God: An Anatomy. BBC book of the week

[Dicky Underpants]

 by Francesca Stavrakopoulou,

Anyone following this?

Later commentators insist that all references to God in the Bible, whether Jewish or Christian, should be interpreted in a metaphorical, spiritual sense. FS argues that the original writers intended their god to be very corporeal indeed. I would say that many of the original writers did have this sense of a physical god, whereas others didn't. You can see the marked differences in the first two chapters of Genesis, where the god of the first chapter seems spiritual, whereas the god of the second is all too physical.
However, even in the first chapter, God says "Let us make man after our own image". That could be a reference to physicality, or perhaps, as mainstream religion always insists, it refers to mental capacities and the ability to make decisions etc.
On the other hand, does it matter? All we have is what people believe today, and the only ones who have a more corporeal image of God are the Mormons.
Perhaps of interest to religious historians only, since we're not likely to change the outlook of over 2000 years of religious belief, and set the Judaeo/Christian groups out on a new path.

[Udayana]

Having seen your post I have listened to the first two parts. It is quite interesting and sounds about right to me (though I have only limited knowledge of histories of religion).

Laying aside "spiritual" components - which are artefacts of conciousness, to my mind religion is essentially a branch of mythology.

The discussion of the importance of the footsteps of the gods brought to mind the foot in Monty Pythons Flying Circus, the ultimate arbiter!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

While I find I can agree there was less history and more mythology in the Hebrew Bible. I'm not sure about the corporeal God and it just seems to repeat a trope that ancient people's were somehow less sophisticated.

[jeremyp]

by Francesca Stavrakopoulou,

Anyone following this?

Later commentators insist that all references to God in the Bible, whether Jewish or Christian, should be interpreted in a metaphorical, spiritual sense. FS argues that the original writers intended their god to be very corporeal indeed. I would say that many of the original writers did have this sense of a physical god, whereas others didn't. You can see the marked differences in the first two chapters of Genesis, where the god of the first chapter seems spiritual, whereas the god of the second is all too physical.
However, even in the first chapter, God says "Let us make man after our own image". That could be a reference to physicality, or perhaps, as mainstream religion always insists, it refers to mental capacities and the ability to make decisions etc.
On the other hand, does it matter? All we have is what people believe today, and the only ones who have a more corporeal image of God are the Mormons.
Perhaps of interest to religious historians only, since we're not likely to change the outlook of over 2000 years of religious belief, and set the Judaeo/Christian groups out on a new path.

I've no doubt that it is true. Sometimes in the Old Testament, God is depicted almost as human. He wanders in the Garden of Eden and he has a wrestling match with Jacob. Man is made in his image. Man is ejected from the Garden of Eden so he doesn't have access to the Tree of Life "lest he become like us", which implies that God is an immortal human or similar. Nowadays, God is very much removed from the physical realm even to the point that some Christians don't really believe in him.

[jeremyp]

it just seems to repeat a trope that ancient people's were somehow less sophisticated.

Were they less sophisticated than somebody who doesn't know how to use an apostrophe properly?

How do you define sophistication? Is it more sophisticated to be polytheist than monotheist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Were they less sophisticated than somebody who doesn't know how to use an apostrophe properly?

How do you define sophistication? Is it more sophisticated to be polytheist than monotheist?

No I believe that a polytheists belief might need to be a very sophisticated thing indeed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've no doubt that it is true. Sometimes in the Old Testament, God is depicted almost as human. He wanders in the Garden of Eden and he has a wrestling match with Jacob.

But was this written as a retrospective history or a mythic story. Only a literalistic view coupled with the belief that these were unsophisticated people (Bronze age goat herders) could say that these people believed God was corporeal........I suppose i'll have to buy the book.

[jeremyp]

But was this written as a retrospective history or a mythic story.

Even if it was written as a myth, why would they portray God in such a human way if they didn't believe in God in those terms (or if they didn't want their audience to believe it)?

Only a literalistic view coupled with the belief that these were unsophisticated people (Bronze age goat herders) could say that these people believed God was corporeal.

I don't see how that necessarily follows.

We also have to distinguish between the writers and the audience. It's entirely possible that the people who wrote the OT didn't believe any of it but that they expected the readers to swallow it whole.

[ProfessorDavey]

Even if it was written as a myth, why would they portray God in such a human way if they didn't believe in God in those terms (or if they didn't want their audience to believe it)?I don't see how that necessarily follows.

Possibly also to make the stories more easily accessible to an audience, rather than portraying god as some ill defined entity external to the world.

We also have to distinguish between the writers and the audience. It's entirely possible that the people who wrote the OT didn't believe any of it but that they expected the readers to swallow it whole.

That's true - it may also be the case that the authors saw themselves merely as some kind of conduit of existing myths that up to that point were transmitted orally. In which case they may not have cared particularly whether the stories were true or not, or whether the audience believed them or not, their job being simply to write them down.

[Dicky Underpants]

I've no doubt that it is true. Sometimes in the Old Testament, God is depicted almost as human. He wanders in the Garden of Eden and he has a wrestling match with Jacob. Man is made in his image. Man is ejected from the Garden of Eden so he doesn't have access to the Tree of Life "lest he become like us", which implies that God is an immortal human or similar. Nowadays, God is very much removed from the physical realm even to the point that some Christians don't really believe in him.

And yet by 63 BCE, the Jewish conception of God seems to have changed considerably. I wonder when this differing outlook first began to emerge.

"In the year 63 BCE, the Roman general Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, in the process of conquering Israel and all the surrounding territories, entered the most sacred place in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. What he found shocked him. For this temple was different in one crucial respect from all other temples." For the sacred space, 'The Holy of Holies' was empty.

That could of course all be related to the prohibition against making graven images of Yahweh; on the other hand, as Prof Francesca has pointed out, the earlier writers were certainly not averse to describing him, down to the most intimate physical details.

[jeremyp]

And yet by 63 BCE, the Jewish conception of God seems to have changed considerably. I wonder when this differing outlook first began to emerge.

"In the year 63 BCE, the Roman general Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, in the process of conquering Israel and all the surrounding territories, entered the most sacred place in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. What he found shocked him. For this temple was different in one crucial respect from all other temples." For the sacred space, 'The Holy of Holies' was empty.

That could of course all be related to the prohibition against making graven images of Yahweh; on the other hand, as Prof Francesca has pointed out, the earlier writers were certainly not averse to describing him, down to the most intimate physical details.

That was several hundred years after (most of) the Bible was written down. In the meantime, the whole area had been part of the Macedonian empire and thus been heavily exposed to Greek thought.

[Dicky Underpants]

That was several hundred years after (most of) the Bible was written down. In the meantime, the whole area had been part of the Macedonian empire and thus been heavily exposed to Greek thought.

Yes, that would pretty much explain it.

[Sriram]

No doubt religions are largely cultural constructs and depend on local circumstances, legends, myths, beliefs etc. But major religions have at their base a spiritual philosophy that is largely common to all religions.

That philosophy is based on the experiences of people across the world.  It could be based on NDE's, Implicit Pattern Learning, introspection and many other personal experiential aspects. Secular spiritual philosophies  spring from a common understanding of the human mind, consciousness, Self, unconscious mind and so on.

Hindu philosophies, the Perennial philosophy....and the secret teachings of many religions are examples of this type of understanding of life, death, morality, meaning of life etc. 

We cannot ignore the spiritual base of religions and their common aspects....and treat them as a mere social phenomena. Though spirituality and religions are different they are connected.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/

[Dicky Underpants]

No doubt religions are largely cultural constructs and depend on local circumstances, legends, myths, beliefs etc. But major religions have at their base a spiritual philosophy that is largely common to all religions.

That philosophy is based on the experiences of people across the world.  It could be based on NDE's, Implicit Pattern Learning, introspection and many other personal experiential aspects. Secular spiritual philosophies  spring from a common understanding of the human mind, consciousness, Self, unconscious mind and so on.

Hindu philosophies, the Perennial philosophy....and the secret teachings of many religions are examples of this type of understanding of life, death, morality, meaning of life etc. 

We cannot ignore the spiritual base of religions and their common aspects....and treat them as a mere social phenomena. Though spirituality and religions are different they are connected.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/

In all this, it is very much a question of which came first. The traditional, evolutionary explanation - typified in Frazer's "The Golden Bough" would suggest that natural forces were the expression of actual deities, which if not corporeal, were certainly not considered to be some amorphous, creative "other", or an all-pervasive spiritual 'ether'. The idea of a transcendent, spiritual god is a later development according to this view.

I'm not going to pronounce on Hinduism, since I know only one text: the Gita. However, I do know that the whole pantheon of Hindu deities, subservient to the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are considered as only avatars or expressions of the ultimate, all-pervasive Brahman. As I said above - which came first? You will certainly assert that the spiritual was the first to be discerned. On the other hand, that Brahma-Brahman dichotomy - which of these appeared first in the ancient texts, and were they clearly distinguished from each other? Was Brahma always given more specific descriptions, and Brahman always referred to as the all-pervasive spirit, the Ground of Being, in Paul Tillich's notorious phrase?

That term "The axial age" coined by the philosopher Karl Jaspers might be relevant here: he suggested that the appearance of a range of beliefs common to several world religions did appear at a similar period in time (a few centuries prior to 300 BCE). This would be an evolutionary development, something that appeared in time.

[Sriram]

In all this, it is very much a question of which came first. The traditional, evolutionary explanation - typified in Frazer's "The Golden Bough" would suggest that natural forces were the expression of actual deities, which if not corporeal, were certainly not considered to be some amorphous, creative "other", or an all-pervasive spiritual 'ether'. The idea of a transcendent, spiritual god is a later development according to this view.

I'm not going to pronounce on Hinduism, since I know only one text: the Gita. However, I do know that the whole pantheon of Hindu deities, subservient to the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are considered as only avatars or expressions of the ultimate, all-pervasive Brahman. As I said above - which came first? You will certainly assert that the spiritual was the first to be discerned. On the other hand, that Brahma-Brahman dichotomy - which of these appeared first in the ancient texts, and were they clearly distinguished from each other? Was Brahma always given more specific descriptions, and Brahman always referred to as the all-pervasive spirit, the Ground of Being, in Paul Tillich's notorious phrase?

That term "The axial age" coined by the philosopher Karl Jaspers might be relevant here: he suggested that the appearance of a range of beliefs common to several world religions did appear at a similar period in time (a few centuries prior to 300 BCE). This would be an evolutionary development, something that appeared in time.

A certain stage of intellectual development is necessary for certain ideas to arise. No doubt about this.  But this does not mean that the ideas should be seen as  merely a development in terms of human imagination...without any real significance.

Even most scientific ideas have developed only in recent times that does not mean they should be seen only in sociological terms and have no bearing on reality.

Hindu philosophies or any other spiritual philosophy need not be treated as complete and unquestionable. They could develop further in coming decades and centuries. This is why I keep reiterating recent ideas of panpsychism, cosmopsychism, biofield, unconscious mind and so on.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't Frazer's anthropology the move from magic, through religion and into science and also the dominant lietmotif is sacrifice?
Does sacrifice end with religion or is it found in science too? Maybe it is there in the sacrifice of the human as an emotional being to the higher ideal of logic and rationality......which would give science a religiosity.

Also, is there a stage 4 subsequent to science?