afiled than just biblical references........ for example, when we talk about 'good' and 'bad' spirits, surely it can plainly be seen that this belief arose from a lter version of animism. i am exploring the idea that EARLY anmism experiences a MYSTERIOUS AMBIGUOUS SPIRIT that was within Nature....even to say 'within' actually is an abstraction, because it gives the sense of an 'outer casin' which 'houses' 'spirit'----as we shall see, that idea proliferated into Nature denying dualism but keeping with 'good' and 'bad' spirits for the moment. cannot it be too implausible to suggest that that idea developed into the Zorastrian belief of a prime evil spirit versus a primal good spirit?..........so i am seeing this as a literalism of an INNEr split, beteween 'body' and 'spirit' We are all aware of the profound influence of this belief on Judaism, and Hellenists ideas. And this ingrained belief still holds sway in so-called modern times In modern times we have also gotten reports from the new NDE field of research. Th is research is interesting, because i reckon it throws light on how literalisation affects ones Imaginal experience. And unlike pre-scientific times when death would have probablyy been less 'saveable' with technology, we can get a gist of what peoples deep beliefs are ANd how the seem similar to ancient reports of spirital experience....an example: one NDe report was about this guy who had been an athiest, and had had a very cynical attitude about everything. he 'dies'....he says he found himself in a kind of foggy atmosphere, just barely seen were some human like figures urging him to follow him.......they had a bit of a nast insistent manner and swore a lot so this guy follows them.....they then ounce on his and rape him!.....leaving him feeling battered in pices on the ground, in agony he calls out to 'God'....and as suddenly he feels this light and love come over him, and he is restored when he 'retruns' to life, this experience very much changes him now contrast with this shamanisc 'crisis' much reported about shamanic initiation. shaman 'dies' and ancestors or evil spirits get him, and tear him to bits, screaping all meat from bones...etc. THEN they restore him/her and when he returns he feels he has power and can shamanize for the community so what has all this to do with this thread? i am trying to bring all this to the individual. the meaning of myth, rather than reading it literally, i am seeing the essence of myth is meaning you and me, EXPERIENCE. that this 'good' and 'evil' isn't 'angels' and 'demons'. THAt is the lieralization of what is in US. Is us. it is we who have abstracted this into a 'good' and a'bad' 'out there'

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-29-2004, 04:20 PM	#21
JohNeo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Dallas-Plano-Irving MSA, Texas Posts: 3,376	If the stoixeia or forces of nature and the earth is to be considered bad and owned by the devil, to me it contradicts the language in the story of Creation in Genesis, where God created everything and "saw that it was good." So then the devil somehow became powerful enough to corrupt god's creation, or was god in details to turn his good earth evil, and to turn man made in his image evil? Was it just the later influence of Zoroastrianism that caused people to re-evaluate the quality of god's creation closer to the Common Era? Interesting to me is that somehow these covenants become stale over time, and people seem to have to create new ones in order to rekindle belief in god, or re-shape their god (such as in Paul's teaching in the letter to the Colossians). Zoroastrian influence came about from the time the Hebrews spent in Persia--is that thought to be the case? JohNeo

09-30-2004, 01:53 AM	#23
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Isn't stoixeia, or something like it, the word used for demiurge? And while I am remembering hazy things that I probably have all confused, I also seem to remember some discussion about stoixeia, demiurge and prometheus. Was that a thread on here? I could be completely mistaken of course.

10-01-2004, 02:59 AM	#25
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Well, I can't find anything that looks familiar. It may not have been a thread here, maybe something else. But the only reason I remember that word was because I assumed it was pronounced like "stoic" and had some kind of connection. Its not like I can speak greek or anything.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.