Emile,
I am quite sincerely impressed by the fact you've read most of Jung's works (and all of Nietzsche's and some of Freud's). I have only just begun (for the last seven years... ha ha) to read Jung's writings (the Bollingen Series from Princeton translated by R.F.C. Hull) and was just about to start "Also Sprach Zarathustra" translated by R.J. Hollingdale... until a beautiful copy of Plato's Republic translated by Robin Waterfield arrived in the mail. Yes, I confess, I'm a bibliophile.
Of course, you understand that I have been trying to understand the roots of your Christianity in order to understand why it is that your views seem to be at such odds with so many people. I don't think you're suffering from any martyr-complex (from which I suspect at least one person on this thread does - I have an uncle who also does, so I recognize it somewhat). And, I believe in the old saying that converts are the most zealous; however, I hope that is too pat an answer to explain your situation. I hope you bear with me on this.
Although I have read parts of the Bible, it is my intention to read the whole thing in the very near future. In fact, it's one of the reasons I'm "leaving" this thread: so that I can devote more free time to reading. (Yes... I do post an awful lot for someone who's left... ha ha. But, please, don't let that deter you or anyone else from responding.) To that end I've collected a few translations. I'm very excited about Everett Fox's translation of The Five Books of Moses. And for the rest of the OT, I've got the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh and the old standby, KJV. For the NT, I just picked up a copy of "The Original New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield; and of course the KJV. Also, I've been searching all over Las Vegas for a copy of St. Jerome's Vulgate in Latin to aid in my learning of the language. I've found it on-line, but the bibliophile in me would rather have it in a book form.
Inasmuch as my current opinion on Jesus, I think his teachings on how to act and be a good person are extraordinarily valuable. My (most likely naive) opinion, is that Paul has corrupted much of His teachings with a misogynistic, patriarchical theme. As to His claims of being the Son of God and dying for our sins. I see these in mythological terms - this is not to diminish them in any way. His mythos acts as a symbol for Christianity. I, however, believe one can wisely follow His teachings and not be considered a Christian by any religious organization (except, perhaps, by one formed by oneself). That He died for our sins is a symbolic sacrifice of the lamb, so to speak. Something that reaches deep within the human psyche and gives His teachings more weight... more "meaning". To debate whether or not He is the Son of God, or exactly what happens when He dies for our sins is, to me, religious masturbation. I think it is more fundamental to understand his teachings and follow that portion (perhaps all of it) that "feels" right. How much or how little is always in flux... most likely to grow.
My naive understanding is that Jesus was a man of peace, a man of loving compassion, and many more wonderful things. But I see those who claim to follow Him seem often only to give lip service to peace and compassion. I felt that about the homosexuality issue debated here on the thread. I think Jesus viewed people as individuals. He did not fear "special-interest groups", so to speak. He seemed most tolerant of those treated by the "establishment" with the most intolerance. I think that says a lot.
Can the teachings and the religion be separated? Most religious people will answer (with bias?) that they cannot.
Sorry, that this post is so long. I wanted to convey my current opinions but to make sure that people didn't mistake it for me pushing a philosophy. My opinions, understanding, &c. are, hopefully, always growing... always changing for the better. There are only a precious few absolutes by which I live my life. Everything else is subject to change. Everything else need not be "nailed down".
Greg |
