Ten Commandments...."Rules" or "Continuum?" for living.

[pete]

i was taught that when god walked amoung us he gave us one rule: love one another as i have loved you, making the ten commandments pretty much obsolete. an eye for an eye became turn the other cheek. we can all stick by our testaments...

pete

 

[loki09789]

i was taught that when god walked amoung us he gave us one rule: love one another as i have loved you, making the ten commandments pretty much obsolete. an eye for an eye became turn the other cheek. we can all stick by our testaments...

pete

Pete,

You are moving into the 'spirit of the law' vs. the 'letter of the law' with this idea.

The underlying, ideal situation would be that people are all 'agapei' motivated enough (love/loyalty/selfless/god'fearing') that we follow the TC not by the letter or because we have to but almost automatically because we are always seeking do the write thing for the 'whole.'

I think Herries point about 'centrism' is that these 'laws' only applied to 'those like us' and if you weren't on the inside, it was totally acceptable to do just about anything to 'you' and there would be no retribution based on social or religious propriety. Rape a hebrew woman/sodomize a hebrew boy and, as a hebrew, you will be tried and punished. Do the exact same thing to someone outside of the Hebrew community (Samaritans for example) and no problem with go or the Hebrew community.

The Messianic message was, generally speaking, that following the law to 'just do it' or simply to keep peace with your fellow Jew wasn't the best motivation. Finding a deeper link to God was what I believe was at the core of Jesus' message. After that, everything else would fall in line.

 

[heretic888]

So, you're saying you don't believe in that type of moral code as a template for living?

No. I'm saying that any "moral code" is a rather fluid social construction that is subject to constant change, revision, and re-interpretation. The point is that the contemporary interpretations we hear today are not always the interpretations that the culture has used.

Many adherents typically like to give the excuse that these interpretations and understandings had been there from the very beginning, but that human ignorance or a couple of bad social apples prevented it from taking root culturally. Apparently, the implications of this assumption are that us moderns are so fantastically intelligent and bright that we can plainly see that which our ancestors were too thick-headed to acknowledge.

Just ignore the fact that nobody really put forward these "humanistic" interpretations of the TC until the the rational philosophy of humanism first popped up in ancient Hellenism, and then again during the European Renaissance. There are similar arguments as to how the Bible "supports" democracy and the separation of Church and State, but that apparently no one figured out these interpretations until atheists like Rousseau and Paine started putting forward their ideas.

The culprit here is clearly social evolution and change, not a "deeper understanding" of the laws in question.

I also don't see where there isn't a similar set of rules, tenets, laws, or whatever you (and Peach) choose to call them for every society. Maybe they don't exist as the Ten Commandments, and my not stating that earlier was a mistake, but the concepts do exist in all cultures.

I suggest re-reading my previous post. I already touched upon this.

I understand that you are [probably] saying that each lives his life the way he sees fit (is that true?)

Yup.

and, if your screen name is any indication of your beliefs, then you don't subscribe to any type of religious tenets, either. Or maybe you do and choose not to share that.

I have shared my "religious beliefs" before. I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist, if that is what you are inquiring. And, to note, my screen name has an ironic twist to it based on Greek numerology and Christology.

The Hebrews were as barbaric a race as any back then. Remember, we've been around for almost 6,000 years, give or take a century.

Well, I never said the Hebrews were any more barbaric than anyone else at the time. The Khans could certainly put them to shame, as could a few Native American tribes.

However, the point I was trying to make is that this intepretation of the TC is not some kind of hidden "original intention", as it is a result of social evolution.

I think maybe whoever was responsible for the initial interpretation of the Ten Commandments was making an attempt at establishing a viable, lawful culture instead of allowing everyone to do as he pleased

[...]

I also seem to recall you implying in another thread that the Bible and its stories were rewritten extensively and, therefore, subject to question. (I know you'll correct me on this one if I mis-remember.) One must take into account the times in which people were living.

Yes, that's another point I'd like to bring up: we don't really know when exactly the Ten Commandments were written.

