Pratchett (was Re: The Gospel Of Judas)
Max Battcher wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Pratchett also relies on his fans to keep all his continuity ducks in a row, and he still can't always manage it either. :) I personally love how he managed to blame it on his own characters in Thief of Time. How can he be expected to keep continuity when his characters keep messing with the timeline? :) It's always nice to be able to write your own Get out of continuity free card. I like that unlike some authors he at least tries to make slow changes to his characters, rather than pull the old everything you know is wrong crap, or worse yet violating the terms and conditions of his own world. ALthough I guess you could argue there really aren't any, other than the power of the narrative. (See GURPS Discworld for details) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
William T Goodall wrote: Two millennia of fanwankery hasn't managed to patch up those plot holes. Elephants on the back of a giant turtle makes more sense. True, and it's a lot funnier. Although Pratchett also relies on his fans to keep all his continuity ducks in a row, and he still can't always manage it either. :) Jim Walking on the Ankh Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
Jim Sharkey wrote: William T Goodall wrote: Two millennia of fanwankery hasn't managed to patch up those plot holes. Elephants on the back of a giant turtle makes more sense. True, and it's a lot funnier. Although Pratchett also relies on his fans to keep all his continuity ducks in a row, and he still can't always manage it either. :) I personally love how he managed to blame it on his own characters in Thief of Time. How can he be expected to keep continuity when his characters keep messing with the timeline? :) -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ I'm gonna win, trust in me / I have come to save this world / and in the end I'll get the grrrl! --Machinae Supremacy, Hero (Promo Track) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert G. Seeberger wrote: Was Judas a villain? I don't think so myself. If one believes that Christ was divine and that God has a plan then Judas was just a part of the plan and cannot be faulted for advancing the sacrifice. snip Yet it still tormented him to be in this role, if his subsequent remorse and suicide are true stories. Furthermore, if suicide is a mortal sin, then he was eternally condemned for doing 'what someone had to.' An argument could be made that he ought to have pled to be forgiven instead (The only unforgivable sin is not asking for forgiveness), but in the throes of terrible remorse, rational thinking is not common. And the notion of Predestination just annoys the snot out of me. grimace As a child, I felt Judas was the worst sort of person; that view wasn't challenged until I saw 'Jesus Christ Superstar' - 'you told me to do it!' IIRC. These words had impact on me at the time: Jesus! ...snip ...And all the good youve done Will soon be swept away Youve begun to matter more Than the things you say Judas' POV had never been operative in my mind in any way before I heard these words...snip Modeling the mind of Judas was enlightening and broadened my concept of salvation. I think it is central to the meaning of life and the idea of salvation that some sort of villiany/moral-quandry is required in order for there to be a choice and it is not always clearly defined what rightness requires us to do... I also have problems with the whole 'there must be darkness for light to shine' concept. It _does_ make a sort of sense, but, like wading through Aquinus or Aristotle, I feel that there are cleverly disguised absurdities - somewhere. But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Many many times I have thought this. But further reflection leads me to think that if THE GREAT PLAN FOR SALVATION were laid out in front of everyone, life would be like a paint-by-number portrait. And to extend the art metaphor, there would then be no bad art, and there would be no masterpieces either. Life would then be a narrow spectrum characterized by blandness. Which ties back into predestination, it seems to me; not that I would prefer bland- It's cold comfort/ To the ones without it To know how they suffered/ How they struggled about it If their lives were dark and strange They would likely have gladly exchanged Them for something a little more plain May be something a little more sane We each pay a fabulous price For our visions of Paradise But a Spirit with a Vision Is a Dream with a Mission... (as I recall from Rush 'Mission') [me] But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal' - Charlie B: Precisely. It's yet more of why this loving god made less and less sense to me. There's just too much vengeance and sadism ascribed to this deity... just makes no sense... My take on that: human misunderstanding, both innocent and especially deliberate, of the Divine's intent has resulted in elevation of 'evil' desires (revenge etc.) to God's will. Result: slaughter, scorched earth, genocide. Of course, that