MOBY DICK OR ULYSSES
ROBBIE
Polaris
Yip Weng
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> which and why?
That's like comparing cats and mice: Ulysses
was no Ahab-dink.... (Ahab had obsessive-
compulsive disorder, or something like that.)
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bra...@cloud9.net
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
WinnerEJ
>was no Ahab-dink.... (Ahab had obsessive-
>compulsive disorder, or something like that.)
>
>\brad mccormick
No, the comparison is vital...Both Melville and Joyce are trying to encapulate
the common experience of Modernity; only Melville grasped the fundamental
insity of it, where as Joyce was merely appalled by its appearance of sanity;
hence: Moby Dick
ej
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
I was thinking of the *other* Ulysses: the one who lashed himself
to the mast of his ship so he could hear the Sirens' song....
He wouldn't have thrown it all away on a vendetta -- or,
rather, when he was on the verge of doing it, Athena appeared
and told him to stop. (He did.)
So maybe Ahab's problem was that Athena was elsewhere
occupied....
Puss in Boots
>> That's like comparing cats and mice: Ulysses
>> was no Ahab-dink.... (Ahab had obsessive-
>> compulsive disorder, or something like that.)
winn...@aol.com (WinnerEJ):
>No, the comparison is vital...Both Melville and Joyce are trying to encapulate
>the common experience of Modernity; only Melville grasped the fundamental
>insity of it, where as Joyce was merely appalled by its appearance of sanity;
>hence: Moby Dick
The comparison is false. Melville didn't limit the
insanity to modern times: he saw it as the essense of Creation.
That's _the_ Creation, visited on us by the Creator-God.
According to Fiedler, Melville's "secret motto" for _Moby Dick_
was "I baptize you not in the name of the Father, the Son, a
nd the Holy Ghost, but in the name of the Devil." So it's easy
to see where he stands.
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
> That's like comparing cats and mice: Ulysses was no Ahab-dink....
> ... The *other* Ulysses: the one who lashed himself
> to the mast of his ship so he could hear the Sirens' song....
> He wouldn't have thrown it all away on a vendetta -- or,
> rather, when he was on the verge of doing it, Athena appeared
> and told him to stop. (He did.)
> So maybe Ahab's problem was that Athena was elsewhere occupied....
Or maybe Odysseus was a dilettante.
-- Moggin
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
Odysseus was the Greeks' Patrick McGoohan ("The Prisoner"): He
was a *free man*.
Puss in Boots
>>> That's like comparing cats and mice: Ulysses was no Ahab-dink....
>>> (Ahab had obsessive-compulsive disorder, or something like that.)
>>> ... The *other* Ulysses: the one who lashed himself
>>> to the mast of his ship so he could hear the Sirens' song....
>>> He wouldn't have thrown it all away on a vendetta -- or,
>>> rather, when he was on the verge of doing it, Athena appeared
>>> and told him to stop. (He did.)
>>> So maybe Ahab's problem was that Athena was elsewhere occupied....
Moggin:
>> Or maybe Odysseus was a dilettante.
Brad:
> Odysseus was the Greeks' Patrick McGoohan ("The Prisoner"): He
> was a *free man*.
McGoohan _was_ the prisoner in "The Prisoner" -- he played
the lead, and every week he'd say, "I'm not a number: I'm a
free man!" during the intro to a show where he was a number and
a prisoner, both. So if you're right that "Odysseus was the
Greeks' Patrick McGoohan," then Adorno and Horkheimer were also
on the money in describing him as the first bourgeois.
Odysseus, I mean -- I don't think A and H were heard from about
McGoohan.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
<bra...@cloud9.net> writes
>
>Odysseus was the Greeks' Patrick McGoohan ("The Prisoner"): He
>was a *free man*.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<bra...@cloud9.net> writes
>
>I was thinking of the *other* Ulysses: the one who lashed himself
>to the mast of his ship so he could hear the Sirens' song....
>
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<bra...@cloud9.net> writes
>
>Odysseus was the Greeks' Patrick McGoohan ("The Prisoner"): He
>was a *free man*.
--
James Whitehead
WinnerEJ
>nd the Holy Ghost, but in the name of the Devil." So it's easy
>to see where he stands.
>
>-- Moggin
Only a Modern would - could - say this. the comparison stands.
- winner
ROBBIE
Everybody's got somethin' to hiiiiide 'cept for me and my monkey!
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hvpvNMA7...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
> In article <383495...@cloud9.net>, Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
> <bra...@cloud9.net> writes
> >
> >Odysseus was the Greeks' Patrick McGoohan ("The Prisoner"): He
> >was a *free man*.
ROBBIE
But you'll have to have it all pulled out before the savoy truffle
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0$7qpAAy6...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
> In article <383495...@cloud9.net>, Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
> <bra...@cloud9.net> writes
> >
> >Odysseus was the Greeks' Patrick McGoohan ("The Prisoner"): He
> >was a *free man*.
ROBBIE
De worl' famous fighting temeraire
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gf0vRLAM...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
> In article <383355...@cloud9.net>, Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
> <bra...@cloud9.net> writes
> >
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> In article <383495...@cloud9.net>, Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
> <bra...@cloud9.net> writes
> >
> >Odysseus was the Greeks' Patrick McGoohan ("The Prisoner"): He
> >was a *free man*.
> --
> James Whitehead
"Transcendentally", #6 was always a free man, and even
effectively in his "self". At the end, he became *free*
to fully reflect his transcendental nature
in his ontical being.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> Brad:
>
> >>> That's like comparing cats and mice: Ulysses was no Ahab-dink....
> >>> (Ahab had obsessive-compulsive disorder, or something like that.)
>
> >>> to the mast of his ship so he could hear the Sirens' song....
>
> >>> rather, when he was on the verge of doing it, Athena appeared
> >>> and told him to stop. (He did.)
>
> >>> So maybe Ahab's problem was that Athena was elsewhere occupied....
>
> Moggin:
>
> >> Or maybe Odysseus was a dilettante.
>
> Brad:
>
> > was a *free man*.
>
> the lead, and every week he'd say, "I'm not a number: I'm a
> free man!" during the intro to a show where he was a number and
> a prisoner, both. So if you're right that "Odysseus was the
> Greeks' Patrick McGoohan," then Adorno and Horkheimer were also
> on the money in describing him as the first bourgeois.
> Odysseus, I mean -- I don't think A and H were heard from about
> McGoohan.
Odysseus as the first bourgeois? Can you
give me your definition of bourgeois?
McGoohan was no "bourgeois" by any definition
I've heard (barring a surprise from you...)....
"Be seeing you!"
Puss in Boots
>>>> That's like comparing cats and mice: Ulysses
>>>> was no Ahab-dink.... (Ahab had obsessive-
>>>> compulsive disorder, or something like that.)
winn...@aol.com (WinnerEJ):
>>> No, the comparison is vital...Both Melville and Joyce are trying to
>>> encapulate the common experience of Modernity; only Melville grasped
>>> the fundamental insity of it, where as Joyce was merely appalled by
>>> its appearance of sanity; hence: Moby Dick
Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com>:
>> The comparison is false. Melville didn't limit the
>> insanity to modern times: he saw it as the essense of Creation.
>> That's _the_ Creation, visited on us by the Creator-God.
>> According to Fiedler, Melville's "secret motto" for _Moby Dick_
>> was "I baptize you not in the name of the Father, the Son, a
>> nd the Holy Ghost, but in the name of the Devil." So it's easy
>> to see where he stands.
EJ:
> Only a Modern would - could - say this.
The thought is at least two thousand years old -- arguably
more, although obviously not in the same terms. Many early
Christians saw the world as Satan's possession -- a fully owned
and operated subsidiary of Beelzebub, Inc. So that
transvaluation of values is nothing new -- arguably it goes all
the way back to Plato. (Nietzsche's argument, of course.)
You can see the more general notion that the world is basically
nuts in, e.g., Job and Ecclesiastes.
What about the opposite view? Well, hmm. It's definitely
present in classical philosophy, e.g. Cicero, and in more
conservative versions of Christianity. You can also find it in
the scientific outlook, where it has obvious importance. I
just hopped and skipped over several millennia, but that's sort
of my point: ain't nothing new here.
> the comparison stands.
It collapsed. You're wrong in claiming that "only a
Modern" would or could make Melville's comment, and anyway, the
point you claim stands was about Melville's intent. You
contended that he was trying to summarize the "common
experience of Modernity" in regard to its "fundamental insanity."
But Melville's vision was far wider than that -- he didn't
think the insanity was just a recent development, restricted to
modern times.
You might be able to make the comparison work by fixing up
the other side -- that is, by arguing that _Ulysses_ isn't
merely about "the experience of modernity," but takes in, let's
say, "the nature of existence." Then you could argue that
Melville's criticism goes deeper, which would, I think, be true.
-- Moggin
WinnerEJ
set of rituals that are dead and empty
- and the "white whale" doesn't "represent" anytrhing - he's just a godamn
whale, a "big fish," as Ishmael is at pains to point out. Your reading of Moby
Dick is academically blinded - your assuming Ahab (and Melville) believe in God
and Devils and are reciting truisms 200 years old. Bull! Melville believed
that the world was now chaos, not because there is unhappiness in the world,
but because humans are messed up in the head. That's a modern reading of the
cultural collapses and conflicts implicit in the modern era.
. Were there precursors - sure, around the collapse of Rome, but so what?
- The comparisons stand. Tell your Literature professor he's an idiot.
Or go to Paul Metcalf, Melville's grandson, and ask him who his gradfather was
or read the later poems or even the later novels. or the private papers. Visit
the house in Vermont where he wrote Moby Dick .
I'm sorry, the hundred year effort to preserve Melville as a "calvinist"
"symbolist" accounts for so little of his work and is so contradicted by
accessory evidence, that it is silly and thus ridiculous to believe that people
still bother hawking this crap. It makes old christians feel confident that
this is still a "christian country" --bullcrap. And Melville knew it.
By the way, ask yourself a simple question - at the end Ahab at last
confronts A white whale - but is it Moby Dick? Why not just at last some white
whale resembling the one Ahab in his arrogant monomania hunts because he can't
use his dick any more?
Moby Dick is a literal text - it is rich in "signs" - in the modern
semiotic sense -but there isn't any symbolism in it at all. read it this way
and quiver in your boots when you finally get what Melville is getting at (but
also have a good laugh - it is a comedy, after all.)
-ej winner
Puss in Boots
>>> Odysseus was the Greeks' Patrick McGoohan ("The Prisoner"): He
>>> was a *free man*.
Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com>:
>> McGoohan _was_ the prisoner in "The Prisoner" -- he played
>> the lead, and every week he'd say, "I'm not a number: I'm a
>> free man!" during the intro to a show where he was a number and
>> a prisoner, both. So if you're right that "Odysseus was the
>> Greeks' Patrick McGoohan," then Adorno and Horkheimer were also
>> on the money in describing him as the first bourgeois.
>> Odysseus, I mean -- I don't think A and H were heard from about
>> McGoohan.
Brad:
> Odysseus as the first bourgeois?
More accurately, "the Homeric hero" is "a prototype of the
bourgeois individual" (_Dialectic of Enlightenment_ 43).
Similarly, the Homeric tales pre-figure that trés bourgeois art
form, the novel.
> Can you give me your definition of bourgeois?
> McGoohan was no "bourgeois" by any definition
> I've heard (barring a surprise from you...)....
I'm horrible at defining things, but I can explain my
point. McGoohan regularly insists that he's a "free man," just
as the bourgeoisie ceaselessly boast about belonging to a
"free society" -- but McGoohan's show is accurately titled "The
Prisoner." He's a captive, no matter what he says. His
escape attempts admit as much. McGoohan also proclaims that he
isn't a number, just as the bourgeoisie pride themselves on
their "individuality." But he's wrong -- in the prison society,
he _is_ a number, just like everyone else. And he knows it:
otherwise he wouldn't be so anxious to assert his individuality.
I could go a step further. Before McGoohan was caught and
prisoned, he led a very different life. Presumably that's
when he really was a "free man" and an individual. What was he,
tho? He was a government functionary, a civil servant, an
imitation James Bond. More a game piece than an individual and
more a prisoner than a free man. But McGoohan grew deathly
tired of playing a secret agent -- he threatened to walk unless
he got something better to do. Thus "The Prisoner," about a
man trapped in his role in an inscrutable system, even while he
shouts that he's free.
-- Moggin
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
[snip]
>
> > Odysseus as the first bourgeois?
>
> More accurately, "the Homeric hero" is "a prototype of the
> bourgeois individual" (_Dialectic of Enlightenment_ 43).
But isn't that part of the question: The *individual* is not
a "bourgeois" -- unless you want to go back to Elizabeth
Eisenstein's master printers (burghers) of the 16th century,
who may perhaps be seen as the forerunners of *both*
the bourgeois (the split-off entreperneur) and the
individual (both in his romantic spilt-off version and
also the integral individuality -- like #6).
I would again urge all to have their friendly reference
librarians track down for them a beautiful ("herrlich..." --
magisterial...) article:
Szczepanski, J. (1981). Individuality and society.
Impact of science on society [a UNESCO publication], 31(4), 461-466.
> Similarly, the Homeric tales pre-figure that trés bourgeois art
> form, the novel.
[I guess Murasaki Shikibu was a bourgeois? And persons like
Broch and Musil certainly qualify as "bourgeois" only
in the sense that they had more "resources" than
"workers" but less than "the rich".... But, of course
I would agree with you that, as a taxonomic classification,
many novels are "bourgeois" -- or at lesat they were before
TV turned the bourgeois into Couch and Mrs. Potato....]
>
> > Can you give me your definition of bourgeois?
