Dodging God.

[Dicky Underpants]

So you consider that Paul was pagan before his conversion or after it? And my quoted comment only referred to me.

I believe that St Paul invented a religion which was a variant of the Mediterranean pagan religions. Before that he claims that he was by religion a "Pharisee", but judging by his cavalier attitude to Jewish writings and teachings, not quite the highly educated one that that Acts makes him out to be. I know that your quoted comment referred to you - I just thought it was ironic that Vlad a) would probably have implied that you were a God-dodger, and b) that he had cited a man, whom he thinks of as one of the cornerstones of Christianity, but whom I happen to think invented his own religion which was another version of pagan myth. Of course, St Paul's religion has become fused with writings about the historical Jewish Jesus - and this happened fairly early on - and nowadays it is very difficult for anybody to extricate the various contradictory strands. Least of all the Christians themselves.

[Jack Knave]

I believe that St Paul invented a religion which was a variant of the Mediterranean pagan religions. Before that he claims that he was by religion a "Pharisee", but judging by his cavalier attitude to Jewish writings and teachings, not quite the highly educated one that that Acts makes him out to be. I know that your quoted comment referred to you - I just thought it was ironic that Vlad was a) accusing you of being a God-dodger, and b) that he had cited a man, whom he thinks of as one of the cornerstones of Christianity, but whom I happen to think invented his own religion which was another version of pagan myth. Of course, St Paul's religion has become fused with writings about the historical Jewish Jesus - and this happened fairly early on - and nowadays it is very difficult for anybody to extricate the various contradictory strands. Least of all the Christians themselves.

This isn't so strange as some people have a flip attitude to what they were before and attack it as a position of compensation. Francis of Assisi had this about wealth and pleasure, and perhaps St. Augustine. I'm not so sure these days but there were Westerners who dropped their culture to take on an Eastern style of living and would vehemently decry their old lifestyle.

And I forgot to say that the manner of his conversion implies a fit of some sort and we know how a persons personality can change from such events.

[Dicky Underpants]

This isn't so strange as some people have a flip attitude to what they were before and attack it as a position of compensation. Francis of Assisi had this about wealth and pleasure, and perhaps St. Augustine. I'm not so sure these days but there were Westerners who dropped their culture to take on an Eastern style of living and would vehemently decry their old lifestyle.

Absolutely - the psychological attitudes involved in religious conversion do seem to follow a familiar pattern. And, psychologically speaking, there is another factor involved in the subsequent development of Christianity which might interest Owlswing. I've stated that I believe St Paul invented another form of the familiar pagan religions which centred around dying and resurrecting gods, such as Osiris, Attis and Orpheus, and this was eventually incorporated into the other strand of early "Christianity" which was much closer to Jewish teachings. As the emergent  proto-orthodox Christianity began to be consolidated, it soon started to attack pagan belief systems as part of its campaign to assert that it alone possessed the truth. This continued throughout history in its notorious 'witch-hunts'. The reason for this, I suggest, was in part because it recognised that so much of its own belief system was so similar to these pagan beliefs - so much so in fact that it had to suggest that these similarites were the deceptions of the Devil, prepared well in advance of the advent of Jesus. This kind of  psychologically deranged thinking was carried over into the New World, where the Spaniards noticed the remarkable similarities in belief to their own that the Aztecs held.

And, of course, the Jews also became pariahs because they also adhered to some of the other teachings which went to make up emerging Christianity - but were accused of not having lived up to these teachings, or misinterpreted them.

And I forgot to say that the manner of his conversion implies a fit of some sort and we know how a persons personality can change from such events.

Again, I agree. And we also know from scientific studies of certain conditions such as temporal lobe epilepsy and severe migraines, how a person's perception of reality can markedly change under the influence of such conditions. Dostoevsky and Hildegard of Bingen come to mind. To be fair, I have to ask whether their perceptions might have been a glimpse of some kind of 'higher reality', but these days I'm very inclined to doubt it.

[wigginhall]

Interesting stuff, Dicky, esp. the point about similarities with pagan symbols being attributed to the devil.    They didn't have the benefit of a Joseph Campbell then!

