BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Christianity - the end point of Paganism?

  
  

Page: 1(2)3456

 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
15:47 / 04.04.08
Mordant: You're valuable contributor to the Temple, but honestly, you getting this upset at Rev. Orr is confusing me, along with the "this is why I started avoiding the Temple" comment. Sarcasm and snarkiness made you start avoiding the Temple? I find that hard to believe. I've seen you make nearly identical posts (sarcastic and dismissive when the situation certainly did not call for it) here and in other forums, so let's all just relax a bit.

Rev. Orr: The idea of "Nag Hammadi being Christianity's path not taken" is not invalidated by the fact that some of the documents found at Nag Hammadi predate Christ. I think Pagels has a valid point in her comment.

Also, if you think what little that was said about the Q document was "erroneous", by all means please enlighten us.
 
 
grant
15:51 / 04.04.08
(Jewel and Joan Osborne I'll live with. Sigh. Poor Joan.)
 
 
Digital Hermes
15:58 / 04.04.08
In the divinity cage match, electric monk for the win!

I think it might be interesting to hijack this thread from a True Believer / Heathen debate, and instead look at Christianity and Polytheism's similarities and similar directions they might travel in.

If neither of them are an end-point, what kind of future mysticism can we speculate? The Web is already a tool of communication between mostly like-minded practioners; what else might it do to modern magickal workings? Is there a syncrenistic path that may develop in the future? Or is it a bar-room brawl between faiths?
 
 
grim reader
16:38 / 04.04.08
Thanks to all who are engaging in the discussion and arguing the point, not the person.

DigiHermes, if thats the direction you want to take the conversation in I would find it most interesting, as long as we are also able to discuss the differences between Christianity and polytheism (which seems to be what has upset folk here).

Why call it hijacking, tho? Aren't you opening yourself up to accusations of threadrot? Nevertheless, I haven't a problem with taking the discussion in that direction.

To answer your question: is it a bar-room brawl between faiths?, I would rather it was a reasoned discussion.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
16:48 / 04.04.08
Sarcasm and snarkiness made you start avoiding the Temple? I find that hard to believe.

No, blanket accusations of newbie-bashing and of having pretensions to enlightenment offered in lieu of engagement with the topic at hand make me want to avoid the Temple. Here's an action replay:

Great, that sure told the newbie.

Obviously we all have proper arguments ready for when our precious enlightenment might be challenged by someone on our level. Right, chaps?

There were lots of (IMO) fairly cogent arguments in the thread as to why the article, the original post, and some subsequent comments by the original poster were found problematic by other posters. Seeing all that dismissed as "you're all just bashing the new guy, you're setting yourselves up as enlightened masters" (instead of picking up and addressing the points that have subsequently been identified as problematic, eg. Ev's post), with all the other posters and their varied trads and veiwpoints lumped into a single homogenous mass, got under my skin. It's a very familiar pattern and a tiresome one.
 
 
penitentvandal
17:08 / 04.04.08
Well, Catholicism is arguably polytheistic Judaism, isn't it? The one God of the Torah becomes a Trinity of three (which in itself is a kind of odd, Hermetic, non-Aristotelian idea), then you very quickly get Mary, the angels, the cults of the Saints - medieval folk religion was in theory Christian but, AFAIK, in practice a much more complex proposition involving spirits of place, pagan survivals, the use of invocations to pagan deities in medicine and art etc.

Basically my model isn't that Christianity is the 'end-point', I think any monotheism is an attempt to streamline and control the Imagination or the Collective Unconscious or the Astral Plane or whatever, and it invariably comes unstuck because the damn spirits come back and repopulate the place in shiny new forms.
 
 
Digital Hermes
17:53 / 04.04.08
We should be golden, Grim, so long as our discussing of the differences doesn't rely on an implied superiority or greater truth held by the participants of the discussion. If you've got to say that you think someone's Jesus is not the same as yours, a sweeping statement of that truth is less constructive then if you position it as what you beleive, as an article of your faith.

I don't think there's going to be any converts here, so let us discuss those differences without feeling like our differences are being perceived as heresy. I for one think there's a lot of value in Christian theology, but no value whatsoever in perceiving it to be the only way to commune with the divine, and it's forces in the world.

Is there a way for you to see our points of view without perceiving them to be in error for lack of Pope-sanction?
 
 
Digital Hermes
17:54 / 04.04.08
Sorry, this line,
an implied superiority or greater truth held by the participants of the discussion.

should read...

an implied superiority or greater truth held by either of the participants, over the other, in the discussion.
 
 
grim reader
19:15 / 04.04.08
Trawling back to some of the points raised on pg 1...

id.entity.thing said...
I find honoring Divine unity in my Jewish practice extremely fulfilling. And I find the practice of honoring Divine plurality in the form of my pagan practice extremely fulfilling.

I'll no doubt get flamed again for saying this, but it is problematic to say one can be a practicing Jew at the same time as worshipping the other gods. This has nothing to do with me knowing 'teh Trufe' better than anyone else, but rather an awareness that OT monotheism rejected polytheism because of the whole jealous God thing. Even if I wasn't a Catholic I would have to point out the apparent contradiction of this position.

The moment you say that God is not this or not that—for instance, that there is nothing of God in a Hindu shrine or in a tree or in pig flesh or in a gay pride parade—you have declared that you can only conceive of a God who is not infinite, a God who is limited by human reason.
Agreed. I've never said God is absent from any of the above, nor have I said God is absent from pagan or polytheistic forms of worship.

I'm not offended by the description of the Gods as imaginary or by Jesus as real; what I find myself stuck on is your acceptance of these terms as opposites.
I'm not sure I did accept them as opposites. I can accept the reality of the imagination. However, there is evidence that Jesus was not merely a being in the imagination but was real in the same way as you or I or my mates down the pub.

