Should we worship Satan instead of Jesus?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Sorry, but all this study ignores the 'orient' and their traditions, myths, history. Quite myopic, but hey!

I'm all for studying the myths, cultures, and traditions of non-western societies, but it's not all that useful for understanding the origins of western traditions.

[Solon]

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 it.

Western culture including the invention of history (inquiry) did originate in the Mediterranean.

All I was doing is pointing out certain components of modern, Christian (specifically LDS) tradition that parallel ANE and Greek traditions - and how those parallels can be surprising (such as Lucifer as a sympathetic figure).

Historiographical debate, invented tradition, and revisionism are not exclusive to the west, but contemporary Christian (and LDS) cultures are western, and therefore their origins are found in the origins of western civilization. If we were discussing the various traditions of Buddha, we'd be talking about Indian and Chinese traditions.

But we're not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Can I just say that this thread has a great title? I chuckle every time I read it.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Solon

I'm all for studying the myths, cultures, and traditions of non-western societies, but it's not all that useful for understanding the origins of western traditions.

that's awfully circular. There is no universal "original truth" because the stories back then are missing modern elements. In order to find out if there is a universal "original truth," we need to look at other cultures, but it's not useful to do so when studying the origins of modern western beliefs because there's no universal "original truth."

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Solon

I don't get it.

Western culture including the invention of history (inquiry) did originate in the Mediterranean.

If we were discussing the various traditions of Buddha, we'd be talking about Indian and Chinese traditions.

That's the point ... the 'invention' as you call it did not exclusively originate in the Mediterranean -that's woefully miopic!

And we don't discuss various other traditions -which is intellectual bigotry!

[Solon]

Originally Posted by tooblue

That's the point ... the 'invention' as you call it did not exclusively originate in the Mediterranean -that's woefully miopic!

And we don't discuss various other traditions -which is intellectual bigotry!

HISTORY - (from the GREEK historia = inquiry) as a written, rational inquiry into the reasons things happened DID start in the Mediterranean, probably with Herodotus in the mid fifth century BCE. I'm not talking about accounts of the past. I'm not talking about lists of achievements or tribute. I'm not talking about divine transmissions of human relationships with deity. I'm talking about history as the application of human reason to understanding the human condition, independent of religious explanations, independent of authoritative "official" versions. This DID originate in Greece.

Rationality, in my opinion, is the crowning achievement of the ancient Greeks and their greatest gift to humanity.

Rather than refute this with accusations of ignorance and bigotry, I invite you to provide counter-arguments - preferably supported with concrete evidence and examples. We at least owe the Greeks as much.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Solon

HISTORY - (from the GREEK historia = inquiry) as a written, rational inquiry into the reasons things happened DID start in the Mediterranean, probably with Herodotus in the mid fifth century BCE. I'm not talking about accounts of the past. I'm not talking about lists of achievements or tribute. I'm not talking about divine transmissions of human relationships with deity. I'm talking about history as the application of human reason to understanding the human condition, independent of religious explanations, independent of authoritative "official" versions. This DID originate in Greece.

Rationality, in my opinion, is the crowning achievement of the ancient Greeks and their greatest gift to humanity.

Rather than refute this with accusations of ignorance and bigotry, I invite you to provide counter-arguments - preferably supported with concrete evidence and examples. We at least owe the Greeks as much.

If you were to state history in the Western sense, according to Greek rational … and avoid sweeping generalizations you often make about religion, especially Christianity and it’s origins, it’s myths, it’s cyclical end times anxieties being a truly global phenomenon then I could refrain from my contentions and simply read your posts.

And what is the Chinese root for the Chinese word history? Is it also derived from the Greeks?

Western culture, history, religiosity represents one third or less of human kinds culture, history, religiosity; yes, we can thank the Greeks for philosophy and sitcoms, but who do the Greeks thank? What the Greeks accomplished did not occur in a bubble.

Furthermore I never claimed ignorance, I claimed myopia, which perhaps is incorrect terminology; prejudice might be more correct.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by tooblue

If you were to state history in the Western sense, according to Greek rational … and avoid sweeping generalizations you often make about religion, especially Christianity and it’s origins, it’s myths, it’s cyclical end times anxieties being a truly global phenomenon then I could refrain from my contentions and simply read your posts.

And what is the Chinese root for the Chinese word history? Is it also derived from the Greeks?

Western culture, history, religiosity represents one third or less of human kinds culture, history, religiosity; yes, we can thank the Greeks for philosophy and sitcoms, but who do the Greeks thank? What the Greeks accomplished did not occur in a bubble.

Furthermore I never claimed ignorance, I claimed myopia, which perhaps is incorrect terminology; prejudice might be more correct.

So, wait a second. I'm prone to "sweeping generalizations" while prejudicially focusing on a specific time and place? Which is it?

Christianity's origins, myths, and cycles are not a global phenomenon, in my opinion. Did you think I said so? I can't tell what, exactly, you're accusing me of.

Why would I mention Chinese history when discussing the origins of (western!) Christianity? Seems like a red herring to me, but obviously you have something in mind. Sure, the Greeks weren't in a vacuum, but their innovations have impacted today's (western) world - the world you and I live in - more than any other ancient culture.

I take umbrage at your insinuation that I'm somehow prejudiced or narrow-minded because I don't discuss the cultures of the far east. I would, if I felt it appropriate. The religion you and I are most familiar with - modern, western Christianity - especially LDS faith - is a product of western tradition. The Chinese, Indian, African, or Native American cultures and traditions had negligible influence on the ideas that formed the creeds, doctrines, and theologies of today's Christian and LDS church. If you disagree, please provide a rationale and counter-argument.

Also, a few specific examples of my malfeasance would help me understand what you're getting at. I'm not trying to pick a fight, TB, just trying to follow you better. Your criticism is a bit mystifying to me, since this thread was begun as a report of some comparative myth in western thought - myth that continues to hold resonance in today's Christian, especially LDS world.

If you'd like to do some comparative myth with some non-western cultures, be my guest, but I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find anything that correlates with the origins of contemporary Christian / LDS culture and belief.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Solon

So, wait a second. I'm prone to "sweeping generalizations" while prejudicially focusing on a specific time and place? Which is it?

Christianity's origins, myths, and cycles are not a global phenomenon, in my opinion. Did you think I said so? I can't tell what, exactly, you're accusing me of.

Why would I mention Chinese history when discussing the origins of (western!) Christianity? Seems like a red herring to me, but obviously you have something in mind. Sure, the Greeks weren't in a vacuum, but their innovations have impacted today's (western) world - the world you and I live in - more than any other ancient culture.

I take umbrage at your insinuation that I'm somehow prejudiced or narrow-minded because I don't discuss the cultures of the far east. I would, if I felt it appropriate. The religion you and I are most familiar with - modern, western Christianity - especially LDS faith - is a product of western tradition. The Chinese, Indian, African, or Native American cultures and traditions had negligible influence on the ideas that formed the creeds, doctrines, and theologies of today's Christian and LDS church. If you disagree, please provide a rationale and counter-argument.

Also, a few specific examples of my malfeasance would help me understand what you're getting at. I'm not trying to pick a fight, TB, just trying to follow you better. Your criticism is a bit mystifying to me, since this thread was begun as a report of some comparative myth in western thought - myth that continues to hold resonance in today's Christian, especially LDS world.

If you'd like to do some comparative myth with some non-western cultures, be my guest, but I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find anything that correlates with the origins of contemporary Christian / LDS culture and belief.

My intent is not to harm. The only words I have at my disposal to express my sentiment have exaggerated negative connotations.

Your comments here in this forum often strike me as highly prejudicial … and as sweeping generalizations born of a focus on a specific time and place. It vexes me, leaves me feeling as though I am being spoon-fed, even strong-armed. Your motivations and tactics are not so different from persons that espouse, in your terms, the standard LDS approach.

Neither you nor the person is any more convincing than the other. I’m not arguing against the innovation of the Greeks and it’s influence on our society. In a different thread I might applaud it, in fact I access Greek rational to teach principles of art and design daily.

I am arguing against a lack of breadth and the condescension on the board—and I guess I am taking it out on you. I am not as learned, well read as you and other classicists or scholars on this board … but I am no less intelligent and simply do not accept your view as authority, for it comes across in tone as definitive when in fact it is fluid.

And yet the mere mention of fluidity codifies my views and I am relegated to the body of souls who peruse these pages that are conventional, insecure, irrational, and unlearned … censured. And that is where I will stay as I return to my life’s diversions and realms of expertise.

I might read elsewhere that I take things too personally. Good! Then I am playing to my strengths.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by tooblue

[. . .] simply do not accept your view as authority, for it comes across in tone as definitive when in fact it is fluid.

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.