Ye are gods

[eight bits]

I was thinking about this..... you add the bodily invulnerability and some cognitive enhancement to get gods, but you take that away, man is what you have left. Take that away from the big ol' capital "G" God, and what do you have left? Do you think that's how I mentioned before in the other thread, we personify these energies and put them into a container called God, but is "God" really the just the energies?

For some people, God is definitely a container for the energies that they would rather not acknowledge in themselves, or that people find easier to deal with as something separate and apart from themselves.

But God's a very accommodating container. For other people, he can be the abstraction of a human being who is "unencumbered" by a body, the real body being a vessel of energies, too.

Nicene Christians' capital-G God eventually makes a body for himself (although to hear them tell it, that was for their benefit rather than his). That would make the risen Christ the third being in that tradition to achieve the hat trick, a situated body, KGE and incorruptibility, and the first being that God doesn't call back one of the three goals.

I guess the bottom line is that God may be the ultimate projection target. Unconscious contents of all kinds, personal and collective, end up pasted onto him.

[ChloeB]

For some people, God is definitely a container for the energies that they would rather not acknowledge in themselves, or that people find easier to deal with as something separate and apart from themselves.

But God's a very accommodating container. For other people, he can be the abstraction of a human being who is "unencumbered" by a body, the real body being a vessel of energies, too.

Nicene Christians' capital-G God eventually makes a body for himself (although to hear them tell it, that was for their benefit rather than his). That would make the risen Christ the third being in that tradition to achieve the hat trick, a situated body, KGE and incorruptibility, and the first being that God doesn't call back one of the three goals.

I guess the bottom line is that God may be the ultimate projection target. Unconscious contents of all kinds, personal and collective, end up pasted onto him.

Hmmmm, those three goals....KGE, immortality, and in corporeal form, makes me wonder if that isn't the idea where they come up with the trinity deal. I guess the son would definitely represent the corporeal form, the wise old man/father maybe the wisdom/knowledge, and that holy spirit/ghost maybe that immortal part that lives on. I'm not sure really, kind of just a thought I had.

[eight bits]

Hmmmm, those three goals....KGE, immortality, and in corporeal form, makes me wonder if that isn't the idea where they come up with the trinity deal. I guess the son would definitely represent the corporeal form, the wise old man/father maybe the wisdom/knowledge, and that holy spirit/ghost maybe that immortal part that lives on. I'm not sure really, kind of just a thought I had.

It's very funny. I'm pretty sure the priestly caste came up with the Trinity in their left brains. The Trinity was a practical solution to a practical religious problem.

They wanted Jesus to be the Hebrew God's equal, and they wanted the "overseer of the church," the Paraclete whom Jesus promised to send, to be divine, too, especially once they realized that if Jesus ever does come back, then he's taking his time.

Speaking from my resolutely heathen left brain, this is one of the silliest ideas in a field that is rich with silliness. Three is not one. Story ends.

Ah, but fortunately, there is a right brain, too, which reconciles opposites and makes contradictions refer. Three is one? Piece of cake. As long as there is a reason to take the reconciliation seriously, so you don't break up with a bad case of the giggles before you make the contradiction refer. Laughter is the death of piety.

So, a reason there must be. There is a wonderful line at the beginning of Wim Winder's Wings of Desire/Heaven over Berlin. I don't think it's from Rilke, as a lot of the movie's other lines are. It restates our mutual friend, Joe Campbell's, saying "The beings of eternity are fascinated by the forms of space and time," but it has such perfect cadence in both German and English:

And now I know what no angel knows.

We are born, you and I, knowing what no angel knows. If only we didn't die so soon, and in the meantime, what if we happened to find out what every angel does know?

Now, there's something you could found a religion on.

[ChloeB]

It's very funny. I'm pretty sure the priestly caste came up with the Trinity in their left brains. The Trinity was a practical solution to a practical religious problem.

They wanted Jesus to be the Hebrew God's equal, and they wanted the "overseer of the church," the Paraclete whom Jesus promised to send, to be divine, too, especially once they realized that if Jesus ever does come back, then he's taking his time.

Speaking from my resolutely heathen left brain, this is one of the silliest ideas in a field that is rich with silliness. Three is not one. Story ends.

Ah, but fortunately, there is a right brain, too, which reconciles opposites and makes contradictions refer. Three is one? Piece of cake. As long as there is a reason to take the reconciliation seriously, so you don't break up with a bad case of the giggles before you make the contradiction refer. Laughter is the death of piety.

So, a reason there must be. There is a wonderful line at the beginning of Wim Winder's Wings of Desire/Heaven over Berlin. I don't think it's from Rilke, as a lot of the movie's other lines are. It restates our mutual friend, Joe Campbell's, saying "The beings of eternity are fascinated by the forms of space and time," but it has such perfect cadence in both German and English:

And now I know what no angel knows.

We are born, you and I, knowing what no angel knows. If only we didn't die so soon, and in the meantime, what if we happened to find out what every angel does know?

Now, there's something you could found a religion on.

Eighty, one of the best answers I ever got for one of those big....what's it all about, why are we here questions.....is that it's all God forgetting in order to remember.

[White Crane Feather]

Eighty, one of the best answers I ever got for one of those big....what's it all about, why are we here questions.....is that it's all God forgetting in order to remember.

Yes. For god to have an identity, there must be another identity seperate from god. Only in reflecting upon god can can god have any meanjing

[ChloeB]

Yes. For god to have an identity, there must be another identity seperate from god. Only in reflecting upon god can can god have any meanjing

Thanks, yes, that's it, and when Eight Bits said we are born knowing what no angel knows, what it is to exist in space and time with the knowledge of mortality, that frailty could make life so much more precious to us, something a being of eternity could never know, observe maybe, but experience...no. What made me think of that was Eight Bits' comment what would happen if we happened to find out what every angel knows, then maybe that is God remembering itself, full circle.

[White Crane Feather]

Thanks, yes, that's it, and when Eight Bits said we are born knowing what no angel knows, what it is to exist in space and time with the knowledge of mortality, that frailty could make life so much more precious to us, something a being of eternity could never know, observe maybe, but experience...no. What made me think of that was Eight Bits' comment what would happen if we happened to find out what every angel knows, then maybe that is God remembering itself, full circle.

Could you imagine god without creation? Concousness and knowing without anything to know or be concouse of? No doubt in my mind we are here to experience. God, each other, and the universe...... What fun!!!!!

[ChloeB]

Could you imagine god without creation? Concousness and knowing without anything to know or be concouse of? No doubt in my mind we are here to experience. God, each other, and the universe...... What fun!!!!!

No, I couldn't at all, pure perfection trying to imagine itself? That's why when I think of God, it seems to always be in pantheistic terms. Joseph Campbell also talks about anything that is going to be created involves the shattering of what was there before it, how eternity that is in love with the forms of space and time, but for eternity to come into those forms, it has to be dismembered, and us, in the form of space and time as a separate being must also be dismembered in order to experience the transcendent. He said that's what Christ coming to earth is all about, the shattering..........

[White Crane Feather]

No, I couldn't at all, pure perfection trying to imagine itself? That's why when I think of God, it seems to always be in pantheistic terms. Joseph Campbell also talks about anything that is going to be created involves the shattering of what was there before it, how eternity that is in love with the forms of space and time, but for eternity to come into those forms, it has to be dismembered, and us, in the form of space and time as a separate being must also be dismembered in order to experience the transcendent. He said that's what Christ coming to earth is all about, the shattering..........

Hmmmm that has shamanic overtones..... Interesting

[eight bits]

Chloe

Before this thread goes completely into the depths of page 2, the the dungeon of desuetude, there is an uncontroversially canonical depiction of Wisdom as a strong woman in Proverbs 8.

One of the things about this Wisdom is how closely she resembles the Jesus of John. We sometimes have the discussion around here that the whole of the Gospels could be written from selective editing of the Old Testament.

