Original sin

[Abogado del Diablo]

From Carl Jung's "A Psychological Approach To the Trinity" (a must-read for anyone interested in a scholarly study of western religion in general and Christianity in particular):


"The world of the Father typifies an age which is characterized by a pristine oneness with the whole of Nature, no matter whether this oneness be beautiful or ugly or awe-inspiring. But once the question is asked: 'Whence comes the evil, why is the world so bad and imperfect, why are there diseases and other horrors, why must man suffer?' - then reflection has already begun to judge the Father by his manifest works, and straighway one is conscious of a doubt, this is itself the symtpom of a split in the original unity. One comes to the conclusion that creation is imperfect - nay more, that the Creator has not done his job properly, that the goodness and almightiness of the Father cannot be the sole principle of the cosmos. Hence the One has to be supplemented by the Other, with the result that the world of the Father is fundamentally altered and is superseded by the world of the Son."

[Abogado del Diablo]

Thus, "original sin" is a metaphor for the crisis of identity created by the "knowledge of good and evil."

Ironically, that includes the literal interpretation of "original sin" as a religious dogma.

[Knowledge]

The Orignal sin occured with Lucifer in Heaven, when he chose to make war with God in the hopes of dethorning God.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hello, Abogado, welcome back. I've missed your voice here.

lunamoth

Well, it was a short stay.

I wish you and all the seekers here the very best.

Farewell.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

From Carl Jung's "A Psychological Approach To the Trinity" (a must-read for anyone interested in a scholarly study of western religion in general and Christianity in particular):


"The world of the Father typifies an age which is characterized by a pristine oneness with the whole of Nature, no matter whether this oneness be beautiful or ugly or awe-inspiring. But once the question is asked: 'Whence comes the evil, why is the world so bad and imperfect, why are there diseases and other horrors, why must man suffer?' - then reflection has already begun to judge the Father by his manifest works, and straighway one is conscious of a doubt, this is itself the symtpom of a split in the original unity. One comes to the conclusion that creation is imperfect - nay more, that the Creator has not done his job properly, that the goodness and almightiness of the Father cannot be the sole principle of the cosmos. Hence the One has to be supplemented by the Other, with the result that the world of the Father is fundamentally altered and is superseded by the world of the Son."

not really..

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

not really..

Yeah . . . really.

Care to elaborate on what you disagree with and why?

[Faithfulservant]

I have no desire to read this mans writing. Just the bit you posted sounded heretical and anti-christ.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

I have no desire to read this mans writing. Just the bit you posted sounded heretical and anti-christ.

Okay. Thanks for your honesty.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

From Carl Jung's "A Psychological Approach To the Trinity" (a must-read for anyone interested in a scholarly study of western religion in general and Christianity in particular):

I myself wouldnt put Carl Jung on a must read list for scholarly study of Christianity

Sigmund Freud's attitudes towards Christianity were obviously hostile, since he believed that religious doctrines are all illusions and labeled all religion as "the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity." Sigmund Freud. The Future of an Illusion, trans. and edited by James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1961, p. 43. His one-time follower and colleague Carl Jung, on the other hand, may not be quite as obvious in his disdain for Christianity. While Jung did not call religion a "universal obsessional neurosis," he did view all religions, including Christianity, to be collective mythologies - not real in essence, but having a real effect on the human personality.
Dr. Thomas Szasz describes the difference between the psychoanalytic theories of the two men this way: "Thus in Jung's view religions are indispensable spiritual supports, whereas in Freud's they are illusory crutches."2While Freud argued that religions are delusionary and therefore evil, Jung contended that all religions are imaginary but good. Both positions are anti-Christian; one denies Christianity and the other mythologizes it.. Thomas Szasz. The Myth of Psychotherapy. Garden City: Doubleday/Anchor Press, 1978, p. 173.



Jung's neo-paganism and his desire to replace Christianity with his own concept of psychoanalysis can be seen in a letter he wrote to Freud:

I imagine a far finer and more comprehensive task for [psychoanalysis] than alliance with an ethical fraternity. I think we must give it time to infiltrate into people from many centers, to revivify among intellectuals a feeling for symbol and myth, ever so gently to transform Christ back into the soothsaying god of the vine, which he was, and in this way absorb those ecstatic instinctual forces of Christianity for the one purpose of making the cult and the sacred myth what they once were - a drunken feast of joy where man regained the ethos and holiness of an animal. C. G. Jung quoted by Richard Noll. The Jung Cult. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, p. 188







Hardly required reading for a Christian.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Dor

Hardly required reading for a Christian.

I didn't say it was "required" reading for a Christian. I said it is a must-read for a scholarly study of western religion and Christianity. If a Christian wants to conduct such a scholarly study, in my opinion, they should read it.

If I were to limit myself to reading and examining only those materials with which I already agree, I would cease to grow. I don't do that. I know a lot of other Christians who don't either.

[Faithfulservant]

ever so gently to transform Christ back into the soothsaying god of the vine, which he was, and in this way absorb those ecstatic instinctual forces of Christianity for the one purpose of making the cult and the sacred myth what they once were - a drunken feast of joy where man regained the ethos and holiness of an animal.

umm eww? Thats horrible. How is that even scholarly? Sounds like trash to me. Its strange to me that someone who uses big words is considered a scholar.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

umm eww? Thats horrible. How is that even scholarly? Sounds like trash to me. Its strange to me that someone who uses big words is considered a scholar.

You aren't interested in reading or understanding it, so calling it "trash" really doesn't make any point other than to demonstrate that you don't understand it and don't want to make an effort to do so (not even for the purpose of intelligently expressing your disagreement).

So Jung's work is heretical, "anti-christ" and "trash." Funny, I've actually read it and disagree on all three counts.

Oh well. To each his own.

[Dor]

The Psychoanalytic Theory of Psychology teaches that 1) Man is a biological machine or biologic-psychic determinism. Man is merely a product of genetics and his environment. He is driven by forces in his subconscious mind that he can neither understand nor control, such as sexual repression and the repression and hindering of free expression. Only by psychoanalysis can these things be uncovered and dealt with so the individual can have freedom and peace. 2) As just mentioned, the key to freedom and peace is uncovering repressed memories. This is done by hypnotism and psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is a combination of dream analysis and free association techniques. 3) The psychoanalytic view of right and wrong is, right and wrong are only what you determine them to be.

It should be obvious that this psychological model is in conflict with the Bible and MUST be rejected. The Bible says, Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. Romans 12:9


So I have read it, I do understand it and I still stand by the trash name. )

Ok for the sake of discussion show me one thing Jung wrote that wasnt anti christian....remember he stated it was all a myth.

[Faithfulservant]

its certainly anti-christ.. anti-bible therefore anti-christian. I find it offensive and would have preferred not reading that someone wish that I reverted to drunken feast of joy where I regained the moral character and holiness of an animal. Im curious as to what your point is in posting that persons work on here is? This is a Christian forum discussing the Christian viewpoint of original sin. Are you trying to promote someone or something? That man is obviously teaching contrary to Christianity. Enlighten us please.

[Faithfulservant]

ohh nm I answered my own question on the point of it.. Your name means devils advocate.