Daydream Bazaar (USA): Acid

[PratchettFan]

Lets use the same story.

The wealth of the rich man and his many possessions are not necessarily about monetary wealth or material possessions.

When he came to Jesus he said he followed the entire law ever since he was a boy and asked where was he lacking. When Jesus told he to sell everything he had, give to the poor, and follow him Jesus was telling the man to divest from everything he had been taught since childhood, and follow the law in the way that Jesus taught and he would receive the eternal life promised for obedience.

The man went away with a heavy heart because he had many possessions which indicates that he was a rabbi who headed a congregation or following of many people that supported him that he would have to face and admit that everything they had learned from him was in error.

A very hard row to hoe, yet not impossible according to Jesus.

He was telling the man he needed to give up what he valued, to change his priorities. We can argue as to whether you are assuming too much in this, but even taking your point for granted I still don't see how that changes the meaning of the story.

It changes the meaning of the story by changing the subject of what Jesus told the man to sell off from monetary wealth to everything he had invested in believing since he was a boy which was the literal application of the law, the basis for his security and pride and probable source of income as a man of many possessions, followers..

Selling material possessions would leave a person destitute, clearing the mind from the wealth of lifelong dearly held beliefs leaves a person open to receive a new way to understand life and live.

Yes. But I got that out of the story without the added assumptions. Things are just things. It is our attachment to things which weighs us down. In the story the man was unable to give up those attachments and inserting the information that included being a Rabbi does not really make much of a difference to the point. Whatever the attachments were, he was unable to walk away from them. Thus, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Can you point to another example?

 

[hobelim]

He was telling the man he needed to give up what he valued, to change his priorities. We can argue as to whether you are assuming too much in this, but even taking your point for granted I still don't see how that changes the meaning of the story.

It changes the meaning of the story by changing the subject of what Jesus told the man to sell off from monetary wealth to everything he had invested in believing since he was a boy which was the literal application of the law, the basis for his security and pride and probable source of income as a man of many possessions, followers..

Selling material possessions would leave a person destitute, clearing the mind from the wealth of lifelong dearly held beliefs leaves a person open to receive a new way to understand life and live.

Yes. But I got that out of the story without the added assumptions. Things are just things. It is our attachment to things which weighs us down. In the story the man was unable to give up those attachments and inserting the information that included being a Rabbi does not really make much of a difference to the point. Whatever the attachments were, he was unable to walk away from them. Thus, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Can you point to another example?

Yes, but lets first recap. We are basically in agreement about the subject of the story being about the difficulty in walking away from attachments. Where we differ is in reading into the subject of the mans wealth. I think it matters. Either those attachments are about money and material possessions or the security and status derived from a belief that his righteousness and place in the world to come was assured by his lifelong compliance with a literal application of the Law..

When Jesus told the man to sell off everything he owned and to follow him I doubt Jesus was asking the man to become destitute and follow him around the countryside. It seems much more likely to me that Jesus was telling the man to sell off everything he had bought into about the literal application of the law and to follow him in his teaching about the figurative nature and hidden subjects of the law.

Many people read this story and think that to demonstrate faith in Jesus one must embrace poverty and wander around homeless and in doing so needlessly bring upon themselves great evil and much suffering without ever doing what Jesus said and ridding themselves of the beliefs that make it impossible for them to pass through the eye of the needle.

Another example would be the story of the temptation where it says that Jesus was led away by the spirit and tempted by the devil in the wilderness and lived among the wild beasts.

A simple reading of the story seems to indicate the Jesus was a lonely aesthetic living in the desert among the wildlife having auditory and visual hallucinations.

However, the wilderness is an known OT metaphor for lawless non Jewish places and wild beasts are also a known OT metaphor for the brutish people of other nations that acted more like violent unthinking animals than civilized human beings.

so either Jesus was having a psychotic episode or he was running around with the Romans doing what Romans do.

Again, I say that it matters.