I personally agree with the assessment that they were established to create some kind of order or law among the Hebrews themselves, as well as furnishing a kind of solidarity. Thus, the sociocentric nature of the commandments.

 

[heretic888]

You are moving into the 'spirit of the law' vs. the 'letter of the law' with this idea.

The underlying, ideal situation would be that people are all 'agapei' motivated enough (love/loyalty/selfless/god'fearing') that we follow the TC not by the letter or because we have to but almost automatically because we are always seeking do the write thing for the 'whole.'

I think Herries point about 'centrism' is that these 'laws' only applied to 'those like us' and if you weren't on the inside, it was totally acceptable to do just about anything to 'you' and there would be no retribution based on social or religious propriety. Rape a hebrew woman/sodomize a hebrew boy and, as a hebrew, you will be tried and punished. Do the exact same thing to someone outside of the Hebrew community (Samaritans for example) and no problem with go or the Hebrew community.

The Messianic message was, generally speaking, that following the law to 'just do it' or simply to keep peace with your fellow Jew wasn't the best motivation. Finding a deeper link to God was what I believe was at the core of Jesus' message. After that, everything else would fall in line.

Oy vey, someone just had to bring up Christianity, didn't they?

While I appreciate the message that "Jesus Christ" was trying to put forward (not that its any different from, say, Plato or Pythagoras or Krishna or Buddha), its not like Christians all of a sudden started acting all humanistic and enlightened --- leaving the silly ol' Jews to their ethnocentricites. Nope, the Christians (at least the non-Gnostic, pre-modern variety) had their good share of ethnocentrism, as well.

They just replaced its bases from circumsized penises to rigid beliefs.

Then again, I suppose it was all just a part of the Hellenistic environment of the time. Other Jewish sects, like the Therapeutae and Pharisees, had similar "humanistic" ideas, also.

Laterz.

 

[loki09789]

Oy vey, someone just had to bring up Christianity, didn't they?

While I appreciate the message that "Jesus Christ" was trying to put forward (not that its any different from, say, Plato or Pythagoras or Krishna or Buddha), its not like Christians all of a sudden started acting all humanistic and enlightened --- leaving the silly ol' Jews to their ethnocentricites. Nope, the Christians (at least the non-Gnostic, pre-modern variety) had their good share of ethnocentrism, as well.

They just replaced its bases from circumsized penises to rigid beliefs.

Then again, I suppose it was all just a part of the Hellenistic environment of the time. Other Jewish sects, like the Therapeutae and Pharisees, had similar "humanistic" ideas, also.

Laterz.

Not meaning to imply exclusive rights the message, just recognizing the 'reactionary' nature of the Christ message in the New Testament (and there are other 'messages' yes that we can interpret from the text, this is only one).

As you have mentioned in the past, Buddhism is far more 'evolved' a philosophy for personal growth because the individual 'how to' path is more effectively outlined relative to Christianity/Judeo practice - which, in agreement with your past comments, is more about social order than individual spiritualism.

 

[MisterMike]

If Jesus' message was to believe in only the one true God, and to repent for the Kingdom of God is near and to die on the cross for our sins, I do not see any commonality between Plato, Krishna, Buddha, etc.

Some of the other teachings may have some similarities.

 

[loki09789]

If Jesus' message was to believe in only the one true God, and to repent for the Kingdom of God is near and to die on the cross for our sins, I do not see any commonality between Plato, Krishna, Buddha, etc.

Some of the other teachings may have some similarities.

Well, I think I see Herries point better....

That was one of the messages but not the only one. That may be the message that you have put at the center of all his messages, though.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Must have missed the post referred to above.

Whew! Glad we agree on something.

 

[Mark Weiser]

That is why the Torah is the Light unto the World due to the influence(s) upon the nations. The TC are the base in which the Torah is written upon therefore as the Talmud.

The influence and guideance of the Torah to the Hebrew people and how they(Hebrew) lived among themselves is to be an example to other Nations.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, that was ecumenical.

