Should we worship Satan instead of Jesus?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Solon

I never asked you to accept my view as authority, but I do ask you to provide rational counter-argument instead of accusations of small-mindedness. If you think I'm full of sh*t, compile some evidence and lay the smack. I think my facts are fairly well accepted (at least, in regards to the opening post in this thread). If you disagree with the interpretation, please provide an alternative voice. I would genuinely like to hear some opinions on this phenomenon.

I never intend to browbeat, but to set forth my views with as much supporting evidence as I can, and I do my best to make a persuasive case for my ideas. I don't ask anyone to accept my view "as authority" but to reach his/her own conclusions. If there's a way to refute or oppose my views with rational, logical, fact-based arguments, I welcome the dialogue. I'm always open to a well formed, well researched argument, and am willing to be persuaded (if the argument is good enough). I don't know everything, nor have I have ever claimed to.

If my ideas oppose your personal convictions, I don't mean to offend. If you're happy and secure with your convictions, what does it matter is someone wonders, or even believes differently? It's not like I've singled out anyone personally, intending to undermine his/her faith.

You'll notice I posted this in the Religious Studies, not in the Religion category.

The irony … you don't have to ask, it's implied ... pedestaled by you very request to provide rational counter-argument. From the get go any argument I might make is at a disadvantage because it is not yet deemed rational?

Furthermore you outline the conditions for any such challenge of the authority of your fact based opinions by demanding the argument be ‘good enough’ … what is ‘good enough’? By what standard is ‘good enough’ measured?

I happily am the braying ass in this thread.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Because a classicist says it -it must be so The world is not only flat but oral and written history originated exclusively in Europe, specifically the mediterranean ... but only with certain dominant cultures.

I don't get the joke. Classical peoples never believed the world was flat. They understood the cosmos, sphererical worlds, orbits, how night turns to day, etc., even the properties of light. Christians thought the world was flat.

Maybe I'm just slow.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The irony … you don't have to ask, it's implied ... pedestaled by you very request to provide rational counter-argument. From the get go any argument I might make is at a disadvantage because it is not yet deemed rational?

Furthermore you outline the conditions for any such challenge of the authority of your fact based opinions by demanding the argument be ‘good enough’ … what is ‘good enough’? By what standard is ‘good enough’ measured?

I happily am the braying ass in this thread.

By the way this is about personal convictions, but not the personal convictions you or others might expect. I fully understand this thread is deliberately placed. I do not contend that you do not have the right to espouse beliefs different from my own. What’s more I do not contend that you should not be permitted to express them. But please, don’t pretend that you have no intent to influence.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

I never asked you to accept my view as authority, but I do ask you to provide rational counter-argument instead of accusations of small-mindedness.

tooblue doesn't make rational arguments and this thread is the proof. Utter gobbledygook. Does anyone know what the hades he's saying here?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

tooblue doesn't make rational arguments and this thread is the proof. Utter gobbledygook. Does anyone know what the hades he's saying here?

And enters Seattle ... to contend that he does not understand the satire and that my comments are utter gobbledygook, ie irrational. Perfect timing. It's about time we systematically compartmentalized thoughts and opinions into easily prosecutable categories.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by tooblue

By the way this is about personal convictions, but not the personal convictions you or others might expect. I fully understand this thread is deliberately placed. I do not contend that you do not have the right to espouse beliefs different from my own. What’s more I do not contend that you should not be permitted to express them. But please, don’t pretend that you have no intent to influence.

I've never pretended that I have no intent to influence. While I'm not sure there is TRUTH to be had, there is truth worth seeking, no matter whose convictions it stumbles through. If my journey or quest for knowledge, fact, and truth influences others to, like me, examine their own beliefs and the reasons for them, all the better. This is the true meaning of "skeptic" - someone who inspects or examines things closely. Not someone who automatically disbelieves. Like Seattle Ute wrote recently in a different thread, quoting Socrates, "the unexamined (or uninquiring) life is not worth living." At least, it isn't worth living for me.

But I would be naive to think I was influencing very many CGers. There are some bona fide geniuses on here, and most people have pretty made up their minds where they stand on the various issues we recycle through fairly regularly. I doubt very many people are moving very far on any of the major issues of faith, religion, etc. that we post about. In general, I just like reading what other people write (whether astute, insightful, or inane) and am just happy to participate on occasion in a few of the many categories.

There's nothing inherently wrong with irrational, faith-based, or emotionally grounded ideas - but this may not be the best forum for them. I thought this was the reason for separating Religion from Religious Studies. But I do value your input and views. The world always needs artists, and their creative ways of viewing the world.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

Should we worship Satan instead of Jesus?

I went attended a lecture from William Hansen last night, a respected scholar of classics and folklore at Indiana University in Bloomington.
http://www.indiana.edu/~deanfac/bios/2005/WHansen.pdf

His talk, entitled “The Myth of the Fettered God” compared the essential elements of differing versions of a similar myth from ancient Greece, Nordic tradition, and the Caucasus region. In all three of these locales, a myth was/is perpetuated about an immortal being (god with a lower-case ‘g’) who is bound by God (capital ‘G’) and tortured for a very long time (maybe forever). The tale continues to this day in the Caucasus mountain region.

The ancient Greek and Norse traditions are very similar, with four figures being punished for various (similar) misdeeds. The most important and prominent is Hansen’s pairing of Prometheus, the firebringer, with the Norse god Loki, a cunning and clever being who commits atrocious acts but also benefits gods and men.

In the Caucasus today, differing versions of the myth either lament the imprisonment of a generous benefactor by a cruel and arbitrary god (i.e. Prometheus) or they are grateful that a dangerous being has been chained or bound, since his loosing will indicate the end of the world.

At dinner after the lecture, I asked Bill how he would compare Christian themes of the bound God. He noted that many have wondered about Christ being a fettered god, in the Promethean theme of a savior figure suffering for his gifts to humanity. I didn’t disagree (I see a lot of Christian typology in Prometheus), but I noted that I consider Satan to be a better example of a fettered god.

Consider: Lucifer (Light-Bringer = Prometheus?) opposes his father in an attempt to save humanity, is notoriously clever, is punished by being “bound” (D&C 45.55) but his loosing will mark the end of the world (D&C 43.31). Although the match and perhaps sequentiality aren't perfect (they rarely are in comparative myths), it’s clear that the same elements are at work.

Those who would compare Lucifer’s battle with other ancient myths would find a decent comparison with the traditions of sons overthrowing fathers (e.g. Kronos and Ouranos, Zeus and Kronos. In both of these Greek versions of Ancient Near East themes, daring sons overthrew cruel and unjust fathers. In comparison, though, Lucifer has come up short (so far).

In the end, comparative myth is more interesting than instructive, but it appears to me that Lucifer has more elements of the fettered god (that often doubles as mankind’s champion against a cruel and irrational higher God) than does Jesus. Judging from mythic traditions, perhaps Lucifer is the fettered god humans should acknowledge as their champion.

Anyone who would get his back up about this interesting and wooly headed post, considering it a slam on Christianity, is more than a tad thin-skinned about his faith, I'd say. I don't see Solon evangelizing against Christ here.

Anywho, Solon's superb post reminded me of the following quote from an essay by a famous 19th Century French critic named Taine describing the bad guy in "Paradise Lost" who steals the show.

"The ridiculous Devil of the Middle Ages, a horned enchanter, a dirty jester, a petty and mischievous ape, band-leader to a rabble of old women, has become a giant and a hero. Though feebler in force, he remains superior in nobility, since he prefers suffering independence to happy servility, and welcomes his defeat and his torments as a glory, a liberty, and a joy."

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Anyone who would get his back up about this interesting and wooly headed post, considering it a slam on Christianity, is more than a tad thin-skinned about his faith, I'd say. I don't see Solon evangelizing against Christ here.

Anywho, Solon's superb post reminded me of the following quote from an essay by a famous 19th Century French critic named Taine describing the bad guy in "Paradise Lost" who steals the show.

"The ridiculous Devil of the Middle Ages, a horned enchanter, a dirty jester, a petty and mischievous ape, band-leader to a rabble of old women, has become a giant and a hero. Though feebler in force, he remains superior in nobility, since he prefers suffering independence to happy servility, and welcomes his defeat and his torments as a glory, a liberty, and a joy."

Too blue isn't offended...

Solon showed him the donut...

TooBlue wants to see the donut and the donut hole

(trust me when I say don't ask I spent an hour on the phone and I am still confused)

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Anyone who would get his back up about this interesting and wooly headed post, considering it a slam on Christianity, is more than a tad thin-skinned about his faith, I'd say. I don't see Solon evangelizing against Christ here.

Anywho, Solon's superb post reminded me of the following quote from an essay by a famous 19th Century French critic named Taine describing the bad guy in "Paradise Lost" who steals the show.

"The ridiculous Devil of the Middle Ages, a horned enchanter, a dirty jester, a petty and mischievous ape, band-leader to a rabble of old women, has become a giant and a hero. Though feebler in force, he remains superior in nobility, since he prefers suffering independence to happy servility, and welcomes his defeat and his torments as a glory, a liberty, and a joy."

Wow, what indignation! Red Death understand more than he let's on. Tell ya what, I'll do my best to explain it in another thread. Though I guarentee you will see it as bunk