*
sophiology & history
.
. .
. 1 > Prehistoric Preamble
.
For
a million years now, more or less, the human race has lived and died within
the context of the much larger struggle to survive. The world then, and
until very recently, was a very different place from the comfy and cozy
civilized world we all enjoy today. Only slowly, oh so *very* slowly, inch
by agonizing inch, did humankind gain ground in the never-ending war against
this sometimes hostile, always uncaring, and often frightening world that
constitutes the universal boundaries of all human life. Only by developing
their prehistoric languages, cultures, and technologies did those small
bands of hunters and gatherers increase their practical knowledge of nature
and the cosmos. There was much nonsensical "filling in of the blanks",
to be sure, but every reliable gain in thought or technique helped enormously
to improve the general quality of life. Reliance upon mere luck and chance
(ie. the awesome capriciousness of the natural world) decreased as human
beings became more and more adept at dealing with this surprisingly complex
world.
.
Therefore
knowledge (as Hobbes so rightly observed) is power. For the human race
in prehistoric times, true and practical knowledge (born of reasoning and
necessity) meant the power to survive, to understand the strange ways of
the world, to predict events and processes, even to control things somewhat,
and even (in some small measure) to subdue nature. And finally, knowledge
gave the power to thrive and prosper; even in the face of 'nature red in
tooth and nail and claw'. But it took hundreds of thousands of years for
men to gain enough knowledge to realize that there was an alternative to
the nomadic and predatory way of life that was the alpha and omega defining
all the possibilities of our prehistoric predecessors.
.
. .
. 2 > On History as Collective Memory
.
And
once people finally settled down and began to cultivate the land in earnest,
knowledge also began to grow in abundance, with the result that culture
and technology advanced and developed at an ever-increasing rate. Villages
became towns, and towns became cities, and in those small and fortified
cities languages grew in complexity, and soon words, numbers, objects (and
even ideas) came to be expressed in non-verbal signs and symbols. And with
the emergence of writing, History was born; at first with little or no
awareness of its ultimate meaning or potential.
.
But
even then History functioned as the eyes and ears (and memory) of the human
race. At first its vision was weak and limited, for it could not see much
more than lists of names of kings and conquerors, of battles and conquests,
and tallies of slaves and prisoners and booty gained (or stolen) on the
points of swords and spears. And then, after the ancient cultures and societies
had grown sufficiently complex, and the time was ripe for something new
to emerge ... then, out of the misty gray unknowing of prehistoric darkness,
distinct individual human personalities began to enter into the realm of
remembrance. And the first man to emerge into the still feeble light of
History was ... a prophet!
.
. .
. 3 > The Black Pharaoh
.
The
pharaoh Amenhotep IV was hidden from the sight of historians for over two
thousand years, thanks to the efforts of priestly curses and subsequent
pharaohs to blot him out of history forevermore. So it was not until 1714
that the darkness of willful-ignorance was finally broken, when a Jesuit
named Sicard made copies of the king's boundary-stelae. But information
was slow in coming forth from the ancient sands, and even from the beginning,
confusion surrounded Akhenaten. At first the scholars were uncertain whether
the king was male or female. Opinion regarding the vanished-pharaoh himself
would remain divided among the scholars from that point on. But by the
mid-nineteenth century the importance of the Amarna Period began to be
felt; and it was soon understood as a vital time when "ancient Egyptian
culture and religion were fundamentally transformed for several years,
and which even witnessed the introduction of a new literary language, and
during which a religion was *founded* for the first time in the history
of the world" (E.Hornung, 'Akhenaten and the Religion of Light', p.2).
.
By
the mid-twentieth-century Akhenaten was known as the heretic-king, an enlightened
despot, a religious fanatic, a rationalist, and so forth. Some of those
scholars with a more positive attitude toward the king could even conclude
that "Akhenaten seemed to have been the prophet of a religion for which
his time was not yet ripe" (R.Anthes). And in this statement the scholars
come very close to touching the essence of true prophecy. But a few decades
prior to this scholarly insight, the vision of the artist already made
the prophetic connection between Akhenaten and Jesus; as in the novel 'Joseph
and his His Brothers' by Thomas Mann, where the author "attempted to categorize
Akhenaten as an early Christ figure" (Horn, p.14). The scholar sees deep,
but the artist sees deeper still!
.
In
any case, the recognition of pharaoh Amenhotep IV as the earliest personality
known to historical-science was perhaps even more important. It is easy
to see why he stands out as a unique individual, even in the 'heroic' ancient-near-east
(ie. the mythic-world is home to gods and glory, great kings, warriors,
and heroes that lie just beyond the dawn of history). But here was a man
who was both a king and a prophet! Such a thing was unthinkable in the
ancient world, where mythic concepts ruled; such that everyone knew (without
a shadow of a doubt) that kings were divine beings. To just say 'no' to
all *that* is to announce nothing less than the end of the age-of-myth
(ie. of all mythical thinking), and to introduce the beginnings of the
age-of-religion (ie. a more rational and theological way of thinking about
the cosmos, and everything else).
