h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Jez

"Don't worry about the leap into monotheist theology - I'm just not interested in it, it is as irrelevant to me as my personal experiences of my gods no doubt are to you."

Actually I might be more interested in your personal experiences of your gods than you might think.

I am currently wondering wether I have to invent a whole new theism just for me. I see the logic and value of both polytheistic and monotheistic ideologies, but I can also see their disadvantages, I think I would say monotheism has more disadvantages than advantages from my point of view.

The quote from your commentary comes very close to my sense of what is important about the spiritual aspect of life, it is a personal experience. My relationship with Christianity is rooted in my family, I don't believe any more but my ancestors did, some how I feel it is important to hold onto my link with that past. Since I read the bible (Including new testament apocrypha) and find little to convince me of the divinity of Jesus I am stuck with attempting to discover a 'truth' which makes sense to me and offers respect to my ancestors (Prehaps I should have been shinto)

The theme of benevolent/malevolent god comes up every now and again. While I am inclined to believe that there is a 'unity' of existance which I cannot seperate out from the 'universe/multiverse' I see nothing in my experience which leads me to believe this 'unity' is anything but indifferent, or neutral.

Poly theistic gods are more attractive to me than this unity, as they offer passion for existance. They represent those aspects of the 'unity' which can be seen as good, evil, vengeful loving ect.. this seems far more relevant to my existance and more fun too.

I think the unity I am refering to bares more relation to Taoist philosphy than it does to anything else. My difficulty links to object realations and systemic theory, the universe/multiverse is one thing but made up of many, many other things the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, but it is impossible to percieve the whole.

In this context it seems to me to be more honest to accept that the infinte nature of the whole is beyond human comprehension, and accept a spirituality and theism which operates at a human level rather than at the level of the abstract and infinite which is by definition unknowable.

A Christian would argue that this is why Christ came to earth as God incarnate. I would argue this is why humans had to put one of their number into the role of god, in order to boundary their experience at a human level because with the growth and development of the Roman Empire communication also grew and the possible dimensions of the Hebrew Desert God grew with it, sucking in greek, roman, persian and other philosophies, I would argue that the personal experience of a god who is all seeing and all knowing becomes next to impossible, if your own experience develops from an isolated nomadic tribal culture into a diverse cultural context, which was the main impact of Roman Occupation on local populations: you either then have to accept the more personal polytheistic framework or adapt your own to create a personal experience of god.... voila Christianity was born, before it was faily quickly snuffed out again when the need to centralise power required that personal knowledge of god (Gnosticism) be replaced with a 'party line'

I am aware that you probalby dont want to read all of the above but, I wonder if any polytheistic viewpoint can really afford not to be interested in the ways in which monotheism has usurped its role in the lives of ordinary people. I believe Polytheism is Liberating, provided it is able to find strategies to confront the forces seeking to suppress it.

I.e. Monotheism

Prehaps the new theism I need to describe my view is flexi-theism, which brings me back to postmodernism and the idea that what you see depends on where you stand?

N.B. I don't think that the 'circular discussion' is as circular as all that as I suspect most of us will change what we think (prehaps almost imperceptably) each time we think about it.

e.g at the mo I can't find my earlier quote from Peter, (I prob need to read the letters more carefully) and am wondering if I got the quote from James, which puts things in a slightly different light, and leads me to now think that Peter may have in the end have been wholey swung into Pauls camp. But that may have come about because of the relatively early martyrdom of James which might well have left a power vacum for Paul to fill. (I may change my mind by tomorrow)

Hi Matholwch



Come on Matholwch, to say Jesus was not a religious figure is , surely?

SD, I think the quote you want is in the second letter of St Peter, chapter 3, verses 15-16.

To seperate Religion and Politics at any time is next to impossible, In the roman empire the use of Religion as a political tool was commonplace. In Judea there was vertually no seperation at all, particularly so in the first and second centuries.

Nero's persecution of Christians was fundamentaly a political act, done for political reasons, the religious element was incidental.

Andrew S (back on-line)

Ta

For some reason I thought the quote was earlier in the letter. This is what I think shows Peters Fence sitting, he is being compassionate and benevolent towars Paul but there is an implicit criticism that he talks about complicated things which others missinterpret. The implication is that Paul should keep quiet about the complicated bits because they are sowing dissent in the ranks.

Peter then goes on to condemn false teachers who teach false things.

Politicaly the implication is that Paul has by this time become too powerful within the church to challenge openly and Peter is forced to resort to a sideways criticism, I also suspect that Peter may well have been unconsciously wrestling with his 'temper' and trying hard to demonstrate his compassion and brotherly love, whilst at the same time working at some damage limitation concerning the 'complicated things'

Given that most of Peters second letter is concerned with False teaching and Teachers the association of Pauls name within it seems particularly suspect, especially when linked to the amount of time Paul seems to spend apparrently defending himself from the accusation of telling Lies.

It all increasingly sounds like Shakespears interpretation of the speeches of Brutus and Mark Anthony, They are honourable men... BUT.....

