Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell I'm sure that's true, but place them in a book with the central belief that a guy rose from the dead and some other guy parted a sea with a stick and some other guy caused the sun to stop and somebody else got turned into a pillar of salt, etc. and maybe witches living in gingerbread houses wouldn't seem so obviously absurd (can't remember if that's one of Grimm's Fairy Tales but you should see the point).
I'm fairly confident that I could identify Grimm's Fairy Tales as such without a clear label.
Originally posted by no1marauderAbsurdity is not relative. I would find them all equally absurd.
Well I'm sure that's true, but place them in a book with the central belief that a guy rose from the dead and some other guy parted a sea with a stick and some other guy caused the sun to stop and somebody else got turned into a pillar of salt, etc. and maybe witches living in gingerbread houses wouldn't seem so obviously absurd (can't remember if that's one of Grimm's Fairy Tales but you should see the point).
Originally posted by NemesioDo we really need ancient text to teach us about fallibility, arrogant willfulness, weakness, vanity and any other human trait that manifest themself daily in our our experience?
The question comes down to this:
Does something have to be historically true in order have '[b]Truth?'
To the 'awake mind,' the historicity of the Bible would have no significance, because
what is historically true or not is illusory and, ultimately, meaningless.
However, the 'awake mind' would find great 'wisdom' in, for exampl ...[text shortened]... es
from which we should learn (fallibility, arrogant willfulness, weakness, vanity).
Nemesio[/b]
Do we need a book that shows us a god with all the same failings that we ourselves have ?
How much wisdom is there in pretending that this is the Loving Creator of all things.
Look at how different Jesus' teachings were:::: Peace is not War..
Forgiveness is not Vengence... do I need to go on?
Originally posted by frogstompI've read Aristophanes and Aesychleus and some other ancient Greek writers and I find they have insights that are still relevant. You quoted Tom Paine in another thread; someone could ask whether you couldn't find someone more recent to make the same points. Human wisdom is never such a common commodity that any source of it should be disregarded.
Do we really need ancient text to teach us about fallibility, arrogant willfulness, weakness, vanity and any other human trait that manifest themself daily in our our experience?
Do we need a book that shows us a god with all the same failings that we ourselves have ?
How much wisdom is there in pretending that this is the Loving Creator ...[text shortened]... teachings were:::: Peace is not War..
Forgiveness is not Vengence... do I need to go on?
Originally posted by no1marauderI quoted Tom Paine in this thread too, and Cicero. And have many times quoted Jesus.
I've read Aristophanes and Aesychleus and some other ancient Greek writers and I find they have insights that are still relevant. You quoted Tom Paine in another thread; someone could ask whether you couldn't find someone more recent to make the same points. Human wisdom is never such a common commodity that any source of it should be disregarded.
I've also quoted sumerian writings from the earliest days of civilization.
The bible is not presented as a book of ancient wisdom .
The New testament is spiritual teaching...The Old testament ( at least up through Joshua) is a combination of doctored sumerian myths, legends and a history and justification of inhuman behavior.
My point being the OT is Censored Wisdom at best.
Originally posted by NemesioHow you deduced that from my post is a mystery to me .
So you would state that the 'Prodigal Son' has no Wisdom because
it is 'untrue?' Or, for a non-Biblical example, Grimm's Fairy Tales?
Nemesio
I dont dispute the wisdom of Jesus , never did, what i do dispute is the reliability of the OT as a source because there is only one thought in it . and that thought is dont think , WE will tell you!
and so far Im only up to Joshua at least in detailing Im not very hopeful my opinion is going to be changed
Remember an idea is dangerous only when it's the only one we have.
Originally posted by frogstompThere has been plenty of research done linking the Sumerian Enuma Elish with the book of Genesis in particular; Zecharia Sitchin is one scholar who is fluent in both Hebrew and Sumerian cuneiform, and he has unearthed many surprising correspondences. Alas, Sitchin is not all that well known, as his 8 or 9 books have been designed and published in such a fashion as to make him seem like a slightly more sophisticated version of that crackpot Erich von Daniken. And Sitchin himself probably gets too rigid in places, refusing to budge from his theory that there is a "Planet X" that is beyond the orbit of Pluto, possibly as far as 100 Astronomical Units out, and that passes dangerously close to Earth about every 3,600 years, resulting in global effects similar to the ones described in the Book of Revelation, or as found in various Flood myths.
Was there not wisdom is the original myths the Enuma Elish and Xiusudra's Flood among others?
How does and awake mind reconcile the god of Joshua ordering him to do the same to Ai, as was done to Jehrico with the god the father of Jesus.
And a god whose very name is something His followers deny.
His name was EL.
I do very much a ...[text shortened]... isdom is it not?
Sometime the Truth hurts but Wisdom without truth isn't wisdom at all.