.
. .
. 4 > The Turning Point
.
If
we were rational in our way of thinking about things, we would mark the
beginnings of the common-era from the moment that this 'no' was first uttered
by the pharaoh-prophet Akhenaten. So it's kind of hard to just forget someone
who shakes the pillars of the world; even when it was forbidden to even
speak his name. You may curse his name, and blot it out of egyptian-history
for a dozen centuries and more, but that first 'no' is still out there,
sitting quietly in the minds of the peoples of the nation. A heretic is
one who challenges tradition, but a prophet brings the entire structure
of mythical thinking crashing down around your ears. Very slowly, to be
sure, but inevitably, the consequences of the first historical rebellion
began to be felt.
.
In
any case, there was/is considerable variety among the egyptologists, historians,
and scholars as to what is meant by a 'pharaoh-prophet'; and the latter
term is especially fluid in meaning and precision. And while both terms
are important, only the first is deemed necessary. Akhenaten could not
have been a prophet-of-influence had he not been the king of Egypt first;
ie. only a king had the power to put his ideas into effect so as to alter
and influence and affect the whole course of the nation (and even the larger
civilization of the ancient near east). It's true that Egypt itself swiftly
rejected Akhenaten and his strange new religion, but in the long run even
that didn't matter.
.
The
proof of his lasting influence and staying power in the collective memory
of the people is found not only in the actions of subsequent pharaohs,
but also with a certain Egyptian prince named Moses. It was this man who
(following in Akhenaten's footsteps) became a prophet of the one-god, left
Egypt with a small group of followers and former-slaves, and basically
created a new theocratic society on the other side of the desert (based
upon the Black Pharaoh's insight / invention of monotheism). Thus Akhenaten
in effect changed the entire course of history; not least because there
could have been no 'Moses & Torah & Israel' had he not prepared
the way in so timely a fashion by bringing the first light of reason to
a myth-soaked world.
.
. .
. 5 > The Three Ages of Man
.
Therefore
Sophiology sees History as the dynamic and ongoing conflict and interaction
of three human-generated forces or world-views: myth, religion, and reason.
These three different ways of thinking and being-within-the-world first
appeared at different points in time, and have co-existed now for well
over 2000 years. Today most people still opt for the religious way of viewing
life, the universe, and everything. We can thus designate these ways of
being-in-the-world as the three chief "ages" or "forms" of human-being:
.
age
of myth > gods, heroes, signs and symbols, totems, mythic-concepts, and
polymorphic-polytheism. consciousness is here characterized by an overwhelming
excess of magical-thinking, and a basically emotional reaction to all things
and events.
.
age
of religion > Moderation only begins with Akhenaten: the one-&-only-god
= men are NOT gods! Belief (and/or faith) is the cognitive quality most
characteristic of religious-thinking, and thus most prevalent in this age.
the major world-religions are (in 21C) a confused mixture of magical-thinking,
belief and faith, and reason. And all of it is expressed through the various
traditions relating to all manner of things: ritual, myths and sagas, teachings,
art, wisdom, etc, and all in varying degrees (according to historical circumstances).
For wisdomology, age-of-religion is basically just a broad neutral-ground
between magical-irrationality on one side, and the more critical and aware
tones of rational-thinking on the other. Accordingly, this is the perfect
place for the majority of people to dwell (eg. because of the large built-in
comfort-zone).
.
age
of reason > begins with the early greek philosophers, and quickly peaks
with the prophet Socrates, and his two spiritual sons, Plato and Aristotle.
From this point on all three ages (or world-views) co-exist in competition
and uneasy alliance. But the age of reason was born just as the age of
religion was sweeping triumphantly across the east and the west, sweeping
away much (but not all) of the older mythic ways and perceptions.
.
But
the world was not then ready to embrace the age-of-reason, and so philosophy
was more or less held in stasis (in a role subservient to religion (as
with Augustine and Plotinus)) until the Enlightenment gave it a renewed
impetus; in partnership with a newly invigorated science (stemming from
the "rediscovery" (thanks largely to Islam) of the classical literature
of ancient greece and rome). The so-called Renaissance - the 'rebirth'
or 'awakening' - that set the stage for the birth of the modern world (following
the Reformation), was a critical historical event caused chiefly by the
dissemination of books and literacy and knowledge. The Renaissance also
clearly demonstrates the power of literature as an active element in driving
human history forward.
.
. .
. 6 > Akhenaten's Revolution Defeats the Ancient World
.
