Submit to God - Hypocrisy

samabudhi

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
1
Points
0
"Christianity is person-centered. We are meant, at least in the Protestant tradition, to become strong, independent individuals, to assume responsibility for our every act, to develop our full potential. Psychiatry builds upon the same root assumption: the symptoms and experiences of the sufferer are his and his alone. Although he may be allowed to blame his parents or his environment to some extent, the mentally ill person is nonetheless ostracized and set apart. He has failed to "make something of himself," to be his own man, to achieve full personhood. Man's ultimate aloneness is only the logical conclusion of this peculiarly Western emphasis on the solitary individual. When God is conceived as another person to whom one must surrender, the stress becomes unbearable. That which the culture most carefully nourishes, the individual self, must be abnegated, relinquished." - from an essay entitled 'Psychiatry vs. God' by Joseph Havens.

I'm interested in your views and hope to hear from followers of any of the Abrahamic traditions since I think it applies to all of them.
 

Mus Zibii

QUID EST VERITAS
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm not even sure what that guy just said. Is he saying that a religious surrender to God is a way of destroying a sense of self? I don't know. I guess I'd have to know who Joseph Havens is and what his agenda is and what the rest of the essay says.

Submission to God seems to mean a lot of things, though. First, the knowledge that you're a lesser being. Second, follow all the laws the Clerics set. Third, practice brand loyalty.
 

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Admin
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Location
Scotland
Certainly there are familial constructs in Christianity - but I'm not actually sure how Havens is addressing the concept here.
 

samabudhi

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
1
Points
0
He is shining light on the contradictory situation whereby we are highlighted as individuals as opposed to 'team members', and then expected to give up that individuality in submission to God.

Still nothing? I'll write back with some examples...
 

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Admin
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Location
Scotland
Is it possible that the discrepancy is one of semantics? After all, any member of team is an individual - it is simply how the individuals work together that differentiates over the lone individual?

Sorry, trying to blow some wind back into the thread. :)
 

samabudhi

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Either way Brian, whatever individuality we are given, it is expected to be sacrificed to God. So why have it in the first place.

God gives us 'choice' and then expects us to submit ourselves to him or else face certain everlasting suffering. He makes us individual and then requires us to relinquish that concept in favour of his all-power presence. :confused:
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
samabudhi said:
He is shining light on the contradictory situation whereby we are highlighted as individuals as opposed to 'team members', and then expected to give up that individuality in submission to God.

Still nothing? I'll write back with some examples...
That's only one reading of Judeo-Christian myth - though it is by far the more popular one.

There's another that centers on understanding the meaning of the Judeo-Chirstian creation myth and passion/ressurection myth as statements about the psychological schism between self and psyche and the path to knowing our oneness with "I Am that I Am."

There is a narrow and a wide path just as there is in every great mythological tradition. The quesiton for me is: "do we identify with Christ when we read the passion and ressurection - or do we identify with his disciples?"

Abogado del Diablo
 
Last edited:

bananabrain

awkward squadnik
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Location
London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah
ahem - less of the "judeo-christian" if you don't mind. in my experience, this term is generally indicative of a lack of understanding of the difference between the two. judaism is not "christianity minus jesus". it's a whole different system of thought.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
bananabrain said:
ahem - less of the "judeo-christian" if you don't mind. in my experience, this term is generally indicative of a lack of understanding of the difference between the two. judaism is not "christianity minus jesus". it's a whole different system of thought.

b'shalom

bananabrain
When I say "Judeo-Christian" read it as "Christian". My apologies. My point in using that term is to make it clear that a big part of the Christian tradition is carrying forward (in a modified way) the mythology of Judaism - a fact that should be considered anytime one is talking about Christian ideas.

I'm having trouble seeing where I said that Judaism is "christianty minus jesus." But I think I understand where you are coming from and offer my apologies.

Abogado del Diablo
 

Quahom1

What was the question?
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
6
Points
36
Location
Maryland
bananabrain said:
ahem - less of the "judeo-christian" if you don't mind. in my experience, this term is generally indicative of a lack of understanding of the difference between the two. judaism is not "christianity minus jesus". it's a whole different system of thought.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Good day B,

I beg to differ with you on this matter. The original concept of "Christianity" was conceived of and brought to fruition by Jews. Christianity was preached inside Jewish Synogogues for almost 250 years before the eventual split between the two "systems" of faith. The split was not due to a difference in belief concerning God, but rather interpetations of law. Proto-Christians who became "Gnostics" shunned the old testement, wherein the Jews relied heavily upon it. The Gnostics' arrogance enraged the Jews, and the Jewish stubborness bred contempt within the Gnostics.