That effect is probably inevitable in a story about a Jewish preacher, and surely in a story written by people who present him as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Nevertheless, Proverbs 8 is a powerful example of the phenomenon.

But before she was Jesus, Wisdom was a powerful lady. I was reminded of this the other day in connection with something else. Thought I should pass it along.

-

Edited August 7, 2011 by eight bits

[ChloeB]

Chloe

Before this thread goes completely into the depths of page 2, the the dungeon of desuetude, there is an uncontroversially canonical depiction of Wisdom as a strong woman in Proverbs 8.

One of the things about this Wisdom is how closely she resembles the Jesus of John. We sometimes have the discussion around here that the whole of the Gospels could be written from selective editing of the Old Testament.

That effect is probably inevitable in a story about a Jewish preacher, and surely in a story written by people who present him as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Nevertheless, Proverbs 8 is a powerful example of the phenomenon.

But before she was Jesus, Wisdom was a powerful lady. I was reminded of this the other day in connection with something else. Thought I should pass it along.

-

Proverbs 8

1 Does not wisdom call out?

Does not understanding raise her voice?

2 At the highest point along the way,

where the paths meet, she takes her stand;

3 beside the gate leading into the city,

at the entrance, she cries aloud:

4 “To you, O people, I call out;

I raise my voice to all mankind.

22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,

before his deeds of old;

23 I was formed long ages ago,

at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,

when there were no springs overflowing with water;

25 before the mountains were settled in place,

before the hills, I was given birth,

26 before he made the world or its fields

or any of the dust of the earth.

27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,

when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

28 when he established the clouds above

and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

29 when he gave the sea its boundary

so the waters would not overstep his command,

and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

30 Then I was constantly at his side.

I was filled with delight day after day,

rejoicing always in his presence,

31 rejoicing in his whole world

and delighting in mankind.

John 1

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Eighty, you're absolutely right, wow. You know how you told me to be careful, because the wisdom written in the feminine form was written by a man in the Book of Wisdom and I would assume the same goes for Proverbs as well, and how you brought up Eve saw her wisdom in the masculine and so does the author of John here, in Jesus. Do you think it's possible John was written by a female?

This is something I read awhile back, a theory that it was written by Mary Magdalene: http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html

[mklsgl]

Proverbs 8

1 Does not wisdom call out?

Does not understanding raise her voice?

2 At the highest point along the way,

where the paths meet, she takes her stand;

3 beside the gate leading into the city,

at the entrance, she cries aloud:

4 "To you, O people, I call out;

I raise my voice to all mankind.

22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,

before his deeds of old;

23 I was formed long ages ago,

at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,

when there were no springs overflowing with water;

25 before the mountains were settled in place,

before the hills, I was given birth,

26 before he made the world or its fields

or any of the dust of the earth.

27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,

when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

28 when he established the clouds above

and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

29 when he gave the sea its boundary

so the waters would not overstep his command,

and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

30 Then I was constantly at his side.

I was filled with delight day after day,

rejoicing always in his presence,

31 rejoicing in his whole world

and delighting in mankind.

John 1

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Eighty, you're absolutely right, wow. You know how you told me to be careful, because the wisdom written in the feminine form was written by a man in the Book of Wisdom and I would assume the same goes for Proverbs as well, and how you brought up Eve saw her wisdom in the masculine and so does the author of John here, in Jesus. Do you think it's possible John was written by a female?

This is something I read awhile back, a theory that it was written by Mary Magdalene: http://ramon_k_jusin.../magdalene.html

Chloe found Jusino's essay! Here's more: http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/00_1/m-forum.htm

[eight bits]

Nice to have you aboard, Michael. Thank you for the additional link, too.

Chloe

A whole 'nother whole 'nother thread .

Thank you for the link. I did enjoy reading that. I don't know who the Beloved Disciple was, of course. There are days when I favor Lazarus. But I do think he's a man or a boy. John's scene at the cross isn't manly just because the Greek refers to a man, but also because the business in the scene makes sense for a man or boy.

