That is because you were posing a non-sequitur. We were talking about surrendering yourself in subjugation to a so-called "higher being" and you tried to relate that to acknowledging a superior sporting contestant. That doesn't follow. You don't subjugate yourself to a superior sporting contestant as a "higher being", you give him or her a thumps up or a pat on the back. Try doing that to a deity! That would bring on a charge of blasphemy and a possible stoning.Moonwood the Hare wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:53 pmThis is an ad hoc response. You said 'I cannot see the difference between acknowledging the superiority of another and being in a master slave relationship.' I gave this as an example where you should see it and you just say in effect it doesn't count because its about sport.
Easy. Your Bible is riddled with master/slave passages. Do I really need to reference them?Moonwood the Hare wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:53 pmNow for every example I give you can say it doesn't count because its about this or that. You have already conceded that you can see that acknowledging superiority isn't always about a master/slave relationship so now I would say it is down to you to explain why it must be so in a religious context.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:It's a good article and not in any way I can see contrary to what I said. The idea that this concerns the subordination of the ego to the greater self is interesting since Jung, who is referenced here, saw God as a symbol of the wholeness of the self
He well may have seen that, but I see the subordination of the ego thing analogous to a slave/master relationship - which to me is a form of grovelling. You and he may have thought grovelling is a good thing, but I don't.
Would you rather fight your invading enemy to the death for the liberty of your people (non-grovelling) or lick the boots of the conqueror after offering no resistance (grovelling). Can you see the difference now?Moonwood the Hare wrote:I don't see grovelling as a good thing, or a bad thing for that matter.
For what it matters, I doubt whether you do too.Moonwood the Hare wrote: I doubt you really understand Jung
SEG wrote:All these stories are fanciful Moon. All the ways that gods impregnated women weren't about having sex in the normal way, just like your god didn't "do the business" the normal way according to the Christian story. See <URL url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semele">h ... emele</URL> "Jupiter gave his torn up heart in a drink to Semele, who became pregnant this way. But in another account, Zeus swallows the heart himself, in order to beget his seed on Semele."
SEG wrote:Again, it was fashionable for gods to mate with humans and give birth in miraculous ways. Will you grant me that?
It may surprise you that it was very fashionable. See Element 11 of Carrier's OTHOJMoonwood the Hare wrote:Suppose someone said the Harry Potter novels were written to promote witchcraft and I responded that this was a fanciful interpretation. You would be very silly to say in response, 'Well they are fanciful stories.' It would just show you were not really listening. I don't know that stories of unusual births were more common in this culture than in other ancient cultures so I am not sure the word fashionable is appropriate.
SEG wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 2:08 am</s>So it definitely was the fashion in that locality and time. If you research religions in say China or South America, you don't find the same framework, which tells me that they all borrowed these concepts for each other. It's how you constructed these type of myths.
Moonwood wrote:Well I haven't researched the religions of China and South America but I know enough to know that the themes you refer to do occur in those cultures. That is not to say you will find every feature you mention but you will find most of the ones above. However I am not competent to discuss Quetzalcoatl or Chinese Hero myths in any detail.
SEG wrote:I would like you to pick any Chinese or South American gods who share that framework, I haven't seen anything remotely like those attributes.
That immediately tells me that you haven't looked at the framework that Carrier put together regarding the commonalities of the mystery cults that I have already quoted for you. Here they are again;Moonwood wrote:Quetzalcoatl
- They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
- They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
- They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
- That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
- By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
- Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
- They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.
Not all these savior gods were dying-and-rising gods. That was a sub-mytheme. Indeed, dying-and-rising gods (and mere men) were a broader mytheme; because examples abounded even outside the context of known savior cults (I’ll give you a nearly complete list below). But within the savior cults, a particular brand of dying-and-rising god arose. And Jesus most closely corresponds to that mythotype.
SEG wrote:Nope. I reckon Christianity survived because Constantine wanted to win over the Christians that were present in his own and his enemies armies to get unity under his new singular reign of Rome. He did this after the Battle of Milvian Bridge where Eusebius contrived with him to say 12 years after the event that he saw a cross of light above the sun which caused him to be a victor and the sole ruler of Rome. That his mother was a fundamentalist Christian fitted perfectly with his plans.
If you are talking about this;Moonwood wrote:You don't seem to have followed what I said. You said Christianity and Mithraism were equally fitted to survive. I pointed out one obvious survival advantage of Christianity given in your own account.
I didn't ever say that Constantine's mother was a Mithraist, I don't know where you got that from! She was a very strict Christian, which fits what you said above, "that early Christianity was very popular with wealthy women".I think there is flawed thinking here. You are suggesting that the various mystery cults have things in common and is the things they have in common that caused one of them to survive which means the survival of Christianity rather than Mithraism was a fluke. But speaking from a purely historical point of view isn't it far more likely that the one that survived did so because of its individual features not these commonalities. Your account hints at this. Constantine's mother could hardly have been a Mithraist since this was an all male cult! And my limited knowledge of early Christian history does include the fact that early Christianity was very popular with wealthy women.