Arguments for God?

[Pieman333272]

The tripartite theory in Hinduism is quite central to it’s understanding, different to Christian understanding in details, but ultimately similar in term of relationships. I still feel it’s too bizarre to be coincident, which you can put down to cultural influence, or relation to experience of th same thing with different comprehension.

Out of curiosity, have you read Carl Jung on these issues - commonalities shared among the religions? I know that a lot of Catholics don’t like Jung, but I think his concepts offer us interesting ideas on the ways God has revealed himself to us.

 

[samiam1611]

I really don’t agree with that ‘we’re all atheists’ nonsense. An atheist is someone who holds that there is no God, how can we all be atheists if we do believe in God

Yeah I don’t think it’s that great of a quote for the reasons you all have said. Not believing in certain gods does not make one an atheist.
Moving on?

 

[samiam1611]

Out of curiosity, have you read Carl Jung on these issues - commonalities shared among the religions? I know that a lot of Catholics don’t like Jung, but I think his concepts offer us interesting ideas on the ways God has revealed himself to us.

I thought he was a psychologist or something. What sorts of things does he say?

 

[Glennonite]

"

I thought he was a psychologist or something. What sorts of things does he say?

"
Re: Carl Gustav Jung–psychologist

I’ve always liked his take on the male/female duality of the human psyche: Basically, each of us has both male and female “wiring.” We are basically male or female, but we can also think or act using our other psyche as well (unless we actively prevent this). For example, displaying only machismo, or being “a man’s, man” etc.

Physiologically, males and females are clearly the same as early fetuses in the womb. He noted that depending on the hormones we posess, we grow into physical males or females.

He also says therefore, that if we are created in God’s image, God must posess both male and female qualities, i.e. both of the complimentary natures of humanity. I’ve always liked this concept of the possible nature of God.

Not to go on too much, but Jung opined upon the Catholic prominence of both Mary and Jesus as being a natural expression of this male/female duality within the human-condition. I really liked that part. He was also asked once if he believed in God. He answered, “For me, belief is hard…I know.”

Glennonite

 

[Mystic_Banana]

“”
Re: Carl Gustav Jung–psychologist

I’ve always liked his take on the male/female duality of the human psyche: Basically, each of us has both male and female “wiring.” We are basically male or female, but we can also think or act using our other psyche as well (unless we actively prevent this). For example, displaying only machismo, or being “a man’s, man” etc.

Physiologically, males and females are clearly the same as early fetuses in the womb. He noted that depending on the hormones we posess, we grow into physical males or females.

He also says therefore, that if we are created in God’s image, God must posess both male and female qualities, i.e. both of the complimentary natures of humanity. I’ve always liked this concept of the possible nature of God.

Not to go on too much, but Jung opined upon the Catholic prominence of both Mary and Jesus as being a natural expression of this male/female duality within the human-condition. I really liked that part. He was also asked once if he believed in God. He answered, “For me, belief is hard…I know.”

Glennonite

Not to forget that the Holy Spirit has also been percieved as feminine at various points… oh, hang on, that might be heresy

forget I said that… On a slightly different argument for God, I was arguing yesterday with someone over everyone’s favourite topic, and during the ‘we’re too unlikely to have turned up by chance’ bit, was told by the physicist I was arguing with that 10 to the power of 40000 was the number of particles in universe, or somesuch, rather than the chance of intelligent life turning up. Anyone know what the figure is? (Based on the likelihood of the correct kind of planet, sun, both surviving long enough, at the right distance etc., chance of abiogenesis occuring, chance of evolution of intelligent life, etc etc. to give a co-ordinated figure)

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Out of curiosity, have you read Carl Jung on these issues - commonalities shared among the religions? I know that a lot of Catholics don’t like Jung, but I think his concepts offer us interesting ideas on the ways God has revealed himself to us.

I’ve read Campbell about the monomyth, and know he was influenced by Jung, but I actually found the monomyth rather unconvingingly overstretched by Campbell. He accepts so many variations in legends and religions that it ends up that pretty much any account having narrative ends up working as a functioning version of the monomyth… because (to reduce it down) they all have beginning… middle bit… end!!! See? Monomyth.

Jung is interesting, though… I keep meaning… I think his idea of the evolution of morality fitting the ages of man (with the relationship with God being as with an earthly parent) realtes quite well to my own perception of God introducing morality at a rate we can (barely) cope with, which is an easy theory considering it’s pretty much textbook (well, Holy Book)

 

[asker42]

In response to the earlier discussions no good argument ahs ever been given to refute any of St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs and just by reading the words and looking at who Jesus Christ is proves the existence of God.