Posts by peacefulpete

8

Gods on Paper and Stage

by peacefulpete in

were the works of homer, aeschylus, sophocles, etc.

acting blasphemously when creating their works of fiction because they included the gods in the stories?

when homer placed dialog into athena's mouth, was he wrong to use his creativity to make her come alive for an audience?

peacefulpete

Sorry about repetition. Also poor grammar. Thought I'd have chance to edit. It took couple hours to appear. Anyway, comments discussion?

8

Gods on Paper and Stage

by peacefulpete in

were the works of homer, aeschylus, sophocles, etc.

acting blasphemously when creating their works of fiction because they included the gods in the stories?

when homer placed dialog into athena's mouth, was he wrong to use his creativity to make her come alive for an audience?

Were the works of Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, etc. acting blasphemously when creating their works of fiction because they included the gods in the stories? When Homer placed dialog into Athena's mouth, was he wrong to use his creativity to make her come alive for an audience?

There were critics of such playwrights for their impertinence, not for the act of dramatization but in some cases for the content. The more conservative among the Greeks felt the god's were depicted too human. But generally the practice was popular and regarded by some as essential for the religious health of the people. In fact, the god Dionysus (you know, the water to wine god) was the patron deity of theater.

Did the earliest Christians similarly feel similarly? Early forms of the faith may have seemed unapproachable, esoteric and reserved for the initiated. (2000 years later, people still find Paul "hard to understand".) A popularizing of the faith for the masses necessitated a theatrical presentation, a more accessible method of teaching through story telling. Stories of the godman interacting with humans, demonstrating his superiority, yet having a human touch. The writings of early church fathers and writers reveal a freeness to add or subtract from those stories, which betrays an understanding of the nature of the stories lost on the populace. In a similar way the intelligentsia of the Greek and Roman world generally understood Homer and similar works as allegory and mocked the popular uncritical belief in them as 'history'.

As it happens, the very depiction of the gods as interacting directly with humans, made the gods appear smaller and, for some, paved the way for disbelief, or at least a less spiritual view of the gods. Eyes of faith replaced with literal eyes as it were. In my mind a similar process happened among Christians, the literalizing of the stories reduced them to a fixed "freeze frame" of a previously metaphysical belief system. It worked and Christianity grew, especially among the 'unlearned and ordinary'. However, many then as today find Christianity intellectually unsatisfying or indefensible for that very reason.

There have been advocates for a return to a more mystical version, but against the background of the literalist, uni-dimensional popular species of Christianity, they come across as "out of their minds". Something Paul might have heard.

5

Edgerton Gospel

by peacefulpete in

regarded as likely the oldest (or tied with oldest) gospel fragment we have is that named the unknown gospel or the edgerton gospel.

sadly it is very fragmentary.

debates regarding it's relationship with the 4 canonical gospels have continued since it was found.

peacefulpete

Were the works of Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, etc. acting blasphemously when creating their works of fiction because they included the gods in the stories? When Homer placed dialog into Athena's mouth, was he wrong to use his creativity to make her come alive for an audience?

There were critics of such playwrights for their impertinence, not for the act of dramatization but in some cases for the content. The more conservative among the Greeks felt the gods were depicted too human. But generally, the practice was popular and regarded by some as essential for the religious health of the people. In fact, the god Dionysus (you know, the water-to-wine god) was the patron deity of theater.

Did the earliest Christians feel similarly? Early forms of the faith may have seemed unapproachable, esoteric and reserved for the initiated. (2000 years later, people still find Paul "hard to understand".) A popularizing of the faith for the masses necessitated a theatrical presentation, a more accessible method of teaching through story telling. Stories of the godman interacting with humans, demonstrating his superiority, yet having a human touch. The writings of early church fathers and writers reveal a freeness to add or subtract from those stories, which betrays an understanding of the nature of the stories lost on the populace. In a similar way the intelligentsia of the Greek and Roman world generally understood Homer and similar works as allegory and mocked the popular uncritical belief in them as 'history'.

As it happens, the very depiction of the gods as interacting directly with humans, made the gods appear smaller and, for some, paved the way for disbelief, or at least a less spiritual view of the gods. Eyes of faith replaced with literal eyes as it were. In my mind a similar process happened among Christians, the literalizing of the stories reduced them to a fixed "freeze frame" of a previously metaphysical belief system. Now, there is no disputing the success of these stories as Christianity grew rapidly, especially among the 'unlearned and ordinary'. However, many then as today find Christianity intellectually unsatisfying or indefensible when told to accept the contradictory and literary as history.

