First off, I apologize for my inactivity in the forum as of late. I'm busy and when I do have the time I very much resonate with your friend in not wanting to write just anything. That being said, I'm going to give a much abbreviated version of some of the issues being raised in my life as of late regarding faith with the hope that such brief remarks will generate further discussion/inquire from others who may be more qualified to speak to the matters at hand or who may have more time to look deeper into them.
I should preface by explaining the root of the issues. I am taking a Survey of History until 1500 course at school that is taught by what I perceive to be a "sneaky humanist", though this is simply a judgment I've made based on the way the course's content is presented. With the guise of objectivity, he manages to paint pictures with the material that are not necessarily imperative to one's study of history. It is so subtle that is it difficult to pinpoint, but as the post progresses I hope to clarify what I mean by that. My other main secular influence is a World Literature professor who is what I think most Protestants would call a Catholic pluralist--ascribing to Catholicism herself, rather devoutly I might add, but at the same time accepting other faith systems as legitimate means to spiritual "enlightenment" though I don't mean to allude to eastern religion at all with that term. Also, she has an IQ of 140. I refuse to allow myself to vocalize my disagreement with her on most things as this usually ends up in an intellectual beat down for me. Don't ask why she is teaching at a community college. She is very big of Jungian (philosopher/psycho-analyst, Carl Jung) Myth Criticism, which, as she explains it in a very watered down manner posits there are three levels of “consciousness” if it can be called that. The first is the personal consciousness. That is where we live day in and day out. It manifests itself through our different personas (friend, brother, son, youth leader, etc.) as a result of our ego (don’t think of that in a pejorative sense…I’m told it is deeper than what we consider ego). Personal unconscious is the next level. Sometimes our personal unconscious can seep through to our personal consciousness. This is supposedly what happens when we have dreams. Our personal unconsciousness is slipping into consciousness, though we aren’t ready to face those as realities yet. Underlying both of these levels is the collective unconscious. It is connected to through the “anima” for men and the “animos” for women. (I really don’t know what either of those mean.) The collective unconscious is just as it sounds, that which is collectively “known” apart from geography, race, gender, religion, creed, and all the rest of that good stuff. This level is exhibited best in the great works of literature. The Bible being one of them, but every other great work being one as well. That was a little rant for you, MR, but I suppose it is somewhat relevant. Another quick note on this before I move on. From my observations, few though they may be, it is not noble to seek to know the source of the collective unconscious. It is much more virtuous to simply recognize it’s existence and be in awe of it. Once responsibility for the phenomenon is shifted to a cause, specifically a deity, it loses its awesomeness. Just a note of interest there.
So, what types of things have these two professors of mine been corrupting this young, pliable mind with? Briefly, I suppose if I had to put it in a box and wrap a bow around it I’d label the box “the progression of religion”. I would guess that most who frequent this forum have heard the arguments against a divine being that rely on the progression of religion as evidence. First, “God” (I use that as a generic term, not referring to a certain monotheistic religion’s with which we are all so familiar nor excluding polytheism/pantheism, etc.) is an animal. Then, we kill so much of that animal that it dies out or something, so then we say “God” dwells inside this holy temple that only certain “priests” can go see. Well, eventually people go inside the “temple” and find no “God” so they say “He” must be atop this very high mountain that no once can climb. Well, we end up climbing the mountain and find “God” is not at the summit. What do we do next? We say “He” resides in the heavens. That is, in the celestial bodies. Well, we look up there with telescopes and eventually fly up there with space shuttles and see no “God”. So naturally, there must be some “heaven” in a fourth dimension or something that is not visible to the human eye where “God” resides. I realize I butchered this, but you get the point. There was a guy who did this a lot more effectively than I have a while back in a book or something, but I don’t remember who he is. Oh well. So, we see a progression of religious beliefs to bring us to where we are today.
*From this point forward my sole historical source is a guy with a masters in history from Mercer University, so if my history is at all off, he is to blame. It is my intention to express the ideas with the bias that he may have provided me with unbeknownst to me.
Long story short, my history professor without coming out and saying it has hinted that a similar progression is seen within the Judeo-Christian context. First, you have the Jews being monolatrous initially. (I’m sure [someone else's] expertise can be useful here in the arena of dating Old Testament books and the relationship of theology to chronology in the OT.) That is, they lived with a polytheistic world but chose to focus on the worship of a particular deity, yet they didn’t damn other deities, they just chose to worship Yahweh. Of course, as the Hebrews progress and by the time we get to the Prophets we see worship of Jehovah alone with much exclusivity there. Nations being punished for worshiping other gods and so on and so forth. Enters Zoroaster.
Zoroaster is the founder of the Zoroastrianism religion. The time of Zoroastrianism’s origin is a matter much disputed by historians with estimates generally ranging between 1600 to 750 BC. Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra) was a prophet/holy man who renounced “the Lie”. “The Lie” was the ritualistic religiosity practiced by so many of the contemporaneous religions. He, instead, advocated a personal relationship with Ahura-Mazda “Wise Lord”, the “One True God”. Zoroastrianism’s creed has been summed up as “good thoughts of the mind, good deeds of the hand, and good words of the tongue.” The emphasis was on the importance of the individual to Ahura-Mazda, the only true God amongst a world of many idols. Ahura-Mazda’s adversary was Ahriman. Ahriman, a devil of sorts if you wish, had battling helpers who waged war against Ahura-Mazda and his force of spiritual beings in a cosmic battle between good and evil. The prophet’s teachings are copied in the “Zend-Avesta” The Law, which was copied by priests called magi and finalized during the 3rd century BC. Also unique to this faith system was it’s “Last Judgment” in which there would be a resurrection of the dead at which point there would be a trial by fire. For those who rejected “The Lie”, they would be purified by the fire unto eternal life. For the bad, they would be punished by fire as an eternal torment.
I’m sure it goes without saying that there are some remarkable similarities here to some very popular western religions, specifically Christianity. I’m going to go ahead and end here. I realize this hasn’t been the best written of posts, but what do you expect from a flustered college student that is trying to rush things so he can study for his test he has in the morning. I hope that this post has been useful at least in part, if for no other reason than that [someone else] can clear up any misconceptions I have may have gotten. I’d love to hear what everyone thinks. -AS
I should preface by explaining the root of the issues. I am taking a Survey of History until 1500 course at school that is taught by what I perceive to be a "sneaky humanist", though this is simply a judgment I've made based on the way the course's content is presented. With the guise of objectivity, he manages to paint pictures with the material that are not necessarily imperative to one's study of history. It is so subtle that is it difficult to pinpoint, but as the post progresses I hope to clarify what I mean by that. My other main secular influence is a World Literature professor who is what I think most Protestants would call a Catholic pluralist--ascribing to Catholicism herself, rather devoutly I might add, but at the same time accepting other faith systems as legitimate means to spiritual "enlightenment" though I don't mean to allude to eastern religion at all with that term. Also, she has an IQ of 140. I refuse to allow myself to vocalize my disagreement with her on most things as this usually ends up in an intellectual beat down for me. Don't ask why she is teaching at a community college. She is very big of Jungian (philosopher/psycho-analyst, Carl Jung) Myth Criticism, which, as she explains it in a very watered down manner posits there are three levels of “consciousness” if it can be called that. The first is the personal consciousness. That is where we live day in and day out. It manifests itself through our different personas (friend, brother, son, youth leader, etc.) as a result of our ego (don’t think of that in a pejorative sense…I’m told it is deeper than what we consider ego). Personal unconscious is the next level. Sometimes our personal unconscious can seep through to our personal consciousness. This is supposedly what happens when we have dreams. Our personal unconsciousness is slipping into consciousness, though we aren’t ready to face those as realities yet. Underlying both of these levels is the collective unconscious. It is connected to through the “anima” for men and the “animos” for women. (I really don’t know what either of those mean.) The collective unconscious is just as it sounds, that which is collectively “known” apart from geography, race, gender, religion, creed, and all the rest of that good stuff. This level is exhibited best in the great works of literature. The Bible being one of them, but every other great work being one as well. That was a little rant for you, MR, but I suppose it is somewhat relevant. Another quick note on this before I move on. From my observations, few though they may be, it is not noble to seek to know the source of the collective unconscious. It is much more virtuous to simply recognize it’s existence and be in awe of it. Once responsibility for the phenomenon is shifted to a cause, specifically a deity, it loses its awesomeness. Just a note of interest there.
