Re: Psalms


"Kendall K Down" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
31e9d9e54f.diggings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In message <gbmpae$ghr$1@xxxxxxxx>
| "PG" <pgk9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
| > When you read the likes of :
| > "Send forth lightning and scatter {the enemies};
|
| From which I can only conclude that you have never been in deep
| schmuck and desperate for help.

I reckon my personal 'schmuck' comes plenty deep enough, thanks! The bottom line
though is that we write our own scripts no matter how catastrophic a situation
appears to be. I've seen people desperate for help with problems that would be
relatively unworthy of concern to me, and have myself in the past wasted much
time worrying over things that never transpire, or simply aren't worth worrying
about in the first place, once you get them into proper perspective. 'Schmuck'
happens. It's how we deal with it that counts. Some people constantly need a
crutch, considerable support from one or more combinations of
family/friends/community/religion. Others have a broader perspective, are
stronger, more self-reliant, and more able to retain a balanced, longer-term
view. This doesn't mean some kind of arrogant independence, but rather that they
do not expect or seek help from anyone but themselves. If such help from others
is offered freely, it is of course gratefully received or occasionally, politely
refused. When asked for help themselves, they invariably and happily do what
they can. Equanimity doesn't distance them from their fellows; on the contrary
they are stronger for it, and their calm insights and balanced perspective often
mean that they are more qualified to help others.

With regard to the psalms, if you are suggesting that such feelings (resentment,
hatred, vengeance, murderous thoughts etc) are perfectly human in times of
threat or disaster, of course that is correct. I never thought otherwise. But
the original post was about my attempting to discover why they (and other
similar OT/NT passages) are included in scripture, and how their inclusion can
possibly be imagined to encourage followers to 'right speech, right action' and
'right livelihood', to borrow Buddhist concepts on ethical conduct. The same
applies to Islam, of course. Indeed it seems to me that it can encourage
precisely the opposite, and scripture has on so many occasions been used to
destructive ends.

Even if these days less Christians maintain that YHWH actually dictated his
'Word', the consensus is that scripture is divinely inspired. At the very least
it is considered to be the work of writers who interpreted what they were
inspired to record. This allows for error, for human weakness to creep in... but
for me there is a plethora of extremely uninspired (even for mere humans), and
from my pov, particularly immoral practices and guidance, for a 'divinely'
inspired work. And in saying this I haven't forgotten the historical and
cultural context for these writings. (No straw men please, I am not suggesting
that all scripture lacks a sense of morality, indeed there are numerous examples
of beautiful passages the equivalent of which I happily include in my worldview,
even if they represent a rather narrow part of the ethical spectrum that I feel
is important today).

In the likes of Buddhist scripture, virtually the entire emphasis is on
achieving equanimity, living in peaceful cohabitation, non-violence, feeling
compassion and love for all. 'Manasikara' is the beginning of the route to this
end - hard to translate, but essentially meaning 'skilful attention'. Living in
the here and now, able to concentrate in the most testing of conditions, so that
the mind doesn't drift. Minds that are not trained to have this ability,
Buddhism compares to rudderless ships adrift in a storm.

| I used to be like you, rather dismissive of the psalms - or at least,
| of the more gruesome ones. Then I went through some difficult times
| and although I still think that the authors went a bit overboard
| sometimes, at least I can recognise the very genuine (and entirely
| human) feelings that gave rise to them.

By accepting these emotions and feelings as normal, it is tempting to think that
we can do little about them. They are as you say, after all, natural and
spontaneous human reactions. In theism we are considered to be 'rudderless
ships' without belief in a deity. We can do little or nothing about it without
faith in the divine, according to the Christian standpoint. I think that such
scripture encourages people to believe that they cannot be otherwise than
helpless on their own, without divine help. (I could be cynical here, and
suggest that Christianity wouldn't have the following it has without many such
examples of 'coercion', but that's another issue).

In fact I consider the opposite to be true - without the assistance of any deity
we are born with an innate capacity to steer our way through adversity without
causing harm/distress to others; but first we have to learn to discipline the
mind, in exactly the same manner as it is considered healthy to train one's
body. Entirely without divine help we can learn the discipline to react
constructively to the blows life sends our way. There are ample examples of
people who, without a god of any kind, do just that. I think such people are
both better equipped to ride the ups and downs of our challenging lives, and
better able to help others do likewise (and in a non-judgmental and objective
manner). They have no axe to grind, and help isn't contingent upon belief in an
outside agency. Solutions have to come from within.

I readily admit though that such an approach requires a considerably stronger
will, at least initially, than the practice of simply abandoning ourselves to a
supernatural, stern yet (selectively) forgiving, protective (of his own) father
figure.

pg




.

Relevant Pages