By the way, Flood myths are found in over a hundred cultures on Earth, including in Tibet, of all places. This seems to suggest something more than mere metaphor.
One thing Sitchin notes is that the Hebrew word for "serpent" -- "nehesh" -- is the same word in the ancient Fertile Crescent cultures (Sumeria, Akkadia, etc) for "teacher". This is consistent with the Gnostic view of the Old Testament, which turns the orthodox interpretation on its head and asserts that the serpent is the actual teacher, or bringing of knowledge, attempting to emancipate Eve and Adam from their entrappment by Yahweh. The Gnostic idea is that the Old Testament "God" is really a custodian, an overlord who is more concerned with control above all else. The serpent brings them knowledge in the form of the fruit from the tree of life, which enables them to mature into self-awareness, much as a child develops an ego and the capacity for self-reflection.
The God of the Old Testament seems to be very similar to a Mobster Godfather at times, being tremendously loving if you are subservient to him, and murderously vengeful if you are not. Sitchin (and others) explains this seemingly schizoid behaviour on the part of the "Lord God" as a result of an improper transmission of Sumerian myth into the Old Testament when Genesis was written around 500 BC (about the time Buddha was getting enlightened under the Banyen tree in north India). The key Sumerian gods were Enlil and Enki, who were perpetually at each other's throats, the one bad (Enlil), the other good (Enki). And incidentally, Enki is associated with the serpent.
In Sumerian myth, the flood was caused by Enlil, who did not like the way the human race was developing and sought to "begin from scratch", so to speak. Sitchin postulated that these "gods" were actually Anunnaki, an alien race from the planet Nibiru, all of which he claims is clearly spelled out in the Sumerian cuneiform tablets. Even if we discard the ET stuff, we are left with the interesting parallel in the Flood myths, and in particular how the seemingly schizoid behavior of the Old Testament God can be easily explained if we consider that this "God" was actually the result of the merging of Enlil and Enki when Sumerian myth was drawn upon during the writings of the OT.
More particularly I favour the view that the Adam myth is a metaphor for the evolution of the human mind. Prior to eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve are the primal humans, in the pre-ego stage. They are not differentiated from their source. Eating the fruit is actually necessary, in that it allows them to separate from their Source so that they can experience autonomy and free will. Then as Paul described much later in the NT, there is the "birth of the second Adam" which is symbolic of the post-ego phase that is basic to all spiritual transformation. So really the process is from child -- to adult --- to wise person. Unfortunately, most get stuck in the child phase, never breaking out of dogmatic molds, or don't advance beyond the adult phase, getting stuck in too much convention and mediocrity.
This is the intellectual speculation; fun, but perhaps kind of useless for our actual experiential awakening of the mind. On that note I'm fond of an old story from Zen Buddhism -- a philosopher who has spent many years studying and meditating in the mountains, comes down one day to test his understanding with a Zen master in a nearby monastery. It is raining on the appointed day, and the philosopher leaves his shoes and umbrella outside the door of the Zen master as he enters his room. He sits before the Zen master, and begins to expound on all his knowledge, what he has come to learn from his many years of study.
Suddenly the Zen master interrupts him. "One minute," he says. "Before you go on, I have a question. You left your shoes and umbrella outside. Did you leave your umbrella on the left side or the right side of your shoes?"
Try as hard as he could, the philosopher could not remember.
"You have failed the test," said the Zen master. "Return to the mountains and meditate for one more year."
Originally posted by MetamorphosisWe seem to have come to the nearly same place following different paths.
There has been plenty of research done linking the Sumerian Enuma Elish with the book of Genesis in particular; Zecharia Sitchin is one scholar who is fluent in both Hebrew and Sumerian cuneiform, and he has unearthed many surprising correspondences. Alas, Sitchin is not all that well known, as his 8 or 9 books have been designed and published in such ...[text shortened]... led the test," said the Zen master. "Return to the mountains and meditate for one more year."
To me the search for truth is like a branch of a tree growing toward the light . an 1000lb gorilla sitting on it can only bend it down or break it.
I bow to your wisdom
Off topic, but this should be easily addressed. If it becomes a debate in it's own right I'll make a new thread.
Does Tom Paine count as a "Founding Father"? It would be really interesting to be able to point out to overly zealous Christians that at least one of the Founding Fathers was extremely critical of the Bible.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBeyond question Tom Paine was a Founding Father and a very influential one. His pamphet Common Sense was the first writing to openly call for independence and was widely read and debated in 1776. You can read the entire work at http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/
Off topic, but this should be easily addressed. If it becomes a debate in it's own right I'll make a new thread.
Does Tom Paine count as a "Founding Father"? It would be really interesting to be able to point out to overly ze ...[text shortened]... t one of the Founding Fathers was extremely critical of the Bible.
