Archive for the 'god' Category

Not “I” or no one created

Published
by
Ken
on December 13, 2008
in god and vedanta
. 0 Comments

Continuing from my last post, I have not totally thought through the “why” of the ultimate observer doing no action but, taking that as an assumption to be “proven” later, I think there are two answers to “Who, then, created?”

First, as some spiritual traditions suggest (and I can’t, at the moment, recall which one(s)) it was a demiurge who did the creating. The Old Testament God, Jehovah, was not the ultimate observer but a “lesser” god, more akin to a child with his fits of rage, anger, jealousy, &c., and it was this god who created. It reminds me of that Star Trek episode (the “real” Star Trek with Captain James T. Kirk) where the Enterprise crew is trapped on this planet by a “god” which turns out to be a child playing. The child’s parents come in at the end and save everyone from annihilation and apology for their child’s behavior.

Second, there is no creation — it’s all a dream, maya, an illusion. This fits in with Eastern tradition, especially Vedanta and Hinduism.

Sphere: Related Content

Who, then, created?

Published
by
Ken
on December 12, 2008
in god and vedanta
. 1 Comment

Vedanta has an aphorism which states: “I do nothing at all.” Our true “I,” our true Self, is the ultimate observer and does not act. If our true Self were, itself, observed, then it would be the object to another’s subject. That other subject would then be the ultimate observer (unless, of course, it was observed by yet another subject). To break the infinite chain, there must be an ultimate observer which is not observed by any other subject. This ultimate observer is “God” and our true “Self.” This is the “I” in the above aphorism. However, if “I” do nothing, i.e. “God” does nothing, then who/what created the world that we see, feel, hear, taste, and smell?

Sphere: Related Content

Inadequate infantile attitude

Published
by
Ken
on December 10, 2008
in carl jung, christianity and god
. 0 Comments

I’ve written elsewhere about the anthropomorphism of God but another parallel with Jung’s psychology has suggested itself. This time, it is the concept of transference. Again, from The Theory of Psychoanalysis: Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph Series, No. 19:

Freud calls this process transference, owing to the fact that the images of the parents are henceforth transferred to the physician, along with the infantile attitude of mind adopted towards the parents. The transference does not arise solely in the intellectual sphere, but the libido bound up with the phantasy is transferred, together with the phantasy itself, to the personality of the physician, so that the physician replaces the parents to a certain extent. (p. 102)

A little later, Jung discusses the role of transference:

Through the transference to the physician, a bridge is built, across which the patient can get away from his family, into reality. In other words, he can emerge from his infantile environment into the world of grown-up people, for here the physician stands for a part of the extra-familial world.

Now, I would like to suggest an analogy where the “patient” is us and the “physician” is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. The transference was initiated by Jesus when he taught his disciples to pray, “Our Father who art in heaven.” We now view Jehovah as a father figure, i.e. we have transferred to Jehovah the image of a parent. What this transference provides us is a way to “grow-up”; to shed the “infantile environment” of the Old Testament and enter a more mature world with a more mature view of God. However, there can be a downside to transference:

But on the other hand, this transference is a powerful hindrance to the progress of treatment, for the patient assimilates the personality of the physician as if he did stand for father or mother, and not for a part of the extra-familial world. If the patent could acquire the image of the physician as a part of the non-infantile world, he would gain a considerable advantage. But transference has the opposite effect; hence the whole advantage of the new acquisition is neutralized.

How often have you seen this exact symptom? Someone, or a group of people, “assimilat[ing] the personality of the physician.” Think of all those Christians filled with “righteous anger” who condemn (or worse) sinners “in the name of God.”

There are two end results of transference:

The more the patient succeeds in regarding his doctor as he does any other individual, the more he is able to consider himself objectively, the greater becomes the advantage of transference. The less he is able to consider his doctor in this way, the more the physician is assimilated with the father, the less is the advantage of the transference and the greater will be its harm. The familial environment of the patent has only become increased by an additional personality assimilated to his parents. The patient himself is, as before, still in his childish surroundings, and therefore maintains his infantile attitude of mind. In this manner, all the advantages of transference can be lost.

Transference can lead to either greater maturity or a continued infantile attitude. In the latter case, Jehovah maintains a strongly human father image and we continue to take on the personality of the Old Testament God, the only result of which is a wallowing in our childhood and immaturity.

Sphere: Related Content

Knowing God, knowing me

Published
by
Ken
on December 9, 2008
in god and vedanta
. 0 Comments

A follow-up to my Knowing God post. In that post, I wrote:

God is in us, God is that part of us that is unchanging, God is our “I,” our knower, our true self. And the way to know God is to look within. To look for what in us does not change; what in us says “I.”

I was a little unsure about that conclusion; I was unable to justify it. However, now I think I can.

When you know or perceive something you are the subject and the thing is the object. The subject knows the object. The object cannot know the subject. Now, God is — by definition, I dare say — the ultimate subject since nothing can know God as object as that would require something to be unknowable to God. So, how can we know God? The only way possible is if we are God.

Does that make sense?

Sphere: Related Content

- d-n’t g-t -t

Published
by
Ken
on September 1, 2008
in god
. 0 Comments

Why d- p–pl- wr-t- G-d -nst-d -f God? F-r -ngl-sh sp–k-ng p–pl-, th- n-m- -f G-d -s n-t h-ly -r s-cr-d. -t’s -n -v-ryd-y w-rd. W- -s- th- t-tl- -f g-d f-r m-ny p–pl- -nd th-ngs. - j-st d-n’t g-t -t.

Sphere: Related Content

Circular or iterative reasoning?

Published
by
Ken
on August 29, 2008
in bible, biblical interpretation and god
. 0 Comments

I think that many, if not most, mainstream Christians would say that experience alone cannot tell us anything about God. We need to filter our experience through the Bible for it to be reliable and “true.” So, the Bible is the authoritative word on how we experience God and what we know about God. But, at the same time, the Bible is what it is because of who and what God is. So, the Bible tells us about God but God’s nature gives the Bible the authority to inform us about the God whose nature gives the Bible … Isn’t that a bit of the-chicken-n-the-egg reasoning?

But what to do to break this circular cycle? I think we need to iterate.

There are many “problems” that people struggle with. God’s actions do not always make sense to us. We don’t understand what happens in the world because it doesn’t fit with our understanding of God. The Bible has difficult passages because it seems to say two, or three or four, different things. It seems that most mainstream Christians just hunker down and hope that when they get to Heaven God will explain all. They take refuge in the fact of God’s love and omniscience and leave it all up to him. But most of the time, that doesn’t seem to provide much real comfort.

And this is where iteration enters the picture. If something doesn’t make sense then perhaps what we need to do is change something—iterate toward a more consistent solution. The problem is that we get so stuck in our current mindsets that we don’t even consider revising our basic assumptions. Our concept of God should not be static. Our handling of the Bible should not be the same today as it was yesterday. But these are too often not even considered to be variable and so we sit and spin and get no where.

Sphere: Related Content

Not only “Why?” but also “What the F***?”

Published
by
Ken
on August 29, 2008
in god
. 0 Comments

Bird at The Thinklings asks “Why?“. Why did God condoned such violence in the O.T? And some of the comments are making me shake my head and ask “What?” As in “What’s you talkin’ ’bout Willis?” and the less eloquent “What the f*** are people thinking?”

Some commenters say that God’s wrath has to do with the treatment Jesus received. What? God is commanding and condoning the killing of babies because of something that’s going to happen hundreds of years in the future? And I still don’t get all the angst over the death of Jesus. He had to die, didn’t he? That was the whole farggin’ reason he was here. So why is it such a horrible, devastating, criminal act that he was crucified?

Then there’s the person who says that all those Canaanite kiddies had it coming. After all, if they were over the age of accountability, then they must have “done a great many terrible things.” What? Unless that guy thinks the age of accountability is somewhere near 25 then he’s got problems. All (as in every single solitary) 8 year olds had already “done a great terrible things”? That’s inconceivable.

Then there’s the guy who says that everyone God commanded to be killed deserved it because they all saw (or heard about) God in action yet they personally and deliberately chose to harden their hearts against him. What? First of all, back to the 8 year olds. Did they really see or hear about God and did they really harden their own hearts? I know when I was 8, I did what my parents told me and believed what my parents told me.

Secondly, let’s just assume—hypothetically, of course—that Quetzalcoatl is the real God. Now, many people have heard about him but let’s say they are all at the portal to the pearly pyramid and St. Montezuma is the gatekeeper. Who would even possibly accept the judgment that they had heard about Quetzalcoatl and yet personally refused to believe in him and so they are to be sacrificed and sent to hell?

Thirdly, it seems that God does not always play fairly. Let’s look at the plagues God sent on the Egyptians. After plagues 1-7, it seems that Pharoah hardened his heart against God and did not let the Isrealites go. But look at Exodus 10:20, 10:27, and 11:10. There it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart! It sounds like Pharaoh was about to give in but God had 10 cool plagues planned out and he just had to get them all in so he put the fix in to make sure he had is fun. Yes, people do deliberatley turn away from God but it seems that God admits to giving them a bit of a nudge sometimes, too.

Most of these rationalizations for God’s wrath in the O.T. are the same arguments that people today use for rationalizing how God can send millions and millions of people to hell because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time. They just don’t work. They are flawed and inconsistent. And if you really try to make sense of it all, the only option is to alter your notion of God. Trying to say that God is 100% love and God is 100% just and God is 100% this and that and the other doesn’t fit. One characteristic must trump the other and in most cases, when dealing with the “heathen,” it’s justness that trumps love yet when dealing with “Christians” it’s love that trumps justice. That’s just not playing fairly and if you realize that it will force you to reconsider the basic assumptions you’ve unconsciously made.

So don’t question God or the Bible. Simply question your assumptions and see how that changes your view of God and the Bible.

Sphere: Related Content

And God saw that it was … good ???

Published
by
Ken
on July 18, 2008
in god
. 2 Comments

ticks, lice, tapeworms, fleas, hookworms, E. coli, Giardia, mites, chiggers, bed bugs, mosquitoes

Are you freakin’ kidding me?

And God saw that it was good … but

Published
by
Ken
on July 4, 2008
in bible and god
. 0 Comments

I thought I knew the creation story in the Bible. Now, I couldn’t tell you what was created on what day but I knew the basic order and knew when man and woman were created. It’s been a LONG time since I’ve read it but I thought I knew it.

Not so!

I reread it today and several things jumped out at me that I had never noticed.

First, in Genesis 1:31 God pronounced everything to be “very good” yet in Genesis 2:18 he says that something is “not good,” specifically, man’s being alone. What happened here? God says that it’s all good and then realizes something is a tad askew? He made two of every animal but only the human male and it took him a minute to realize he should have made a female human as well? That doesn’t seem very omniscient of him.

But there’s more. Look at Genesis 1:27 and here it sounds like God made male and female together, at the same time and in the same way. Both were made in the image of God. But that’s not the impression I get from Eve’s being created from Adam’s rib.

Now, I do not recall ever hearing a sermon on this and I do not know what the “party line” is but here is an explanation that makes sense to me. God did create man and woman together, in the same way and at the same time, just as with all the other animals. This is what he pronounced as “very good.” Then something happened that left Adam alone, which was “not good,” and so God created Eve.

Hmmmm. Does the name Lilith ring any bells?

Anyway, it seems that God’s first choice of creation method for woman did not work out so well so he chose an alternate method the second go round. If you look at how God addresses man and woman in Genesis 1 they seem to be equals — he says the same things to both. But apparently someone couldn’t handle all this equality and so Eve was made from Adam’s rib.

Sphere: Related Content

Carl Jung and the problem of evil

Published
by
Ken
on May 16, 2008
in carl jung, evil and god
. 1 Comment

[ This is in response to a comment by Mark on my recent post: "The problem with the problem of evil" ]

I couldn’t sleep last night and picked up Volume 9ii of the Collected Works of Carl Jung. Scanning the chapter on Christ, A Symbol of the Self I came across Jung’s thoughts on evil and they are apropos of the discussion in my earlier post.

The fact that God is only good seems to be a doctrine that flies in the face of what we read about Yahweh in the Old Testament but the early church fathers seemed to think it scandalous that there could be anything but good in God. Tatian (2nd century) is the earliest authority for the axiom: “Nothing evil was created by God; we ourselves produced all wickedness.”

Basil the Great said that evil has no substance but “is the privation of good” and “arises from the mutilation of the soul.” Furthermore, “if all things are of God, how can evil arise from good?” In another passage, Basil says:

It is … impious to say that evil has its origin from God, because the contrary cannot proceed from the contrary. Life does not engender death, darkness is not the origin of light, sickness is not the maker of health. … Now if evil is neither uncreated nor created by God, when comes its nature? That evil exists no one living in the world will deny. … Each of us should acknowledge that he is the first author of the wickedness in him.

Jung says that good and evil “are a logically equivalent pair of opposites” and are the premise and co-existent halves for any moral judgment. They do not derive from each other but are “always there together.” Evil is a human value, like good.

Jung continues to say that, as Basil asserts, if evil arises from a “mutilation of the soul” and yet evil really exists then “the relative reality of evil is grounded in a real ‘mutilation’ of the soul which must have an equally real cause.” The real corruption of the originally good soul must be done by something real. Furthermore, how can man be the sole author of evil when Lucifer’s sin proves that evil was in the world before man? What was the cause of the “mutilation” of Lucifer’s heart? Jung points out the logical fallacy in Basil’s argument: “the independent existence of evil must be denied even in the face of the eternity of the devil as asserted by dogma.”

Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, says:

One opposite is known through the other, as darkness is known through light. Hence also what evil is must be known from the nature of good. Now we have said above that good is everything appetible; and this, since every nature desires its own being and its own perfection, it must necessarily be said that the being and perfection of every created thing is essentially good. Hence it cannot be that evil signifies a being, or any form or nature. Therefore it must be that by the name of evil is signified the absence of good.

Evil is not a being, whereas good is a being.

However, Jung points out, not only is darkness known through light but conversely, and as a logical equivalent, light is known through darkness. Cold is merely the privation of heat but does that make cold non-existent?

The privatio boni argument remains a euphemistic petitio principii no matter whether evil is regarded as a lesser good or as an effect of the finiteness and limitedness of created things. The false conclusion necessarily follows from the premise “Deus = Summum Bonum,” since it is unthinkable that the perfect good could ever have created evil. It merely created the good and the less good … Just as we freeze miserably despite a temperature of 230° above absolute zero, so there are people and things that, although created by God, are good only to the minimal and bad to the maximal degree.

Despite the logical fallacy of the “privation of good” argument, Jung recognizes that it is used and believed and this cannot be disposed of easily. “It proves that there is a tendency, existing right from the start, to give priority to ‘good,’ and to do so with all the means in our power, whether suitable or unsuitable.” In the end, Jung says:

The privatio boni may therefore be a psychological truth. I presume to no judgment on this matter. I must only insist that in our field of experience which and black, light and dark, good and bad, are equivalent opposites which always predicate one another.

I’m sure I have not done Jung’s argument justice, but I hope it’s at least comprehensible.

Sphere: Related Content