The
religion of Akhenaten failed in Egypt because it could find no soil for
its roots in the disorganized and chaotic minds of prehistoric humanity;
as evidenced in the tradition-bound bronze-age culture of ancient Egypt.
But the insights that empowered Akhenaten's 'religion of light' were not
forgotten or banished or blotted out of history, but merely (and quietly)
exported out of the nation by way of the egyptian prince called Moses (as
also suggested by Freud in 'Moses and Monotheism'). Akhenaten re-interpreted
the traditional signs and symbols of egyptian religion thusly: The solar-deity,
Re-Harakhty, whose visible form was a man with a falcon's head, was transmuted
within Akhenaten's heart and mind into the sun-god Aten, the one and only
deity, whose only visible form is the sun-disk. The falcon thus defaults
into a symbol, not of the god himself, but of the prophet, who acts as
the intermediary between the sun-god and his creation. The full meaning
of the falcon symbol therefore has more to do with Akhenaten's role as
prophet, than with his role as pharaoh. Thus the prophet has a special
role to play in society and history (and one a king can perform very effectively),
but he is still only a man.
.
So
the idea that a man (not just any man, but usually the hero or king or
emperor) is a living avatar of a god, or indeed is himself a god, or is
otherwise a divine being, is a purely mythic concept direct from the prehistoric
age of myth. It is merely a hold-over from the glory days of the heroic
period, when a mighty warrior with a bloody sword could earn divinity by
conquest and slaughter. But this idea is important because it lasts up
to the roman-emperors, where it comes into conflict with Akhenaten's radical
and liberating idea (that 'men are not gods') in the form of the early
christian martyrs; who refuse to compromise their faith and beliefs (even
at the cost of their own lives). The martyrs (like the prophets) make a
clear distinction between men and god; and they do this because they know
there are no gods, but only the one-god.
.
By
adopting Christianity as the official religion of the mighty Roman-Empire,
the emperor Constantine in effect conceded the right of kings and emperors
to henceforth claim divinity for themselves; which is not to say that they
gave up all claims to divine authority. Nevertheless, the distinction was
made (because the distinction was critical), and once made could never
again be reversed. This was also the point in history where politics and
religion were in direct conflict, where the age of myth and the age of
religion met to wrestle for dominance in the arena, and where reason and
unreason collide head-on to determine the fate and future of all humanity.
And so Akhenaten's long-delayed revolution (and the fulfillment of his
dream, which he could not achieve in Egypt, the triumph of religion over
myth), finally ended the supremacy of magical-thinking, at least in the
west (although it lingered on for many more centuries in the far-east).
x
+
] wwwSite
> SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index -> / 26 April 07 /
] Forum
> Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science > Philosophy
] Thread
> Sophiology & History [#2] / Topic > on what books can do
.
. .
. why the pen is mightier than the sword
.
I shall
pass quickly over the Hebrew prophets of the Old-Testament period
since
no one is foolish enough to deny that these many and strange men had
an
enormous impact upon the religion, culture, and society of ancient Israel.
What
is less well known is that other prophets began (at about the same time)
to
appear in other societies, and some of these were also to have a very strong
and
long-lasting influence: 4X, the Buddha in India (and other points East),
and
an assortment of odd Greek philosophers, including the obscure-one,
Heraclitus,
and another of anti-sophist tendencies, named Socrates.
.
Moreover,
it was during these pivotal centuries (ie. Jasper's 'Axial Age') that,
along
with the outcropping of prophets, writing had developed into full-blown
literature;
and not insignificantly also saw the birth of the concentrated study
of
History in its two most basic forms: (1) in the traditional saga or story
form
(a
la Homer) which still survives so well in 'The Histories' by Herodotus.
And (2)
in
the amazingly modern or realistic form found in the 'History of the
Peloponnesian
War' by Thucydides. So Just as Philosophy had its two literary
giants
(in Plato and Aristotle) who set the standards and the course of
subsequent
philosophers, so did History have its dual trend-setters in Herodotus
and
Thucydides. Alas, too few have been able to reach the heights of the latter.
.
. .
. paper covers rock
.
I
mention all this only to emphasize the idea that literature is both the
expression
and repository of the collective memory and imagination of the
human
race. And this is why the story of Akhenaten is so interesting. He arrived
on
the scene *before* literature had developed into a sufficiently complex
and
useful
form; ie. in its "modern" form of words in ink on pages gathered into
books.
In the ancient world before the advent of literature, memory and history
were
literally carved into stone (mostly stylized pictures and/or symbols).
So
instead
of the customary 'book-burnings' of later times, the priests and carvers
had
a little "war of the stone-carvings". Akhenaten blotted out the names of
the
gods
in the temples and wherever they could be found, and after his demise,
the
priests erased his name (and anything directly associated with it), and
then
tore
down his new city for good measure.
