Trey Smith
I continue to plod my way through the Old Testament -- It's like going to see a really bad movie with a date and, for reasons inexplicable to you, he or she wants to stay until the bitter end!
Anyhow, I am now up to the Book of Ezekiel. The first chapter is a real mind-blower. Ezekiel describes seeing weird things, like angels with four faces!
Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man. And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings. And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the color of burnished brass. And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings. (Ezekiel 1:5-8)It gets even stranger in the latter half of the chapter. Makes you wonder if the prophet was stoned or drunk at the time!
Think about this for a minute. Let's say you're sitting on your back patio some evening and your neighbor Bob drops by for a visit. After discussing the weather, Bob mentions that God spoke to him earlier in the day. He then goes on to describe creatures with wings...and 4 faces.
Do you suppose that you genuinely will believe that Bob and God had a friendly get together?
Of course not! You might think that Bob is pulling your leg because he's such a jokester. You might think he's been drinking too much or sampling too many magic mushrooms. You might also think that Bob was having some sort of "nervous breakdown" or psychosis. If he kept yammering away about his fantastical tale, you might become fearful and call the men in little white coats to come and take Bobby away.
So, why would you believe some fellow you have never met (who has been dead for centuries) if you wouldn't believe a trusted friend or relative?
To see what other questions I've asked about the Christian Bible, go here.
Perhaps, but visions are part of shamanistic traditions, and no reason to think Ezekiel maybe wasn't some sort of shaman, or at least a learned man with a very vivid literary imagination who might have enjoyed intoxicants. Likewise his bookend, John, in Revelation.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad people might get hung up in "believing" these things, rather than just enjoying the imagery and storytelling, which is quite rich.
There are times Trey when you have me busted up and keeling over in laughter. Though I agree with Baroness Radon comment, please keep on with this real bad movie. I might lose some weight laughing so hard!
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with Baroness Radon - it's also a shame that the author of this posting sees fit to mock and ridicule the beliefs written down almost 600 years BCE. Much religious literature (including the literature of Taoism) is to be engaged with as poetry. The author of this post clearly takes the text literally and subjects it to a 21st century empty, crass scientific materialism.
ReplyDeleteTrey Smith is no Taoist - just another deluded materialist. With this comment, my interest in the whole site is over.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteAlas, you're probably not around to read this, but...you should have read the intro to the series! There is a significant portion of Christendom that reads the bible literally. What you or I may see as allegory, they see as a literal accounting of history.
This series is aimed at them. It's taking them at their word and attempting, imperfectly, to read the bible as they do and juxtaposing it against a Taoist interpretation.
I did read it - the introduction, I mean, and I know your target is fundamentalist readings of these ancient writings.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, would you have the courage to perform the same 'surgery' on Islamic texts? Or would you fear a fundamentalist fatwah? And - if this is the case - is it not ethically questionable to target texts held sacred by Christian fundamentalists, who do not offer a we-deliver fatwah service?
Also - elsewhere in your Ezekiel material you state that 'Tao does not mock'. Should that not, in your case, read 'Tao does not mock - except Christian fundamentalists'?
I want to say that I am not a fundamentalist - not even a Christian, really - but I don't think the way to counter the intolerance of fundamentalism, Christian, Islamic or whatever, is to employ ridicule. It's probably also true to say that few if any Christian fundamentalists read your stuff - so what is its point? Does it bring the author a sense of intellectual or spiritual superiority? Honestly now ...
If I had grown up Muslim, then I most likely would take aim at Muslim texts. I grew up Presbyterian, so I aim at what I know and what many people in the US try to shove down my throat.
ReplyDeleteTao does not mock because Tao isn't an entity. Taoists -- who are entities -- have been known to mock.
Hopefully, you'll hang around long enough to read a post scheduled for Monday, 1:00 pm PST. It discusses the topic of ridicule. It may prove to be an eye-opener for you.