But I do think that there was an elite crew: Mary of Nazareth, Mary of Magdala, and the Beloved Disciple. I also don't think there's any mystery about why they are the elite. As the great theologian Woody Allen pointed out, "Seventy per cent of success is showing up."

These are the three that showed up at the cross. Greater love than that hath damn few men or women, than to stare down Roman arms to stand by your leader while he is being killed.

As to secret teaching, hell's bells, John is the only place where you get the resurrection of Lazarus, the full bore endorsment of John the Baptist, and the greatest scene in the Gospels, for my money at least, John 20, a scene in two between the risen Jesus and Mary of Magdala. It is exquisite.

I don't think she wrote John 20, but I think she was a member of the party or faction to which the Beloved Disciple belonged. She told BD what happened at the tomb (after BD left... which, BTW, is great staging, not "awkward choreography"). BD included it in his memoirs, and whoever "John" is, John wrote the theological prologue, the post mortem epilogue, and maybe tuned up the Greek to give us John.

I also don't think John is one bit conciliatory with hierarchy, I don't think they needed to be conciliatory. If I'm right, the "Johanine" party had the support of the Mother of the living God.

Smart money says Mary of Nazareth didn't take a lot of guff from the Tier 2 Apostles (Peter and the gang, who got going when the going got tough, then came back when the Tier 1's kept the faith), nor from Tier 3 (Paul, who didn't run away because he wasn't there in the first place).

I don't think John's Jesus is an animus figure because the author was a woman, but because the BD's audience was predominantly women. Maybe exactly two women in particular. Or, if there was a "faction," then I'd be willing to bet it was very welcoming to women.

Or, maybe the memoir was a collective work among the three. "John" could have gotten the memoir from the last of the three to die, and maybe didn't know what the detailed circumstances of its actual authorship were.

There is also an unresolved Jungian problem with what the default anim- gender is when someone is gay.

Speaking of a whole 'nother thread.

Edited August 7, 2011 by eight bits

[Sylent Nyte]

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

The correct reply is "Nay, we are but men. Rock!" While playing

.

[jugoso]

One of the things about this Wisdom is how closely she resembles the Jesus of John. We sometimes have the discussion around here that the whole of the Gospels could be written from selective editing of the Old Testament.

I found this an interesting point. I don´t know either the old testament or new testament well enough to agree or disagree but it made me think of the concept of god, religion and evolution. Any book, to be understood, needs to be expressed in terms that reflect the socio-cultural aspects of that society. In other words, needs to be written in ways that make sense to them but that also help all of us to continue to evolve what our understanding of God is in line with our understanding of ourselves and the physical world. The old testament would reflect the values at the time for two reasons, 1 the inherent bias and prejudice of the writer(s) and 2. the limitations of the ability to understand more complex concepts. In that way, I would view the Old testament as reflective of both the values and the ability to understand certain concepts. The new testament, therefore, would be an "edited" version of the OT to help advance the overall understanding of the concept of God leaving out the parts that no longer are necessary or fit with that times self and world understanding. referring to the thread about Isaah and the killing of his child from another thread, perhaps at that time subservience to God based on a fear was important as it was something that the people understood and also kept them "in-line" with what they thought their God wanted them to be and therefore kept them on the "right" path using the wrong principle. In the NT, Jesus´message is one of pure love for your bretheren and not really a vengeful God at all. As we evolve, so to does our understanding of ourselves, the world around us, and our understanding of "spirit". Wouldn´t the holy books we read also need to evolve to fit more in line with where we are at now?

Using an example, what if God could be understood by a math equation. Wouldn´t you agree that it would be one of the most complex of all equations? So If I wanted to teach you that where would I start? If I put a whole bunch of algebra equations in front of you, you would be utterly and hopelessly confuused. You would lack the necessary underlying concepts to make any sense of it whatsoeveer. The first thing I would need to do is to teach you to count, then add etc. , slowly building up your knowledge base until you could grasp the larger concepts. If you´ve only learned to count, i think it would be almost impossible for you to draw any relation between the 2 (counting and algebra) other than taking the word of the teacher that they are connected. OK.....if you say so teacher (subservience). But as your ability to perform more complex equations develops, you will begin to see how the two are related and that you could never reached that point unless you had internalized all of the other concepts necessary to make a connection between the two. You will never totally "solve" the equation, but as your understanding grows, you will have more faith that there is a relation between the two.

