Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 05:51:35 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Bible

Started by Smeraldina Rima, November 04, 2021, 09:23:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bakabaka

I'll try (and fail) to keep this short.
When I was about 11, in a Divinity class, our teacher read us a hellfire sermon from the late 18th century. It was so monstrously at odds with the 'peace and love' version of Christianity we'd been brought up with that it inspired me to read the Bible.

It didn't help, though it did convince me that if there was a deity, it had nothing to do with organised religion, or humans.
But it did start me an a life-long search for an answer to the main question it raised: why on Earth did religion start in the first place?
It was obvious that once religion had started and was accepted, additions, revisions and alternative sects were all about power. If you weren't born into the ruling elite (or not high enough) becoming a champion warrior or a religious leader were your main ways to power. And once you have a static organised religion it becomes harder to rise to the top so to get followers and power the next route is to start your own religion/sect/cult. Thus Jesus' story is one of dissatisfaction leading to trying to build a new variant on Judaism with him in charge. And then Paul jumped on the bandwagon and took over the religion for his own power and influence, building the hierarchy and burying the idea that there is a personal god in favour of having priests, bishops, etc. who are the ones in contact with god and everyone else must pay their dues to hear what god says second-hand.

But why did religion start? I've never believed that god talks to people directly, though Julian Jaynes came up with a quite believable explanation in The Origin of Consciousness(or the wikipedia précis) as to why they may have thought that their internal monologue was an external narrator. If not that, is it some form of psychosis or schizophrenia? And the occasional talk of a gene for religion just seems to be trying to justify the fantasy in an age of science. The religions of civilization look to be a game of self-delusion in order to absolve the self of responsibility, so maybe it's as simple as that - give someone else power over you so that you aren't to blame for the shit you do.

enough

New page, bugger. Please imagine this is at the bottom of the previous page, to be instantly forgotten.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: bakabaka on November 10, 2021, 07:54:33 PM
But why did religion start? I've never believed that god talks to people directly, though Julian Jaynes came up with a quite believable explanation in The Origin of Consciousness(or the wikipedia précis) as to why they may have thought that their internal monologue was an external narrator. If not that, is it some form of psychosis or schizophrenia? And the occasional talk of a gene for religion just seems to be trying to justify the fantasy in an age of science. The religions of civilization look to be a game of self-delusion in order to absolve the self of responsibility, so maybe it's as simple as that - give someone else power over you so that you aren't to blame for the shit you do.

I imagine in its most primal sense, it started as a way of explaining why things are the way they are. Most of the earliest "religions" tended to worship things they could see, like the sun or the elements, but this evolved to be more (or perhaps less?) abstract. There are some who theorise that early religions, up to and including Ancient Greece, were far less literal in their beliefs, using those "Gods" and their stories as a framework for navigating and understanding life, as well as to personify aspects of our own personalities. It's probably impossible to discern when and where the shift into a more literal, dogmatic thinking took place, but major civilizations like Ancient Rome seemed pretty flexible about religion for the most part[nb]of course, you could argue that they essentially deified their own leaders instead[/nb].

I think using stories to try and make sense of the world is a perfectly fine thing to do, and probably somewhat essential for humans with our silly "evolved" minds. As with all good things, though, it's liable to be co-opted and corrupted by the loudest and most aggressive of us.

bakabaka

Yes, the pre-civilisation religions of stories and humanised symbols to describe the world makes sense. And having a class of keepers of those stories would have been needed in pre-writing times, and they would have had some power due to that knowledge. But I was thinking more of the prophets and their claims of recounting the words of the god/gods. That seem a step change in hubris/deception/manipulation.

Dr Rock

'Why crops fail? We must be being punished - but by who?' and it went from there.

bgmnts

I reckon spirituality started before agriculture. As soon as one s little monkey saw a bit of shiny metal or was caught in a storm and said to themselves "wtf is this?"

