AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

It's rare when I choose to put down my 'mask,' meaning to allow my more secret thoughts through. "All that is profound loves masks!" or so my favorite 19th century prophet would say. -I've recently been reading a translation of the Illiad; and what a profound difference it is, contrasting with the morality of the New Testament... A man loves his enemy as his equal... there is no call to God to destroy one's adversaries... in fact, the Gods often interject where it is unnecessary!-Which brings me to a genealogy: The Genealogy of the Gods!-It was once possible for a man to strive for Olympus! In fact, Alexander the Great was just such a man, driven by love of his mother to be the son of Zeus. Contrast this son of God; to Heracles; and then to Christ. Which is more noble--and why? (This is a deep question I pose to you... I find satisfaction in all!)-Gods to men used to represent psychological states--if one was in ecstasy, you were in the throes of Dionysus! If you were ruthless on the battlefield; you had the spite of Ares or Odin upon you. -Gods represent forms for men; we identify men according to their forms. But this changed with Judaism. God was no longer something that was remotely Mortal... he was now something distant to be obeyed... and while God in the Old Testament was one who clearly favored Judas over another... this was meant to be fixed by Christ; or really, by Paul through Christ, who declared that the law no longer applied to Gentiles...-No one can argue that the morality espoused by Christ is probably one of the greatest idealistic triumphs of man. The example is one that has become so ingrained into our culture, that one can hardly fathom of an age where a man literally made his own morals as he saw fit--the idea of the Greek Champion is anathema to our civilized ways. -But the genealogy is this: When God was clearly representative of psychological states... how does God become an explanation for the universe? When we go back to Genesis, only 2 of 50 chapters is devoted to creation; clearly, this was NOT the overarching goal of the book. God was NOT the center of the world in THAT way. God was something deeper... more... delicatesse!-I leave you with this question: Why do we only value our weak gods?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4594 views

Matt has been reading the Iliad, and has enjoyed meeting the Greek gods.-MATT: It was once possible for a man to strive for Olympus! In fact, Alexander the Great was just such a man, driven by love of his mother to be the son of Zeus. Contrast this son of God; to Heracles; and then to Christ. Which is more noble ... and why? (This is a deep question I pose to you....I find satisfaction in all!)-With my 20th/21st-century outlook, I find absolutely nothing noble in Alexander's ambition to conquer the world. I could not even begin to compare this utter disregard for human life with Christ's attempts to create a more humane world. And remember Christ also lived in imperial times. So Christ wins hands down. -You ask how the OT God became an explanation for the universe. Many religions have their creation myths, and I don't find it a problem that Genesis only devotes two chapters to it. No need for a War and Peace. I see the "overarching goal" of the OT as being to keep the Jews under one (divine) umbrella. Prior to monotheism ... the Jews weren't the first monotheists, but theirs was the form that set God up for life ... gods were all over the place, on hills, in caves, in rivers, in buildings. It was immensely practical to have one God who was omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, and whose prophets could scare the daylights out of anyone who didn't conform to their way of thinking. God was not "the center of the world in THAT way", he was all over the world in every way. -MATT: I leave you with this question: Why do we only value our weak gods?-I have scratched my head over this, and have come up with nothing but splinters. Maybe I need to know who "we" are. The god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is omnipotent. How weak is that?

4598 views

dhw,
> MATT: I leave you with this question: Why do we only value our weak gods?
> 
> I have scratched my head over this, and have come up with nothing but splinters. Maybe I need to know who "we" are. The god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is omnipotent. How weak is that?-The major innovation of the Jewish religion, was subservience of the individual to the community.-While I agree that for the overall development of man, this innovation was completely necessary, I think the concept has been pushed too far. We condemn ourselves for killing--in war--even in such cases as World War II. To a large extent we question our instincts to the point where we try to bury them; and I see no need to apologize for this. Man is a brutal creature; and I don't see a need to apologize for this. -If you compare Christ to Achilles; Achilles was also a son of Zeus. (as Christ was a son of God.) Achilles in the beginning knows his importance to his human king, and when his king wrongs him in the beginning, Achilles responds by withholding his men. He knows that Agamemnon will be unable to prevail without him. -If you contrast this with Christ, you have someone that serves his fellow man to the point of death; Achilles wouldn't have gone down without a fight, a struggle; Christ, on the other hand is weak. If you set aside that his death was "necessary for the completion of prophecy," you have a man unwilling to fight for his own life. Achilles would fight to his own death for Agamemnon because he himselfwilled it, Christ only died because God willed it. In my mind, a sacrifice is stronger when it comes from yourself rather than from on high. The fatal flaw of both Judaism and Christianity is that delicate issue of fate vs. free will. If the sacrifice comes from free will, than it is always more powerful than that of fate. In one scene you're an actor, in the other you're a playwright. -To me, Christ represents a surrender to someone else's will; God's will as the case presents itself. Whereas Achilles is willing to challenge even the Gods themselves. In fact I find it pointed that Diomedes, a mere mortal was able to wound both Aphrodite and Ares in the initial conflict of the epic. -In terms of your distaste for Alexander the Great's campaign; I don't share it. History would have had some other course had he traveled a more peaceful path, and you engage in the same ethnocentric focus that I called Balance_Maintained out on; I thought you had a stronger stomach than that!!! Had Greek culture not been spread as a consequence of Alexander's conquest, there is no way that a man called Christ would have even been born; and it is Christ that brought the civilizing influence into Europe. We owe more to the Church than I'd like to admit, but among it's evils it also spread an alternate value that removed the pagan guilt of the ancestor and replaced with an individual guilt for our own sins. But in the end, no Alexander = no western civilization. He was without doubt, the linchpin of us all. -I am unapologetic for the crimes of my fathers, grandfathers, going back to my great ancestors. My ancestors engaged in human sacrifice, hanging a man upside down by his feet and impaling them with a spear. In doing this, the priests thought that they would gain knowledge from the gods. -Guilt from the past is something we should have been long free from--!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4513 views

