Acclimating to the Akedah Lamb and Limb.

[John D. Brey]

Dude. You would have to intentionally skip those other sections.

The other sections weren't directly dealing with the argument I'm making. As the author of the argument I'm making, I get to chose where a quotation begins and ends. You would have to show us where something I left out of the quotation I gave, somehow changes the meaning of the quotation in a substantial manner.

For instance, Rabbi Hirsch says circumcision is a rebirth, different from the first, physical birth. I've quoted him saying that. Now he says other things too, that aren't included in my quotation. But you'd have to show that a statement Rabbi Hirsch makes (which I left out) refutes what he says in the part I quoted. To say I've taken the liberty to quote a statement out of what's a larger dialogue is merely to say I've selected a quotation that serves my purpose. Call it "cherry picking" or whatever you like, but that's what a quotation is and does.

You haven't shown where any of the additional text from Shney Luchot Habrit (that you added) affects (changes or refutes) the meaning of the parts I used in my argumentation?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Dude. You would have to intentionally skip those other sections.

Dude, I intentionally skipped the rest of the three-volume work. I only selected the particular parts of the three-volumes that would quickly and effectively help me make my point without weighing down the argument with too much verbosity. I can't include the whole context of what I quoted; I can't, or won't, paste the entire thousands of pages (of Shney Luchot Habrit) so the reader can see the whole context for the quotation I give. It doesn't work that way fella.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

God forbid, the Internet gets wiped. I have a rather extensive library collecting the words of Jewish luminaries from various streams of Jewish Thought.

After searching everywhere possible and not being able to find the books, I did a search of university libraries and found that one near me had the volumes. So I thought I'd check them out, accidentally lose them (and pay the library for the loss) so I could retain them for my own library.

True story . . . I go down to the library, locate the books, grab them to thumb through them before checking them out. The very first place I open one of the volumes, the first thing I read, is Rabbi Horowitz saying that anytime a person wants something too much, they will be willing to do anything to get it, even if it means stealing it.

I open to another place and it directly addresses another thought I had on the way to the library . . . the third place addresses another thing on my mind that day. So I close up the books and put them back where I got them and leave the library even more convinced that Shney Luchot Habrit is an oracle from God able to speak to my very heart and soul.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

No.

. . . Your new avatar sounds like lyrics from another Captain and Tennille song?



John

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

no John no

Dear Sweet-Lord, you are so confused. John, ignoring everything else except for what is in focus for this thread, John, friend, Compassion and Judgement intersect. They absolutely are not parallel. Not at all.

Look:

What is Judgement without Compassion? Judgment - Compassion = Vengeance
What is Compassion without Justice? Compassion - Justice = Obsession

Are you listening? We can go through the process of diagramming what the Zohar is actually saying, and when we do, you'll see for absolute certain that these two are NOT parallel. This is the worst example ever, John.

Justice - Compassion = Vengeance
That ^^ is a tyrant.

Compassion - Justice = Obsession
That ^^ is a stalker.

Compassion and Justice intersect. How do we know? Because they are relying on each other to exist. Bi-junctive. That's an intersection.



John, truth is not a popularity contest. If it were, Jesus would be a lie. Come on.

The passages are absolutely NOT paralleling the blood of the covenant ( of the covenant, not any circumcision blood from the foreskin will do ) with the blood of the Pascal Lamb ( per Torah Law, not any lamb, but a specific lamb ritually slaughtered ). All they're doing is giving you a glimpse of a Jewish ritual which includes two different types of blood.

The Zohar quote you brought, regardless of how the mistranslation is leading you astray, should be sufficient to reconcile your miscomprehension, IF, big IF, you were not enraptured with an undisclosed and unaccounted for assumption. Assumptions John, undisclosed assumptions, hiding in plain sight? It's how illusions are crafted. "Cherry Picking" John, is an illusion. You cast quite a few illusions in this thread. There is no parallel mentioned in the quotes you provided, but, if you talk about it enough, maybe other people will "read-between-the-lines" and without any other plausible explanation they will assume that you're correct. That's creating an illusion. And, to be honest, I think that there is an illusion happening in your mind, which you're not aware of. A sort of magic trick, that is being cast by you, for you, right in the theater in between your ears, in your mind.

This illusion John, is a massive stumbling block in regard to your reading comprehension of Jewish texts. I would like to dispel this illusion, by showing you how it works. It's not that Christianity is wrong, or false John. It's that you seem to have forgotten one of the core beliefs of Christianity, and, because of this, it is literally impossible for you to shed your Christian outlook and read Jewish texts in the way that the author, a Jewish Rabbi, intended. The author, John, the author gets to choose what they intend to write. If YOU read it and YOU find something in it which the author did not intend, Great! Take credit for it. It's not Jewish, but it still could be a brilliant discovery.

---

OK.

Ready? This is very very simple. This is the cognitive block. I'm going to show it to you.

Christianity asserts there is one and only one way.
Judaism asserts there's always another way if we look again .

​

Do you see it? Do you see that these are opposing. You've forgotten to take into account that you deny any other "way". That means two or more distinct and different "ways", when they are revealed to you in writing, conversation, or otherwise, are automatically assumed to be more or less the same, if they are leading to Salvation, capital "S".

---

Here is the Jewish perspective: "there's always another way".

Let's look again at the Akeidah. Please John, look again?

​

And Abraham lifted up his eyes, [ looking again ] and he saw, and lo! there was a ram, [and] after [that] it was caught in a tree by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.​

​

If you're interested in "Jewish Thought" and "Jewish Context", John, Pirkei Avot. The Ethics of our Fathers. Chapter 5, the whole chapter, punctuated by:

Turn it over, and [again] turn it over, [ look again ] for all is therein. And look into it; And become gray and old therein; And do not move away from it, for you have no better portion than it.​

​

Do you like King Solomon? Proverbs, John. This is famous. How can you forget this? Turn, Turn Turn? Each of these is another way.

​

Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under the heaven:​

A time to give birth and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot that which is planted.​

A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break and a time to build.​

A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time of wailing and a time of dancing.​

A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.​

How about Moses, John? Moses? The one who received the Torah at Sinai? Surely you'll listen to him regarding "Jewish Thought"? Can there be anyone, anywhere, which is a better resource for discerning the over-arching "Jewish Context"?

Deuteronomy 8:6

And you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, to go in His ways, and to fear Him.​

​

Ways, "d'rahchav". Plural, The Lord-God commands: "Hey you, Jews, you, shall, go, in the Lord's WAYS, PLURAL."​

​

John, it looks parallel to you, because you CANNOT SEE any other path.

Christianity = 1 path
Judaism = Always more than 1 path

John, try to imagine it? In your mind. Imagine you're on the highway. Driving. And me, your buddy, Daniel-Yosef, pulls up next to you. We're driving side by side. We're driving in the same direction. We're driving the same speed. Do you have the image in mind?

​

Question: Are we driving in parallel?​

Christian answer: Of Course. We're going to the same place in the same way. We are parallel.​

​

Question: Are we driving in parallel?​

Jewish answer: Depends. How many roads are there? And more important, what if I need a little snack? What if I need to pee?​

Notice, please. Jewish Thought does not exclude the Christian's "way". It includes it, along with others. It doesn't rush to judgement. It's contemplative, open minded, expansive, with one exception. Jewish Thought does not, in any way, permit making changes to our texts. No inserting words. No removing words. No changing spelling, John. The fuzzy warm feeling in your heart and mind does not permit making changes to our texts and lying about it, Or, hiding it and assuming that no one will catch it because they do not have a way to cross check your quotations.

Sidebar: I have a copy Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer. It's completely different from the one you've brought. I cannot read the entire passage which you brought to verify that it is a proper translation. Nor can I check to see whether they are including the actual reasons that the two different types of blood are being brought together. The assumed "parallel" is an illusion, John. It's an illusion which I think you are crafting unintentionally. You read a little snippet. You copy it into a digital document of some sort. Then you bask in the warm fuzzy feeling that this snippet is producing. Then, when you go back to review your notes, these various snippets form into an illusion of ... the Christian path to salvation. And if you could only convince everyone that Christ is the way ( the one and only way ) you'd be a hero. And, your own beliefs are validated. It would be super rewarding and satisfying. The pursuit, itself, is satisfying, because you're on a mission from God. You're one of the Blues Brothers. That's what I think is happening.

But John, that's not Jewish. Not only are there multiple ways to achieve salvation in our Torah, and the writings of Jewish thinkers, but, those ways, multiple ways, are happening, literally, right now. That's why our sages teach, all Jews have a portion in the world to come. This is not good news for the Christians who for some reason think they need Jews to accept their Christian salvation. We Jews are already saved. It's already happening. We don't need your Jesus, John. Never have, never will. There is no lake of fire and second death for us. But that doesn't mean that your Christ is wrong. Not at all. It just deflates the sales-pitch and puts it back where it should be and should have been all along. Christian salvation is a choice among other choices for Salvation which can be utilized and brought out depending on the circumstances.

I myself often see parallels in things -not those John sees, but still- and I view Christianity’s “only way” slightly different to you too, but you write very well @dybmh; inspiring and contemplative.
Thank you.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[dybmh]

I myself often see parallels in things -not those John sees, but still- and I view Christianity’s “only way” slightly different to you too,

".. see parallels in things ... " " ... and I view Christianity’s “only way” slightly different to you too ... "

I think we're taking different paths to the same place. What do you think?

My position is this:

​

Odds are, on a sphere, only a few are taking the direct path. The rest of us are ... doing the best we can. But, it could be, towards of the end of the road, as we are approaching the destination, the roads of , let's say , a dozen major streams of thought are converging. Perhaps a sort of, confluence? Kind of like streams. That's how I imagine it.​

​

When orienteering, a good strategy, if one is lost and alone, in the back country? Look and listen for running water. Creeks lead to streams, streams lead to rivers, small rivers to big rivers. Small water leads to big water. People congregate around water. It’s good to go with the flow, so to speak. That’s because the streams are naturally converging along their route to the sea. Following the streams, as they are flowing, is a good technique to get found.​

​

The problem is, when big water converges, it can get pretty dicey out there. That's why I prefer a "mountain" analogy. When considering it like streams of thought, the mind naturally ignores the hazards. At the very least, one will not able to … appreciate all that is happening along the way. This misconception is perfectly natural.​

​

Flowing Water is, by default, in the human mind, a pleasant image. But. That's not reality. It's actually more like climbing a mountain. As small water becomes big water, the current becomes turbulent, fierce, and rocky. Both literally and metaphorically. There’s large rocks creating hazards piling up where the streams are connecting.​

​

Walking along the banks, is very rarely an option. It's thick and over grown. The banks are steep and unstable. Etc. It's not as friendly as perhaps is casually visualized in the mind. All the streams converging? That's dumping into the ocean. That's dangerous, because most likely, you're in a raft... I would hope I’m in a raft. If I’m smart. And even then what? I’m lost, in the back country? I made that raft from what mother nature is providing on the fly. Streams converging on The Absolute Source? Salvation?I Getting out there? Getting found? Taken into the loving arms of … the ineffable one? It's less like streams converging. It's more like climbing a mountain, all the way to the top.​

​

There's lots of ways to do it. Nearly infinite. The closer to the top, the less paths to choose from. Looking down the mountain, from that vantage, the varying paths spider-web in a lovely organic fractal. Yes, definitely, Friend Philosopher. I agree. I see the connections. I hope we’re visualizing the same thing. It is magnificent up here. I see their connections. It’s awe inspiring.​