 

[PratchettFan]

It changes the meaning of the story by changing the subject of what Jesus told the man to sell off from monetary wealth to everything he had invested in believing since he was a boy which was the literal application of the law, the basis for his security and pride and probable source of income as a man of many possessions, followers..

Selling material possessions would leave a person destitute, clearing the mind from the wealth of lifelong dearly held beliefs leaves a person open to receive a new way to understand life and live.

Yes. But I got that out of the story without the added assumptions. Things are just things. It is our attachment to things which weighs us down. In the story the man was unable to give up those attachments and inserting the information that included being a Rabbi does not really make much of a difference to the point. Whatever the attachments were, he was unable to walk away from them. Thus, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Can you point to another example?

Yes, but lets first recap. We are basically in agreement about the subject of the story being about the difficulty in walking away from attachments. Where we differ is in reading into the subject of the mans wealth. I think it matters. Either those attachments are about money and material possessions or the security and status derived from a belief that his righteousness and place in the world to come was assured by his lifelong compliance with a literal application of the Law..

When Jesus told the man to sell off everything he owned and to follow him I doubt Jesus was asking the man to become destitute and follow him around the countryside. It seems much more likely to me that Jesus was telling the man to sell off everything he had bought into about the literal application of the law and to follow him in his teaching about the figurative nature and hidden subjects of the law.

Many people read this story and think that to demonstrate faith in Jesus one must embrace poverty and wander around homeless and in doing so needlessly bring upon themselves great evil and much suffering without ever doing what Jesus said and ridding themselves of the beliefs that make it impossible for them to pass through the eye of the needle.

Another example would be the story of the temptation where it says that Jesus was led away by the spirit and tempted by the devil in the wilderness and lived among the wild beasts.

A simple reading of the story seems to indicate the Jesus was a lonely aesthetic living in the desert among the wildlife having auditory and visual hallucinations.

However, the wilderness is an known OT metaphor for lawless non Jewish places and wild beasts are also a known OT metaphor for the brutish people of other nations that acted more like violent unthinking animals than civilized human beings.

so either Jesus was having a psychotic episode or he was running around with the Romans doing what Romans do.

Again, I say that it matters.

But I think that is exactly what Jesus was saying. It is, in fact, what almost all of the great religious teachers have been saying. If you wish to follow a path of spirituality, then you have to walk away from those things which hold you back. If you go back and read that story again you will see that initially Jesus only told the man to follow the commandments, but the man himself did not think it was enough. He kept pressing the issue. He as much as admitted that he was feeling trapped by his possessions and in the end it was his possessions which possessed him. Jesus was showing him how to become free, but only the man could do it for himself.

We can disagree on the meaning of that story, but again the nature of the attachments don't seem to matter to that meaning. Whether the attachment is to comfort, money, power, public attention or narcotics, ultimately it is the same thing. The possessor becomes the possessed.

 

[hobelim]

Yes. But I got that out of the story without the added assumptions. Things are just things. It is our attachment to things which weighs us down. In the story the man was unable to give up those attachments and inserting the information that included being a Rabbi does not really make much of a difference to the point. Whatever the attachments were, he was unable to walk away from them. Thus, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Can you point to another example?

Yes, but lets first recap. We are basically in agreement about the subject of the story being about the difficulty in walking away from attachments. Where we differ is in reading into the subject of the mans wealth. I think it matters. Either those attachments are about money and material possessions or the security and status derived from a belief that his righteousness and place in the world to come was assured by his lifelong compliance with a literal application of the Law..

When Jesus told the man to sell off everything he owned and to follow him I doubt Jesus was asking the man to become destitute and follow him around the countryside. It seems much more likely to me that Jesus was telling the man to sell off everything he had bought into about the literal application of the law and to follow him in his teaching about the figurative nature and hidden subjects of the law.