Many of the Founding Fathers were deists at one time or another including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington (although GW's deism is disputed). It is interesting that they chose to use the term Creator and Nature's God in the Declaration of Independence and eschewed any reference to Jesus although the number of Jews and Muslims in the colonies were extremely small. The idea that this country was founded on some "Christian" basis is a completely bogus and ahistorical one.
EDIT: For an interesting article discussing this see: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
In particular note the Treaty of Tripoli ratified by the US Senate in 1797, which states: "As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion ......"
Originally posted by frogstomp
Do we really need ancient text to teach us about fallibility, arrogant willfulness, weakness, vanity and any other human trait that manifest themself daily in our our experience?
First, you said 'without truth there is no wisdom.'
I was addressing this point -- truth and wisdom need never correlate. There can be
plenty of wisdom without truth and plenty of truth without wisdom. I feel that your
statement was either false or poorly worded.
To address your current points: The age of the text is irrelevant. Wisdom is ageless.
Do we need it? I'll get to this in a second.
Do we need a book that shows us a god with all the same failings that we ourselves have ?
How much wisdom is there in pretending that this is the Loving Creator of all things.
Ironically, you are making the same mistake the literalists make: you are reading
the story of Creation as if it is a story about creation. It isn't. It's not about creation
but the nature of humankind. We don't need a story about creation at all. But
what we do need is stories that provide us with insight into making ourselves and our
world a better place.
What were Jesus's essential teachings? The 'Golden Rule,' give to those in need, love
your neighbor, go the extra mile for someone, be steadfast in what you believe, don't
lash out in hate, don't follow 'rules' automatonically, thirst for Wisdom.
If all Christians followed these mandates, arguments in this forum wouldn't exist, but
most don't. Most are Pharisees, following rules blindly for fear of retribution, puffing
themselves up in the name of God, giving of their surplus and not of their need.
If Christians really were in pursuit of Wisdom, if they really attended to Jesus's words,
we would be living in a near-Eden.
Indeed, what does this comment by Jesus mean:
Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, [Jesus] said in
reply, 'The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will
announce, "Look, her it is," or, "There it is." For behold, the kingdom of God
is among you.'
It is our job (Christians and non-Christians alike) to bring about what we term
'heavenly conditions' in the world. It is within all our powers to prevent war,
suffering, hunger, homelessness, and need.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioHow much wisdom or truth do you expect to glean from a book the very core of which is meant to intimidate the populace into acting according to the leader's whims?
Originally posted by frogstomp
[b]Do we really need ancient text to teach us about fallibility, arrogant willfulness, weakness, vanity and any other human trait that manifest themself daily in our our experience?
First ...[text shortened]... vent war,
suffering, hunger, homelessness, and need.
Nemesio[/b]
The teachings of Jesus have universal truths that conflict greatly with the OT , Which is the likely reason he was killed.
Consider his words " Forgive them father, for they know not what they do"? Had they been shown the true nature of god in the OT, they wouldnt have rejected him as a heretic, They really didn't know any better and yet they were all pious men of the OT god.
And that is is why Truth and Wisdom must come together
There was a reason he would say that hanging there on the cross, close to death.
Ponder that : for it is the essence why he came.
Even if in an historical true, false sense he never was.
Originally posted by frogstomp
How much wisdom or truth do you expect to glean for a book the very core of which is meant to intimidate the populace into acting according to the leader's whims?
I do not believe that Jesus meant for the establishment of any organization that
encouraged (or forced) the faithful into 'acting according to the leader's whims.'
That is, I do not think that is the core of true Christianity. I believe it is a perversion
of Christian dogma to set up a teaching based on fear rather than that of love.
The teachings of Jesus have universal truths that conflict greatly with the OT , Which is the likely reason he was killed.
The teachings of Jesus are largely in harmony with essential Jewish teachings (he
was a Jew after all), but in conflict with the way in which that Jewish teaching
had become perverted by his own time (not unlike the way in which Christianity
has been distorted).
Consider his words " Forgive them father, for they know not what they do"? Had they been shown the true nature of god in the OT, they wouldnt have rejected him as a heretic, They really didn't know any better and yet they were all pious men of the OT god.
Let's be clear here: the Jews very likely had very little to do with Jesus's crucifixion.
He was more likely executed by the Romans, who viewed Him as an insurrectionist.
Crucifixion was a common form of punishment, meant to horrify and intimidate
people into submission.
And, even if the Jews of that time were responsible, their grotesque misunderstanding of
Jewish teaching (which is quite elegant, I assure you) would have blinded them to any
holiness Jesus had.
And that is is why Truth and Wisdom must come together
So, I'll ask again: is there no Wisdom in Grimm's Fairy Tales?
Nemesio