First off, Christian ideas are technically classified as an aspect of, "neo-Platonist," thought. That's because, like Plato's, "Myth of the Cave," allegory, Christians hold this world to be only a dim reflection of a Reality we could not directly witness; the classic formulation of this is in (Paul's) remark that, "now we see as in a glass, darkly...."

Second off, I ain't so good on Krishna. However, a number of religions feature what Sir James Frazier called, "dying and reviving gods:" Baldur is perhaps the most famous example. In fact, one of the immediate precursor religions to Christianity, Mithraism, focuses upon a god, born around the winter solstice, who is a Son of God, dies for the sins of all mankind, is reborn, and is remembered through a ritual involving sacrifice and the consumption of blood, if I recollect correctly.

Third off--any Christian ought to be able to see more than one echo of Jesus' teachings in Buddha's," Life is suffering; the cause of suffering is desire...," and the rest of the Four Noble Truths. (Incidentally, it is Buddhism Lite to argue that Buddha taught "self-growth:" the growth of the self is seen in Buddhism as exactly the problem, since it is the Self that attaches to mere material things, and suffers because it cries like a baby when these things are taken away.)

Scope out the so-called, "Jesus Seminar," is my advice. It's run by an ecumenical group of clerics and scholars....

But then, I'm pretty much a Roger Zelazny/Bab 5 guy when it comes to these matters: "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit."

 

[heretic888]

Not meaning to imply exclusive rights the message, just recognizing the 'reactionary' nature of the Christ message in the New Testament

Yup. Although, technically speaking, the whole 'letter' vs 'spirit' dichotomy springs moreso from the earlier Pauline strands of proto-Christianity than it does from the later Synoptic strands. In most of the Synoptics, "Jesus" actually emphasizes following and obeying the law, both Jewish (i.e., respect and follow the TC) and Roman (i.e., give unto Caesar what is his).

The later Synoptic strands, of course, reflect the growing literalist community centered in Rome. This is evident with the emphases on papal authority (Peter, the first pope, is titled the "rock"), organizational hierarchy, submission to the law, and so on.

As you have mentioned in the past, Buddhism is far more 'evolved' a philosophy for personal growth because the individual 'how to' path is more effectively outlined relative to Christianity/Judeo practice - which, in agreement with your past comments, is more about social order than individual spiritualism.

Hrmmmm.... well, I didn't necessarily say Buddhism is strictly more "evolved" than Judaism or Christianity. I personally think all three religions emphasize different lines or modalities of human development, and anyone would benefit in studying (but not rigidly attaching) to all three. Its just that, historically, Buddhists have much better track records on the moral-o-meter.

Different strokes for different folks, in any event.

If Jesus' message was to believe in only the one true God, and to repent for the Kingdom of God is near and to die on the cross for our sins, I do not see any commonality between Plato, Krishna, Buddha, etc.

Depends on which gospel you are referring to. There is a different "the message" for each one. If, for example, I were to draw prinicpally from the Gospels of Thomas and John --- then many of your claims above wouldn't be so clear-cut.

But, to tackle them one at a time:
1) Think Jews and Christians were the only ones that professed belief in the "One God"?? Pshaw. Just look at Pythagoras, Plato, or the Corpus Hermeticum. Hell, Jesus' "Father" sounds a hell of a lot more like the God of Plato than the God of the Jews.
2) That "the end is near" is no big news. Many apocalypses of the time, not all of them Jewish. Interestingly, Jesus' most notable discussions of the Kingdom of God are that it is "within you" and that "it is laid out upon the Earth, but men do not see it" and that "it is already here".
3) Personally, I think the "divine redeemer" and "universal savior" bit comes more from Paul than any of the Gospels.

That is why the Torah is the Light unto the World due to the influence(s) upon the nations.

Think you got it the other way around. The Torah comes from other nations (most notably Egypt and Persia), not vice versa.

The influence and guideance of the Torah to the Hebrew people and how they(Hebrew) lived among themselves is to be an example to other Nations.

Uhhhh... no offense, but if we're going by actual history, then there are far better examples for the world to look to. Like, say, people who didn't murder and pillage their way to a supposed "promised land"??