Many people read this story and think that to demonstrate faith in Jesus one must embrace poverty and wander around homeless and in doing so needlessly bring upon themselves great evil and much suffering without ever doing what Jesus said and ridding themselves of the beliefs that make it impossible for them to pass through the eye of the needle.

Another example would be the story of the temptation where it says that Jesus was led away by the spirit and tempted by the devil in the wilderness and lived among the wild beasts.

A simple reading of the story seems to indicate the Jesus was a lonely aesthetic living in the desert among the wildlife having auditory and visual hallucinations.

However, the wilderness is an known OT metaphor for lawless non Jewish places and wild beasts are also a known OT metaphor for the brutish people of other nations that acted more like violent unthinking animals than civilized human beings.

so either Jesus was having a psychotic episode or he was running around with the Romans doing what Romans do.

Again, I say that it matters.

But I think that is exactly what Jesus was saying. It is, in fact, what almost all of the great religious teachers have been saying. If you wish to follow a path of spirituality, then you have to walk away from those things which hold you back. If you go back and read that story again you will see that initially Jesus only told the man to follow the commandments, but the man himself did not think it was enough. He kept pressing the issue. He as much as admitted that he was feeling trapped by his possessions and in the end it was his possessions which possessed him. Jesus was showing him how to become free, but only the man could do it for himself.

We can disagree on the meaning of that story, but again the nature of the attachments don't seem to matter to that meaning. Whether the attachment is to comfort, money, power, public attention or narcotics, ultimately it is the same thing. The possessor becomes the possessed.

I understand and agree to a certain extent because I know where you are coming from but further stories about Jesus having a reputation for being a glutton and a drunk and for liking to party with sinners and prostitutes and all sorts of bad characters supports my position that he was not a lonely aesthetic with no money having hallucinations but was living in a Roman town doing what Romans do.

The was a completely Roman town under construction during the entire missing 18 years of Jesus' life only four miles from Nazareth.

 

[PratchettFan]

It changes the meaning of the story by changing the subject of what Jesus told the man to sell off from monetary wealth to everything he had invested in believing since he was a boy which was the literal application of the law, the basis for his security and pride and probable source of income as a man of many possessions, followers..

Selling material possessions would leave a person destitute, clearing the mind from the wealth of lifelong dearly held beliefs leaves a person open to receive a new way to understand life and live.

Yes. But I got that out of the story without the added assumptions. Things are just things. It is our attachment to things which weighs us down. In the story the man was unable to give up those attachments and inserting the information that included being a Rabbi does not really make much of a difference to the point. Whatever the attachments were, he was unable to walk away from them. Thus, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Can you point to another example?

Yes, but lets first recap. We are basically in agreement about the subject of the story being about the difficulty in walking away from attachments. Where we differ is in reading into the subject of the mans wealth. I think it matters. Either those attachments are about money and material possessions or the security and status derived from a belief that his righteousness and place in the world to come was assured by his lifelong compliance with a literal application of the Law..

When Jesus told the man to sell off everything he owned and to follow him I doubt Jesus was asking the man to become destitute and follow him around the countryside. It seems much more likely to me that Jesus was telling the man to sell off everything he had bought into about the literal application of the law and to follow him in his teaching about the figurative nature and hidden subjects of the law.

Many people read this story and think that to demonstrate faith in Jesus one must embrace poverty and wander around homeless and in doing so needlessly bring upon themselves great evil and much suffering without ever doing what Jesus said and ridding themselves of the beliefs that make it impossible for them to pass through the eye of the needle.

Another example would be the story of the temptation where it says that Jesus was led away by the spirit and tempted by the devil in the wilderness and lived among the wild beasts.

A simple reading of the story seems to indicate the Jesus was a lonely aesthetic living in the desert among the wildlife having auditory and visual hallucinations.

However, the wilderness is an known OT metaphor for lawless non Jewish places and wild beasts are also a known OT metaphor for the brutish people of other nations that acted more like violent unthinking animals than civilized human beings.

so either Jesus was having a psychotic episode or he was running around with the Romans doing what Romans do.