MATT: I leave you with this question: Why do we only value our weak gods?-dhw: [...] Maybe I need to know who "we" are. The god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is omnipotent. How weak is that?-MATT: The major innovation of the Jewish religion, was subservience of the individual to the community.-You are doing your willow-o'-the-wisp act on me again. After the above, you see no need to apologize for man being a brutal creature, Achilles is a fighter, Christ gets himself crucified, the fatal flaw of Judaism and Christianity is the issue of fate v. free will (though none of the Jews and Christians I know would subscribe to that idea)......What's all this got to do with your question and my answer? Jews, Christians and Muslims worship a god whom they deem to be omnipotent. So who says "we" only value weak gods?-MATT: Contrast this son of God [Alexander the Great]; to Heracles; and then to Christ. Which is more noble ... and why?-dhw: [...] I find absolutely nothing noble in Alexander's ambition to conquer the world. I could not even begin to compare this utter disregard for human life with Christ's attempts to create a more humane world.-MATT: History would have had some other course had he [Alexander] traveled a more peaceful path [...] Had Greek culture not been spread as a consequence of Alexander's conquest, there is no way that a man called Christ would have even been born [sensational new genealogy for Christ]; and it is Christ that brought the civilizing influence into Europe. [The Greeks and especially the Romans would have been surprised to hear this, but still...][...] I am unapologetic for the crimes of my fathers, grandfathers, going back to my great ancestors. [...] Guilt from the past is something we should have been long free from!-What have I done to deserve this? Here are three dictionary definitions of noble: "morally good or generous in a way that is admired"; "based on high ideals or revealing excellent moral character"; "of or characterized by high moral qualities". Of course Alexander influenced history. So did Hitler. So did Napoleon. So did George W. Bush. So did every conqueror and would-be conqueror. What does that have to do with Alexander's moral character compared to Christ's? Who has asked you to apologize for the crimes of your ancestors, and what has guilt from the past got to do with the "nobility" of Alexander the Great, Heracles, and Jesus Christ? Verily I say unto you, he that asketh a question and receiveth an answer but goeth off at a tangent cometh eventually to a sticky and irrelevant end.

4674 views

No offense intended. Just get amused man. couldn't control myself. had to let it out.-I was reading your posts. Just find the concept of abrahamic God quite novice. you know when you read the abrahamic god and this is coming from a guy from a completely different religious background as you guys know by now.-At times when we discuss the abrahamic faiths amongst us eastern religion followers a lot of my friends who dont have knowledge of abrahamic faiths even to my basic levels find it so hard to actually fathom that some religions could actually have these kinds of emphasis on God itself. And then when I explain to them in detail their reaction is one of shock and than the evergreen lines
" You're lying man they can't think like that" or " It's just not possible". Because for us God isn't the center or basis of our life and when we see others being so obsessed with god we actually find it a bit amusing. people are actually fighting over who's god is better. I thought god did not have a caller ID. he wouldn't know that the person calling him was a Hindu/Muslim/Christian etc etc. Wouldn't everyone be the same for god. but I see abrahamic faiths monopolizing god itself.

4613 views

Namaste my Sikh/Hindu(?) brother! -> No offense intended. Just get amused man. couldn't control myself. had to let it out.
> 
> I was reading your posts. Just find the concept of abrahamic God quite novice. you know when you read the abrahamic god and this is coming from a guy from a completely different religious background as you guys know by now.
> -As I'm a bit behind here in posts, I'll take you at your word. -> At times when we discuss the abrahamic faiths amongst us eastern religion followers a lot of my friends who dont have knowledge of abrahamic faiths even to my basic levels find it so hard to actually fathom that some religions could actually have these kinds of emphasis on God itself. And then when I explain to them in detail their reaction is one of shock and than the evergreen lines
> " You're lying man they can't think like that" or " It's just not possible". Because for us God isn't the center or basis of our life and when we see others being so obsessed with god we actually find it a bit amusing. people are actually fighting over who's god is better. I thought god did not have a caller ID. he wouldn't know that the person calling him was a Hindu/Muslim/Christian etc etc. Wouldn't everyone be the same for god. but I see abrahamic faiths monopolizing god itself.-You get that because you were raised in India (judging by your name.) Hinduism is notoriously tolerant; this is not a bad thing in my book. But we of the west are but inheritors of our religious path, which once Paul came (Disciple of Christ) religion became rather black and white, and therefore very bland in appeal. And there is much less to separate Christianity and Islam than there is either to Judaism... at least in terms of fervor.-It is no lie, the genealogy of Christianity in the west (though Islam is considered "eastern" by nearly all western thinkers) is one predicated purely on faith; God being at the absolute center; and that not even being a good person can save you; you must believe that Christ died for your sins! At least in America... most people believe that if you're a good person you'll "go to heaven." Similarly, if you deny Muhammad's words, you will equally perish in eternal fire; though make this distinction: Eternal hell does not exist in Judaism. Only in Christianity and Islam. To date, I cannot find a logical basis for either Christianity or Islam...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4690 views