Also, another example of the narcissism of small differences?   © S. Freud.

[Dicky Underpants]

Interesting stuff, Dicky, esp. the point about similarities with pagan symbols being attributed to the devil.    They didn't have the benefit of a Joseph Campbell then!

Also, another example of the narcissism of small differences?   © S. Freud.

Good old Joe Campbell! Have to admit I gave up on his magnum opus three quarters through, when I was reading it a few years back. Something on a similar theme, written back in the 1920s, really held my attention though. This was "The Origins of Pagan and Christian Beliefs" by Edward Carpenter. It was re-issued a decade or so back. I picked it up in a charity shop. I thought it a far more learned and convincing presentation of the mythic elements in Christianity than that notorious bestseller which came out a few years ago "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy. When I first read that, I thought that this 'mythic Jesus' idea was something they'd just worked out, whereas the ideas have obviously been around a long while.
Of course, F & G were completely over-egging the pudding, and making categorical statements about matters of which there is little evidence, and sometimes deliberately perpetrating falsehoods to make their argument more compelling.
You know that I do think there was a historical Jewish Jesus, but the mythic elements deriving mostly from St Paul (and to a fair extent St John) got stirred into the mixture fairly early on.

[wigginhall]

I wonder if Alan Watts touched on this, as he wrote a book called 'The Supreme Identity', but I don't know if he argued that all religions have a common theme(s).    I can't read this stuff now, I fall asleep.   What is the point of it?   

[Bramble]

I can't read this stuff now, I fall asleep.   What is the point of it?

I'm going the same way and often wonder, is this the beginning of wisdom or just the beginning of dementia?

[wigginhall]

I'm going the same way and often wonder, is this the beginning of wisdom or just the beginning of dementia?

Yes.   Well, when I was in my 20s, I used to devour this kind of stuff, although I can't really remember what I got out of it.  But now it's just like cardboard for the mind.   Maybe that's a bit harsh. 

For one thing, it's just more aboutism.   It's like reading manuals on sex.   

[Walter]

Yes.   Well, when I was in my 20s, I used to devour this kind of stuff, although I can't really remember what I got out of it.  But now it's just like cardboard for the mind.   Maybe that's a bit harsh. 

For one thing, it's just more aboutism.   It's like reading manuals on sex.   

Hey, have you got any to swap, must have pictures though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...What is the point of it?

Why ask?

[wigginhall]

Why ask?

How would I know?

[Jack Knave]

Absolutely - the psychological attitudes involved in religious conversion do seem to follow a familiar pattern. And, psychologically speaking, there is another factor involved in the subsequent development of Christianity which might interest Owlswing. I've stated that I believe St Paul invented another form of the familiar pagan religions which centred around dying and resurrecting gods, such as Osiris, Attis and Orpheus, and this was eventually incorporated into the other strand of early "Christianity" which was much closer to Jewish teachings. As the emergent  proto-orthodox Christianity began to be consolidated, it soon started to attack pagan belief systems as part of its campaign to assert that it alone possessed the truth. This continued throughout history in its notorious 'witch-hunts'. The reason for this, I suggest, was in part because it recognised that so much of its own belief system was so similar to these pagan beliefs - so much so in fact that it had to suggest that these similarites were the deceptions of the Devil, prepared well in advance of the advent of Jesus. This kind of  psychologically deranged thinking was carried over into the New World, where the Spaniards noticed the remarkable similarities in belief to their own that the Aztecs held.

And, of course, the Jews also became pariahs because they also adhered to some of the other teachings which went to make up emerging Christianity - but were accused of not having lived up to these teachings, or misinterpreted them.

 

Again, I agree. And we also know from scientific studies of certain conditions such as temporal lobe epilepsy and severe migraines, how a person's perception of reality can markedly change under the influence of such conditions. Dostoevsky and Hildegard of Bingen come to mind. To be fair, I have to ask whether their perceptions might have been a glimpse of some kind of 'higher reality', but these days I'm very inclined to doubt it.

General comment : Was the split between the western and eastern Roman Christendoms something to do (probably indirectly?) with this idea of Christianity of being rooted in both pagan and Jewish religions?

Also; and you don't have to answer this, but I keep wondering what is specifically meant by the word pagan. As someone coming from a Jungian perspective it all seems to be paganism of some sorts to me.

"This kind of  psychologically deranged thinking was carried over into the New World, where the Spaniards noticed the remarkable similarities in belief to their own that the Aztecs held."


The fact that a civilization and region, who had never had any contact with the western world before, had similar religious ideas as that western world goes to show that religion is solely psychological and man made.

[Jack Knave]

I'm going the same way and often wonder, is this the beginning of wisdom or just the beginning of dementia?

It's probably the beginning of the realization that your interests and focus is shifting to other things. Trying to flog the same old dead horse over and over again just doesn't do it anymore.

[Nearly Sane]

General comment : Was the split between the western and eastern Roman Christendoms something to do (probably indirectly?) with this idea of Christianity of being rooted in both pagan and Jewish religions?

Also; and you don't have to answer this, but I keep wondering what is specifically meant by the word pagan. As someone coming from a Jungian perspective it all seems to be paganism of some sorts to me.

"This kind of  psychologically deranged thinking was carried over into the New World, where the Spaniards noticed the remarkable similarities in belief to their own that the Aztecs held."


The fact that a civilization and region, who had never had any contact with the western world before, had similar religious ideas as that western world goes to show that religion is solely psychological and man made.

Surely if religion also had some form of external truth, or was implanted in some way by something like a deity, that would be the case as well?

[Dicky Underpants]

Surely if religion also had some form of external truth, or was implanted in some way by something like a deity, that would be the case as well?

That indeed could be argued. But as has been pointed out before, in the past certain groups of Christians have explained the similarities as being the work of the devil.

[Dicky Underpants]

I wonder if Alan Watts touched on this, as he wrote a book called 'The Supreme Identity', but I don't know if he argued that all religions have a common theme(s).    I can't read this stuff now, I fall asleep.   What is the point of it?

I certainly found myself falling asleep when I read "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". I read it out of some sort of sense of duty, long past the age when I would have believed there was some sort of 'spiritual' reality behind all religions. I felt Campbell was just waffling as he drew more and more tenuous links between the far-eastern religions. In fact, a well-known book on a similar theme, Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" I considered pretty waffly even when I read it in my twenties.

However, I've been intrigued by Geza Vermes' and E.P. Sanders attempts to uncover the Jewish Jesus of the Bible, and more recently by prof. Barrie Wilson's well-argued theses concerning the disparate Pauline and evangelists' writings in the NT, and how both belief systems came to be combined.
I think such writings do have a relevant point beyond mere academic research, if only to oppose the anti-Semitism that is still entrenched in certain Christian groups. And also to give one in the eye to those Christians who like to denigrate paganism (like a certain B.A., late of this parish).

Meanwhile, of course, mainstream Christianity - especially Catholicism - is what it is, and is unlikely to change significantly for a long while yet.

[Dicky Underpants]

General comment : Was the split between the western and eastern Roman Christendoms something to do (probably indirectly?) with this idea of Christianity of being rooted in both pagan and Jewish religions?

I can't really see it that way (and the Catholics and the Orthodox certainly won't). The split was ostensibly over the wording and meaning of the Creed, along with the disputed authority of the Pope. As for the Creed, Ad-O informs me that if we take the reading that the Catholics opted for, it ends up implying that there are two deities. But what ideas did you have in mind that might have contributed to the split?

Also; and you don't have to answer this, but I keep wondering what is specifically meant by the word pagan. As someone coming from a Jungian perspective it all seems to be paganism of some sorts to me.

Those are just convenient labels, unfortunately drawn from the supremacist language that the Christian Church Triumphant chose to use. Of course, from my unbelieving perspective, they are all just varieties of religion.

[Jack Knave]

Surely if religion also had some form of external truth, or was implanted in some way by something like a deity, that would be the case as well?

If it was a deity then it would impart the same religion and as they are not exactly the same that excludes a deity.

From Jung's perspective there is a source for this but it is not external but internal. Which is why I posed the idea or comment to get people thinking.

[Nearly Sane]

If it was a deity then it would impart the same religion and as they are not exactly the same that excludes a deity.

From Jung's perspective there is a source for this but it is not external but internal. Which is why I posed the idea or comment to get people thinking.

that's simply an assertion. What do you know about a "deity' that allows making a statement of fact in it?

[Jack Knave]

I can't really see it that way (and the Catholics and the Orthodox certainly won't). The split was ostensibly over the wording and meaning of the Creed, along with the disputed authority of the Pope. As for the Creed, Ad-O informs me that if we take the reading that the Catholics opted for, it ends up implying that there are two deities. But what ideas did you have in mind that might have contributed to the split?

I had none because this isn't a subject that I'm well versed in, which is why I asked. It is just that when something arises in an unconscious fashion, as these types of things do, and because of this, many discordant ideas are brought together without the participants realising what they have done. It is only later on when consciousness and reason has the insight to see the disparity and incompatibility of the elements that have been gathered together that in the process of trying to make sense of it all it is then that splits and schisms occur. The reformation is another event that 'opened' the eyes of reason to the incongruous nature of Christianity.

Those are just convenient labels, unfortunately drawn from the supremacist language that the Christian Church Triumphant chose to use. Of course, from my unbelieving perspective, they are all just varieties of religion.

You seem to be implying that it was Christianity that came up with the term or idea of paganism to denote those religions that seemed to be similar to theirs but were, by their reckoning, of the 'devil'.(?)

[Jack Knave]

that's simply an assertion. What do you know about a "deity' that allows making a statement of fact in it?

Would you not expect that if something had one source, and intelligent at that, it would emanate one outcome?

[Nearly Sane]

Would you not expect that if something had one source, and intelligent at that, it would emanate one outcome?

Not if the receivers are not the same. And that would apply whether something is a deity or not. On your approach Chinese Whispers is impossible.

[Jack Knave]

Not if the receivers are not the same. And that would apply whether something is a deity or not. On your approach Chinese Whispers is impossible.

Then I would say your deity isn't a deity if it is that weak that it couldn't convey its message clearly. And if the recipients are not that good and of poor quality then why would it bother with them?

[Nearly Sane]

Then I would say your deity isn't a deity if it is that weak that it couldn't convey its message clearly. And if the recipients are not that good and of poor quality then why would it bother with them?

and again we are back to you stating facts about a deity. Can you justify them?

[Dicky Underpants]

I had none because this isn't a subject that I'm well versed in, which is why I asked. It is just that when something arises in an unconscious fashion, as these types of things do, and because of this, many discordant ideas are brought together without the participants realising what they have done. It is only later on when consciousness and reason has the insight to see the disparity and incompatibility of the elements that have been gathered together that in the process of trying to make sense of it all it is then that splits and schisms occur. The reformation is another event that 'opened' the eyes of reason to the incongruous nature of Christianity.

Yes, the role of human psychology in the development of religion shouldn't be underestimated. Indeed, it is crucial to the input of St Paul to Christianity itself - and not only because of his original "revelation". One might ask - why was he so hung up about the Jewish law, and referred to it as a 'curse'? Largely because he couldn't keep it, no matter how hard he tried. And I suspect this might have something to do with his sexuality. And so you get "Justification by faith", the keynote of Protestantism, in contrast with the faith + works attitude of Catholicism (there is a paradox here which NearlySane may be able to throw some light on -whence the "Protestant work-ethic", since Protestants firmly believe that no amount of good works can get you into heaven automatically. NS comes from a country where this dour work ethic is particularly strong, I think )

As for the the psychological impulses behind the Great Schism - well, the whole thing seems like intruding on private grief most times. Karen Armstrong, the well-known scholar of religion, has I think commented that part of the problem lay in the western Church's overemphasis on getting belief expressed in intellectual formulae (ironically enough, this woud be called 'orthodoxy'), whereas the Orthodox had a more intuitive approach. This however seems to be contradicted by our resident Orthodox believer, ad-orientem, who expressed his opposition to the Catholic position in a succinct intellectual formula, which he thought had profound consequences for Christian theology.