Why do we heed primitive minds?

[marco]

Were we to round up the brutes who presume to address us in the Old Testament and put them on a stage for all to see, they would of course marvel at a match, at a torch, at kids more skilled than they --- at almost everything. But what would we marvel at in them? Their beards; their dirty clothing; their superstitions?

But leave them in their book and they are possessed of mysticism and divine truth. When the ignorant Abraham intends to murder his son, we flinch not, but blink in admiration for one so intent on sacrificing to his deity.

Why does the old book have such appeal for some people? Where does it say that God had anything to do with it? If an old beggar stumbled to our door would we assume it was a prophet?

Why then do many of us cast aside our judgment when it comes to tales in the OT, even accepting as truth the tale that is called Genesis?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

To the same extent these questions can be asked of Christ, himself a primitive man who saw no further than the walls of his time enabled him to see. He seems not to have been blessed with any astonishing grasp of culture, or mathematics, though it was well developed then nor of astronomy. He perhaps still thought his dad was above the clouds. He was good at chatting, as orators are; he impressed the impressionable but those who were steeped in Scripture and presumably wise in law were unimpressed by his tricks.

So if we dragged him into the twenty first century, would he cope? Would he be any better than the bearded brutes who creep from the Old Testament? And yet he, too, guides those in the 21st century where schoolchildren know far more than he did.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

To the same extent these questions can be asked of Christ, himself a primitive man who saw no further than the walls of his time enabled him to see. He seems not to have been blessed with any astonishing grasp of culture, or mathematics, though it was well developed then nor of astronomy. He perhaps still thought his dad was above the clouds. He was good at chatting, as orators are; he impressed the impressionable but those who were steeped in Scripture and presumably wise in law were unimpressed by his tricks.

So if we dragged him into the twenty first century, would he cope? Would he be any better than the bearded brutes who creep from the Old Testament? And yet he, too, guides those in the 21st century where schoolchildren know far more than he did.

Speaking as a bearded brute myself, I have to say I find Jesus' teachings passing on the sublime. But I too, wish Christians would use the OT for context, rather than instruction.

Meanwhile, it may be worth pointing out that Jesus did not come to tell us how many moons has Saturn, or the value of Pi to x decimal places (where x is any number), or whether Beethoven or Bach would be the better composer. He came to us with a theological, spiritual and moral message, which, even today, we still have difficulties unraveling. As witness the discussions on this forum!

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

Meanwhile, it may be worth pointing out that Jesus did not come to tell us how many moons has Saturn, or the value of Pi to x decimal places (where x is any number), or whether Beethoven or Bach would be the better composer. He came to us with a theological, spiritual and moral message, which, even today, we still have difficulties unraveling. As witness the discussions on this forum!

We can conveniently make excuses for Christ's lack of general education by saying he came for a very narrow purpose. As a boy he studied Scripture and found places where he could make his own actions coincide with prophecies. I'm not sure if this was dishonest or divine. All the same it would have been useful to mankind had he hinted at a cure for leprosy instead of waving a wand.

You are right in suggesting he failed to give clarity since we are still trying to unfuddle the muddle. If his entire remit was to propagate good news, he could have avoided "This is my body" stuff or "I am the vine" or "You're all sheep and I am a shepherd." Of course this is confusing, especially to those who have never seen sheep or vines, or beheld the body of Jesus.

Had Jesus quoted pi to a few hundred places, I would have been full of awe. I am simply disbelieving that he made Lazarus live again. Nostradamus had a go at prediction, in verse, and almost got Hitler right. I don't for a second believe Jesus had any prophetic powers - which makes me wonder what he did have.

[Elijah John]

Were we to round up the brutes who presume to address us in the Old Testament and put them on a stage for all to see, they would of course marvel at a match, at a torch, at kids more skilled than they --- at almost everything. But what would we marvel at in them? Their beards; their dirty clothing; their superstitions?

But leave them in their book and they are possessed of mysticism and divine truth. When the ignorant Abraham intends to murder his son, we flinch not, but blink in admiration for one so intent on sacrificing to his deity.

Why does the old book have such appeal for some people? Where does it say that God had anything to do with it? If an old beggar stumbled to our door would we assume it was a prophet?

Why then do many of us cast aside our judgment when it comes to tales in the OT, even accepting as truth the tale that is called Genesis?