implies that *I* have a handle on Er's intentions --hardly possible, is it? wryness Max B: I personally see it as the inherent flaw in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. I can't understand why people would choose to worship a deity (Yahweh/God/Allah) that punishes with the one hand and simultaneously provides and supports with the other hand... That _is_ rather Q-like, isn't it? I cannot subscribe to the idea that horrible things which happen are God's will, although I do have friends who find some comfort there; me, I just get angry. While I do believe that good things can be retrieved from horror, with much hard work and near-heroic perseverence, to think that suffering is *deliberately inflicted* toward achieving some goal is anathema. Even though that is exactly what we do in medicine, as anyone who has watched a loved one undergo chemotherapy can attest. I sideslip that one via 'pragmatic idealism' - but it *is* a dodge. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. Again, something I've felt myself, but in this case I find the idea a bit solipsistic (maybe narcissistic... Not being much on Bible literalism, I feel that the Garden story is a metaphor for the birth of human self-awareness. In that sense the shame of loosing the Garden is akin to a longing for the golden-age where we didn't have to think so much... Not a literalist, as you know, but down through the centuries, that story has been used to blame women for mankind's ills. That it offends me is irrelevent; that it has been and continues to be a rationale for oppressing women in fundamentalist traditions of 3 major religions is a
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
- Original Message - From: Max Battcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:31 PM Subject: Re: The Gospel Of Judas Robert Seeberger wrote: In terms of morality and ethics *why* one chooses can be more important than *what* one chooses. Yuck! I know you state can be and not the absolute are, but you still are positing that in some cases the ends justify the means and worse the intent justify the means. I'm only hurting you because I think in the end it will help you. LOLI couldn't agree with you more, but I was thinking of something a bit different. When discussing morality and ethics one is usually discussing past events and histories so that one can #order# ones future behavior to be ethical and moral. Stealing food to feed hungry children can under certain circumstances be excused. Raping your daughter in order to teach her not to dress like a whore cannot be excused under any circumstances. Of all of the slippery slopes in Judeo-Christian ethics, this is the one that irks me the most, and one that has been used to do so much ill in the world. As a pragmatist I can certainly understand that there may be some situations where that might be the case. But I still see it as an awful moral slope to stand on as ones basic morality. In that sense I much prefer the (Nichiren) Buddhist focus on one's actions and their consequences. Not decisions, but actions. Less time in the head, more room for repercussions to hit you (karma, whether you believe it is cosmic or simply inter-personal). Again, something I've felt myself, but in this case I find the idea a bit solipsistic (maybe narcissistic is a better word). Not being much on Bible literalism, I feel that the Garden story is a metaphor for the birth of human self-awareness. In that sense the shame of loosing the Garden is akin to a longing for the golden-age where we didn't have to think so much.(As Homo Sapiens it is our nature to think about things even when those things pain us.) But it elevates stupidity, nostalgia and ignorance over knowledge and futurity! There was no golden age, ever. Just mindless, ignorant, brutal survival. Mind that we are talking about a bible story, something that may have no factual basis, but does address some aspect of the human condition or perhaps the human psyche. Generally speaking though we are on the same page vis a vis golden age thinking. The Bible is backward. It starts in beauty and ends in pain. Life so often starts with pain and ends with some semblance of beauty, albeit so often hidden in pain: the beauty of love, of experience and wisdom, of the power of family and society. Human history seems to have started amidst turmoil and pain, and I'd love to hope ends in brilliant beauty. An interesting point. I've always joked that I could write a better bible if I thought people might actually care to read it. Only problem is I'd have to conscientiously leave out the Monotheism, Patriarchal Society, Vengeance and Miracles, and then you don't have much of a bible. A good story, perhaps, but nothing people would battle to the death over, which appears to be such a major goal of Western Civilization's organized religion. (I sometimes wonder if the Greeks did too good of a job in trying to separate the useful Philosophy from Religion that all that was left was the Irrational stuff...) The world is still filled with irrational stuff. xponent More Than Just