dhw, -First I apologize wholeheartedly for any injury! -Lets go to your objection: 
"After the above, you see no need to apologize for man being a brutal creature, Achilles is a fighter, Christ gets himself crucified, the fatal flaw of Judaism and Christianity is the issue of fate v. free will (though none of the Jews and Christians I know would subscribe to that idea)......What's all this got to do with your question and my answer? Jews, Christians and Muslims worship a god whom they deem to be omnipotent. So who says "we" only value weak gods?"-I feel here you're either playing coy or are somehow childish...-Without a doubt, if you study the history of Western Civilization, Christ has been the focal point. Only in the 1800's do we begin to see cracks in the firmament; the first opportunity for another view to take its place firmly in the Pantheon of philosophy; namely that of the modern, sleek, sexy, stylish, materialist perspective. -By and large, most of the "noble" virtues we attribute to people, to be direct--altruism--is the product of Paul and his interpretation of Jesus Christ. Only by analyzing my ancestors do I get a glimpse of the alternate view; but at the risk of being pedantic, I will enumerate, a topic, followed by a valuation for pre and post Christ-paradigm.-Topic: Pre-Christ: Christ:
Free Will non-existent Paramount
Predestination Paramount Non-Existent
War Necessary Restricted
Meekness Weakness Strength
Confrontation To be sought To be avoided-
By no means is this exhaustive, but the picture I'm trying to paint is one of this: all the things we value today are opposite values of those characteristics that demand what we consider to be "strong" leaders; we deny those things (envy, greed) that are necessary to become "great." -If you look at this brief list of what was "noble" pre and post Christianity, you will see, without doubt, a list of virtues on the right that you agree with. (Ask yourself, why?) And on the left, a great many virtues that are no longer in-vogue, but are nonetheless part of the human character and psyche... -To me, even speaking as a non-believer, we clearly have a culture that is based on the values on the right, but how could those values on the right ever have existed without the values on the left? What place do we have for these values? -Some of your response I must directly challenge:-MATT: History would have had some other course had he [Alexander] traveled a more peaceful path [...] Had Greek culture not been spread as a consequence of Alexander's conquest, there is no way that a man called Christ would have even been born [sensational new genealogy for Christ]; and it is Christ that brought the civilizing influence into Europe. [The Greeks and especially the Romans would have been surprised to hear this, but still...][...] I am unapologetic for the crimes of my fathers, grandfathers, going back to my great ancestors. [...] Guilt from the past is something we should have been long free from!-Had Alexander not conquered the known world; The Seleucids would never have imposed a harsh ruling to destroy Jewish culture, resulting in the Maccabean revolt and Judea becoming an ally of Rome. But more importantly, without Alexander's example, the Romans would not have had a paradigm for a conquering hero with which to base their own conquests on. Alexander was the first; we may never have had another "hero" of this kind until Genghis Kahn. -Putting this together, without Rome in Jerusalem, without an apocalyptic literature; there would be no Messiah and thus no Christ. Attack me if you dare here, but even large swaths of the Old Testament are dedicated to Alexander and his conquests. The long-term implications of this are obvious---And how we ended up where we are today is hardly irrelevant!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4603 views

Matt asked me two questions: 
1)Why do we only value our weak gods? My response was that the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is omnipotent, which I do not regard as being a sign of weakness.
2)Which is more noble out of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ ... and why? I answered Jesus Christ, because I consider his attempts to create a more humane world to be more noble than Alexander's ambition to conquer the world. I also defined "noble" as a concept that entailed high moral standards.-You think I'm "playing coy" or am "somehow childish". I don't know why a direct answer to your questions constitutes coyness or childishness, but I'm happy to discuss the questions you are now raising. However, first I must protest (very mildly and amicably) at the fact that you expect me to read your mind when you ask such questions. Your first one now emerges as an attack on what you consider to be Christ's "weak" teachings, and has nothing to do with "our weak gods". (Was Christ even a god?) Your second requires a discussion on the meaning of "noble" and "great", in which case the question was pointless without definitions. I gave you mine, but you didn't give me yours until now.-So let's look at your understanding of the three key terms in your questions: weak, noble, and great: "all the things we value today are opposite values of those characteristics that demand what we consider to be "strong" leaders; we deny those things (envy, greed) that are necessary to become "great"."-If you truly believe that greatness and nobility consist in personal ambition, envy, greed, disregard for the lives and wellbeing of other humans, plus (according to one website about Alexander) paranoia, megalomania, belief in his own divinity, and a penchant for murdering his friends, I can't argue with you. I would, however, like to ask if you consider Hitler - a "strong leader" who shared many of the above attributes - to have been a great and noble "hero", and if not, why not? I myself would measure greatness and nobility by the contribution people make to the sum total of human happiness. That may sound weak to you, but I do not regard altruism, empathy, generosity, charity, considerateness, respect for human life and happiness as marks of weakness. Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious. As regards your list, free will and predestination don't enter my definition of "virtue"; I think war should be restricted to self-defence and is not justified by personal or national ambition; "meekness" needs defining, but I'm all for a balance between self-confidence and humility; I think confrontation should be avoided except as a last resort (e.g. self-defence). The fact that ambition, greed, envy etc. are "part of the human character and psyche" does not, in my view, make them great or noble. Lust is also integral to our character and psyche, but I do not regard rape as a great or noble action. -The remainder of your post once again emphasizes the influence Alexander had on the world's history, which I have not denied, any more than I would deny the influence of other strong leaders, some of whom I listed in my earlier post. And although "how we ended up where we are today" is relevant as far as influence goes, we will never know how we would have ended up without Alexander, and so a) there is no point in speculating, and b) it does not make one iota of difference to my idea of what constitutes weakness/strength, nobility and greatness.