So, what types of things have these two professors of mine been corrupting this young, pliable mind with? Briefly, I suppose if I had to put it in a box and wrap a bow around it I’d label the box “the progression of religion”. I would guess that most who frequent this forum have heard the arguments against a divine being that rely on the progression of religion as evidence. First, “God” (I use that as a generic term, not referring to a certain monotheistic religion’s with which we are all so familiar nor excluding polytheism/pantheism, etc.) is an animal. Then, we kill so much of that animal that it dies out or something, so then we say “God” dwells inside this holy temple that only certain “priests” can go see. Well, eventually people go inside the “temple” and find no “God” so they say “He” must be atop this very high mountain that no once can climb. Well, we end up climbing the mountain and find “God” is not at the summit. What do we do next? We say “He” resides in the heavens. That is, in the celestial bodies. Well, we look up there with telescopes and eventually fly up there with space shuttles and see no “God”. So naturally, there must be some “heaven” in a fourth dimension or something that is not visible to the human eye where “God” resides. I realize I butchered this, but you get the point. There was a guy who did this a lot more effectively than I have a while back in a book or something, but I don’t remember who he is. Oh well. So, we see a progression of religious beliefs to bring us to where we are today.
*From this point forward my sole historical source is a guy with a masters in history from Mercer University, so if my history is at all off, he is to blame. It is my intention to express the ideas with the bias that he may have provided me with unbeknownst to me.
Long story short, my history professor without coming out and saying it has hinted that a similar progression is seen within the Judeo-Christian context. First, you have the Jews being monolatrous initially. (I’m sure [someone else's] expertise can be useful here in the arena of dating Old Testament books and the relationship of theology to chronology in the OT.) That is, they lived with a polytheistic world but chose to focus on the worship of a particular deity, yet they didn’t damn other deities, they just chose to worship Yahweh. Of course, as the Hebrews progress and by the time we get to the Prophets we see worship of Jehovah alone with much exclusivity there. Nations being punished for worshiping other gods and so on and so forth. Enters Zoroaster.
Zoroaster is the founder of the Zoroastrianism religion. The time of Zoroastrianism’s origin is a matter much disputed by historians with estimates generally ranging between 1600 to 750 BC. Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra) was a prophet/holy man who renounced “the Lie”. “The Lie” was the ritualistic religiosity practiced by so many of the contemporaneous religions. He, instead, advocated a personal relationship with Ahura-Mazda “Wise Lord”, the “One True God”. Zoroastrianism’s creed has been summed up as “good thoughts of the mind, good deeds of the hand, and good words of the tongue.” The emphasis was on the importance of the individual to Ahura-Mazda, the only true God amongst a world of many idols. Ahura-Mazda’s adversary was Ahriman. Ahriman, a devil of sorts if you wish, had battling helpers who waged war against Ahura-Mazda and his force of spiritual beings in a cosmic battle between good and evil. The prophet’s teachings are copied in the “Zend-Avesta” The Law, which was copied by priests called magi and finalized during the 3rd century BC. Also unique to this faith system was it’s “Last Judgment” in which there would be a resurrection of the dead at which point there would be a trial by fire. For those who rejected “The Lie”, they would be purified by the fire unto eternal life. For the bad, they would be punished by fire as an eternal torment.
I’m sure it goes without saying that there are some remarkable similarities here to some very popular western religions, specifically Christianity. I’m going to go ahead and end here. I realize this hasn’t been the best written of posts, but what do you expect from a flustered college student that is trying to rush things so he can study for his test he has in the morning. I hope that this post has been useful at least in part, if for no other reason than that [someone else] can clear up any misconceptions I have may have gotten. I’d love to hear what everyone thinks. -AS
(Response originally posted Oct. 10, 2007)
ReplyDeleteThis is one of my favorite topics in this whole “Is God real?” discussion…(I guess we’ve never called it that before, huh?) I just had a short talk with a friend about this topic and we were each able to provide examples of this same sort of “bleeding” that seems to occur between religions / mythologies. This friend brought up the Code of Hammurabi, which he may decide to expound upon in his response, and I personally just finished Plato’s Republic, which has its own share of “Judeo-Christian-reminiscent” themes. I don’t know if the “some guy who wrote some book” you were thinking of was Sir James George Frazer, but he is pretty famous for studying this issue and published a multi-volume series on comparative religion called The Golden Bough. It’s on my “to-read” list.