I also find myself troubled by the logical loophole you have given yourself here: if any of us have a relationship with Jesus that is different from yours, then we have a case of mistaken identity.
I never said that, and it is unfair to say that I did. What I did was point out the problem with treating Jesus as one deity among many, not least because Jesus and his Jewish culture was monotheistic and expressly non-polytheistic. I do not want to impose my own imperfect idea of who Jesus was onto others, I would prefer to discover who He truly is by looking at the evidence we have about him. GL's treatment of him disregards much of the historical evidence, even if one doesn't swallow the whole 'Jesus is Lord' line.

@ Ev
I'm going to pass on the historicity of the Gospel just now cos that will no doubt develop into a much longer discussion and I can't do it justice with the limited time I have right now. As for the Catholic view of the Trinity, as someone else has pointed out, the Father, Son and Spirit are each God, and together are God. (All very woo and mysterious).

As for why i wrote "God of the Hebrews" rather than "God of the Jews", I am more interested in why you would pick this out as noteworthy?

Ev also says 'Of course, the fact that one thinks something is true does not mean that it is true (or contains truth), and does not even provide any meaningful support for whether it is true.'
I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I can't understand why me mentioning that I think my faith happens to line up with the truth has upset folk so. I'm just another chimp, folks!
 
 
penitentvandal
20:28 / 04.04.08
there is evidence that Jesus was not merely a being in the imagination but was real in the same way as you or I or my mates down the pub.

Define 'Jesus'.

The Jesus who saved your soul may not be the same Jesus as the one who actually existed in first century Palestine or the one who told George Mcgonagall he was the hidden stone who breaks all hearts. Appealing to the historicity of Jesus in a debate on theology doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Also, historical figures do not exist in the same way as us and our mates down the pub. I can punch my mate down the pub; I can snog him; I can throw a peanut at him and tell him it's his effin' round. Whereas, with historical figures, I have to rely on evidence and sources for the knowledge of their existence. This may sound like quibbling but remember, we can uncover evidence which totally overturns our previous historical assumptions. Always bear in mind - a little over a century ago, it was assumed that Troy never existed and iguanadons had four legs.
 
 
EvskiG
21:15 / 04.04.08
perhaps it was the sub-Dan Brown of Ev's 'teh sekrit ending of the Gospel of Mark they didn't want you to see'

"Sub-Dan Brown"?

Seems that there's a pretty comfortable consensus that the original end of the Gospel of Mark was changed.

Let me check Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Yep, original ending at 16:8, other endings added later. But Ehrman's a radical. How about my New Oxford Annotated Bible? Hmm, same thing. How about a fundamentalist apologetic text, Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus? Hey, same thing!

Go figure.

And where did I say or even imply that it was the "sekrit ending of the Gospel of Mark they didn't want you to see"?

Maybe it was the assertion that archaeologists and historians are academics but theologians are not that got my goat

That's quite a misinterpretation.

I merely noted that, in my opinion, archaeologists and historians are better than theologians at determining whether something actually happened as a historical event.

This is actually a misunderstanding of the mystery of the Trinity - there's no essential difference between the persons of the Trinity, therefore it's doctrinally correct to say that the God of the Hebrews (or Jews, or Israelites) was made flesh in Jesus: one in being with the Father, through Whom all things were made is how the Nicene Creed puts it.

Sorry, Grant, but I disagree on this one. While Catholic doctrine concedes that the Trinity makes no logical sense (it's a Mystery) it treats the three parts of the Trinity as unified in some senses and distinct in some senses.

(Here's the header of Section 253 of the Catechism: "The Trinity is One." Here's the header of Section 254: "The divine persons are really distinct from each other." Just for the heck of it, here's the header of Section 255: "The divine persons are relative to each other.")

I believe this is one of the areas where the distinction makes a difference: the part of the Trinity that was incarnated as Jesus is said to be the Son, as per the quote I noted above from the Catechism. The part of the Trinity that is identified with YHVH, the God who created the world in Genesis (albeit with the help of the Word (Jesus) and His Wisdom (the Holy Spirit)), generally is considered to be the Father, as per the Apostle's Creed: "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth."

As noted in Section 254: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."

Yes, they're all one in some manner, but only because doctrine says so. Again, it doesn't actually make logical sense.

Personally, I think literary critic Harold Bloom nailed it in Jesus and Yahweh:

Doubtless one should not ask Trinitarian dogma just who its First Person is, if only because the secret and principal purpose of the Trinity is to justify the displacement of the Father by the Son, the Original Covenant by the Belated Testament, and the Jewish people by the Gentiles. Jesus Christ is a new God on the Greco-Roman model of Zeus-Jove usurping his father, Chronos-Saturn. . . .

The Trinity is a great poem, but a difficult one, and always a challenge to interpretation. Its sublime ambition is to convert polytheism back into monotheism, which is possible only by rendering the Holy Spirit into a vacuum, and by evading the flamboyant personality of Yahweh. If the Trinity truly is monotheistic, then its sole god is Jesus Christ, not Yeshua of Nazareth but his hyperbolic expansion into the usurper of his beloved abba. . . .

God the Father, a mere shade of Yahweh, has the primary function of loving his Son, Jesus Christ, and of loving the world so much that he sacrificed Jesus to save it.
 
 
*
21:46 / 04.04.08
I'll no doubt get flamed again for saying this, but it is problematic to say one can be a practicing Jew at the same time as worshipping the other gods. This has nothing to do with me knowing 'teh Trufe' better than anyone else, but rather an awareness that OT monotheism rejected polytheism because of the whole jealous God thing. Even if I wasn't a Catholic I would have to point out the apparent contradiction of this position.
You might be "flamed" or argued with, but not by me; I've pointed out (I think) where I and some other Jews have doctrinal differences with the "Jealous G-d" interpretation of the commandment "to put no other gods before my face." It's not a mainstream position in Judaism. It is one held by several Rabbis of my immediate acquaintance who are excellent Torah scholars, and disputed by many other Rabbis who are equally good Torah scholars. I'm content to live with my apparent contradictions. The core of Jewish practice is to wrestle with G-d. Sometimes that means that particular rabbinic authorities will disagree with the canonical ones, and both, if they are sincerely grappling with their understanding of the Divine, are at their core Jewish.

Agreed. I've never said God is absent from any of the above, nor have I said God is absent from pagan or polytheistic forms of worship.
Okay.

I'm not sure I did accept them as opposites. I can accept the reality of the imagination. However, there is evidence that Jesus was not merely a being in the imagination but was real in the same way as you or I or my mates down the pub.
I don't have any qualms about presupposing the historicity of Jesus, the person. I don't think it's firmly established by historical evidence (which, to respond to the Rev for a moment, is of a different category than theology; theology does not and should not concern itself with matters of historicity), but I'm willing to postulate that on the balance of probability there was a real person on whom the Gospels were based. I share Ev's concerns about how exactly Jesus the person (whom I have been calling Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef, enjoying the game of re-Hebraicizing his Hellenized, Germanified, and then Anglicized name) can be matched up with the Jesus who is the teacher of the Gospels, let alone with the Jesus the Christ Savior of the World now worshiped in one form or another by millions of Christians, which is somewhat beside the point here. Billions upon billions of people have been real the same way you or I are real, and a handful of them I do honor as ancestors and beloved dead, or teachers and prophets of sainted memory. Certainly they are Divine incarnate; we all are. Why should Yeshua, or Jesus, be unique?

I also find myself troubled by the logical loophole you have given yourself here: if any of us have a relationship with Jesus that is different from yours, then we have a case of mistaken identity.
I never said that, and it is unfair to say that I did.
You said that Whatever Jesus it is you are placing on the same level as these other deities is not the one that walked this earth and who is recorded in the biblical texts, because He would never allow himself be marginalised as just another god among many. I read this as saying that if the Jesus that GL has a relationship with allows himself to be worshiped along with other manifestations of Deity, he is not the "real" Jesus. So I don't think it's unfair to say that you've postulated that if someone has a relationship with Jesus that differs from yours in this particular way, then their relationship is not with the Jesus that you regard as a real historical figure. It may not be what you think you're saying here, but it's the end effect of what you've said.

What I did was point out the problem with treating Jesus as one deity among many, not least because Jesus and his Jewish culture was monotheistic and expressly non-polytheistic.
As I have already pointed out, I have disagreements about the idea that Jewish culture is monotheistic AND expressly non-polytheistic—while Judaism is undoubtedly monotheistic in that it views the Source as One, close study of the stories of Genesis reveals that Judaism's earliest forms regarded that One as manifesting in plurality. Early Israelite emphasis on the monotheistic interpretation of the Divine was, in my view, politically motivated—the priests in that time saw a necessity to protect Israel's identity by ordering all the people to worship only one God in one way. In a modern context, the survival of the Jewish people is not threatened by interpretation of the Divine as both unity and plurality. On the contrary, one of the things I find most beautiful and meaningful about the Judaism I have been brought into contact with is that it can hold both—and according to the particular rabbinic authorities whose words I have taken to heart in this matter, it has been doing so since the dawn of human history.
 
 
Rev. Orr
23:07 / 04.04.08
Tuna Ghost: I think, what I find frustrating about Pagels is not that she is excited by the discoveries at Nag Hammadi, but that she then leaps off in the wrong direction. There are fundamental questions surrounding the mystical or theological landscape which gave birth to Jesus the traveling rabbi, Jesus the cult-leader. There are also, for a Christian, uncomfortable questions like 'how can God's message need clarification if ze is infallible?' or 'how fair is it to reveal Your full truth only part-way through the history You created?' and so on, which require as nuanced an understanding of the reality of the faith Jesus was born into as we can muster. I admit that I view Nag Hammadi through the prism of what survived, through its relation to the fledgling church but it's true value, in my opinion, lies in its illumination of the period immediately before there was an apostolic church. Tracing attitudes to bodily purification and ceremonial, symbolic washing helps us to understand how actions such as John's baptismal mission or Jesus' washing of his companions' feet were perceived by those who witnessed them, for example.

As for Q, well, that response was rather shrill and shouty. Sorry. Basically, what I mean is that I get nervous when Q is put forward as a 'missing document' in the sense that it might be the mcguffin in Indiana Jones IX. It was a useful fiction or postulate analogous to an irrational number - is permits the equation to be solved but can't be counted out in pennies as it were. The latest thinking that I'm aware of is that section 16.8 of the didache (a paraphrasing of Daniel 7.13) predates Mark's use of the same prophecy version in chapter 13 verse 26. As Mark is believed to have been completed before the fall of Jerusalem this places a version of the didache earlier than all four gospels and does away with the necessity for Q. As we still haven't a complete didache this hardly ties everything up with a neat bow but you can see why Q is such a tricky concept right now.

Deep breath.

Ev: "Seems that there's a pretty comfortable consensus that the original end of the Gospel of Mark was changed."
Well, no, again it's not that simple. It is true that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts are both missing verses 9 - 20. They are, indeed very early greek manuscripts of the gospel. However, against that, they are not the earliest copies of the gospel yet found, they end in a grammatical fashion that would be extremely odd if they weren't abridgements (finishing on the conjunction 'gar'), 98% of all Greek copies of the text do continue on after verse 8 and it is the norm to find fragments of larger texts rather than complete documents from this period due to age and the practises of medieval scholars. The inference that verses 9 - 20 were a deliberate forgery to bring them into line with other, later accounts is clearly intended from your post and this is simply not sustained by the facts.