Facts Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:09 PM Subject: Re: The Gospel Of Judas Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert G. Seeberger wrote: Was Judas a villain? I don't think so myself. If one believes that Christ was divine and that God has a plan then Judas was just a part of the plan and cannot be faulted for advancing the sacrifice. snip Yet it still tormented him to be in this role, if his subsequent remorse and suicide are true stories. Furthermore, if suicide is a mortal sin, then he was eternally condemned for doing 'what someone had to.' G Since the Bible cannot agree as to *how* Judas died or even *where*, I imagine the whole idea should be regarded as an open question. For all I know Judas went to France with Mary Magdelene and Joseph of Arimathea. G An argument could be made that he ought to have pled to be forgiven instead (The only unforgivable sin is not asking for forgiveness), but in the throes of terrible remorse, rational thinking is not common. And the notion of Predestination just annoys the snot out of me. grimace For me predestination is overtly mechanistic and destroys the idea of salvation. How can you be rewarded when you have no choice? As a child, I felt Judas was the worst sort of person; that view wasn't challenged until I saw 'Jesus Christ Superstar' - 'you told me to do it!' IIRC. These words had impact on me at the time: Jesus! ...snip ...And all the good youve done Will soon be swept away Youve begun to matter more Than the things you say Judas' POV had never been operative in my mind in any way before I heard these words...snip Modeling the mind of Judas was enlightening and broadened my concept of salvation. I think it is central to the meaning of life and the idea of salvation that some sort of villiany/moral-quandry is required in order for there to be a choice and it is not always clearly defined what rightness requires us to do... I also have problems with the whole 'there must be darkness for light to shine' concept. It _does_ make a sort of sense, but, like wading through Aquinus or Aristotle, I feel that there are cleverly disguised absurdities - somewhere. I can see where it might seem paradoxial, but like a good scientific theory the symettry supplied by duality and opposition are pretty well required. But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Many many times I have thought this. But further reflection leads me to think that if THE GREAT PLAN FOR SALVATION were laid out in front of everyone, life would be like a paint-by-number portrait. And to extend the art metaphor, there would then be no bad art, and there would be no masterpieces either. Life would then be a narrow spectrum characterized by blandness. Which ties back into predestination, it seems to me; not that I would prefer bland- WellI would think the metaphor I give above strongly refutes predestination. Charlie B: Precisely. It's yet more of why this loving god made less and less sense to me. There's just too much vengeance and sadism ascribed to this deity... just makes no sense... My take on that: human misunderstanding, both innocent and especially deliberate, of the Divine's intent has resulted in elevation of 'evil' desires (revenge etc.) to God's will. Result: slaughter, scorched earth, genocide. Of course, that implies that *I* have a handle on Er's intentions --hardly possible, is it? wryness Max B: I personally see it as the inherent flaw in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. I can't understand why people would choose to worship a deity (Yahweh/God/Allah) that punishes with the one hand and simultaneously provides and supports with the other hand... That _is_ rather Q-like, isn't it? Distinctly parent-like the way I see it. I cannot subscribe to the idea that horrible things which happen are God's will, although I do have friends who find some comfort there; me, I just get angry. Yeah.I feel that randomness and chaos are even more evident than The Hand Of God. Sometimes sparrows die of old age and not for any particularly remarkable reason. While I do believe that good things can be retrieved from horror, with much hard work and near-heroic perseverence, to think that suffering is *deliberately inflicted* toward achieving some goal is anathema. Even though that is exactly what we do in medicine, as anyone who has watched a loved one undergo chemotherapy can attest. I sideslip that one via 'pragmatic idealism' - but it *is* a dodge. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. Again, something I've felt myself, but in this case I find the idea a bit
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Was Judas a villain? I don't think so myself. If one believes that Christ was divine and that God has a plan then Judas was just a part of the plan and cannot be faulted for advancing the sacrifice. Indeed, advancing the sacrifice and the plan for salvation are grounds for sainthood. As a child, I felt Judas was the worst sort of person; that view wasn't challenged until I saw 'Jesus Christ Superstar' - 'you told me to do it!' IIRC. But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. As a child, Frankenstein's creature was a horrible monster who probably deserved to be hunted down and burned; as an adult, it is Dr. Frankenstein who ought to be censured for his abandonment of his faulty creation, once it goes from being lovely to hideous. It didn't ask to be made thusly. xponent The Heresy Of Rob Maru I find myself more a heretic than ever, as I mature. Because I said so! is perhaps appropriate for a 2 year old's petulant demands, else you'd have no time to work, let alone think. But it is a lousy answer to a thoughtful query by anyone over the age of 5. Debbi Experiencing Pissy Mare Syndrome Untimely? Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
On 19/04/2006, at 12:53 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. Precisely. It's yet more of why this loving god made less and less sense to me. There's just too much vengeance and sadism ascribed to this deity... just makes no sense. Mind you, neither does much else of it, to me. Not any more. As a child, Frankenstein's creature was a horrible monster who probably deserved to be hunted down and burned; as an adult, it is Dr. Frankenstein who ought to be censured for his abandonment of his faulty creation, once it goes from being lovely to hideous. It didn't ask to be made thusly. Yah. Great analogy. xponent The Heresy Of Rob Maru I find myself more a heretic than ever, as I mature. I went through heresy long ago, and well out the other side. Now it just seems all culty and weird, and I find it hard to tell the difference between any of the major religions. Kind of like how Europeans find it hard to distinguish Republicans and Democrats... (both are parties on the right, somewhat like the Conservative party...) Because I said so! is perhaps appropriate for a 2 year old's petulant demands, else you'd have no time to work, let alone think. But it is a lousy answer to a thoughtful query by anyone over the age of 5. Yup. I have this with my niece (age 8-1/2). She asks a LOT of questions. I have trouble answering them all but I try my best to at least be honest. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
Charlie Bell wrote: On 19/04/2006, at 12:53 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. Precisely. It's yet more of why this loving god made less and less sense to me. There's just too much vengeance and sadism ascribed to this deity... just makes no sense. Mind you, neither does much else of it, to me. Not any more. I personally see it as the inherent flaw in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. I can't understand why people would choose to worship a deity (Yahweh/God/Allah) that punishes with the one hand and simultaneously provides and supports with the other hand. It's why I don't fault the Niceans for coming up with their (somewhat odd) Trinitarian belief: because it is an easy way out when you can claim that the left hand is truly ignorant of the doings of the right (as well as the easiest way to end a debate, by saying: hey, you are all right _at the same time_. 3=1, 1=3, God=devine human son=crazy near-pantheistic voodoo cloud). The soap opera digests that are Polytheism is just so much easier to explain/take in comparison. So what if Odin didn't always know the stupid stuff Thor and Loki were out doing? As a child, Frankenstein's creature was a horrible monster who probably deserved to be hunted down and burned; as an adult, it is Dr. Frankenstein who ought to be censured for his abandonment of his faulty creation, once it goes from being lovely to hideous. It didn't ask to be made thusly. As a kid I once spent quite a while explaining to someone why Marvel Comics were better morality tales than large parts of the Christian Bible. I also had so many arguments that the Luddite interpretation of Frankenstein was much less meaningful than the Creator abandoning his creation interpretation. It was weird how many adults around me told me I was stupid for siding with the poor creature. I've often wondered which one was the preferred interpretation of Mary Shelley. Her husband was a notorious Luddite, from what I'm told, and so its easy to see why Frankenstein might be anti-technological, but I always wonder if perhaps Mary Shelley found that sympathy with her creation (by way of the maniac Doctor) and realized that the technology was frightening, but the real morality is in what you _do_ with that technology. xponent The Heresy Of Rob Maru I find myself more a heretic than ever, as I mature. I started out very heretic, so I'm sometimes afraid there is nowhere to go but less. -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ I'm gonna win, trust in me / I have come to save this world / and in the end I'll get the grrrl! --Machinae Supremacy, Hero (Promo Track) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