4664 views

Dhw, your high words deserve justice on my part. -> Matt asked me two questions: 
> 1)Why do we only value our weak gods? My response was that the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is omnipotent, which I do not regard as being a sign of weakness.
> 2)Which is more noble out of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ ... and why? I answered Jesus Christ, because I consider his attempts to create a more humane world to be more noble than Alexander's ambition to conquer the world. I also defined "noble" as a concept that entailed high moral standards.
> -What is 'high' standards? To what do you owe these standards? Those you agree with?-> You think I'm "playing coy" or am "somehow childish". I don't know why a direct answer to your questions constitutes coyness or childishness, but I'm happy to discuss the questions you are now raising. However, first I must protest (very mildly and amicably) at the fact that you expect me to read your mind when you ask such questions. Your first one now emerges as an attack on what you consider to be Christ's "weak" teachings, and has nothing to do with "our weak gods". (Was Christ even a god?) Your second requires a discussion on the meaning of "noble" and "great", in which case the question was pointless without definitions. I gave you mine, but you didn't give me yours until now.
>
The question of whether christ was a god is a red herring between us. As defined by christians--wose world we have inherited--christ is god. And my recent rereading of the bible has reiterated that indeed--our culture here in the u.s. is decidedly christian.
 
> So let's look at your understanding of the three key terms in your questions: weak, noble, and great: "all the things we value today are opposite values of those characteristics that demand what we consider to be "strong" leaders; we deny those things (envy, greed) that are necessary to become "great"."
> 
> If you truly believe that greatness and nobility consist in personal ambition, envy, greed, disregard for the lives and wellbeing of other humans, plus (according to one website about Alexander) paranoia, megalomania, belief in his own divinity, and a penchant for murdering his friends, I can't argue with you. I would, however, like to ask if you consider Hitler - a "strong leader" who shared many of the above attributes - to have been a great and noble "hero", and if not, why not? I myself would measure greatness and nobility by the contribution people make to the sum total of human happiness. That may sound weak to you, but I do not regard altruism, empathy, generosity, charity, considerateness, respect for human life and happiness as marks of weakness. Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious. As regards your list, free will and predestination don't enter my definition of "virtue"; I think war should be restricted to self-defence and is not justified by personal or national ambition; "meekness" needs defining, but I'm all for a balance between self-confidence and humility; I think confrontation should be avoided except as a last resort (e.g. self-defence). The fact that ambition, greed, envy etc. are "part of the human character and psyche" does not, in my view, make them great or noble. Lust is also integral to our character and psyche, but I do not regard rape as a great or noble action. 
>-War. My great break with Bhudda. War, if engaged when you feel you are about to be attacked, is mandatory. End of story. Each nation is entitled to its defense.
 
You seem to equate lust with rape. Why?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4616 views

MATT: Dhw, your high words deserve justice on my part.
Alas, they do not get it. -MATT: Why do we only value our weak gods?
dhw: The god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is omnipotent, which I do not regard as a sign of weakness.
You then attacked the "meekness" of Christianity, and I complained that this had nothing to do with your question or my answer. Instead of responding to my complaint, you have focused on a mere parenthesis: (Was Christ even a God?) But this won't lead us anywhere, so let's drop it.-MATT: Which is more noble out of Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ ... and why?
I answered Jesus Christ, as I thought his attempts to create a more humane world more noble than Alexander's ambition to conquer the world, and I defined "noble" as a concept that entailed high moral standards.-MATT: What is 'high' standards? To what do you owe these standards? Those you agree with?
That is a fair question, and both of us on a different thread have agreed that there are no objective standards. The most we can hope for is a consensus in each particular society. I took the trouble, though, to give you a list which you have quoted and then ignored, and I asked you a leading question, which you have also ignored. I have no choice but to repeat the arguments:-"If you truly believe that greatness and nobility consist in personal ambition, envy, greed, disregard for the lives and wellbeing of other humans, plus (according to one website about Alexander) paranoia, megalomania, belief in his own divinity, and a penchant for murdering his friends, I can't argue with you."-"I do not regard altruism, empathy, generosity, charity, considerateness, respect for human life and happiness as marks of weakness."-The direct question which I asked you was whether you consider Hitler ... a "strong leader" who shared many of Alexander's attributes ... to have been a great and noble hero, and if not, why not?-MATT: War. My great break with Buddha. War, if engaged when you feel you are about to be attacked, is mandatory. End of story. Each nation is entitled to its defense.-This was your response to my statements: "I think war should be restricted to self-defence, and is not justified by personal or national ambition." And: "I think confrontation should be avoided except as a last resort (e.g. self-defence)." My statements and your own provide no justification for wars of aggression (viz. Alexander and Hitler).-In your advocacy of what you consider to be the virtues of greed and envy, you pointed out that they are "part of the human character and psyche". I argued that in my view that did not make them great or noble (your terms), and went on: "Lust is also integral to our character and psyche, but I do not regard rape as a great or noble action."-MATT (in response): You seem to equate lust with rape. Why?
Perhaps you are under pressure and are only able to skim these admittedly rather lengthy posts, as I can't believe you're unable to connect my statements, but I must obviously spell the meaning out to you:-If your neighbour steals your most prized possessions (greed), burns down your beautiful house (envy) and rapes your wife (lust), will you defend him by saying that greed, envy and lust are "part of the human character and psyche" and his actions are therefore great and noble?

