Doctor X

SpaceMonkey:

Well, I am not sure if I understand your complaint. The only way, frankly, to understand the intent of the authors is to understand the social and political world they addressed. Yyyyeeessssss . . . I am familiar with that school of criticism which, out of perhaps a weakness of intestinal tone, throws its hands up and declares "the author is meaningless! We need only consider the words!!"

Well . . . particularly with an ancient text in a foreign language, one better know what that language meant at the time!

What is funny, is that ancient Greek critics of Homer tried similar linguistical gynmastics when "offended" by Homer!

So, we have to allow for the moral abnormalities because they were there. It may cause us more modern people to question the moral authority of the past, but that is progress.

--J.D.

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, it's mighty convenient the way things like "this generation" refers to the totality of human existence when it actually proves failed prophecy; yet when discussing whether or not god was condoning slavery, it is only an irrelevancy of ancient culture.



By the way, I've written extensively on the slave mentality of the Judeo/Christian mythology. Re-read The Sermon on the Mount from a perspective of a cult instilling slave mentality and you'll see what I mean. Pay particular attention to the fact that Jesus (allegedly) tells his followers that they should love their oppressors, not because "love" conquers evil or any such idyll used to falsely conclude a doctrine of non-violence, but because their oppression means that those who are oppressed are "blessed in god's eyes;" that one is to actually rejoice in one's oppressed status, because it means they will be rewarded after they are dead (when it no longer matters), thereby directly preaching love of oppression and not freedom, as is so repeatedly, apologetically (aka, deliberately) misconstrued.

Cognitive dissonance is the only reason the Sermon on the Mount has been interpreted to be a doctrine of preaching non-violence, but remove the theist presupposition from the mythology and you find a cult leader telling his followers to rejoice in their oppression; to render unto Ceaser and turn the other cheek when anyone in authority strikes you or takes away your freedom, because, if you do, an imaginary fairy god king in the sky will shower you with luxury in paradise (with 72 virgins...) once you're dead and your oppression no longer effects you and our claims can't be verified, thank you for participating, amen, give us your money. Here's coffee.

It is nothing but slave mentality, but you can't see it with stained glasses on. Which is why, of course, Paul realizes this and pulls his pre-emptive doubletalk nonsense about how only stupid people can know the word of God.

The entire doctrine of christianity is to remain an oppressed slave always obeying authority. Why? Because "man's authority" (aka, the cult) is pitiful compared to the almighty imaginary fairy god king we've convinced you exists! The slaves think they're "free" when they're simply deeper enslaved; enslaved in their minds!

Thus, a broken people can be made to continue their own enslavement, but think that it's actually freedom. It ain't rocket science.

It's apologetics.

Diotima

You are discussing another thing here. There are several levels in approaching Faith that have to do with the experiencies, social background and the education of each individual.

I am not an atheist but my education and scientific pursuit doesn't leave me much room for accepting divine guidancies.

Diotima

Koyaanisqatsi

Are you addressing to me with this style?

If yes, please, do honour me with a full catalogue of your revelations regarding various subjects... I am a perpetual learner...

Doctor X

Quite true.

Though I do wonder if much of the purpose behind the gospels is an "us" versus "them"--the "established" or "traditional" group represented by the apostles and "Rock-Head" Peter are continuously denegrated and portrayed as simply "not getting it." I often wonder if much of it is an apology for the intended audience that though they may not be in the "traditional group," that the "other groups" may affort the chariots with the CD changers as standard, they will, in the end, be saved whilst the rest suffer damnation and all of that.

So . . . perhaps there is also a "survival" mechanism not to piss off the authorities with the "hidden knowledge" that the downtrodden will "win" in the end. If the apocalyptically leading critics are correct, "win" would have been "soon"--even though it did not work out that way.

--J.D.

Koyaanisqatsi

It's snake-oil salesmanship, pure and simple and easily discerned once the conditioning of "believe or be damned" is shed.

And like all snake-oil, it contains some watered down, cheap whiskey, some urine and some snake venom; just enough to blind and never heal.

"Healing" comes only in death according to christianity. Well, gee, really? What a shock!

Who could have guessed that my oppression in life would end upon my death?



The entirety of the christian cult doctrine (in particular, though I've made arguments for judaism and islam as well) is designed and constructed to instill nothing but blind allegiance to the cult; sheep to the shepherd.

And, as I've written too many times around these parts, sheep are shorn, blunt-force trauma killed and then eaten. For some reason (and by "some" I, of course mean, "because of cognitive dissonance"), none of the sheep seem capable of realizing this.

Doctor X

And though with gods and men
The sheep remain inside their pen
Though many times they've seen the way to leave.

--J. "The Path is Clear" D.

SpaceMonkey

Sorry, it's clear to me you do not understand the concept of moral relativism.

"Moral Relativism: a theory which claims that what is right or good is always relative to the particular circumstance and beliefs of a people (or person). There are no objective or absolute standards to appeal to when trying to decide what is right." Reference: Understanding Ethics: Noel Preston, Federation Press, 1996.

For example: Rape, murder, pedophilia, torture, bestiality, incest (insert biblical example here) are acceptable in another time and another place.

A rational person (such as myself) would say, no.. no it's not...

If Jesus said it then, than it applies to my standards, my morality, NOW! And if we accept that Jesus is a person who did exist and that we can accurately interpret from the Bible what he said (something I find silly) then I raise my middle finger and say screw you you immoral individual. Screw, you.

SpaceMonkey

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doctor X
[B]Doctor X:
How can you seriously propose to do that? Most people don't even agree on the various dates people put on the Bible. How can you hope to recreate the ethos, politics, beliefs of their culture? We have people arguing (persuasively) that various Biblical proganosits were gnostic, gay or didn't even exist at all.

I'm not a poststructuralist. Guess again.

I just finished reading Homer. Where Odysseus slaughtered everyone etc. Interesting that we could be debating the truth of that book if the right people had have been in the right place at the right time.

Doctor X

SpaceMonkey:

One can figure out some trends. For example, someone quoted a good argument that the "we are legion" and turning them into pigs represents a slap to a particular Roman legion . . . which helps with dating Mk . . . which helps with figuring out the mileu.

Homer: the one I can sort of remember had to do with "Nester, that old man, lifted the chalice no other man could lift." Even to us, the meaning is clear--Nestor was a far better man than these pouncy half-gods moping over who gets the first crack at the wench. However, a literalist made "that old man" become some other guy so that Nester and Some Other Guy lifted the chalice together!

Moral Relativism: but as Hume would contend, there is a "standard of taste."

Koyaanisqatsi:

--J.D.