From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:48:27 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <adams.723754865@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> [Luke 14:26 - the verse that wouldn't die!]
> 
>>The only thing I would add is that it is interesting that one version
>>of that conversation came out so differently than the other. 
> [...]
> It is most likely
> that Christ spoke the Luke text...why would Luke use those words otherwise?

I agree. The Luke version is definitely more potentially confusing. Just
for comparsion, here's the Gospel of Thomas version:

 Jesus said, Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot
 become a disciple to me. And whoever does not love his father and mother
 as I do cannot become a disciple to me.  For my mother gave me falsehood,
 but my true mother gave me life.

Odd!
 
> Let me say that without the Matthew text, the verses in Luke would be darn
> near impossible to 'harmonize away', as you put it.  One of the things
> about the Gospels is that none of them is all inclusive.  So, in this case,
> as in others, we look to the other texts to get an idea of what is going
> on.  Perhaps Matthew rewrote Yeshua's comments so that they conveyed the
> message directly, instead of hiding them in hyperbolae, as the harmony
> reading of Luke 14:26 requires.

Hmm...or maybe it wasn't hyperbole, and Matthew changed it to fit what he
thought it likely meant. The disciples weren't reknowned for understanding
Jesus' teachings, I gather. Maybe Jesus said two similar (but different)
things on two separate occasions. 

>>> Paulists wobble but they don't fall down... ;-)
>>That's for damn sure! 
> Hey...it's managed for 2000 years...it'll likely manage in some form for
> another 2000 (unless of course the Day of the Lord interrupts!).

The thought of Paulist Christianity persisting for another 2000 years
is enough to make even a hardened atheist pray for the Lord's swift
return! :)
 
>>I have this nasty habit of exaggerating for effect...I really must
>>seek competent help. Recognizing you have a problem is the first step!
> Fair enough.  Please say 5 Our Father's, 3 Hail Mary's and a Glory Be for
> your pennance.  Go thou and sin no more.

Thank you, Father. Consider it done. 

>>Sort of accreting your own private tradition, eh? Back when I was a 
>>Christian, I tried that, but I didn't have enough confidence in my
>>own ability to discern truth from falsehood in theological matters.
>>I always felt like I was just picking and choosing to suit myself. 
>>This led to an increasing panic for some kind of guidance from
>>a source I could trust...which, of course, never came. 
> Well, I'm still looking...I get some guidance from various areas.  I think
> my opinions are consistent, if nothing else.  I do have the confidence
> about my own discernment...don't know if that's good or bad.

Just out of curiosity -- what is the source of your confidence?

>>All you need is a fully functioning imagination...and a desire to 
>>plunge into it with nary a backward glance.
> Sounds like my 4-year old...he has a wonderful imagination.  But to some
> extent, I don't think it is necessarily imagination, but belief in and
> idea.

Fair enough...an idea is a product of imagination, though. An image of
the experiential world.  Fundamentally, to be an ideologue of any kind
is to be a sort of pathological day-dreamer -- to be suffering from
a kind of chronic con-fusion of dream and "reality." 

That is to say -- an ideology is an interpretation of life... an image, 
a day-dream.  But it's a day-dream that contains the message "I am not
a day-dream."   So, as long as one is dreaming it, one feels one isn't
dreaming.  Weird...but then, all you have to do is look around to see
that people are the weirdest critters in the known universe, by a country
mile.

Ideology, then, is the ultimate trap for a symbol-using animal. What happens
when the critter gets a symbol into its head that says "I am not a symbol?"
The answer -- the critter gets confused and starts behaving 
in accordance with a totally imaginary entity. And there is no way out
except to recognize one's own role as creator of the image. But the
image says you aren't its creator...and round we go again.

That's why I'm so interested in self-reference, Steve.
Those damn self-referential memes rule the world. And they demand sacrfice.
This earth could be a paradise if it weren't for them. Maybe I should
start an "Institute for the Elimination of Viral Memes." 

>>A definition of religion: recreational narcissism. 
>>
>>Sounds weird and nasty and cynical, but it's true!
> I'll have to think about that one...

Narcissism means: being in love with an image.  Recreational means: you do it
for the pleasure it brings. 

People are religious because they fall in love with images that seem to 
promise them relief from the difficulties they are experiencing with
other images.  That's all I'm saying here, really. Nothing revolutionary,
I assure you. 

>    Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"You have heard it said that God is dead. Verily, I say unto you, he's not
dead. He's just resting."  And the people said, "Just resting? Come on! He's 
dead! Wakey wakey, God! See? This, my friend, is an ex-God!" And he replied 
unto them, saying, "Oy, mate, he's not dead, I tell you! He's just resting. 
Err...he's pining for the fjords!" -- Usenet Survival Guide.
  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc