Religion
- Thread starter Eventhorizon
- Start date
I'd recommend a book based on Jungian thought called 'The New God-Image' by Edward F Edinger M.D.
The 'God-Image' exists in all people in all times everywhere. It is most prevalent in mythology and finds expression first in paganism, then the spirits are personified, then made into a single entity, then a human being endowed with powers and finally located in the psyche. The killing is to protect the collective psyche but this is only justifiable before the age of reason. This is why bringing people from countries where life is cheap is dangerous but we also played a big part in that so it's a bit rich to get defensive now.
The blockage you have met is the idea of a thing being 'only' in the mind when inner space is as vast and mysterious as outer space. The leap from the Christian myth to Psychology as a bridge between science and religion is a tough one and a leap of faith no less than that required by traditional mythology. Nor is it the final answer, nor does it actually say anything about God...it is simply a new wineskin...the new wine must be self-generated for maximum benefit and this is what has always separated the saints from the sinners and layfolk. The reality is too abstract and too mysterious and at a certain point can only be lived out on faith, confirmed by grace, and understood up to the point that the wineskin bursts...which happens roughly every 2100 years and coincides with the precession of the equinoxes and causes a generally muddled period like the one we're experiencing now.
The 'God-Image' exists in all people in all times everywhere. It is most prevalent in mythology and finds expression first in paganism, then the spirits are personified, then made into a single entity, then a human being endowed with powers and finally located in the psyche. The killing is to protect the collective psyche but this is only justifiable before the age of reason. This is why bringing people from countries where life is cheap is dangerous but we also played a big part in that so it's a bit rich to get defensive now.
The blockage you have met is the idea of a thing being 'only' in the mind when inner space is as vast and mysterious as outer space. The leap from the Christian myth to Psychology as a bridge between science and religion is a tough one and a leap of faith no less than that required by traditional mythology. Nor is it the final answer, nor does it actually say anything about God...it is simply a new wineskin...the new wine must be self-generated for maximum benefit and this is what has always separated the saints from the sinners and layfolk. The reality is too abstract and too mysterious and at a certain point can only be lived out on faith, confirmed by grace, and understood up to the point that the wineskin bursts...which happens roughly every 2100 years and coincides with the precession of the equinoxes and causes a generally muddled period like the one we're experiencing now.
Last edited:
Essentially you have to figure out how to brainwash yourself or let someone else do it...
Seriously though does the book try to lean the reader toward accepting religion, away from it or neither?
Ideas only exist in minds... unless you are some sort of extreme Platonist, who thinks that ideas can exist outside minds.
As for killing because of ideas. It depends whether murder is seen as an end in itself, or a means to an end. Presumably the latter.
Given the title of this thread, I suppose that killing spurred by "religion" is virtually the norm for most regional/native religions. Very few religions actually forbid/reject the notion of killing. Until the last couple of centuries non-religion was a rare thing. However, since atheism has become more common one does not see among non-religious less ideological killing, but arguably more ideological killing.
The point is that most killing, like most "religion/religions" comes from people. Ie. religion in itself is not a killing-ideal; but most religion/religions are the ideals of potential killers.
Only religion which forbids killing can be of God IMO.
As for killing because of ideas. It depends whether murder is seen as an end in itself, or a means to an end. Presumably the latter.
Given the title of this thread, I suppose that killing spurred by "religion" is virtually the norm for most regional/native religions. Very few religions actually forbid/reject the notion of killing. Until the last couple of centuries non-religion was a rare thing. However, since atheism has become more common one does not see among non-religious less ideological killing, but arguably more ideological killing.
The point is that most killing, like most "religion/religions" comes from people. Ie. religion in itself is not a killing-ideal; but most religion/religions are the ideals of potential killers.
Only religion which forbids killing can be of God IMO.
We humans do far more than kill in the name of ideas. We create entire civilizations based on them.
Last edited:
Essentially you have to figure out how to brainwash yourself or let someone else do it...
Seriously though does the book try to lean the reader toward accepting religion, away from it or neither?
Neither.
It is complicated. I can't explain it here but it is about the relationship between the subjective and objective psyche. The former emerges from the latter.
Man's relationship to God (and everything associated e.g. ethics) throughout history parallels his relationship to the objective psyche.
I actually did not say that. Subject: Religion..................easily understood
First question: Can someone please explain people to me? How is it possible to disown and kill people over an idea that only exists within the mind?
It sounds like one question, but it is two. Then, you want someone to explain something that only exists in the mind? Listen to what you are insinuating. Nothing I say can explain this to someone who, in their own mind, does not believe in it as being something real. You sound as if you have already made your mind up. If not, you come across as thinking your question to be impossible to answer. Try rephrasing yourself, or not.
It may be impossible to answer, maybe not. Maybe in the attempt to answer you give me ideas I have not already had.
http://www.islam-watch.org/home/138-jake-neuman/1546-muhammad-the-first-islamic-radical.html
The Muhammed of Mecca and Medina were two different, or should I say too different, leaders and theologies.
The Muhammed of Mecca and Medina were two different, or should I say too different, leaders and theologies.
We humans are believers by nature. Why? Our knowledge and understanding are finite, but we require answers. Religion provides answers and fills the void our ignorance leaves. Religion will be with us forever. On the bright side, Christianity is a lot better than, say, Islam. Also, Christianity in its current form is wonderfully compatible with high levels of civilization. Christianity is a blessing.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." - Voltaire
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." - Voltaire
Last edited:
...Maybe if you grew up around violence. For some people, it doesn't take much of a push to go and wreak misery, and that isn't chance.
