The Forum > Article Comments > Mystery and memory at Easter > Comments
Mystery and memory at Easter : Comments
By David Cusworth, published 8/4/2012The ancients did not write stories as factual history, but yet they can be true.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Jon J, Sunday, 8 April 2012 7:43:20 AM
| |
Hardly that easy, John J. An airport could only foster a cargo cult. Death and resurrection are a far different proposition. So different that people still struggle to come to terms with the mystery, yet a moment of insight can unlock the puzzle in a way thousands of words of discussion and explanation cannot. Thanks for reading, nonetheless.
Posted by Cuz, Sunday, 8 April 2012 3:47:31 PM
| |
Cuz, YOUR moment of insight may unlock YOUR puzzle, agreed: but it's not an appropriate foundation on which to create or endorse a system that intimately affects the lives of millions of other people. All that you can deduce from a particular experience is that you have had that experience; it's wildly irrational to go on from there to draw any conclusions about the real world. Or a supernatural one, for that matter.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 9 April 2012 9:18:37 AM
| |
John J, I'd agree if it were a matter of personal experience alone. But the Easter story is related by multiple sources from different points of view; it also had an impact on many people over the years; and it has the power to reach individual lives now. Subjective insight on its own requires support from other sources to be convincing, agreed; but everyone ultimately decides about belief from a subjective standpoint. Otherwise it wouldn't be belief.
Posted by Cuz, Monday, 9 April 2012 10:47:27 AM
| |
As if these archaic fabricated fairy tale stories provide any kind of basis to live with Real Intelligence.
Apart from the words about Jesus that appear in the New Testament, there is virually no evidence for Jesus' existence. References to Jesus, to a movement in response to him, and to people who were his followers only began to appear decades after the time when he supposedly lived.Apart from fabricated hearsay "evidence" there is no historical evidence for Jesus' existence that is contemporary with the time in which Jesus purportedly lived. The books of the New Testament were all written decades after Jesus' life time. Paul of cause never met Jesus. The writings of Paul refer to an already institutionalized tradition about Jesus, a tradition that is the basis for all of Pauls preaching. The work of Paul was based on his own teachings about how to interpret the presumed tradition boind of Jesus, rather than on the teachins and activities of Jesus himself. Insofar as the report of the Gospels is in any sense biographical they describe an institutionalized biography about Jesus. They describe a Jesus who was interpreted by people after his death, often through stories contrived about him to coincide with suggestive prophecies within the Old Testament re the appearance of a Messiah. In any case none of the lokenesses reported in the Gospels can be taken seriously as eyewitness observations of a presumably historical Jesus. They could only have been spoken about through a process of fabrication or imaginative religious inventiveness. All of the stories in the Gospels about Jesus' early life before he began to preach are myths. They were a kind of literary creation for the purpose of establishing an institution, for the purpose of engendering public belief. The writers of the Gospels could not have been making use of information of a factual nature in order to "record" historical fact. Where, how, and from whom would they have acquired such information? And, indeed if there were any fact based source for these stories, why to the Gospels contradict one another relative to the details? Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 9 April 2012 11:07:10 AM
| |
The presence of remarkable contradictions between the separate accounts in the Gospels is one of the outstanding indicators that make it obvious that the Gospels are a form of literature, rather than of historical reporting.