> > McGoohan was no "bourgeois" by any definition
> > I've heard (barring a surprise from you...)....
>
> I'm horrible at defining things, but I can explain my
> point. McGoohan regularly insists that he's a "free man," just
> as the bourgeoisie ceaselessly boast about belonging to a
> "free society" -- but McGoohan's show is accurately titled "The
> Prisoner." He's a captive, no matter what he says. His
> escape attempts admit as much. McGoohan also proclaims that he
> isn't a number, just as the bourgeoisie pride themselves on
> their "individuality." But he's wrong -- in the prison society,
> he _is_ a number, just like everyone else. And he knows it:
> otherwise he wouldn't be so anxious to assert his individuality.
I do not read it this way. As a prisoner, #6 lives in the
kind of "free society" you are talking about. Of course he's
a captive. But he wasn't before, and, at the end [which, unlike
the ending of the Book of Job, is *not* a later paste-on!],
he does escape (albeit into London, hq of the British Intelligence
Service). Compare #6's discourse with that of
Nietzsche's last man....
>
> I could go a step further. Before McGoohan was caught and
> prisoned, he led a very different life. Presumably that's
> when he really was a "free man" and an individual. What was he,
> tho? He was a government functionary, a civil servant, an
> imitation James Bond.
Correction: McGoohan was offered the James Bond role, and
he turned it down because he felt it was immoral (did
not set a good example for children).
> More a game piece than an individual and
> more a prisoner than a free man. But McGoohan grew deathly
> tired of playing a secret agent -- he threatened to walk unless
> he got something better to do.
As I see the story, he didn't *threaten* anybody. He left
because he wanted to. He didn't say: "Give me a raise or
a transfer or whatever or I'll leave." He just left.
I have personally known in my life one person who comes
close to being in real life what McGoohan was in the
TV series.
> Thus "The Prisoner," about a
> man trapped in his role in an inscrutable system, even while he
> shouts that he's free.
Generally speaking, he maintains a higher level of composure
and decorum than his captors. He *is* a free man. But
no person (except maybe some shamans?) is immune to the
laws of Newtonian mechanics, or to the machinations
of agencies with the power to deploy deploy Force
to accelerate mass[es].
One man's ceiling is another man's floor,
But walls stop everybody.
(--my friend)
Here's a brief version of a story a fundamentalist
Xian told me: An atheist had a believer for a neighbor.
The neighbor shouts loud enough for the atheist
to hear thru the apartment wall that God will bring
her free groceries. The Atheist goes to the store,
buys groceries, and places them on neighbor's
doorstep. Neighbor finds groceries and
praises the Lord for fulfilling His promise.
Atheist tells her that's nonesnse: That
atheist bought the groceries and placed them there.
Neighbor gives praise to the Lord. Atheist
asks why? Heighbor explains: The Lord not
only fulfilled His promise, but made
use of the Devil to do it!
James Whitehead
Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com> writes
> The thought is at least two thousand years old -- arguably
>more, although obviously not in the same terms. Many early
>Christians saw the world as Satan's possession -- a fully owned
>and operated subsidiary of Beelzebub, Inc.
ideas as well as Christianity ? - it was generally considered heresy
finally in its Albeigensian form brutally crushed by a crusade.
(Though supposedly such dualism appears in Blake.)
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
TT...@NETSCAPEONLINE.CO.UK> writes
>
>
>But you'll have to have it all pulled out before the savoy truffle
>
>
>
>
cry
--
James Whitehead
Polaris
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Eo$WsJAgI...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
Puss in Boots
> Ahab doesn't believe in any devil! he's inventing an incantation to replace
> a set of rituals that are dead and empty
I was quoting Melville, not Ahab. If you recall, you said
Melville was trying to "encapulate the common experience of
Modernity," meaning its "fundamental insanity." But that's not
so -- his aims were far wider, as his remark suggests.
> - and the "white whale" doesn't "represent" anytrhing - he's just a godamn
> whale, a "big fish," as Ishmael is at pains to point out. Your reading of
> Moby Dick is academically blinded - your assuming Ahab (and Melville)
> believe in God and Devils and are reciting truisms 200 years old. Bull!
The blindness -- and the assumptions -- belong entirely to
you. Again, I was quoting Melville, not Ahab. (One of the
letters, probably -- I'd have to check.) He certainly spoke in
terms of "God and Devils," there's no question about that.
His ideas go back two thousand years, at the least. That's not
a supposition -- it's an observation about what he said.
> Melville believed that the world was now chaos, not because there is
> unhappiness in the world, but because humans are messed up in the head.
> That's a modern reading of the cultural collapses and conflicts implicit
> in the modern era. Were there precursors - sure, around the collapse
> of Rome, but so what? - The comparisons stand. Tell your Literature
> professor he's an idiot.
What literature professor? I've got no professors -- also
no students. I'm here on my own stick. Oh, wait: you must
mean Fiedler, who I credited with the quote. First name Leslie.
One of the better-known literary critics of this century.
"Git Back On The Raft, Huck Honey!" is probably his most famous
(or infamous) piece of work: a study of homo-eroticism in
American literature written before Eve Sedgwick could even read.
> Or go to Paul Metcalf, Melville's grandson, and ask him who his
> gradfather was or read the later poems or even the later novels.
> or the private papers. Visit the house in Vermont where he wrote
> Moby Dick .
His papers are what I was quoting from -- or I was quoting
Fielder quoting them, which comes to the same thing. There
are plenty of idiotic professors, but you could give any of 'em
stiff competition.
> I'm sorry, the hundred year effort to preserve Melville as a "calvinist"
> "symbolist" accounts for so little of his work and is so contradicted by
> accessory evidence, that it is silly and thus ridiculous to believe that >
> people still bother hawking this crap.
You're a sorry case, alright. I haven't so much as hinted
that Melville was writing as a Calvinist. And speaking of
evidence, that assertion of yours -- the one where you claim he
was attempting to "encapsulate the common experience of
modernism," as distinct from any other time -- remains entirely
unsupported.
> It makes old christians feel confident that
> this is still a "christian country" --bullcrap. And Melville knew it.
I never claimed the U.S. is or ever was a Christian nation
or that Melville thought so.
> By the way, ask yourself a simple question - at the end Ahab at
> last confronts A white whale - but is it Moby Dick? Why not just at last
> some white whale resembling the one Ahab in his arrogant monomania hunts
> because he can't use his dick any more?
> Moby Dick is a literal text - it is rich in "signs" - in the modern
> semiotic sense -but there isn't any symbolism in it at all. read it this
> way and quiver in your boots when you finally get what Melville is getting
> at (but also have a good laugh - it is a comedy, after all.)
Kinda like you.
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
>>>>> Odysseus was the Greeks' Patrick McGoohan ("The Prisoner"): He
>>>>> was a *free man*.
Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com>:
>>>> McGoohan _was_ the prisoner in "The Prisoner" -- he played
>>>> the lead, and every week he'd say, "I'm not a number: I'm a
>>>> free man!" during the intro to a show where he was a number and
>>>> a prisoner, both. So if you're right that "Odysseus was the
>>>> Greeks' Patrick McGoohan," then Adorno and Horkheimer were also
>>>> on the money in describing him as the first bourgeois.
>>>> Odysseus, I mean -- I don't think A and H were heard from about
>>>> McGoohan.
Brad:
>>> Odysseus as the first bourgeois?
Moggin:
>> More accurately, "the Homeric hero" is "a prototype of the
>> bourgeois individual" (_Dialectic of Enlightenment_ 43).
>> Similarly, the Homeric tales pre-figure that trés bourgeois art
>> form, the novel.
Brad:
> But isn't that part of the question: The *individual* is not
> a "bourgeois" -- unless you want to go back to Elizabeth
> Eisenstein's master printers (burghers) of the 16th century,
> who may perhaps be seen as the forerunners of *both*
> the bourgeois (the split-off entreperneur) and the
> individual (both in his romantic spilt-off version and
> also the integral individuality -- like #6).
You're right: #6 measures 13.638 on the Meerer-Golz scale
of integral individuality. A real winner! This is my
comeuppance for commenting on individuality without checking in
the data-base. Shows what I know, huh?
> [I guess Murasaki Shikibu was a bourgeois?
I guess you don't think clearly. "The novel is a
bourgeois art form" doesn't equal "Everyone you can describe as
a novelist belongs to the bourgeoisie."
> And persons like Broch and Musil certainly qualify as
> "bourgeois" only in the sense that they had more "resources"
> than "workers" but less than "the rich".
If that's your subtle way of saying they were middle-class
then yes: they qualify as bourgeois.
> ... But, of course
> I would agree with you that, as a taxonomic classification,
> many novels are "bourgeois" -- or at lesat they were before
> TV turned the bourgeois into Couch and Mrs. Potato....]
Which makes what difference...?
Brad:
>>> Can you give me your definition of bourgeois?
>>> McGoohan was no "bourgeois" by any definition
>>> I've heard (barring a surprise from you...)....
Moggin:
>> I'm horrible at defining things, but I can explain my
>> point. McGoohan regularly insists that he's a "free man," just
>> as the bourgeoisie ceaselessly boast about belonging to a
>> "free society" -- but McGoohan's show is accurately titled "The
>> Prisoner." He's a captive, no matter what he says. His
>> escape attempts admit as much. McGoohan also proclaims that he
>> isn't a number, just as the bourgeoisie pride themselves on
>> their "individuality." But he's wrong -- in the prison society,
>> he _is_ a number, just like everyone else. And he knows it:
>> otherwise he wouldn't be so anxious to assert his individuality.
Brad:
> I do not read it this way.
Yes, you do. You're about to admit that "Of course he's a
captive," despite his claims and yours that he's a free man.
Then you're gonna try and change the subject to his life before
and after his captivity on the island.
> As a prisoner, #6 lives in the
> kind of "free society" you are talking about. Of course he's
> a captive. But he wasn't before, and, at the end [which, unlike
> the ending of the Book of Job, is *not* a later paste-on!],
> he does escape (albeit into London, hq of the British Intelligence
> Service).
What bullshit. McGoohan's helpless bleat about his
supposed freedom comes precisely when he's a prisoner; and it's
that prisoner you offered as an example of a "_free man_."
Emphasis yours. Now you concede that "Of course he's a captive."
Evidently you realize you chose the wrong example. But it's
an illuminating one. McGoohan calls himself free when he's
anthing but, and you ignore the irony to offer him as a shining
example of freedom.
> Compare #6's discourse with that of Nietzsche's last man.
I'll let you.
Moggin:
>> I could go a step further. Before McGoohan was caught and
>> prisoned, he led a very different life. Presumably that's
>> when he really was a "free man" and an individual. What was he,
>> tho? He was a government functionary, a civil servant, an
>> imitation James Bond. More a game piece than an individual and
>> more a prisoner than a free man. But McGoohan grew deathly
>> tired of playing a secret agent -- he threatened to walk unless
>> he got something better to do. Thus "The Prisoner," about a
>> man trapped in his role in an inscrutable system, even while he
>> shouts that he's free.
Brad:
> Correction: McGoohan was offered the James Bond role, and
> he turned it down because he felt it was immoral (did
> not set a good example for children).
No correction. John Drake -- the character McGoohan plays
in "Secret Agent," a.k.a. "Danger Man" -- is an imitation
James Bond, as I said. I didn't know that McGoohan turned down
the Bond role, but that's delicious; he won't play Bond on
moral grounds, but he winds up with a job as the lead in a Bond
knock-off on t.v. "I am a free man!"
> As I see the story, he didn't *threaten* anybody. He left
> because he wanted to. He didn't say: "Give me a raise or
> a transfer or whatever or I'll leave." He just left.
A misunderstanding. Patrick McGoohan, the actor, got
tired of playing John Drake, Lotus-driving secret agent. Story
is he felt trapped in the role. (Nudge nudge, wink wink.)
Threatened to walk off the show. He didn't leave, tho; instead
he starred in "The Prisoner," about a Lotus-driving secret
agent who tries to leave his role behind, only to be imprisoned
by unknown forces.
> I have personally known in my life one person who comes
> close to being in real life what McGoohan was in the
> TV series.
You know someone who was held prisoner on a remote island?
> Generally speaking, he maintains a higher level of composure
> and decorum than his captors.
Thank you, Brad. That was the only thing missing: a note
of bourgeois propriety.
> He *is* a free man.
[...]
"Of course he's a captive." Those are your own words, pal.
If you want to explain how captivity is freedom, then be my
guest; there ain't nothing more Orwellian than liberal ideology.
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
>> The thought is at least two thousand years old -- arguably
>> more, although obviously not in the same terms. Many early
>> Christians saw the world as Satan's possession -- a fully owned
>> and operated subsidiary of Beelzebub, Inc.
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
> Do you mean Manicheism - which has roots in Zoroastrian and Buddhist
> ideas as well as Christianity ? - it was generally considered heresy
> finally in its Albeigensian form brutally crushed by a crusade.
> (Though supposedly such dualism appears in Blake.)
You're mixing up Manichaeanism with Gnosticism -- not hard
to do, since there was a time when Gnostics were called
"Manichees," and Manichaeanism is built, in part, on Gnosticism.
I guess that's not gonna clear things up.
Take two. Gnosticism predates Manichaeanism. By how much
depends how far back you date the Gnostics, which is
controversial, but Gnosticism had its heyday in the 2nd century.
Mani lived during the 3rd century and used Gnosticism as a
building block. Manichaeanism covered alot more ground -- from
Spain to China. The Cathars (Albigensians to you) were
influenced by Gnosticism, probably routed through the Paulicans
and Bogomils. Blake shows strong traces of Gnosticism, too.