That these verses have fewer instances of matching corroboration is not in question. 'The Bible' as it is conceived of today is a web of varying levels of scholastic support. With the Apocrypha or not, footnotes, alternate readings, almost every copy I have ever come across is at pains to show where there is confusion, plurality or disagreement. To suggest that the end of the gospel was added later in biro and passed off as undisputed is unjustified. To claim that there is no resurrection in the truncated version is down-right dishonest - see verse 7.

If you don't think that "they changed the ending to include a resurrection" is the theory of a fraudulent, knowing deception (or conspiracry - you see what I did there?) then you're not thinking through the ramifications of what you are suggesting.

"Sanders is a theologian, not an archaeologist or historian." - and therefore is incapable of evaluating the likelihood of a historical Jesus.

I don't think that the above addition is an unfair extrapolation of your reasoning in dismissing his opinion. Which postulates the theologian as a profession without the bounds of peer review or academic scrutiny (or those pesky archaeologists, historians, classicists and textural critics would tear unsubstantiated claims apart) and incapable of utilising any analytical tool that could come under the umbrella of another discipline. You can have theologians who are incapable of forming an educated, unbiased judgement on the historicity of events - they're just not very good at their job.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
23:51 / 04.04.08
I admit that I view Nag Hammadi through the prism of what survived, through its relation to the fledgling church but it's true value, in my opinion, lies in its illumination of the period immediately before there was an apostolic church. Tracing attitudes to bodily purification and ceremonial, symbolic washing helps us to understand how actions such as John's baptismal mission or Jesus' washing of his companions' feet were perceived by those who witnessed them, for example.

That's certainly a large part of its value to me personally, but the other gospels found there are, I think, just as interesting. Want to hear something funny? I didn't even know there were gnostic sects before Jesus until a few years ago. I automatically connected "gnostic" to "christian" in my mind. I'm a pretty crappy scholar sometimes.

I don't know if you've had time to check out the "Did Jesus Actually Exist" thread, but there's some discussion on ceremonial washing and John the Baptist in it.

As for Q, well, that response was rather shrill and shouty. Sorry.

No worries, happens to the best of us.

Basically, what I mean is that I get nervous when Q is put forward as a 'missing document' in the sense that it might be the mcguffin in Indiana Jones IX. It was a useful fiction or postulate analogous to an irrational number - it permits the equation to be solved but can't be counted out in pennies as it were... ...As Mark is believed to have been completed before the fall of Jerusalem this places a version of the didache earlier than all four gospels and does away with the necessity for Q. As we still haven't a complete didache this hardly ties everything up with a neat bow but you can see why Q is such a tricky concept right now.

Hmmm. Widipedia talks about a "two-source" theory re: the synoptic gospels, but I haven't read much about it personally. Interesting field to dig through, certainly.
 
 
EvskiG
03:45 / 05.04.08
The inference that verses 9 - 20 were a deliberate forgery to bring them into line with other, later accounts is clearly intended from your post and this is simply not sustained by the facts.

Funny, that wasn't what was intended by my post.

Forgery suggests the changes were intended to deceive, rather than to provide a more satisfying ending to a story that probably wasn't intended as a historical narrative.

To suggest that the end of the gospel was added later in biro and passed off as undisputed is unjustified.

Is that what I suggested?

To claim that there is no resurrection in the truncated version is down-right dishonest - see verse 7.

Let's back it up a bit:

5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

6 But he said to them, 'Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.'

8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

So what's going on here?

Even if you take the text as gospel, so to speak, there is no resurrection in what you call "the truncated version." Rather, there is a young man who SAYS there was a resurrection and that Mary, Mary, and Salome will see Jesus in Galilee. The women flee, the story ends.

Not the same thing, in my opinion.

Unless you think I'm "down-right dishonest" to claim that.

Which seems to be what you're saying.

"Sanders is a theologian, not an archaeologist or historian." - and therefore is incapable of evaluating the likelihood of a historical Jesus.

I don't think that the above addition is an unfair extrapolation of your reasoning in dismissing his opinion.

I do.

Being a theologian doesn't make someone incapable of evaluating the likelihood of a historical Jesus. It does, however, in my opinion, make them less likely to have skills as relevant to the subject as those of an archaeologist or historian.

Which postulates the theologian as a profession without the bounds of peer review or academic scrutiny (or those pesky archaeologists, historians, classicists and textural critics would tear unsubstantiated claims apart) and incapable of utilising any analytical tool that could come under the umbrella of another discipline.

Is that what I'm postulating? And you got all of that from what I posted?

Please judge what I write, not what you think I implied.
 
 
grant
04:28 / 05.04.08
On the Trinity:
Yes, they're all one in some manner, but only because doctrine says so. Again, it doesn't actually make logical sense.

Not a bit of sense, really, which means that not only is it difficult to interpret, but actually impossible by design.

Bloom's pretty much right-on (in one regard) by saying it's a way to sneak polytheism into monotheism and to make that monotheism Jesus-centric. But the dogma also rests on some bits of scripture that seem to be survivals of pre-Judaic polytheism into Judaism - namely, some of the weirdness around "Elohim" (which may or may not have to do with many gods, depending on who you ask), the "angel of the Lord" with whom Jacob wrestles (an instance of the Son, according to Fathers of the Church, since physically incarnated - but also peculiarly God/not-God in the text itself) or the idea of "wisdom" as a spirit that's somehow separate from YHWH while being a pre-existent participant in creation.