Ironically enough, the Torah has benefitted far more from the rational philosophies of the Renaissance and Enlightenment than the Torah ever has benefitted foreign nations. In my opinion, anyway.

 

[heretic888]

Well, that was ecumenical.

You're welcome. :uhyeah:

First off, Christian ideas are technically classified as an aspect of, "neo-Platonist," thought. That's because, like Plato's, "Myth of the Cave," allegory, Christians hold this world to be only a dim reflection of a Reality we could not directly witness; the classic formulation of this is in (Paul's) remark that, "now we see as in a glass, darkly...."

Christianity was heavily influenced by the writings of Plato, its true (particularly with Paul). But, outside of some Gnostic branches, I don't see too much commonality between historical Christianity and guys like Plotinus. In fact, Plotinus (the "founder" of Neo-Platonism) was pretty critical of the Christians of his day...

Second off, I ain't so good on Krishna. However, a number of religions feature what Sir James Frazier called, "dying and reviving gods:" Baldur is perhaps the most famous example. In fact, one of the immediate precursor religions to Christianity, Mithraism, focuses upon a god, born around the winter solstice, who is a Son of God, dies for the sins of all mankind, is reborn, and is remembered through a ritual involving sacrifice and the consumption of blood, if I recollect correctly.

Yup. The oldest most likely being the Egyptian Osiris.

Third off--any Christian ought to be able to see more than one echo of Jesus' teachings in Buddha's," Life is suffering; the cause of suffering is desire...," and the rest of the Four Noble Truths.

Yup again. There are similar strands in Platonic, Pythagorean, Orphist, and Hermetic thought, too. Which is probably why guys like Huxley had something going when they spoke of "perennial" philosophies...

Incidentally, it is Buddhism Lite to argue that Buddha taught "self-growth:" the growth of the self is seen in Buddhism as exactly the problem, since it is the Self that attaches to mere material things, and suffers because it cries like a baby when these things are taken away.

Well, Robert, be careful here.

Buddhist doctrine makes an emphasis on "personal growth", also --- right livelihood, right speech, right conduct, and so on. The point, however, is that this is only a step toward the ultimate release of Nirvana (which can't be summed up with any personal rules or codes). Come to think of it, Paul said pretty damn similar things when he emphasized the differences between "psychic" Christians (those based on "elementary teachings" of "the law") and "pneumatic" Christians (those based on the wisdom of the Spirit). Hrmmm.....

Also, the separate-self sense attaches to more than just "material things". Attachment to emotions, intellectualizing, and even the idea of a "self" in the first place are also part of "the problem".

Incidentally, I don't particularly believe there was either a historical Gautama Siddhartha or historical Jesus Christ.

Scope out the so-called, "Jesus Seminar," is my advice. It's run by an ecumenical group of clerics and scholars....

I personally wouldn't recommend the "Jesus Seminar". Many of their conclusions are based on laughable bases, and don't reflect an in-depth historical analysis of the context in which "Jesus" is supposed to have lived. In my opinion.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[Andrew Green]

That is why the Torah is the Light unto the World due to the influence(s) upon the nations. The TC are the base in which the Torah is written upon therefore as the Talmud.

The influence and guideance of the Torah to the Hebrew people and how they(Hebrew) lived among themselves is to be an example to other Nations.

Does force feeding it to them count?

Much of Christianity was spread at the point of a sword or end of a musket. The Hebrew people never did that though...

But I suppose you can't judge the message by the messangers.

Or in this case can you? I mean those people where supposed to be the "examples" of the religion...

 

[rmcrobertson]

It is indeed, "Buddhism lite," to claim that Buddhism teaches the aggrandizement of the self--or more precisely supports capitalist ideology about things like consumerism--but we've had that argument already, and you're wrong. But I am glad to see that you've taken the point a made on other threads--and had to argue with you--about Buddhism being deconstructive of what I ten called, "spiritual materialism."

As for what I described as the so-called Jesus seminar, it's curious that you would find them incompetent as scholars. I'm not particularly famiular with Biblical studies as a discipline, but there seem to be an awful lot of participants with advanced degrees from very reputable institutions, who teach and work at some very impressive schools and churches. Maybe you're right, and of course credentials hardly establish brains, but I doubt it.