He might have gotten it from his study of esoterica or from the
small Gnostic sects that lingered in the countryside. His
dualism is the key, as you say. "Did he who made the lamb make
thee?"
Many early Christians were Gnostics. I'm speculating, but
Christianity may even have been Gnostic at its inception.
Needless to say, that's not the route it took, historically, so
Gnosticism is now remembered -- when it's remembered -- as a
heresy. You know what happened to the Cathars. Religion makes
an awfully tough game, especially for the losing side.
I'm not sure about those Buddhist roots. There are
interesting parallels between Buddhism and Gnosticism, but talk
about an influence is just talk. Mani's main sources were
Gnosticism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism -- not necessarily
in that order -- although Manichaeanism did become more
Buddhist as it moved east.
Anyway, yeah -- I was thinking about the Gnostics, but not
only them. The NT describes the world as Satan's and says
that he rules over it: a big change from both Greek and Jewish
views. Even the Church Dads accept that idea. Of course
they're caught in a contradiction, but nevermind -- for present
purposes, all that matters is that it was a popular thought
(at least in some circles) two thousand years ago, and not just
a recent thing.
-- Moggin
WinnerEJ
> moggin
"I baptize you not in the name of the Father, the Son, a
nd the Holy Ghost, but in the name of the Devil."
- this (or a very similar variant) happens to reappear in Moby Dick, spoken by
Ahab, so its not such a "secret motto", now was it? and It's interesting that
Melville has Ahab use it, since Melville knows quite well that Ahab is mad,
pompous and rigid; it is also in his notes because Melville thought to himself
to be
"writing a wicked book" yet feeling clean as a new-born - a very moden
atitude.
I think in our contentiousness we are missing a few points. First, you are
arguing for a broader reading of Moby Dick , whereas I read you originally as
arguing for a narrower reading.
In doing so, I was reacting against the traditional reading of Melville -
yes, including Fiedler's - that tries to maintain that the Modern era is
culturally a continuance of the past - this would both necessitate a linkage
with the fallen Christiandom, and strip the Modren of its claim to a break
with the past.
The Pequod is microcosmically American, but as governed by a Hitler,
targetted both at opportunistic slaughter of the natural world and yet driven
by some inarticulate rage at not being able to conquer that world.
Melville was not writing from "observation" in the distant objective sense
you are using the term, but from direct experience. He depends on remembering
immediate personal contact with the peoples of Latin America and the South
Pacific., as well as of the shipping and whaling trades of the time. He
therfore must attempt to "encapsulate the common experience of modernism" - the
era that turned whaling into an industry for mass-production/consumption
purposes; the Pequod is literally a whale-oil factory.
I think you're failing to grasp the depth of Modernity's claim to this
break with the past - or if you grasp it, you deny it; and this may be our real
point of disagreement.
>(but also have a good laugh - it is a comedy, after all.)
>
> Kinda like you.
>
>-- Moggin
Yes, indeed, because, to speak symbolically, I too am a parentless Ishmael,
adrift in the sea of an undiscoverable Modernity that has now crashed against
its own hubris, searching for a godless truth and finding ruins requiring
lengthy explanations instead.
But in any event, if you haven't read Moby Dick literally and as a comedy,
than you have not yet read the book. The whole story is told in one voice -
Ishmael's - Melville allows us to drift from one illusory perspective to
another, because Modenity can no longer tolerate a univocal identity.
>And speaking of
>evidence, that assertion of yours -- the >one where you claim he
>was attempting to "encapsulate the >common experience of
>modernism," as distinct from any other >time -- remains entirely
>unsupported.
IT is supported by a literal reading of the text, also in placing it along
the continuum of Melville's works, fromm Omoo and Typee to Clarel. Unlike his
pre-Christian pagan precursors, eg the Petronius of the Satyricon, Melville is
on a "quest for meaning", which is a post-Christian problematic.
It is also suggested by converstaions with Metcalf, who said he what
little he remembered of his grandfather was that he was an unpleasant and
deeply unreligious person.
His letters to Hawthorne, which you claim to be quoting from, also
indicate a knowledge that he was onto something that, taken literally, would
shock the reader , and somehow undermine their faith in the every-day.
Finally, if you would visit the Melville house in Vermont, you would note
the absecence of any comfort, no biblical or christian iconography, and the
lack of a large library. This, despite his parodies of Shakespeare in Moby
Dick (that's what they are, not imitations). You say that you never raised
the issue of Christianity - literally, you did not, but by implication, you
suggest Melville is in keeping with the general trend of history, which would
indeed support the accusations of his being a cavinist apologist. In other
words, no, you did not say this, but what you did say is fodder for this
position. I'm sorry for imputing the implication to you directly; my own point
is really that Melville's break with the past - which would mean a break from
the fallen Christendom - was complete, and that in itself makes him Modern -
especially since he places himself time and time against Christendom and
Christian presumptions concerning the world.
But to show you that I am not entirely adverse to scholarly discussion of
Moby Dick - including Fiedler's and those influenced by him, - I will myself
quote an academic, one of the few I truly admire, Morse Peckham:
"Ahab, then, having lost the Enlightenment sense of value immanent in the
universe determines either to prove the universe ihas no meaning or to give the
universe meaning by an act, whether that meaning be good or bad. But Ahab is
also like a Wordsworth who wants to prove his Analogism, to link, beyond
breaking, the analogies of the self and the not-self, and to do this
empirically. So, though Ahab has not discovered his self, it is, we are
informed, nevertheless at work within him. Ahab's actions may be condemned but
not his motives. But Ahab is also something of an Emersonian
Transcendentalist; he is engaged on a hunt which, if successful, would be
world-redeeming.
" In short, it is as if Melville had absorbed all at once all stages of
Romanticism up to his own time, and presented them in Moby Dick in inextricable
confusion" (The Triumph of Romanticism, 1970: South carolina P, 171).
By the way, my ahab-raging was not directed at you, but at a perspective I
saw you as defending. If you choose to take it personally, and respond so,
that is your choice, I can only apologize for any misunderstandings on my own
part.
- ej Winner
James Whitehead
<tr...@catcat.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>You were in a car crash, and you lost your huur!
--
James Whitehead
Puss in Boots
>> I was quoting Melville, not Ahab
winn...@aol.com (WinnerEJ):
>"I baptize you not in the name of the Father, the Son, a
>nd the Holy Ghost, but in the name of the Devil."
>- this (or a very similar variant) happens to reappear in Moby Dick,
>spoken by Ahab, so its not such a "secret motto", now was it?
Yes, it is -- the secret is, or was that it was Melville's
motto for the novel. It may even be secret more generally.
I'm less sure of that, since you say that it's in the book, but
where is it, exactly?
>and It's interesting that Melville has Ahab use it since Melville knows
>quite well that Ahab is mad, pompous and rigid.
Then again, Melville might have seen Ahab as a man of some
insight, since he assigns Ahab his own motto -- the one on
which he wrote the book. (I'm assuming that Ahab _does_ recite
it somewhere.) I wonder if you and Brad aren't taking Cap'n
Ahab for Cap'n Queeg, and confusing _Moby Dick_ with _The Caine
Mutiny_.
>it is also in his notes
>because Melville thought to himself to be "writing a wicked book" yet
>feeling clean as a new-born - a very moden atitude.
Modern, yes, but not uniquely so; modern but not novel, in
other words. And the question isn't whether _Mody Dick_ is
modern, by some definition, but whether it's exclusively modern
-- i.e., limited to "the modern experience."
> I think in our contentiousness we are missing a few points. First,
>you are arguing for a broader reading of Moby Dick , whereas I read you
>originally as arguing for a narrower reading.
> In doing so, I was reacting against the traditional reading of Melville
>- yes, including Fiedler's - that tries to maintain that the Modern era is
>culturally a continuance of the past - this would both necessitate a linkage
>with the fallen Christiandom, and strip the Modren of its claim to a break
>with the past.
The modern era isn't necessarily a continuance of the past
-- but it also isn't anything new. Although that depends on
what you mean by "the modern." New things have happened -- but
then they always have.
> The Pequod is microcosmically American, but as governed by a Hitler,
>targetted both at opportunistic slaughter of the natural world and yet
>driven by some inarticulate rage at not being able to conquer that world.
> Melville was not writing from "observation" in the distant objective
>sense you are using the term, but from direct experience.
You're not reading -- not in any sense that I use the term.
I didn't say that Melville was writing from observation. I
didn't even say anything _like_ that. You accused me of making
assumptions about what Melville believed. I replied by
pointing out that I had quoted what Melville said. Then, since
I didn't know if you'd get the point, I explained that I
wasn't relying on a supposition about what M thought; rather, I
was making an observation about what he wrote. The
observation was mine -- not Melville's -- and your observations
on _Moby-Dick_ are as accurate as your remarks about me.
>He depends on remembering
>immediate personal contact with the peoples of Latin America and the South
>Pacific., as well as of the shipping and whaling trades of the time. He
>therfore must attempt to "encapsulate the common experience of modernism" -
>the era that turned whaling into an industry for mass-production/consumption
>purposes; the Pequod is literally a whale-oil factory.
That doesn't even begin to follow: the fact that Melville
draws on his personal memories doesn't require him to
"encapsulate the common experience of modernism," no matter how
much ground his recollections take in.
> I think you're failing to grasp the depth of Modernity's claim to
>this break with the past - or if you grasp it, you deny it; and this
>may be our real point of disagreement.
I haven't even addressed it, far less denied it -- I don't
think that's what we're disagreeing about at all. Could be
wrong. And even if I'm right, we could probably work up a good
disagreement.
[...]
Moggin:
>> And speaking of
>> evidence, that assertion of yours -- the one where you claim he
>> was attempting to "encapsulate the common experience of
>> modernism," as distinct from any other time -- remains entirely
>> unsupported.
EJ:
> IT is supported by a literal reading of the text, also in placing
>it along the continuum of Melville's works, fromm Omoo and Typee to
>Clarel.
So it has the support of your say-so.
>Unlike his
>pre-Christian pagan precursors, eg the Petronius of the Satyricon, Melville
>is on a "quest for meaning", which is a post-Christian problematic.
Nobody ever searched for meaning til Xianity came and went?
> It is also suggested by converstaions with Metcalf, who said he what
>little he remembered of his grandfather was that he was an unpleasant and
>deeply unreligious person.
Melville is said to have been a nasty atheist -- therefore
_Moby-Dick_ is about "the common experience of modernism" to
the exclusion of any other era. Maybe you ran out of sequiturs.
> His letters to Hawthorne, which you claim to be quoting from, also
>indicate a knowledge that he was onto something that, taken literally, would
>shock the reader , and somehow undermine their faith in the every-day.
So "the everyday" is unique to "the modern"? Nothing was
everyday til lately?
> Finally, if you would visit the Melville house in Vermont, you would note
>the absecence of any comfort, no biblical or christian iconography, and the
>lack of a large library.
Consider it noted. If you want, we can stipulate Melville
was an ascetic, an atheist, and an illiterate.
This, despite his parodies of Shakespeare in Moby
>Dick (that's what they are, not imitations). You say that you never raised
>the issue of Christianity -
Excuse me, but no -- I didn't say that. You're a comedian
of errors. First you suggested I was participating in a
"hundred year effort to preserve Melville as a 'calvinist.'" I
replied that I hadn't even hinted that Melville wrote as a
Calvinist: you made that out of whole cloth. Now you've taken
my response and turned it into an assertion that I "never
raised the issue of Christianity." Again, you're reading me as
well as you read Melville.
>literally, you did not, but by implication, you
>suggest Melville is in keeping with the general trend of history, which would
>indeed support the accusations of his being a cavinist apologist. In other
>words, no, you did not say this, but what you did say is fodder for this
>position. I'm sorry for imputing the implication to you directly;
Nothing to apologize for: but you're wrong. I didn't say
that "Melville is in keeping with the general trend of
history" directly or indirectly, just like Melville doesn't say
hardly anything you attribute to him.
>my own point
>is really that Melville's break with the past - which would mean a break from
>the fallen Christendom - was complete, and that in itself makes him Modern -
>especially since he places himself time and time against Christendom and
>Christian presumptions concerning the world.
People have placed themselves "against Christendom and
Christian presumptions" for two thousand years; in that respect
Melville was just the latest in a long line. But I'm not
arguing that Melville can't be described as modern, in at least
some sense of the term, so this is all irrelevant.
> By the way, my ahab-raging was not directed at you, but at a
> perspective I saw you as defending. If you choose to take it personally,
> and respond so, that is your choice, I can only apologize for any
> misunderstandings on my own
C'mon, EJ: you told me I was academically blinded and you
accused me of "hawking crap." Now you're gonna claim that
wasn't directed at me? The least you can do is to stand behind
your name-calling! I didn't mind -- I've been called worse.
If you want to play nice, I can do that, too. Well, maybe; I'm
out of practice, but I could try.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
>
> Take two. Gnosticism predates Manichaeanism. By how much
>depends how far back you date the Gnostics, which is
>controversial,
<snip>
> Anyway, yeah -- I was thinking about the Gnostics, but not
>only them. The NT describes the world as Satan's and says
>that he rules over it: a big change from both Greek and Jewish
>views. Even the Church Dads accept that idea. Of course
>they're caught in a contradiction, but nevermind -- for present
>purposes, all that matters is that it was a popular thought
>(at least in some circles) two thousand years ago, and not just
>a recent thing.
that dualist thought entered into early christaian theology is not
questioned but the idea that the NT offers a dualist theology isnt quite
cricket.
--
James Whitehead
Gerry Quinn
Say what you like, they were quotable dudes...
Yeah
Yeah
Yeah
- Gerry Quinn
Puss in Boots
>>>> Many early
>>>> Christians saw the world as Satan's possession -- a fully owned
>>>> and operated subsidiary of Beelzebub, Inc.