.
In
doing this, both sides in the chisel-war hoped to erase a specific set
of
memories
out of mind and history forevermore. Needless to say, both sides
were
wrong. Egypt's traditional gods survived Akhenaten's "purge"; only to die
a slower
death in later centuries. But the priests victory was also shallow and
in
vain,
for it only meant that Akhenaten's legacy was more felt than spoken (at
least
in Egypt). And the priestly purge of Akhenaten's memory was ultimately
also
temporary; for in using his blocks (from the heretic's temples and buildings)
as
filler for their own constructions, they only ensured that the carvings
upon
those
blocks would survive to eventually see the light of Aten again. That is,
thanks
to the eager-eyes of history's favorite specialists, the archeologists
(or
'they-who-dig-in-the-dirt').
.
. .
. more prophets & literature
.
So
History can be manipulated and abused, and even toyed-with for a time,
but
in
the long-run all are judged according to the principle of Ma'at (or the
light-of-
reason
and justice). But now we must stop at another crucial turning-point in
the
history of western civilization. In the centuries leading up to the beginnings
of
the Common Era the original five books of the Hebrew Torah had grown and
developed
and changed (eg. with the addition of stories and sagas, histories and
pseudo-histories,
poetry, and an abundance of prophetic literature of all types).
Moreover,
many of the latter-writings began to appear in Greek (a major
commercial
and international language in those times), and in due-course all of
the
sacred-writings were translated into Greek. In fact, by the first century
there
was
such an abundance of religious and secular literature (in various languages)
circulating
throughout the Mediterranean-Basin (and the Roman Empire) that it
became
a serious problem. And one that had to be addressed by Judaism after
the
loss of the Temple; and thus the loss of the old-way of practicing religion
in
the
Ancient Near East (ever since the Bronze Age and before).
.
Thus
the People-of-the-Book were firmly caught between a rock and a *very*
hard
place. The options were simple: adapt or die. Nothing focuses the mind
so
clearly as a clear and present danger. And so the rabbis gathered to discuss
the
challenge. They were well-motivated, and became even more so out of the
simple
necessity of not perishing through assimilation. Keeping the Holy-Books
pure,
and of a manageable size, were also of prime importance. And so the
Rabbis
decided to exclude all the Greek-texts from the new canon. Sticking
to
the traditional and accepted Hebrew scriptures was a wise and necessary
action.
From then on the three-part Tanakh was set, and for the Jews, the only
literature
of secondary-authority are the collaborative-commentaries on those
now-established
sacred-texts. By this bold and innovative move a Bronze-Age
culture
survived the shift into the Common-Era by way of a radical spiritual
transformation
achieved via a new focus upon the literature itself as the source
of
memory and identity and purpose. Thus the sons and daughters of the
ancient
Israelites passed into the New World even as all the other ancient
religions
faded away into oblivion under the gradual pressure of social, political,
and
cultural change brought about everywhere by the inexorable advance of
human
civilization (eg. through the ongoing accumulation of knowledge found
and
gathered and expressed in and through books).
.
. .
. how the modern-world was made
.
So
let me state this plainly: for philosophy (and sophiology, of course) books
are
NOT mere irrelevant 'throw-offs' of the ongoing economic and materialistic
dialectic
which provides the basic substance of every culture's activities. Rather,
they
are the means by which knowledge and reason live and grow in influence
over
the lives of more and more human beings. Thus the single greatest human
achievement
since the appearance of the cities is the invention of books. This is
because
books not only allow minds to transcend time and space (thus creating
a kind
of eternal platonic realm wherein a communion of minds dwells), but
also
allows for the existence of tangible spiritual realities and processes,
such
as
... History and Philosophy! :)
.
Of
course, the first-century Rabbis cared nothing for history and philosophy
(ie.
as
far as the pagans understood these things); they only cared for their own
people,
and the religion that gave their lives meaning. But this unique trans-
formation
of an ancient society was to have a profound effect upon the future
course
of western-history. Indeed the next two thousand years are largely
the
tale of the repercussions and reverberations of this pivotal event (ie.
the
creation-by-definition
of the Tanakh), an event caused by the Roman Empire
itself
through the destruction of Jerusalem (in 70CE). Thus it was not the loss
of
the Temple that mattered in the long run; it was the creation of the Tanakh
that
was the one event marking the separation of the old world from the new.
From
this point on nothing could ever be the same again, for out of this single
isolated
and unnoticed occurrence in some tiny corner of the Empire came not
just
one new religion, but three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
x
+
] wwwSite
> SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index -> / 27 April 07 /
] Forum
> Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science > Philosophy
] Thread
> Sophiology & History [#3] / Topic > the two ways of faith
.
