EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

[Eveleivibe]

Of all the deck one would presume Raas is The Joke at best...

EDIT: Joker I meant The Joker. Obviously.

hahahahahahaha

I miss Raasy, tbh.

Evey

 

[Eveleivibe]

Well, the same as before - if religion was involved in any arena it was as a way to mobilise the masses for some goal related to power. Hitler's anti-semitism wasn't about religion as much as racism and bogus race 'science' - invented and grown by us and america to justify our own genocides and imperialism. In this general sense of the worldview of society, science and politics do the same job as religion - it's just the current set of ideas which has to be twisted to sell the aims of power to the masses.

I enjoyed reading this. I tend to agree. And it was quite easy to use propaganda in those days to persuade the masses as there were no multimedia as there is now thus people were more ignorant. It is very interesting how you say that science n politics can have the same persuasion powers as religion, very interesting indeed.

Anyone has anything to add?

Enjoying this

Evey

 

[Shambles]

... it was quite easy to use propaganda in those days to persuade the masses as there were no multimedia as there is now thus people were more ignorant.

Yup. Multimedia certainly prevents the use of propaganda and thwarts ignorance at every turn nowadays.

 

[Vurtual]

Shambles: 'Even' tibetan buddhists end up sounding rational most of the time because the simple message at the core of the religion is quite rational (desire leads to suffering, be compassionate) - and also i quite like the spicy edge given to tibetan buddhism by its shamanic heritage (as a non-buddhist) - the pitcures are well cool, and the book of the dead is trippy (through a leary lens).

Edit: Bob - the quakers are variable, but included is the idea that there should be no intermediate between a person and god - no priest, no bible (if you don't want it) - and also you never have to explain how you understand god (or not) to anyone else (there are athiest quakers). On top of that they are encouraged to take active role in fighting for social justice (quakers helped start greenpeace, amnesty and oxfam among others). (then there's that lady who discovered quasars) - http://www.quaker.org.uk/quaker-beliefs

 

[Sammy G]

Yup. Multimedia certainly prevents the use of propaganda and thwarts ignorance at every turn nowadays.

Is that a broadside?



Yes, that's a joke about an influential form of archaic 'multimedia'. Yes, it's bad. What did you expect?

 

[Eveleivibe]

I think I'd like to research Buddhism. I had a lppk at hinduism n understood the bits about karma n dharma but find it confusing. I really would like to research these religion n muslim etc.

I feel that its a shame how some religious get a bad name because some members of that particular religious group undergo evil deeds n claim it to be in the name of their religion. Take muslims, for instance, many of them are probably lovely people but because of terrorists etc there's a lot of stereotyping.

Am interested in people's opinions on this????

Evey

 

[Shambles]

Shambles: 'Even' tibetan buddhists end up sounding rational most of the time because the simple message at the core of the religion is quite rational (desire leads to suffering, be compassionate) - and also i quite like the spicy edge given to tibetan buddhism by its shamanic heritage (as a non-buddhist) - the pitcures are well cool, and the book of the dead is trippy (through a leary lens).

Oh I completely agree (and on Quakers too) but Buddhism does tend to get a bit of a free pass on the "weird shit" side of things cos most folk tend to only think of it in terms of meditation and koans and general "inscrutable but sounds kinda kewl" factors without actually delving any deeper. I am well aware this does not apply to you but - like Issy was also wont to do - feel it worth pointing out less familiar (to some) aspects of things. Issy's personal fave was all that stuff about Buddhist fuedilsm and ISIS-style treatment of those essentially enslaved to an all-powerful theocratic overlordship. There are also incidents of Buddhist Terrorism. True story.

To be clear, I'm not picking on Buddhists any more than any other religion - or indeed any pseudo-religious fundamantalist worldviews like the far-right and far-left of the political spectrum) - I just have a deep distrust of any fundamentalism which does beg the question why those that apparently hold closest to the fundamental tenets of the texts of their religion also tend to be the furthest from the spirit of said religions (or political views and the like).

 

[Vurtual]

I enjoyed reading this. I tend to agree. And it was quite easy to use propaganda in those days to persuade the masses as there were no multimedia as there is now thus people were more ignorant. It is very interesting how you say that science n politics can have the same persuasion powers as religion, very interesting indeed.

Anyone has anything to add?

Enjoying this

Evey

Well as the media has diversified, so has the sophistication of the propaganda (they didn't need to bother as much back then as people had even less of a voice) - i think we're more controlled now in more insidious ways than ever. The story of the development of modern propaganda by freud's nephew eddie bernays and others is interesting; i just watched this quite old video about it presented by woody harelson which is quite good (though goes shit right at the end) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAy-uetebpQ

Science provides most western people's way to understand the world (big bang evolution and all that), even though they mostly only understand it in a basic sense; this is the same as when religion provided the cosmology of most people and the masses didn't understand the nuanced theological arguments. In both cases rich people pay good money to experts/priests who will find a way to interpret the science/religion in a way that suits the paymaster.

 

[Vurtual]

Oh I completely agree (and on Quakers too) but Buddhism does tend to get a bit of a free pass on the "weird shit" side of things cos most folk tend to only think of it in terms of meditation and koans and general "inscrutable but sounds kinda kewl" factors without actually delving any deeper. I am well aware this does not apply to you but - like Issy was also wont to do - feel it worth pointing out less familiar (to some) aspects of things. Issy's personal fave was all that stuff about Buddhist fuedilsm and ISIS-style treatment of those essentially enslaved to an all-powerful theocratic overlordship. There are also incidents of Buddhist Terrorism. True story.

To be clear, I'm not picking on Buddhists any more than any other religion - or indeed any pseudo-religious fundamantalist worldviews like the far-right and far-left of the political spectrum) - I just have a deep distrust of any fundamentalism which does beg the question why those that apparently hold closest to the fundamental tenets of the texts of their religion also tend to be the furthest from the spirit of said religions (or political views and the like).

I agree it's worth pointing out the counterfactuals (i was expecting ismene along any second, but you beat him to it ), and i'm always one for iconoclasm. (this very characteristic is often what makes me stick up for religion in arguments when there's loads of athiests about)

There are definite bad bits in tibetan buddhist history, not least their oppresion of the very Bon-Po that influenced them. And in other buddhist history, there was a pretty bloodthirsty thai buddhist female leader if i remember (plus the modern racist ones in burma). Just as with christianity, that sort of horrible stuff is only possible by ignoring/reinterpreting improtant parts of the religion.

 

[Sammy G]

There are definite bad bits in tibetan buddhist history, not least their oppresion of the very Bon-Po that influenced them. And in other buddhist history, there was a pretty bloodthirsty thai buddhist female leader if i remember (plus the modern racist ones in burma). Just as with christianity, that sort of horrible stuff is only possible by ignoring/reinterpreting improtant parts of the religion.

So who's the arbiter of correct doctrine then? Ultimately that's where the problem lies, and where power politics and organised religion become terminally intertwined, and bad shit begins to transpire.

 

[Vurtual]

I agree, but i suspect that it's only really when religion gets heavily tied up in the social/political/economic stuff that it gets problematic in the infamous ways it does, so i hesitate to ascribe the problems solely to religion in itself in the manner of new athiests.

As for doctrine, i just think it's self evident which bits are the core parts of those religions with a bit of thought; when people give over the judgement to some priestly authority who can then bamboozle them with juju/theology to tell them why up is down, why the 'eye of a needle' is some gate in jerusalem, or just keep the bible in a language no one can read, the self evident obvious message can be twisted and diluted in the interest of those authorities (or their sponsors in the state). The truth at the heart of those religions is plain to see to me - the peripheral details can be argued over, but you can't really argue with 'desire leads to suffering; be compassionate' (or 'love your enemy/turn the other cheek/do unto others..'). It takes quite an effort to make anything bad fit with those messages (they've had centuries of trying now though) - Sure that process of centralisation seems so inevitable in religious history to be inherent in some way to 'organised' religion, but i won't blame/reject the original core message for that (i suppose that as soon as a religion is 'organised' it's sort of part of the state anyway).

 

[Ismene]

Issy's personal fave was all that stuff about Buddhist fuedilsm and ISIS-style treatment of those essentially enslaved to an all-powerful theocratic overlordship. There are also incidents of Buddhist Terrorism. True story.

I believe the buddhist masters enlightened response to a tibetan slave pinching a goat was to gouge his eyes out. Buddhist law #1 - "Do not covet attachments except if it is to thy goat".

And I believe the Dali Lamas helicopter was straining it's knackers off trying to get off the ground because they'd packed so much gold into it when they fled Tibet.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

wouldn't that come under the category of 'attachment'?

 

[rickolasnice]

I agree, but i suspect that it's only really when religion gets heavily tied up in the social/political/economic stuff that it gets problematic in the infamous ways it does, so i hesitate to ascribe the problems solely to religion in itself in the manner of new athiests.

As for doctrine, i just think it's self evident which bits are the core parts of those religions with a bit of thought; when people give over the judgement to some priestly authority who can then bamboozle them with juju/theology to tell them why up is down, why the 'eye of a needle' is some gate in jerusalem, or just keep the bible in a language no one can read, the self evident obvious message can be twisted and diluted in the interest of those authorities (or their sponsors in the state). The truth at the heart of those religions is plain to see to me - the peripheral details can be argued over, but you can't really argue with 'desire leads to suffering; be compassionate' (or 'love your enemy/turn the other cheek/do unto others..'). It takes quite an effort to make anything bad fit with those messages (they've had centuries of trying now though) - Sure that process of centralisation seems so inevitable in religious history to be inherent in some way to 'organised' religion, but i won't blame/reject the original core message for that (i suppose that as soon as a religion is 'organised' it's sort of part of the state anyway).

Religions are based on books and I really don't see how it's self evident which bits are the core parts.. Who decides?

It takes no effort to make anything bad fit with things like "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are", "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." and "A woman must receive instructions silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." etc etc etc

 

[Raasyvibe]

^ *Ahem*

NSFW:

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/...1#post11877888

Ok raas.. here's a few you still haven't answered: (Not that you've really answered any of them in any way other than making excuses)

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

There are literally loads, loads more (There's around 4 different accounts on 3 different points about what happened at the tomb).. but i won't bury you in them just yet.

Did you ever find out why there are so many contradictions and impossibilities with the story of Jesus?

Hope all are well.

I'm no scholar, but at first glance those supposed discrepancies don't make any sense. You're telling me that when the Roman empire decides to fool the entire world by inventing Jesus.... or whatever it was... they're going to make such an obvious mistake as to get the dates wrong in 2 of the published gospels??? er... hello??

There has to be a more sensible answer to these discrepencies. And a quick rummage around the 'net predictably finds them answered swiftly.





Discrepancy 1:

The Governorship of Quirinius

In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus.

Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea.6 As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census."7 Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.

If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later. This option seems to me to be entirely reasonable

And in response to your second supposed discrepancy,

The defenders of this opinion claim that there is only an apparent contradiction and that the differing statements may be reconciled. For the Jews calculated their festivals and Sabbaths from sunset to sunset: thus the Sabbath began after sunset on Friday and ended at sunset on Saturday. This style is employed by the synoptic Gospels, while St. John, writing about twenty-six years after the destruction of Jerusalem, when Jewish law and customs no longer prevailed, may well have used the Roman method of computing time from midnight to midnight.

Your problem is, Ricko, you don't you look into Christian responses yourself before presenting an argument. It would sound far more professional if you pose a question after having investigated both sides. You (being biased as hell) appear to accept everything said against the church, without challenging it. There's usually a lot more to consider into these arguments; I feel sometimes I'm doing the legwork for you, by digging out Christian responses that you could have looked up yourself. How can you progress on the subject if you only listen to one side?

 

[LosBlancos]

Religions are based on books and I really don't see how it's self evident which bits are the core parts.. Who decides?

The Pope.

Christians as a whole I think don't take many bits of the Bible as literal interpretations or focus more on the bits that were actually the words of Jesus which are far more benevolent than the rest of it.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

not all of them.

 

[Vurtual]

Religions are based on books and I really don't see how it's self evident which bits are the core parts.. Who decides?...

Quite often it's stated explicitly (like pharisee rabbi hillel's 'do as thou would be done by - that's the whole torah - now go and study'), and when it isn't i just think it's more or less obvious - like focussing in the bits the messiah/teacher supposedly said, and then just judging which statements are intended as most universal, and which mean less, or are possible mistranslations. And just looking overall at the doctrine and making a judgement as to what it's all about (like you would reviewing a (complicated) book/film). Plus just ask people from the various sects of the religion and they'll give you a fairly similar answer (until you get into the specifics which often contradict the central message). Doing all this it's entirely possible to judge which bits are 'core' and which bits are variable - this would be a subjective judgement, but i bet most unbiased people would come up with the same sort of answers (wikipedia manages quite well).

Those mysogynist quotes are horrible and cannot be justifed - did jesus say any of them?

 

[Sammy G]

1 Timothy 2:12

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Timothy 2:11

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection

Titus 2:5

To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Paul of Tarsus? You decide.

Seems that the doctrine of pure compassion, tolerance and personal liberation which you're proposing is at the heart of Christianity (and I'm not contesting that point) wasn't all that obvious even to its earliest adherents, and that control and subjugation had nailed their colours to the mask before the shroud was even dry.

 

[Vurtual]

Who knows what specific meaning all those differing early sects had about christianity - lots seemingly had secret rituals and practices that we can only guess at. I still think a core bunch of principles remains even after centuries of editing (and even if they're totally different to what many/all actual early christians thought/did) - i suspect the compassion stuff was there in some form from the start, because it was there before jesus with pharisee rabbi hillel (not to forget buddhist/hindu ideas which must have trickled into alexandria by then).

I like the gnostic gospel of phillip: there's loads in there which is about 'sacred marriage', but in context seems to be about sex magic of some sort (maybe more homophobia, but as crowley would tell you bumming works just as well). Plus the famous quote about mary magdalene with the missing word: 'jesus used to kiss her often on her ___' (ooer) (doorstep? balcony? holidays?).

The gnostic stuff generally seems to have its own secret interpretation of christianity (demiurge, matter=evil/spirit=good jehova=baddie/serpent=good etc) - reading between the lines, it seems to be a mish mash of neoplatonism and hindu/buddhist ideas