Poobum

Who you gonna listen too when it comes to wisdoms and portents? Guy going "I reckon that's how my great grand-dad used to do it" or a guy wearing full face paint and a cloak in his stone circle going on about how great Belenus is using him as a mighty conduit. I certainly know who I'd listen to!

imitationleather

Didn't Ian Paisley start religion so he could shout a lot?

jamiefairlie

Quote from: bakabaka on November 11, 2021, 09:15:50 AM
Yes, the pre-civilisation religions of stories and humanised symbols to describe the world makes sense. And having a class of keepers of those stories would have been needed in pre-writing times, and they would have had some power due to that knowledge. But I was thinking more of the prophets and their claims of recounting the words of the god/gods. That seem a step change in hubris/deception/manipulation.

Don't discount the role of psychoactive plants in this tradition. Most shaman types used them to commune with the gods.

jamiefairlie

Quote from: imitationleather on November 11, 2021, 12:11:16 PM
Didn't Ian Paisley start religion so he could shout a lot?

He was already the Belfast town cryer though.

badaids

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on November 10, 2021, 08:11:27 PM
I imagine in its most primal sense, it started as a way of explaining why things are the way they are. Most of the earliest "religions" tended to worship things they could see, like the sun or the elements, but this evolved to be more (or perhaps less?) abstract. There are some who theorise that early religions, up to and including Ancient Greece, were far less literal in their beliefs, using those "Gods" and their stories as a framework for navigating and understanding life, as well as to personify aspects of our own personalities. It's probably impossible to discern when and where the shift into a more literal, dogmatic thinking took place, but major civilizations like Ancient Rome seemed pretty flexible about religion for the most part[nb]of course, you could argue that they essentially deified their own leaders instead[/nb].

'As is 'appens I am reading Graham Hancocks book on this subject at this moment. He says it's because primitive people started eating peyote, ayahusca and loads of other hallucinogens and cave paintings are their attempts to account for and explain what they saw. He also says that's where art comes from. Haven't got to the end of the book yet but I'm fairly certain he's going to take it down a 'the hallucinations are actually real and their aliens' route, and the drugs just tune you into their presence type malarkey.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: badaids on November 11, 2021, 07:04:46 PM
'As is 'appens I am reading Graham Hancocks book on this subject at this moment. He says it's because primitive people started eating peyote, ayahusca and loads of other hallucinogens and cave paintings are their attempts to account for and explain what they saw. He also says that's where art comes from. Haven't got to the end of the book yet but I'm fairly certain he's going to take it down a 'the hallucinations are actually real and their aliens' route, and the drugs just tune you into their presence type malarkey.

I read his book Supernatural when I was a late teenager into that kind of stuff. It's a fun theory, but I agree there's not a whole lot to be done with it in and of itself. It is fascinating that our brains are all capable of producing chemicals which give us otherworldly experiences (in dreams, fevers, even stress), and it's not a huge leap to consider that psychedelics may have played a role in establishing our conception of the supernatural or the divine. Almost everyone I know who has partaken has reported feeling something akin to "God" during their experiences, though it's debatable how much of that is influenced by the concept of God basically being evolved into us. It's all interesting. Fun to think about.

JesusAndYourBush

Quote from: bakabaka on November 11, 2021, 09:15:50 AM
But I was thinking more of the prophets and their claims of recounting the words of the god/gods. That seem a step change in hubris/deception/manipulation.

Quote from: Poobum on November 11, 2021, 10:15:47 AM
Who you gonna listen too when it comes to wisdoms and portents? Guy going "I reckon that's how my great grand-dad used to do it" or a guy wearing full face paint and a cloak in his stone circle going on about how great Belenus is using him as a mighty conduit. I certainly know who I'd listen to!

Yeah this.  If you said it was something you'd written yourself you'd get ridiculed, but say God told you and you'd get equally ridiculednobody would dare argue with God!

Mr_Simnock

Quote from: Pranet on November 05, 2021, 04:18:25 PM
I read it on and off starting about this time last year and finishing February this year.

I am not sure why. I think a large part of the reason, shamefully, is so I could say, oh yeah I've read the bible.

I read the King James as I wanted to read the version that most Protestant English speakers for the last 400 years would be familiar with, and therefore a large number of the writers I am likely to read.
 