. .
. the 3 books that shaped the modern-world
.
There
are three chief forces driving the progressive development of human
cultures
and civilizations: War, Religion, and Reason. There is no reason to
suppose
that these forces or activities were not present from the time of the
earliest
homo-sapiens, and every reason to suppose that they were active within
our
hominid ancestors for millions of years before that. In this regard, human
beings
have changed not at all over the last million years. The post-modern
global
world of the twenty-first century is still shaped largely by the processes
and
interplay of war, religion, and reason. Indeed these three activities more
or
less define what human beings are, and why they do the things they do.
.
All
three of the major world religions that have a book at its core are essentially
prophetic
in origin or character. The Tanakh (or 'old-testament' for christians)
is
the oldest; its writings were written over a span of almost a thousand
years.
Much
of its material was written by prophets, and it only reached its final
form
near
the end of the first century of the common-era. The next oldest is the
greek
new-testament,
which was written over the span of about a century (50-150CE).
Most
of its texts were also written by prophets (including paulos, silvanus,
mark,
jacob,
and jude). This collection of sacred texts reached its final form much
more
quickly (about 325CE). And the last and youngest sacred book is the koran
written
by the prophet muhammad (in the seventh century ce) over a span of
months
(or a few years at most), and reached its final form almost immediately.
.
Do
you see the trend here? The first book had many authors, and took a long
time
to compile, the second had only a few authors writing over decades (rather
than
centuries), and the third was written by one man (more or less) over a
span
of months. The chief characteristic of all three is the element of mono-
theism,
and the basicly prophetic nature of the literature itself. Apart from that,
the
three books (and the three corresponding religions that go with them) are
very
diverse in their practices and ideas. But they are all linked together
by
History;
and Christianity was born as the direct offspring of Judaism, and (at
first)
defined itself in just those terms (especially in the older documents).
.
. .
. more pious blind spots
.
So
it is no surprise that the New Testament (like the Old) is not shy to speak
about
prophets, and contains - again like the OT - much in the way of various
types
of prophetic literature; all of which was written (of course) by different
kinds
of prophets (who by this point in history came in many forms, including
writers
and non-writers). But while Judaism and Islam celebrate their own
prophets,
Christianity seems intent on rubbing out hers. And yet among the
Greek-speaking
believers of the first two centuries of the common-era, prophets
were
plentiful and had various "names" attached (such as 'apostle' and 'slave').
And
here our colossal blind-spot surfaces once again, and must now be
addressed,
for it reveals itself here in a startlingly virulent fashion. I would
draw
the Reader's attention to but two crucial aspects of the problem:
.
(1)
If one were to ask the average Christian how many of the 27 'books' within
the
New Testament are "prophetic" in nature, or can be called prophetic-
literature,
the answer would invariably be the same: only one, namely the book
of
Revelation, the last book in the canon. But this is all wrong; in fact,
the
majority
of the gospels and epistles are prophetic literature. Thus the NT texts
can
be divided into two main groups: the meat and potatoes (those written by
prophets),
and the milk and pabulum (those not written by prophets (eg. priests
and
ex-pharisees)). The curious feature here is that although this second group
is
numerically small (chiefly Lk/Acts and the pastoral-epistles) it nevertheless
takes
*more* pages to contain them.
.
And
yet, despite the greater bulk of the priestly-literature, if you were to
remove
them
from the NT, nothing of any great significance would thereby be lost. On
the
other hand, remove the earliest and most potent prophetic books (Mark &
Paul),
and the loss would be dramatic indeed. Kierkegaard thought that even
if
we had only the gospel of Mark, that alone would be enough to ensure the
survival
of Christianity. That's a rather extreme way to state an otherwise astute
observation:
the textual core of the faith resides in its best prophetic literature.
And
this applies as much to the Tanakh and Koran as it does to the NT.
.
So
why is it that Christians are now so unable to recognize the prophets in
their
own
sacred texts and traditions? Many believers today are fanatically devoted
to
keeping the NT at the core of their faith, and zealously study and pursue
the
scriptures with vim-and-vigor, and yet they do not even recognize the
essentially
prophetic nature of their own sacred texts? What is going on here?
The
answer is actually very simple: it's because the priests (and the scribes
and
scholars
who follow after them) wish it so. Thus when christians read their NT,
and
come across words like 'messiah', 'apostle', and 'slave', whatever these
words
may bring to mind, you can be sure that 'prophet' is nowhere to be found
among
them. Indeed, most popular English translations deliberately help the
confusion
and ignorance along by refusing to translate the Greek word for slave
as
'slave' (perhaps for fear of offending delicate Christian sensibilities).
[See the
opening
verses of James, Jude, and 2Peter for dramatic examples of the need
to
keep believers ignorant of the prophetic nature of their own scriptures.]
.
(2)
Our next colossal blind-spot concerns the status and nature of jesus-christ.
A careful
(or even careless) reading of the texts will show that the NT describes
Jesus
as a prophet in many and various ways, and also calls him a prophet
hundreds
of times (directly and indirectly, explicitly and implicitly). And yet
if
you
ask Christians who and what Jesus was, they will answer with things such
as
'messiah', 'son of god', or maybe even 'son of man'; but never will you
hear
them
say 'he was a prophet'. This despite the clear testimony of their own 'new'
testament!
Is this odd? Oh surely. Is this a mystery? Not at all; for the plain
truth
is that believers do NOT think Jesus was a prophet. This is not to say
that
the
texts are wrong, or that they willfully disbelieve the texts whenever they
say
that
Jesus is a prophet. Rather, it's more a case that all such assertions and
declarations
are Incidental & Irrelevant, owing to the fact that christians "know"
that
Jesus Christ is "really" God-Incarnate. Thus because Christians know better
than
the inspired-authors, all such claims and observations wizz right on by;
and,
failing to register, they save the Reader the bother of having to think
about
such obscure and confusing terms, and what they might have meant.
.
. .
. on giving them walking-papers
.
Anyway,
after all the controversies and misadventures of the second century ce,
the
priests and scribes and ex-pharisees decided to rid their new religion
of all
these
bothersome prophets, and set about doing just that. Even then the word
'heretic'
was a powerful weapon. And after they succeeded in purging the Faith
of
its sole source of vitality and intelligence, they were free to grant Christianity
the
blessings of their pious priestly wisdom and leadership. Top priority was
swiftly
given to the important business of theology, so as to declare Jesus
nothing
less than god-himself. In doing so the priests ensured that no believer
could
henceforth take Jesus seriously for what he really was (ie. a prophet).
.
The
priestly corruption of the early prophetic faith did not go unnoticed,
however,
and some believers did not care for the direction the Faith was taking
under
the guidance of the clerical anti-prophets. These few men accordingly
walked
away from the cities with their fancy-churches and pious priestly ways.
They
were looking for another way. These were the desert-fathers, and they
soon
attracted other like-minded believers, and together they formed the new
monastic
communities that would latter ensure the survival of Christianity (and
literacy
in the West). After the Empire collapsed, the monks moved into Europe,
and
cleared away much of forests there; thereby making western-civilization
a
real
possibility, and unwittingly paving the way for the future.
.
In
due course the monasteries were all gathered up into the ample bosom of
the
now well-established clergy-driven-church, and the prophetic-spirit was
once
again
forced to look elsewhere for a means of life and expression. Since there
was
no longer any place or welcome for prophets within the "universal"
medieval-church,
it was only in the heretical movements of the middle ages
that
christian-prophecy could find a temporary abode. These were, of course,
ruthlessly
stamped out as fast as possible. In the meantime, the priests were
not
idle; they continued to magnify their own glory and importance as the
undisputed-masters
of all Christianity; thanks to the generous assistance of
Theology
(and Her humble-handmaiden, philosophy). But eventually even some
monks
and priests could no longer stomach the excesses of evil and corruption
emanating
from the leadership in Rome; and with the arrival on the scene of
gun-powder
and printing-press, these "vile and heretical malcontents" were
actually
able to do something more than merely grumble and complain about it.
x
+
] wwwSite
> SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index -> / 27 April 07 /
] Forum
> Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science > Philosophy
] Thread
> Sophiology & History [#4] / Topic > an outpouring of prophets
.
...
an outpouring of prophets
.
With
the Renaissance and these new technologies the stage was set for the
Reformation,
and once underway prophets began to appear singly and in
bunches.
All this was fueled chiefly by a renewed emphasis on scripture as a
vital
element of the Faith; and this was made possible by the availability of
new
translations
(brought about by the printing press and fresh scholarship). The
scientific
pursuit of biblical-studies was developed as early as Origen in pre-
constantine
alexandria, and gained a considerable boost from various muslim
and
renaissance scholars. But where the chief leaders of the Reformation (such
as
Erasmus, Luther and Calvin) retained their priestly loyalties and biases
(ie.
they
were content to merely trim a little excess fat of corruption off of the
morbidly
obese body of the now sick and perverted Faith), the Radical-
Reformers
clearly saw the need for a complete and thorough-going overhaul
of
the entire Christian religion.
.