Again, I say that it matters.

Now let me deal with your second example. You may be right, though I see a second possibility as more likely.

It is not at all unknown for religious teachers to go off by themselves for periods of time. Jesus went into the desert because, to be fair, there really wasn't anything else in the region to go off into. Such people will fast, eat different varieties of cacti or mushrooms, sit in a cave and generally try to get in touch with whatever higher power they are trying to get in touch with. Wrestling with the devil is little more than a euphemism of struggling with our own demons - something we all do.

But let us take all three possible options, the story is literally true, the story is about being in non-Jewish areas and the story is about him sitting in a small cave starving himself into visions.... How does one story or another change the message he came back with?

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, but lets first recap. We are basically in agreement about the subject of the story being about the difficulty in walking away from attachments. Where we differ is in reading into the subject of the mans wealth. I think it matters. Either those attachments are about money and material possessions or the security and status derived from a belief that his righteousness and place in the world to come was assured by his lifelong compliance with a literal application of the Law..

When Jesus told the man to sell off everything he owned and to follow him I doubt Jesus was asking the man to become destitute and follow him around the countryside. It seems much more likely to me that Jesus was telling the man to sell off everything he had bought into about the literal application of the law and to follow him in his teaching about the figurative nature and hidden subjects of the law.

Many people read this story and think that to demonstrate faith in Jesus one must embrace poverty and wander around homeless and in doing so needlessly bring upon themselves great evil and much suffering without ever doing what Jesus said and ridding themselves of the beliefs that make it impossible for them to pass through the eye of the needle.

Another example would be the story of the temptation where it says that Jesus was led away by the spirit and tempted by the devil in the wilderness and lived among the wild beasts.

A simple reading of the story seems to indicate the Jesus was a lonely aesthetic living in the desert among the wildlife having auditory and visual hallucinations.

However, the wilderness is an known OT metaphor for lawless non Jewish places and wild beasts are also a known OT metaphor for the brutish people of other nations that acted more like violent unthinking animals than civilized human beings.

so either Jesus was having a psychotic episode or he was running around with the Romans doing what Romans do.

Again, I say that it matters.

But I think that is exactly what Jesus was saying. It is, in fact, what almost all of the great religious teachers have been saying. If you wish to follow a path of spirituality, then you have to walk away from those things which hold you back. If you go back and read that story again you will see that initially Jesus only told the man to follow the commandments, but the man himself did not think it was enough. He kept pressing the issue. He as much as admitted that he was feeling trapped by his possessions and in the end it was his possessions which possessed him. Jesus was showing him how to become free, but only the man could do it for himself.

We can disagree on the meaning of that story, but again the nature of the attachments don't seem to matter to that meaning. Whether the attachment is to comfort, money, power, public attention or narcotics, ultimately it is the same thing. The possessor becomes the possessed.

I understand and agree to a certain extent because I know where you are coming from but further stories about Jesus having a reputation for being a glutton and a drunk and for liking to party with sinners and prostitutes and all sorts of bad characters supports my position that he was not a lonely aesthetic with no money having hallucinations but was living in a Roman town doing what Romans do.

The was a completely Roman town under construction during the entire missing 18 years of Jesus' life only four miles from Nazareth.

Yes. But was he attached to those things or simply enjoying the moment? It isn't about the stuff, it is about the power the stuff holds over us.

 

[hobelim]

But I think that is exactly what Jesus was saying. It is, in fact, what almost all of the great religious teachers have been saying. If you wish to follow a path of spirituality, then you have to walk away from those things which hold you back. If you go back and read that story again you will see that initially Jesus only told the man to follow the commandments, but the man himself did not think it was enough. He kept pressing the issue. He as much as admitted that he was feeling trapped by his possessions and in the end it was his possessions which possessed him. Jesus was showing him how to become free, but only the man could do it for himself.

We can disagree on the meaning of that story, but again the nature of the attachments don't seem to matter to that meaning. Whether the attachment is to comfort, money, power, public attention or narcotics, ultimately it is the same thing. The possessor becomes the possessed.

I understand and agree to a certain extent because I know where you are coming from but further stories about Jesus having a reputation for being a glutton and a drunk and for liking to party with sinners and prostitutes and all sorts of bad characters supports my position that he was not a lonely aesthetic with no money having hallucinations but was living in a Roman town doing what Romans do.

The was a completely Roman town under construction during the entire missing 18 years of Jesus' life only four miles from Nazareth.

Yes. But was he attached to those things or simply enjoying the moment? It isn't about the stuff, it is about the power the stuff holds over us.

The story is about one thing or another.

the missing years obscured by the phrase,"he lived among the wild beasts" was the first century equivalent of what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

It matters whether he was in the desert having hallucinations or living in a roman town doing what Romans do.

How many people have become destitute and have brought unimaginable suffering upon themselves because they failed to understand the figurative language and deeper implications of these stories and may have no money but still have not rid themselves from the error of thinking that Jesus was telling the man to become homeless and embrace poverty and have not grasped that the right or wrong application of the law was the subject of what to sell or follow?

 

[PratchettFan]

I understand and agree to a certain extent because I know where you are coming from but further stories about Jesus having a reputation for being a glutton and a drunk and for liking to party with sinners and prostitutes and all sorts of bad characters supports my position that he was not a lonely aesthetic with no money having hallucinations but was living in a Roman town doing what Romans do.

The was a completely Roman town under construction during the entire missing 18 years of Jesus' life only four miles from Nazareth.

Yes. But was he attached to those things or simply enjoying the moment? It isn't about the stuff, it is about the power the stuff holds over us.

The story is about one thing or another.

the missing years obscured by the phrase,"he lived among the wild beasts" was the first century equivalent of what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

It matters whether he was in the desert having hallucinations or living in a roman town doing what Romans do.

How many people have become destitute and have brought unimaginable suffering upon themselves because they failed to understand the figurative language and deeper implications of these stories and may have no money but still have not rid themselves from the error of thinking that Jesus was telling the man to become homeless and embrace poverty and have not grasped that the right or wrong application of the law was the subject of what to sell or follow?

I really don't see why it matters at all. He went somewhere, did something and came back. What he did when he came back does not change because of it.

In answer to your question.... none.

 

[hobelim]

Yes. But was he attached to those things or simply enjoying the moment? It isn't about the stuff, it is about the power the stuff holds over us.

The story is about one thing or another.

the missing years obscured by the phrase,"he lived among the wild beasts" was the first century equivalent of what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

It matters whether he was in the desert having hallucinations or living in a roman town doing what Romans do.

How many people have become destitute and have brought unimaginable suffering upon themselves because they failed to understand the figurative language and deeper implications of these stories and may have no money but still have not rid themselves from the error of thinking that Jesus was telling the man to become homeless and embrace poverty and have not grasped that the right or wrong application of the law was the subject of what to sell or follow?

I really don't see why it matters at all. He went somewhere, did something and came back. What he did when he came back does not change because of it.

In answer to your question.... none.

I see.

Like Jesus said, It would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.....

 

[PratchettFan]

The story is about one thing or another.

the missing years obscured by the phrase,"he lived among the wild beasts" was the first century equivalent of what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

It matters whether he was in the desert having hallucinations or living in a roman town doing what Romans do.

How many people have become destitute and have brought unimaginable suffering upon themselves because they failed to understand the figurative language and deeper implications of these stories and may have no money but still have not rid themselves from the error of thinking that Jesus was telling the man to become homeless and embrace poverty and have not grasped that the right or wrong application of the law was the subject of what to sell or follow?

I really don't see why it matters at all. He went somewhere, did something and came back. What he did when he came back does not change because of it.

In answer to your question.... none.

I see.

Like Jesus said, It would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.....

Quite.