Hi Jez ,

If you come up with a decent tune you will have to teach it to me, I'm hopeless with musical composition. I tend to intone it in my best Richard Burton voice (though my friends tell me it ends up sounding like Sean Bean with a cold).

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Andrew

If you look carefully at the context in which he lived and deconstruct a little of the cult veneer applied by the gospel writers then yes he was mainly a political figure.

He was the last in the line of the house of David, the true royal line. He was claimed to be the Messiah, the deliverer of the jews from persecution. Something only a member of the House of David could be.

Although this role did have religious significance in that it had been prophesied, it was primarily a temporal one. Someone who would lead the chosen people of Israel to throw off the yoke of their oppressors and reclaim their land.

The 'son of God' theme only really arose after his 'death' and 'resurrection'. Especially after his failure to free the people of Israel and show that he was the Messiah.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Matholwch!

Even in the Old Testament the concept of the Messiah was not just as a temporal king; he was a religious figure, and this gets clearer with the later prophets and writings. So religion can't be merely incidental; it's at the heart of the matter. It is the political side that is only a consequence.

It still is nowadays.

Hi SD

If you look at the second letter of St Peter and compare the middle section with the letter of St Jude you will find they run parallel. But St Jude is obviously not criticising St Paul - his language is far too strong (putting it mildly), and the logical inference is, nor is St Peter.

Ah here we get into the debate about provenance,

The Apostolic authority of both Peters Letters has been questioned a number of times, not least on the basis of the similarity between 2 Peter and Jude.

It has been of curious interest to me that Peter, John, Paul and James are such prominent figures, that you might expect their letters to be included, but Why Jude?

He is indicated as the Brother of James, Which James? is this another of Jesus's brothers. If he is then there is a reason for his inclusion, if he is not then why not include Clement or Polycarp. As well as this the three letters of John are there, one of which is to Mary (Jesus' Mum) Until recently I did not realise that there was a reply to this letter from Mary, why not include that in the canon, is it because it was written by a woman?

It is possible that Jude is having a go at Paul a'la 2Peter but is not highly ranked enough to challenge an appostle (Having said all this of course someone will tell me that he was an apostle) This does however highlight one difficulty with the framework I propose, by 65 CE there was clealy persecution of Christians Going on (I suspect this was derived from the high profile disputes in Judea as much as Nero's need for scapegoats)

If Paul was 'Martyred'??? in Rome it may well have been because he had outlived his usefulness, the dispute with the Jews was clearly comming to a head (Rebellion 66-74 ce{Really gets going in 68})As A political tool(Another possibility he was being manipulated rather than actively spying) he was no longer useful, the non-violent message was backfiring on the Romans quick disposal was a common roman act, ect ect.

Incidentaly Ceaser himself only escaped the same fate at the hands of Sulla due to the intrigues of Pompey.

For Jude once the persecutions had got going, there may have been no need to attack an internal enemy, there were lots of external ones to deal with, but there may also have been those who were arguing for a lower profile, I.e. dont be an obvious CHristian to have a go at. Which for any group under persecution is an anathema, and can be a consolidating force in any movement, get rid of the splitters and only the truly faithful remain, (Eg developement of Communism during the 19th century)

Well thats conjecture really, I will have to do a bit of research on old Jude and find out what the context of his life was

Hi SD


It's only 2 Peter that has been questioned, although I don't question it. Jude is an apostle, the brother of James the less (another apostle). Both of them are mentioned as brethren of Jesus. The word used could mean either brother or cousin, there being no separate word for cousin in Aramaic. Another Mary (i.e. not Jesus' mother) is mentioned as the mother of James. So they are cousins.

As Jude is an apostle his letter is in the Canon. The letters of Clement and Polycarp are not in the Canon as they are not apostles. As for the letter of St John (presumably 2 John), it is addressed not to Mary but to 'Kyria' (in Greek), or 'Lady'. This 'Kyria' is almost certainly a church, as John addresses his injunctions to the plural form of 'you'. The reply purporting to be from Mary would naturally be considered spurious and excluded from the Canon.

As for the rest, well I agree is certainly looks like conjecture!

Hi SD


It's only 2 Peter that has been questioned, although I don't question it. Jude is an apostle, the brother of James the less (another apostle). Both of them are mentioned as brethren of Jesus. The word used could mean either brother or cousin, there being no separate word for cousin in Aramaic. Another Mary (i.e. not Jesus' mother) is mentioned as the mother of James. So they are cousins.

As Jude is an apostle his letter is in the Canon. The letters of Clement and Polycarp are not in the Canon as they are not apostles. As for the letter of St John (presumably 2 John), it is addressed not to Mary but to 'Kyria' (in Greek), or 'Lady'. This 'Kyria' is almost certainly a church, as John addresses his injunctions to the plural form of 'you'. The reply purporting to be from Mary would naturally be considered spurious and excluded from the Canon.

As for the rest, well I agree it certainly looks like conjecture!

Ooops! I don't know how I did that...

A point I could have made more explicitly above is that the Canon was closed with the death of the last apostle (St John). The writings of Clement and Polycarp are very early, and Clement's might even have been written before the death of St John. But this is uncertain. If it wasn't, that by itself would explain the omission from the Canon.

Andrew S

O.K. Having re-read Jude and looked at what the Catholic Church thinks, I have a hypothysis about Jude.

I think he is criticising Paul.

I would be prepared to accept that the James he refers to as his brother is James the Just making Jude one of Jesus's siblings, not least because this would make logical sense of the more vehment attack he launches.

The speculation is that the letter was written some time in 64 CE in Jerusalem. Is it then possible that this 'brother of Jesus' had aquired a prominent role in the Jerusalem Church. It might also be conjectured that as such he held a similar philosophical position to his brother.

There is much to suggest that James's doctrine was that the law was paramount, acts gives us the dispute between James and Paul, It would be natural for a brother to defend this possition (Though I know this might not always be the case with siblings.) However there seems to me to be other evidence.

I dont think there was ever a monestary as such at Qumran, I believe that the scrolls found there represent texts rescued by Josephus and others from Jerusalem before the Romans under Titus raised the city to the ground. Buried for Safe keeping they were for one reason or another lost. (A seal bearng the name of Josephus in greek Characters was found at Qumran {Not conclusive but interesting} the texts found there were very diverse, more diverse than might be expected of a small isolated sect, the presence of all sorts of scraps of paper also suggest a great gathering of all written material in a hurry)

OK here comes the point, The allusions in Jude are to the book of Enoch, this seems a fairly prominent book in the scrolls discovered, the tone of Jude reflects the more apocolyptic tone of the texts discovered at qumran, just as James's phrasing reflects particularly texts which some researchers into the scrolls have called (I believe erroniously) Sectarian texts, See Eisenman on works seen as Justifying you.

Another interesting item from the dead sea scrolls is the roles of the 'Liar', the 'Wicked Priest' and not to mention the teacher of Reitiousness. The allignment of the words of James's catholic epistle and the dead sea scrolls is impressive, just as is the similarity of the story of the Liar and Pauls story.

i.e. they both become converts to a movement, they both learn about the rules principles and beliefs of the movement for three years, they have a falling out with the congregation and leadership of the movement, they both escape from the town/city/enclave by climbing over the wall to avoid punnishment, they both have the help of two helpers from inside the community.

The 'liar' is never given a name, but neither is the teacher of reitiousness or the wicked priest (Annanias prehaps) In fact the mention of names in the 'secular' texts is fairly rare, If Jude was connected with this movement he may well have felt his audience knew who he was talking about and was writing within an accepted practice.

Jude is also felt to be the source for 2 Peter which then makes Peters mention of Pauls name all the more interesting, and hints that Peter was in Peace keeping role, especially since his tone is less inflamatory than Judes.

The plural form of you may have been used to refer to a family as well as a church. However My issue would be more concerned with the apparent exclusion of writings by Women from the new Testament. This seems to be one of the splits on fundamental issues which seperated the Roman church from the Jerusalem Church. The Gnostic evidence which suggests that women were to be made equal to men I believe supports this.

This raises an interesting conundrum about the conservative and progressive elements of both Roman nad Jerusalem Factions of the early Church, In Rome there is a conservatism for obedience, to husbands, to Masters ect, in Jerusalem the empahsis seems to be on obedience to the law of Moses or put another way tradition. In Rome there is pacifism, in Jerusalem a determination to resist the oppressor, In Rome Women serve their husbands, in jerusalem they are to be made men.

OK I am hypothesising quite a bit but I feel my interpretation fits the evidence I have seen better than the belief that the church was one big happy family, which settled in rome whilst the Jerusalem Church simply died out. It didn't die out it was systematically destroyed, and the destruction began with the dispute between Paul and James and was completed circa 300 ce with the emphatic decision that Jesus would fight on the side of an emperor in a bloody and probably unnecissary battle which cost the lives of thousands of people, and would additionally be quite happy for that individual to concentrate lots of power into his hands and deliver edicts to the council of bishops about the role of god and Jesus in the Church.

Hi SD

Well, let's agree to differ! The book of Enoch is (I realise you must know) dated (probably) to the 1st century BC. I suppose the mention of 'liar', etc., must be in other texts in Qumran. But the apocalyptic style was not unique to Qumran (Joel adopts it much earlier, and he's just one example), and there is no need to suppose that Jude or Peter were connected with them, or that they would a) be hinting at it, and b) referring it to Paul.

jeenius

>>hold up. in the UK, religious discrimination for employment was made illegal THIS APRIL?<<

The law came in on April 1st 2004. It was not a joke, although the extent of the ignorance of the government about paganism, and several other minority religions, was.

Except that it is specifically excluded from applying to quite a lot of places, including certain areas in education and, of course, the Church LOL.

Under the new legislation, employees also have the right to ask for time for their religious festivals - although employers don't have to grant it.

Jez - who can't even ask for time as she works in one of the many areas where the law does not apply, but who at least can't be chucked out of her job now if the fundie on the governing body finds out she's heathen. And so has made it obvious for the first time in years that she /is/ heathen