According
to the latter's new understanding of the NT-texts, they were able
to
throw out much of the priestly apparatus that had grown up (for centuries)
around
the faith of the earliest believers; choking it, and distorting it, and
all but
crushing
all of the spiritual-life right out of it. And yet the priestly vision-of-all-
things
was so powerful and pervasive by the sixteenth century that few
reformers
could set it aside long enough to see the scriptures unfiltered and un-
obscured
by sundry theological-imperatives. The priestly way of faith held things
that
Luther and Calvin simply could not bear to part with. And so because they
could
not abide these "heretical-extremists" (ie. the RR; who did what they could
not),
they joined the romish-church in responding to the Radical-Reformers with
oppression
and persecution (always sure-signs of the presence of prophetic-
faith).
New ideas and non-priestly ways of practicing the Faith were sought for
everywhere,
and destroyed whenever they could be found.
.
The
separation of Church & State, and the liberty of the individual's conscience,
are
but two radical ideas that these "evil-heretics" lived and died for. These
are
ideas
that today's Christians take for granted. Ideas that today's Christians
dare
take
credit for, even while remaining loyal to those traditions that joyfully
murdered
the freedom-loving prophets of the Radical Reformation.
.
In
the following century, another small band of radical and prophetic believers,
the
Quakers, also took their new Christian faith so seriously that they too
challenged
the divine and eternal order governed and defended by the priests
and
nobles, and their "divinely-ordained" traditions. In the case of the Quakers,
it
was the age-old institution of slavery that they dared to challenge, that
they
spilled
their blood for, and even died resisting. But eventually they saw their
epic
struggle bear fruit with the destruction of that profitable business. And
here
again today's Christians take pride and credit for an achievement that
came
not from believers like themselves, but from believers fired by the
prophetic-spirit,
believers that they would gladly scorn and dismiss, and
perhaps
murder in their beds, even now (if only they could get away with it).
x
+
] wwwSite
> SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index -> / 28 April 07 /
] Forum
> Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science > Philosophy
] Thread
> Sophiology & History [#5] / Topic: why some men are philosophers
.
. .
. why some men are philosophers
.
Even
in these supposedly enlightened modern times, the prophets continued to
defy
the status-quo, the comforting illusions, and the established traditions
that
still
make Christianity an easy and bother-free zone of conservative self-right-
eousness.
Even after the Enlightenment and the scientific-revolution, it was the
prophets
that continued to blaze new trails; going where no man has gone
before.
In the realm of the christian religion History notices the influence of
talented
outsiders who reject the faith of the majority. Men such as G.B.Shaw
and
Leo Tolstoy; where once again we find the experts and critics claiming
that
their
"prophet-status" is entirely incidental and irrelevant, and an altogether
unfortunate
(not to mention embarrassing) business.
.
And
if it's not bad enough that prophets now dare to be great writers, novelists,
composers,
and playwrights, how much worse it is that they also dare to be
great
philosophers as well. Surely that is the gravest insult of all. And yet
two
quite
recent prophets stand out clearly, even against the confused backdrop of
the
nineteenth century. Not surprisingly, one is a very committed christian,
and
the
other is an equally committed non-christian! Yet Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
are
both widely recognized, not for being prophets, but for being the two chief
founding-fathers
of the philosophical movement latter known as Existentialism
(ie.
a new philosophy is generally just a new way of thinking about *many*
things
in a somewhat similar fashion).
.
Therefore
because they are so-nicely labeled "existentialists" no one need ever
think
that they are (or even could) be prophets. Thus most philosophers (and
historians
of philosophy; whom one would think ought to know better) are quite
content
to call these two alpha-class prophets 'philosophers'; and the world is
more
than happy to go along (seeing as how philosophers are *extremely*
ignorable).
But all of this can only be done by passing over (in an embarrassed
and
deafening silence) the unacknowledged fact that being philosophers is
incidental
and very secondary to the primary occupation of *these* men!
.
It's
really quite funny, when you consider the implications of this 'conspiracy
of
willful-blindness'
that is especially obvious in the case of Existentialism and its
original
trail-blazers. Kierkegaard had the love and passion of the greatest of
saints
for Jesus and the Faith. He was a warrior for the Lord, who fought for
the
Faith
to the final breath. And he was a brilliant writer and thinker as well,
who
wrote
a variety of prophetic literature (all of it of top quality). What could
be
more
obvious? Do I really need to draw a map for this "possible prophet
candidate"?
Maybe I do, seeing that it doesn't seem to add up for Christians;
including
even most of the educated ones. Accordingly, Kierkegaard's influence
upon
the current condition of the Christian religion is almost nil, mostly
because
the believers can't even see him! Now ask yourself why this is so.
.
And
as for Nietzsche, he would surely despise being labeled an "existentialist"
and
summarily thrown into the same pot with guys like Kierkegaard and Satre!
So
there's that. And there's also (yet again) the evidence of the texts themselves.
Among
the writings of both men we find prophetic literature in abundance; in
both
its most refined and distilled forms, and also in all its original overheated
rawness.