To be honest this meant that I quite frequently had to look at a modern translation online to work out what was going on.

I, like  All Surrogate found it a lot of the time repetitious and dull and also really stupid. But it has its moments.

I liked the Jesus of the Gospels. He is a bit of a prick at times (don't think you've mentioned him atomising a fig tree for not having any figs out of season) but when I got to the new testament after books and books of prophets declaring damnation to Israel for forsaking the Law he comes across as relatable and refreshing.

It is Paul who the biggest prick in the new testament.

Despite finding it stupid and boring I am kind of fascinated by it and will continue to read about it I think.


This will have been intentional, whether to help an orator remember it and\or to ram home an important point what of was being said to an illiterate crowd. Even though the bible has been written down from at least the second century one of its prime principal uses was for reading out to others, not like now where we can pretty much all read it for ourselves.

Thursday

When I was a doubt-filled Christian, looking to the Bible for answers, only to have it bring further doubts, I did have the thought maybe Paul's passed on the message wrong and it's ruined everything.

Obviously silly, but it's intriguing just how much of it he's responsible for, almost feels like he's the most crucial figure in modern Christian teachings.

jamiefairlie

Quote from: Thursday on November 12, 2021, 08:38:02 PM
When I was a doubt-filled Christian, looking to the Bible for answers, only to have it bring further doubts, I did have the thought maybe Paul's passed on the message wrong and it's ruined everything.

Obviously silly, but it's intriguing just how much of it he's responsible for, almost feels like he's the most crucial figure in modern Christian teachings.

He absolutely is, he's the true creator of the church as an entity. It would likely have continued as a Jewish-only sect if it wasn't for Paul who struck out to the gentiles, usually against the wishes of the James-led community, which led to great antagonism between the camps.

chveik

he's the father of the way we think 'universalism' and therefore possibly of western colonialism

All Surrogate

I find it hard not to apply the stereotype of the "zeal of the convert" to Paul. I think I'm right in saying he never actually met Jesus, and of course he started out as a persecutor of the early followers of Jesus. Then he had the archetypal Damascene conversion, and directed apparently huge energy into spreading the new faith rather than stamping it out.

But of course he was spreading his new faith, which, as others have said, didn't exactly coincide with the ideas of the 'original' followers. To be fair, no two people have exactly the same faith, but the question of whether non-jewish people could become christian without becoming jewish in some sense (most physically, circumcision) or not, is a significant fault line.

If Paul had settled on the former rather than the latter, then I struggle to see how christianity could've spread in the way it did. Perhaps it would've been more 'authentic', and perhaps it would've been 'nicer' (though I doubt it), but it might well have faded away, as so many religious movements do.

Poobum

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on November 05, 2021, 05:49:33 PM
I found this book, Zealot by Reza Aslan, to be a pretty interesting read concerning the historicity of Jesus and the historical context for a lot of the New Testament. It raises a lot of the same points I made about how Jesus is presented by the modern church (a peaceful spiritual leader) versus what the Bible actually depicts him as (a hardline revolutionary).

Appreciate the recommendation, was a brilliant read. Came out of it imagining Paul as one of those "I was in the SAS mate, with 200 confirmed black op kills" types. Such childishness to him, "your an apostle? well I'm the first and bestest apostle since before I was born" "you knew Jesus for years yeah? well that was when he was just a bloke, his super evolved form talks to me every night telling me all his special secrets, what about that then?"

Thursday

Odd that a Lion who's life had so many parallels to Jesus would be so critical.

idunnosomename

Paul was such an utter cunt. I could probably get some pretty high-up prelates to agree with me there

If we go down the Cradle of Filth Jesus Is A Cunt avenue, I think He was at least a tremendously bolshy bastard

Quote from: Matt 10:32-8Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.
it's weird how good Life of Brian is for conveying the knife-edge political situation in the Roman province of Judea. even with the accidental ride in a spaceship

Noodle Lizard

I don't know all there is to know about Paul, but he reminds me a bit of Barry from Four Lions - started out being a virulent anti-Christian, converted himself by mistake and then became The Biggest Christian, with seemingly little reflection in between.