I did some research and found out that Plato’s Republic was written sometime in the 3rd or 4th century B.C. I’m not too well-informed on the historical context of Greece at the time The Republic was written, but I have heard that polytheism began to decline in popularity somewhere in this proximity of time, which may explain why Plato’s characters often jump back and forth between reference to “the gods” and “God” as though they were completely unrelated. You get the impression from reading The Republic that the traditional Greek mythology had become merely a tool by this time - and an imperfect one at that - of revealing the attributes of God Himself, whom Plato describes with surprising accuracy (that is, from the Judeo-Christian perspective). Plato ends his book with by recounting certain stories contained within the Greek mythology…the similarities between these stories and those within the Judeo-Christian tradition should be obvious enough. First, let me set the context:
“[Er the son of Armenius] was slain in battle, and ten days afterward, when the bodies of the dead were taken up already in a state of corruption, his body was found unaffected by decay, and carried away home to be buried. And on the twelfth day, as he was lying on the funeral pyre, he returned to life and told them what he had seen in the other world…”
And here the similarities begin:
“He said that when his soul left the body he went on a journey with a great company, and that they came to a mysterious place at which there were two openings in the earth; they were near together, and over against them were two other openings in the heaven above. In the intermediate space there were judges seated, who commanded the just, after they had given judgment on them and had bound their sentences in front of them, to ascend by the heavenly way on the right hand; and in like manner the unjust were bidden by them to descend by the lower way on the left hand; these also bore the symbol of their deeds, but fastened on their backs…” (pg. 343-344)
As the story continues, these two groups eventually returned from their place of sentencing (their journey lasting 1000 years). Those that came from below “were weeping and sorrowing at the remembrance of the things which they had endured and seen in their journey beneath the earth, while those from above were describing heavenly delights and visions of unconceivable beauty…” (pg. 344)
In later accounts of his journey, Er describes “wild men of fiery aspect” who “seized and carried off” the sinners who had not fully paid their debt (pg. 345). Other portions of the story make reference to the first being last and the last being first (pg. 349).
Granted, Plato’s story contains many elements which have no basis in the Judeo-Christian tradition (reincarnation, for instance), but you’ll find at least fragments of their mythology reminiscent of our own beliefs, which makes one wonder where these images are ultimately derived from. And of course, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, and Sir James George Frazer all propose answer to that question in their writings. I'm not very educated on the subject, but this is a topic I’d like to talk more about when I have more to share. -MR
(Response originally posted Oct. 14, 2007)
ReplyDeleteThere is another point I would like to mention (I might do this a lot). Even though the book of Job is normally taught as being the oldest book of the Bible (though I don't deny this, I do think there needs to be a distinction between the events and the book and the date of composition), there are actually five different major opinions concerning the date of the composition of the book of Job: 1) the patriarchal age, 2) the reign of Solomon, 3) the reign of Manasseh, 4) the generation of Jeremiah, 5) during or after the Babylonian exile (Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 441-446). Generally speaking, most liberal scholarship holds to the last 2 (especially 5). I would consider Gen 3 (conceptual rather than semantical) and the Job 1-2 to be the two most descriptive images of Satan portrayed in the OT among writings that could be argued to have a earlier date than most OT books. Regardless of the evidence (or lack of) that liberal scholarship uses to support their views. The point is that these are their views and often times they serves as premises for other liberal conclusions. I would certainly place idea of Zoroastrianism leaking into the Judaism in that category. -anonymous
(Response originally posted Oct. 15, 2007)
ReplyDeleteWhether or not Zoroastrianism fits the bill, something else certainly will. There's plenty of overlap between religious/mythological ideas and imagery (i.e., the death/resurrection god, the virgin birth, the flood, etc.). The only legitimate defense is, as the previous commenter pointed out, "similarity does not necessarily equal derivation." But then you have to generate some theory to answer the question, "Why?" Especially when the subjects under discussion involve things that do not tangibly, or otherwise in our earthly experience, exist. If we dismiss the theory that these ideas are simply transferred between cultures and across generations, then we must accept some form of Jung's "archetype" or "collective unconscious". And how do we progress from that point? Is there any way to determine with any certainty where those "archetypes" came from? Were they put there by God? Did we inherit them through natural processes (i.e., evolution)? Those are the hard questions, I think...After that we might ask, are these archetypal beliefs true? In other words, even if these themes exist within us as some common condition of our species, even if we each acknowledge a recognition of them independently or everyone else, does that necessarily mean they are true? How do we determine the truthfulness of something so mystical? I think Lewis' novel, Till We Have Faces sheds some light on how this is done, or at least, how an answer to this question must be approached. There must be a "marriage" between the two realities: the mystical (spiritual) and the natural (As Lewis puts it, we are "Greeks in Glome"). It's the "testimony of two or three witnesses" (2 Cor. 13:1) that the Bible says is necessary to establish any matter. Neither approach on it its own could fully satisfy our "dual" nature. I think eventually I'm going to explore this issue in more depth, but I'm not sure I could get any farther than simply clarifying the question itself. We'll see where it goes. -MR
(Response originally posted Oct. 16, 2007)
ReplyDeleteI would agree that one needs to "generate some theory to answer the question, "Why?" only if there is conclusive, or at least substantial, evidence to support such an accusation. I see no reason for a simple contrasting "possibly" to warrant the same response as that of a theory with substantial evidence behind it. With this being said, I do believe strongly that a matter such as this should be able to be researched with some degree of certainty rather than subjectivity. This is would certainly make it possible for a substantial case to be made against Christianity. But the question remains, is there enough substantial evidence to warrant a strong defense from Christian Apologetics? Or is there simply enough evidence to suggest another possibility (as opposed to probability)? -anonymous
(Response originally posted Oct. 16, 2007)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understood you completely, but I think our points are the same..."only if there is a substantial instance of similarities between religious/mythological motifs" should Christianity need to make a defense for them. And my assertion was simply that there are such instances, and many of them. Though I've never read it, I've heard The Golden Bough (Sir James George Frazer) makes a strong case of this. I don't think there is any question as to whether or not, if we were to look in the right place, we would be able to find instances in which it at least appeared that particular religious motifs were transferred between, borrowed from, or inspired by those of other cultures. Assuming such instances exist, what theory or explanation might Christianity employ to answer the question, "why?" To admit that Christian motifs (such as the flood, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ) were simply borrowed from other pagan religions or cultures is certainly damaging to Christianity's claims of validity or truth. Consequently, the only explanation left is some form of Jung's "archetype"...I'm not familiar with Jung's theories on this, but I understand them to imply that these motifs are derived somewhat independently from some internal resource (i.e., a shared/collective unconscious, or even actual perception of these motifs by some intellectual/spiritual ascent). The first explanation, it seems, would be more suitable to evolutionary theory (you could say such beliefs were genetically inherited); the second would serve better as a Christian apologetic, because it substantiates religious/mystical experience. It affirms the Christian view that these images and motifs are "copies and illustrations" of heavenly realities. Am I missing any other possible explanations for what we observe? -MR
(Response originally posted Oct. 19, 2007)
ReplyDelete"Am I missing any other possible explanations for what we observe?" Probably. I mean it is much easier to look for other plausible options when we get in the specifics. For example, the idea of the flood or as it is commonly referred to among scholars of myth, the deluge. We see this concept pop up in many of the ancient civilizations on different landmasses where there is little or no possibility that there could have been interaction between the groups. So, are we left to the two options you spoke of in evolutionary awareness and spiritual awareness? In this particular case, the naturalist would say we are not. He would simply write it off to natural causes. That the ancient civilizations were centered around water. In many cases the places where civilization flourished were flood plains like Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates. As time passed and the rivers flooded causing mass devastation, a mythos developed around the idea of the deluge in various separate cultures. That is just one instance, but the point I mean to communicate is that the explanation varies depending on the specifics of the different mythos. -AS
(Response originally posted Oct. 22, 2007)
ReplyDeleteaha, that would be another explanation...except, like you said, there's only so many naturalistic causes applicable to mythology. The flood's an easy one. I have something to add to this line of thinking from Lewis, but I'll have to get to it later. -MR