Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

Christian beliefs include the mythic story as told by various priests and denominations . This great mythic story is centred on the Resurrection event which distinguishes it from other mythic stories.

Christian believers also include those belonging to a congregation of people who at least superficially believe in the Resurrection event and the moral code as purported to have Jesus Christ as its author, although Judaism is also given due credit.

Christian believers, together with other religionists and atheists, also believe in what is now widely believe to be the moral code that forms the base of modern civilisation. Many support this moral code while disbelieving in the supernatural mythic story.

Simplistically, we have history, (supposedly) factual, legends, a mixture of fact and fiction, and myths, that are wholly fiction. I suppose that's why we so often see "myths and legends" together?

It's a bit of a shame that we refer to Christianity as a "myth", when it seems to be a legend — referring to historical periods, including people who probably or definitely existed in actuality. I'm not quibbling about the words used, but only lamenting that myths and legends are so poorly thought-of these days.

Myths (and legends too) often have use or value, if only because they carry a worthwhile message, made-up or not. I think we should value stories — be they historical, legendary or mythical — more, instead of decrying and demeaning them. Stories are memorable, and they have value. IMO.

I doubt if any moral code would be of more than passing interest unless it were backed by a foundation myth. I too regret that important myths are so often scorned; stories are how humans explain ideas.

In relation to the idea of the foundation, and the idea of resurrection, the story of Jesus rising from the dead, and the empty tomb, and the entire philosophy of Christianity, come together with such significance. It is so significant, that history was divided into BC and AD. So, while it could be argued that Christianity is not special, the story of the resurrection stands as a central turning point.

Whatever happened and, it is unclear. For example, apart from the empty tomb, there is the issue of Christ appearing to many, and the ascension into heaven. Apart from it making Jesus as the 'Messiah' prophesied in the OT for many, brings the idea of the resurrection as a possibility for the future. Also, there was the other story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.

It must also be seen in the context of the early Christian Church being built in the belief that the end of the world was imminent. The Book of Revelation also gives symbolic embodiment to the idea of the end times and, with so much mystification, The Book of Revelation has puzzled so many in its apocalyptic mythology. I

In addition, the idea of the resurrection of Jesus and of human beings, brings out the theme of rebirth as celebrated in the idea of Easter and the whole idea of Holy Communion ritual ceremony. In this way it becomes the narrative structure as a foundation for the Church and the ethics of Christianity. Certainly, in my personal experience of growing up in Christianity, the whole story of the resurrection, was at the centre, and in thinking and questioning, it depends so much on the idea of the resurrection.

[JackDaydream]

Questioning Christianity and its complexities, from God's existence to biblical narratives, is a thought-provoking journey. Exploring Gnosticism and Grail Tradition adds depth, but the debate between idealism and materialism continues

Yes, the debate between materialism and idealism does come into how the Christian narrative is perceived. The emergence of ideas of the Gnostics and the mythology of the Grail, which were to a large extent hidden and esoteric, have brought a symbolic dimension to it all. In many ways, science and the movement towards materialism lead to a deconstruction of the story. However, the symbolic aspects of the resurrection story, and the battle between Gnosticism and the mainstream tradition show how complex it was. The tension between materialism and idealism was so apparent in the question of the whether the resurrection body of Christ was physical or spiritual. So much debate within theology Christian philosophy of over this comes down to idealism or materialism. The symbolic aspects throw a different slant on this and the original development of the Christian story and the historical way in which this grew in different ways at the centre of Western philosophy.

[Pattern-chaser]

The potential role of non-dualism in relation to the deconstruction of Christianity is as an interpretive lens to approach certain aspects of Christian theology and teachings. Non-dualism could offer insights into the interconnected nature of God, creation, and humanity, potentially challenging dualistic interpretations. The dualistic tendencies within Christianity, such as rigid distinctions between sacred and secular, body, and spirit, or divine and human have been damaging throughout history. I would encourage a more holistic understanding that emphasizes the divine presence in all aspects of life, which doesn't take anything away from those stories, just reinterprets them.

Indeed, but here we stumble on the greatest human failing of all. Our inability to deal with everything at one go. Life, the Universe, and Everything, is just too much to swallow in one bite. So although it is true that everything is one single whole, humans can't deal with it. We have to 'divide and conquer', using reductionism to 'dualise' again and again, until we have divided far enough that what is left is small enough for us to try to understand. It isn't called "reductionism" for fun!

[Pattern-chaser]

[...] Non-dualism could offer insights into the interconnected nature of God, creation, and humanity, potentially challenging dualistic interpretations. [...]

Even physicists reason in dualistic terms. There are transcendental laws of physics and, on the other hand, a material reality. There is the transcendental quantum wave as complementary opposite of the quantum particle. We can't fare without dualistic thinking. Without opposites our thought process isn't even possible. That's why Indian sadhus stop thinking and only meditate.

I eventually came to the conclusion that there are no "opposites", but only pairs of complementary concepts. I find this helps my thinking and understanding...?

[Pattern-chaser]

In relation to the idea of the foundation, and the idea of resurrection, the story of Jesus rising from the dead, and the empty tomb, and the entire philosophy of Christianity, come together with such significance. It is so significant, that history was divided into BC and AD...

...but only by Christian historians, who recorded their histories with Christian dates. Be careful, Jack, you're sounding a little like an American who is unaware of the existence of any other country, people, or way of doing things. There is so much more to religion than exclusive-Christianity, and so much more to humanity than exclusive-religion...

[JackDaydream]

In relation to the idea of the foundation, and the idea of resurrection, the story of Jesus rising from the dead, and the empty tomb, and the entire philosophy of Christianity, come together with such significance. It is so significant, that history was divided into BC and AD...

...but only by Christian historians, who recorded their histories with Christian dates. Be careful, Jack, you're sounding a little like an American who is unaware of the existence of any other country, people, or way of doing things. There is so much more to religion than exclusive-Christianity, and so much more to humanity than exclusive-religion...

I definitely don't wish to be seeing Christianity as special as I am interested in comparative religion and the perennial perspective. What I do wonder about is the way in which literalism is more an aspect of Western thinking. It may be that the thinking of Christianity is more compatible with Eastern thinking. Here, I am referring to less of a dualistic split, especially between idealism and materialism.

To some extent, this split may be most obvious in materialism, and the way in which ideas of this have entered into Western philosophy, often ignoring the symbolic and metaphorical aspects of thinking. Perhaps, logic is central to the foundations of Western philosophy, as an underpinning aspect of rationality. However, I sometimes wonder about the 'softer' and more subtle aspects of Eastern thinking and how these may have been a central feature underlying Christianity. The issue of logic and intuition may have been important in understanding logic, as well as the more complex aspects of experience and religious experience. So, it may come down to the interplay between logic and intuition and how do these come into play in conceptual understanding and in the interpretation of religious experience?

[Gertie]

If you're not a Biblical literalist about what Jesus and his followers actually did and believed themselves, then you're creating your own religion. And unsurprisingly it will be a good fit for you. What you choose to consider metaphorical and your interpretation of those metaphors will chime with your own intuitions and biases. Many of these will be common to most people, psychologically, culturally, adjusted to contemporary knowledge. The actual religion ends up being shoe-horned into contemporary preferences, which is how it survives.

[JackDaydream]

If you're not a Biblical literalist about what Jesus and his followers actually did and believed themselves, then you're creating your own religion. And unsurprisingly it will be a good fit for you. What you choose to consider metaphorical and your interpretation of those metaphors will chime with your own intuitions and biases. Many of these will be common to most people, psychologically, culturally, adjusted to contemporary knowledge. The actual religion ends up being shoe-horned into contemporary preferences, which is how it survives.

What you describe may be more of movement towards spirituality as opposed to religion in its organised form and formulas. This may be becoming more common in the present time. However, it may have always been a tension and even at the time of Jesus there was a whole tradition of wandering Jews, who may have been like folk philosophers. Even when Jesus suggested the building of the 'Church', it doesn't mean necessarily in the form of organised and institutions which developed.

However, the understanding of the symbolic as opposed to literal interpretation of the Bible, alongside cultural pluralism does allow for people to develop their own set of ideas. This is expressed in the concept of bricolage, which is like a collage of ideas. It is possible to draw upon the Bible, ideas within comparative religion and ones from secular thinking to create a personal structure of guidance. This is conveyed in Sam Harris's emphasis on 'spirituality without religion'. Some may see it as dangerous because it is outside of organisational structures of religion, which may have been why the Gnostics themselves were viewed and outlawed as heretics.

[Stoppelmann]

If you're not a Biblical literalist about what Jesus and his followers actually did and believed themselves, then you're creating your own religion. And unsurprisingly it will be a good fit for you. What you choose to consider metaphorical and your interpretation of those metaphors will chime with your own intuitions and biases. Many of these will be common to most people, psychologically, culturally, adjusted to contemporary knowledge. The actual religion ends up being shoe-horned into contemporary preferences, which is how it survives.

What you describe may be more of movement towards spirituality as opposed to religion in its organised form and formulas. This may be becoming more common in the present time. However, it may have always been a tension and even at the time of Jesus there was a whole tradition of wandering Jews, who may have been like folk philosophers. Even when Jesus suggested the building of the 'Church', it doesn't mean necessarily in the form of organised and institutions which developed.

However, the understanding of the symbolic as opposed to literal interpretation of the Bible, alongside cultural pluralism does allow for people to develop their own set of ideas. This is expressed in the concept of bricolage, which is like a collage of ideas. It is possible to draw upon the Bible, ideas within comparative religion and ones from secular thinking to create a personal structure of guidance. This is conveyed in Sam Harris's emphasis on 'spirituality without religion'. Some may see it as dangerous because it is outside of organisational structures of religion, which may have been why the Gnostics themselves were viewed and outlawed as heretics.

Although I think Gertie is right in one way, I see the criticism of Jesus towards the pious of his day as applicable to the pious of any time since. Alan Watts was hated for the fact that he pointed out the trappings of any organised religion and piety, and in England, the satirical books of Adrian Plass ridiculed the behaviour of Christians to another degree of mockery, despite himself being a Christian. The satanists also tended to satirise the mystical Latin invocations and ridicule them and thank their movement the dogmatic and bumptious behaviour of clerics.

There is also something that I have mentioned several times, that when you are preaching or teaching, you are often amazed at what people have chosen to see as the core of that lesson. People tend to stick with known creeds simply because if they spoke freely about what they believe, we would find that everyone has their own version of Christianity (or whatever faith they adhere to). Faith is personal because everyone makes their own associations, are attracted by specific words or aspects of the faith, understand terms used in their own way, and it is all motivated by their own concept of what is appropriate, based on their representation of themselves. I could fully appreciate what one woman said about prayer, “Really, when we enter into personal prayer, we should approach God naked, and in the same way do away with all our pretences, all of our prejudices, and everything we think we are.”

We have numerous examples of sects growing outside of the Church, even though they retained a connection, because they sought a different approach. The Desert Fathers are my favourite example, but there were probably more, some which we know about and others whose memory was erased. When Jesus did speak about building His church, it is important to note that the concept of the church in this context refers to the community of believers rather than a physical building or denomination. The interpretation of Jesus' statement "on this rock, I will build my church" has been a topic of debate among scholars and theologians, whether based on the play on words between Peter's name (which means "rock" in Greek), or that the rock refers to Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Some argue that Jesus Himself is the rock referred to in His statement. According to this interpretation, Jesus is the foundation and cornerstone of the church, and the statement emphasizes his central role in building and sustaining the church. A non-dual interpretation of Jesus' statement "on this rock, I will build my church" may suggest that the rock refers to the ultimate reality or the divine essence that underlies all of creation, and represents the unchanging, eternal nature of reality that transcends all dualities and distinctions. Jesus is emphasizing that the church he is building is not limited to any particular form or structure but is rooted in the timeless truth of non-duality.

I believe that Jesus is pointing to the unity of all things in the divine essence, which is the foundation of the church. The church is not a separate entity, but rather an expression of the oneness that underlies all of creation and Jesus is saying that the church he is building is not an external institution, but rather a community of individuals who have realized their true nature as one with the divine, emphasizing that the church he is building is not based on any particular belief system or doctrine, but rather on the direct experience of the divine essence.

This could also encompass Sam Harris's emphasis on 'spirituality without religion.' John-Roger is a spiritual teacher who has written extensively on the topic of spirituality and the divine essence. His book "Divine Essence" explores the concept of the divine presence in everyday life and offers practical advice for cultivating a deeper connection with the divine. Dr Mark Spencer is a philosopher who has spoken on the topic of divine simplicity and the essence/energies distinction. He believes that the direct experience of the divine essence is possible and compatible with traditional Christian theology. Michael Rea is a philosopher who has written on the topic of mystical experiences of God. He argues that experiences of God's presence and communication from God can be widely available and that the ability to experience God can be improved through spiritual practices and disciplines.

But there are today a host of Christians who have a similar perspective. Richard Rohr and Cynthia Bourgeault are two contemporary and popular writers, as well as Bruno Barnhart, Bourgeault’s mentor. There are also a variety of Hindu influenced Christians like the nun Sara Grant, the anonymous Cistercian monk who writes under the name “a Monk of the West,” Bede Griffiths as well as such folk as the medieval mystic Meister Eckhart and the moderns Thomas Keating and Martha Reeves, who write as “Maggie Ross.” This would support my first comment, that Christianity is very diverse.

These speakers do come from different spiritual traditions and may have different perspectives on the nature of the divine essence and how to cultivate a direct experience of it. However, they all share a common emphasis on the importance of connecting with the divine essence and experiencing it directly in one's life.

[JackDaydream]

If you're not a Biblical literalist about what Jesus and his followers actually did and believed themselves, then you're creating your own religion. And unsurprisingly it will be a good fit for you. What you choose to consider metaphorical and your interpretation of those metaphors will chime with your own intuitions and biases. Many of these will be common to most people, psychologically, culturally, adjusted to contemporary knowledge. The actual religion ends up being shoe-horned into contemporary preferences, which is how it survives.

What you describe may be more of movement towards spirituality as opposed to religion in its organised form and formulas. This may be becoming more common in the present time. However, it may have always been a tension and even at the time of Jesus there was a whole tradition of wandering Jews, who may have been like folk philosophers. Even when Jesus suggested the building of the 'Church', it doesn't mean necessarily in the form of organised and institutions which developed.

However, the understanding of the symbolic as opposed to literal interpretation of the Bible, alongside cultural pluralism does allow for people to develop their own set of ideas. This is expressed in the concept of bricolage, which is like a collage of ideas. It is possible to draw upon the Bible, ideas within comparative religion and ones from secular thinking to create a personal structure of guidance. This is conveyed in Sam Harris's emphasis on 'spirituality without religion'. Some may see it as dangerous because it is outside of organisational structures of religion, which may have been why the Gnostics themselves were viewed and outlawed as heretics.

Although I think Gertie is right in one way, I see the criticism of Jesus towards the pious of his day as applicable to the pious of any time since. Alan Watts was hated for the fact that he pointed out the trappings of any organised religion and piety, and in England, the satirical books of Adrian Plass ridiculed the behaviour of Christians to another degree of mockery, despite himself being a Christian. The satanists also tended to satirise the mystical Latin invocations and ridicule them and thank their movement the dogmatic and bumptious behaviour of clerics.

There is also something that I have mentioned several times, that when you are preaching or teaching, you are often amazed at what people have chosen to see as the core of that lesson. People tend to stick with known creeds simply because if they spoke freely about what they believe, we would find that everyone has their own version of Christianity (or whatever faith they adhere to). Faith is personal because everyone makes their own associations, are attracted by specific words or aspects of the faith, understand terms used in their own way, and it is all motivated by their own concept of what is appropriate, based on their representation of themselves. I could fully appreciate what one woman said about prayer, “Really, when we enter into personal prayer, we should approach God naked, and in the same way do away with all our pretences, all of our prejudices, and everything we think we are.”

We have numerous examples of sects growing outside of the Church, even though they retained a connection, because they sought a different approach. The Desert Fathers are my favourite example, but there were probably more, some which we know about and others whose memory was erased. When Jesus did speak about building His church, it is important to note that the concept of the church in this context refers to the community of believers rather than a physical building or denomination. The interpretation of Jesus' statement "on this rock, I will build my church" has been a topic of debate among scholars and theologians, whether based on the play on words between Peter's name (which means "rock" in Greek), or that the rock refers to Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Some argue that Jesus Himself is the rock referred to in His statement. According to this interpretation, Jesus is the foundation and cornerstone of the church, and the statement emphasizes his central role in building and sustaining the church. A non-dual interpretation of Jesus' statement "on this rock, I will build my church" may suggest that the rock refers to the ultimate reality or the divine essence that underlies all of creation, and represents the unchanging, eternal nature of reality that transcends all dualities and distinctions. Jesus is emphasizing that the church he is building is not limited to any particular form or structure but is rooted in the timeless truth of non-duality.

I believe that Jesus is pointing to the unity of all things in the divine essence, which is the foundation of the church. The church is not a separate entity, but rather an expression of the oneness that underlies all of creation and Jesus is saying that the church he is building is not an external institution, but rather a community of individuals who have realized their true nature as one with the divine, emphasizing that the church he is building is not based on any particular belief system or doctrine, but rather on the direct experience of the divine essence.

This could also encompass Sam Harris's emphasis on 'spirituality without religion.' John-Roger is a spiritual teacher who has written extensively on the topic of spirituality and the divine essence. His book "Divine Essence" explores the concept of the divine presence in everyday life and offers practical advice for cultivating a deeper connection with the divine. Dr Mark Spencer is a philosopher who has spoken on the topic of divine simplicity and the essence/energies distinction. He believes that the direct experience of the divine essence is possible and compatible with traditional Christian theology. Michael Rea is a philosopher who has written on the topic of mystical experiences of God. He argues that experiences of God's presence and communication from God can be widely available and that the ability to experience God can be improved through spiritual practices and disciplines.

But there are today a host of Christians who have a similar perspective. Richard Rohr and Cynthia Bourgeault are two contemporary and popular writers, as well as Bruno Barnhart, Bourgeault’s mentor. There are also a variety of Hindu influenced Christians like the nun Sara Grant, the anonymous Cistercian monk who writes under the name “a Monk of the West,” Bede Griffiths as well as such folk as the medieval mystic Meister Eckhart and the moderns Thomas Keating and Martha Reeves, who write as “Maggie Ross.” This would support my first comment, that Christianity is very diverse.

These speakers do come from different spiritual traditions and may have different perspectives on the nature of the divine essence and how to cultivate a direct experience of it. However, they all share a common emphasis on the importance of connecting with the divine essence and experiencing it directly in one's life.

It is such a complex area because there has been so much dipping in and out of dogmas and original creeds, in the history of Christendom and cross cultural exchanges of ideas. One clear form of opposition is between Catholicism and the Quakers, or Society of Friends. The Quakers formed some opposition to the ritualism of the Catholic and other traditional churches. There are no formal prayers, with people speaking from the inspiration within.

The whole idea of inspiration and revelation has also been an area of dispute. Some have stuck to the traditional authorities known to them, possibly out of fear. Others have spoken out and created alternatives, including the creation of 'The Book of Mormon.'

In the twentieth and twentieth first century there is so much dialogue between Christianity and Eastern philosophy, including theosophy, Benjamin Creme's awaiting 'Maitreya', the new world teacher, since 1977, as well as many ideas which many regard as the realm walked upon by the psychonauts

One important emergence is the idea of 'channelled' texts, as a source of authority. One key example is, 'A Course in Miracles'; which has been very influential but attacked strongly by Catholics in particular. The text is a psychological interpretation of Christian ideas, but based on the negative influence of the idea of 'sin' and the need for healing from this as the starting point for 'miracles'.

[Mlw]

The text is a psychological interpretation of Christian ideas, but based on the negative influence of the idea of 'sin' and the need for healing from this as the starting point for 'miracles'.

Carl Jung has been very influential in this. But I find that his psychologized version of theology is a backwater: "An Assessment of the Theology of Carl Gustav Jung" (use your search engine).

[JackDaydream]

The text is a psychological interpretation of Christian ideas, but based on the negative influence of the idea of 'sin' and the need for healing from this as the starting point for 'miracles'.

Carl Jung has been very influential in this. But I find that his psychologized version of theology is a backwater: "An Assessment of the Theology of Carl Gustav Jung" (use your search engine).

I have found Jung to be extremely helpful in the understanding of both Western and Eastern religion personally. With regard to Western religion, especially his 'Answer to Job', which traces the development of understanding of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. However, some seem to find Jung helpful whereas others are extremely critical of him.

I first began reading his writings when I was at school, especially his autobiography, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflection.' pI didn't manage to access the paper you mentioned because I would have had to sign up for membership of a site and Pdfs won't enlarge on my phone. However, the title in itself seemed questionable as 'The Theology of Carl Jung...' because Jung was not a theologian at all but a psychoanalytical practitioner. He did engage in debate with the theologian Victor White, and the dialogue was narrated in White's 'God and the Unconscious'. However, Jung is coming from a psychological angle. So, it may come down to that as a basis versus the more concrete perspective of theological metaphysics. I don't know if you are willing to say more about your interpretation of Jung in relation to theology.

[EricPH]

In relation to the idea of the foundation, and the idea of resurrection, the story of Jesus rising from the dead, and the empty tomb, and the entire philosophy of Christianity, come together with such significance. It is so significant, that history was divided into BC and AD...

The Romans already had their own calendar from the time Rome was built. Seems strange they should give this up, in favour of a new calendar celebrating the death of a criminal they executed.

[JackDaydream]

In relation to the idea of the foundation, and the idea of resurrection, the story of Jesus rising from the dead, and the empty tomb, and the entire philosophy of Christianity, come together with such significance. It is so significant, that history was divided into BC and AD...

The Romans already had their own calendar from the time Rome was built. Seems strange they should give this up, in favour of a new calendar celebrating the death of a criminal they executed.

Absolutely, it is completely extraordinary, which makes it such an important issue as opposed to some of the abstract debates of philosophy. That is why I try to keep an open mind.

[JackDaydream]

Extra: To Mlw,
I have just found the Pdf article on Jung and theology has arrived on my phone. However, whether I can read it as another matter without the aid of a microscope.