So far, I can't get the humanist out of my head, but I'm only on page 30.
Let me tell you how my mind is working now. On page 27 it talks about how Multnomah Falls was named.
"The tale centered on a[n Indian} princess, the only child left to her aging father. The Chief loved his daughter dearly and carefully picked out a husband for her; a young warrior chief of the Clatsop tribe, who he knew she loved. The two tribes came together to celebrate the days of the wedding feast, but before it could begin, a terrible sickness began to spread among the men, killing many.
"The elders and the chiefs met to discuss what they could do about the wasting disease that was quickly decimating their warriors. The oldest medicine man among them spoke of how his own father, when aged and near death, had foretold of a terrible sickness that would kill their men, an illness that could only be stopped if a pure and innocent daughter of a chief would willingly give up her life for her people. In order to fulfill the prophecy, she must voluntarily climb to a cliff above the Big River and from there jump to her death onto the rocks below.
"A dozen young women, all daughters of the various chiefs, were brought before the council. After considerable debate the elders decided that they could not ask for such a precious sacrifice, especially for a legend they weren't sure was true.
"But the disease continued to spread unabated among the men and eventually the young warrior chief, the husband-to-be, fell ill with the sickness. The princess who loved him knew in her heart that something had to be done, and after cooling his fever and kissing him softly on the forehead, she slipped away.
"It took her all night and the next day to reach the place spoken of in the legend, a towering cliff overlooking the Big River and the lands beyond. After praying and giving herself to the Great Spirit, she fulfilled the prophecy by jumping without hesitation to her death on the rocks below.
"Back at the villages the next morning, those who had been sick arose well and strong. There was great joy and celebration until the young warrior discovered that his beloved bride was missing. As the awareness of what had happened spread rapidly among the people, many began the journey to the place where they knew they would find her. As they silently gathered around her broken body at the base of the cliff, her grief-stricken father cried out to the Great Spirit, asking that her sacrifice would always be remembered. At that moment, water began to fall from the place where she had jumped, turning into a fine mist that fell at their feet, slowly forming a beautiful pool."
And they all lived happily ever after.
As the author writes, "It had all the elements of a true redemption story, not unlike the story of Jesus that she [the little girl in the story] knew so well. It centered on a father who loved his only child and a sacrifice foretold by a prophet. Because of love, the child willingly gave up her life to save her betrothed and their tribes from certain death."
As for me, as a humanist, I fail to see the difference between the two fables. One is from a small little-known native American tribe that relied upon verbal accounts to preserve their history, and the other from a people well-known in world history. This well-known people likewise relied upon verbal history for about 60 years before somebody wanted to organize the people (now a captured people who were ready to capitalize on their "victim status") and decided to commit a common and well-liked fable to parchment as a tool to bring the people who loved to tell that fable together into an organized religion.
Both fables were likely based on actual historical events (the wasting disease for the native Americans, and the crucifixion of a man in Jerusalem), but that is where the facts end and the sensationalizing begins.
I will never again be so blind as to not realize that the "winners" get to write history, so I now read or listen to each account of history through the prism of the author. When you read the scientific account of history that documents the New Testament time period, you can clearly understand the motives in why those scriptures were written and what those fables were intended to teach.
They were written to "shape" history, and were never intended to "record" history.
No, so far, as a humanist, I wasn't inspired to see that Christianity has any more claim to the truth than the native-American tribes of Oregon, but I am committed to continue my reading of "The Shack".
0 comments:
Post a Comment