Subject: Re: Easter
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002
From: Flash Light
To: Dr. Sophronius
Dear Dr. Sophronius,
Fighting for your job? Has something happened since the last time we
spoke? You told me then that you seemed to have enough votes for tenure.
As to tabling our discussion for two years, I wouldn't count on that. My
father did not live two years beyond the age I'm at now. Nor did my
grandfather, nor great-grandfather. I respect your decision to focus on
worldly concerns, but I will respond now and you can reply at your
leisure. (It will take leisure; this e-mail isn't going to be a quick
read.)
The points you raise are interesting, but quite different from the ones
I addressed. Let me speak to your points first: 1) evolution vs.
creationism and 2) the origin of monotheism vs. polytheism.
On the issue of evolution, you contradict yourself. You wrote, "one
could substitute the word "Fred" in any discussion and be no wiser.
Fish have Fredded from birds or vice versa. When the niche is gone so
is the whatever! You can be the fittest rhino going, take away the
Serengetti (or wherever they live) and they're carrion."
Evolution, unlike Fred, is a scientific theory, and hence allows
predictions, which can be used to test that theory. Evolution theorizes
that species evolve in the attempt to adapt to habitats. Hence evolution
predicts that the rhino, if its habitat changes, will either evolve or
become extinct, yielding to species which are better at evolving. Fred
didn't allow you to predict the extinction of the rhino if its habitat
disappears, evolution did. Evolution explains, quite persuasively, the
extinction of countless species. The fossil record shows birds evolved
from dinosaurs, which evolved from lizards, which evolved from
amphibians, which evolved from fish, not vice versa.
Creationism is hard pressed to explain
why a Creator would create countless species, only to allow them to
become extinct. Not to mention the fact that the fossil record shows
millions of years passed before man showed up on earth, whereas the
biblical account requires us to believe it all happened in seven days.
Your friends appear to be ahead of you on this one: the only reasonable
way to reconcile the idea of a Creator with the fossil record, is to
assume that a Creator used evolution as the means of creation.
In fact, the biblical accounts themselves demonstrate that the story was
not meant to be taken literally, because there are two contradictory
accounts in Genesis. For example, the first account in Genesis I claims
the plants were created before man, and the whole process took 7 days.
The second account, in Genesis 2, claims the plants were created after
man, to feed him, and the time line is vague. You wouldn't know it from
reading the RSV, but the God of Genesis I was called Elohim, whereas the
God of Genesis 2 was Yahweh. The first version was probably Babylonian
because the sequence of creation is tied to the sequence of gods in the
Babylonian week, e.g. Nergal, a pastoral god, was the name of the third
day of the week, while Nabu, god of the heavens, was the name of the
fourth day. Hence in Genesis I, vegetation is created on the third day,
and the sun and stars on the fourth. The second version, in Genesis 2
was apparently an earlier version, perhaps Edomite in origin. The beliefs
eventually merged, and Elohim Yahweh became God's name, but the RSV
renders Elohim as God and Elohim Yahweh as Lord God.
As to "monotheism," if by "monotheism" you mean the worship of Elohim or
Yahweh, then I must agree that this seems to have begun at roughly the
same time as polytheism, and belief in all the other ancient gods.
However, if by monotheism you mean, "the doctrine of the existence of
only one God" (as my dictionary defines it), that belief appears to have
taken hold only relatively recently. It does not appear to be supported
by the Old Testament. As I've pointed out before, the first commandment
states, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." It does not suggest
there are no other gods, only that Yahweh is a "jealous god," and didn't
want His followers worshiping those other gods.
In the time of King Solomon, we read that Solomon was told polytheists
were worshipping in the temple, and he was asked what to do. "Say Amen,"
he replied, suggesting that at his time the modern definition of
monotheism had still not taken hold.
The first appearance of modern monotheism seems to have been in the
reign of the pharaoh Akenaten, but that involved Aten, a sun god, not
Yahweh, and Akenaten's intolerance did not survive him, because his son,
Tutankhamen, returned Egypt to the ancient polytheistic beliefs.
I suspect that the modern idea of monotheism centered on Yahweh began
with the intolerance of Paul, but the first clear evidence for it seems
to be the closing of the Pagan temples by the Greco-Roman emperor
Theodosius. That would mean this definition of monotheism clearly
postdates polytheism.
But, as you say, so what? These questions, interesting though they may
be, were not of great concern to me, and are very different from
the questions I was pointing out, namely whether the entire myth of
Christ was simply taken "whole cloth," from earlier Pagan beliefs. This
is very different from the question of monotheism vs. polytheism, or
evolution vs. creationism.
It had been clear to me from my reading of ancient Egyptian myths that
the idea of the resurrection preceded Christianity. I had suggested that
Christ became aware of this idea while He was in Egypt. Now, however,
the evidence seems to show that all aspects of the Christ myth were
taken from earlier belief systems, from the virgin birth, right through
to the crucifixion and resurrection. Surely it must give any Christian
pause to learn that the entire story of the life of Christ was
plagiarized!