On 19 Apr 2006, at 12:56AM, Max Battcher wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 19/04/2006, at 12:53 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. Precisely. It's yet more of why this loving god made less and less sense to me. There's just too much vengeance and sadism ascribed to this deity... just makes no sense. Mind you, neither does much else of it, to me. Not any more. I personally see it as the inherent flaw in the Judeo-Christian- Muslim religions. I can't understand why people would choose to worship a deity (Yahweh/God/Allah) that punishes with the one hand and simultaneously provides and supports with the other hand. It's why I don't fault the Niceans for coming up with their (somewhat odd) Trinitarian belief: because it is an easy way out when you can claim that the left hand is truly ignorant of the doings of the right (as well as the easiest way to end a debate, by saying: hey, you are all right _at the same time_. 3=1, 1=3, God=devine human son=crazy near-pantheistic voodoo cloud). The soap opera digests that are Polytheism is just so much easier to explain/take in comparison. So what if Odin didn't always know the stupid stuff Thor and Loki were out doing? Monotheism jumps the shark before it even gets started. God is good, but he is also evil - or is it the other way around? And as a story the Judas/Crucifixion thing makes no sort of sense of any kind. The son of god, who could beat up Superman with one hand tied behind his back, allows himself (or pretends) to be sacrificed for some obscure reason but then pops back to life again anyway. What??! Two millennia of fanwankery hasn't managed to patch up those plot holes. Elephants on the back of a giant turtle makes more sense. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Most people have more than the average number of legs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:53 PM Subject: Re: The Gospel Of Judas Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Was Judas a villain? I don't think so myself. If one believes that Christ was divine and that God has a plan then Judas was just a part of the plan and cannot be faulted for advancing the sacrifice. Indeed, advancing the sacrifice and the plan for salvation are grounds for sainthood. As a child, I felt Judas was the worst sort of person; that view wasn't challenged until I saw 'Jesus Christ Superstar' - 'you told me to do it!' IIRC. These words had impact on me at the time: Jesus! Youve started to believe The things they say of you You really do believe This talk of God is true And all the good youve done Will soon be swept away Youve begun to matter more Than the things you say Judas' POV had never been operative in my mind in any way before I heard these words, even with a predisposition towards lenience. Modeling the mind of Judas was enlightening and broadened my concept of salvation. I think it is central to the meaning of life and the idea of salvation that some sort of villiany/moral-quandry is required in order for there to be a choice and it is not always clearly defined what rightness requires us to do. In terms of morality and ethics *why* one chooses can be more important than *what* one chooses. But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Many many times I have thought this. But further reflection leads me to think that if THE GREAT PLAN FOR SALVATION were laid out in front of everyone, life would be like a paint-by-number portrait. And to extend the art metaphor, there would then be no bad art, and there would be no masterpieces either. Life would then be a narrow spectrum characterized by blandness. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. Again, something I've felt myself, but in this case I find the idea a bit solipsistic (maybe narcissistic is a better word). Not being much on Bible literalism, I feel that the Garden story is a metaphor for the birth of human self-awareness. In that sense the shame of loosing the Garden is akin to a longing for the golden-age where we didn't have to think so much.(As Homo Sapiens it is our nature to think about things even when those things pain us.) As a child, Frankenstein's creature was a horrible monster who probably deserved to be hunted down and burned; as an adult, it is Dr. Frankenstein who ought to be censured for his abandonment of his faulty creation, once it goes from being lovely to hideous. It didn't ask to be made thusly. From a very early age my younger brothers and I would watch those old monster movies and sometimes one or another of us would cry when the monster died. The monster (Frankenstien's) was the child who did not understand the world and lashed out as a child will with a childs anger albeit with an adults strength. We *knew* the monster was us and we felt the creatures alienation and desire for acceptance or at least the desire to be left alone (let be). We were the wolfman too. We knew that desire would overwhelm us (for cookies or stuff) and that we could lose control and do bad things. We knew there was redemption in killing the desire (the wolf within). We knew Dracula too. Dracula was evil and unredeemable, but he was also the coolness of pursuasion, the tool of desire and an unconscious precursor of our male sexual awakening. The Mummy was the embodiment of revenge, of the rage that smoulders deep inside until opportunity presents itself. Those old films were effective to a great degree because they reflected the emotions of the inner child and are metaphors for our earliest feelings. xponent The Heresy Of Rob Maru I find myself more a heretic than ever, as I mature. Because I said so! is perhaps appropriate for a 2 year old's petulant demands, else you'd have no time to work, let alone think. But it is a lousy answer to a thoughtful query by anyone over the age of 5. Maturation comes in stages. G xponent Feeding My Inner Child Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
Robert Seeberger wrote: In terms of morality and ethics *why* one chooses can be more important than *what* one chooses. Yuck! I know you state can be and not the absolute are, but you still are positing that in some cases the ends justify the means and worse the intent justify the means. I'm only hurting you because I think in the end it will help you. Of all of the slippery slopes in Judeo-Christian ethics, this is the one that irks me the most, and one that has been used to do so much ill in the world. As a pragmatist I can certainly understand that there may be some situations where that might be the case. But I still see it as an awful moral slope to stand on as ones basic morality. In that sense I much prefer the (Nichiren) Buddhist focus on one's actions and their consequences. Not decisions, but actions. Less time in the head, more room for repercussions to hit you (karma, whether you believe it is cosmic or simply inter-personal). Again, something I've felt myself, but in this case I find the idea a bit solipsistic (maybe narcissistic is a better word). Not being much on Bible literalism, I feel that the Garden story is a metaphor for the birth of human self-awareness. In that sense the shame of loosing the Garden is akin to a longing for the golden-age where we didn't have to think so much.(As Homo Sapiens it is our nature to think about things even when those things pain us.) But it elevates stupidity, nostalgia and ignorance over knowledge and futurity! There was no golden age, ever. Just mindless, ignorant, brutal survival. The Bible is backward. It starts in beauty and ends in pain. Life so often starts with pain and ends with some semblance of beauty, albeit so often hidden in pain: the beauty of love, of experience and wisdom, of the power of family and society. Human history seems to have started amidst turmoil and pain, and I'd love to hope ends in brilliant beauty. I've always joked that I could write a better bible if I thought people might actually care to read it. Only problem is I'd have to conscientiously leave out the Monotheism, Patriarchal Society, Vengeance and Miracles, and then you don't have much of a bible. A good story, perhaps, but nothing people would battle to the death over, which appears to be such a major goal of Western Civilization's organized religion. (I sometimes wonder if the Greeks did too good of a job in trying to separate the useful Philosophy from Religion that all that was left was the Irrational stuff...) -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ I'm gonna win, trust in me / I have come to save this world / and in the end I'll get the grrrl! --Machinae Supremacy, Hero (Promo Track) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Gospel Of Judas
This has been on my mind a bit lately. I read the news reports over the last couple of years and saw the NGEO documentary a couple of times over the last few weeks. Today I took a foray over to Pat Mathews blog and read what Pat thinks (http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/). I don't #strongly# disagree with Pat, but much of what she says (well...she among other commentators) is at variance with what I was told during religious training as a child. (BTW, I really like Pat's designation of the apocryphal gospels as fanfic, but would point out that the canonical gospels are fanfic in exactly the same ways and for the same reasons) I recall specifically being told that Judas was Jesus' best friend and that his betrayal was required. I'm left wondering how such Gnostic ideas made their way into a mid-60s Catholic School curriculum. Anyone know what the official RCC position is? Much of what is related in the NGEO documentary dovetails nicely with what I was taught and begs for a question to be asked: Was Judas a villain? I don't think so myself. If one believes that Christ was divine and that God has a plan then Judas was just a part of the plan and cannot be faulted for advancing the sacrifice. Indeed, advancing the sacrifice and the plan for salvation are grounds for sainthood. A bit of intra-post rumination brings to mind a Muslim tradition wherein Jesus and Judas conspire to fake Jesus' death, pulling off a great scam over Jews and Romans alike. This makes me wonder if Islamic precursors were influenced by the Gnostics 700 or so years before Mohammed makes the scene. Coincidentally, I happen to be reading Judas Unchained by Peter F Hamilton ATM. A sign? G xponent The Heresy Of Rob Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