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
>>> Do you mean Manicheism - which has roots in Zoroastrian and Buddhist
>>> ideas as well as Christianity ? - it was generally considered heresy
>>> finally in its Albeigensian form brutally crushed by a crusade.
>>> (Though supposedly such dualism appears in Blake.)
Moggin:
>> You're mixing up Manichaeanism with Gnosticism -- not hard
>> to do, since there was a time when Gnostics were called
>> "Manichees," and Manichaeanism is built, in part, on Gnosticism.
>> I guess that's not gonna clear things up.
James:
> no i'm not [mixed up]
Of course you are. Gnosticism was a Christian heresy.
(Although not all Gnostics were Christians.) Manichaeanism was
a separate religion built primarily on Zoroastrianism,
Gnosticism, and Christianity. Gnosticism played a pretty large
role in early Christianity. Manichaeanism didn't, for the
simple reason that Mani hadn't been born. He didn't come along
until the third century. And the Cathari (i.e., the
Albigensians) were Gnostics, or anyway influenced by Gnosticism.
That's where semantics becomes an issue, since by then the
term "Manichee" had become practically synonymous with
"dualism" (of the more radical varieties), so that the Gnostics
were often referred to as Manichees. For example, the
inquisitor Bernard Gui describes the Cathari as "Manichaean
heretics." If he thought they were Manichaeans, i.e. followers
of Mani, that would be nonsensical: only Christians can be
guilty of heresy. Gui means that they're Christians who preach
dualism, as well as other scandalous things.
Moggin:
>> Take two. Gnosticism predates Manichaeanism. By how much
>> depends how far back you date the Gnostics, which is
>> controversial, but Gnosticism had its heyday in the 2nd century.
James:
> is it [controversial]?
Oh, yes -- highly. Touches on fundamental questions about
the nature of Gnosticism. Also implicates Judaism and
Christianity. The basic question is whether Gnosticism existed
before Christ. Of course, that depends in part on how you
define "Gnosticism," which is another topic of controversy. So
there's alot of fighting.
> is all the stuff in the Nag Hammadi Gnostic?
No, not at all -- the Nag Hammadi library contains a bunch
of different things, including some Hermetica and even a
fragment of Plato's _Republic_. (A poorly-translated one, if I
can believe what I read.) What makes you ask?
Moggin:
[...]
>> Anyway, yeah -- I was thinking about the Gnostics, but not
>> only them. The NT describes the world as Satan's and says
>> that he rules over it: a big change from both Greek and Jewish
>> views. Even the Church Dads accept that idea. Of course
>> they're caught in a contradiction, but nevermind -- for present
>> purposes, all that matters is that it was a popular thought
>> (at least in some circles) two thousand years ago, and not just
>> a recent thing.
James:
> that dualist thought entered into early christaian theology is not
> questioned but the idea that the NT offers a dualist theology isnt quite
> cricket.
Alot of Christians would agree with you, and the whole lot
of you would be wrong. Arguably the Gospel _was_ radical
dualism, and Christianity has been suppressing it for nigh unto
two thousand years. (Didn't you mention the Albigensian
Crusade?) Be that as it may, there's no shortage of dualism in
the NT.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
>
>>>>> Many early
>>>>> Christians saw the world as Satan's possession -- a fully owned
>>>>> and operated subsidiary of Beelzebub, Inc.
>
>James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
>
>>>> Do you mean Manicheism - which has roots in Zoroastrian and Buddhist
>>>> ideas as well as Christianity ? - it was generally considered heresy
>>>> finally in its Albeigensian form brutally crushed by a crusade.
>>>> (Though supposedly such dualism appears in Blake.)
>
>Moggin:
>
>>> You're mixing up Manichaeanism with Gnosticism -- not hard
>>> to do, since there was a time when Gnostics were called
>>> "Manichees," and Manichaeanism is built, in part, on Gnosticism.
>>> I guess that's not gonna clear things up.
>
>James:
>
>> no i'm not [mixed up]
>
> Of course you are. Gnosticism was a Christian heresy.
>(Although not all Gnostics were Christians.) Manichaeanism was
>a separate religion built primarily on Zoroastrianism,
>Gnosticism, and Christianity.
that- what i was saying that yes gnosticism was considered a heresy as
was gnosticism - but this doesn't mean they were one and the same- and i
don't think i said so.
>role in early Christianity.
> Manichaeanism didn't, for the
>simple reason that Mani hadn't been born. He didn't come along
>until the third century. And the Cathari (i.e., the
>Albigensians) were Gnostics, or anyway influenced by Gnosticism.
>
> That's where semantics becomes an issue, since by then the
>term "Manichee" had become practically synonymous with
>"dualism" (of the more radical varieties), so that the Gnostics
>were often referred to as Manichees. For example, the
>inquisitor Bernard Gui describes the Cathari as "Manichaean
>heretics." If he thought they were Manichaeans, i.e. followers
>of Mani, that would be nonsensical: only Christians can be
>guilty of heresy. Gui means that they're Christians who preach
>dualism, as well as other scandalous things.
>
>Moggin:
>
>>> Take two. Gnosticism predates Manichaeanism. By how much
>>> depends how far back you date the Gnostics, which is
>>> controversial, but Gnosticism had its heyday in the 2nd century.
formed from a monotheistic Judaism. It may have influenced - but to say
pretty large role would be misleading. There are Greek and essene
influences - but Jesus is essentially a Jew- and monotheistic
snip
>>> Anyway, yeah -- I was thinking about the Gnostics, but not
>>> only them. The NT describes the world as Satan's and says
>>> that he rules over it: a big change from both Greek and Jewish
>>> views.
mankind- not as a creator or owner of the world. There are numerous NT
quotes- as to the power and nature of the Father -most of the parables -
even sparrows Mtt10:29 are subject to his will- and the relationship
between this Father and Jesus is at least the loving son at most -one
and the same- John 8:58
>Even the Church Dads accept that idea.
itself to be crucified (1 Cor 1:23)
> Of course
>>> they're caught in a contradiction, but nevermind -- for present
>>> purposes, all that matters is that it was a popular thought
>>> (at least in some circles)
popular.
>> that dualist thought entered into early christaian theology is not
>> questioned but the idea that the NT offers a dualist theology isnt quite
>> cricket.
>
> Alot of Christians would agree with you, and the whole lot
>of you would be wrong.
were are wrong... if you want to read the NT in that way your free to do
so...
> Arguably the Gospel _was_ radical
>dualism,
>two thousand years.
dualists at what point did they start suppressing themselves- the early
church was a Jewish orthodox sect- only when it spread into the gentile
world did it have to face head on dualism. You would have to argue that
the writers of the gospels were either confused or mistaken- as they
were not dualists, or find dualism in the gospels- then why o why did
these dualists not say so- practice orthodoxy and die saying so (Acts
7.) But then were else do you get the origins of Christian theology
from? Gnosticism in its dualist guise has to deconstruct these texts
years after they had been written in order to find a hidden dualism - is
this where you get your ideas from?
--
James Whitehead
Puss in Boots
>>>>>> Many early
>>>>>> Christians saw the world as Satan's possession -- a fully owned
>>>>>> and operated subsidiary of Beelzebub, Inc.
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>> Do you mean Manicheism - which has roots in Zoroastrian and Buddhist
>>>>> ideas as well as Christianity ? - it was generally considered heresy
>>>>> finally in its Albeigensian form brutally crushed by a crusade.
>>>>> (Though supposedly such dualism appears in Blake.)
Moggin:
>>>> You're mixing up Manichaeanism with Gnosticism -- not hard
>>>> to do, since there was a time when Gnostics were called
>>>> "Manichees," and Manichaeanism is built, in part, on Gnosticism.
>>>> I guess that's not gonna clear things up.
James:
>>> no i'm not [mixed up]
Moggin:
>> Of course you are. Gnosticism was a Christian heresy.
>> (Although not all Gnostics were Christians.) Manichaeanism was
>> a separate religion built primarily on Zoroastrianism,
>> Gnosticism, and Christianity.
James:
> I don't think i said anything other than that- if i did i must withdraw
> that- what i was saying that yes gnosticism was considered a heresy as
> was gnosticism - but this doesn't mean they were one and the same- and i
> don't think i said so.
Gnosticism as was Gnosticism? You mean that Manichaeanism
was considered a heresy as was Gnosticism, I assume. But
that's not so. As I explained, Manichaeanism isn't a
Christian heresy for the same reason Buddhism isn't a Christian
heresy: it isn't Christianity. You've got to be a Xian
before you can be a Christian heretic. Manichaeans don't
qualify (even tho Mani included some Christian elements). It's
very different with Gnosticism. Not all Gnostics were
Christian; it's even possible Gnosticism pre-dated Christianity.
But there _were_ Christian Gnostics, and they were
anathametized by the proto-orthodox: i.e., heresy-hunters like
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian.
What confuses things is that the term "Manichee" got to be
like "Zerox" and "Kleenex," referring to dualist Christian
heresies, in general. (Even today, "Manichaean" usually serves
as a synonym for "dichotomous.") Thus we get, e.g., the
inquisitor Bernard Gui talking about the Cathari as "Manichaean
heretics." He doesn't mean they're following Mani; if that
was the case, they wouldn't be Christians, and so they couldn't
be Christian heretics, which would ruin his plans to sing
campfire songs. Gui is saying they're Christian heretics -- in
specific, heretics of a dualist stripe.
Moggin:
>> Gnosticism played a pretty large role in early Christianity.
[...]
James:
> It may have influenced - but to say pretty large role would
> be misleading.
Not for a second. Gnosticism had enormous influence. You
ever hear of the New Testament? The very first NT was
assembled by a Gnostic named Marcion. It was pretty slim: one
Gospel and nine of Paul's letters. Needless to say, the
Church padded things out considerably. But Marcion defined the
genre.
And yes, Gnosticism played a large role at the time, aside
from the influence it exerted. I've got the Church Dads to
testify to that. Justin said that Marcion's teachings had been
spread throughout the human race, and Tertullian wrote,
"Marcion's heretical tradition is flooding the entire world"
(Adv. Marc. 5.19). Even Michael Allen Williams, who criticizes
many of the assertions made about Gnosticism, admits "the
absolute numbers of [e.g.] Valentinians or Marcionites may have
been a quite influential presence among Christian
communities in the 2nd century, or even through much of the 3rd."
(_Rethinking Gnosticism_ 237.)
(Truth in advertising: I elided a bit of William's jargon
and the quote is slightly out of context. But if you look,
you'll see I haven't distorted its meaning. Or you can take my
word.)
> There are Greek and essene
> influences - but Jesus is essentially a Jew- and monotheistic
Of course he's a Jew -- and taking a stiff-necked attitude
toward Yahweh is an old Jewish tradition.
Moggin:
>>>> Anyway, yeah -- I was thinking about the Gnostics, but not
>>>> only them. The NT describes the world as Satan's and says
>>>> that he rules over it: a big change from both Greek and Jewish
>>>> views.
James:
> It is clear that Jesus sees the devil as a psychological tendency in
> mankind- not as a creator or owner of the world.
That's false. Luke and Matthew both report that the devil
tempted Jesus by offering him the world. If you were right,
Jesus would reply by saying, "Oh, come off it. The world isn't
yours to give. Next thing you'll be trying to sell me the
Brooklyn Bridge!" But Jesus doesn't say anything remotely like
that. He rejects the devil's offer, but he takes it quite
seriously. What's more, Jesus distinguishes between Satan, who
owns the world, and God, who has his kingdom elsewhere: an
instance of the dualism you're telling me isn't found in the NT.
Here's another: "We know that we are of God, and the
whole world is in the power of the evil one." 1 John 5:19. So
according to John, the world is ruled by "the evil one" --
Satan. There you are: Satan owns the world -- implicit in his
offer to Jesus -- and controls it (explicit in 1 John).
Needless to say, that's the way the Creator is described in the
Old Testament. To John, God is somebody else.
> There are numerous NT
> quotes- as to the power and nature of the Father -most of the parables -
> even sparrows Mtt10:29 are subject to his will- and the relationship
> between this Father and Jesus is at least the loving son at most -one
> and the same- John 8:58
In some cases, sure -- the NT is very much a mixed bag. I
never claimed it was consistent.
Moggin:
>> Even the Church Dads accept that idea.
James:
> sigh... their main worry was coping with a divine being that allows
> itself to be crucified (1 Cor 1:23)
They had lots of worries; that doesn't contradict my point.
[...]
James:
>>> that dualist thought entered into early christaian theology is not
>>> questioned but the idea that the NT offers a dualist theology isnt quite
>>> cricket.
Moggin:
>> Alot of Christians would agree with you, and the whole lot
>> of you would be wrong. Arguably the Gospel _was_ radical
>> dualism, and Christianity has been suppressing it for nigh unto
>> two thousand years. (Didn't you mention the Albigensian
>> Crusade?) Be that as it may, there's no shortage of dualism in
>> the NT.
James:
> Yea - Mark, Matthew, John, Paul.......oh and a guy called Jesus - ok
> were are wrong. ...
The texts sometimes attributed to Mark, Matthew, John, and
Paul all contain dualism, even in the remarks they in turn
credit to Jesus. Ditto for the Gospel of Luke, which you might
have meant to include.
> This just doesn't make any sense at all. If the early Christians were
> dualists at what point did they start suppressing themselves-
There was dissension in the Christian community right from
the beginning -- but that's irrelevant, since I wasn't
referring to "the early Christians." Read again. My point was
about the Gospel.
> the early
> church was a Jewish orthodox sect- only when it spread into the gentile
> world did it have to face head on dualism.
Unless of course the dualism was already there -- e.g., in
Jesus' teachings.
> You would have to argue that
> the writers of the gospels were either confused or mistaken
> - as they were not dualists, or find dualism in the gospels- then why o why
> did these dualists not say so- practice orthodoxy and die saying so (Acts
> 7.)
There's no question that as a group they produced a highly
confused account. The Gospels conflict with themselves so
badly that they've got to be partly mistaken -- I don't see any
way around that.
> But then were else do you get the origins of Christian theology
> from?
Gnosticism, of course -- Gnostic Christians were the first
Christian theologians. Also the last, since with a few
exceptions, like the Cathari, the "Christianity" which followed
them was merely a Yahwist sect.
> Gnosticism in its dualist guise has to deconstruct these texts
> years after they had been written in order to find a hidden dualism.
[...]
The New Testament, you mean? The dualism there is obvious
enough for anyone to see. Well, not anyone -- but the
Gnostics certainly weren't the only ones who noticed. More the
opposite: you might be the last to catch on. What set the
Gnostics apart was their willingness to accept the implications:
something most other Xians have lacked.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
No - "Through him (Jesus/God) all things were made; without him nothing
was made" John 1.3 (Satan was made by Jesus)
If Satan isn't a psychological state then Peter is Satan "Mtt 16:23
(Jesus addressing Peter) but Satan is not a person Luke 22:3 "Then Satan
entered Judas" (Satan is self-centred thought as opposed to God
centred.) The temptation Jesus had to face was that "they intended to
come and make him king by force" john 6:15 This relates to the
temptation in Luke. The idea of the world being in the power of the evil
one is quite different from saying that it was created by the evil one-
here I think you are getting confused in your enthusiasms to see a
duality.
Further Satan isn't all powerful in the world -Luke 8:25 "who is this
who commands the winds and the water.." its Jesus and he is able to deal
with any evil spirit including Satan.
From the story of the vineyard- (creation)- Jesus explains it was given
by the owner(god) to servants who being evil beat up the messengers
(prophets) sent by the owner - and when the owner sends his son (Jesus)
they decide to kill the son and so inherit the vineyard.
>
>> There are numerous NT
>> quotes- as to the power and nature of the Father -most of the parables -
>> even sparrows Mtt10:29 are subject to his will- and the relationship
>> between this Father and Jesus is at least the loving son at most -one
>> and the same- John 8:58
>
> In some cases, sure -- the NT is very much a mixed bag. I
>never claimed it was consistent.
so let me draw my conclusion that in it there is a monotheistic idea of
creation presented.
>
<snip>
>
> There's no question that as a group they produced a highly
>confused account. The Gospels conflict with themselves so
>badly that they've got to be partly mistaken -- I don't see any
>way around that.
> The New Testament, you mean? The dualism there is obvious
>enough for anyone to see.
"A highly confused account- partly mistaken - Very much a mixed bag"
"The dualism there is obvious"
*Contradiction*
> Well, not anyone
*compounded*
I think the above quotes of yours relate to your thinking than the
gospels- its actually a very simple - childish story..
>-- but the
>Gnostics certainly weren't the only ones who noticed. More the
>opposite:
>you might be the last to catch on.
> What set the
>Gnostics apart was their willingness to accept the implications:
>something most other Xians have lacked.
this is really poor argument- actually it isn't an argument
>
>-- Moggin
--
James Whitehead
Puss in Boots
>>>>>> Anyway, yeah -- I was thinking about the Gnostics, but not
>>>>>> only them. The NT describes the world as Satan's and says
>>>>>> that he rules over it: a big change from both Greek and Jewish
>>>>>> views.
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk
>>> It is clear that Jesus sees the devil as a psychological tendency in
>>> mankind- not as a creator or owner of the world.
Moggin:
>> That's false. Luke and Matthew both report that the devil
>> tempted Jesus by offering him the world. If you were right,
>> Jesus would reply by saying, "Oh, come off it. The world isn't
>> yours to give. Next thing you'll be trying to sell me the
>> Brooklyn Bridge!" But Jesus doesn't say anything remotely like
>> that. He rejects the devil's offer, but he takes it quite
>> seriously. What's more, Jesus distinguishes between Satan, who
>> owns the world, and God, who has his kingdom elsewhere: an
>> instance of the dualism you're telling me isn't found in the NT.
>> Here's another: "We know that we are of God, and the
>> whole world is in the power of the evil one." 1 John 5:19. So
>> according to John, the world is ruled by "the evil one" --
>> Satan. There you are: Satan owns the world -- implicit in his
>> offer to Jesus -- and controls it (explicit in 1 John).
>> Needless to say, that's the way the Creator is described in the
>> Old Testament. To John, God is somebody else.
James:
> No -
Yep. Sorry, but that's how it is. In the examples that I
just gave, the NT presents the devil as the owner and the
ruler of the world, despite what you claimed above. Those same
passages also show you're wrong in saying that there's no
dualism in the NT. Want more? Here's an illustration from the
Gospel of John: "And [Jesus] said unto them, Ye are from
beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of
this world" (John 8:23). That's dualist as can be, since Jesus
distinguishes the "above" from this world, which he locates
below, and makes it plain that he comes from a higher place, in
contrast to us folks, who belong to the lower realm.
> "Through him (Jesus/God) all things were made; without him nothing
> was made" John 1.3 (Satan was made by Jesus)
Sure, John says that, too. I already granted that the New
Testament is a mixed bag. Wasn't I plain enough? I'm not
arguing that it's purely dualist: my point is that it contains
dualism along with the other things you can find there.
> If Satan isn't a psychological state then Peter is Satan "Mtt 16:23
> (Jesus addressing Peter) but Satan is not a person Luke 22:3 "Then Satan
> entered Judas" (Satan is self-centred thought as opposed to God
> centred.)
No, Peter doesn't have to be Satan. He's sure enough in a
satanic state of mind, which in this case means that he's
thinking like a humanist: putting the things of men before the
"things that be of God." But Peter isn't Satan, i.e. the
entity who offers Jesus the world and, according to 1 John, has
the whole world in his control. Luke 22:3 shows that being
can enter a person's mind. Not a common ability, but evidently
one of Satan's talents.
> The temptation Jesus had to face was that "they intended to
> come and make him king by force" john 6:15 This relates to the
> temptation in Luke.
No, that's not _the_ temptation Jesus was faced with; it's
merely _a_ temptation that cropped up. In the case you
mention, he was tempted by men, but in the one I pointed out to
you, he's tempted by the devil in person.
> The idea of the world being in the power of the evil
> one is quite different from saying that it was created by the evil one-
You said that the devil was _not_ "creator or owner of the
world" in Jesus' view. I corrected you. The devil tempts
Jesus by offering him the world, which implies the world is the
devil's to give. Of course the devil could be offering
something that doesn't belong to him, but as I mentioned, Jesus
takes his offer quite seriously. What's more, 1 John says
explicitly that the evil one rules over the whole world. So we
live in a world owned and controlled by the devil.
If you agree on that much, then we can go on to talk about
who created the devil's world.
> here I think you are getting confused in your enthusiasms to see a
> duality.
Yeah, you're right. The devil on the one hand, ruling the
earth; God, on the other, inhabiting a higher realm. How
could anyone see a duality in that? I guess I must have gotten
carried away.
[...]
James:
>>> There are numerous NT
>>> quotes- as to the power and nature of the Father -most of the parables -
>>> even sparrows Mtt10:29 are subject to his will- and the relationship
>>> between this Father and Jesus is at least the loving son at most -one
>>> and the same- John 8:58
Moggin:
>> In some cases, sure -- the NT is very much a mixed bag. I
>> never claimed it was consistent.
James:
> so let me draw my conclusion that in it there is a monotheistic idea of
> creation presented.
That's not what you claimed. According to you, it's wrong
to find dualism in the New Testament. But I've given you
several good examples. Of course it contains other things, too:
that's exactly what I mean by calling it a mixed bag.
James:
>>> You would have to argue that
>>> the writers of the gospels were either confused or mistaken ...
Moggin:
>> There's no question that as a group they produced a highly
>> confused account. The Gospels conflict with themselves so
>> badly that they've got to be partly mistaken -- I don't see any
>> way around that.
James:
> "A highly confused account- partly mistaken - Very much a mixed bag"
> "The dualism there is obvious"
> *Contradiction*
Not a bit. I'm making a simple point. The Gospels
contain conflicting elements. One of those elements is dualism.
The dualist element is easy to see.
> I think the above quotes of yours relate to your thinking than the
> gospels- ...
That's what you've got to think, barring an unexpected fit
of honesty. You claim there isn't any dualism, I give you
several examples, so what can you do except say they don't have
much to do with the Gospels? Of course you're wrong --
they're all in the Gospels, aside from the one that's in 1 John.
James:
>>> Gnosticism in its dualist guise has to deconstruct these texts
>>> years after they had been written in order to find a hidden dualism.
Moggin:
>> The New Testament, you mean? The dualism there is obvious
>> enough for anyone to see. Well, not anyone -- but the
>> Gnostics certainly weren't the only ones who noticed. More the
>> opposite: you might be the last to catch on. What set the
>> Gnostics apart was their willingness to accept the implications:
>> something most other Xians have lacked.
James:
> this is really poor argument- actually it isn't an argument
It's just a reply to your assertion that the Gnostics were
required to "deconstruct" the NT texts "in order to find a
hidden dualism." That's nonsense, since the dualism is obvious.
I've given you several examples -- all I had to do was to
quote the New Testament. And as I said, the Gnostics certainly
weren't the only ones who noticed -- dualism has been a
feature of Christianity for nearly two millennia. The Gnostics
differed in that they embraced its deterritorializing (even
de-Terra-torializing) consequences, while orthodox Christianity
engaged in a reterritorializing project.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
>just gave, the NT presents the devil as the owner and the
>ruler of the world, despite what you claimed above. Those same
>passages also show you're wrong in saying that there's no
>dualism in the NT. Want more? Here's an illustration from the
>Gospel of John: "And [Jesus] said unto them, Ye are from
>beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of
>this world" (John 8:23). That's dualist as can be, since Jesus
>distinguishes the "above" from this world, which he locates
>below, and makes it plain that he comes from a higher place, in
>contrast to us folks, who belong to the lower realm.
>
>> "Through him (Jesus/God) all things were made; without him nothing
>> was made" John 1.3 (Satan was made by Jesus)
>
> Sure, John says that, too. I already granted that the New
>Testament is a mixed bag. Wasn't I plain enough? I'm not
>arguing that it's purely dualist: my point is that it contains
>dualism along with the other things you can find there.
it was dualist. Now you need to define what you mean by dualist-
1. That the physical world is evil and created by an evil being - as
opposed to a spiritual world created by a good being.
2. That the world contains two equal principals - good and evil.
3. That the world is provisionally in the power of an evil but lesser
than divine spirit.
Definitions 1 and 2 are difficult to maintain from the NT- but I never
said you couldn't - remember i said you could maintain Jesus was
spaceman. It was you who maintained monotheism as not on.
Definition 3 is allowed by both Jewish and Christian thought - it is
Jewish and Christian thought. But i wouldn't call it dualist in this
context - as firstly the evil in the world is temporary and inferior.
Jesus has power over all the evil spirits in the world, there is a place
assigned to them and a place also assigned to the devil. Specifically
def. 1 is the Gnostic view which interestingly 1 John set to address and
counter. John 1 says Jesus / god created the world as does genesis - and
in Genesis it states it was good. Jesus identifies himself with that god
- John 8:58 If your saying the NT has a dualism as outlined in Def. 3
then fine we are all in agreement. However i distinctly remember you
assigning the title creator to Satan - now your in def. 1 - and you case
is hard to prove. All your quotes only go to support orthodoxy. The
confusion is all yours- perhaps a deliberate attempt to conflate
orthodoxy with heresy?
>
>> If Satan isn't a psychological state then Peter is Satan "Mtt 16:23
>> (Jesus addressing Peter) but Satan is not a person Luke 22:3 "Then Satan
>> entered Judas" (Satan is self-centred thought as opposed to God
>> centred.)
>
> No, Peter doesn't have to be Satan. He's sure enough in a
>satanic state of mind,
It does not say satanic state of mind- elsewhere your really keen on
literalism - if you can see this as a Satanic state of mind then why not
the temptation a satanic thought of Jesus.
>which in this case means that he's
>thinking like a humanist:
as was Jesus in the desert
>putting the things of men before the
>"things that be of God." But Peter isn't Satan,
of course not - but why you don't think so i cant understand?
>i.e. the
>entity who offers Jesus the world and, according to 1 John, has
>the whole world in his control.
Not quite - this entity doesn't control Jesus - all the apostles except
Judas and loads of other good folk.
> Luke 22:3 shows that being
>can enter a person's mind. Not a common ability, but evidently
>one of Satan's talents.
does it say entered his mind? Your applying a modern concept of mind in
the same language game as an actual satanic being- flipping between the
two when it suits- Peters satanic state of mind - now Satan entering the
mind - now Satan a being.
The use of spirits - animation of the world with spirits is another
means of expressing the forces of nature - thought and consciousness. We
talk these days of a mental illness - this was obviously in Christ's day
demonic possession.
>> The temptation Jesus had to face was that "they intended to
>> come and make him king by force" john 6:15 This relates to the
>> temptation in Luke.
>
> No, that's not _the_ temptation Jesus was faced with; it's
>merely _a_ temptation that cropped up. In the case you
>mention, he was tempted by men, but in the one I pointed out to
>you, he's tempted by the devil in person.
He was tempted by an inner conflict of what to be - a physical or
spiritual leader.
>
>> The idea of the world being in the power of the evil
>> one is quite different from saying that it was created by the evil one-
>
> You said that the devil was _not_ "creator or owner of the
>world" in Jesus' view. I corrected you. The devil tempts
>Jesus by offering him the world, which implies the world is the
>devil's to give. Of course the devil could be offering
>something that doesn't belong to him, but as I mentioned, Jesus
>takes his offer quite seriously. What's more, 1 John says
>explicitly that the evil one rules over the whole world. So we
>live in a world owned and controlled by the devil.
again what kind of devil- a being or a way of humanity behaving-
>
> If you agree on that much, then we can go on to talk about
>who created the devil's world.
i thought you maintained the devil did.
I will agree that the NT sees the devil is roaming around like a hungry
lion - i would push it to say ok in control- though obviously not of
everyone.
>
>> here I think you are getting confused in your enthusiasms to see a
>> duality.
>
> Yeah, you're right. The devil on the one hand, ruling the
>earth; God, on the other, inhabiting a higher realm. How
>could anyone see a duality in that? I guess I must have gotten
>carried away.
I'm happy to give you this dualism - its actually orthodox and
monotheistic - its even found within Islam - Seeing a duality and
believing in two equal spiritual forces within the cosmos is entirely
different.
>
>> so let me draw my conclusion that in it there is a monotheistic idea of
>> creation presented.
>
> That's not what you claimed. According to you, it's wrong
>to find dualism in the New Testament. But I've given you
>several good examples. Of course it contains other things, too:
>that's exactly what I mean by calling it a mixed bag.
I didn't say it was wrong- i said difficult to argue - loads of people
deduce all kinds of things from the bible. I thought it was you who was
asserting that the NT was essentially dualist theology - and not a
monotheistic one, and that the Christian fathers covered this up- your
little conspiracy theory, what i was expecting in your examples was some
statement from scripture that Satan created the world, or that god and
Satan are equal forces? Some of that Demiurge stuff you dualist's are
supposed to be into.
>
> Not a bit. I'm making a simple point. The Gospels
>contain conflicting elements. One of those elements is dualism.
>The dualist element is easy to see.
Where's the conflicting elements - you have watered your dualism into
standard orthodoxy. The parable of the vineyard...
>
>> I think the above quotes of yours relate to your thinking than the
>> gospels- ...
>
> That's what you've got to think, barring an unexpected fit
>of honesty.
So call me a liar- elsewhere stupid-ass - nice method you've got
> You claim there isn't any dualism, I give you
>several examples, so what can you do except say they don't have
>much to do with the Gospels? Of course you're wrong --
>they're all in the Gospels, aside from the one that's in 1 John.
Your 'modified dualism' is shot through the whole bible ending with
Satan & co being thrown into a firey pit.
>
> It's just a reply to your assertion that the Gnostics were
>required to "deconstruct" the NT texts "in order to find a
>hidden dualism." That's nonsense, since the dualism is obvious.
>I've given you several examples -- all I had to do was to
>quote the New Testament. And as I said, the Gnostics certainly
>weren't the only ones who noticed -- dualism has been a
>feature of Christianity for nearly two millennia.
>The Gnostics
>differed in that they embraced its deterritorializing (even
>de-Terra-torializing) consequences, while orthodox Christianity
>engaged in a reterritorializing project.
could you explain what you mean by this -
or are you about to not suffer another fool
--
James Whitehead
Puss in Boots
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk
Moggin:
>>> No -
Moggin:
>> Yep. Sorry, but that's how it is. In the examples that I
>> just gave, the NT presents the devil as the owner and the
>> ruler of the world, despite what you claimed above. Those same
>> passages also show you're wrong in saying that there's no
>> dualism in the NT. Want more? Here's an illustration from the
>> Gospel of John: "And [Jesus] said unto them, Ye are from
>> beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of
>> this world" (John 8:23). That's dualist as can be, since Jesus
>> distinguishes the "above" from this world, which he locates
>> below, and makes it plain that he comes from a higher place, in
>> contrast to us folks, who belong to the lower realm.
James:
>>> "Through him (Jesus/God) all things were made; without him nothing
>>> was made" John 1.3 (Satan was made by Jesus)
Moggin:
>> Sure, John says that, too. I already granted that the New
>> Testament is a mixed bag. Wasn't I plain enough? I'm not
>> arguing that it's purely dualist: my point is that it contains
>> dualism along with the other things you can find there.
James:
> And I thought you were - and i think you were - claiming just that-
> claiming just that - that it was dualist.
Apparently you still don't understand. I'm observing that
the NT is a mix, and that dualism in one of its elements.
That's why your attempted counter-examples are irrelevant: I'm
not denying the NT has inconsistencies.
> Now you need to define what you mean by dualist-
Alternatively, I could supply some examples. And whaddaya
know -- I just gave you three in a row! Here's a thought:
why don't you take a look at them? That should give you a good
idea what I mean.
> 1. That the physical world is evil and created by an evil being - as
> opposed to a spiritual world created by a good being.
> 2. That the world contains two equal principals - good and evil.
> 3. That the world is provisionally in the power of an evil but lesser
> than divine spirit.
> Definitions 1 and 2 are difficult to maintain from the NT- but I never
> said you couldn't - remember i said you could maintain Jesus was
> spaceman. It was you who maintained monotheism as not on.
Nope -- you're the only one who's said a single word about
monotheism.
> Definition 3 is allowed by both Jewish and Christian thought - it is
> Jewish and Christian thought.
That's nonsense. No conventional form of Judaism contends
the world is "in the power of an evil but lesser divine
spirit." Have you ever looked at the Old Testament? The world
belongs to Yahweh: he created it, he rules it, and its his
possession. Orthodox varieties of Christianity leave more room
for the idea, but only with considerable ambivalance. Why?
If the world is in the hands of an evil spirit, then either God
is evil, too (since he allows evil to rule) or there are
strict limits to his powers (ditto) -- both unhappy conclusions
for Xians devoted to the idea of an omnipotent and
omnibenevolent deity.
> But i wouldn't call it dualist in this
> context - as firstly the evil in the world is temporary and inferior.
> Jesus has power over all the evil spirits in the world, there is a place
> assigned to them and a place also assigned to the devil.
It's not plain Jesus does have that power: but if he does
he's culpable for not using it to banish the evil spirits.
By assigning them a place in the world -- as you put it -- he's
collaborating with evil, like Yahweh in _Job_.
> Specifically
> def. 1 is the Gnostic view which interestingly 1 John set to address and
> counter.
Since you go on to quote John 1, and not 1 John, I'm going
to assume you mean the Gospel of John. Trouble is, nobody
knows just why John was written, or even who wrote it, although
the present consensus seems to be that it was written by
several different people. That makes sense, since John -- like
most of the NT -- contains conflicting views.
> John 1 says Jesus / god created the world as does genesis - and
> in Genesis it states it was good.
True enough. Like I said, the NT is a mixed bag. John is
no exception.
> Jesus identifies himself with that god - John 8:58
Not so. In that case he asserts he existed before Abraham:
not that he was Yahweh. When he's asked to identify the
source of his authority, he dodges the question. (See Matt. 21,
Luke 20, and Mark 11.) John 1:18 says no one has God at any
time. On that thinking Yahweh _can't_ be God, since he reveals
himself to Moses, Job, et al. And Jesus states that "My
kingdom is not of this world," implying that God isn't the king
here, while Yahweh rules this world, according to the OT.
> If your saying the NT has a dualism as outlined in Def. 3
> then fine we are all in agreement.
No, we're not. You said it wasn't cricket to find dualism
in the New Testament -- that's the main thing we're
disagreeing about. It's not a matter of degree; when I pointed
out that the Gnostics weren't the only ones to notice NT
dualism, you were quick to dismiss the idea. Now it looks like
you've come around to my way of thinking.
> However i distinctly remember you
> assigning the title creator to Satan - now your in def. 1 - and you case
> is hard to prove. All your quotes only go to support orthodoxy.
That's false. You claimed there was no dualism in the New
Testament. The verses I've offered show that you were
dreadfully wrong. You also asserted that in Jesus' view, Satan
was not the owner or ruler of the world. The verses I've
quoted show you were wrong about that, too, and they contradict
the idea that Jesus or Jesus' God is Yahweh.
> The
> confusion is all yours- perhaps a deliberate attempt to conflate
> orthodoxy with heresy?
You're responsible for your own confusion. Or maybe
you're not. All I can say is that it's a constant with you, no
matter what subject you're touching on.
James:
>>> If Satan isn't a psychological state then Peter is Satan "Mtt 16:23
>>> (Jesus addressing Peter) but Satan is not a person Luke 22:3 "Then Satan
>>> entered Judas" (Satan is self-centred thought as opposed to God
>>> centred.)
Moggin:
>> No, Peter doesn't have to be Satan. He's sure enough in a
>> satanic state of mind, which in this case means that he's
>> thinking like a humanist: putting the things of men before the
>> "things that be of God." But Peter isn't Satan, i.e. the
>> entity who offers Jesus the world and, according to 1 John, has
>> the whole world in his control. Luke 22:3 shows that being
>> can enter a person's mind. Not a common ability, but evidently
>> one of Satan's talents.
James:
> It does not say satanic state of mind-
Didn't say it did. I said that Peter is thinking
satanically. Jesus criticizes Peter's outlook ("thou savourest
not the things that be of God, but those that be of men"),
saying, "Get thee behind me, Satan." So Jesus believes putting
the things of men ahead of the things of God is satanic.
You've already pointed out Luke 22:3, which indicates Satan can
enter a person.
> elsewhere your really keen on literalism -
Here, too. John says Jesus is addressing Peter, not Satan.
Jesus does say, "Get thee behind me, Satan," but he doesn't
indicate that Peter _is_ Satan -- instead he explains that he's
objecting to Peter's outlook.
> if you can see this as a Satanic state of mind then why not
> the temptation a satanic thought of Jesus.
Because the synoptics all describe Jesus having a
conversation with the devil on a mountaintop. There's not even
a hint that the devil is merely "a satanic thought" or a
figment of Jesus' imagination. In one case Jesus is talking to
Peter, in the other he's talking to Satan. Simple.
James re humanism:
> as was Jesus in the desert
Nope, he wasn't. Compassion toward human beings isn't the
same thing as humanism.
[...]
James re "the whole world is in the power of the evil one":
> Not quite - this entity doesn't control Jesus - all the apostles except
> Judas and loads of other good folk.
You're arguing with John. I've already quoted the relevant
verse. It's 1 John 5:19: "We know that we are of God, and
the whole world is in the power of the evil one." Evidently his
opinion differs from yours.
Moggin:
>> Luke 22:3 shows that being
>> can enter a person's mind. Not a common ability, but evidently
>> one of Satan's talents.
James:
> does it say entered his mind?
It says "entered Satan into Judas" without specifying which
part Satan entered, but apparently it was the part that
determined his actions, since the following verse is about Judas
betraying Jesus. I'm open to other terms.
> Your applying a modern concept of mind in
> the same language game as an actual satanic being- flipping between the
> two when it suits- Peters satanic state of mind - now Satan entering the
> mind - now Satan a being.
[...]
Not when it suits, you nincompoop: according to the
Gospels, which depict Satan as a being able to "enter into" this
person or that. You already quoted Luke 22:3, but I guess
you've forgotten: "Then entered Satan into Judas..." There you
are. Satan. Judas. Satan entering Judas.
James:
>>> The temptation Jesus had to face was that "they intended to
>>> come and make him king by force" john 6:15 This relates to the
>>> temptation in Luke.
Moggin:
>> No, that's not _the_ temptation Jesus was faced with; it's
>> merely _a_ temptation that cropped up. In the case you
>> mention, he was tempted by men, but in the one I pointed out to
>> you, he's tempted by the devil in person.
James:
> He was tempted by an inner conflict of what to be - a physical or
> spiritual leader.
He may well have been -- but the synoptics report the devil
took him to a high mountain top and tempted him with all the
power and glory of the world. In case you don't remember, Jesus
said no.
James:
>>> The idea of the world being in the power of the evil
>>> one is quite different from saying that it was created by the evil one-
Moggin:
>> You said that the devil was _not_ "creator or owner of the
>> world" in Jesus' view. I corrected you. The devil tempts
>> Jesus by offering him the world, which implies the world is the
>> devil's to give. Of course the devil could be offering
>> something that doesn't belong to him, but as I mentioned, Jesus
>> takes his offer quite seriously. What's more, 1 John says
>> explicitly that the evil one rules over the whole world. So we
>> live in a world owned and controlled by the devil.
James:
> again what kind of devil- a being or a way of humanity behaving-
A being in both the cases I just mentioned. You think that
Jesus' doesn't see the devil as the owner of the world, but
you're contradicted by the Gospels, since the devil tempts Jesus
by offering him the world, and Jesus takes the offer very
seriously. The devil can affect the way humans behave, but he's
also available for conversation.
Moggin:
>> If you agree on that much, then we can go on to talk about
>> who created the devil's world.
James:
> i thought you maintained the devil did.
> I will agree that the NT sees the devil is roaming around like a hungry
> lion - i would push it to say ok in control- though obviously not of
> everyone.
The obvious exception would be Jesus, who comes from beyond
the world; but you know what happens to him. So the devil's
control is pretty thorough, unless you believe Jesus planned the
whole thing.
James:
>>> here I think you are getting confused in your enthusiasms to see a
>>> duality.
Moggin:
>> Yeah, you're right. The devil on the one hand, ruling the
>> earth; God, on the other, inhabiting a higher realm. How
>> could anyone see a duality in that? I guess I must have gotten
>> carried away.
James:
> I'm happy to give you this dualism -
No, you're not: you think it's not cricket to find dualism
in the New Testament.
> its actually orthodox and monotheistic -
You don't believe it's orthodox; you dismissed that thought
when I mentioned it before. Monetheism, I dunno. Partly
depends on how strictly you define the term. You've got a devil
with god-like powers (he owns and controls the world) and
you've got, y'know, _God_. For all intents and purposes, that's
a couple of gods. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul even refers to
"the god of this word" who "hath blinded the minds of them which
believe not."
> its even found within Islam - Seeing a duality and
> believing in two equal spiritual forces within the cosmos is entirely
> different.
Hardly. The two-equal-forces scenario isn't different from
dualism -- it's one form of dualist thinking. Of course not
the only one. Dualism comes in a variety of flavors, sizes, and
shapes.
James:
>>> so let me draw my conclusion that in it there is a monotheistic idea of
>>> creation presented.
Moggin:
>> That's not what you claimed. According to you, it's wrong
>> to find dualism in the New Testament. But I've given you
>> several good examples. Of course it contains other things, too:
>> that's exactly what I mean by calling it a mixed bag.
James:
> I didn't say it was wrong- i said difficult to argue - loads of people
> deduce all kinds of things from the bible.
No, that's not what you said. To be precise, you said that
it wasn't cricket to find a dualist theology in the NT. So
you're claiming there _isn't_ dualist theology in the NT. Which
is false, as I already showed.
> I thought it was you who was
> asserting that the NT was essentially dualist theology -
Maybe you did. But I never insisted the NT was essentially
_anything_, and I've explained three or four times that I'm
observing the NT _contains_ dualism, _not_ that it's exclusively
dualist in nature.
> and not a
> monotheistic one, and that the Christian fathers covered this up- your
> little conspiracy theory, what i was expecting in your examples was some
> statement from scripture that Satan created the world, or that god and
> Satan are equal forces? Some of that Demiurge stuff you dualist's are
> supposed to be into.
You're all mixed up. First you deny dualism is even in the
NT, then you say it's orthodox, and now you're suggesting
dualism entails "that Demiurge stuff," which must be a reference
to the Gnostic heresy. Just so you'll know, the Gnostics
didn't claim that God and Satan are equal forces -- they were in
agreement with John that the evil one rules the world.
James:
>>>>> You would have to argue that
>>>>> the writers of the gospels were either confused or mistaken ...
Moggin:
>>>> There's no question that as a group they produced a highly
>>>> confused account. The Gospels conflict with themselves so
>>>> badly that they've got to be partly mistaken -- I don't see any
>>>> way around that.
James:
>>> "A highly confused account- partly mistaken - Very much a mixed bag"
>>> "The dualism there is obvious"
>>> *Contradiction*
Moggin:
>> Not a bit. I'm making a simple point. The Gospels
>> contain conflicting elements. One of those elements is dualism.
>> The dualist element is easy to see.
James:
> Where's the conflicting elements - you have watered your dualism into
> standard orthodoxy.
You denied that dualism was present in the NT -- and when I
pointed out to you that it was an orthodox thing, you were
dismissive: "This is really poor argument- actually it isn't an
argument." You were right, of course: it _wasn't_ an
argument -- but you must have found it persuasive, since now you
agree. Of course dualism is part of Christian orthodoxy:
that's obvious. What's more, it goes all the way back to the NT.
Conflicting elements. An obvious example centers on Mosaic
law -- meaning the Creator's law, since Moses got it from
Yahweh. Jesus says that not a jot or tittle will pass until all
things are fulfilled, and so long as there's a heaven and an
earth. Sounds pretty definitive. But he immediately goes on to
change the law in a variety of ways; he even erases certain
provisions. Elsewhere he breaks the 4th Commandment (the one on
the sabbath); ditto for his disciples.
James:
>>> I think the above quotes of yours relate to your thinking than the
>>> gospels- ...
Moggin:
>> That's what you've got to think, barring an unexpected fit
>> of honesty. You claim there isn't any dualism, I give you
>> several examples, so what can you do except say they don't have
>> much to do with the Gospels? Of course you're wrong --
>> they're all in the Gospels, aside from the one that's in 1 John.
James:
> Your 'modified dualism' is shot through the whole bible ending with
> Satan & co being thrown into a firey pit.
It's dualism plain and simple, and it's missing from the OT.
(To my knowledge -- I'm open to correction.) Yes, it's a
feature of the New Testament; that's just what I've been arguing.
Glad to see you've come around.
James:
>>>>> Gnosticism in its dualist guise has to deconstruct these texts
>>>>> years after they had been written in order to find a hidden dualism.
Moggin:
>>>> The New Testament, you mean? The dualism there is obvious
>>>> enough for anyone to see. Well, not anyone -- but the
>>>> Gnostics certainly weren't the only ones who noticed. More the
>>>> opposite: you might be the last to catch on. What set the
>>>> Gnostics apart was their willingness to accept the implications:
>>>> something most other Xians have lacked.
James:
>>> this is really poor argument- actually it isn't an argument
Moggin:
>> It's just a reply to your assertion that the Gnostics were
>> required to "deconstruct" the NT texts "in order to find a
>> hidden dualism." That's nonsense, since the dualism is obvious.
>> I've given you several examples -- all I had to do was to
>> quote the New Testament. And as I said, the Gnostics certainly
>> weren't the only ones who noticed -- dualism has been a
>> feature of Christianity for nearly two millennia. The Gnostics
>> differed in that they embraced its deterritorializing (even
>> de-Terra-torializing) consequences, while orthodox Christianity
>> engaged in a reterritorializing project.
James:
> could you explain what you mean by this -
> or are you about to not suffer another fool
That _was_ the explanation. I realize the jargon was less
than transparent, but I thought alt.pomo was one place
borrowing from Deleuze and Guattari could help me be understood.
I'll try to simplify my point. The NT contains dualism.
That's obvious; even you see it now, despite your earlier claim.
So you were foolish to argue that the Gnostics had to
"deconstruct" to NT in order to find a "hidden dualism" -- it's
right on the surface for anyone to see. As I said, dualism
has been a feature of Christianity for practically two thousand
years: another point you conceded, since now you say it's
"standard orthodoxy." So there's not much left to discuss; all
that remains is to observe that Christian orthodoxy is what
you'd call a "watered down" form of dualism, while Gnostics and
suchlike brewed a stronger cup.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
> The obvious exception would be Jesus, who comes from beyond
>the world; but you know what happens to him. So the devil's
>control is pretty thorough, unless you believe Jesus planned the
>whole thing.
The NT says it was planned. - from the beginning.
It also maintains both man and god- this is important to the nature of
matter.
> Hardly. The two-equal-forces scenario isn't different from
>dualism -- it's one form of dualist thinking. Of course not
>the only one. Dualism comes in a variety of flavors, sizes, and
>shapes.
> Maybe you did. But I never insisted the NT was essentially
>_anything_, and I've explained three or four times that I'm
>observing the NT _contains_ dualism, _not_ that it's exclusively
>dualist in nature.
I think i said its about saying it was... not finding it there...
again semantics but hold up a rock and saying look gold......
and yes there's a zillionth of a gramme.
> You're all mixed up. First you deny dualism is even in the
>NT, then you say it's orthodox, and now you're suggesting
>dualism entails "that Demiurge stuff," which must be a reference
>to the Gnostic heresy. Just so you'll know, the Gnostics
>didn't claim that God and Satan are equal forces -- they were in
>agreement with John that the evil one rules the world.
>
> It's dualism plain and simple, and it's missing from the OT.
>(To my knowledge -- I'm open to correction.) Yes, it's a
>feature of the New Testament; that's just what I've been arguing.
>Glad to see you've come around.
>
This is interesting - you don't seem to be insisting on anything- so i
find it hard to see how i can come round to that? Or if i'm mixed up
have i arrived at your position?
> So there's not much left to discuss; all
>that remains is to observe that Christian orthodoxy is what
>you'd call a "watered down" form of dualism, while Gnostics and
>suchlike brewed a stronger cup.
The two are significantly different- otherwise no heresy
Your form of dualism is so watered down that if applied to the OT you
would find it. i.e. snakes having power in the garden , over job - I
asked you to define what you meant by dualism - you offered some quotes
in the bible that relate to the above weak definition. An example isn't
a definition. The whole point of Gnostic dualism was escape from an evil
world created by an evil god via esoteric and hidden -(hence the word)
sub-texts with amongst others the NT. All this - 'obvious' implies a
contradiction to 'hidden'.
We can perhaps amicably resolve this thread here - to save you calling
more names- or further gnat straining :-)
You are using the term dualist in a different form to what i do.
You see it and other isms present in the NT and 'never insisted the NT
was essentially anything'
I see a devil in the NT who doesn't own the world - but exerts power
(from god) in the world.
That the orthodox theme of the NT - is the theme-
considering its age and subsequent editing presents a coherent theology
--
James Whitehead
Puss in Boots
> I've snipped much because it seemed repetitive and disingenuous
Uh-huh.
>>> I will agree that the NT sees the devil is roaming around like a hungry
>>> lion - i would push it to say ok in control- though obviously not of
>>> everyone.
Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com>:
>> The obvious exception would be Jesus, who comes from beyond
>> the world; but you know what happens to him. So the devil's
>> control is pretty thorough, unless you believe Jesus planned the
>> whole thing.
James:
> The NT says it was planned. - from the beginning. ...
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Doesn't sound
like someone seeing things go according to plan.
James:
>>> I thought it was you who was
>>> asserting that the NT was essentially dualist theology -
Moggin:
>> Maybe you did. But I never insisted the NT was essentially
>> _anything_, and I've explained three or four times that I'm
>> observing the NT _contains_ dualism, _not_ that it's exclusively
>> dualist in nature.
James:
> I think i said its about saying it was... not finding it there...
> again semantics but hold up a rock and saying look gold......
> and yes there's a zillionth of a gramme.
You said it wasn't cricket to find dualism in the NT, but I
replied with three examples showing you wrong. You also
claimed that Jesus didn't see the devil as ruler or owner of the
world; I showed where that was wrong, too. If you had one
zillionth of a gram of honesty...well, no point in talking about
that.
> This is interesting - you don't seem to be insisting on anything-
Sure I do -- I said that dualism is a feature of the NT and
added, "That's just what I've been arguing."
> i find it hard to see how i can come round to that? Or if i'm mixed up
> have i arrived at your position?
My position is that the New Testament contains dualism; not
a controversial idea, I wouldn't have thought, but you took
issue, saying it wasn't cricket. Now you admit there is dualism
in the NT, so you've come around to my thinking. How you
arrived there I couldn't tell you. I'm not even sure why you're
asking me.
Moggin:
[...]
>> I'll try to simplify my point. The NT contains dualism.
>> That's obvious; even you see it now, despite your earlier claim.
>> So you were foolish to argue that the Gnostics had to
>> "deconstruct" to NT in order to find a "hidden dualism" -- it's
>> right on the surface for anyone to see. As I said, dualism
>> has been a feature of Christianity for practically two thousand
>> years: another point you conceded, since now you say it's
>> "standard orthodoxy." So there's not much left to discuss; all
>> that remains is to observe that Christian orthodoxy is what
>> you'd call a "watered down" form of dualism, while Gnostics and
>> suchlike brewed a stronger cup.
James:
> The two are significantly different- otherwise no heresy
Of course they're different; I've been trying to point that
out.
> Your form of dualism is so watered down that if applied to the OT you
> would find it. i.e. snakes having power in the garden , over job
Um, no. The Garden is ruled by Yahweh, not the snake. The
snake doesn't even appear in _Job_. You probably mean the
being _Job_ labels "Satan." He does have power over Job, but he
gets it by asking Yahweh and he uses it only with Yahweh's
explicit permission, within the boundaries that Yahweh sets. So
far as I know, the OT doesn't have any equivalents to the
dualism found in the NT -- although I'm still open to correction.
> - I asked you to define what you meant by dualism -
No, you didn't. You claimed I _had_ to define it; then you
attempted a few definitions.
> you offered some quotes
> in the bible that relate to the above weak definition.
I offered chapter and verse to show that there's dualism in
the NT. My examples demonstrated dualism pure and simple,
including exactly the kind of dualism that you claimed wasn't in
the NT, where the world is owned and ruled by Satan.
> An example isn't a definition.
Never said it was.
> The whole point of Gnostic dualism was escape from an evil
> world created by an evil god via esoteric and hidden -(hence the word)
> sub-texts with amongst others the NT.
No. The point you're referring to is simply to escape; not
necessarily "via esoteric and hidden sub-texts." Of course
we're talking about Christian Gnosticism, and there's an element
of esoterism in any form of Christianity, as a result of the
nature of Jesus' teachings. Some Gnostic schools emphasize that.
Others -- I'm thinking of Marcion's -- don't give it any
special consideration.
> All this - 'obvious' implies a contradiction to 'hidden'.
I realize you'd like the dualism of the NT to be better hid.
Sorry I can't help you there. As I said, it's right on the
surface. That does contradict something: your idea there isn't
any dualism in the NT.
> We can perhaps amicably resolve this thread here -
We've already resolved things, amicably or not. You
claimed it wasn't cricket to find dualism in the NT. I gave you
three examples and now you're saying that it's "standard
orthodoxy." You also maintained that Jesus didn't see the devil
as ruler and owner of the world -- I demonstrated that was
wrong, too, and I pointed out some things contradicting the idea
that Jesus or Jesus' God is Yahweh.
> You are using the term dualist in a different form to what i do.
Nope. I'm using it exactly the way you do. You introduced
the term and applied it to my observation that "The NT
describes the world as Satan's and says he rules over it" -- you
called that "dualism" and claimed it wasn't cricket of me to
find it in the NT. But I pointed out the devil offers Jesus the
world (implying it's his to give), and that John says "the
whole world is in the power of the evil one." So dualism of the
kind you're referring to is clearly in the NT.