Because the book in question (for all it's faults and imperfections) contains universal and timeless wisdom. Pretty remarkable coming from such primitive "brutes".

And we moderns are free to mine from it what we will. Whatever beauty, truth and goodness we discover within it's pages.

[2ndRateMind]

Meanwhile, it may be worth pointing out that Jesus did not come to tell us how many moons has Saturn, or the value of Pi to x decimal places (where x is any number), or whether Beethoven or Bach would be the better composer. He came to us with a theological, spiritual and moral message, which, even today, we still have difficulties unraveling. As witness the discussions on this forum!

We can conveniently make excuses for Christ's lack of general education by saying he came for a very narrow purpose...

I don't think this is quite fair on Jesus. He was a man born of a middle class family in His place and time. His level of general education, we may safely assume, was about average for all and any in His location and era.

As for a narrow purpose, then it seems to me that the number of moons of Saturn, or the value of Pi, or the relative merits of sundry composers, seem to my way of thinking, utterly narrow*. But what is required of Jesus, the answer to the question 'What must I do to be saved?' concerns and embraces the whole of humanity, and the whole of the human condition, and thus seems to me to be far from narrow, but broadly significant to everybody, everywhere, at any time.

Best wishes, 2RM.

* This is an observation, not meant as a criticism of the various narrowly focused experts we are fortunate to have in various fields of academic enquiry.

[Mithrae]

Because the book in question (for all it's faults and imperfections) contains universal and timeless wisdom. Pretty remarkable coming from such primitive "brutes".

And we moderns are free to mine from it what we will. Whatever beauty, truth and goodness we discover within it's pages.

That it contains some gems which might be painstakingly mined from the mountain of tribalism, brutality, genocides, dynastic propaganda, primitive misconceptions and fabulous tall tales isn't necessarily all that remarkable. Presumably bronze age savages loved their children and parents, brothers and sisters (in some cases a little more than we'd consider normal ) and occasionally recognized that even their enemy is someone else's child or parent or sibling; and perhaps, distantly, even their own cousin of sorts. But unearthing a vague expression of universal brotherhood from the midst of pages about slaughtering all the Canaanites doesn't exactly turn it into a wise or profound work. Many 21st century savages haven't quite got the memo about universal brotherhood, of course; often the most visible attitudes seem to be precisely the opposite, including from folk more drawn to the tribalistic messages of the Book. There's value in reading and analyzing ancient Hebrew texts to see where we've come from, how different yet in many ways how similar we are to earlier generations of our species. But likewise there would be value in reading ancient Sumerian or Indian or Chinese texts... and odds are we'd find just as many if not more gems and insights from these more successful civilizations, if we studied them as thoroughly as we do the selected anthology of Hebrew writings.

[Zzyzx]

.

Because the book in question (for all it's faults and imperfections) contains universal and timeless wisdom.

Like "Diamonds in the dung heap" from Thomas Jefferson / Thomas Paine?

Why search for gems where they are buried in debris when similar or superior gems can be found in concentrations elsewhere?

The owner of a dung heap may promote 'mining' his heap out of self-interest.

The Bible is said to contain almost a million words -- perhaps 850,000(?). How many of them constitute 'universal and timeless wisdom'? What percentage? One percent would be 8,500. Are there that many?

A tenth of one percent would be 850 . . . (which I would not contest)

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

I would collapse that timeless wisdom into just five words: 'Love God', and 'Love each other'. All the rest is context and detail. Not that these are unimportant; not many would give their lives for that universal, unconditional love, as Jesus did, just that the central message should not be obscured by that context and detail.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

Were we to round up the brutes who presume to address us in the Old Testament and put them on a stage for all to see, they would of course marvel at a match, at a torch, at kids more skilled than they --- at almost everything. But what would we marvel at in them? Their beards; their dirty clothing; their superstitions?

Hi Marco, allow me to let your fave and mine G.K. Chesterton to offer some insight into your query . . .


“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.�

“Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.�


We tend to dismiss those who have gone before us and often falsely think we are the enlightened ones. You seem to give priority status to those simply because they are the ones currently walking about – perhaps without actually looking into what it is they are saying. I personally do not see the archaic superstition you do in our ancestors just because their clothes weren’t as nice or they did not have Iphones. And I certainly wouldn’t call for the destruction of something until I first clearly understood why it was constructed in the first place.