And with Nietzsche we even find a whole book about a prophet (aptly
named
Zarathustra); as if Nietzsche knew in advance that the modern world is
so
blind to the prophets that even one clearly labeled as such, and dangled
right
in
front of the People's eyes, will NOT be recognized!
.
Surely
all this is a bad-joke taken to the very extremes of outrageous absurdity?
And
yet Nietzsche, as far as the modern world is concerned, is just another
philosopher:
the one who had a "thing" about Christians. But each of these
"philosophers"
was a believer-with-a-mission, a man with a purpose and a goal,
and
both were powered by a vision (not the same vision!) that drove them
forward
while the entire world lagged behind concerning itself with petty 19th
century
trivialities that could not last for decades, let alone centuries. Yet
there
they
were, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, two prophets with radically different
values
and visions, together building a road into the future that others could
walk
on and extend even further into the present and future by expanding upon
the
new possibilities that were now presenting themselves. And despite some
major
setbacks (eg. Sartre and Camus) Existentialism remains basically an
ongoing
prophetic-enterprise. It is also the first organized and systematic
attempt
to generate wisdom that is actually useful and relevant to all people!
x
+
] wwwSite
> SamHarris.org Reader Forum Index -> / 28 April 07 /
] Forum
> Politics, Religion, Philosophy, and Science > Philosophy
] Thread
> Sophiology & History [#6] / Topic: on biting the hand that feeds
.
. .
. on biting the hand that feeds
.
I
don't think it would be going *too* far off-the-mark to say that almost
every
lasting
idea, value, or ideal (of a spiritual nature) comes, almost without
exception,
directly from the hands of the prophets. People gather up these
freely-given
but intangible gifts of wisdom, claim them as their own, then
promptly
take them for granted, and then never again think about them, or
where
they came from. And how do these ignorant and ungrateful People thank
the
prophets for their critical contributions to the advancement of civilization?
The
most popular way by far has always been by simply killing them; so as to
"dispose
themselves of the bother" as fast as possible (so that they don't have
to
think about the past and the future). And also by biting the hands that
feed
them;
by insulting and belittling them, by heaping scorn and abuse and very
heavy
stones, upon them. They have a thousand different ways of killing them
(it's
a skill don't you know). And when they're not busy with *that*, by always
and
everywhere ignoring them as much as possible; because everybody knows
that
the prophets are obviously incidental and irrelevant. Same like always.
.
Thus
the good-news today is that the prophets are still with us after three
and
a half
thousand years of endless abuse and neglect! Even here and now in the
"secular"
and "enlightened" 21st century they can be found all over the globe
(and
even on the net). The bad news is that because no one believes in prophets
anymore,
there is no one left who is able to recognize them in ANY of their
various
roles and literary-expressions. That's a rather amazing fact when you
consider
some of the implications of this. And why? Because people want to
believe
- almost desperately it seems - that theey do NOT need the prophets to
show
them the way ahead. And so this refusal to accept the way-things-are
generates
a colossal-blind-spot that is rooted in what is essentially a mistaken
perception,
a simple oversight; and a thing easily rectified by a simple act of will.
.
Yet
Christianity, the one Faith among all the world-religions that ought to
most
eagerly champion the cause of the prophets, is (paradoxically and self-
destructively)
the one most determined to do away with them altogether, to blot
them
out of History (as the priests did to Akhenaten). And why? For exactly
the
same
reasons; then as now, because tradition (Glorious Tradition) tells them
that
they can rely on their 'Kings & Priests' (and on their own judgment/reading
of
the sacred texts) for all the power and authority that they'll ever need,
now
and
forevermore, amen.
.
And
yet the entire course of History as it is known today can hardly be under-
stood
as anything other than the story of the refutation (not to mention the
consequences
of the rejection of this refutation) of this totally-lame notion
that
prophets aren't real, and therefore can't possibly exist. But the prophetic
tradition,
right from the very dawn of recorded history, says that they do exist!
Akhenaten,
Moses, Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, Muhammad; these are the men
that
changed the course of history and stamped their influence into the minds
of
billions of people all over the world.
.
And
these are just the tip of the prophetic iceberg. The prophetic tradition
also
includes
many of the greatest writers and thinkers known to history (both secular
and
religious). Christianity alone has seen hundreds of them throughout church-
history;
from Paul to Augustine to Aquinas to Tolstoy. What is there about all
this
that doesn't add up? It is, after all, an awful lot to just 'overlook'
or casually
misplace.
But if the prophets are, even so, so hard to see, it's certainly not their
fault.
They are not being coy; they are not shy to communicate their vision to
anyone
and everyone. No, you have to *really* want to NOT see them; and you
have
to want it BAD!
x
textman
*