↪Ecurb
Well, I hardly said that people lust after being forgiven on request. What a peculiar thing to say! I don't envision them achieving orgasm on actually being forgiven, either. But perhaps, for reasons unclear to me, you interpreted my suggestion people would find forgiveness of sin attractive to refer to physical attraction.

Here's how confession worked, in the old days. You entered the confessional, asked the priest to bless you, for you had sinned. You advised the priest how long it had been since your last confession. You described your sins. You were told your sins would be forgiven provided you sincerely repented and said certain prayers. Ego te absolvo peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti/i] are the priestly words of absolution on behalf of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rendered in Latin. That was the way of it.

In the Catholic tradition, one could obtain remission of temporal punishment for sins through prayer or good conduct. They're called indulgences.

Do you imagine that those who ask for their sins to be forgiven do so but then don't believe they've been forgiven until they've received some divine communication confirming absolution?

History is full of examples of Christians being assured their sins will be forgiven ( for example, for going on a Crusade or pilgrimage).

By the way, I'm no fellow traveler of yours. Neither an atheist nor a theist. — Ciceronianus

"Lust" can refer (metaphorically) to a spiritual desire as well as a physical one.

I don't know what people "believe" -- and neither do you. I'd guess many Catholics confess as a ritual act, and have no firm belief one way or another. And many Crusaders wanted their earthly debts forgiven, rather than their spiritual ones (as well as seeking earthly riches in the Holy Land).

What I was objecting to is your earlier claim that Christianity was attractive because on the ease with which one can attain salvation. But "narrow is the way" that leads to salvation; "easy is the way that leads to destruction." Isn't the "fear of God" a Christian principle?

IN addition, reductionist, psychological explanations for the spread of a complicated, many-faceted cultural occurrence tend to lack explanatory value. Although Christianity probably offered comfort to some, it offered distress to many others (who thought they were damned). Yet it flourished. I'd suggest the explanations that offer more understanding are cultural: political, mythological, and societal. Paul fought with James the Just (Jesus' brother) because he ignored the historical Jesus in his interest in the Myth of Christ. Yet it was he, more than any other disciple, who founded Christianity.

The world was changing. Judaism was a tribal religion -- but the Roman Empire had made tribalism obsolete (or if not obsolete, at least dated). The "tribe" morphed into "the set of believers". Of course this is a problem for modern Christians (especially evangelicals in the U.S.). Unlike Catholic rituals (which "confirm" tribal identity), "belief" is not publicly identifiable. Hence, a litany of "beliefs" confirming it (anti-abortion, anti-communism, etc.).

I don't agree with Cice's claim that people lust after being forgiven upon request. NO sophisticated Christian would be motivated by that. It's not the "request" that saves -- it's the grace of God who judges the souls of men. I say this as a confirmed atheist. I object to my fellow travelers offering shallow critiques of the religion which (for us Westerners) has shaped our culture and values.

Another point, apropos of what some other posters have stated:

Christianity combined Greek philosophy with Jewish law and order. The God of the Old Testament is rarely omnipotent or omniscient. He often is surprised by his people (hardly demonstrating omniscience). He seems to want to favorably compare Himself to competing Gods ("You shall have no other Gods before me").

He is also often masterful and poetic, even when He is tormenting Job he trenchantly asks him,

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?"

The New Testament God sends His only son to save mankind (although we might ask, "Who was it that set us up to fail?") Jesus represented God as philosophical - but not in the Greek, logical way. Instead, He is a story-teller, and a myth-maker. Ethics, for Him and for Christians, is not logical, but analogical. "What would Jesus do?"

So Christianity combined Jewish law with Greek philosophy, and added an analogical touch.

The story resonates, especially at Christmas. God so loved the world.....

Claude Levi-Strauss claimed that myth is about overcoming contradictions and opposites. In Christianity, death = birth. The meek shall inherit the earth. These stories resonate with people. Here's GK Chesterton's take, appropriate for the season:

There fared a mother driven forth
Out of an inn to roam;
In the place where she was homeless
All men are at home.
The crazy stable close at hand,
With shaking timber and shifting sand,
Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand
Than the square stones of Rome.

For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done.
Here we have battle and blazing eyes,
And chance and honor and high surprise,
But our homes are under miraculous skies
Where the yule tale was begun.

A Child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam,
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home;
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost - how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.

This world is wild as an old wives' tale,
And strange the plain things are,
The earth is enough and the air is enough
For our wonder and our war;
But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings
And our peace is put in impossible things
Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings
Round an incredible star.

To an open house in the evening
Home shall men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.

:up: Well said, and welcome to the forum.

On the other hand, I never managed to find the insightful and brilliant in his books, because the first one I read was so dull it put me off reading any others: Musicophilia. My loss, I suppose. — Jamal

In An Anthropoogist on Mars Sacks has a chapter about blind people who recover their vision. They can suddenly see, but cannot interpret what they see. Depth perception (which most of us learn while batting mobiles around in our cribs) is difficult. It takes a year or more for them to navigate the world as a seeing person.

Then Sacks mentions the story of Jesus restoring the sight to a blind man, from Mark 8.

“And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.

After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly..”

The Mark version is remarkable in its agreement with the Sacks stories about those whose sight has been restored by modern medical techniques. The formerly blind man could not differentiate between men and trees. In terms of literary skill, Sacks' ability to reference Biblical literature adds to the resonance of the story. Does any of this add credence to the Gospel tale? Well, maybe not. But it demonstrates Sacks' breath of knowledge, which typifies his writing. It's bits like this that I admire in Sacks.

The notion that science is the only path to knowledge is, of course, silly. HIstory (including case histories) is never repeatable. Even scientific experiments are not repeatable -- all are unique events.

The history of psychology and psychoanalysis is replete with meaningful and insightful works that are not "scientific". Freud revolutionized how we see ourselves and our subconsciouses, but his psychoanalyses have not been found effective in treating psychological disorders. Does that mean they are worthless? Freud was, if no more, a literary genius. "Totem and Taboo" is not, perhaps, an accurate history of totemism. Instead, it is a myth -- deeper and more meaningful than history. Sacks books may not have been quite at that level, but they are both insightful and brilliant -- whether or not they contain a few "stretchers".

"Show me a man who does not lie, and I'll show you a man who hasn't much to say," wrote Mark Twain. Sacks certainly had a lot to say, some of it controversial.