 

[kenpo tiger]

It is indeed, "Buddhism lite," to claim that Buddhism teaches the aggrandizement of the self--or more precisely supports capitalist ideology about things like consumerism--but we've had that argument already, and you're wrong. But I am glad to see that you've taken the point a made on other threads--and had to argue with you--about Buddhism being deconstructive of what I ten called, "spiritual materialism."

As for what I described as the so-called Jesus seminar, it's curious that you would find them incompetent as scholars. I'm not particularly famiular with Biblical studies as a discipline, but there seem to be an awful lot of participants with advanced degrees from very reputable institutions, who teach and work at some very impressive schools and churches. Maybe you're right, and of course credentials hardly establish brains, but I doubt it.

And this from the man who is insistent upon not involving his education or other *personal* credentials...

What I'd like to know is where you, Herry, got such an encycolpaedic knowledge of the various religions. Heck, even Robertson dragged Mithraism back into this discussion. I consider myself well-read, but the area of religion, outside of what I was taught in religious school as a child and studying the Greek/Roman pantheons, isn't one I've delved into. Possibly could, if I could fit it between reading MSGM Parker, fiction, and all the other stuff I do... oh yes. That Kenpo thing.

Seriously, recommendations for good, basic reading to start other than Internet sources.

 

[heretic888]

It is indeed, "Buddhism lite," to claim that Buddhism teaches the aggrandizement of the self--or more precisely supports capitalist ideology about things like consumerism--but we've had that argument already, and you're wrong. But I am glad to see that you've taken the point a made on other threads--and had to argue with you--about Buddhism being deconstructive of what I ten called, "spiritual materialism."

*sigh*

At no point did I say that Buddhism teaches "the aggrandizement of the self" (which is actually the opposite of most systems of "self-development" that have any weight to them, anyway). I said, very plainly, that there is an emphasis in Buddhist doctrine on "working on" the self --- such as the concepts of right conduct, right livelihood, right speech, and so on. Y'know, the Eightfold Path?? Ring a bell?? :idunno:

And, since its relevant to the topic, one of the very basic teachings of Buddhism (attributed to Siddartha Gautama himself) is:

"Avoid all evil, do good, purify the mind."

In Buddhism, "avoiding evil" consists of:
1) no killing
2) no stealing
3) no lying
4) no sexual misconduct
5) no intoxication

The next part, "doing good", consists of six paramitas:
1) charity
2) morality
3) tolerance
4) perseverance
5) meditation
6) wisdom

The first three consist of doing good to others, the last three in doing good to oneself.

In any event, all of the above demonstrates a whole lot of "working on the self". The culminatory revelation of No-Self, or No-Mind, is just that --- a culmination of a lot of hard work. The bulk of the work consists of disciplining the self, teaching the self, getting the self to think and act and behave in a certain way. As in Pauline proto-Gnosticism, working on things like morals and tolerance and proper thinking is a stepping stone to working on things like self-transcendence, Spirit-dissolution, divine Wisdom, and all that.

Of course, I could just "be wrong", as you claim --- without, of course, any arguments or explanations as to why this is so. It could just be that I imagined the Eightfold Path, or imagined the moral prescriptions of Buddhism, or imagined paramitas or koshas or dozen other teachings of Buddhism that emphasize "self-work".

But, hey, at least I actually gave a reason as to why "I'm right" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

 

[heretic888]

As for what I described as the so-called Jesus seminar, it's curious that you would find them incompetent as scholars.

Funny. I don't remember calling anyone "incompetent".

Its just that I, unlike you, am actually familiar with Biblical studies as a discipline and cannot recommend it. Did you know that they actually came to their conclusions on the basis of a vote?? A vote?!

I'm not particularly famiular with Biblical studies as a discipline, but there seem to be an awful lot of participants with advanced degrees from very reputable institutions, who teach and work at some very impressive schools and churches. Maybe you're right, and of course credentials hardly establish brains, but I doubt it.