4633 views

The direct question which I asked you was whether you consider Hitler ... a "strong leader" who shared many of Alexander's attributes ... to have been a great and noble hero, and if not, why not?
> -A loaded question. This depends. Had I been born a German in 1920, I most certainly would answer "affirmative." However you ask someone whose culture's dominance is predicated on the destruction of the man called Hitler. In the life I live right now, no; Hitler was not a hero. But comparing Hitler to Alexander is an exercise in calling Apples oranges! The only similarity between them is subjugation. Alexander certainly didn't engage on a death mill to the extent of Hitler; he limited himself to the carnage permissible in his day. -> MATT: War. My great break with Buddha. War, if engaged when you feel you are about to be attacked, is mandatory. End of story. Each nation is entitled to its defense.
> 
> This was your response to my statements: "I think war should be restricted to self-defence, and is not justified by personal or national ambition." And: "I think confrontation should be avoided except as a last resort (e.g. self-defence)." My statements and your own provide no justification for wars of aggression (viz. Alexander and Hitler).-> 
> MATT (in response): You seem to equate lust with rape. Why?
> Perhaps you are under pressure and are only able to skim these admittedly rather lengthy posts, as I can't believe you're unable to connect my statements, but I must obviously spell the meaning out to you:
> 
> If your neighbour steals your most prized possessions (greed), burns down your beautiful house (envy) and rapes your wife (lust), will you defend him by saying that greed, envy and lust are "part of the human character and psyche" and his actions are therefore great and noble?-If I am unable to defend my possessions, my wife, and my house; do I deserve them? I am certainly not entitled to those things that I cannot defend. You ask the question, really, if I think it would be fair to have those things taken from me. My answer is that if I am incapable of maintaining those things--I never had the right to them to begin with, however "bad" this might make me feel. I wouldn't feel it is fair, but if I don't have the power to change things? The human condition to me, must entertain some level of fatalism to endure. -However far we wish to will ourselves--we are still subject to nature and its inevitable lust to power. I'm certainly not capable of conquest, yet if my city were invaded and I couldn't defend what was mine, I recognize that my lack of strength is my fault.-In American society, there is some debate over "preemptive war." I personally, fully adhere to the doctrine. If you think you are going to be attacked, you should respond. No debate. Kill before you are killed yourself. No man of any language can claim ignorance to this basic law of nature.-[EDIT]-One more thing to add: Wars for conquest are of no issue to me, if one can reasonably believe that the opponent intends harm to you in a similar fashion.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4581 views

dhw: If x + 1 = 3, x = 2. 
MATT: No, because y = 25.-I hate to say it, but that is the way this discussion has been going ever since you started it with your two provocative questions about weak gods and the great and noble Alexander versus the weak Jesus. This led to the question of moral standards and what you mean by "great" and "noble" and "weak". (I have explained that I do not consider personal ambition, greed, envy, disregard for human life etc. to be great and noble, and I do not consider altruism, charity, respect for life etc. to be weak.)-dhw: If your neighbour steals your most prized possessions (greed), burns down your beautiful house (envy) and rapes your wife (lust), will you defend him by saying that greed, envy and lust are "part of the human character and psyche" and his actions are therefore great and noble?-MATT: If I am unable to defend my possessions, my wife, and my house; do I deserve them? I am certainly not entitled to those things that I cannot defend. You ask the question, really, if I think it would be fair to have those things taken from me. My answer is that if I am incapable of maintaining those things--I never had the right to them to begin with, however "bad" this might make me feel. I wouldn't feel it is fair, but if I don't have the power to change things? The human condition to me, must entertain some level of fatalism to endure.-Did I ask about defending possessions, fairness, fatalism? Well, let's try again. I'll remove your neighbour and substitute the soldiers of an invading army led by a "strong leader" like Alexander. As you wave goodbye to possessions and house, will you comfort your wife by telling her that greed, envy and lust are "part of the human character and psyche", and theft, arson and rape are therefore "great" and "noble" deeds?-I pointed out the similarities between Alexander and Hitler, and asked whether you also considered Hitler to be a great and noble hero, and if not, why not?-MATT: A loaded question. This depends. Had I been born a German in 1920, I most certainly would answer "affirmative." However you ask someone whose culture's dominance is predicated on the destruction of the man called Hitler. In the life I live right now, no; Hitler was not a hero. But comparing Hitler to Alexander is an exercise in calling Apples oranges! The only similarity between them is subjugation. Alexander certainly didn't engage on a death mill to the extent of Hitler; he limited himself to the carnage permissible in his day.-Good for Alex. His personal ambition, disregard for human life and happiness, megalomania, greed etc. (not similar to Hitler?) made him a great and noble hero because he wasn't able to slaughter people on the same scale as Hitler.
 
The remainder of your post is devoted to war, but you are discussing this with poor old long-suffering, peace-loving but not pacifist dhw, and not with Buddha. I have already stated that I believe in self-defence, not aggression. If you miss the target again, I shall ask your wife to breathalyse you.

4643 views

time out guys.

4604 views

time out guys.-Trust me, dhw and I are chill cats... he's right, my school performance is keeping me preoccupied, and he's keeping me honest by paying more attention than I am.-And letting me know it.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4642 views