In other words, there's evidence of a kind of recurrent cycle of polytheism-into-monotheism-into-polytheism in the scriptures themselves, not only in the stories told within the Tanakh and New Testament, but also in the language used to describe the One True God, who sometimes seems too great to be constrained by a concept as limiting as singularity.

Personally, I think this is part of the reason the Trinity became dogma - as a way of maintaining a true(ish) monotheism in the face of what was seen as humanity's recurrent polytheistic urge.

There's a related mechanism used in the Catholic differentiation between idolatry and veneration of images, which is basically that idolatry means worshipping the image itself as a divine thing, while veneration means that the thing actually being worshipped is the One God who made everything, and the statue is just a representation or focal point. Theologically (or maybe anthropologically), I don't really think that kind of idolatry actually exists anywhere... and I suspect there's something closer to veneration in most flavors of "polytheism" as actually practiced by actual people than dogmatic Catholics would like to believe.
 
 
Dead Megatron
12:01 / 05.04.08
especially in the case of various Afro-Caribbean syncretic religions

Afro-Caribbean-Brazilian, if you please (where is Monkey $hot when we need him?)

While Catholic doctrine concedes that the Trinity makes no logical sense (it's a Mystery) it treats the three parts of the Trinity as unified in some senses and distinct in some senses.

Yeah, kinda like photon sometimes act as waves, and sometimes, as particles? Which would make Christianity the firts quantum religion evahh! (this comment is a joke to ease the tension. Don´t assume I really believe in what I'm saying)
 
 
All Acting Regiment
13:24 / 05.04.08
To throw a different slant on this, how would the thread-starter feel if one said that Islam is the endpoint of Christianity?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
16:04 / 05.04.08
Afro-Caribbean-Brazilian, if you please

Or Afro-Caribbean-Cuban, or Afro-Caribbean-Haitian, or Afro-Caribbean Trinidadian, or Afro-Caribbean-Jamaican...

Hence Afro-Caribbean, not exclusively Afro-Caribbean-Brazilian...
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
16:26 / 05.04.08
I would rather it was a reasoned discussion.

You’ll get a reasoned discussion when you start making reasonable points.

GL's treatment of him disregards much of the historical evidence

As has been pointed out in some detail up-thread, the historical evidence for Christ is something of a muddy field, and the conclusions that you have drawn from this “historical evidence” are totally arbitrary. You are arguing from such shaky ground here that it’s hardly worth addressing it.

You don’t really know very much about my “treatment” of Christ, aside from what I’ve offered. The complex relationship between God, Christ, the Saints, and the polytheism of Lwa and Orisha worship works quite happily from Port-au-Prince to Sau Paulo to Brixton – whether you like it or not. Deal with it.

I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I can't understand why me mentioning that I think my faith happens to line up with the truth has upset folk so.

Perhaps it has something to do with your overbearing and supercilious manner? Or your enthusiasm for invalidating the beliefs and experiences of others? Or possibly your tendency to respond to reasoned criticism with claims that your interlocutors are “whining” or “flaming” you?

I'm just another chimp, folks!

Clearly.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
17:16 / 05.04.08
Can you really not grasp how there might conceivably be a problem with a mode of Christianity which is aggressively exclusionist to others attempting to pursue a relationship with Christ? Do you not reckon a mode of Christianity that actively seeks to invalidate the healthy religious lives of other worshippers of Christ, is actually a bit weird and itself in conflict with the actual *teachings* of Christ? Can you not see how this is really just ugly religious intolerance that you are practising, of the sort that has plagued Christianity for thousands of years, and how attitudes such as the ones you have been expressing here are directly responsible for obfuscating anything of value that the Christian religion has to offer the world?

And no, I'm not flaming you, I'm strongly disagreeing with perspectives that I find particularly objectionable, making a reasonable criticism, and largely having all of my valid points ignored. All I've got from you so far are frantic accusations that I'm being "thin skinned" for having the audacity to make a counter-argument to your unpleasant ideas.
 
 
EvskiG
17:22 / 05.04.08
Might as well hit a bit more on the ending of the Gospel of Mark.

Mark is the earliest of the four canonical Gospels. I suspect it was completed no earlier than 70 CE or so (or contains interpolations) if for no other reason than its references to the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple in Mark 13 and 15:38.

As I noted above, according to many highly reputable scholarly sources it was considered to have orignally ended at 16:8.

Here's a sub-Dan Brown group of wackos on the subject in the Oxford Bible Commentary:

Mark's text as we have it ends at 16:8. Other endings found in some MSS of the gospel are clearly (on stylistic grounds) secondary additions, mostly being compressed conflations of the resurrection appearance stories in the other gospels. Did then Mark intend to end at 16:8? Many have felt that an ending at this point is unsatisfactory and extremely difficult to conceive. Grammatically, 16:8 ends very abruptly and clumsily in Greek (with a conjunction). More important is the question of substance. . . . Many modern scholars . . . have argued that Mark's gospel was not intended to end where it does. It must be that either Mark continued with accounts of resurrection appearances and the ending has been lost (by accident or deliberate suppression), or he was prevented from finishing his work (e.g., by illness, or by being arrested).

Neither of these theories is entirely satisfactory; one would expect a lost ending to be restored, and theories about Mark's personal circumstances are entirely speculative. In any case such theories depend heavily on preconceived ideas about what a gospel narrative, in particular the conclusion to such a narrative, 'must' contain. Without such preconceptions, the onus is probably on the reader to try to make sense of the narrative as it stands and to take seriously the possibility that 16:8 is indeed the intended ending. . . .

