Read...then discuss

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

You have a good point.   I guess I am influenced from a cultural anthropology class I took years ago.  It was a pretty convincing argument for the validity of oral traditions.   Researchers showed  (with  supporting scientifically dated artifacts) that much of the cultural and spiritual traditions of Australia's aborigines has remained unchanged (or little changed) over a couple thousand years at least.    We saw a rather long documentary (ran two classes long)  (and it was fascinating)...therein were lots of supporting materials.   It was a long time ago but my take away of it all being fairly well substantiated has stuck with me (even if all the details I got tested on were long forgotten.)   I miss my very sharp memory - it served me well for a long time. 

 

von

 

The Aborigines are not political.  They never took it upon themselves, to travel across the world -- replacing all the other mythologies with their own.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

How does one know the tribal oral traditions have remained unchanged? Does one take the word of the storyteller that he is repeating verbatim as was told to him and hasn't added or subtracted from the story? End the end we all have to just "believe" something we are told is true unless we can reproduce the results for ourselves.

 

 

Look at the efforts of the Jesus Project, to separate fact from fiction.  Written text does little good if the origins are not true.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, AmberLF said:

Perhaps, but it also leaves a lot of room for misunderstandings, lies and assumptions to be added... infiltration from those purposefully trying to make a tradition seem less or worse than it was. And then you have those who can't seem to grasp things in the truer, deeper meaning for one reason or another and completely misconstrues things, or leaves important things out.  Without something written to refer back to, well... you can easily lose the origins that way.  At least early records can make it possible for someone to compare modern to past and figure out if those original ideas still really do fit today's contest.

 

 

Christian and Jewish Scriptures are full of pious fraud.  Written text is not the same as true history.  

[VonNoble]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The Aborigines are not political.  They never took it upon themselves, to travel across the world -- replacing all the other mythologies with their own.

 

 

  thx... I needed that....  

von

[AmberLF]

On 10/13/2017 at 2:41 PM, VonNoble said:

Considering for more than two centuries the followers of every holy text ....cannot agree 1) on the origins even with it in writing   2) the meaning of the context  3) the rituals and reverence required 4) which parts are literal and which are not .... it seems like the written version is under attack from within ... and continuously births  new versions of itself... morphs and progresses .....till any connection is fairly unrecognizable from the original, maybe...

 

As opposed in some cases to tribal traditions which have remained unchanged for eons....

 

Thx for the exchange of ideas

von

Actually the followers from earlier times often didn't read the text, usually through being eliterate, in lieu of following what the priests said. Those in power that did know what is written often tried to utilize it for controlling the masses and edited a lot, instructing the priests on which way they needed to start leaning in their sermons if they wished to keep their post. You would be amazed how often this happened in history.  

 

The other thing you might find interesting is there are a fair number of people who start traditions for the same power rather than honest connection to spirit or deity.  Now I'm not saying there is no good reason not to have oral traditions along side of honest book research. There is a fair amount of community connection that is built around it as well as stronger mentor/teacher bond in the teaching of them. I just feel without well researched and written things to fall back on in times of confusion is just wise. I'm just saying perhaps equal parts might be a better, more honest and equal path to learning them.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

41 minutes ago, AmberLF said:

Actually the followers from earlier times often didn't read the text, usually through being eliterate, in lieu of following what the priests said. Those in power that did know what is written often tried to utilize it for controlling the masses and edited a lot, instructing the priests on which way they needed to start leaning in their sermons if they wished to keep their post. 1.  You would be amazed how often this happened in history.  

 

2.  The other thing you might find interesting is there are a fair number of people who start traditions for the same power rather than honest connection to spirit or deity.  Now I'm not saying there is no good reason not to have oral traditions along side of honest book research. There is a fair amount of community connection that is built around it as well as stronger mentor/teacher bond in the teaching of them. I just feel without well researched and written things to fall back on in times of confusion is just wise. I'm just saying perhaps equal parts might be a better, more honest and equal path to learning them.  

 

1.  No.  I would not be amazed.  Not even mildly surprised.  There is nothing new about pious fraud.  Motivation varies greatly.  

 

2.  I could name a few, but it would not be politic.  The whole showing respect thing.

 

 

 

[Key]

6 hours ago, AmberLF said:

Actually the followers from earlier times often didn't read the text, usually through being eliterate, in lieu of following what the priests said. Those in power that did know what is written often tried to utilize it for controlling the masses and edited a lot, instructing the priests on which way they needed to start leaning in their sermons if they wished to keep their post. You would be amazed how often this happened in history.  

 

The other thing you might find interesting is there are a fair number of people who start traditions for the same power rather than honest connection to spirit or deity.  Now I'm not saying there is no good reason not to have oral traditions along side of honest book research. There is a fair amount of community connection that is built around it as well as stronger mentor/teacher bond in the teaching of them. I just feel without well researched and written things to fall back on in times of confusion is just wise. I'm just saying perhaps equal parts might be a better, more honest and equal path to learning them.  

Actually this could be viewed as a circular power construction. What is written could have been done so to steer those who could read to herd those who couldn't in a certain direction, thus making solid their position. Therefore, what is written may be suspect of hidden agendas, and would not really be credible as something to fall back on.

It all comes back to what folks are willing to believe, without verifiable evidence as proof. 

[VonNoble]

15 hours ago, AmberLF said:

 I just feel without well researched and written things to fall back on in times of confusion is just wise. I'm just saying perhaps equal parts might be a better, more honest and equal path to learning them.  

 

Thanks for the posting.   I understand what you are saying - there is some degree of validity there. 

However, still, the written word historically (and currently) is the source of some of that confusion.   