I've recently been reading a translation of the Illiad; and what a profound difference it is, contrasting with the morality of the New Testament... A man loves his enemy as his equal... there is no call to God to destroy one's adversaries... in fact, the Gods often interject where it is unnecessary!
> -You mean it(the Illiad) is different than the 'turn the other cheek' and 'love thy neighbor as thy self' philosophy of the NT? -> It was once possible for a man to strive for Olympus! In fact, Alexander the Great was just such a man, driven by love of his mother to be the son of Zeus. Contrast this son of God; to Heracles; and then to Christ. Which is more noble--and why? (This is a deep question I pose to you... I find satisfaction in all!)
> -It still is possible for a man to strive for Olympus, it is simply that no one can really be bothered to anymore. You can not lay the blame for an individual's weakness at the feet of someone/thing and claim to respect the philosophy of the Illiad in the same breath. It is contradictory. -In my opinion, though they all are noble in various ways, I think I find the story of Christ to be the noblest. Alexander was convinced that he was something he was not and led his armies to conquer the known world. While I recognize that as a grand accomplishment, and(strangely) a necessary evil that(possibly)lead to a better era for mankind, I believe that his motivations were selfish aggrandizement, power, and riches and that lessens him in my eyes. Heracles had phenomenal strength, and was able to perform fantastic feats. He also murdered his tutor, succumbed to madness and killed his children, impregnated countless women, and had countless more male lovers, all of which speaks to me of a lack of self control. In Christ however, I see a teacher, a faithful friend, who is not immune to rage when something he holds dear is abused (the temple scene where he thrashes the money lenders), generous but not stupid about it, not obsessed with wealth, power, and loose living. One area I disagree with you though is that his sacrifice represented weakness. I think it showed a great depth of personal courage.- 
> 
> But the genealogy is this: When God was clearly representative of psychological states... how does God become an explanation for the universe? When we go back to Genesis, only 2 of 50 chapters is devoted to creation; clearly, this was NOT the overarching goal of the book. God was NOT the center of the world in THAT way. God was something deeper... more... delicatesse!-In the Greek Mythos, before Zeus there were the 12 Titans that were responsible for the creation of everything. In the Bible, there was YHWH, his first two creations Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the next set of creations, angels, all of which participated in creation. So mythos wise there is little difference. Genesis's most important verse could be: Gen 3:15 - ''And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.' Seeing as how this book sets the overarching major theme for the entire bible which, as most good books do, reaches its grand climax and resolution in the last chapter of the book, Revelations. The creation process is almost incidental to the overall story, which is why it was given so little attention. Like most things, we tend to obsess on the incidental bits and ignore the big friggin' signs that say this bit is important. (For example We have been obsessing over Christ's birth since the church was formed, yet the bible never gives his birth date, year, sign, or any other indication that it was supposed to be a 'special' event worth spending your annual income on gifts over :P)-> 
> I leave you with this question: Why do we only value our weak gods?-We don't only value weak gods. We have just learned that strength is not measured by the fleshy mass of a mans arm, nor by the keen edges of his sword and spear, but by force of his character and resolve, and the strength of his love. Heracles wasn't strong because of his muscles, and Jesus wasn't weak because of his lack of them. If that were the case, why did Heracles have to keep falling back on his wits to save him?

4627 views

I've recently been reading a translation of the Illiad; and what a profound difference it is, contrasting with the morality of the New Testament... A man loves his enemy as his equal... there is no call to God to destroy one's adversaries... in fact, the Gods often interject where it is unnecessary!
> > 
> 
> You mean it(the Illiad) is different than the 'turn the other cheek' and 'love thy neighbor as thy self' philosophy of the NT? 
> -...I'm not aware of another version!!! Truly, no account of Gods is as breathtaking or energetic!!!-> > It was once possible for a man to strive for Olympus! In fact, Alexander the Great was just such a man, driven by love of his mother to be the son of Zeus. Contrast this son of God; to Heracles; and then to Christ. Which is more noble--and why? (This is a deep question I pose to you... I find satisfaction in all!)
> > 
> 
> It still is possible for a man to strive for Olympus, it is simply that no one can really be bothered to anymore. You can not lay the blame for an individual's weakness at the feet of someone/thing and claim to respect the philosophy of the Illiad in the same breath. It is contradictory. 
> -Our society admires meekness first; strength second. Outside of business, I fail to see where my statement fails to hold!-> In my opinion, though they all are noble in various ways, I think I find the story of Christ to be the noblest. Alexander was convinced that he was something he was not and led his armies to conquer the known world. While I recognize that as a grand accomplishment, and(strangely) a necessary evil that(possibly)lead to a better era for mankind, I believe that his motivations were selfish aggrandizement, power, and riches and that lessens him in my eyes. Heracles had phenomenal strength, and was able to perform fantastic feats. He also murdered his tutor, succumbed to madness and killed his children, impregnated countless women, and had countless more male lovers, all of which speaks to me of a lack of self control. In Christ however, I see a teacher, a faithful friend, who is not immune to rage when something he holds dear is abused (the temple scene where he thrashes the money lenders), generous but not stupid about it, not obsessed with wealth, power, and loose living. One area I disagree with you though is that his sacrifice represented weakness. I think it showed a great depth of personal courage.
> -It did, but our society seems entrenched in a cycle of "democracy of thought" to the point where suggesting that one child is superior to another is anathema... truly, some children are destined for greatness, while others will rot in history. -> 
> > 
> > But the genealogy is this: When God was clearly representative of psychological states... how does God become an explanation for the universe? When we go back to Genesis, only 2 of 50 chapters is devoted to creation; clearly, this was NOT the overarching goal of the book. God was NOT the center of the world in THAT way. God was something deeper... more... delicatesse!
> 
>.... The creation process is almost incidental to the overall story, which is why it was given so little attention. Like most things, we tend to obsess on the incidental bits and ignore the big friggin' signs that say this bit is important. (For example We have been obsessing over Christ's birth since the church was formed, yet the bible never gives his birth date, year, sign, or any other indication that it was supposed to be a 'special' event worth spending your annual income on gifts over :P)
> -A good piece of writing--not sure how it answers my question, but I acknowledge what you say with nods! The only exception I have here is this: The Bible does NOT exist as a single, contiguous work with a true beginning and end; each book is itself sacrosanct, and there is no overarching narrative that binds each chapter. In fact, I find no mention of Christ in Genesis, in either my NRSV or Jewish Bible study editions; you must admit here, the hand of Paul in his reinterpretation of Jewish history to suit his own ends... Early Christians notoriously Cherry-picked lesser prophets for proof of Christ. -> > 
> > I leave you with this question: Why do we only value our weak gods?
> 
> We don't only value weak gods. We have just learned that strength is not measured by the fleshy mass of a mans arm, nor by the keen edges of his sword and spear, but by force of his character and resolve, and the strength of his love. Heracles wasn't strong because of his muscles, and Jesus wasn't weak because of his lack of them. If that were the case, why did Heracles have to keep falling back on his wits to save him?-You move to the morals rather than the intent; clever from a holistic view, but I'm more concerned with intent!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4624 views