There have been advocates for a return to a more mystical version, but against the background of the literalist, uni-dimensional popular species of Christianity, they come across as "out of their minds". Something Paul might have heard.

5

Edgerton Gospel

by peacefulpete in

regarded as likely the oldest (or tied with oldest) gospel fragment we have is that named the unknown gospel or the edgerton gospel.

sadly it is very fragmentary.

debates regarding it's relationship with the 4 canonical gospels have continued since it was found.

peacefulpete

oops.

I posted a new thread, describing the popular ancient practice of including gods in literature and plays for the populace. It seems to have disappeared. In short, the point of these depictions and stories was not only to entertain but a didactic method of animating the gods and making them real.

33

Museum Pic

by peacefulpete in

a lot of ink has been spilled on the topic of the cross.

the wt felt it had uncovered some deep conspiracy when they found a number of words were used to describe how jesus was understood to have been killed.

there was an extensive thread many years ago that in short strongly supports the conclusion that at least some nt writers envisioned a cross, while others had a tree in mind.

peacefulpete

Do you not believe that faiths that focus on the unseen have value? Did the Gnostic Christians, and Jews before them, not have real faith?

Demanding 'proof' was a weakness for the Thomas of the G. John. Maybe the modern need to literalize and quantify was what the writer, of the most mystical of the 4 canonical versions of the Jesus story, was mocking.

45

How Do Jehovah's Witnesses View Education?

by southyukon in

i have a question about this article.. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-education-school/.

higher education can lead to moral and spiritual dangers.

a bible proverb says: "the shrewd one sees the danger and conceals himself.

peacefulpete

A Bible proverb says: "The shrewd one sees the danger and conceals himself." (Proverbs 22:3)

The truism expressed in that proverb is that forethought and planning for the future is shrewd. Education, both practical and philosophical are powerful shields from the real dangers of poverty and credulity.

5

Edgerton Gospel

by peacefulpete in

regarded as likely the oldest (or tied with oldest) gospel fragment we have is that named the unknown gospel or the edgerton gospel.

sadly it is very fragmentary.

debates regarding it's relationship with the 4 canonical gospels have continued since it was found.

peacefulpete

For me the abundance of Jesus narratives and sayings that circulated in the first 2 centuries reveal just how hungry the audience was for this material. Was the audience gullible, or did they understand something lost on most modern readers?

6

The Power Beyond What Is Normal

by IWant2Know in

peacefulpete

Well, a number of Bible stories have characters given literal superhuman strength, but as the religion matured superman stories gave way to promises of peace and future rewards. Religion can offer a believer a structured path to acceptance of horrible tragedy or loss. It is not necessarily the best coping method. Very often the religion's promises ring hollow when really faced with suffering or loss.

In my experience, strength comes from the sober yet optimistic recognition that we, and those we love, are here for a little while and then make room for others after us. There is no cosmic conspiracy, no fated destiny, no great injustice in life being transitory. No one has wronged us. No one has robbed us immortality. No one owes me a perfect world. Strength comes from empowerment, and inner peace. Change what we can and accept what we can't. I always thought it ironic that some pray for that very thing.

33

Museum Pic

by peacefulpete in

a lot of ink has been spilled on the topic of the cross.

the wt felt it had uncovered some deep conspiracy when they found a number of words were used to describe how jesus was understood to have been killed.

there was an extensive thread many years ago that in short strongly supports the conclusion that at least some nt writers envisioned a cross, while others had a tree in mind.

peacefulpete

Perhaps that was a bit clumsy of me. Sea Breeze, Perhaps you assumed I would disagree about the intent of the Gospel writers. As I mentioned last year when I started this thread, I am sure that the Roman execution by nailing to a cross was described.

Ironically, what some interpret as mocking the Christian faith, in my mind actually elevates it. If the origins of the Christian faith are found to have been purely revelatory, mystical and spiritual, in my mind that is of a higher Christology than that presented in the Canonical Gospels. If that is true, then the second layer of Christian development (the creation of historizing story drawn from Homer and the OT) diminished the story and insulted the original believers.

Religious "truth" is not measured by eye witnesses, but by the elevating of people's value and love.

33

Museum Pic

by peacefulpete in

a lot of ink has been spilled on the topic of the cross.

the wt felt it had uncovered some deep conspiracy when they found a number of words were used to describe how jesus was understood to have been killed.

there was an extensive thread many years ago that in short strongly supports the conclusion that at least some nt writers envisioned a cross, while others had a tree in mind.

peacefulpete

What case is that?