I get a lot out of reading Paul's letters. The thing is, as others are suggesting above, he himself is kind of unlikeable and authoritarian. But the letters also imply interesting things about the people who he is addressing.
Try reading his first letter to the Corinthians- and look at what he's arguing with the Corinthians about: he's saying they need to be more decent and more orderly, that the women need to be subordinate and silent, that they'll be thought of as mad if they keep on speaking in tounges, that they need to stop stealing food that people from other religions have left as sacrifices before idols. Look at the way he tries to put qualifications on what was supposedly a slogan of the Corinthians, "All things are lawful for me". Doesn't it all imply that the Corinthians were a rather wild and liberated bunch of people? Doesn't the experience of reading the letter imply that there were many directions that Christianity could have gone in?

JaDanketies

I definitely felt that Jesus was a cool dude when I read the New Testament. That whole blood libel bit was incredibly explicit.

Also it needs a sub-edit. Judas dying in two different ways within a few pages of each-other was particularly striking. Weird that a bunch of people spent ages subediting it and they missed that boob.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: JaDanketies on November 14, 2021, 03:01:24 PMAlso it needs a sub-edit. Judas dying in two different ways within a few pages of each-other was particularly striking. Weird that a bunch of people spent ages subediting it and they missed that boob.

And in Acts he dies by falling over in a field and exploding (although there are naturally a few interpretations of the translation).

EOLAN

Quote from: bgmnts on November 05, 2021, 07:03:45 AM
The only Bible thing I'd actually want to read is the gnostic gospel of Judas, as I consider Judas the true hero of the new testament.


I very much agree with this as well. If one takes that the whole destiny of Jesus being was to sacrifice his life (if only for three days) that Judas is the character who helps bring about this "greater good" at the expense of his own reputation both among other disciples and in Christian history (which may not have been expected to be as big as it became even under Jesus's most fervent followers).

Also once driving through Northern Ireland saw a big poster saying "Jesus died for our sins, on the third day he rose again". Him being able to rise from his death after three days does seem to reduce the level of sacrifice he made. 

All Surrogate


bakabaka

When Jesus Christ Superstar first came out I was expecting a huge backlash for the sympathetic treatment Judas got, but it seemed to go under the radar/over their heads.
I have a vague memory of an interview with Tim Rice saying that the original idea was to do a musical about Judas and how he was just doing what god/Jesus wanted/needed to happen. But he decided to tone it down a bit and the rest is history mythology.

MojoJojo

It first came out 50 years ago - are you older than the 29 it says on your profile?

Reading around there was a bit of protest - from Jewish groups as well as some Christians. I suspect there would be more protest if released now.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: bakabaka on November 19, 2021, 08:00:05 PMWhen Jesus Christ Superstar first came out I was expecting a huge backlash for the sympathetic treatment Judas got, but it seemed to go under the radar/over their heads.
I have a vague memory of an interview with Tim Rice saying that the original idea was to do a musical about Judas and how he was just doing what god/Jesus wanted/needed to happen. But he decided to tone it down a bit and the rest is history mythology.

There are some lines of thought among Christians that see Judas's betrayal as simply fulfilling God's mission (to have his son executed in order to save mankind - honestly, I still don't understand that whole concept), so he can't exactly be blamed for it. Ironically, these are often the same people who hold "The Jews" accountable for Jesus's death, so take that for what it's worth.

I liked The Last Temptation of Christ's interpretation, where Jesus persuades Judas to turn him in to the Romans as part of the big plan. That film also depicts Judas as the hardcore revolutionary type (perhaps inspired by a real-life revolutionary called Judas who was making waves in that century), who spends a lot of the first half complaining about Jesus being a big wussy, so it suggests that Judas's betrayal was partly politically motivated in order to make a martyr of Christ.

idunnosomename

Jesus wasn't dead for three days btw. It's "third day" with inclusive counting, which is quite common in the ancient world. Dies Friday afternoon, in tomb before sundown, there all of Saturday, resurrects at dawn on Sunday.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh etc