While the Gospels are full of mostly fabricated details about Jesus' lifetime, there is, also, no evidence that the writers have actually quoted, rather than invented, what Jesus said when he was alive. Why is it, then, that after his death, suddenly everybody knew and remembered al these things about him - out of the blue as it were. Jesus was thus a mythologized and interpreted figure, and on the basis of that myth alone people have presumed that Jesus was an actual concrete historical figure. The Gospel stories are not about an historical, factual, and actual Jesus, the person as he would have acted and spoken while he was alive. Everything that people have speculated about, thought about, felt about, and "reported" and asserted about "Jesus" has occurred only after, and mostly long after, Jesus was no longer alive. Therefore all of it arose entirely within the writers own sphere of thinking desiring and intending. This is also the case with every one presumes to speak about Jesus in 2012, with no exceptions. There is nothing that could be said after the lifetime of Jesus that would be as relevant to his own teaching as all that he, himself, said when he was alive. Whatever Jesus cared to say that was of the nature of a teaching, or, otherwise, of a revelation about himself, he would have said during his lifetime. Everything that others have said afterwards is really their own creation, for their own reasons. This obviously is the case with everything written and said about the crucifixion (if it occurred), and of course the presumed resurrection, which obviously did not happen. Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 9 April 2012 11:26:13 AM
| |
Meanwhile of course right-wing Christianity, inspired by Calvinism in particular, is now and inevitably in a state of individual and collective psychosis. This was signalled by Mel Gibson's gore/splatter fest The Passion and via this image from the Sydney Calvinists too
http://www.sydneycathedral.com/events/easter-convention-0 Further evidence is readily available on almost any right-wing Christian blog, especially those associated with the USA Gospel Coalition and publications such as the American Spectator. Christianity altogether is now a chaos of market share seeking corporate cults and Barnumesque propagandists that rule and control nothing more than chaotic herds of self deluded whats-in-if-for-me religion consumers. The myth of the presumed cultural superiority of official Christianity, and Islam too, has now come full circle. These essentially political world religions are not only now waging global wars with one another (like so many psychotic inmates of asylums for the mad, each confronting the other with exclusive claims of personal absoluteness), but the public masses of religion bound people, who, all over the world, for even thousands of years, have been controlled in body and mind by ancient institutions of religiously propagandized worldly power, are now in a globalized state of grossly bound religious delusion and social psychosis. Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 9 April 2012 12:05:32 PM
| |
One has only to read outbursts like yours Daffy to understand that something pretty powerful, whatever it was, happened in Palestine two thousand years ago. It might have been subjective, but as your diatribes demonstrate, the subjective rules minds and behaviours. And the Christian "subjective" has been, and continues to be, a force for good and modernisation in the world.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 9 April 2012 3:11:59 PM
| |
Anyone care to work out how many delusional people died of starvation while the so-called "messengers of god", the man made myth, peddled their fairy tales of superstition and madness?
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 9 April 2012 3:15:09 PM
| |
"But the Easter story is related by multiple sources from different points of view;"
So is the death of Socrates. "it also had an impact on many people over the years;" So had the death of Socrates. "and it has the power to reach individual lives now." So had the death of Socrates. So have many other stories and myths. The difference is that religious myths are used as a means of telling other people what they ought to do, and an excuse for punishing them when they don't do it. Stories are fine: it's when they get connected up with imaginary superbeings that the harm is done. Posted by Jon J, Monday, 9 April 2012 3:33:29 PM
| |
John J, I'll be timed out if this continues, but happy to reply. I, too, read of the death of Socrates, and didn't find much hope in it. You probably observe that I do find hope in the Easter story. Linking that to some supposed harm seems rather a stretch. We are engaged in an exchange of ideas, are we not? (certain contributions notwithstanding...)
Posted by Cuz, Monday, 9 April 2012 4:47:39 PM
| |
Cuz, are you attempting to deny that the faith you chose to endorse, or re-endorse, as a result of your personal epiphany has been the cause of massive bloodshed, slaughter, murder and misery? Do you really need links to the innumerable deaths, the appalling suffering, the overweening folly and extravagance that has been committed in the name of your faith? You can find plenty of modern examples here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism And all because someone had a brainstorm and imagined they were receiving morse code from the supreme ruler of the universe. Posted by Jon J, Monday, 9 April 2012 5:04:22 PM
| |
John J, in addition to Socrates I also read modern history. Joseph Stalin was an atheist ... ditto many other monsters. Does that make an atheist guilty of harm? No. And does a Christian perspective imply complicity in such? No. But Christianity teaches that we need to seek forgiveness and reconciliation for our own failings, and forgive those who harm of offend us. Better than using a public forum to sling off at others, I would have thought.