​

As one climbs higher and higher, more of more of the connections are visible, it's true. But the distance from those intersections is increasing. The clarity, naturally, is washing out as one goes higher and higher. It's clear they are all connected. But, how? The well wron paths are, from here, only hazy at best. All I can see, are the hazy outlines disappearing in the mist and being recalled from memory.​

​

The details about those interconnections? That part is unclear. But yeah, of course, it’s true. And. Not all of the major branchings are clearly visible. I accept that. Granted. There’s probably? 40-50% out beyond my range of vision? I accpet that simply due to the fact, that in this analogy, I’m perching on the side of a mountain near the summit? It seems, for many, this doesn’t matter. There’s a point at the top! We’re all heading to the same place? Well! I think folks forget:​

“Sure, there’s a point at the top. That’s clear. But, we’re climbing a mountain. There’s a sharp edge and a steep cliff underfoot.”​

Yes, It’s good to keep our eyes on the prize. But, the hazards are just as clearly visible, AND OFTEN NEGLECTED whe approaching a goal, a home run, like this one.​

​

The higher we go, the harder we fall. We can’t see all the paths which are converging, but, down is down. That much should be very easy to see... if we’re paying attention to our surroundings... not beguiled, or God forbid… too exhausted from the journey. Etc..​

​

Scrambling to the top is tempting, compelling, sometimes necessary. But. It's dicey up there. Climbing up a mountain? One error in judgment? It's a long way down, at a high rate of speed. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's a long way down. There's less wiggle room for error, the closer one gets to the top. In the blink of an eye? The person is practicing pagan sex-magic even though they are intending to cleave to Christ. Those are divergent paths, right there. I don’t need to see the entire confluence at The Source to see, very clearly, these two?. Those are opposite paths.​

​

---

If a person intends to cleave to Christ, and they stumble into a Pagan Sex-Magic theology? Um. Even if reality is shaped like a sphere? That’s about as counter-productive as one can get. Am I wrong? If there is a devil? It's laughing at this thread. Happily. See what I mean? Multiple paths? Sure. That doesn't mean a person won't trip up, fall, become disoriented, and find themself... lost and alone.

If the Christian narrative is true, then, the stakes are high. These are complicated subjects. It’s very easy to get very confused. And confuse others.

Am I wrong? Have I made myself clear? It's not confusing.

Am I trying to help?

Either @John D. Brey wants to practice Pagan Sex-Magic, or he needs a guide. A good one.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

".. see parallels in things ... " " ... and I view Christianity’s “only way” slightly different to you too ... "

I think we're taking different paths to the same place. What do you think?

My position is this:

​

Odds are, on a sphere, only a few are taking the direct path. The rest of us are ... doing the best we can. But, it could be, towards of the end of the road, as we are approaching the destination, the roads of , let's say , a dozen major streams of thought are converging. Perhaps a sort of, confluence? Kind of like streams. That's how I imagine it.​

​

When orienteering, a good strategy, if one is lost and alone, in the back country? Look and listen for running water. Creeks lead to streams, streams lead to rivers, small rivers to big rivers. Small water leads to big water. People congregate around water. It’s good to go with the flow, so to speak. That’s because the streams are naturally converging along their route to the sea. Following the streams, as they are flowing, is a good technique to get found.​

​

The problem is, when big water converges, it can get pretty dicey out there. That's why I prefer a "mountain" analogy. When considering it like streams of thought, the mind naturally ignores the hazards. At the very least, one will not able to … appreciate all that is happening along the way. This misconception is perfectly natural.​

​

Flowing Water is, by default, in the human mind, a pleasant image. But. That's not reality. It's actually more like climbing a mountain. As small water becomes big water, the current becomes turbulent, fierce, and rocky. Both literally and metaphorically. There’s large rocks creating hazards piling up where the streams are connecting.​

​

Walking along the banks, is very rarely an option. It's thick and over grown. The banks are steep and unstable. Etc. It's not as friendly as perhaps is casually visualized in the mind. All the streams converging? That's dumping into the ocean. That's dangerous, because most likely, you're in a raft... I would hope I’m in a raft. If I’m smart. And even then what? I’m lost, in the back country? I made that raft from what mother nature is providing on the fly. Streams converging on The Absolute Source? Salvation?I Getting out there? Getting found? Taken into the loving arms of … the ineffable one? It's less like streams converging. It's more like climbing a mountain, all the way to the top.​

​

There's lots of ways to do it. Nearly infinite. The closer to the top, the less paths to choose from. Looking down the mountain, from that vantage, the varying paths spider-web in a lovely organic fractal. Yes, definitely, Friend Philosopher. I agree. I see the connections. I hope we’re visualizing the same thing. It is magnificent up here. I see their connections. It’s awe inspiring.​

​

As one climbs higher and higher, more of more of the connections are visible, it's true. But the distance from those intersections is increasing. The clarity, naturally, is washing out as one goes higher and higher. It's clear they are all connected. But, how? The well wron paths are, from here, only hazy at best. All I can see, are the hazy outlines disappearing in the mist and being recalled from memory.​

​

The details about those interconnections? That part is unclear. But yeah, of course, it’s true. And. Not all of the major branchings are clearly visible. I accept that. Granted. There’s probably? 40-50% out beyond my range of vision? I accpet that simply due to the fact, that in this analogy, I’m perching on the side of a mountain near the summit? It seems, for many, this doesn’t matter. There’s a point at the top! We’re all heading to the same place? Well! I think folks forget:​

“Sure, there’s a point at the top. That’s clear. But, we’re climbing a mountain. There’s a sharp edge and a steep cliff underfoot.”​

Yes, It’s good to keep our eyes on the prize. But, the hazards are just as clearly visible, AND OFTEN NEGLECTED whe approaching a goal, a home run, like this one.​

​

The higher we go, the harder we fall. We can’t see all the paths which are converging, but, down is down. That much should be very easy to see... if we’re paying attention to our surroundings... not beguiled, or God forbid… too exhausted from the journey. Etc..​

​

Scrambling to the top is tempting, compelling, sometimes necessary. But. It's dicey up there. Climbing up a mountain? One error in judgment? It's a long way down, at a high rate of speed. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's a long way down. There's less wiggle room for error, the closer one gets to the top. In the blink of an eye? The person is practicing pagan sex-magic even though they are intending to cleave to Christ. Those are divergent paths, right there. I don’t need to see the entire confluence at The Source to see, very clearly, these two?. Those are opposite paths.​

​

---

If a person intends to cleave to Christ, and they stumble into a Pagan Sex-Magic theology? Um. Even if reality is shaped like a sphere? That’s about as counter-productive as one can get. Am I wrong? If there is a devil? It's laughing at this thread. Happily. See what I mean? Multiple paths? Sure. That doesn't mean a person won't trip up, fall, become disoriented, and find themself... lost and alone.

If the Christian narrative is true, then, the stakes are high. These are complicated subjects. It’s very easy to get very confused. And confuse others.

Am I wrong? Have I made myself clear? It's not confusing.

Am I trying to help?

Either @John D. Brey wants to practice Pagan Sex-Magic, or he needs a guide. A good one.

I think that the core of Christianity can be summarised:

Those who follow the example of Christ by approaching another with attentiveness, selflessness and humility, contribute less to worldly sorrow and more to outer harmony and inner sense of peace. Doing this, is the ‘only’ way back to [the “Kingdom of”] God.

But I would add that the ways by which individuals come to want to contribute to [the rebuild of] such a kingdom and the manners by which they come to see the example of Christ as a good way to do so, vary enormously.