Basically they agreed to take "the ball" and go to their respect homes, because they couldn't agree on the rules of the game.

A good reference for this is a book written by Bruce L. Shelley called:

"Church History in Plain Language"

The term "Christian" was actually an insult issued to Jews who believed on Jesus, by pagans (sort of like the Yankee Doodle song the British soldiers sang to insult the American militia).

Bottom line is, had Gnostics and Jews been less hardline with eachother (more reasonable), the two systems of faith might still be one.

Judaic-Christianity is in fact the correct way of describing the following of Jesus the Christ (the Jewish Carpenter and Rabbi, of extraordinary knowledge and insight).

Jesus WAS Jewish. He was a priest. The core of Christian faith is based on the life and teachings of a Jewish Rabbi. Can't have one without the other.

v/r

Q
 

Quesocoatl

R a i n b o w T r i b e
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Rapid City, South Dakota, United States
Abogado del Diablo said:
The quesiton for me is: "do we identify with Christ when we read the passion and ressurection - or do we identify with his disciples?"

Abogado del Diablo
The answer for me is:
Jesus is a man. Christ is a consciousness.

The disciples (or Apostles, to be more precise), through that consiousness, represent different aspects of the same Being.

Islam, on the other hand, represents a direct geneological extension of "Christ" or "Universal" consciousness. That is what this war is about.

Whether Isa had children or not is not of any real importance. What IS important is to know that he does have blood relatives living even today. (The world was not so big back then.)
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
Quahom1 said:
Bottom line is, had Gnostics and Jews been less hardline with eachother (more reasonable), the two systems of faith might still be one.
They still are one. The conflict is in the literalness of the outer mysteries in the two traditions - not in the spiritual truth expressed in them.

The irony of this thread is that the dualism of "God/human" that creates a false barrier that started the thread is carried forward in the dualism of "Jew/Christian" leading to the misunderstanding expressed above.

Abogado del Diablo
 

Quahom1

What was the question?
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
6
Points
36
Location
Maryland
samabudhi said:
"Christianity is person-centered. We are meant, at least in the Protestant tradition, to become strong, independent individuals, to assume responsibility for our every act, to develop our full potential. Psychiatry builds upon the same root assumption: the symptoms and experiences of the sufferer are his and his alone. Although he may be allowed to blame his parents or his environment to some extent, the mentally ill person is nonetheless ostracized and set apart. He has failed to "make something of himself," to be his own man, to achieve full personhood. Man's ultimate aloneness is only the logical conclusion of this peculiarly Western emphasis on the solitary individual. When God is conceived as another person to whom one must surrender, the stress becomes unbearable. That which the culture most carefully nourishes, the individual self, must be abnegated, relinquished." - from an essay entitled 'Psychiatry vs. God' by Joseph Havens.

I'm interested in your views and hope to hear from followers of any of the Abrahamic traditions since I think it applies to all of them.
What a fascinating train of thought! However, one must not miss the point that originally, according to scripture, Man was initially designed and created to walk with God (to commune with Him). God gave man an image, identity, and likeness similar to His own. This means God also gave man the ability to imagine. So when man finished naming all the animals on Earth, God realized that Man did not have a mate similar to the animals He had created. I don't call this a mistake, but a do believe that scripture clearly points out that God had not thought of that until later. However, by creating a "mate" for man, this clearly set the stage for trouble. Man having free will, must now choose between two beings (woman is inclusive here).

God expected man and woman to choose to continue walking with Him. But free will is a free radical (unpredictable). Instead of choosing God, they chose eachother, thus shutting God out. There is strong evidence in scripture to indicate that God did not expect this, based on His reactionary behavior. But scripture also indicates that God sees the day when man turns back and chooses Him. Not that Man loses self in God, but that he communes with God.

The best way I can think of describing this communion is when a man and woman love each other. In time they "surrender themselves" to the other (the feeling and thought, not the act). The individual Identity is still there, but it no longer matters, because the "other one" is more important to self, than self.

God waits for man to surrender himself to God (to consider God more important to man than man considers himself). And unlike unrequitted love, I don't think God will ignore, shun, or otherwise reject Man's love. In short, I think it will make His day (eternity).

v/r

Q
 

Quahom1

What was the question?
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
6
Points
36
Location
Maryland
Abogado del Diablo said:
They still are one. The conflict is in the literalness of the outer mysteries in the two traditions - not in the spiritual truth expressed in them.

The irony of this thread is that the dualism of "God/human" that creates a false barrier that started the thread is carried forward in the dualism of "Jew/Christian" leading to the misunderstanding expressed above.