It still is possible for a man to strive for Olympus, it is simply that no one can really be bothered to anymore. You can not lay the blame for an individual's weakness at the feet of someone/thing and claim to respect the philosophy of the Illiad in the same breath. It is contradictory. 
> > 
> 
> Our society admires meekness first; strength second. Outside of business, I fail to see where my statement fails to hold!
> -I think there is a lot of room for it in our society. Great Scientist, great soldiers, but on a smaller level, even the man that simply goes to work every day, and doesn't cave in to the various pressures of society but holds his own moral code achieves an unsung greatness. The fatal flaw in your logic is that you seem to mingle 'strength and greatness of a character' with 'notoriety, popularity, and influence'. These have little to do with each other. In fact, many of the most prominent historical figures never achieved a lot of notoriety in their own time. Particularly those working in more obscure fields such as science, art, mathematics, medicine, etc. I would dare say that Buddha was not as tremendously famous in his own lifetime as he is now. And there is no denying the influence that he has had on civilization around the globe. What about the man who invented steel? Know one even knows his name, but think of what a profound impact he has had on human development. (We do know that it was invented in India and written about in the Vedas. Allegedly, a steel sword was presented to Alexander when he invaded.)-> 
> It did, but our society seems entrenched in a cycle of "democracy of thought" to the point where suggesting that one child is superior to another is anathema... truly, some children are destined for greatness, while others will rot in history. 
> -
Our society is afraid of inequality, and afraid to admit their own ineptitudes. This is not anything knew, nor is it anything unusual. People have historically always been this way, the have not's are jealous and envious of the Have's and the haves are contemptuous of the Have-not's. (applies equally to money, fame, intelligence, strength etc.) Think of the geek who wishes he was built like a jock to impress women, or the jock who wishes he was smarter when he is failing his classes, the ugly girl who wishes she was pretty, or the pretty girl that wishes she were something else entirely. It is a classic case of the grass is always greener. So, we try to force everyone into the same mold. It is a travesty, I agree, but that is the price of a democratic society. Where everyone is equal, no one is special. But this idea, this fear is not representative of reality. Some people will excel regardless of society, and some will fail no matter how many helping hands they receive.- 
> A good piece of writing--not sure how it answers my question, but I acknowledge what you say with nods! The only exception I have here is this: The Bible does NOT exist as a single, contiguous work with a true beginning and end; each book is itself sacrosanct, and there is no overarching narrative that binds each chapter. In fact, I find no mention of Christ in Genesis, in either my NRSV or Jewish Bible study editions; you must admit here, the hand of Paul in his reinterpretation of Jewish history to suit his own ends... Early Christians notoriously Cherry-picked lesser prophets for proof of Christ. 
> -If you find no common thread throughout the Bible then I would suggest you reread it. Genesis 3:15 specifically is talking about Christ, Son of Man, (Her Seed) and Satan and his demons (Your(His)seed). Satan bruised Christ's 'heel' by his temporary physical death, and Christ will bruise his 'head' by his permanent destruction outlined in revelation. That is the ultimate overall narrative of the Bible. Everything else is a setup for those events. The forming of the nation of Israel from which Christ was supposed to descend from, to his ministry, to his death and resurrection, to Armageddon(sp?). -> > > 
> > > I leave you with this question: Why do we only value our weak gods?
> > 
> > We don't only value weak gods. We have just learned that strength is not measured by the fleshy mass of a mans arm, nor by the keen edges of his sword and spear, but by force of his character and resolve, and the strength of his love. Heracles wasn't strong because of his muscles, and Jesus wasn't weak because of his lack of them. If that were the case, why did Heracles have to keep falling back on his wits to save him?
> 
> You move to the morals rather than the intent; clever from a holistic view, but I'm more concerned with intent!-Character and resolve are not moral grounds, neither are wits, though I can see where you might think a love of your fellow man might be. Intent is nothing. I have intended to do so many things with my life that I have not accomplished that if I am not allowed to die before they are completed I will be immortal. Resolve in the will to make intent into reality regardless of the obstacles, and Character is what shapes our intent, while our compassion for our fellow man keeps it from being self-serving.

4577 views


> If you find no common thread throughout the Bible then I would suggest you reread it. Genesis 3:15 specifically is talking about Christ, Son of Man, (Her Seed) and Satan and his demons (Your(His)seed). Satan bruised Christ's 'heel' by his temporary physical death, and Christ will bruise his 'head' by his permanent destruction outlined in revelation. That is the ultimate overall narrative of the Bible. Everything else is a setup for those events. The forming of the nation of Israel from which Christ was supposed to descend from, to his ministry, to his death and resurrection, to Armageddon(sp?). -Sorry to break in but Genesis 3:15 in the Masoretic text is discussing Eve's relationship with the serpent. Is the KJ version so different that Satan and Christ can be extracted from it?

