Paradox; the meek shall inherit the Earth

[rousseau]

That was a long warm up. Here's my point. Saying that the meek shall inherit the Earth, is self contradictory. Jesus isn't humble at all. He's saying that he wants to inherit the Earth. He wants power. He wants everything the masters want and that by pretending and acting humble the meek will eventually get it. That's just disingenuous. And an excellent example of the inner workings of Slave Morality.

Thoughts?

So I'm suggesting that if... just maybe... Jesus was a "oneness" contemplative too, like Traherne and some other "mystics", then he wasn't talking about the literal earth being literally given by a distant, alien god to some select believers in a far-distant future. But if this suggestion is wrong, if Jesus was talking about that, then obviously he was engaged in the kind of compensatory deception that I mentioned.

I was thinking along the same lines. There does seem to be a tendency in how Christianity is actually practiced where believers feel they'll be rewarded in the next life. Do the right things now and in the end your pain and suffering will be no more.

I know what you mean, but I don't really see Christianity practiced that way. There is a 'oneness' element, but the oneness is colored by God and serves heaven belief. It's hard to know what the phrase actually meant, but if you go by the literal definition of the words the 'it's ok if you're suffering now, you'll be rewarded later' meaning plainly stands out. This overarching theme seems to be why Christianity became so popular, and why it's still popular. It offers salvation to anyone who wants it, and you don't even really have to do anything.

 

[abaddon]

but I don't really see Christianity practiced that way

Right. But so? People can see it the standard way and get a little comfort out of the deceptive promises about a future that won't happen. Or, they can choose to see it more like that Traherne quote, and enhance their firstperson experience of life, and that way the promise of "heaven" happens now instead of in daydream land. Being merely descriptive about how most people through history were wrong isn't interesting. It's the rarer understanding, where it's made to be sensible, that is interesting (at least to me).

The OP is stuck on the idea of "control". He wants a good life where he can wear whatever sweater he wants and be a narcissistic adolescent about it. In this way of seeing, everything's competition and comparison. So the insecurity is there too, in forever comparing one's self against other selves and wondering in what ways you fall short of a lofty goal. So these "masters" are as engaged in compensation as the future-oriented daydreamers.

Anyway, the phrases "given to you" and "inherit the world" don't necessarily mean "possess" or "dominate" or "be the masters of". That's someone applying their ready-made social conventions to the interpretation. The first, surface impression of what words mean isn't necessary correct (even if it's the standard among most humans).

 

[rousseau]

but I don't really see Christianity practiced that way

Right. But so? People can see it the standard way and get a little comfort out of the deceptive promises about a future that won't happen. Or, they can choose to see it more like that Traherne quote, and enhance their firstperson experience of life, and that way the promise of "heaven" happens now instead of in daydream land. Being merely descriptive about how most people through history were wrong isn't interesting. It's the rarer understanding, where it's made to be sensible, that is interesting (at least to me).

The OP is stuck on the idea of "control". He wants a good life where he can wear whatever sweater he wants and be a narcissistic adolescent about it. In this way of seeing, everything's competition and comparison. So the insecurity is there too, in forever comparing one's self against other selves and wondering in what ways you fall short of a lofty goal. So these "masters" are as engaged in compensation as the future-oriented daydreamers.

Anyway, the phrases "given to you" and "inherit the world" don't necessarily mean "possess" or "dominate" or "be the masters of". That's someone applying their ready-made social conventions to the interpretation. The first, surface impression of what words mean isn't necessary correct (even if it's the standard among most humans).

In my view, ultimately, most belief systems are geared to move us toward salvation, but via different approaches. What makes some more popular than others is there effectiveness in doing so - which all of the world's major religions achieve.

But at the end of the day they all just emanate from a different person devising a novel solution. The Christian solution, for the most part, is about submitting to God, divinity being God, and being rewarded in the afterlife. Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to try to shove the Buddhist/Hinduist template on top of Christianity. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Christianity, that Christianity doesn't color the here and now, or that it's in any way less of a spiritual experience, but for the most part it's a different approach, and Christian followers lead their lives in a very particular way.

