From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Luke, Derrida, Papists, Luther...and Steve Adams.
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:54:57 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <adams.723754865@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> 
>> [Luke 14:26 - the verse that wouldn't die!]
>>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!
Yeah.  I'll say.  Ya know, everytime I look at that text I have to wonder
just what was going on back around 28CE.  If Thomas is accurate, then that
sure throws a lot of cold water on Mr. Saul of Tarsus, now doesn't it?

>> 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. 

'Not reknowned' is an understatment.  The Gospels record him rebuking them
for not getting the picture.  See Mark 7:18 for an example.  Yeshua
basically asked the diciples how they could be as stupid as they were!
Sort of a early version of "You dolts!  Can't you even understand a simple
parable?"

>>>> 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! :)

Amen and preach it!  No wait, that's not it.  "Come quickly Lord Jesus!
Amen"  Yeah, that's it!  If you want a good, scriptural discussion of the
book of Daniel and the Revelation to John, check out Bob Van Kampen's "The
Sign" and Marvin Rosenthal's "Pre Wrath Rapture of the Church."  Rosenthal's
book is mostly a theological discussion, but I think you'd like Van
Kampen's book.  He lays out all of the prophecies and shows which
historical figures he believes are represented in Daniel and Revelation.
He even identifies the AntiChrist!  :-)  You'll love it!  At least for the
entertainment value....

>>>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. 
Your sins are forgiven.  Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

You *are* (or were) a Catholic, right?

>>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?

Good question.  If I say from myself, that denies that there is more to it
than that, and I believe there is.  That confidene comes from God, through
the Holy Spirt.

I suspect that the atheist response to that is that it does come from me,
and me alone, and I just won't take credit for it.

>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.
Uhm, yeah.  I see your point.  I think.  Is this implication 'man created
god in his own image'?

>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." 
Hmm.  So 'god' is simply one of these self-referential ideas?  Something
constructed to flesh out our understanding of the world and help us cope
with reality?  Is this what you're getting at?

I would have to suspect that you will classify my 'holy spirit' comment
above along these lines...it sure seems to fit what you are saying.

>>>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. 
But then why am I religious?  I don't think I fit this particular rule.  In
other words, my religion doesn't appear to me to be a defence mechanism
against other images, at least as far as I can tell.  How would you go
about finding this out?

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc