Pron for Quozzel and Fordtunate

Apr 19, 2022, 10:50 AM

Thanks to quozzel for the link to the Atlantic article, and to Fordtunate Son for making the subject fun.

You remember the article, the one about Babel, how Babel explains us. The people who built Babel weren't trying to do anything wrong. No fire rained down like you see in the paintings. It's not like they were sacrificing babies or anything. All they did was build a city. God saw it, stopped it.

From that day onward no man has spoken the same language as his wife.

If The Atlantic is correct that Babel describes us today, what seems to be the question on the table is this: Why was the building of a city not a good idea? We are, after all, becoming a collection NFL worthy venues. If it wasn't good for them, would that not explain what we see today?

Good news: the story is pretty short. You guys know it better than you might think. Tell me if you don't agree that it goes like this:

When a relational God created mankind, we were given only one restriction: we were not to acquire The Knowledge of Good And Evil. God retained that one. We were given everything else. You guys are intuitive, so we can skip the paragraphs discussing the nature of such a relationship, but we know 'trust' would be a defining quality.

Eh, we found that too restrictive. We wanted to pursue Knowing Good And Evil for ourselves. God said, "Don't say I didn't warn you, but off you go. But don't think this is over." He also said, "Fill the earth". Hold that thought.

Right off the bat it went squirrelly. Cain and Abel each gave a gift to to God. We are not told why, but God appreciated only Abel's. Cain was not happy. I can relate. My mother-in-law gave us a gosh awful serving tray once, and when it wasn't on the counter when she came to visit, hoo boy. Anyway, God wasn't even upset about it, saying to Cain, "Why the long face? Learn to trust me, and you'll be fine. We're good." Cain wasn't having it.

Cain killed Abel. We're still intuitive: we can figure out what motivated Cain, but 'egocentric' and 'self determining' would be basically it. If Cain said a thing was good, it was going to be good, and nothing was going to stand in the way.

Cain and Abel couldn't manage Good And Evil without the innocent guy getting whacked.

We went downhill from there pretty fast and God did a do over. Saved only Noah and his three sons, and their families. He said to them, again, "Fill the earth." Like, don't hang around the campsite. But they had a better plan, establishing successful vineyards and the like right there. Vineyards equal wine, and in due time there was such an enormous family squabble that Noah cursed them and sent them on their way. Should have done that with my mother-in-law.

They didn't get far.

Noah's great grandson convinced the people with him to stop and build "a great city". This time we need no intuition. The story tells us exactly what their motivations were: Let's build ourselves a city, with tall buildings so that we may make a name for ourselves, and not be scattered over the earth.

Knowing Good And Evil had come to this:

- Let's build the tools of our secure success: a great interdependency.
- Others will see what we are: able to do awe inspiring things.
- And who we are: a great name for ourselves.
- We will have an identity: not scattered.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a city. Had we not pursued Good And Evil we perhaps would have built them with no ill effects. It all sounds fine, until someone has to define what truth is, who "we" will be. Good And Evil. So, wherever people have gathered in density, a race to the bottom has resulted as everyone sought to impose their truth on everyone else.

Someone wins that battle, sometimes an individual, sometimes an alliance. Human history is a story of this tyranny, with only infrequent and short lived examples of human freedom where Babel is not the ideal. Almost always, in all places, we disastrously rule each other.

God stopped Babel, a protection more than a condemnation. He does not stop it now. We see what is happening, and the bad news is that it will get worse. We will not find Aquarius.

While he has not stopped it, he has redeemed it. But regardless of what one does about Jesus, the story of Babel is a story of who we are. They were pursing the owning of Good And Evil, defining themselves with the only tools they had: each other. That tyranny has continued to this day, Cain-and-Abel replaying itself everywhere, in everyone.

The Atlantic is right. Babel is us.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

This is a really, really nice post 88. So much good stuff in there to ponder. This made me snort: "and when it wasn't on the counter when she came to visit, hoo boy." A vivid insight into "human nature."

I took this as the gist of your post. "Almost always, in all places, we disastrously rule each other. ...God stopped Babel, a protection more than a condemnation."

That's a way I had never looked at it before. As a kid, I was taught to interpret the Babel story as an "anti-arrogance" warning. That is, trying to reach heaven through our own means, rather than by God's. But seeing it as a protection story from ourselves casts it into a completely different light. Very cool. That's what I like about this - seeing things in different ways.

There's tons to unpack in those three stories...Eden, Cain and Abel, and Babel. I'll have to give a quick read through of them to refresh my memory, but the specific verbiage does make a huge difference, and sometimes I think I read what I do not.

For instance, for years I enjoyed "The Road Not Taken" by Frost as story of adventure, independence, consequence, choosing the hard rather than the easy way, and all that. Then a few years ago, I was discussing it with my nephew, and he said "They're the same road. I mean, they lead to different places, but they are described as equal paths." I said "What?" And sure enough, on careful reading, they are. The "difference" is how Frost will retell the story in the future, as if he did something significant in making essentially a 50/50 choice. So the only adventure he took was the one he is telling to his buddies long after the fact. "I made the difference..." Lol.

But back to your point about city dwelling and governing ourselves, and the specific question "Why was the building of a city not a good idea?" There's an idea known as the "porcupine principle." That is, when it's cold, and porcupines have to huddle up for warmth, but they prick each other with their quills. So there's this constant tension of needing to be close to survive, but wanting to be separate for independence. I suppose one could view city life that way. There are many benefits to urbanization, but it also comes at a cost in many ways.

You might expand that to what the "ideal" village size is. Maybe 50 or 100 people? I mean, you can "know" a lot of people (in the non-Biblical sense <img border=

">">">">">">">">">), but how many close friends can you really have? 5, 10, 20? There's simply a time and distance limitation on how many shared experiences you can have with a person to build a relationship with them.

You might live in a city with a million people, but you surely don't know all of them or spend time with all of them. There have been some interesting looks at how overpopulation desensitizes us. Like walking by someone lying on the street without even noticing them, even if they are in need. Our brains are simply overloaded in crowds. Or the famous case in the late 60's where apartment tenants just watched a woman be brutalized outside their windows yet no one did anything.

This caught my attention too. "They were pursing the owning of Good And Evil" That's risky business and maybe we're not up to the task lol. There is a philosophy though that the Good and Evil don't even exist without humans.

That is, if there were simply a universe with nothing in it, what would be good or evil? A rock, an asteroid? Some cosmic dust? If you introduce a god into that picture, either before or after the creation of the universe, you might presume there would then be good, but no evil. or maybe something undefined, if you think that good and evil define each other, like night and day. Even the addition of animals to this fictional universe doesn't change that viewpoint. I've never considered a dog or cat evil. They are simply animals going about the business of surviving.

But when man enters the picture, and more specifically, the interactions of man, then good and evil develops. Even if it's just one man, who would he be good or evil to? (aside from maybe his god). But as soon as it's two men, then you have a relationship. Like between Cain and Abel. And the nature of that relationship between them defines whether they are good to each other or bad to each other.

Anyhow, that's just an idea that spun off your comments. But all those stories, Eden, etc., are worth a very close look at some point. It'll be fun to discuss what we each see them, especially if it's different.

Thanks for the post! It could open a lot of avenues of great discussion.

Pron for Quozzel and Fordtunate

Re: Pron for Quozzel and Fordtunate

Thanks. Two observations of yours are particularly

Re: Thanks. Two observations of yours are particularly

See tmail.

Re: See tmail.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you both.

Thank you, 88. I think youi are right:

Re: Thank you, 88. I think youi are right:

It's civil.

PS: Meant to say, yes, I agree that the

42

LOL. And in much fewer words.***

Re: 42

Re: Thanks. May 7 - emerging from time capsule - Babel

We say 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse.'

Re: We say 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse.'

Or not enough meth. Hard to hit the sweet spot exactly. :)

Re: Or not enough meth. Hard to hit the sweet spot exactly. :)

Re: Or not enough meth. Hard to hit the sweet spot exactly. :)

Re: Pron for Quozzel and Fordtunate

Dude, they got me stuck on fryer duty for that same reason.

Re: Pron for Quozzel and Fordtunate

TigerBoard POTD