Praying, the ultimate subordination

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Praying, the ultimate subordination

Post by SEG » Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:01 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:53 pm
This 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.
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 pm
Now 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.
Easy. Your Bible is riddled with master/slave passages. Do I really need to reference them?
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.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:I don't see grovelling as a good thing, or a bad thing for that matter.
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 doubt you really understand Jung
For what it matters, I doubt whether you do too.
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?
Moonwood 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.
It may surprise you that it was very fashionable. See Element 11 of Carrier's OTHOJ
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.
Moonwood wrote:Quetzalcoatl
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;
- 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.
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.
If you are talking about this;
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.
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".
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Praying, the ultimate subordination

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:19 pm

SEG wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:01 pm
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:53 pm
This 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.
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.
You were saying 'I cannot see the difference between acknowledging the superiority of another and being in a master slave relationship.' Very clearly the two are not the same. I gave one example to show that. I could have given hundreds. It's not a non-sequitur at all if,as you appeared to be, you were making a general statement. If what you meant to say was 'While I can see the difference between a acknowledging the superiority of another and being in a master/slave relationship in many contexts I cannot see the difference once the concept of a higher being is introduced' then I wish you had said that. Then I would have asked why you think introducing the concept of a higher being changes a the concept of superiority into one that necessitates a master/slave relationship and we could have proceeded from there.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:53 pm
Now 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.
Easy. Your Bible is riddled with master/slave passages. Do I really need to reference them?
No of course not, they are completely irrelevant to your argument. You were arguing that folded hands in all religions symbolize subservience to a higher being. Showing that there is subservience in one religion would not take you a step closer to proving your case. If you want to discuss this purely in relation to Christianity and abandon your original argument I think that would be wise but don't try to pretend the new argument you are now introducing has been your argument all along.
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.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:I don't see grovelling as a good thing, or a bad thing for that matter.
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?
What difference? You cannot show that grovelling must always be a bad thing by giving one instance where you think it would be.
Moonwood the Hare wrote: I doubt you really understand Jung
For what it matters, I doubt whether you do too.
What you said about him was absolutely absurd. Anyone who has the fainest grasp of his ideas would see that at once. But you are right in thinking I cannot demonstrate that if you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge what I have said as a true description of his thinking.
It may surprise you that it was very fashionable. See Element 11 of Carrier's OTHOJ
Has he proved it was fashionable or merely that it was common as it was in all ancient cultures?
Quetzalcoatl
Moonwood wrote:Quetzalcoatl
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;
- 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.
Quetzalcoatl hits all of these apart from the first. He has been identified as a saviour god but I don't know that he was ever called that.
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.
If you are talking about this;
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.
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".
You don't seem to be following me. You are saying Christianity and Mithraism were equally fitted to survive. I am saying that as your own description of events shows one factor in Christianity surviving was that a particular woman was a Christian. That woman could not have been a Mithraist since no woman could. In a situation where survival depended on a cult having a woman member Mithraisms survival chances would be reduced to zero. Hence it is not the case that both were equally fitted to survive. This is a very literal application of meme theory. Imagine a parallel case in biological evolution. You have two species competing for the same niche in the eco-system, a good example would be red and grey squirrels in the UK. A century ago red squirrels were dominant now grey ones have taken over. To say red and grey squirrels are very similar and it must be the things they have in common that caused greys to survive would be nonsense. Even if we are not sure what survival advantage the grey squirrels have over reds we can safely assume they have one. We can be reasonably confident the same applies to Christianity. If it survives the reason for that survival must lie in the way it differs from other contemporary religions not in the ways in which it is similar. This seems common sense to me.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Praying, the ultimate subordination

Post by SEG » Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:18 pm

I did a large snip as I concede your previous points, Moon and I don't know enough about Jung to comment further.
It may surprise you that it was very fashionable. See Element 11 of Carrier's OTHOJ
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Has he proved it was fashionable or merely that it was common as it was in all ancient cultures?
It was a common framework in the ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian cultures at the time of Jesus.
Moonwood wrote:Quetzalcoatl
SEG wrote: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;
- 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.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Quetzalcoatl hits all of these apart from the first. He has been identified as a saviour god but I don't know that he was ever called that.
So who identified him as a saviour god? Who said he was a son of a superior god? Who said he went through a passion? Which victory did he then share with his followers (typically through baptism and communion)? Coming down in human form seems to be the only one that fits, so he wasn't of the same framework at all.
Moonwood wrote:You don't seem to be following me. You are saying Christianity and Mithraism were equally fitted to survive. I am saying that as your own description of events shows one factor in Christianity surviving was that a particular woman was a Christian. That woman could not have been a Mithraist since no woman could. In a situation where survival depended on a cult having a woman member Mithraisms survival chances would be reduced to zero. Hence it is not the case that both were equally fitted to survive.

No, I was saying that the reason why Christianity got its start was because the mother of the Emperor Constantine was a strict Christian. I meant Christianity and Mithraism were equally fitted to survive in the sense that they were both popular cults with very similar features.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Praying, the ultimate subordination

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:11 pm

SEG wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:18 pm
I did a large snip as I concede your previous points, Moon and I don't know enough about Jung to comment further.
Theories of parallel myths tend to be either archetypal or prorogational. Propogational theories tend to see myths sharing common themes because they are influenced by earlier myths. Archetypal theories see them reflecting structures within the human psyche. Jung was one of the earliest proponents of an archetypal theory
It may surprise you that it was very fashionable. See Element 11 of Carrier's OTHOJ
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Has he proved it was fashionable or merely that it was common as it was in all ancient cultures?
It was a common framework in the ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian cultures at the time of Jesus.
Stories of unusual births are common in just about all cultures. The stories from the time of Jesus do not seem to have that much in common as we have seen over and over again.
Moonwood wrote:Quetzalcoatl
SEG wrote: So who identified him as a saviour god?
The identification tends to be made by new age types like Manley Hall and our old friend D M Murdoch.
Who said he was a son of a superior god?
He was, according to some tales, the son of Coatlicue, the mother goddess who gave birth to the moon, stars and son.
Who said he went through a passion?
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica'Quetzalcóatl wandered down to the coast of the “divine water” (the Atlantic Ocean) and then immolated himself on a pyre, emerging as the planet Venus.' 'With his companion Xolotl, a dog-headed god, he was said to have descended to the underground hell of Mictlan to gather the bones of the ancient dead. Those bones he anointed with his own blood, giving birth to the men who inhabit the present universe.'
Which victory did he then share with his followers (typically through baptism and communion)?
Victory over death.His victory over Tezcatlipoca leads to the creation of the world. His followers share in his life through ritual sacrifice of animals.
Coming down in human form seems to be the only one that fits, so he wasn't of the same framework at all.
See above. The similarities are certainly there if you want to see them.
Moonwood wrote:You don't seem to be following me. You are saying Christianity and Mithraism were equally fitted to survive. I am saying that as your own description of events shows one factor in Christianity surviving was that a particular woman was a Christian. That woman could not have been a Mithraist since no woman could. In a situation where survival depended on a cult having a woman member Mithraisms survival chances would be reduced to zero. Hence it is not the case that both were equally fitted to survive.

No, I was saying that the reason why Christianity got its start was because the mother of the Emperor Constantine was a strict Christian. I meant Christianity and Mithraism were equally fitted to survive in the sense that they were both popular cults with very similar features.
No. Try to think it through. The things they have in common may make them both fitted to survive but if you ask why this survived and that didn't you have to look at the ways in which they differed. The event you describe that you see as key in Christianity's survival depends on one of those differences. Therefore you have falsified the claim that they were equally fitted to survive. I am not sure how many times I will need to restate this until you get it. Think of the comparison with evolution. The two types of squirrel are similar so they can both fit the same space in the ecosystem but it is the differences not the similarities that mean one will survive rather than the other. The circumstances which you are seeing as arbitrary actually form a selection process - if survival depends on having a woman member only the one that has women members will survive.

User avatar
SteveEpperson
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:06 am

Re: Praying, the ultimate subordination

Post by SteveEpperson » Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:41 am

SEG wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 11:02 am
Nowhere in the Bible does it command clasping of the hands to pray or to kneel down beaten and in subservience.
All the sons of Israel, seeing the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the house, bowed down on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshiped and gave praise to the LORD, saying, "Truly He is good, truly His lovingkindness is everlasting." 2 Chronicles 7:3

Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy. Psalm 47

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; Timothy 2:8

Come, let us worship and bow down, Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker. Psalm 95:6

"I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. Isaiah 45:23

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Praying, the ultimate subordination

Post by SEG » Sat Jun 16, 2018 3:33 pm

SteveEpperson wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:41 am
SEG wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 11:02 am
Nowhere in the Bible does it command clasping of the hands to pray or to kneel down beaten and in subservience.
All the sons of Israel, seeing the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the house, bowed down on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshiped and gave praise to the LORD, saying, "Truly He is good, truly His lovingkindness is everlasting." 2 Chronicles 7:3

Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy. Psalm 47

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; Timothy 2:8

Come, let us worship and bow down, Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker. Psalm 95:6

"I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. Isaiah 45:23
Where is there any instruction to clasp your hands together and bend your knees onto the floor/kneeling boards while begging for forgiveness or help? Why not say stuff in your head and keep whatever you want to say to yourself?
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Praying, the ultimate subordination

Post by SEG » Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:20 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:11 pm
SEG wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:18 pm
I did a large snip as I concede your previous points, Moon and I don't know enough about Jung to comment further.
Theories of parallel myths tend to be either archetypal or prorogational. Propogational theories tend to see myths sharing common themes because they are influenced by earlier myths. Archetypal theories see them reflecting structures within the human psyche. Jung was one of the earliest proponents of an archetypal theory
It may surprise you that it was very fashionable. See Element 11 of Carrier's OTHOJ
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Has he proved it was fashionable or merely that it was common as it was in all ancient cultures?
It was a common framework in the ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian cultures at the time of Jesus.
Stories of unusual births are common in just about all cultures. The stories from the time of Jesus do not seem to have that much in common as we have seen over and over again.
Moonwood wrote:Quetzalcoatl
SEG wrote: So who identified him as a saviour god?
The identification tends to be made by new age types like Manley Hall and our old friend D M Murdoch.
Who said he was a son of a superior god?
He was, according to some tales, the son of Coatlicue, the mother goddess who gave birth to the moon, stars and son.
Who said he went through a passion?
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica'Quetzalcóatl wandered down to the coast of the “divine water” (the Atlantic Ocean) and then immolated himself on a pyre, emerging as the planet Venus.' 'With his companion Xolotl, a dog-headed god, he was said to have descended to the underground hell of Mictlan to gather the bones of the ancient dead. Those bones he anointed with his own blood, giving birth to the men who inhabit the present universe.'
Which victory did he then share with his followers (typically through baptism and communion)?
Victory over death.His victory over Tezcatlipoca leads to the creation of the world. His followers share in his life through ritual sacrifice of animals.
Coming down in human form seems to be the only one that fits, so he wasn't of the same framework at all.
See above. The similarities are certainly there if you want to see them.
Moonwood wrote:You don't seem to be following me. You are saying Christianity and Mithraism were equally fitted to survive. I am saying that as your own description of events shows one factor in Christianity surviving was that a particular woman was a Christian. That woman could not have been a Mithraist since no woman could. In a situation where survival depended on a cult having a woman member Mithraisms survival chances would be reduced to zero. Hence it is not the case that both were equally fitted to survive.

No, I was saying that the reason why Christianity got its start was because the mother of the Emperor Constantine was a strict Christian. I meant Christianity and Mithraism were equally fitted to survive in the sense that they were both popular cults with very similar features.
No. Try to think it through. The things they have in common may make them both fitted to survive but if you ask why this survived and that didn't you have to look at the ways in which they differed. The event you describe that you see as key in Christianity's survival depends on one of those differences. Therefore you have falsified the claim that they were equally fitted to survive. I am not sure how many times I will need to restate this until you get it. Think of the comparison with evolution. The two types of squirrel are similar so they can both fit the same space in the ecosystem but it is the differences not the similarities that mean one will survive rather than the other. The circumstances which you are seeing as arbitrary actually form a selection process - if survival depends on having a woman member only the one that has women members will survive.
You may have something here Moon. There is certainly a framework going with Quetzalcoatl too. No wonder some of the Mormons believe that JC was Quetzalcoatl and flew over to South America. A Mormon friend of mine from table tennis is an ordained bishop and that's what he told me sincerely he believes and teaches. It makes perfect sense to me now!