The rest of the gospel is to be completed by the reader, but the reader can only complete the story by following as a disciple of Mark's Jesus, and that means going to Galilee, being prepared to follow in the way of discipleship as spelt out by him, i.e. the way of the cross. There, and only there, will Jesus be 'seen' and experienced.

Personally, I think it's the best ending for the Gospel.

What's more, this ending puts Mark squarely in the tradition of apotheosis narratives in which a hero, prophet, or demigod disappears, there's no body, and his companions eventually discover that he's taken his place among the gods. In the Jewish tradition, examples include Elijah and (according to Josephus) Moses. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Hercules, Aristaeus, Aeneas, Romulus, Empedocles, and Apollonius of Tyana, among others.

It also follows the form of ancient fictional romances in which a hero seems to have been killed -- and in some cases even crucified -- is entombed, and eventually is discovered to be alive. For example, Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe, Iamblichus' Babylonian Story, Achilles Tatius' Leucippe and Clitophon, Longus' Daphnis and Chloe, part of Apuleius' The Golden Ass, and quite a few more.

In other words, Mark -- the first of the canonical Gospels and the source (or at least one of the sources) for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke -- seems to have created a story about Jesus with a pretty standard ending for the time, quite possibly borrowed from a variety of other sources.
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:55 / 05.04.08
Or Afro-Caribbean-Cuban, or Afro-Caribbean-Haitian, or Afro-Caribbean Trinidadian, or Afro-Caribbean-Jamaican...

Hence Afro-Caribbean, not exclusively Afro-Caribbean-Brazilian...

Brazil is not in the Caribbean, hence not exclusvively Afro-Caribbean. But wait! Trinidad is not in the Caribbean either, is it? Ok, ok, Afro-Caribbean-Brazilian-Trinidadian(-Miamian?).

But I'm being thread-rotty and nitpicky now. Carry on, people! Is God one? Is God three? Is God many? Is God all? Can anyone borrow me a pin with a head for a theological experiment?
 
 
This Sunday
18:44 / 05.04.08
If you're going to do the pin-test, be careful. Depends on the tune. And whether the angels can dance. And whether they're in the Caribbean. Or came out of the Eastern Hemisphere.

Clearly, monotheism cannot be the end-point of pantheism (or however you want to term it), and Christianity cannot be Lord King Sit-on-Top-of-the-Hill of monotheistic religions or modes in any definitive sense, because (a) lots of people have a hard time working out how Christianity can be a monotheism just by claiming a three-is-one and that those aren't other gods at all, but um, angels! with names and duties and thematic arrangement precisely like pantheisms but not. And, (b) there are still loads of other pantheistic and monotheistic systems being believed and practiced and adhered to all over the world and probably right down the block.

There are some who've taken in aspects of Christianity, just as Christianity has traditionally and perpetually taken in aspects and habits, holidays and saints, from many other religions and cultures... this has not seemed to water down or significantly decimate either side. Conversion by the sword, on the other hand, does significantly decimate, as does legal regulation of religion and practice. Absorption and appropriation have not significantly watered down the prevalence, at least, and it gives the fundies of every branch something to retreat from.
 
 
Ticker
21:21 / 05.04.08
When one of my good friends and I sit down and talk about his Christian faith and my Neopagan faith we adhere to one unspoken rule of etiquette. Simply put we acknowledge the other person is the expert of their experience and divine relationship. We ask questions of each other, compare and contrast experiences and at times we will even debate. Yet always the one rule stands that we do not tell the other person what their experience and relationship is with the Divine.

Coming into this thread and looking at the linked text in the first post I feel that courtesy is not being extended to me. The author and the initial poster of the thread are overlaying their experiences onto mine. It's not out of defensiveness but out of a desire for clarity that I wish to say, no that is not my experience of the Divine. Please do not assume to be an expert on other people's experiences of anything, only your own.

As an expert of your own experience it is most interesting to see how paganism might segue and flow into Christianity. As grant noted for some people it works the opposite way as Christianity flows into paganism.
 
 
grim reader
23:19 / 05.04.08

I said:
I would rather it was a reasoned discussion.

GL said:
You’ll get a reasoned discussion when you start making reasonable points.

Miaow! How gloriously adult.

As has been pointed out in some detail up-thread, the historical evidence for Christ is something of a muddy field, and the conclusions that you have drawn from this “historical evidence” are totally arbitrary. You are arguing from such shaky ground here that it’s hardly worth addressing it.
Sure, the waters are muddied by all sorts of folk. There are still things we can say with certainty, and that is that Jesus was a Jew and a monotheist. If it is hardly worth addressing it, why are you bothering? If it *is* worth addressing, how about dispensing with the cattiness? Your time would be better spent explaining your form of spiritual practice since I clearly don't understand it.

You don’t really know very much about my “treatment” of Christ, aside from what I’ve offered. The complex relationship between God, Christ, the Saints, and the polytheism of Lwa and Orisha worship works quite happily from Port-au-Prince to Sau Paulo to Brixton – whether you like it or not. Deal with it.
I *am* dealing with it. It's you who seems to be upset by all this. I don't mind in the slightest that people worship in the way you describe - Catholic doctrine states Catholicism is not the exclusive pathway to salvation, and a Catholic understanding of most religious practice is that they partake of the natural, instinctive, innate and spontaneous human outreaching to God. There are Roman Catholic Churches, too, in Port-au-Prince, Sau Paulo and Brixton. That means little in itself.

Perhaps it has something to do with your overbearing and supercilious manner? Or your enthusiasm for invalidating the beliefs and experiences of others? Or possibly your tendency to respond to reasoned criticism with claims that your interlocutors are “whining” or “flaming” you?
Overbearing? Maybe. I think that is in the nature of the Church claims that I am arguing for. Supercilious? That means expressive of contempt; "curled his lip in a supercilious smile" according to Dictionary dot com. That is simply untrue, I hold no contempt for you, I just disagree with you on certain points.

And no, I'm not flaming you, I'm strongly disagreeing with perspectives that I find particularly objectionable, making a reasonable criticism, and largely having all of my valid points ignored. All I've got from you so far are frantic accusations that I'm being "thin skinned" for having the audacity to make a counter-argument to your unpleasant ideas.
Clearly you disagree with me, that much is not in doubt. I haven't ignored your valid points, but then not all of your points are valid. Some are clearly emotionally driven and there's little I could say to those arguments. Since you feel ignored, I have spent some time going over some of your earlier points, but I fear you still won't like my responses:

I said earlier that ...the question is whether they [the gods] have any reality outside of our imaginations...
How about answering that question?
I realised I stated the gods were 'essentially imaginary', but if you think that is wrong you can argue against it rather than asserting it is an arrogant position. No deity that I am aware of other than Jesus Christ makes claims to historicity. What evidence is there for other deities existing outside of the imagination? That seems to be the nub here. Sure, Christ's historicity may be doubted, but no other deity seems to be even making the claim!

Your working model of deity is interesting as far as it goes but it is, at the end of the day, man-made.
I made this statement to Gypsy Lantern in an earlier post and, having spent some time thinking on it and considering the objections raised, I regret having made this assumption. It was based on my understanding that a polytheistic system is a system of classification created by the worshipper/practitioner of magic rather than something claimed to be handed down from a deity. I welcome correction, especially in the case of the Orisha tradition which I know little about. My question now, then, is what are the elements of such a working model of deity which are God-made?

GL said...
It is possible to consider deity as the many, and it is possible to consider deity as the One. These are not mutually exclusive positions,
No, you're right, they're not. Not until you introduce into the equation an awkward deity like the great 'I AM' of the Old Testament who claims to be that Oneness of deity, and refuses to be placed within a polytheistic framework next to Zeus, Apollo, Shango, Baron Samedi, or anyone else.

My working model of deity is that the full spectrum of "pagan" Gods are akin to Saints or Archangels in a purely Christian model, and collectively function as emanations of the One God that is all things in the universe.
I can see how the saints or angels are similar to deities on the level of devotional practice, but not in how they are conceived of by the devotee. They are not understood by Christians as 'emanations' of God, but as creations. You may think that is splitting hairs, but it is an important clarification for a faith that takes pains to distinguish the creator from his creation.


Gyspy Lantern directed this to me:
You could have, for instance, started a thread here about what you have personally learned from the teachings of Christ, how you have enacted those teachings in your life, how your faith has helped you come to terms with the mysteries and challenges of being alive as a human being in the 21st century. You could have posted any number of informative and meaningful reflections on Christ and Christianity, but you didn't.
But I'm not Mother Theresa. I'm sorry I'm not a saint, really I am. I beg forgiveness everytime I worship at Mass. I thank you for asking what I have learned from the teachings of Christ. Most important is a strong and clear sense of morality. I've also learnt that I should admit to my sins instead of trying to insist my sins are OK and that 'God affirms me on my OK-ness'. If you feel like sharing any lessons from your faith, please do.

You instead decided to strongly assert that everyone on the planet who has a different understanding of and relationship with the Divine from the one that you adhere to, is a deluded fantasist lost in an escapist spiral of their own imaginings and incapable of perceiving the objective and fundamental *truth* of God, reality and the nature of our existence.
Gypsy, I did not assert that at all. That is a characture of my position, and a bad one at that. You've spat the dummy cos what I asserted was that Jesus Christ is real and can't be placed in a pantheon at your whim, or mine for that matter. Perhaps you are a deluded fantasist lost in an escapist spiral of your own imaginings and incapable of perceiving the objective and fundamental *truth* of God, reality and the nature of our existence, but I never said so. You continue...
A truth that you personally happen to be privy to, by dint of a magic lightning bolt that we are supposed to accept is somehow more valid and authorative than the succession of lightning bolts that may have landed on any number of other contributors to this forum who sustain a meaningful spiritual practice, myself included, and which continue to land on a regular basis.
I clarified subsequent to this post that the lightening bolt metaphor was a way of describing a realisation on an intellectual/rational level, not a claim to have had 't3h MYSITCAL EXPERIENCE TO END ALL MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES!!'. I emphatically do not believe that this is some secret truth that I alone am privy to. However, you tell me that I was probably just a shit magician. It sounds to me like you are the one making claims to be privy to truth that has passed the rest of us (or at least me) by.

I can't see this thread going anywhere more interesting than a tiresome slanging match between a "true believer" and the deluded infidels. I'm tired of that record.
And yet you keep coming back for more. Admit it, you love it. Am I the biggest fish you have to fry right now?

Why do you think that the spiritual traditions of Africa, India, or pre-Christian Europe are "man-made", whereas the spiritual traditions that informed Christianity are "God-made"?
Because, other than Christianity, I have not heard that many other traditions claim to be anything other than man-made. Buddhism, for example, does not make that claim. I've never heard Hinduism claimed as a religion of revelation, nor any of the paganisms that I'm aware of. If I am wrong, I implore you to correct or educate me, not to get personal and snidey.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:36 / 05.04.08
No deity that I am aware of other than Jesus Christ makes claims to historicity.

Well, the Baha'i faith believes that Mohammed was a manifestation of God - and the historical evidence that Mohammed existed is an awful lot better than the historical evidence for Jesus' existence. A number of people have been identified as avatars of Vishnu - Ramakrishna, for example, whose wife Sarada Devi was identified similarly as an avatar of Kali.

So, there are a fair few historical figures who are identified as manifestations of or aspects of the divine, by themselves or by others.
 
 
grim reader
23:40 / 05.04.08
All Acting Regiment said:
To throw a different slant on this, how would the thread-starter feel if one said that Islam is the endpoint of Christianity?

Well, personally, I would throw a wobbly and take offense that my personal truth had been invalidated. >Sniff<
 
 
This Sunday
00:03 / 06.04.08
[T]he great 'I AM' of the Old Testament who claims to be that Oneness of deity.

Which isn't quite it. If it were, then why would you need a Thou shalt have no gods before Me sort of clause? Wouldn't that be No gods but... or just a flat out
I am the only God. That's why it's capped for Me?

Personally, I think he was pitching a fit because Ishtar clearly left him for, well, Tammuz or some stable boy. It's hard on a fella when his pleroma ends and he has to see his wife cavorting about with a young mortal at the very same restaurants they used to frequent.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
00:23 / 06.04.08
No, you're right, they're not. Not until you introduce into the equation an awkward deity like the great 'I AM' of the Old Testament who claims to be that Oneness of deity, and refuses to be placed within a polytheistic framework next to Zeus, Apollo, Shango, Baron Samedi, or anyone else.

Then don't place Yahweh right next to them. A Oneness of deity, even as you've described it, does not invalidate the existence of any of the other deities you've mentioned. I really don't think anyone is attempting to equate a Oneness with one or many of its parts. I think you may be missing this key piece of information.

It was based on my understanding that a polytheistic system is a system of classification created by the worshipper/practitioner of magic rather than something claimed to be handed down from a deity.

I remember hearing something about Hermes Trimegistus...what was it...ah yes, that he wrote several books and handed them down to ordinary folks, including 42 sacred texts that taught Egyptian priests their rituals and spells. Plato's Timeaus speaks of secret halls in temples of Naith that contain historical texts 9,000 years old, handed down by the gods.

At any rate, the idea of deities personally handing down teachings or instructions is far from unique to Abrahamic faiths.

I realised I stated the gods were 'essentially imaginary', but if you think that is wrong you can argue against it rather than asserting it is an arrogant position.

Ah, so everyone except Christians have to defend the existence of their gods? You really don't find anything arrogant about this position?

Sure, Christ's historicity may be doubted, but no other deity seems to be even making the claim!

At least not in the last two thousand years (during which Christianity played a very active role in wiping out indigenous and far older polytheistic beliefs in the western world). I assure you, if you look back through the history of religion, you will find records of deities asserting their existence.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:29 / 06.04.08
I just named some from the last 2000 years, just FYI. But yes, there are certainly also Egyptian and Greek gods who are identified as historical entities.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
01:13 / 06.04.08
Huh! So you did. I forgot all about Ramakrishna.

BTW, what the eff is a "wobbly"? From the context I gather it's some sort of fit, but...I mean...wobbly? Is this some British expression?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
06:57 / 06.04.08
Why do you think that the spiritual traditions of Africa, India, or pre-Christian Europe are "man-made", whereas the spiritual traditions that informed Christianity are "God-made"?

Because, other than Christianity, I have not heard that many other traditions claim to be anything other than man-made. Buddhism, for example, does not make that claim. I've never heard Hinduism claimed as a religion of revelation, nor any of the paganisms that I'm aware of. If I am wrong, I implore you to correct or educate me, not to get personal and snidey.

What a very odd assertion. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a "religion of revelation." Aren't all religions in some sense religions of revalation? In the case of Buddhism (Buddhists, if I'm wrong plz correct), this revelation came from a human who had become enlightened--that is to say, ascended to a different state of being than most humans--and was therefore in a position to reveal sacred wisdom not heretofore possessed. The Orisha were created by the one God of that faith and make Themselves known to the faithful through such mediums as narrative and direct contact (such as possessing Their votaries and thusly communing with the faithful).

Similarly to the diasporic faiths, the Gods of my own tradition reveal Their divine mysteries through stories and poems. Originally this would have been an oral tradition, but now we must work from such texts as have come down to us. A key example would be the Hávamál, the Words of the High One, a long poem narrated by Odin Himself in which advice is given to the listener. They also reveal Their mysteries through visitation, perhaps as incarnate beings (as in the case of Rig/Heimdall) and also via possession and other forms of direct contact. My faith is not "man-made." My beliefs and practices, although mediated via scholars and my own inevitably faulty understanding of Their messages, originate with the Gods and wights. I'm not even sure what a man-made faith would look like--Scientology, perhaps?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:14 / 06.04.08
(TG: wobbly = tantrum.)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:31 / 06.04.08
As to this:

I realised I stated the gods were 'essentially imaginary', but if you think that is wrong you can argue against it rather than asserting it is an arrogant position. No deity that I am aware of other than Jesus Christ makes claims to historicity. What evidence is there for other deities existing outside of the imagination? That seems to be the nub here. Sure, Christ's historicity may be doubted, but no other deity seems to be even making the claim!

I don't know, for not being historical Team Norse seem to turn up in a lot of royal family trees. Everyone and his mum reckons they're descended from Odin... but I digress.

So, what, your claim that other people's Gods are imaginary rests on the (supposedly unique) historicity of Jesus? Even if this were a unique case--and others have already addressed that--the existance of Jesus the historical figure doesn't prove the existance of your Christian God, or that Jesus was His son. You just have this guy wandering around the Mid-East talking about God a lot. I could just as easily point to Shango, once incarnate as the fourth king of the Yoruba, and say that Shango's historicity proves the validity of the diasporic faiths in which He is venerated.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3456

 
  
Add Your Reply