That being said, does anybody have a copy of the "newer testament?? Something more in line with our present understanding of ourselves and our physical world?

[ChloeB]

Chloe found Jusino's essay! Here's more: http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/00_1/m-forum.htm

Michael, you'd heard of it already! Yeah, I picked up a book about Mary Magdalene, I think I got it because a documentary I watched on Netflix was pulling from that book mostly, but it was a collection of a bunch of writers about her, and her writing John wasn't in the documentary, but it was in the book. Thank you for the link, that has more. I'm going to bookmark that. I hadn't found much about it but just this one person.

[ChloeB]

Nice to have you aboard, Michael. Thank you for the additional link, too.

Chloe

A whole 'nother whole 'nother thread .

Thank you for the link. I did enjoy reading that. I don't know who the Beloved Disciple was, of course. There are days when I favor Lazarus. But I do think he's a man or a boy. John's scene at the cross isn't manly just because the Greek refers to a man, but also because the business in the scene makes sense for a man or boy.

But I do think that there was an elite crew: Mary of Nazareth, Mary of Magdala, and the Beloved Disciple. I also don't think there's any mystery about why they are the elite. As the great theologian Woody Allen pointed out, "Seventy per cent of success is showing up."

These are the three that showed up at the cross. Greater love than that hath damn few men or women, than to stare down Roman arms to stand by your leader while he is being killed.

As to secret teaching, hell's bells, John is the only place where you get the resurrection of Lazarus, the full bore endorsment of John the Baptist, and the greatest scene in the Gospels, for my money at least, John 20, a scene in two between the risen Jesus and Mary of Magdala. It is exquisite.

I don't think she wrote John 20, but I think she was a member of the party or faction to which the Beloved Disciple belonged. She told BD what happened at the tomb (after BD left... which, BTW, is great staging, not "awkward choreography"). BD included it in his memoirs, and whoever "John" is, John wrote the theological prologue, the post mortem epilogue, and maybe tuned up the Greek to give us John.

I also don't think John is one bit conciliatory with hierarchy, I don't think they needed to be conciliatory. If I'm right, the "Johanine" party had the support of the Mother of the living God.

Smart money says Mary of Nazareth didn't take a lot of guff from the Tier 2 Apostles (Peter and the gang, who got going when the going got tough, then came back when the Tier 1's kept the faith), nor from Tier 3 (Paul, who didn't run away because he wasn't there in the first place).

I don't think John's Jesus is an animus figure because the author was a woman, but because the BD's audience was predominantly women. Maybe exactly two women in particular. Or, if there was a "faction," then I'd be willing to bet it was very welcoming to women.

Or, maybe the memoir was a collective work among the three. "John" could have gotten the memoir from the last of the three to die, and maybe didn't know what the detailed circumstances of its actual authorship were.

There is also an unresolved Jungian problem with what the default anim- gender is when someone is gay.

Speaking of a whole 'nother thread.

A thread within a thread, sorry about that, but it popped in my head, I just couldn't help it, and the thread was on its way to the great thread beyond. So Lazarus you think maybe? You know to me, it sounds like they are purposely not naming this person, the beloved disciple, that's why Mary Magdalene seemed a likely suspect, but you know Lazarus, we talked about that, Jesus blew his getaway for him, "he whom you love" when he got sick. Makes ya think about that last comment about animus/anima when someone is gay. Very interesting....

[ChloeB]

That being said, does anybody have a copy of the "newer testament?? Something more in line with our present understanding of ourselves and our physical world?