Following is an excerpt from "Pagan and Christian Creeds," by Edward
Carpenter (c. 1915), "I cannot of course go at length into these
different cults, but I may say roughly that of all or nearly all the
deities above-mentioned it was said and believed that:
(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.
(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.
(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.
(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.
(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer,
Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer.
(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of
Darkness.
(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.
(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the
pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world.
(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches
into which disciples were received by Baptism.
(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic
meals.
Let me give a few brief examples.
Mithra was born in a cave, and on the 25th December.
He was born of a Virgin. He traveled far and wide as
a teacher and illuminator of men. He slew the Bull
(symbol of the gross Earth which the sunlight fructifies).
His great festivals were the winter solstice and the Spring
equinox (Christmas and Easter). He had twelve companions
or disciples (the twelve months). He was buried
in a tomb, from which however he rose again; and his
resurrection was celebrated yearly with great rejoicings. He
was called Savior and Mediator, and sometimes figured as
a Lamb; and sacramental feasts in remembrance of him were
held by his followers. . . "
But then this is only a cause for concern if one tries to understand the
logic of it: Is it that Christ was aware of these older myths and
attempted to embody them? Is that His followers conflated the older
myths with memories of Christ? Is it that the myth of Christ was patched
together from older myths by the early Christians much the way Mohammed
patched together Islam from older myths (including the Christian and
Hebrew ones)? Or is it, as early Christians contended, that Satan
created the earlier myths to discredit Christ when he finally arrived?
The selection of December 25th seems to have been a deliberate attempt
by early Christians to "ride the coat tails" of earlier myths. You must
agree it isn't based on anything in the Gospels. As to the other issues,
most Christians will not be concerned with such questions. They simply
believe in the Christ myth, and have no interest in applying reason to
their feelings, much as some people still believe in Creationism,
despite all the logical evidence for Evolution.
I argue that such feelings are the result of having been
programmed in childhood to use certain myths as an "operating system."
A computer doesn't question why it's running Windows, or Unix, or Linux.
It simply accepts the program it was given and operates on that basis.
In this manner, what we learn from studying AI (artificial intelligence)
helps us understand the mechanisms of human intelligence, and why humans
operate the way they do: simply accepting the myths their parents taught
them.
As a Logical Pantheist, I believe the value of a belief system to a
human is similar to the value of an operating system to a computer. None
of us can function without our operating system. As a sociologist you
should be able to compare those systems without having to assume one is
"correct," or even that the idea of a "correct" belief system is
applicable. Rather, the issues are whether a belief system meets the
needs of its followers, and avoids destructive tendencies (e.g.
religious wars, persecutions, etc.) On this basis it appears to me that
polytheism is superior to monotheism in avoiding the consequences of
intolerance. And indeed it is only the most pernicious aspects of
monotheism (burning heretics, etc.) that has allowed monotheism to
(temporarily) gain the upper hand over polytheism.
I imagine you want to save my soul from damnation, so you should
understand why I want to save your soul from the intolerance, biased
beliefs, and distortions of history programmed into it by your Christian
upbringing. Slim chance, I admit, but at least I can try to appeal to
the light of reason kindled by your sociological training to ask you to
see your own cultural background from the perspective of a sociologist.
Compare beliefs of all existing cultures, as well as all ancient ones.
Where then can Unitarianism stand, except as one of many beliefs among
equals? How can a sociologist claim objectivity and yet cling to the
assumption that of all belief systems in the world, she happened to have
been born into the one which is correct?
From the point of view of a sociologist you needn't worry that
different cultures have "incorrect" beliefs. Mithra saves! Anubis saves!
Jesus saves! All of these beliefs are equally valid, each having
accomplished salvation from fear in the culture it developed in.
As you write your reply, see if you can use your Sociological operating
system to dictate your responses in equal measure with your Unitarian
operating system.
Peace and love,
Flash
P.S. Remember the way I posted my correspondence with Bob Sturm on the
Cosmology.ws website? I'd like to do the same on the Logical Pantheism
websitewith our correspondence concerning metaphysical issues.
I understand why worldly questions are paramount for you now, but from
my perspective as an artist, nothing is more important than our inquiry
into metaphysical questions, and the web seems an ideal medium for
publishing such an inquiry.
P.P.S.: Where in the RSV do you find support for being cremated? That is
a practice taken from Buddhist, and Hindu beliefs. I don't recall any
references to cremation in the Bible. Rather there are references to God
raising the dead from their bones. Hence the importance of preserving
bones in Judaism and Christianity. Why are you willing to take such a
risk with your chances of resurrection when it does not appear
consistent with the literal teachings of the Bible, RSV or not?