> You see it and other isms present in the NT and 'never insisted the NT
> was essentially anything'
Exactly. The NT contains dualism, but it's not exclusively
dualist.
> I see a devil in the NT who doesn't own the world - but exerts power
> (from god) in the world.
That's two devils, then -- one with power in the world, and
one that empowers him. Fits the Book of Job perfectly --
doesn't work so well for the NT, where Jesus _opposes_ the devil.
Or devils, as the case may be.
> That the orthodox theme of the NT - is the theme-
> considering its age and subsequent editing presents a coherent theology
You've lapsed into incoherence. As Dan Quayle said,
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is
being very wasteful. How true that is."
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
>>> the world; but you know what happens to him. So the devil's
>>> control is pretty thorough, unless you believe Jesus planned the
>>> whole thing.
>
>James:
>
>> The NT says it was planned. - from the beginning. ...
>
> "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Doesn't sound
>like someone seeing things go according to plan.
deliberately obtuse- the seed falling into the ground- the story of
jonah, the temple being rebuilt in three days, the agony in the
garden...
>
> Sure I do -- I said that dualism is a feature of the NT and
>added, "That's just what I've been arguing."
feature - can be found in - and if you mean by dualism - the idea that
the devil has *some* power in the world as pictured in the NT - then yes
this is true of the NT. But what you then do is push this to an extreme.
This is why the phrase - 'not cricket' - it implies not open dishonestly
but using the given rules in a somewhat un-sporting way. So you conflate
ideas of the evil in the NT with a dualism - which is not there -
proceeding from the idea of "An Adversary" (lit Hebrew) to a being who
rules, owns and has created the world. Further (when asked) you define
dualism by a references in the NT - the presence of which is your proof
of dualism - this is tautology. I enjoy discussion to share views and
understandings - not to put anyone down - but if as a result of your bad
faith and tautological arguments you wish claim some sort of victory -
fair enough - enjoy!
> So there's not much left to discuss; all
>>> that remains is to observe that Christian orthodoxy is what
>>> you'd call a "watered down" form of dualism, while Gnostics and
>>> suchlike brewed a stronger cup.
Here you begin with the idea of a fallen angel (more milton than NT)
better "evil principal" - sin etc. and then equate this as being just a
lesser version of belief in a separate god and creator.
> You've lapsed into incoherence. As Dan Quayle said,
>"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is
>being very wasteful. How true that is."
>
>-- Moggin
Incoherence! As in created = creator.
--
James Whitehead
WinnerEJ
>Date: Sat, 04 December 1999 02:08 PM EST
<Snip, etc.>
James - why are you bothering with this guy? Isn't it obvious that his
reasoning is a closed circle intended to block out new information and possible
revelations of error on his own part? some people refuse to 'get the joke',
they are the joke, and just can't be debated with. - you're smart enough to
recognize that!
- winner
Puss in Boots
>>>>> I will agree that the NT sees the devil is roaming around like a hungry
>>>>> lion - i would push it to say ok in control- though obviously not of
>>>>> everyone.
Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com>:
>>>> The obvious exception would be Jesus, who comes from beyond
>>>> the world; but you know what happens to him. So the devil's
>>>> control is pretty thorough, unless you believe Jesus planned the
>>>> whole thing.
James:
>>> The NT says it was planned. - from the beginning. ...
Moggin:
>> "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Doesn't sound
>>like someone seeing things go according to plan.
James:
> There are numerous allusions to this - so many that you must be being
> deliberately obtuse- the seed falling into the ground- the story of
> jonah, the temple being rebuilt in three days, the agony in the
> garden...
The notion that the Old Testament alludes in advance to the
New Testament is questionable, at best, but there _is_ one
unquestionable allusion here: Jesus is harking back to the 22nd
Psalm: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art
thou so far from helping me...?" Those clearly aren't the words
of someone watching his plans unfold successfully. The
opposite: it's obvious that for Jesus on the cross, things have
gone agley.
> We have to (or I do) watch our language here - if you mean by - a
> feature - can be found in - and if you mean by dualism - the idea that
> the devil has *some* power in the world as pictured in the NT - then yes
> this is true of the NT. But what you then do is push this to an extreme.
> This is why the phrase - 'not cricket' - it implies not open dishonestly
> but using the given rules in a somewhat un-sporting way.
Bullshit. I said openly, honestly, and accurately that
"The NT describes the world as Satan's and says he rules over it."
You called that "dualism" (reasonably enough) and claimed
finding it in the NT "isnt quite cricket." I answered that many
Christians would agree with you -- and the whole lot of you
would be wrong. Then I quoted Matthew and John to show that the
NT did what I contended.
> So you conflate
> ideas of the evil in the NT with a dualism - which is not there -
> proceeding from the idea of "An Adversary" (lit Hebrew) to a being who
> rules, owns and has created the world.
More bullshit. I didn't do anything remotely like what you
say. Once again, I wrote, "The NT describes the world as
Satan's and says he rules over it." You called that dualism and
denied it was in the NT; but you were wrong, as I showed. 1
John 5:19 says that "the whole world is in the power of the evil
one," and Matthew and Luke both describe the devil offering
Jesus the world, directly implying that the world is the devil's
to give.
> Further (when asked) you define dualism by a references in the NT
We've been over this. You never asked me to define dualism
-- you told me that I was required to, then you attempted
several definitions. Moot point -- you introduced the term, and
you used it reference to my statement above.
> - the presence of which is your proof of dualism - this is tautology.
Nah. You described my statement that in the NT, Satan owns
the world and rules over it as "dualist thought." And I've
showed that I was right; so the NT contains dualism, even in the
sense _you_ use the term.
> I enjoy discussion to share views and
> understandings - not to put anyone down - but if as a result of your bad
> faith and tautological arguments you wish claim some sort of victory -
> fair enough - enjoy!
I claim that I made my point by giving evidence for it from
the New Testament -- and so I did. I'd like to add that you
replied honestly by admitting you were wrong -- but I can't, cuz
you didn't.
Moggin:
[...]
>>>> So there's not much left to discuss; all
>>>> that remains is to observe that Christian orthodoxy is what
>>>> you'd call a "watered down" form of dualism, while Gnostics and
>>>> suchlike brewed a stronger cup.
James:
>>> The two are significantly different- otherwise no heresy
Moggin:
>> Of course they're different; I've been trying to point that
>> out.
James [re "all that remains..."]:
> Here you begin with the idea of a fallen angel (more milton than NT)
> better "evil principal" - sin etc. and then equate this as being just a
> lesser version of belief in a separate god and creator.
Well, no -- I didn't begin with "the idea of a fallen angel."
In fact, I haven't used that idea at all. So I can't easily
have equated it with something else. You really can't read, can
you?
-- Moggin
David O'Bedlam, Ersatz Haderach
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, James Whitehead wrote:
> Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com> writes:
[...]
> >all that remains is to observe that Christian orthodoxy is what
> >you'd call a "watered down" form of dualism, while Gnostics and
> >suchlike brewed a stronger cup.
>
> The two are significantly different- otherwise no heresy
"Significantly different" especially in that the Gnostics did not
accept the doctrinal -- and therefore ecclesiopolitical -- primacy
of the "regular" bishops. Because they had their own bishops, and
their own ways of doing things, and their own gospels to back up
their own emphases. From the "regular" Bible, the Gnostics used a
few things and ignored, deemphasized or denounced the rest -- as
did the so-called orthodox, and as *all* do churches now. Because,
as Moggin knows, the Bible is not *one* book but an *anthology*
of essays and stories (by a multitude of authors), some of which
have fuck-all to do with the all other stuff that's in there.
That their theology was different in many ways is to be expected
from competing organizations, one that claims "The Church of True
Believers must harken to the Easter Bunny!" and one that counters
"No no, our Church Kahuna is Peter Pan!" It was that, the issue
of which Chief Televangelist to tune in unto, that determined the
charge of "heresy": had they paid their dues and mumbled some tidy
formulae in public, the Gnostics' diversities of emphases would've
been smoothed away by the same analogizing and reinterpreting that
got Genesis, Job and John all accepted as canon in the first place.
(And if you'd asked me, they were ALL fucked metaphysically. So,
a pox on all their churches.)
The
P.S. But I could be wrong: I'm not half the ecclesiastic Moogin is.
- --
'It never occurred to me to think of Sara Teasdale as sarcastic.' -ME
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEND ME AND/OR LAYO MONEY! > P.O. Box 236, Berkeley, CA 94704 U.S.A
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anastasia screamed in vain." | "No, I swear, I don't have a gun."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOFXaMhz40he1RakNEQKqfgCfXY/Nmu7hcjlyYB9PmNysMPZDqYAAn2rb
l1mahuSEPQju8fVsyLrMSbaB
=qeB3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WinnerEJ
of tea.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> easter bunny, as played bt bugs; peter pan was gay - no insult, just not my cup
> of tea.
Somehow I got to thinking a while ago about the: Estrous Bunny....
Thanks for giving me a good opportunity to present this concept
to the world.
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bra...@cloud9.net
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Puss in Boots
> [...] The Gnostics did not
> accept the doctrinal -- and therefore ecclesiopolitical -- primacy
> of the "regular" bishops. Because they had their own bishops, and
> their own ways of doing things, and their own gospels to back up
> their own emphases. From the "regular" Bible, the Gnostics used a
> few things and ignored, deemphasized or denounced the rest -- as
> did the so-called orthodox, and as *all* do churches now. Because,
> as Moggin knows, the Bible is not *one* book but an *anthology*
> of essays and stories (by a multitude of authors), some of which
> have fuck-all to do with the all other stuff that's in there.
> That their theology was different in many ways is to be expected
> from competing organizations, one that claims "The Church of True
> Believers must harken to the Easter Bunny!" and one that counters
> "No no, our Church Kahuna is Peter Pan!" It was that, the issue
> of which Chief Televangelist to tune in unto, that determined the
> charge of "heresy": had they paid their dues and mumbled some tidy
> formulae in public, the Gnostics' diversities of emphases would've
> been smoothed away by the same analogizing and reinterpreting that
> got Genesis, Job and John all accepted as canon in the first place.
> (And if you'd asked me, they were ALL fucked metaphysically. So,
> a pox on all their churches.)
> The
> P.S. But I could be wrong: I'm not half the ecclesiastic Moggin is.
We're mostly agreed. Coupla notes. The Gnostics (a
simplification, since there were different schools) used the New
Testament as scripture. Hell, a Gnostic named Marcion
assembled the first NT -- the Church got the idea from him. But
as you could guess, his was pretty different from the Church
version, and he gave it a way different interpretation. He used
the OT, too, but not as scripture. You're right about the
other gospels -- a bunch of them turned up at Nag Hammadi, about
fifty years ago.
The theology-organization equation can run either way: you
could argue the difference in organization resulted from a
difference in theology. Or you could skip the argument and just
say they were a mutual reflection. The Church grounded its
authority in God. Clement of Rome argued that anyone who
rebelled against the Church disobeyed God -- Ignatius of Antioch
claimed one God equalled one Bishop, who should receive the
same obediance as the Lord.
But the Gnostics denied that the Church worshipped God. As
far as they were concerned, the god of the Church was an
inferior being: a Creator who made a botch of creation, as well
as a major-league asshole. God was someone else again: not
the god who built this world, and no basis for worldly authority.
The opposite: earthly rulers were servants of the Demiurge
(that is, the Creator). So much for obeying the priests and the
bishops.
-- Moggin
Aldo
Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-1812...@user-2ive04f.dialup.mindspring.com...
> "'David O'Bedlam, Ersatz Haderach'" <thed...@tsoft.com>:
I've been lurking for some time now, and feel like jumping in here.
David:
> > (And if you'd asked me, they were ALL fucked metaphysically. So,
> > a pox on all their churches.)
I, for one, do feel "fucked metaphysically" and the Gnostic explanation for
my fuckedness, groks me more than the orthodox one. (Was that a correct us
of "grok")?
>
> > The
>
> > P.S. But I could be wrong: I'm not half the ecclesiastic Moggin is.
>
> We're mostly agreed. Coupla notes. The Gnostics (a
> simplification, since there were different schools) used the New
> Testament as scripture. Hell, a Gnostic named Marcion
> assembled the first NT -- the Church got the idea from him. But
> as you could guess, his was pretty different from the Church
> version, and he gave it a way different interpretation. He used
> the OT, too, but not as scripture. You're right about the
> other gospels -- a bunch of them turned up at Nag Hammadi, about
> fifty years ago.
>
> The theology-organization equation can run either way: you
> could argue the difference in organization resulted from a
> difference in theology. Or you could skip the argument and just
> say they were a mutual reflection. The Church grounded its
> authority in God. Clement of Rome argued that anyone who
> rebelled against the Church disobeyed God -- Ignatius of Antioch
> claimed one God equalled one Bishop, who should receive the
> same obediance as the Lord.
Mirroring the political structure of the time (Rome, Emperor). and the rest
is history.
>
> But the Gnostics denied that the Church worshipped God. As
> far as they were concerned, the god of the Church was an
> inferior being: a Creator who made a botch of creation, as well
> as a major-league asshole. God was someone else again: not
> the god who built this world, and no basis for worldly authority.
> The opposite: earthly rulers were servants of the Demiurge
> (that is, the Creator). So much for obeying the priests and the
> bishops.
The False God of Creation really fucked it up and here we are, thank you
very much.
The real, true God is cut off from us, inaccessible, as lonely without us as
we are without him.
Does God exist?
Yes, but there's no point trying getting in touch with him. He's out of
town.
Aldo
--