I actually think about that sometimes, what a religion would be like that came out of our culture. You know I've been studying all this Joseph Campbell and he says we don't have a myth and that's part of our problem, lol. A lot of people (on here especially) are so proud they don't buy into myths anymore and such, but he says every culture needs a myth, speaks to that unconscious part of yourself in as you said, a way relevant to your understanding, basically like aligning your inside to your outside. So I was thinking about that the other day, do we have a myth? Comic books or movies, would that count? I think some of our problem is these older belief systems just aren't relevant in our world anymore, for many reason they worked back then but are not for us today, maybe they were never meant to, but somewhere along the way, someone claimed these were books of absolutes, all the answers came then in that time, and they would be the answers for all time, so any newer new testament or the like, would be fake doctrine or something. It's a little sad. I think religions grow out of cultures, and once that culture is gone, forcing a more modern culture into a religion of an old one, is like a square peg in a round hole. I mean there's some wisdom and probably the same elementary ideas show up, but how they communicate to us is important and that changes, even if the idea is the same.

[eight bits]

Chloe

Like you, I admire Joe Campbell. I wonder, though, whether the problem really is that contemporary people need a myth.

We already have myths aplenty. Maybe people just don't know what to do with them. Movement atheists and Protestants enjoy a kumbaya moment of agreement about what to do with a myth.

The listener is supposed to grant or withhold "belief" in a story. For example, it is as if there were a fact claim that once upon a time, Atlas tricked Hercules into shouldering the world, and then was tricked back into his usual place.

("Oh, no, Jesus is the only son of God who really walked the earth, so this story must be false," reasons the Protestant. "Well, no," reasons the movement atheist, "but here is yet another failed attempt to explain the orbit of the Earth.")

OK, it didn't happen. There was no Hercules, and the Earth isn't carried around by a giant. The movement atheist smiles, confident that there is nothing more to be said about the matter. The Protestant goes to church, where today's reading is Luke 9: 23,

Then he said to all, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."

That there is a connection never occurs.

Stories we have. It is ways of thinking about them that we lack, IMO. There is a modernist kind of reader, invincibly confident of his or her "rationality," who cannot see past the form of a truth claim to reach the substance of truth. So much is at stake in the form (I might miss out on the eternal gravy train that Jesus's successors promised in his name; I might get the wrong idea about planetary orbital mechanics) that substance doesn't even come up.

[ChloeB]

Chloe

Like you, I admire Joe Campbell. I wonder, though, whether the problem really is that contemporary people need a myth.

We already have myths aplenty. Maybe people just don't know what to do with them. Movement atheists and Protestants enjoy a kumbaya moment of agreement about what to do with a myth.

The listener is supposed to grant or withhold "belief" in a story. For example, it is as if there were a fact claim that once upon a time, Atlas tricked Hercules into shouldering the world, and then was tricked back into his usual place.

("Oh, no, Jesus is the only son of God who really walked the earth, so this story must be false," reasons the Protestant. "Well, no," reasons the movement atheist, "but here is yet another failed attempt to explain the orbit of the Earth.")

OK, it didn't happen. There was no Hercules, and the Earth isn't carried around by a giant. The movement atheist smiles, confident that there is nothing more to be said about the matter. The Protestant goes to church, where today's reading is Luke 9: 23,

Then he said to all, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."

That there is a connection never occurs.

Stories we have. It is ways of thinking about them that we lack, IMO. There is a modernist kind of reader, invincibly confident of his or her "rationality," who cannot see past the form of a truth claim to reach the substance of truth. So much is at stake in the form (I might miss out on the eternal gravy train that Jesus's successors promised in his name; I might get the wrong idea about planetary orbital mechanics) that substance doesn't even come up.