It is my sincere guess that at the very least once, someone, somewhere, at some point in time, reached both their will to contribute to life in above manner and their choice to do so through the example of Christ, precisely because of the consequences that stemmed from them having partaken in that odd “pagan sex ritual” you spoke of earlier.

In other words; some people only make “right” choices upon having experienced the direct consequences of their “wronger” ones. And that is not a question of some divine “punishment” - it is just what occurs in worldly terms at times.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[dybmh]

I think that the core of Christianity can be summarised...:

Thank you, friend philosopher. I appreciated reading that. If I understood properly, please forgive the brevity, and correct me if I'm wrong?

You've brought a rational and allegorical approach to Christianity? Salvation, from your point of view is not a literal Returning to God ( God's Kingdom) as I proposed via the mountain analogy? God ( you wrote "kingdom" in brackets? ) is not literally The Source, it's just a future world where all people have adjusted their priorities limiting their hubris? We humans are not literally lost in uncharted territory. And, particularly John is not someone who has become lost, through no intentional fault of his own? He's not separated from his companions? He's not in need of assistance? He's not disoriented? He has not tumbled off over a cliff as he is approaching the summit on a magnificent, glorious expedition?

I myself often see parallels in things

Per my natural inclination, if it is not too bold of me, would you please share a relevant example? Or two?

Thank you,

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Salvation, from your point of view is not a literal Returning to God ( God's Kingdom) as I proposed via the mountain analogy? God ( you wrote "kingdom" in brackets? ) is not literally The Source, it's just a future world where all people have adjusted their priorities limiting their hubris?

Perhaps I’m not wording my thoughts accurately… let me try differently.

I certainly see “God” as source, but I distinguish between “God” and God’s “Kingdom” (sorry, I often write in brackets such concepts that go by many different worldly terms, depending on tradition; perhaps it confuses more that it assists - I’ll not do so going forward in this interactions).

I think that the Kingdom is spiritual, beyond our worldly being but that it can be made physical and worldly if enough people live by the example of Christ: attentively, selflessly and humbly towards each other.

I trust in life -and its failures- as the best process (chosen by God) for Man to reunite his Will with that of God’s.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[dybmh]

Perhaps I’m not wording my thoughts accurately… let me try differently.

I certainly see “God” as source, but I distinguish between “God” and God’s “Kingdom” (sorry, I often write in brackets such concepts that go by many different worldly terms, depending on tradition; perhaps it confuses more that it assists - I’ll not do so going forward in this interactions).

I think that the Kingdom is spiritual, beyond our worldly being but that it can be made physical and worldly if enough people live by the example of Christ: attentively, selflessly and humbly towards each other.

I trust in life -and its failures- as the best process (chosen by God) for Man to reunite his Will with that of God’s.

Humbly,
Hermit

Thank you. Heard and understood.

Blessings,

 

[John D. Brey]

Either @John D. Brey wants to practice Pagan Sex-Magic, or he needs a guide. A good one.

Well put. And so true. There's a subtle distinction between a pagan sex-magic cult, or doctrine, versus a true recognition that the deepest truths in Judaism and Christianity are guarded by a a fence constructed to look like pagan sex-magic doctrines. That fence keeps most self-righteous sorts from even attempting to enter in (so they remain forever barren), while at the same time it destroys the unprepared whose lust for enlightenment is indistinguishable from wanton lust for sex.

In Homer's Ulysses, after the crew seal their ears with wax so they can't hear the song of the sirens, the hero has himself strapped to the mast so he can hear the song of the sirens but not act on them. In a sense, his anchoring to the mast is the means that allows him to hear the song of the sirens, to experience the song of their pagan sex-magic, without succumbing to it; his confinement to the mast is similar to a student's anchoring by the teacher or mentor who keeps him from being destroyed by entering the burning bush without the proper asbestos prophylactic.

Later in the story the hero pokes out the cyclops's middle eye of enlightenment showing that he (the hero) has acquired the power to deny the lust for "enlightenment" when he endured the song of the sirens and lived to metabolize that experience without being subject to it. The proper teacher/mentor has the ability to keep the student from being overwhelmed by the lust for spiritual enlightenment until the student learns that all true spiritual enlightenment is lishmah: it's its own reward and will never lead to orgasmic intercourse with adoring partners.

The person who's both overcome the lust for enlightenment, and also knows that all true spiritual enlightenment is lishmah, will often be inclined to study and teach the truth in the absence of any encouragement or reward for doing so. Knowing his reward resides in the world-to-come precludes him from being shocked or disappointed at the responses he receives from the world that's already came and which is always working at coming again. . . Even when persons take pot-shots at him, he's inclined to fight, fight, fight. Victory is his reward, and if it's of the Lord, revenge.



John

 

[dybmh]

There's a subtle distinction between a pagan sex-magic cult, or doctrine, versus a true recognition that the deepest truths in Judaism

I have no reason to believe you know ANYTHING about Judaism.

I have a whole host of reasons to believe you know NOTHING about Judaism.

But I have witnessed a keen, natural, talent for identifying significance in religious texts.

I didn't read past this first part of the first sentence. The first step in getting MY respect is admitting you gave a problem.

 

[VoidCat]

I didn't read past this first part of the first sentence. The first step in getting MY respect is admitting you gave a problem.

He seemed to have misrepresented the story of Ulysses anyway...

 

[John D. Brey]

He seemed to have misrepresented the story of Ulysses anyway...

How so?



John

 

[VoidCat]

How so?



John

I'm too tired to explain right now. But the Cyclops eye wasn't a middle eye of enlightment.

That whole thing with the Cyclops was a warning against arrogance and ticking off gods. Particularly the one that's supposed to get you home. And the brutality of war. If the hero had killed the cyclops instead of showing mercy then he'd have gotten home earlier. That's one the many morals of the story the brutality of war. You dont show mercy to enemies...theres blood on your hands in war you can only choose whose blood. Sadly the hero made the wrong choice and much of his crew dies because of it.

 

[VoidCat]

I'm too tired to explain right now. But the Cyclops eye wasn't a middle eye of enlightment.

That whole thing with the Cyclops was a warning against arrogance and ticking off gods. Particularly the one that's supposed to get you home. And the brutality of war. If the hero had killed the cyclops instead of showing mercy then he'd have gotten home earlier. That's one the many morals of the story the brutality of war. You dont show mercy to enemies...theres blood on your hands in war you can only choose whose blood. Sadly the hero made the wrong choice and much of his crew dies because of it.

@John D. Brey
To drive the point home about war and brutality and mercy earlier in the story the guy kills an infant to avoid his whole family dying at his hands once he grows up.
EdIt: in some versions its not Ulysses but Neoptolemus who kills Hectors son but either way it's done because of war you don't show mercy to enemies.

 

[VoidCat]

Here's a wiki article about the infant

Astyanax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[VoidCat]

This song here is a good representive of the the mercy thing tho it's a modern version of the myth not any the historical sources. But it is true to the source in it being a common theme war is ruthless and dont tick gods off

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm too tired to explain right now. But the Cyclops eye wasn't a middle eye of enlightment.

Did the Odyssey come with Cliff Notes? . . . That's my sarcastic way of asking who gets to say which interpretation of the story is canonical? Did Homer visit you or whomever determines what the story means in a night vision? From a different perspective, do you believe the orthodox interpretation is always correct? If so, then you and @dybmh can gang up on me since he too seem to believe his orthodox understanding of things Jewish isn't subject to any revision least of all mine.

You both might do well to read, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. What Kuhn shows, applies to religious ideas as much as to scientific ones.



John

 

[dybmh]

If so, then you and @dybmh can gang up

It's not like that