4652 views


> > If you find no common thread throughout the Bible then I would suggest you reread it. Genesis 3:15 specifically is talking about Christ, Son of Man, (Her Seed) and Satan and his demons (Your(His)seed). Satan bruised Christ's 'heel' by his temporary physical death, and Christ will bruise his 'head' by his permanent destruction outlined in revelation. That is the ultimate overall narrative of the Bible. Everything else is a setup for those events. The forming of the nation of Israel from which Christ was supposed to descend from, to his ministry, to his death and resurrection, to Armageddon(sp?). 
> 
> Sorry to break in but Genesis 3:15 in the Masoretic text is discussing Eve's relationship with the serpent. Is the KJ version so different that Satan and Christ can be extracted from it?-We can follow it up in another thread later, but in the context of Eve and the serpent, it would make no sense what-so-ever. I will put emnity between Eve's children and a snakes children? I suppose that could mean a fear of snakes, though I seriously doubt it as it does not make any sense in context of either Genesis or the Bible when taken as a whole. -
>(3) Rev 12:9 (establishes the identity of the serpent beyond question)-Of course if you only want to accept the OT, or the Torah, or the Pentateuch then none of this will make any sense as Christ was only alluded to prophetically in the OT and not named directly. So before we get into that discussion again, please define the argument by stating whether we will use the Bible as a whole, the OT, the Pentateuch, or what.

4650 views


> > > If you find no common thread throughout the Bible then I would suggest you reread it. Genesis 3:15 specifically is talking about Christ, Son of Man, (Her Seed) and Satan and his demons (Your(His)seed). Satan bruised Christ's 'heel' by his temporary physical death, and Christ will bruise his 'head' by his permanent destruction outlined in revelation. That is the ultimate overall narrative of the Bible. Everything else is a setup for those events. The forming of the nation of Israel from which Christ was supposed to descend from, to his ministry, to his death and resurrection, to Armageddon(sp?). 
> > 
> > Sorry to break in but Genesis 3:15 in the Masoretic text is discussing Eve's relationship with the serpent. Is the KJ version so different that Satan and Christ can be extracted from it?
> 
> We can follow it up in another thread later, but in the context of Eve and the serpent, it would make no sense what-so-ever. I will put emnity between Eve's children and a snakes children? I suppose that could mean a fear of snakes, though I seriously doubt it as it does not make any sense in context of either Genesis or the Bible when taken as a whole. 
> 
> 
> >(3) Rev 12:9 (establishes the identity of the serpent beyond question)
> 
> Of course if you only want to accept the OT, or the Torah, or the Pentateuch then none of this will make any sense as Christ was only alluded to prophetically in the OT and not named directly. So before we get into that discussion again, please define the argument by stating whether we will use the Bible as a whole, the OT, the Pentateuch, or what.-Balance, -You won't find a single (practicing) Jew who will agree that the Messiah was prophecied at all in Genesis. In fact, according to modern scholarship, it has been discovered that Genesis, as we know it now, is the product of at least 4 source documents that were combined into the form we recognize today; you might argue with this, but I will give the last word about the Pentateuch to Jewish scholars any day of the week. -Christ was reinterpreted backwards to Genesis. If you don't believe me, pick up your Oxford NRSV 4th edition. Scholars do not agree with you here.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4620 views


> > If you find no common thread throughout the Bible then I would suggest you reread it. Genesis 3:15 specifically is talking about Christ, Son of Man, (Her Seed) and Satan and his demons (Your(His)seed). Satan bruised Christ's 'heel' by his temporary physical death, and Christ will bruise his 'head' by his permanent destruction outlined in revelation. That is the ultimate overall narrative of the Bible. Everything else is a setup for those events. The forming of the nation of Israel from which Christ was supposed to descend from, to his ministry, to his death and resurrection, to Armageddon(sp?). 
> 
> Sorry to break in but Genesis 3:15 in the Masoretic text is discussing Eve's relationship with the serpent. Is the KJ version so different that Satan and Christ can be extracted from it?-In fact, in the ancient near-east, Serpents were not evil--they were symbols of wisdom, hence how the Staff of Moses was a Serpent. Christian re-interpretation of Judaism is how we got our Devil. -Hell, Satan as the root of all evil, are both fabrications based on Jewish mystical theology. -Especially the Apostle Paul; the early Christian church was hell-bent on differentiating and removing themselves from the Jewish people and theology in order to separate themselves after the failed Jewish Revolt against Rome. Reinterpretation is what we inherited from the Church. They adapted the Zoroastrian Ahriman as Satan, and tried to interpret the entire OT as the ultimate culmination ending in Christ. -One needs only read ancient Jewish commentary (such as the Zohar) to realize exactly how different Paul's (and hence our own) interpretation really was.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4674 views

Speaking of the staff of Moses, does anyone have any inkling about the mystical, mythical(?) Merlin and whether he was an actual person in history or had another identity or name in other countries, old text, etc?-I watched Ancient Aliens the other evening, it's one of my favorite shows, and Merlin was mentioned as one of the ancient ones that used a staff (or wand) to move huge stones for miles. Some laid this technology at the feet of sound waves. -You can read more about this particular program here and specifically about Merlin under the heading 'Magic': http://www.history.com/topics/how-was-stonehenge-built-bb

4642 views

The last time I'd heard anything about Merlin, was that he was a separate druidic legend that was woven into Arthur's tale... Arthur himself being linked back to a Roman soldier during Emperor Hadrian's rule.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4620 views

Hope this helps some. However, bear in mind that the man and the legend are two different things. The fact that he is listed as a bard here does hint at perhaps some time spent in Druidic training, as that was one of the titles many of them took. -The legend of Merlin though, is absolutely steeped in Gnostic meaning, as are nearly all of the surviving ancient myths.

6951 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum