Okay, Enough WIth the "Lovely Thoughts" Already! *lol*

[Guest guest]

Dear Prainbow:

 

*** Okay, I'm with you in terms of understanding your perspective ...

right up to and stopping at Shakespeare. ... Well you really cannot

in my mind compare the two. ***

 

Maybe not. But my meaning was just the comparison:

 

* When Shakespeare (supposedly?) lived, England was filled with many

great Elizabethan poets -- most scholars say Shakespeare was far and

away the star of the lot; but some scholars say he was a fictional

creation whose words are actually a compilation of the best of

several great poets of the time.

 

* When Jesus (supposedly?) lived, Judea was filled with many great

anti-establishment Messainic prophets -- most scholars say Jesus was

far and away the star of the lot; but some scholars say he was a

fictional creation whose words are actually a compilation of the best

of several great prophets of the time.

 

The similarity of the two arguments struck me. But it's true that

most such comparisons don't stand close examination. ;-)

 

*** While there is evidence of a Christian movement, I maintain that

there is no actual direct evidence of a human Jesus. ***

 

This is absolutely, undisputedly true. My point was only that there

is also no actual direct evidence to the contrary either.

 

As you said, that leaves us with several choices: (1) Believe that

there was an actual, historical prophet who we have come to call

Jesus, or don't believe it (for whatever reason, I lean toward

believing; you don't). (2) Believe that this Jesus was the only Son

and one true messenger of God, or don't believe it (I think we both

agree that this is poisonous sectarian bullshit).

 

*** I was recently in Phoenix where I saw an article that said that

the local Knights of Columbus were sponsoring a local showing of a

tour of some "relics" including a nail that had been formed from

shavings from one of the original nails from the cross of the

crucifixion of Jesus. I just felt so depressed. There is overwhelming

evidence that fraud regarding evidence of the human existence of

Jesus has been perpetrated and profitable for hundreds of years. ***

 

Yeah, such "relics" -- almost all of them demonstrably fake -- have

been part and parcel of Christianity from pretty much the beginning.

The "materiality" of Christianity has often been commented on; I

think that is just one more manifestation of it. It is kind of

depressing in the sense that you mention. But people are born at all

different spiritual levels, and if that's where they're at, and if

that kind of sideshow, "believe it or not!" hokiness is what it takes

to bring them some kind of feeling of awe and religiousity and faith,

well, I wish them happiness and peace. Whatever floats their boat.

 

It reminds me of a line in Kurt Vonnegut's "Mother Night." After the

protagonist chats casually with a series of true believers of various

dubious theories and systems, he sadly reflects:

 

Oh God -- the lives people try to lead!

Oh God -- what a world they try to lead them in!

 

*** The really depressing part is that these items bring foward such

an intense emotional reaction and a sense of self justification in

the people drawn to these items that the repercussions for those of

us who are the frequent targets of the dominant paradigm is

frightening and seemingly inevitable. ***

 

I forgot ... you live in the Red States! The sense of a "dominant

paradigm" must seem much more palpible than it does among us liberal

Democratic al Qaeda supporters in the namby-pamby Blues. *lol*

 

*** I have found that there is no reasoning with a person who is

convinced that they have just seen evidence of the historical Jesus.

Not just about the item in question or about the existence of this

historical person but about important legal and social questions. ***

 

I think it depends on what that person's agenda is, if any. I don't

connect the existence or non-existence of Jesus with any form of

dectrinal Christianity, as it seems clear to me that the true meaning

of his words are not reflected in any of the systems called

Christian. Maybe I am naive, but as far as I can tell, there is

precious little relevant connection between ancient Jesus's teachings

and modern Christianity's doctrines. I realize that this odd opinion

is where I lose a lot of people. :-p

 

*** This whole thing is sooooo incredibly overwhelming and depressing

that I cannot believe that I cannot escape it even here. ***

 

But what is it you cannot escape? I don't think there's much

doctrinal Christianity flying around here. No exclusivity doctrine.

No school prayer advocacy. Just some discussion of a few isolated

parables and whether they bear any relevance to the tenets of Shakti

Sadhana. Why should the mere suggestion of a historical prophet named

Jesus seem so threatening and depressing? Who cares? (I am not trying

to be callous about your distress; I am just trying to explain why I

apparently don't "get" it.)

 

Anyway, I am becoming increasingly convinced that it is I who is way

off base here. You'll notice that I am the only moderator

entertaining this thread --the others are remaining wisely silent

(though it's been subtly, politely suggested to me that I let it die,

and sooner rather than later). So I've managed to piss off both my

sister and brother Shaktas and some friendly Goddess Pagans in one

mighty swipe. *lol* I think that's I pretty good sign that I should

cut my losses now and bow out of the discussion before I empty the

place.

 

Sorry for offending.

 

DB

[Guest guest]

*smile*

 

 

 

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

 

Dear Prainbow:

 

*** Okay, I'm with you in terms of understanding your perspective ...

 

 

 

 

Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

 

 

[Guest guest]

DB,

 

You're right, it's the Red State thing. There is precious little benign

interpretation of

Christianity here and what there is is generally in lock step with a repressive

legal and

social agenda, so powerful, so oppressive, so ubiquitous and overwhelming that

it

becomes impossible to separate the two even with well meaning people.

 

I originally rejected an historical Jesus on the basis of my own interpretations

of the facts.

Now I reject on principle. I want this figure ejected from legal, social and

political debate

so that actual communication can occur. It's impossible and hopeless here.

 

It really is an overwhelming presence in almost all mainstream communication

here.

 

Namaste,

 

prainbow

 

, "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> Dear Prainbow:

>

> *** Okay, I'm with you in terms of understanding your perspective ...

> right up to and stopping at Shakespeare. ... Well you really cannot

> in my mind compare the two. ***

>

> Maybe not. But my meaning was just the comparison:

>

> * When Shakespeare (supposedly?) lived, England was filled with many

> great Elizabethan poets -- most scholars say Shakespeare was far and

> away the star of the lot; but some scholars say he was a fictional

> creation whose words are actually a compilation of the best of

> several great poets of the time.

>

> * When Jesus (supposedly?) lived, Judea was filled with many great

> anti-establishment Messainic prophets -- most scholars say Jesus was

> far and away the star of the lot; but some scholars say he was a

> fictional creation whose words are actually a compilation of the best

> of several great prophets of the time.

>

> The similarity of the two arguments struck me. But it's true that

> most such comparisons don't stand close examination. ;-)

>

> *** While there is evidence of a Christian movement, I maintain that

> there is no actual direct evidence of a human Jesus. ***

>

> This is absolutely, undisputedly true. My point was only that there

> is also no actual direct evidence to the contrary either.

>

> As you said, that leaves us with several choices: (1) Believe that

> there was an actual, historical prophet who we have come to call

> Jesus, or don't believe it (for whatever reason, I lean toward

> believing; you don't). (2) Believe that this Jesus was the only Son

> and one true messenger of God, or don't believe it (I think we both

> agree that this is poisonous sectarian bullshit).

>

> *** I was recently in Phoenix where I saw an article that said that

> the local Knights of Columbus were sponsoring a local showing of a

> tour of some "relics" including a nail that had been formed from

> shavings from one of the original nails from the cross of the

> crucifixion of Jesus. I just felt so depressed. There is overwhelming

> evidence that fraud regarding evidence of the human existence of

> Jesus has been perpetrated and profitable for hundreds of years. ***

>

> Yeah, such "relics" -- almost all of them demonstrably fake -- have

> been part and parcel of Christianity from pretty much the beginning.

> The "materiality" of Christianity has often been commented on; I

> think that is just one more manifestation of it. It is kind of

> depressing in the sense that you mention. But people are born at all

> different spiritual levels, and if that's where they're at, and if

> that kind of sideshow, "believe it or not!" hokiness is what it takes

> to bring them some kind of feeling of awe and religiousity and faith,

> well, I wish them happiness and peace. Whatever floats their boat.

>

> It reminds me of a line in Kurt Vonnegut's "Mother Night." After the

> protagonist chats casually with a series of true believers of various

> dubious theories and systems, he sadly reflects:

>

> Oh God -- the lives people try to lead!

> Oh God -- what a world they try to lead them in!

>

> *** The really depressing part is that these items bring foward such

> an intense emotional reaction and a sense of self justification in

> the people drawn to these items that the repercussions for those of

> us who are the frequent targets of the dominant paradigm is

> frightening and seemingly inevitable. ***

>

> I forgot ... you live in the Red States! The sense of a "dominant

> paradigm" must seem much more palpible than it does among us liberal

> Democratic al Qaeda supporters in the namby-pamby Blues. *lol*

>

> *** I have found that there is no reasoning with a person who is

> convinced that they have just seen evidence of the historical Jesus.

> Not just about the item in question or about the existence of this

> historical person but about important legal and social questions. ***

>

> I think it depends on what that person's agenda is, if any. I don't

> connect the existence or non-existence of Jesus with any form of

> dectrinal Christianity, as it seems clear to me that the true meaning

> of his words are not reflected in any of the systems called

> Christian. Maybe I am naive, but as far as I can tell, there is

> precious little relevant connection between ancient Jesus's teachings

> and modern Christianity's doctrines. I realize that this odd opinion

> is where I lose a lot of people. :-p

>

> *** This whole thing is sooooo incredibly overwhelming and depressing

> that I cannot believe that I cannot escape it even here. ***

>

> But what is it you cannot escape? I don't think there's much

> doctrinal Christianity flying around here. No exclusivity doctrine.

> No school prayer advocacy. Just some discussion of a few isolated

> parables and whether they bear any relevance to the tenets of Shakti

> Sadhana. Why should the mere suggestion of a historical prophet named

> Jesus seem so threatening and depressing? Who cares? (I am not trying

> to be callous about your distress; I am just trying to explain why I

> apparently don't "get" it.)

>

> Anyway, I am becoming increasingly convinced that it is I who is way

> off base here. You'll notice that I am the only moderator

> entertaining this thread --the others are remaining wisely silent

> (though it's been subtly, politely suggested to me that I let it die,

> and sooner rather than later). So I've managed to piss off both my

> sister and brother Shaktas and some friendly Goddess Pagans in one

> mighty swipe. *lol* I think that's I pretty good sign that I should

> cut my losses now and bow out of the discussion before I empty the

> place.

>

> Sorry for offending.

>

> DB

[Guest guest]

Dear Paulie:

 

Point taken. And I agree ... it *is* bloody depressing. :-p

 

Thank you for your patience ...

 

DB

 

, "prainbow61" <paulie-

rainbow@u...> wrote:

>

> DB,

>

> You're right, it's the Red State thing. There is precious little

benign interpretation of

> Christianity here and what there is is generally in lock step with

a repressive legal and

> social agenda, so powerful, so oppressive, so ubiquitous and

overwhelming that it

> becomes impossible to separate the two even with well meaning

people.