Where I think the Taoist / Buddhist / Vedanta approach literally gets us closer to real salvation in the here and now, as far as that's possible. They're oriented to life as actually lived, and as we actually exist.

Both are satisfying, but different approaches.

 

[abaddon]

Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to try to shove the Buddhist/Hinduist template on top of Christianity.

That's why I quoted a Christian instead of a Buddhist, to let a Christian tell what being "heir to the whole world" means to him as a Christian. Are you implying Traherne was a secret Buddhist and got Christianity wrong?

 

[rousseau]

Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to try to shove the Buddhist/Hinduist template on top of Christianity.

That's why I quoted a Christian instead of a Buddhist, to let a Christian tell what being "heir to the whole world" means to him as a Christian. Are you implying Traherne was a secret Buddhist and got Christianity wrong?

What I took from your post was an allusion to the kind of oneness that's achieved in the more atheistic brands of religion. Where I think the quote you posted isn't actually that unusual from the Christian perspective. Probably his interpretation would resonate with most Christians even if they weren't able to express it in the same way. Christians very much see a divine totality, this is a part of the overall package of God belief.

But generally I agree that the OP goes a little too far in interpreting the whole as selfish and demonstrating a lack of humility. Maybe an expectation of reward is a part of it, and without the reward the belief ceases to be Christianity, but there is definitely more to it than the expectation. That's maybe what you're getting at?

 

[Politesse]

So I'm suggesting that if... just maybe... Jesus was a "oneness" contemplative too, like Traherne and some other "mystics", then he wasn't talking about the literal earth being literally given by a distant, alien god to some select believers in a far-distant future.

His teaching don't really make sense when you try to put so much eschatological baggage on them, but it doesn't seem to stop them from trying.

 

[steve_bank]

Christianity comes down to the resurrection in the gospels and faith in an afterlife.

It was and is now exploited by the RCC to wield power. The only way to heaven is through the RCC, unless the catechism has chnaged.

Jesus loves me and I will spend eternity in that love with Jesus....

 

[abaddon]

What I took from your post was an allusion to the kind of oneness that's achieved in the more atheistic brands of religion.

No I never intended that. Because I don't think it's "achieved" only in them. I think it's universal. Nonduality seems more clearly presented in nontheistic traditions because theism-speak tends to make people think of far away beings in far away places. So theistic religions look very dualistic, and generally are ... But it's not necessary that they are.

Where I think the quote you posted isn't actually that unusual from the Christian perspective. Probably his interpretation would resonate with most Christians even if they weren't able to express it in the same way. Christians very much see a divine totality, this is a part of the overall package of God belief.

The OP isn't wrong about how silly the common understanding is about "end-times" when a Really Big Person is going to hand it all over to the faithful believers.

I went looking for some wise Christians because of how very unwise the common rabble is. Traherne seems pretty different to me. So does Meister Eckhart, who might have got burned for being a different sort of Christian if he'd lived just a few more years. These guys, with what can look something like a Buddhist or Advaitin slant to their Christianity, do seem to be different.

But generally I agree that the OP goes a little too far in interpreting the whole as selfish and demonstrating a lack of humility. Maybe an expectation of reward is a part of it, and without the reward the belief ceases to be Christianity, but there is definitely more to it than the expectation. That's maybe what you're getting at?

Most Christians miss the best thing in their own religion. It's not the literalist take about a distant god and a distant heaven. It's the framework that revisions THIS world through new, transformed, "spiritual" eyes.

So, my points were 1) the "overman" stuff is compensatory fantasy too. And 2) the usual interpretation by taking words at face value is not the one single way that religious texts must be understood. People miss the better things in religion when they let the literalist types define the terms.

 

[steve_bank]

If they inherit the Earth the inhertnce taxes will be huge.

 

[rousseau]

What I took from your post was an allusion to the kind of oneness that's achieved in the more atheistic brands of religion.

No I never intended that. Because I don't think it's "achieved" only in them. I think it's universal. Nonduality seems more clearly presented in nontheistic traditions because theism-speak tends to make people think of far away beings in far away places. So theistic religions look very dualistic, and generally are ... But it's not necessary that they are.

Where I think the quote you posted isn't actually that unusual from the Christian perspective. Probably his interpretation would resonate with most Christians even if they weren't able to express it in the same way. Christians very much see a divine totality, this is a part of the overall package of God belief.

The OP isn't wrong about how silly the common understanding is about "end-times" when a Really Big Person is going to hand it all over to the faithful believers.

I went looking for some wise Christians because of how very unwise the common rabble is. Traherne seems pretty different to me. So does Meister Eckhart, who might have got burned for being a different sort of Christian if he'd lived just a few more years. These guys, with what can look something like a Buddhist or Advaitin slant to their Christianity, do seem to be different.

But generally I agree that the OP goes a little too far in interpreting the whole as selfish and demonstrating a lack of humility. Maybe an expectation of reward is a part of it, and without the reward the belief ceases to be Christianity, but there is definitely more to it than the expectation. That's maybe what you're getting at?

Most Christians miss the best thing in their own religion. It's not the literalist take about a distant god and a distant heaven. It's the framework that revisions THIS world through new, transformed, "spiritual" eyes.

So, my points were 1) the "overman" stuff is compensatory fantasy too. And 2) the usual interpretation by taking words at face value is not the one single way that religious texts must be understood. People miss the better things in religion when they let the literalist types define the terms.

I guess what I was trying to get at is that a kind of nonduality isn't really an exotic feature of theistic traditions, it's common. But in nontheistic traditions nonduality is the central point, where in theistic traditions there is a larger package, with more features. Christians commonly see the totality of God, in addition to things like heaven belief.

So I don't know that I necessarily agree with you that Christians miss the best thing, I think they do see it, but their version has a facade of God over it. Where in nontheistic traditions we're looking directly at the world.

But as for the phrase, the meek will inherit the earth, I still think it's a bit of a stretch to interpret it as we're doing here. The quote that you included doesn't seem like an alternative explanation of Christian thought, but rather an exact expression of how Christians already view God and God belief, in their pseudo-nondual fashion. If we do too much mental gymnastics I think we risk minimizing the plain fact that salvation in God is a central feature of Christianity.

So what I'm getting at is that an analogy between nontheistic traditions and Christianity isn't entirely out of bounds, and they do share some elements, but they aren't really the same thing. And the expression the meek will inherit the earth seems to me to be a clear expression of the Christian vision as it commonly exists, rather than something we could 'interpret differently'. The vision of a divine totality is already a part of it, it's just a piece of a bigger system. Where in nontheistic traditions the totality is literally all that exists, and consumes the entire worldview.

 

[abaddon]

guess what I was trying to get at is that a kind of nonduality isn't really an exotic feature of theistic traditions, it's common.

Huh, I never noticed that. Ok nevermind then.

 

[Politesse]

Christianity comes down to the resurrection in the gospels and faith in an afterlife.

Christianity comes down to two principles: love of God, and love of your neighbor.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Christianity comes down to the resurrection in the gospels and faith in an afterlife.

Christianity comes down to two principles: love of God, and love of your neighbor.

The main problem with this hypothesis, is that if that was all Christianity was, then why bother switching from Paganism to Christianity? In the Roman empire if you didn't regularly demonstrate you loved your neighbour the legions would come and fuck you up.

I think Christianity is more clever than you give it credit for. I think Jesus was more some kind of proto-Marxist. Up until Jesus religion and religious cults were all about maintaining a club for the wealthy and powerful. The top tier and leadership of a pagan cult was a bit like Rotary, Odd Fellows or a Masonic Lodge today. It was a network where the powerful could gain allies to cement their grip on power. Cults had high entry requirements. For the majority of people, at best, you'd get to witness a cult procession or get some free beer and wine at one of the many festivals. This was the foundational social mechanic within which Roman and pagan society operated.

Jesus (or whatever group Jesus got later to represent) realized that the poor were better off creating their own cult networks where they help each other, rather than hoping for hand-outs from the state or rich people. He empowered those at the bottom of society.

And by elevating poverty, humility and martyrdom church leaders had severely hampered the ability of imperial authorities to control the church. There was little the emperors could do to terrorize a group of people who went out of their way to be terrorised (all in the name of martyrdom). A person who has shunned all bodily pleasures cannot be enticed by bribes, or with threats of losing all the stuff (they didn't have). Asceticism was nothing new. What the Christians did that was different was to organise the ascetics and make them the leaders of a powerful organisation. That was new, and turned out to be a genius move. Obviously, over time, people would fake poverty and humility, to climb in the church ranks. But even so, they had to keep up appearances of humility, which very effectively curbed abuses of imperial power. The pagan cults were all just wings of imperial power. Christianity was not. Not even when the Christians had taken over the empire. Some popes were royal stooges. But lots and lots clearly were not. As they often challenged unpopular or bad emperors and kings.

When Roman political instability took hold in the 200's AD and government hand-outs ceased, the Christian bottom up method of distributing welfare was a much better system. No, shit this was the time Christianity overtook paganism. Huge groups of people needed church support for sheer survival and the upkeep of civic functions.

It's smart power politiking. It's still hypocritical. While paganism has it's problems, at least it's honest about that it's all people really want is getting adored, popular, rich, powerful and laid. Don't you?

 

[steve_bank]

The assumption then is that 'Christianity' made choces or was an active agent?

It is more cultural evolution. Many forces acting over time. Christianity became a source of money, politcal power, and personal power.

Like the crime drama cliche, follow the money.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The assumption then is that 'Christianity' made choces or was an active agent?

It is more cultural evolution. Many forces acting over time. Christianity became a source of money, politcal power, and personal power.

Like the crime drama cliche, follow the money.

I'm not disagreeing. I highly doubt there was any master plan. I think it's evolution at play. Jesus said what he said because it was what his audience wanted to hear. As it happens this also turned out to be genuinely profound and changed the world. Jesus being a proto-marxist fits the social and cultural evolution of it's time.

It's important to keep in mind the tremendous social shift that the Roman empire created. First off, the Roman Republic was incredibly exploitative. The system created an environment where governors were incentivized to bleed their provinces dry. But the legions very effectively kept the peace. So there's two forces changing Jewish life. They have less wealth than ever. But they have a stable peace and are safer than they had ever been before. So they had a social push away from getting rich and powerful, and towards philosophical navel gazing. The tax levels around the life of Jesus was famously, at an unsustainable level. It had reached a point where the only Jews with money were Jews collaborating with the Roman authorities, and were a part of the problem. At the time Jesus said that anybody rich was wicked and immoral it was actually true. And all the Jews knew it.

Also remember, Jesus was a Jew. He was only ever addressing Jews. It's Paul that opens up Christianity to gentiles. Well after Jesus was long dead. So Jesus in the Bible is only talking about immoral rich Jews. Not Romans.

As the Roman republic died and the Imperium took over, this extreme exploitative tax system got reformed, much to the benefit of the Roman vassals in the provinces. Roman citizenship got continually expanded to include barbarians, until Diocletian (in 300 AD) removed all distinctions between his subjects. Jesus lived in the end phase of an unsustainably exploitative tax system. He faced a pretty unique set of social factors, which no doubt is what led to his innovative approach to religious reform.

 

[Tigers!]

The meek shall inherit the earth (if that's ok by the rest of you).
I wish i could find who inserted that parenthesis.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The meek shall inherit the earth (if that's ok by the rest of you).
I wish i could find who inserted that parenthesis.

I dunno, it was on a bumper sticker at least 30 years ago.
But that's why this isn't a paradox. The meek will inherit, not concquer. Meaning they only get The Earth through someone else's actions and choices. Which is entirely in accord with the meekness of the Meek.
They'll just wait. Thanks, no, you go fight it out with everyone else, S'alright.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The meek shall inherit the Earth, except that isn't what happens in Revelations.

 

[Politesse]

The meek shall inherit the Earth, except that isn't what happens in Revelations.

No?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The meek shall inherit the Earth, except that isn't what happens in Revelations.

No?

In the end, doesn't no one get it?