If all of those mythical beings with the saviour god framework exist, then the only main difference with Christianity was that it was the religion of choice of Constantine's mother, as I have pointed out before. Sure they all have differences, but that makes them all unique. All of them, just like the Christians, think that their religion is the truth. It's much simpler to say that without sufficient proof that your religion is the "correct" one, then it is most probably just mythical like the rest.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Praying, the ultimate subordination

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:17 pm

SEG wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:20 pm
You may have something here Moon. There is certainly a framework going with Quetzalcoatl too. No wonder some of the Mormons believe that JC was Quetzalcoatl and flew over to South America. A Mormon friend of mine from table tennis is an ordained bishop and that's what he told me sincerely he believes and teaches. It makes perfect sense to me now!
So the question then is whether to favour a propagationist approach or an archetypal approach. Are there historical links between all these similar ideas or do they reflect something in the way human beings tend to tell stories, something int he structure of what Jung calls the psyche? One of Jung's associates was a Roman Catholic priest called Victor White and I have always found White's response to these parallels interesting https://archive.org/stream/godandtheunc ... 3/mode/2up.
If all of those mythical beings with the saviour god framework exist, then the only main difference with Christianity was that it was the religion of choice of Constantine's mother, as I have pointed out before. Sure they all have differences, but that makes them all unique.
But if we are talking about why one survives and the others do not then surely the reasons for this can be found in the elements that make it unique. Constantine wanted a religion that could unite the empire, and he probably had a shrewd eye for that. I gather his mother became a Christian after he did ,but perhaps you have come across a different account.
All of them, just like the Christians, think that their religion is the truth. It's much simpler to say that without sufficient proof that your religion is the "correct" one, then it is most probably just mythical like the rest.
I don't see any problem in regarding Christianity as mythical as long as this is not used to smuggle in the idea of falsehood from a secondary meaning of the word. If Christianity is true why should it not be reflected in the myths of other cultures. As C. S. Lewis said “We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting on our theology. We must not be nervous about ‘parallels’ and ‘Pagan Christs’: they ought to be there –it would be a stumbling block if they weren’t”

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Praying, the ultimate subordination

Post by SEG » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:45 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:17 pm
So the question then is whether to favour a propagationist approach or an archetypal approach. Are there historical links between all these similar ideas or do they reflect something in the way human beings tend to tell stories, something int he structure of what Jung calls the psyche?
There's enough of a structure to see that the ideas have been passed on. I wouldn't expect to see this type of framework in an Asian religion or jungle tribes. Maybe there is something in the human psyche that imagines virgin births, saviour, sons of higher recreational gods who went through passions. It sounds plausible.
One of Jung's associates was a Roman Catholic priest called Victor White and I have always found White's response to these parallels interesting https://archive.org/stream/godandtheunc ... 3/mode/2up.
Thanks Moon, very cool way of book sharing btw. I see that book was published in 1953 and they fined borrowers 2c PER DAY for being overdue, lol! I've read some of it and it looks easy to digest.
If all of those mythical beings with the saviour god framework exist, then the only main difference with Christianity was that it was the religion of choice of Constantine's mother, as I have pointed out before. Sure they all have differences, but that makes them all unique.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:17 pm
But if we are talking about why one survives and the others do not then surely the reasons for this can be found in the elements that make it unique.

Not really. As I have already said, all religions are unique. Maybe Christianity seemed less folkloric than the others, but that didn't make it more survivable IMO.
Constantine wasn't shaken in his pagan beliefs and convinced by the credibility of Christianity. He wanted it set on stone as witnessed in his victory arch that his alliance was to his pagan gods. He left no Christian crosses or symbolism anywhere on it.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:17 pm
Constantine wanted a religion that could unite the empire, and he probably had a shrewd eye for that. I gather his mother became a Christian after he did ,but perhaps you have come across a different account.
Yes I agree with your first sentence, but not the second. His mum was a Christian before him and a fundy. He was a cafeteria Christian. If she and all of the people
Constantine wanted to influence were devoted to Mythra, you and 2 billion other people would probably be too.
All of them, just like the Christians, think that their religion is the truth. It's much simpler to say that without sufficient proof that your religion is the "correct" one, then it is most probably just mythical like the rest.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:17 pm
I don't see any problem in regarding Christianity as mythical as long as this is not used to smuggle in the idea of falsehood from a secondary meaning of the word. If Christianity is true why should it not be reflected in the myths of other cultures. As C. S. Lewis said “We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting on our theology. We must not be nervous about ‘parallels’ and ‘Pagan Christs’: they ought to be there –it would be a stumbling block if they weren’t”
Yes, but what if a lot of what Christianity is composed of is reflected in previous religions? What if those stories in the NT were just rehashed stories of the OT and the ones of Homer? Just because it developed better stories doesn't mean that it is any more true.
Last edited by SEG on Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Praying, the ultimate subordination

Post by SEG » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:51 pm

Sorry for the late replies Moonwood. We are having a lot of fun in Las Vegas atm with lots of good friends.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Post Reply