As you've pointed out in the past, Rob, a degree doesn't necessarily confer understanding. In fact, I seem to recall you sharply criticizing a celebrated economist a few thread back...

Truth is, I don't particularly have a whole lot of respect for the "historical Jesus" studies as a whole. Many of their theories and hypotheses are based on rather dubious Church records (a la Eusebius) or on traditional assumptions (such as Peter being the "first pope", of which there is no proof). Even though many of the participants are agnostic or atheist, I am bewildered as to why they would just assume that the transmitted history of the Church is true, "as is" --- considering the institution has such a darkened history of immorality, deceit, and forging of documents??

Again, I think the major problem with groups like the "Jesus Seminar" is that they tend to ignore the cultural, religious, and historical environment the early Christians were raised up in. Like how, for example, the Jews were never really persecuted for their beliefs and the ruling powers didn't have any problem with "monotheism", which is an assumption most of them run on. Or, how there is scant evidence of mass "Christian persecutions" prior to the mid-to-late 200's.

And, they completely ignore alternate texts and beliefs systems like the Gnostics. As if, by some magic, the four Synoptics are the only credible texts concerning the "historical Jesus" that we have. Its utterly laughable.

Like I said, the vast majority of their conclusions are based on: a) unproven traditional assumptions handed down by the theological system, and b) what people want Jesus to be like (it is now in vogue, for example, to emphasize the "political rebel" and "Jewishness" of Jesus --- none of which are particularly apparent in the Gospels).

But hey, Rob, if you think I'm dead wrong on this, then its a simple matter of providing historical sources and documentations that proved Jesus existed, or that the Synoptics should be given historical primacy, or that there weren't numerous "Christianities" at the time anyway, or any of the other traditional assumptions everyone builds on.

Me, I prefer good science. Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

What I'd like to know is where you, Herry, got such an encycolpaedic knowledge of the various religions. Heck, even Robertson dragged Mithraism back into this discussion. I consider myself well-read, but the area of religion, outside of what I was taught in religious school as a child and studying the Greek/Roman pantheons, isn't one I've delved into. Possibly could, if I could fit it between reading MSGM Parker, fiction, and all the other stuff I do... oh yes. That Kenpo thing.

Seriously, recommendations for good, basic reading to start other than Internet sources.

Hmph. A good beginning work on cross-cultural mythology would be any of Joseph Campbell's many works, I'd say. Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough should also be mentioned here (whom Campbell relied upon in more ways than one).

You can also go in depth into any particular subject, and explore the writings or teachings of only one particular group (such as Osirianism). Cumont, for example, is traditionally regarded as "the authority" of Mithraism.

Personally, the various Mystery Schools interested me more than the standard religions of the time --- in large part due to their connections to Christianity, and to philosophies like Orphism, Platonism, and Pythagoreanism. Some have theorized, for example, that Pythagoras founded both Orphism (i.e., was the author of texts attributed to Orpheus) and the Dionysian Mysteries in Greece (based on the earlier Osirian Mysteries of Egypt).

When it comes to the Mysteries, I must recommend J. Godwin.

Hope this helps. :asian:

 

[pete]

heretic888, i think you are missing the point that christianity is about faith, not facts. the message of jesus, whether you want to prove his historical existence or not, is more a "way" than a list of what not to do. its basically to stop trying to look for loopholes, exceptions and interpretations in a list and ask wwjd. if you follow the way, you'll know... pete.

 

[loki09789]

heretic888, i think you are missing the point that christianity is about faith, not facts. the message of jesus, whether you want to prove his historical existence or not, is more a "way" than a list of what not to do. its basically to stop trying to look for loopholes, exceptions and interpretations in a list and ask wwjd. if you follow the way, you'll know... pete.

I have to go with Herrie on this one. If the foundation of Christianity is that there was a Christ and there is not sufficient proof to move you to the point of faith...well it is not going to work for you.

Even with faith, there is a foundation of information that does answer things factually (or at least informationally) that you start from, faith begins when you choose to believe in the absense of 'facts.'