Posted by Cuz, Monday, 9 April 2012 6:14:49 PM
| |
Cuz, the trouble with Christianity -- and any other religion -- is exactly the same as the trouble with Stalinism: the believer's assessment of reality are based on the wishes and beliefs of an individual, rather than empirical evaluation of evidence from the external world. When that individual has control over bombs, guns, troops and explosives we get gulags, pogroms, persecution and bloodshed.
If you believe you're in direct communication with God, then how can you possibly condemn people like Joseph Kony, Osama Bin Laden or Ayatollah Khamenei who believe exactly the same thing? You think you're right and they think they're right: but if you both deny the capacity of empirical investigation to uncover the truth, how can you expect a mere atheist like me find a hair's-breadth of difference between you? Posted by Jon J, Monday, 9 April 2012 7:10:03 PM
| |
Jon J, atheism has killed more people in the 20th century than Christianity could even be accused of. Most of the wars last century weren't in pursuit of religion at all and killed more people than any, and possibly all, wars previously.
To argue that there is a problem with Christianity because some Christians kill is as ridiculous as arguing there is a problem with medicine because some doctors kill, or democracy, because some democrats kill, or parenthood, because some parents kill. I don't think David is claiming a direct line to God, and even if he did the God he would claim a direct line to forbids killing. So anyone who claims God told them to kill, as Khomeini or bin Laden might claim, is dialling a wrong number as far as David and his beliefs are concerned. Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 9 April 2012 10:46:43 PM
| |
Graham
'Most of the wars last century weren't in pursuit of religion at all and killed more people than any, and possibly all, wars previously.' That doesn't mean it was the 'fault' of atheism. There have been no wars done in the name of atheism or suicide bombers for an atheist cause. George Bush declared it was God who told him to invade Iraq and indeed many conflicts throughout history where religion was used as a divisive tool. The Middle East is a religiously influenced conflict (albeit the issues go much deeper). It cannot be denied that religion has sometimes fanned the flames of hatred (even if not the cause), such as in the Irish conflict, no matter the origin of that hatred. What is disheartening is we are all trying to outdo each other on 'blame' instead of being more tolerant of differing spiritual paths. It is the outcome that matters not the vehicle by which it is delivered. It is quite reasonable to accept that the loving and more compassionate tenets are (as Dawkins puts it) not owned by religion and are indeed values shared by theists and non-theists alike. It is simply not what one says that matters but rather what one does. Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 2:37:05 AM
| |
forgive my light-heartedness...quote..""Mary hangs back
and has the more dramatic experience,..the first face-to-face encounter with the risen Jesus.. *in the garden..*around the tomb."" and you were there ! on the day...! and it was closed* of the same elite/creed..that killed him..[no patterns forming>?] ""My Easter moment...came..*at the garden tomb, an alternative site..?...outside the city walls; a simple hollow..in a rock within a carefully maintained garden.. Curiously the garden...*is closed on a Sunday morning! ""The gate was indeed locked, but around the corner,..below the cliff face,..is a public bus station."" rejoice! he has arisen time jumped...onto a buss..to that day had you jumped the fence you too might have met him ""Crucifixion generally happened..on busy roads so all should see and be intimidated by the horrific scene of slow, agonising death and subsequent decay. But in place of the horror..! was a strange reassurance:.."" lol why ya think its closed..to goys..on their most sacred day? they wont give aid nor comfort..to 'the ennamy' Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:02:28 AM
| |
That was an informative Easter reflection, David Cusworth. Thanks.
As for the combox debate, I declare science as being more responsible for war and death than anything else. After all, science created the atomic bomb! Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:04:22 AM
| |
When all is said and done, it's "humans" who are responsible for war and death, they who fashion religion and pursue knowledge, and yet are unable to cast off their penchant to savagery directed at their fellow man or their assault on the environment that sustains life..
