Kindest Regards, China Cat!
Thank you for your thoughtful response!
China Cat Sunflower said:
I think you're making a pretty profound point here 123. My own perspective is this: In order to appreciate the Bible and get to the unvarnished, primitive if you will, truths within it, I think we have to carefully consider what is written in it in the original context insofar as that's possible. That's a lot harder than it might sound because just figuring out what is historical versus metaphorical within the narratives is like opening a keg, not a can of worms. In addition to the spiritual and cultural contexts, we need to have a grasp of the political context that's playing out in the narratives.
I do agree with you to a great degree. However, there are also valuable lessons to be conveyed to those of a less scholarly aptitude. I believe this in essence to be true with all of the sacred writings of the great world faiths, but as I have not yet explored most of them this opinion is based on the successes the world faiths have achieved over time. Back to the Bible, I was taught it is written on three levels; the physical, mental and spiritual. For something like the account of the plagues of Egypt and the Exodus, there is the (arguably) historical / physical aspect, the mental aspect of trying to understand why G-d would do the things He did, and the spiritual aspect that conveys the importance of surrender to and obedience to G-d. This is an overly simple summary only to make a general point. These levels are readily available to a non-scholar who merely applies himself by faith to the teachings.
I do agree there are supplemental matters that are conveyed by taking into account the original languages, political and cultural contexts, etc. These supplemental matters help clarify matters of confused interpretation. Yet, at least as I see it, confused interpretation is on the part of humans, not G-d. One can as easily, and successfully, through diligent application over prolonged study and seeking a sincere connection to G-d, arrive at much the same answers. I have been witness to a number of people who have done this very thing. I am a bit more, ummm, hard headed. I need the supplemental "insurance" of language and context to reinforce my understanding.
Similarly, in order to grasp what's being presented in the OT we have to figure out where mythology stops and historicity begins in order to understand the political context of why and how the mythological portion was constructed. What purposes is it meant to serve culturally, politically, sociologically?
I suppose for an outsider looking in this is of greater import. For those to whom Judaism and Christianity are a way of life, delineating the mythology is of lesser import. The mythology serves a purpose, whether that be the binding of a culture, or the teaching of a truth, or some other that escapes my thinking just now.
The thing is, in order to create the illusion of being "self-born", both Judaism and Christianity, but particularly Christianity has engaged in an effort to destroy any material that would provide a basis for questioning the literality of its theology.
Ah, now we enter the realm of politics and power and institutional religion. Not altogether unrelated, but still of no real import to the truths contained. The function of Christianity is to form a frame of mind and reference in a more or less united peoples. A meme, if you prefer. That meme is powerful in its own right, and when functioning as I deem correctly, provides a means and manner for the person of the influence of that meme to relate in a positive manner to those around him / her, and to draw a closer connection to G-d. In their own ways the other major world religions perform a very similar function. And again in their own ways the other major world religions have been usurped by the political powers in the realms they exist in.
Yet, an individual can function very well without the political overtures, relying solely on the established meme. Governments, being the necessary evils that they are and subject to the requirements of governance, co-opt the memes in order to influence the more-or-less unity of those under the meme. But governments fundamentally cannot successfully change the meme, at least to my knowledge none have to this point. Gov makes allusion to a meme, but cannot supplant it.
One of the effects of this shred-job is that we don't have any reliable information on who the actual, historical Jesus might have been.
I am struggling to answer this. I thought of an example, but I question whether it will be of any real value. Consider, if Charles Manson had somehow been a "messiah," would not our government have gone to lengths to erase his memory? I see Jesus in a similar fashion. The Jews were out to get him. The Romans were out to get him. One could surmise some of his kin were out to get him. Even Qumran wasn't too keen on him. One could say he had a lot of friends, but he had far more enemies. Is it any wonder we have as much historically as we do relating to him?
The other major challenge is to try to peel back the layers and try to get underneath the surface story to find the deeper truth. On the surface we may be reading a very nice story or parable, but underneath that are several layers of encoded meaning, a great part of which is nearly impossible to understand because we've lost the key to un-encrypt it. And then there's the problem of bogus information and all manner of psuedo-occult theories and "Bible codes" and foo-foo fluffy stuff that people have come up with to sell books.
This brings up a good point. Without spiritual guidance, what we uncover when peeling back the layers can destroy the faith of the fragile. What we uncover can create more questions than answers. And there is
always the possibility of our own incorrect interpretation, let alone incorrect interpretation by others.
For myself, I've come to the point where I have reluctantly admitted to myself that I really can't understand the full import of the OT material, and in particular the Torah portion because I'm not Jewish, and I'm unable to devote my life entirely to the study of the material. Now if, after twenty years of studying the Bible and other sacred texts, I find that I'm unable to fully, or even substantially comprehend the OT without almost completely relying on Jewish commentary from Rabbis who devoted their entire lives to it's study, then how willing do you think I'm going to be to take the word of some Christian dogmatist who has less of a grasp of the material than I have?
I appreciate your concern regarding taking the word of a dogmatist. I imagined this thread a veiled attempt to expose just such. There is no need, we both know they exist, here and in the "real" world. Yet, as I also mentioned, there is sufficient for those of less scholarly aptitude to take away great value from the teachings. How they apply those teachings is another matter.
Christianity, like Judaism, is a way of life. To gain the greatest value is to experience it on a daily basis. There are no holidays from being Christian, if one is genuine to themselves and more importantly to G-d. 20 years, unfortunately, is a mere nothing. For an abstract scholar, a student from the outside looking in, it is an overwhelming task to be able to give "true" credit to the value of the teachings. For the Jews there is Kabbala, Massorah, and other educational and scholarship devices. For the Christian there are the detractors of Paul, the reductionists, the politicists, and others who would whittle away at the faith and attempt to undermine the meme. These people do not understand, nor is it expected of an outsider to understand. G-d, and the meme of Christianity, supercede attempted undermining. G-d was here long before man had the first thought, and G-d will be here long after the last man has eroded into the dust from which he came. To a scholar who is attempting to show G-d does not exist, or to whom playing god himself is a reputable vocation, this concept does not register. It cannot. To do so would be to set up a psychological dichotomy that would insure insanity if not effectively resolved. So the atheist scholar denies the existence of G-d, in spite of the circumstantial evidence that surrounds him.
I had hoped to continue the subject at hand, concerning sacrifice. The bulk of what I have mentioned here is contained in multiple threads elsewhere in the forum. The subject of sacrifice, however, seems to be one of those hard questions even the doubters shun. Unless they bring it up merely to expose some white underbelly, and then run. I trust neither you nor Cage are that kind.
So, may I ask for your input on sacrifice, and the significance to cultures around the world?
