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