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:09:48 AM
| |
in hind sight..let me recant
he arose...time traveled to that year..[you were there] but he didnt have the buss fare,...[cause you didnt jump the fence] so he wated at the bus station..[but didnt have a travel permit] didnt have papers...etc..no cash is there a messiah complex...thing linked with..je-ruse-all-0-em..you know that people think and claim to be jesus..[what if jesus came today..mumbling mumbo jumbo talk from his day] whould he have been 'put away' could he have gotten on the bus would he hitchhike...im in envey but me i would have stood at the gate and broken it down so close but vile is so vile i note also..they placed a cemetary.. at the gate..from which the messiah must emerge http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5064&page=0 but again...no one wanted to attend the feast [25 th december...cast psalms...at the right gate he will emmerge..not onto a cemetry..but a river of collective psalms singing..[to the one god..of which he spake] if we got it together we do it..he will come re-unite the christs divided house! so he..can re-unite the fathers divided houses i thought it was worth a go Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:17:31 AM
| |
John J,
Graham is right - I don't have a direct line to God, I just happened to be in the right place and time and experienced a moment of clarity. The rest is based on a lifetime of reading and thinking. You should try Jerusalem some time, it's a fascinating place. But if you can't tell the difference between Khameini, Kony and bin Laden, maybe the 'empirical investigation' is best left to others. Happy Easter! Posted by Cuz, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:53:22 AM
| |
Cuz - speaking of monsters why not Google Henry the Eighth as Monster.
Henry was of course instrumental in founding what is now the Anglican church. And then there was the never-ending monstrousity of European colonialism which was effectively "authorized" in the name of "god" via the papal bulls of 1455 and 1493. And what about the British empire? That was all justified by the bogus claim of bringing "god", "Jesus" and "civilization" to the "heathen savages". The brutal ugly reality of all of that is described in the book by Richard Gott titled Britain's Empire. And no Graham, something "powerful" did not happen 2000 years ago. The only reason that Christian-ISM as a power-and-control-seeking ideology became the world dominant religion is that it was coopted by the Roman state and was thus inevitably spread and imposed all over the world via the point of a sword, the (loud) mouths of cannons and maxim guns. Chairman Mao got one thing right, namely that power grows out of the barrel of a gun. This includes worldly "religion" power. Meanwhile collectively the "catholic" church is the worlds third largest property owner - Jesus of course owned nothing and as far as we know was highly critical of the worldly powers of his time including the then in power ecclesiastical establishment and their nit-picking pharisees. Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 11:01:56 AM
| |
'Jesus of course owned nothing and as far as we know was highly critical of the worldly powers of his time including the then in power ecclesiastical establishment and their nit-picking pharisees'.
Glad to see you endorse the historical Jesus, Daffy. His life challenges us to do better. We're all still learning, hence all the sad events in our history. May he be an inspiration to you, too. Posted by Cuz, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 12:19:19 PM
| |
Daffy Duck:
As far as I can understand your posts, your argument seems to rest largely on contradictions forged in the service of your own ideology. You begin by trying to portray Jesus and his life-story as a deliberate fabrication, thus: <<Jesus was thus a mythologized and interpreted figure, and on the basis of that myth alone people have presumed that Jesus was an actual concrete historical figure.>> Later in an effort to counter Graham’s criticism you try to make factual statements about Jesus and his life-story, thus: <<Jesus of course owned nothing and as far as we know was highly critical of the worldly powers of his time including the then in power ecclesiastical establishment and their nit-picking pharisees.>> Similarly, you first present a picture of Christianity and other “essentially political world religions” as institutions with the primary purpose of seeking power over the global masses, and then say that it was actually “Christian-ISM” (not the religion) that became the world’s oppressor. I can only agree with much of what you say about the scriptures as inadmissible historical evidence, even though all that (and much more) has been made clear by biblical scholars long ago. Nevertheless, to dwell in the narrative, rather than building propositional truths on the history, is important to me and to many others who worship Christ. The pursuit of objective truth is not our main focus; we seek rather to be true. Of course, would-be wielders of worldly power are only too ready to seize propositions as the dogmatic basis for an ideology that they can enforce as the rampart of their dominion. That is the drive of fundamentalism—in all its religious and non-religious varieties. Posted by crabsy, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 12:20:10 PM
|
That one detail put the whole story in perspective for me. All was possible in that place; the hopes and fears of many years met in that moment."
The mind boggles. Perhaps if there had been an airport nearby you could have founded a whole new religion.