A History of God - Karen Armstrong (thanks @Wayfarer)
Rogue Moon - Algis Budrys (thanks @Srap Tasmaner)

I always see their name everywhere, but haven't ever listened. Liked the 90's vibe...is that a thing now?

Yes, I’m a aware of all of this and I’m not advocating literalism.

Sorry, I'm at work but, I'll try to go into more detail later.

they came up with all sorts of fantistical tales, none of which they really took literally. — Hanover

This is the type of assumption I’m critiquing. It just doesn’t make sense.

"Creating a narrative", not "narrative". No, I'm not claiming a narrative comes from God. I Think you're completely misunderstanding me.

I'm talking about the fact that "creating a narrative" is a post-modern concept, which you're projecting unto Jesus's disciples.

delete

they had to create a narrative — Fooloso4

This is the kind of modern projection I’m talking about.

But others came up with this story because they had to maintain hope. — Fooloso4

What does this mean? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about in this thread.

This thread is such a waste of energy.

It's nice, something I would play at work if I was out of ideas.

Kendrick stole the half time show, obviously:



edit: it should work, just click "watch on youtube" and go to 7:07 (or watch the whole thing)

The relationship between the inner world and the outer one of daily life is so complex. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and it's not understood by any of us. When I first read about Jung's approach to dreams, I then had several very intense dreams that were easy to interpret in a Jungian way. I haven't had a dream like that in over a year.

I haven't read Monroe in any depth but I may do at some point. — Jack Cummins

A note of caution; when I say Far Journeys broke my brain a bit, I mean it put me into an existential fog for several months. That probably says as much about me as anything; that said, his first book Journeys Out of the Body was a great read that I thoroughly enjoyed. It's worth a read. But, somewhat related to your caution about charlatans, I would also caution us to test the waters as we move further away from shore. It's wise to retain some sense of where the shore is when diving in here, so as not to get lost at sea, as I've done several times.

I often see images of myself which change into other people or forms and I wonder what this is about. The world of dream imagery is puzzling. — Jack Cummins

Fascinating. I've never experienced this. On the other hand, family members make regular appearances in my dreams, in which I'm still the "main character". Like I said, trauma, or just basic therapeutic tendencies seem to be at play here.

Interesting analysis. When you say "when the former is lacking" you're referring to "the senses", yeah?

but it is questionable how much can be taken at face value? — Jack Cummins

I’m not sure. His second book Far Journeys broke my brain a bit. It is completely wild. But ironically there are parallels to his experiences and other spiritual traditions such as Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism which prevented me from completely writing it off. That combined with his scientific disposition; he had zero interest in this stuff until it started happening to him.

would like to do that again, but it is hard to write dreams down before forgetting them — Jack Cummins

I sometimes record them into my phone as memos. Not sure if it’s that much easier, but it’s another approach.

There are so many recurring themes, locations and people in my dreams that it’s simply self evident to me that they are not meaningless, that they have significance. Maybe not everyone has these kind of dreams; I think if anything it may be related to trauma, so not something to envy.

Jung was probably correct in indicating that in the interpretation of dreams the individual meanings of the dreamer need to be taken into account rather than rules of interpretation being applied universally. — Jack Cummins

An interesting note: I've always had vivd dreams and dreams that seem to have "significance", but once I first read about Jung's approach, I then had dreams that I found were more easy to interpret within my own personal situation and issues. Can our waking perception of dreams influence our actual dreams?

hat is interesting in the way in which it refers to voyages to upper and lower worlds. — Jack Cummins

'astral travel or projection' — Jack Cummins

Have you read anything by Robert Monroe? He's a fascinating case because he was apparently not at all interested in anything "supernatural", but began having spontaneous out of body experiences. So often people are pre-disposed to having an interest in these things, which makes them an easy target for skeptics. This was not the case with Monroe.

I fall into the category of those who choose to explore it. The main issue may be about keeping balance and it is not easy. I definitely have experienced times when I have lost that balance. Ideally, it may be best to have some kind of mentor but they are difficult to find, and there are so many charlatans. Careful reading from various viewpoints may be the best, with a basis in philosophy or critical thinking may be the best approach, and some kind of grounding in the physical world. — Jack Cummins

I fall into this category as well, and I agree that a careful, measured approach is best.

I mentioned a dream I had in the shoutbox, but I don't think it was a proper lucid dream, just a very vivid one in which I was in control of my flying ability.

I have had dreams on occasion which quite literally felt more real than reality; they evoke a feeling of pure, crystalline clarity of consciousness which is lacking in waking life. This is what nags at me and leaves me wondering. The afterglow of these sorts of dreams is a feeling that doesn't seem to appear anywhere else in life.

Maybe I'm reading my own biases into what I'm reading. My interests aren't purely historical either, so that may be part of it. "A way of making sense of things", yes, but I'm still not satisfied with that. I guess I'm trying to incorporate a more general philosophy of religion angle, which is not easy when you're dealing with ancient peoples. I need to re-read some other auxiliary material to try to synthesize the thoughts I'm having.

the biases of scholars altered the original sources as found in the Bible, — Fooloso4

No, I'm asking whether the scholars are projecting modern ways of thinking unto the ancient past, and questioning whether that's an appropriate projection.

The problem here is it feels like us modern secular and atheistic readers are imagining the whole of ancient religion to be some sort of farce wherein the religious elite were crafting ways to maintain control over their population with full knowledge that it was all bullshit. I don't think this was the case; I think this is the modern projection we engage in too often.

The bias is not that of contemporary scholarship but that of those editors and compilers who selectively changed older mythologies to comply with their beliefs. — Fooloso4

Surely both parties here have biases. There's no debating that fact. How can we know what it felt like, mentally, emotionally, at the time when different gods were being combined with one another? What I'm saying is that religious leaders weren't having summits where they agreed on who to combine with whom. Sometimes the literature reads that way (a crude characterization on my part, but you get the idea).

Religion and politics go hand in hand. Many of the stories in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) come from the Ugaritic/Canaanite stories. YHWH was originally a minor god, subordinate to El, the high god. YHWH, the god of the Israelites, subsumed and supplanted him. It is telling that the land promised to the Jews in Exodus is Canaan. — Fooloso4

Yes, I've just recently read up on this stuff.

I find it unconvincing, although there is some interesting stuff. — T Clark

What didn't you buy about it? If the physical world is evolving, I assume consciousness is as well (and I'm not a materialist).

What these two sources have in common is the idea that we can't necessarily assume we can understand what and how people in the past thought or felt. Understanding how other people think requires us to try to put ourselves in their shoes. This can be a more and more difficult task the further we get from their time and culture. — T Clark

Yes, this is what I'm getting at.

By comparing the Talmud and the Gospel, we can surmise that Jesus was influenced by Hillel. Because he nearly always come down on the side of Hillel on this type of questions (except on divorce where he sides with Shammai in forbidding it). — Olivier5

Thanks for the info. I was looking for specific sources, though, from the literature; some books if they exist. Or is this your own surmise?

It is interesting to see how many gods became one. So effective was the transformation that most do not see it even though traces of it remain and can be seen if one does not read the texts assuming monotheism. — Fooloso4

Gotta run, but one thing I want to explore is what exactly it means that gods "became one". The literature I've read and am reading seems to assume a certain willful, conscious decision to equate gods or discard certain ones out of convenience. I feel that I'm reading modern scholar's inherent modern, secular biases in their accounts. I think we have to try to put ourselves in their shoes as best we can in order to attempt some grasp of how these things were changing. I guess I'm asking a question of ancient psychology, which is impossible to answer. I assume through their lived experience, the ancients felt (maybe intuitively?) that they had unlocked a key to reality when these syncretic moments happened. More later.

Funny, I just read through a summary of that in Karen Armstrong’s “A History Of God”, although she didn’t mention a similarity between Hillel and Jesus. The next chapter is on Christianity, though, so we’ll see. Any references on that specific topic you’re aware of?

I’m saying none of that.

Isn’t the point of ridding the human race of religious “fables” presumably to eradicate the types of suffering and injustice they’ve caused? Why pursue this when non-religious institutions result in the same atrocities? It’s no bizarre projection.

I’m not sure what your point is. All I know is Fight Fire With Fire is a Kansas song.

Is it?

I’m not quite at the same point as you, but I know what you’re saying. None of the big three feel right, but I’m the closest to theism, without getting off track and going into detail. There’s a lot of malleability to these terms anyway.

regarded by some as an attack motivated by hatred — Fooloso4

I agreed with T Clark but this isn’t my position. I’ve read and continue to explore the literature myself. There’s a difference between a balanced, measured scholarship, and a mania resembling fundamentalism.

I think this is what annoys me; the irony of a sort of fundamentalist proselytizing against the Christian myth.

Just trying to help.

[joke] Noble Dust's positions aren't unbalanced, weird, or obsessive, but he himself is.[/joke] — T Clark

I feel seen... :yikes:

I'm not a theist, but the level of hatred for religion I see here on the forum bothers me. I think it calls into question the forum's claim of support for human rights and freedom of expression. — T Clark

I agree with you and largely abstain from jumping in the ring.

I don't understand your need to vehemently attack all angles of the Christian myth. It's seems to be an unbalanced position; a weird obsession. Of course, I've seen it a thousand times; nothing new.

But they go to such great lengths in their efforts to make of Christianity what they want it to be, what they find to be intellectually acceptable, that Jesus, as portrayed in Scripture, seems less and less recognizable. — Ciceronianus

Do you have specific examples; a compare and contrast? I don't disagree, but the complaint seems a bit vague.

I'm with BC. A really good post. Thoughtful and well-written. — T Clark

Thanks.

I'm not an atheist, but have lost pretty much all interest in the pointless battle between atheism and theism. I'm also not pissed off at the church and don't have any hateful feelings towards it. I really like studying religion and spirituality in general, in large part probably as an attempt at closure. But I do feel at the same time like it's leading me somewhere.

I'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. — Ciceronianus

In my mind, one reason is the importance of tradition within Christianity. If to be a Christian means to have faith in the basic tenets of Christianity, I think it's often overlooked that one huge cornerstone holding up this faith is the tradition of Christianity itself. The crumbling of this cornerstone for myself was one of the main reasons for losing my own former faith.

There's a two-thousand-year-old theological tradition that has it's roots in the rather forceful emergence of a catholic, orthodox faith in the face of both persecution and a chaotic milieu of different strands of early Christianity, some of which are barely recognizable to us today as Christian. One element of that forceful emergence of catholicity was, as I'm sure you know, the creation of a canon.

What I came to realize later was that I was taught the singular, nearly ultimate importance of the canon (the Bible), when in reality, what really bound the whole thing together was the tradition that grew out of the emergence of a catholic faith; the canon was only one aspect. So it's almost this feedback loop where tradition venerates the Bible because of...the tradition that venerates it. The emphasis on the Bible of course could only reach it's modern heights once literacy was more prevalent, so of course, for hundreds of years, it didn't even play the role it does in modern Christianity. That's another example of the evolution of the tradition.

So it's true, as you say, that theologians sometimes have to do an awkward dance to fit Jesus into their theology; but in my mind, this is because of the underlying, sometimes unconscious, importance of the tradition of Christianity itself. If there wasn't this need to remain tethered to tradition, theology might look a lot like secular philosophy; anything might be on the table. But tradition keeps theology chained to itself. Jesus is part of the tradition; he was the genesis (but not the founder, arguably) of the whole thing, after all. So he must be kept in. And gradually emerging doctrines like inerrancy and divine inspiration served to tether theology to tradition even more tightly.

A side note is that John's inclusion in the canon was controversial, and I think largely responsible for Jesus's role in the evolving tradition, and Paul was also important (but how many of the Pauline letters were actually written by Paul is another question). Sorry for the ramble, hopefully that made some sense.

Love the Pink Floyd sample in this track