Abogado del Diablo
Ah my friend, but I do not misunderstand. I consider myself to be part of the Jewish (Hebrew) belief in God. I am not separate. Judasim is the root of the tree of which I am a branch.
 

kiwimac

God is NOT about Fear
Messages
417
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
Deepest Darkest, NZ
There is indeed a conflict between the strong emphasis of our culture and the religions inculcated within that culture and the call to "submit to God."

It is a difficulty found in most of the Abrahamic faiths, however, it is not found in Zoroastrianism or the majority of faiths which make up the Indian Faith Traditions. I wonder if the dichotomy here is as simple as 'individuation vs. community?'

Kiwimac
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
Quahom1 said:
Ah my friend, but I do not misunderstand. I consider myself to be part of the Jewish (Hebrew) belief in God. I am not separate. Judasim is the root of the tree of which I am a branch.
They are both the root tree (as is the spirtitual truth of Buddhism, Islam, "primitive" mythological traditions, etc.) of which we are all branches (and roots and leaves and bark).
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
Quahom1:

The "misunderstanding" I was referring to didn't involve you. It was the misunderstanding about my use of the term "Judeo-Christian" I had with "bananabrain." Just thought I'd clarify.
 

bananabrain

awkward squadnik
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Location
London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah
a big part of the Christian tradition is carrying forward (in a modified way) the mythology of Judaism - a fact that should be considered anytime one is talking about Christian ideas.
that's as may be - but where these christian ideas treat judaism as a straw man, as a draft which needs christian redrafting, or as anything less than a self-sufficient, well-integrated system of thought, then i take issue with it. the very phrase "old testament" implies a new one; needless to say it is not a jewish name.

I'm having trouble seeing where I said that Judaism is "christianty minus jesus."
sorry - no, you didn't say that exactly, but most often when people say "judeo-christian" they have no idea about the judeo bit of it and consequently ascribe ideas and opinions to judaism which are at best misleading and at worst highly prejudicial.

quahom1 said:
The original concept of "Christianity" was conceived of and brought to fruition by Jews. Christianity was preached inside Jewish Synogogues for almost 250 years before the eventual split between the two "systems" of faith. The split was not due to a difference in belief concerning God, but rather interpetations of law. Proto-Christians who became "Gnostics" shunned the old testament, wherein the Jews relied heavily upon it. The Gnostics' arrogance enraged the Jews, and the Jewish stubborness bred contempt within the Gnostics.
actually, the problem was that the proto-christians said jesus was the messiah and the majority jewish community decided that he wasn't. furthermore, the proto-christians insisted that the authority of jesus could overrule the Torah. neither of these things are issues you can gloss over. when you bring the gnostics into it, the problem of the Unity of the Divine arises; again, not something judaism can relinquish.

Basically they agreed to take "the ball" and go to their respect homes, because they couldn't agree on the rules of the game.
actually, from the Talmudic PoV, it was more a case of "we're playing football, you're insisting the ball can be carried and be a different shape and that means it isn't football any more", the result being that the christians had to go off and build their own stadium for playing rugby in.

Judaic-Christianity is in fact the correct way of describing the following of Jesus the Christ (the Jewish Carpenter and Rabbi, of extraordinary knowledge and insight).
nobody is saying he wasn't a rabbi, or a carpenter, or a man of extraordinary knowledge and insight. in fact, many of the things he said are entirely compatible with rabbinic judaism (the sermon on the mount being a good example) - but what we are saying is that he wasn't the messiah, for the good reason that the messianic age didn't come about, the Temple was destroyed and the jews went into a 2000-year exile. it just doesn't make sense.

Jesus WAS Jewish. He was a priest.
actually, according to the genealogy that has him directly descending in the male line from king david (whether or not you place credence in that) and that would make him a member of the tribe of judah. the priests or kohanim are members of the tribe of levi, male-line descendants of the family of aaron. he can't be both. you cannot inherit both the keter malkhut and the keter kehuna.

The core of Christian faith is based on the life and teachings of a Jewish Rabbi. Can't have one without the other.
you can if he teaches something which contradicts the Torah as interpreted by normative jewish opinion. if you understand how jewish law and legal authority works, it makes perfect sense to respect jesus as a reformer but not as an authoritative interpreter of the halakha, as the debate over his desecration of the sabbath ought to show.

Judaism is the root of the tree of which I am a branch.
i'd say it's more like the tree that your seed came from, but your tree is a separate tree nowadays, although in the beginning they were one.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 

samabudhi

Well-Known Member
Messages
417
Reaction score
1
Points
0
the very phrase "old testament" implies a new one; needless to say it is not a jewish name.
I usually equate old with wise. A school of Buddhism, Theravada, means path of the elders.
 
Top