(no subject)

[Joe Allonby]

A friend and bartender once opined that the two halves of the Bible
should be renamed as "How to" books. The Old Testament should be
renamed "How to Live in a Middle-Eastern Desert 3000 Years Ago". The
New Testament should be renamed "How to Live Under Roman Occupation".
Since neither of those conditions currently exist....


On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, there might be another way of looking at it. (At least
> one.) To say that the later Jewish offspring are fallacious copies of
> the original, in the context of the religions themselves, suggests
> that the original is more pure, therefore more true, while, in fact,
> the later religions grew out of a no-longer adequate set of metaphors.
> Judaism could not answer the question of why there came to be a Rome,
> or of how to live with Roman hegemony in the Med. Christianity offered
> a way to adapt to Rome, and eventually adopt it and give it a new life
> in a further changing world. Protestantism and Islam, of course,
> evolved in the same way. Christianity meant little to drifters and
> herdsmen in the decaying post-Seleucid / post-Roman desert where
> Zoroastrianism was busily decaying; and Rome was taking away too much
> dough from northern Europe in the form of imposed tithes and phony
> indulgences for the purpose of funding the Renaissance in the Papal
> States and what would one day become northern Italy. So, each evolved
> to accommodate pressures from the outside, not to copy a purer
> original. People need a central organizing idea, or they cannot form
> themselves into nations, the fractability of Protestantism and Islam
> made nations possible by supplying a steadily morphing moral center
> for each evolving group. In other words, to say that religions copy
> better originals is approximately parallel to saying that evolving
> species copy better originals. And one could say that, though
> believing it might prove difficult.
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Richard Ryan <himself at richardryan.com> wrote:
>> Christianity has characteristically been regarded as either a radical
>> and inspired re-vision of Judaism or a grotesque and heretical
>> spin-off of it.  You're right, Ed, that the
>> Judaism>Catholicism>Protestantism sequence traces the distorted copy
>> of a distorted copy.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 4:39 PM,  <edmoorester at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> TR
>>>
>>> I get the impression Judaism was in part a streamlined monotheism meme that
>>> spread relatively well
>>> drawing from various tribal myths
>>>
>>> . . .then a "copy" or Jewish cult aka Christianity/Catholicism arose
>>> (rejecting certain aspects of "original")
>>>
>>> . . .then a "copy" called Protestantism arose (rejecting certain aspects of
>>> "original")
>>>
>>> . . .also a "copy" came about called Islam (uhh I am nervous about
>>> mentioning that one)
>>>
>>> Prophets typically hate phonies so Gaddis has that quality
>>>
>>> Just before GR's balloon scene (cannot find my copy right now) Pynchon goes
>>> into some detail on his
>>> family's involvement with the Salem witch trials and I bet some of those
>>> accusers considered themselves
>>> prophets
>>>
>>> ed
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Ryan
>> New York and the World
>> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>> Come see VTM's new production!
>> www.kingstheplay.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
> creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
> trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
> of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
> than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
>