Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 11-14-2009, 03:18 PM

It does seem related to the formal establishment of bureaucracy dependent empires - the shamanistic ways of divining the gods' wills is not good enough.

Quote:

The fundamental justification for the Chinese Imperial Exams was that appointees to civil service positions were not to be chosen through special or inherited privilege, but through an individual's own abilities. For centuries, the might of China was established militarily, often by emperors from humble origins who had toppled existing dynasties. However, once in control, these emperors soon realized that the actual governance of China would require the administrative services of thousands of bureaucrats. The civil service examination was thus a means for creating such a body of men, and it became a meritocratic strategy that was emulated by France and Britain in the nineteenth century when these countries began needing public servants for their far-flung imperial outpost.

The Chinese civil service exams began around the sixth century; by 115 CE a set curriculum had already become established for the so-called First Generation of exam takers. They were tested for their proficiency in the so-called Six Arts which included music, archery and horsemanship, arithmetic, writing and knowledge of the rituals and ceremonies of both public and private life. Between 200BCE-200CE, the curriculum had expanded to the Five Studies. The and examinations included military strategies, civil law, revenue and taxation, agriculture and geography in addition to the Confucian Classics.

http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/ls201/confucian3.html

All empires have used these techniques. An Empire's religion would also.

Clivedurdle · 11-14-2009, 03:24 PM

And this reads as if a Chinese civil servant wrote it!

Quote:

Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.[a] But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-14-2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

It is?? Is that what, say, the pre-socratic thinkers thought?

Probably. cf. Peter Kingsley's books on Empedocles and the Pythagoreans (or via: amazon.co.uk), Parmenides, Zeno and Gorgias (or via: amazon.co.uk).

I'm thinking of Thales, Anaximander Anaximenes, Leucippus, and Democritus of Abdera -- none of whom, to my knowledge, ever made the ontological "split" Clive claims ancient thinkers did, and with whom Clive and, in the light of your "probably, you too have little acquaintance.

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle · 11-14-2009, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Zarathustra (Greek Zoroaster): legendary religious teacher from Bactria, founder of Zoroastrianism.
Hardly anything is known about Zarathustra's life. For example, it is uncertain when he lived. The ancient Greeks speculated that he lived six thousand years before the philosopher Plato and several scholars have argued for a date at the beginning of the sixth century BCE. Other scholars accept that Zarathustra is the author of the Gâthâ's (a part of the holy book of the Zoroastrians, the Avesta), which they date, on linguistic grounds, in the fourteenth or thirteenth century BCE.

It is also unclear where Zarathustra was born and where he spent the first half of his life. Every tribe that converted to Zoroastrianism made up legends about the prophet's life, and nearly all of them claimed that the great teacher was "one of them". On linguistic grounds, we may argue that author of the Gâthâ's belonged to a tribe that lived in the eastern part of Iran, in Afghanistan or Turkmenistan. This fits neatly with a tradition that connects Zarathustra with the ancient country named Bactria and a cypress at Kâshmar (below), but it hardly proves Zarathustra's Bactrian origins.

The Gâthâ's are not a great help either. They contain some personal information, but are hardly the stuff that biographies are made of. The Denkard, a late Avestic text, contains a summary of an older biography. It contains many legends and the reliability seems not very great. The following reconstruction of Zarathustra's life is, therefore, not to be taken as the very truth.

Zarathustra was born in Bactria (or Aria) as the son of a not very powerful nobleman named Purushaspa and a woman named Dughdhova. Zarathustra was the third of five brothers. He became a priest and seems to have showed a remarkable care for humans and cattle. The family is often called Spitama, which is a honorary title meaning 'most beneficient', but was later taken for a family name.

Zarathustra's life changed when the god Ahuramazda granted him a vision. A spirit named Good Thought appeared and ordered Zarathustra to oppose the bloody sacrifices of the traditional Iranian cults and to give aid to the poor. In one of his own compositions, Zarathustra says:

Thee I conceived as holy, O Ahuramazda, when thy Good Thought appeared to me and asked me: 'Who art thou? And whose is thine allegiance?' [...]
Then I answered: 'Zarathustra am I; to the false believers a forthright enemy, but to the righteous a mighty help and joy. [...]
Thee I conceived as holy, O Ahuramazda, when thy Good Thought appeared to me. [...] A difficult thing it seemed to me, to spread thy faith among men, to do that which Thou didst say was best.
[Yasna 43.4]

Zarathustra started to preach that there was a supreme god, the "wise lord" Ahuramazda, who had created the world, mankind and all good things in it through his holy spirit, Spenta Mainyu. The rest of the universe was created by six other spirits, the Amesha Spentas ('holy immortals'). However, the order of this sevenfold creation was threatened by The Lie; good and evil spirits were fighting and mankind had to support the good spirits in order to speed up the inevitable victory of the good.

http://www.livius.org/za-zn/zarathustra/zarathustra.htm

Clivedurdle · 11-14-2009, 11:54 PM

I found Pagels Origin of Satan (or via: amazon.co.uk) valuable on this.

And interestingly, what happened in Languedoc may be evidence of the explicit suppression of ecstatic xianities.

Ehrman Lost Christianities may give clues.

gurugeorge · 11-15-2009, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Probably. cf. Peter Kingsley's books on Empedocles and the Pythagoreans (or via: amazon.co.uk), Parmenides, Zeno and Gorgias (or via: amazon.co.uk).

I'm thinking of Thales, Anaximander Anaximenes, Leucippus, and Democritus of Abdera -- none of whom, to my knowledge, ever made the ontological "split" Clive claims ancient thinkers did, and with whom Clive and, in the light of your "probably, you too have little acquaintance.

Ah, well since you are so intimately acquainted with those ancient philosophers, perhaps you can point me to the voluminous writings where they discuss these matters in depth?

dog-on · 11-15-2009, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Again Jeffrey, I understand that you like to snipe from the edges, but as some of us believe that you could add to the discussion, my question stands.

Your question about the content of Hurt's articles came after I responded to your claim that Hurst was wrong.

It's Dr. Hurst.

They do?? How?

Quote:

but I knew my statement would get a rise from you and allow me to ask you for specifics.

Have you read these two articles by Hurst or not?

Jeffrey

I agree that the "platonism" of Hebrews may be derived from Paul, but I believe that Paul derived his ideas from Greek philosophy. So, like I said, I agree to a point, but in the end, disagee.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-15-2009, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Your question about the content of Hurt's articles came after I responded to your claim that Hurst was wrong.

It's Dr. Hurst.

They do?? How?

Have you read these two articles by Hurst or not?

Jeffrey

I agree that the "platonism" of Hebrews may be derived from Paul, but I believe that Paul derived his ideas from Greek philosophy. So, like I said, I agree to a point, but in the end, disagee.

So the answer is no, you haven't read the articles. Now I know how much you can be trusted when you make the claims you do about your familiarity with NT scholarship.

And are you saying not only that you think Paul wrote Hebrews, but that Hurst and other NT scholars do so as well?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-15-2009, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I'm thinking of Thales, Anaximander Anaximenes, Leucippus, and Democritus of Abdera -- none of whom, to my knowledge, ever made the ontological "split" Clive claims ancient thinkers did, and with whom Clive and, in the light of your "probably, you too have little acquaintance.

Ah, well since you are so intimately acquainted with those ancient philosophers, perhaps you can point me to the voluminous writings where they discuss these matters in depth?

I will

(though your request just proves my point that you have little to no direct acquaintance with the surviving fragments of their writings ["voluminous" was bait, yes?], let alone the discussions of their "doctrines" undertaken by Aristotle, Plutarch, Diogenes Laërtius, Stobaeus and Simplicius),

as soon as you point me to the "voluminous" writings of Empedocles, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Zeno and Gorgias -- which, it's evident from your implied claim that they made the particular ontological "split" that Clive spoke of (Empedocles and Zeno were not only ontological dualists, but ontological dualists who spoke of "heaven"??), you also have little acquaintance with, direct or otherwise.

By the way -- The Golden Sufi Center:huh: Recommended by that great expert in matters pre-socratic Michael Baigent, the author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail?:huh::huh:

Jeffrey
Jeffrey

Solo · 11-15-2009, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gnostic_Paul

There would seem to be an agenda to deny what I understand as obvious - the cultural habit of splitting the world into a real perfect heaven, stating that our lives now are somehow unreal - Plato's cave, Paul's glass darkly, Hebrew's heavenly temple.

The perfect heaven comes from the heights of the ecstatic experience. It is like that; the inner light comes but then it goes and the mystic becomes depressed when he descends back into the cave.

BTW, the idea of humans in Hebrews as copy (ὑπόδειγμα, Heb 8:5, ἀντίτυπος, Heb 9:24) of the heavenly things / abode in being Platonic, here is a quote from Timaeus:

Quote:

When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal, he sought to make the universe eternal, so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting, but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity, and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal but moving according to number, while eternity itself rests in unity; and this image we call time.

tr. by Benjamin Jowett

The meaning of ecstasy. BTW, if you want to compare the light in Plato's cave to the 'inner light' of Aua, the great Inuit shaman in Western Labrador in early 1900's, I warmly recommend The Journals of Knud Rasmussen.

Quote:

The term Platonic may be being misunderstood - it is a way we interpret the world, that historically was possibly first formalised by Zarathustra and then picked up by Greeks who for thousands of years had been in contact with the regional empires.

hmmm.....I prefer the structuralist approach of Levi-Strauss.

Quote:

What puzzles me is why this insistence that "gnostic" ideas are not there when they are a backbone to thinking - it is where ideas of good and evil come from, righteousness and sin.

What is this reluctance to look at the history of ideas about?

Unfortunately, this is just too general and sweeping. The gnostic Paul fought with other gnostics of his day, because they were crazies, libertines, Jesus-freaks.

Quote:

2 Cr 11:14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Jiri

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

11-14-2009, 11:54 PM	#105
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I found Pagels Origin of Satan (or via: amazon.co.uk) valuable on this. And interestingly, what happened in Languedoc may be evidence of the explicit suppression of ecstatic xianities. Ehrman Lost Christianities may give clues.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.