When they don't agree - everyone points fingers.  All holding the book ...and pointing fingers. 

So the book (the written version)  - doesn't seem to reduce confusion, maybe?

 

Von

[VonNoble]

8 hours ago, Key said:

Actually this could be viewed as a circular power construction. What is written could have been done so to steer those who could read to herd those who couldn't in a certain direction, thus making solid their position. Therefore, what is written may be suspect of hidden agendas, and would not really be credible as something to fall back on.

It all comes back to what folks are willing to believe, without verifiable evidence as proof. 

 

This seems to flow as probable to me. Thx for the posting.

Von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

Thanks for the posting.   I understand what you are saying - there is some degree of validity there. 

However, still, the written word historically (and currently) is the source of some of that confusion.   

When they don't agree - everyone points fingers.  All holding the book ...and pointing fingers. 

So the book (the written version)  - doesn't seem to reduce confusion, maybe?

 

Von

 

Which confusion do you mean?  Interpreting the word?  Or the source of the word?  They are different issues.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 Interpreting the word?  Or the source of the word?  They are different issues.

They are different, but without understanding the source you can't make an accurate interpretation of the word. Different sources, after all, will likely define words differently, use different idioms, and attribute different characteristics to the same archetypes. As such, confusion about the source will likely lead to confusion over interpretation, and vice versa. Its fairly messy stuff, really.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

24 minutes ago, mererdog said:

They are different, but without understanding the source you can't make an accurate interpretation of the word. Different sources, after all, will likely define words differently, use different idioms, and attribute different characteristics to the same archetypes. As such, confusion about the source will likely lead to confusion over interpretation, and vice versa. Its fairly messy stuff, really.

 

Yes.  Scripture is a mess.  That means the author -- if we can put it in singular -- was not perfect.  Ergo.  The author was not God.

 

 

It still begs an obvious question.  Why does God need Human scribes?  

 

[mererdog]

27 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Yes.  Scripture is a mess.  That means the author -- if we can put it in singular -- was not perfect.  Ergo.  The author was not God.

 Or the author is God, and you are confused by your incorrect interpretation that Scripture is a mess.

Or some Scripture is authored by God, and some is not, and you are confused by the assumption that it all has the same author.

Or Scripture is a mess, and it is authored by God, but you are confused about the nature of God and so can't understand how that is true.

Confusion can be a rather confusing subject.

 

[VonNoble]

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Which confusion do you mean?  Interpreting the word?  Or the source of the word?  They are different issues.

 

 

 

 

Yes!  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, VonNoble said:

Yes!  

 

 

The source was people.  Nothing else is possible.

 

Interpretation is only important to the people who care.  Life is short.  I have other concerns.  

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 hours ago, mererdog said:

 Or the author is God, and you are confused by your incorrect interpretation that Scripture is a mess.

Or some Scripture is authored by God, and some is not, and you are confused by the assumption that it all has the same author.

Or Scripture is a mess, and it is authored by God, but you are confused about the nature of God and so can't understand how that is true.

Confusion can be a rather confusing subject.

 

 

 

Or, I have chosen to cease my dithering, over the most over blown trivia known to Humanity. 

 

If God were real -- and cared -- there would be no confusion over the word.  If God were not real -- or didn't care -- we would have a world that looks like the world we have.  Either way, it doesn't matter.

 

 

[AmberLF]

On 10/15/2017 at 2:12 PM, Key said:

Actually this could be viewed as a circular power construction. What is written could have been done so to steer those who could read to herd those who couldn't in a certain direction, thus making solid their position. Therefore, what is written may be suspect of hidden agendas, and would not really be credible as something to fall back on.

It all comes back to what folks are willing to believe, without verifiable evidence as proof. 

Absolutely, but going with oral traditions alone the honest students, the ones who wish to get into the studies properly, have nothing but someone's word, who may or may not leave clues enough to determine where's or the why's of things. At least with something written it can be compared through other sources to verify and validate.

[AmberLF]

19 hours ago, mererdog said:

 Or the author is God, and you are confused by your incorrect interpretation that Scripture is a mess.

Or some Scripture is authored by God, and some is not, and you are confused by the assumption that it all has the same author.

Or Scripture is a mess, and it is authored by God, but you are confused about the nature of God and so can't understand how that is true.

Confusion can be a rather confusing subject.

 

Oh no, it's pretty clear the author was not God. It's pretty well worked out it was written by many people throughout a fair span of time and edited by more people, probably a fair number more than that what wrote it. 

[AmberLF]

On 10/13/2017 at 7:54 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Christian and Jewish Scriptures are full of pious fraud.  Written text is not the same as true history.  

True, and without it being written people wouldn't have really been able to go over it with a fine tooth comb, compare it to other sources and determine that very easily. Come to think of it... there is a fair chance that Christianity at least could have been forgotten entirely by now. Most unwritten traditions do end up forgotten. The ones that survive end up on such heavy debate of origin and authenticity that it pretty much falls to belief and benefit of the doubt without much to go on for support. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by AmberLF

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, AmberLF said:

Oh no, it's pretty clear the author was not God. 

The "Oh no" suggests certainty, but the "pretty clear" indicates uncertainty. In order to know that the Bible is not written by God, I would first need to know what it would look like if it were written by God. Without that knowledge, I have no counterfactual to compare against reality.

 

 A few key facts that muddy the waters-

It is completely possible for a single person to create a work that looks as if it has multiple authors. 

There is never a point where it is reasonable to say "An omnipotent being could not have done this." 

The standard conception of what "authored by God" indicates is a sort of dictation process happening over a very long period of time and with a whole lot of scribes.

Edited October 17, 2017 by mererdog