In a way, Paul's writings are a source for fundamentalism but I think that it questionable how many of those writings attributed to him were written by him. I have just been thinking that, strangely, I have barely read any. I read the Gospels and The Book of Revelation several time, but, somehow, skipped the writings of Paul, and that was before my friend got in a terrible state about Paul's writings.

I think that Joseph Campbell is a very useful thinker for enabling people to think about the mythic aspects of existence. I believe that he and Carl Jung do enable people to explore their own subconscious pathways, and become more conscious of deeper aspects of the self. I do think that the more conscious one become of the subconscious, a person is more likely to be able to try to find ways of not being destructive. Jung spoke of becoming more conscious of the shadow, although he did not think that this was an easy task at all.

There do appear to be parallels between Indian ideas about Atman/Brahman and Gnosticicism. One other esoteric tradition which draws upon this is Celtic Christianity.

The relationship between Christianity and sex/sexuality is interesting. I am sure that it is variable and I actually went to a church youth club briefly as a teenager and there was a lot of drinking and affairs. It was too wild for me at the time. One other aspect which I am aware of is how some people have retreated into the church to escape sexuality. I know one gay man who spent time as a monk and another who was a priest, but they did leave eventually.

There is a puritanical aspect to Christianity. However, I am sure that most struggle with it nowadays. I don't think many people find it easy to live the lifestyle of Immanuel Kant.

I can't say for sure that my friend committed suicide just on account of Paul, because I didn't see him in the 2 weeks before he killed himself. But, on the last time I saw him he was talking about not being able to live up to the example of Paul and had smashed a mirror as a result. As he was studying in a different town I never got to see him again. I think that it is likely that he had a lot of problems I didn't know about, so I can't just put it down to Paul.

However, I am also aware of so many people who have developed religious psychoses, including 2 people who I went to school with. I am talking about them having delusions about being a fallen angel and another of being the antichrist. So, I do have a strong interest in trying to understand the psychology of religion, as well as thinking about it as a philosophical issue.

Of course, I realise that Paul was just a preacher. In a way, he is an extremely interesting one because he began as a non believer and had a dramatic conversion experience.

You say that we are simply sinners in Christian thinking but I do believe that many people do worry that they are evil. There is also the potential fear of eternal hell, which could be seen as more to worry about than nonexistence. I never really worried about original sin, because it applied to everyone.

You probably remember the thread I created towards the end of last year about how worried I was when I was about the passage about the unforgivable sin, the mysterious 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.' I have only ever met 2 people who have really said they have worried over this. I do plan to read Kierkergaard at some point because I read that he worried about the unforgivable sin. So, really, I think that it is possible to worry so much about The Bible, although I remember how when I was working night shifts so many staff sat reading their Bibles, which they said gave them great reassurance.

I think that your response is a very interesting one because it does raise the continuum from the fundamentalist to the Gnostic, and funnily enough Elaine Pagels suggests that in their time the Gnostics were regarded as atheists. I have stood at many places on this continuum because I was raised as a Catholic, but looked at The Bible and Christianity from different angles. I remember when I was writing a dissertation on Carl Jung, I went to an evangelical church and a couple of people there told me that I should not study or write about Carl Jung. They were fundamentalist and regarded Jung's ideas as the work of the devil.

This was really puzzling for me at the time and I think that it is such a confusing area. I have never considered myself to be an absolute atheist and do question how to interpret The Bible. I probably would not have written the thread at all if I had a clear definite conclusion. I tend to go more in the direction of the symbolic because it makes a lot more sense to me and my own ego concerns.

I also come with a certain amount of anger towards St Paul because I had a friend who killed himself by throwing himself out of a college window after going to an evangelical event and getting in a bad state over the writings of Paul. So, in a way, I am in the odd position of needing to forgive St Paul. The death of this friend was one of the key triggers which lead me to challenge my Christian, or Catholic, background.

Generally, nowadays I do tend to more symbolic thinking but I do still believe that the underlying teachings of Jesus are extremely useful, although I think that there are parallels between these and the teachings of the Buddha. I think that there is such a difference between deeper reading of The Bible and the way institutionalised religion is enforced. I think that I have seen both the negative and the positive sides of Christianity and The Bible. A couple of my closest friends go to church every week, and I do go to church with one of them at times, but I do get stressed in church because I am aware of extreme views, especially fundamentalism. I also discovered a few years ago that my English teacher from school has written a book on the complex relationship between Catholicism, sex and psychology.

Your research ideas may be useful, but looking , but it does appear to me that people can find studies on Wikipedia on the internet increasingly to back up just about any view they wish to argue. I am in favour of research but I think that it can be used in just the way that ideas in The Bible were used and abused. I am not wishing to dismiss empirical evidence, but just believe that it is not straightforward, and the role of observer and researcher are of critical importance.

But, of course, saying this may throw me back into the hermeneutical levels of evaluation of the Biblical texts. However, I do believe that ideas and the way they come into play in life is so intricate.

I do agree that the idea of being born from sin is mostly derived from Paul rather than Christ. In many ways I believe that so much of the thinking within Christianity goes back to the thinking of Paul. I think that the role and importance of Paul is often overlooked, and his own experience was that of being a non believer, who went through a major conversion experience.

I am interested in your view because I think that while there were dark ages in the past, the erosion of religion will not necessarily prevent future dark ages. You correctly point to the examples of Hitler and Stalin.

I have read a book by Manly Hall on the wisdom of all ages, but not the specific one about the development of Christianity. However, my reading of Elaine Pagels on gnosticism is that particular views on the life and death of Jesus Christ were central to the development of Christianity, especially the emphasis on a physical resurrection.

The Gnostics spoke more in terms of individuals experience some contact with a spiritual encounter with Christ whereas the orthodox Christian's were firm in stating a physical resurrection. The Gnostics were regarded as heretics. However, Pagels suggests that the doctrine of a physical resurrection was used to justify certain developments in the social order. The hierarchy of the church was believed to reflect the hierarchy in the heavens, or the divine order.

This was a way of justifying the status quo in the political order. Pagels also suggests that the Gnostics placed far more emphasis on the feminine principle and the value of women. In this way, the Gnostic thinkers were regarded as heretical for questioning the patriarchy and the subordination of women.

One of the main premises of the Bible was the entire message of people being sinners. This was developed strongly in history, with the mythology of the fall of the Lucifer, the lord of light and the consequent fall of humanity, in Milton's, 'Paradise Lost.' For many centuries in the history of the Church theology and philosophy overlapped strongly.

At the moment I am reading on the Gnostic gospels, and we have a different perspective. The human side of Christ is more apparent, although the Gnostic understanding of the body is complex, and in some ways the body was regarded with disdain. There is even some thought that Mary Magdalene was Jesus's lover, but I don't know if this is really factually true at all. But, the idea of the sacred prostitute is an interesting symbol.

I definitely think that power is a critical factor. However, I do wonder if it is possible for individuals to develop themselves in such a way that power does not lead to people becoming tyrannical. Some individuals do manage this, and, the ideal would be for a greater number of people of people to hold positions of authority without abusing the power.

I think that some people project so much onto transgender individuals, and that is why they have issues with individuals who are gender dysphoric or wish to transition.

I do think that my own answers to such questions do reflect my own mindset. If I am feeling stressed I often feel negative in my own thoughts about where the world and humanity is going. I find that my thoughts are like waves. But, generally, I do believe that the most important factor is to make conscious choices to overcome destructiveness helps rather than being dragged along by destructive tendencies subconsciously.

I don't know. It just seems that on the forum people project so much onto other groups and that was really why I raised it. But, I did feel that I may appear really stupid asking the question.

I have just moved my discussion to the lounge because it may be too depressing, but t, if I find that people are interested in it I will transfer it back. It may be something which I think about, and perhaps others, but it may be that there is no point talking about it all.

So, maybe my question is a about myself. It actually arose in thinking about atrocities committed by human beings in the dark ages, in the name of religion. I believe that religion is not the key factor, but human nature, because it is not as ìf humanity has been transformed by losing religion. And, if my question is not worth discussing the thread will probably die by the end of the day, or should I say, it will self destruct.

I don't think that it is possible to say what would have happened if the church and The Bible had not played a significant role. I find the history as being extremely interesting for all it teaches, and it probably says so much about human nature. The question which I see is whether we can learn from the past mistakes, with or without The Bible.

It is hard to know what would have happened if the Church had not existed. As far as I can see the Church, despite its negative effects, did form the underlying structure for Western civilisation, for better or worse.

John Lennon sang, 'Imagine no religion..' and it is debatable whether the loss of religion leads to cultural fragmentation. As much as thinking about The Bible in the historical context, it is interesting to think what role it will play in the future, and this may depend on what level it is understood and interpreted. I think that one important aspect is the need for demystifying many of the ideas. Perhaps the philosophers can help people understand it better, and try to enable it to be understood in such a way that it is less likely to be used in an oppressive way.

Yes, we should definitely not overlook the way in Anti-Semitism only last century and we don't know what is in our midst. The central problem is human nature. I think that the problem is not The Bible, or other sacred texts, but how these can be abused, as a way to back up and enforce negative ideologies.

I think that there is always such a mismatch between ethical ideas and practice. The ethical ideal in Christianity was of 'perfection',especially in the writings of Paul, but living up to the ideals seemed only possible for the saints.

It does seem that there have been dark ages in the past, and it almost makes me feel optimistic about our current times, despite conflicts in the world and the worry about climate change etc.

I agree that forgiveness was important but I don't think that it was always that simple. For example, I believe learning in history that in the Catholic church there were 'indulgences' in which people were expected to pay for their sins to be forgiven, even though tasks such as building bridges. I also believe that it is likely that the rich and powerful still oppressed the poor. I imagine that behind the scenes of the church and the rhetoric of Christian ethics there was so much oppression. In particular, the Church held onto the wealth and power.

I know that some people do think that some of the ideas in The Bible were made up. It is so hard to know on what level many of the ideas were believed literally, because in some ways they may have been written as works of literature. The Gnostic writings may have been suppressed for this reason, for making the ideas appear to be mainly symbolic. But, I do believe that it is hard to know the facts behind the texts, but I am wishing to read and discover more fully.

I think that criticism and looking behind the surface in the ideas and writings in The Bible is very important. I remember going to commentaries in libraries when I was a teenager and so worried about the passage about the unforgivable sin. I found that looking at commentaries was like peeling back layers of meaning. It may be that the history of religious ideas, even before Christ, was full of dialogue and heated exchanges of ideas on many levels.

Thinking about the 'Old' and the 'New' Testaments is also probably extremely complex, because it involved the migration of ideas at various places in the world. I am sure that Greek ideas, were important on many ways, but a part which may be overlooked is paganism and various systems of ideas, especially metaphysics, including Hermeticism. I do believe that Gnostic traditions and other esoteric traditions play an important role behind the scenes of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, in shaping the development of the ideas.

I had a busy day so haven't really been involved in the discussion on the thread today, but I do believe that interpretations of ideas in the Bible have been central to ethical traditions in Western society. But I think that the important links of this were the theologians and the Church, because these were leading authorities. Also, I am sure that there were so many varying political factors throughout the world, and we are also speaking about a period of 2000 years. It is the entire history of Christendom.

I think that you are correct to see the Bible as having a basis for ethics and metaphysics. We can say that we have the ten commandments and Jesus emphasised the specific idea of loving your neighbour as yourself. The idea of loving your neighbour as yourself was probably the essential foundation for the categorical imperative of Kant.

It is interesting to think about the metaphysics of the Bible. There was most definitely a belief in a God underlying nature, and, it is probably on the basis of people not believing this, that many don't believe that the Bible is as important as they did in previous ages. Apart from this, I do think that there is a different underlying thinking about mind and body. I am not sure that it is simply idealism, and I wonder if it is more in line with the thinking of Eastern philosophy.

Also, in the thinking about life after death,we could say that there were two possibly contrasting approaches arising from the Bible. One was the idea of an immortal soul, and one was the idea that the physical body is resurrected at the end of the world. I believe that these were very different, and even contradictory, but this may have been blurred together by many people.

I do believe that philosophy is useful for thinking about accuracy and, finding a way through philosophical fog which remains from uncritical thinking about The Bible.

I think that a lot of people do see Jung's ideas of the psyche as outdated. However, I think if you read his writings he really goes beyond psychology, with more of an analysis of thought, even though he is not a philosopher strictly speaking.

Philosophers have drawn upon the science to deconstruct some of the notions in the Bible, including the idea of the soul. But, finding meaning in life is so much harder. I do believe that in many ways we create our own meaning. But, this is so variable, and it may require a lot of philosophical searching for many to be able to do this fully.

I think that it comes down to the complex way in which mind is not just dependent on a brain, but the chemicals arising within the brain, especially the neurotransmitters. In particular, dopamine is believed to be implicated in psychotic disorders and serotonin in depression, and there are probably other chemicals which are involved.

What may be interesting for thinking about the mind and body problem is the way emotions work, especially in mood disorders. Treatment for depression often involves antidepressants, and these seem to be very powerful. I can say this on the basis of working with patients who were diagnosed with depression, and I have also taken antidepressants myself. However, what is interesting is the way in which mood can be affected by drug treatment but also by experiences. Life experiences affect moo strongly, as well as the way we process them, which is the basis for various therapy options.

On a slightly different level, we can think about psychiatry and delusions. It does appear that there is a genetic basis which predisposed people to psychotic disorders, and stress can be a factor. Use of recreational drugs also can be a trigger, especially cannabis. So, there is a definite chemical basis for psychotic disorders. However, it also involves the nature of thinking, which is based on chemicals and the brain. However, ideas come into play, and so we could say that delusions may even be seen as being a philosophy problem.

I have tried not to get too far into discussion of Genesis because I am aware that there is another thread on the topic. However, I will make one comment here, because it is central to my understanding of The Bible. I am surprised by the fact that some people do still take Genesis as a possible factual account. I discovered recently and one of my friends believes that a literal Adam and Eve existed.

I can remember struggling with the idea of evolution when I was age 10 and my parents believed in the Genesis account. However, I did begin to see the problems with the Genesis creation story. It was not as if human beings witnessed the beginning of the world, so any attempt to describe it could only be a story, or the two stories within Genesis.

As for God as a role model, I would imagine that this would be about living like Jesus Christ. This was attempted by many through the centuries, as the idea of 'The Imitation of Christ', as expressed by Thomas a Kempis. Some became martyrs and many remained sinners. I remember as a child, sins could almost be forgotten once declared in confession. But, really, I believe that on a deeper level, Jesus and the Buddha are examples for higher ideals, especially compassion and concern for others.

I have looked at you old posts, and I can see problems arising from The Bible, and its application. I have certainly experienced preaching from others, in a negative, unhelpful way.

However, I do wonder if the underlying problem is more about human nature. We can blame The Bible for war and oppression, but this is the application of ideas. It is a bit like thinking of science in relation to nuclear weapons and climate change. The problem is how ideas are translated into practice. Of course, we have a mixture of religion and science coming together, with the addition of human nature, which may be a toxic mix indeed.

Regarding the idea of the ineffable, I can see that it has a basis in The Bible, but I think that it is in many traditions as well. I am in favour of trying to demystify the ineffable.

In thinking about the way in which The Bible incorporates ideas about the relationship between God and human beings, I think that Jung's emphasis on the development of the image of God in the Bible is important.

I think that The Bible has been and can be interpreted in various ways and angles. Even though many approach it as a work of literature, I am not sure how widespread this view is. I believe that it can provide comfort or distress for individuals. It is probably the most influential book in history, although I don't know how it would rank in relation to The Koran.

In Christianity, a Bible is even seen as a sacred item, especially as oaths involve The Bible. As a child, I accidentally vomited in class and this went onto a classmate's Bible . I felt really terrible at the time. I wondered what it signified, although no one ever told me off, and I think I gave my own Bible to the boy beside me.

Thanks for the useful links about Judaism.

Thanks for your poem. With regard to your remark about 'divine inspiration' we may ask what that may entail. In the most simplistic explanation, we may find an answer like: God wrote the Bible. That is projecting the source of inspiration outside of the human sphere, and dividing the 'sacred' into a separate category. I think that it is worth replacing the word 'divine' and thinking about creative inspiration.

I can appreciate the idea of there being a pathway in the evolution of truth. The only one query which I would have is whether each new step is actually progress, or simply the most accurate one based on current views. Also, there are so many perspectives throughout the world. In a way, this seems to be a form of relativism, but I think that in the information age we are able to draw upon all the divergent ideas for a more synthetic approach to truth.

Thanks for your link about Muriel Spark. I read 'The Book of Job' after reading, 'Answer to Job' by Jung. However, I have to say that, 'The Book of Job' stands out for me because it is such a distinct discussion and reflection on why human beings suffer.

I see your point of view about calling the Old Testament as 'Old' comes from a specific interpretation, and it is simply the way I have seen it worded in Bibles. I am not in any way biased against Judaism and I think that such an interpretation of the Bible is important too. So, I welcome the Jewish interpretation as well.

I became fascinated by 'The Book of Revelation' in sixth form, and art based on it. But, I do think that literal interpretations of it are extremely problematic. Later, I joined Christian Unions and came across so many people who came with very literal approaches, and I got extremely muddled up. I questioned Christianity, and have read as widely as possible. I got a bit lost in reading new age ideas.

I have found that interaction on this site has helped me to think more clearly, but I do believe that allegory and symbolism are extremely important, and that thinking about the Bible is very useful. I believe that looking at religious experience in this way may enable going deeper into the underlying aspect of arguments about the existence of God. I don't think that it is possible to prove or disprove God's existence, and is about the underlying unknown or numinous experiences. But, I am not sure that this approach would seem to be what many consider to be important within philosophy. It is possible to be an atheist who appreciates the numinous, and some theists don't pay much attention to this dimension at all.