Way of thinking about them that we lack............I read this book, The Alphabet Versus the Goddess, http://www.alphabetvsgoddess.com/, and it talks about this, the thinking we lack now. It's a lot about that shift, where the written word was promoted over images, and our left brain's limitations in spirituality, but the way our modern religions, who were against images, idols, and focused on letters on a page and such. I mean you can see how crazy it's gotten with Muhammad, they don't like any image of him, even it's a flattering one. I was reading about when Spain was under Islamic rule and about all the art that came out of that period, and lots did, but it was always flowers and such, no images of people. I don't know if this is the cause of the thinking we lack, but I think about sitting in a Protestant church and sitting in a courtroom, hard wooden pews, judge and pastor dress basically the same, the setup is the same, it's all left-brain thinking, God is judging you, just like the judge in the courtroom. I remember sitting in a Baptist church, the whole service completely lost on me and finding myself looking over at the sun coming through the stained glass window thinking that's the only spiritual thing in this place. I catch myself doing it, look at my trying to understand the Abraham/Isaac story, all I need is my gavel and my robe, lol. Joe Campbell does say what we have now for religions are more ethical than anything mystical. That's why when people accuse the Catholics of being pagan, I think that's some of the best things about it, that they preserved some of the rituals, but we think of it different most times, that there is something outside watching, instead of something inside listening - the part that communicates in myth and ritual and metaphor. Now we sit in churches full of 90-degree angles, consumed by thoughts of sin and if we'll be forgiven for it, if our checks and balances will keep us out of the red, that maybe that other side of us has atrophied somewhat. So yeah, you're probably right, it's not the stories that we lack.

[+Sherapy]

Way of thinking about them that we lack............I read this book, The Alphabet Versus the Goddess, http://www.alphabetvsgoddess.com/, and it talks about this, the thinking we lack now. It's a lot about that shift, where the written word was promoted over images, and our left brain's limitations in spirituality, but the way our modern religions, who were against images, idols, and focused on letters on a page and such. I mean you can see how crazy it's gotten with Muhammad, they don't like any image of him, even it's a flattering one. I was reading about when Spain was under Islamic rule and about all the art that came out of that period, and lots did, but it was always flowers and such, no images of people. I don't know if this is the cause of the thinking we lack, but I think about sitting in a Protestant church and sitting in a courtroom, hard wooden pews, judge and pastor dress basically the same, the setup is the same, it's all left-brain thinking, God is judging you, just like the judge in the courtroom. I remember sitting in a Baptist church, the whole service completely lost on me and finding myself looking over at the sun coming through the stained glass window thinking that's the only spiritual thing in this place. I catch myself doing it, look at my trying to understand the Abraham/Isaac story, all I need is my gavel and my robe, lol. Joe Campbell does say what we have now for religions are more ethical than anything mystical. That's why when people accuse the Catholics of being pagan, I think that's some of the best things about it, that they preserved some of the rituals, but we think of it different most times, that there is something outside watching, instead of something inside listening - the part that communicates in myth and ritual and metaphor. Now we sit in churches full of 90-degree angles, consumed by thoughts of sin and if we'll be forgiven for it, if our checks and balances will keep us out of the red, that maybe that other side of us has atrophied somewhat. So yeah, you're probably right, it's not the stories that we lack.

Yep, good pull, ethical monotheism has stripped the spiritual essence right out of religion, IMO .

I was going to the bank today and I saw one of my sons friends and his mom walking down Pacific Coast Highway together, laughing and talking, they were both so engaged in the moment, enjoying whatever it was they were sharing, it was breathtaking. I was gonna ask them if they wanted a ride, but I didn't want to break the spell of their moment. I had never seen this kid/boy so comfortable, so alive as I did then, just walking and being with his mom. .

That is spirituality . . IMO...

Edited August 12, 2011 by Sherapy

[ChloeB]

Yep, good pull, ethical monotheism has stripped the spiritual essence right out of religion, IMO .

I was going to the bank today and I saw one of my sons friends and his mom walking down Pacific Coast Highway together, laughing and talking, they were both so engaged in the moment, enjoying whatever it was they were sharing, it was breathtaking. I was gonna ask them if they wanted a ride, but I didn't want to break the spell of their moment. I had never seen this kid/boy so comfortable, so alive as I did then, just walking and being with his mom. .

That is spirituality . . IMO...

OMG, if I was in California, I would be having one spiritual experience right after the other! I am so jealous of the weather there. Triple digit temps here, I think I have died and gone to hell (wait, hell, is that a spiritual experience? hmmm, have to think about that one, )