Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I heard he goes around acting like he thinks he's God or something.
If we assume the Christian heaven/hell dynamic to be valid, then it seems a good bet that after the final judgement day, God is in for a severe personality adjustment.
Consider....in our entertainment venues, our stories are never about people who are all happy all the time, that just does not hold interest for long. Our stories therefore always contain conflict, someone struggling to overcome opposition. They are written in such a manner as to provide readers/viewers with a vested rooting interest in the protagonist.
It seems pretty apparent that God operates along these lines as well....just look at how conflict filled our history and lives have been, God created us to amuse himself and obviously his idea of amusement includes serial animosity and consequences.
But...according to the Christian model of heaven, all of us will be slap happy euphoric all of the time for eternity. That cannot happen if we are coping with conflict, so clearly there will not be any in the afterlife. All the bad antagonists, the villains from the story, wind up safely disposed, out of the way in the eternal inferno.
So....God, having created the world to amuse himself, has brought it full cycle to the point where nothing about humans is interesting any longer. Whatever need which was satisfied by the creation of the human race, will re-emerge. Rather than face eternal boredom, I figure God will renege on the eternal part of the paradise deal.
"Look, you grinning idiots are as dull as glacier races, I'm yanking the perpetual euphoria now. Get back to arguing, hating and killing each other at once."
For my take on God's personality - it reminds me of the fantasy musings of a 10 year-old bully victim. It's as if some Hebrew/Israelite was tired of being kicked around so he envisioned himself as an unstoppable "angel of vengeance" (i.e. Yahweh) that goes on a rampage against all the people that have wronged him, even in the smallest of ways.
"C'mere, you little brats from Bethel. Remember that time when you called me 'old baldy'? Well say hello to my pet bears, muahaha ... sic 'em, Yogi and Booboo."
It's as though the author of the OT is imagining scenes like that in his mind and putting them onto paper. The casual disregard for human life, the way in which God just seems to relish in slaughter be it animals or people is so pervasive that it almost sounds like a parody of a god.
In fact, the Biblical God behaves precisely like most humans would if they were given unlimited power. How many of us, corrupted by such power, would demand worship, demand love, demand to be obeyed, and would feel so smugly superior to the "insects" beneath our feet that we would kill them indiscriminately whenever they displeased us? I imagine a goodly number of us would adopt that position - even if it occurred slowly over time.
Very good. Thanks. I listened to half an hour's worth and will get back to the rest tonight. The gist so far is that God has a body (the physical), just don't look at it or it will be curtains. No one is allowed to get even a glimpse of God, just as it is prohibited to utter or write his name (something not mentioned in the lecture). To do any of these is to violate God.
I'm also interested in the the psychological aspect of God's persona. Btw, I agree that Benjamin Sommer is a great lecturer. He really keeps the discussion moving along nicely.
Yes, he's a rare breed in which he actually promotes discussion from his listeners - they are a part of the discussion. I'm glad you are enjoying it. It gets even better as it moves along.
The prohibition of the Name (at least in Orthodox Judaism) is probably inferred, since the lectures are taking place at a Jewish studies center. In addition to that, he probably expects most of his listeners to follow along as he reads the original passages in Hebrew heh heh! So I think he's just operating with the assumption that anyone there will already be familiar with that. Warning, from what you have written, I am assuming that you are Jewish, so I will alter my normal practice of vocalizing the Name, and just substitute the Letters. I hope that is okay. Since you are not using the every-annoying G-d abbreviation, let me know if vocalizing the Name is okay with you or not.
I do agree that some passages in the Hebrew Bible explicitly state that seeing God will result in annihilation, and he goes into this in some detail later with how the different tradents envisioned God and disagreed with one another on these key points. But I do not personally agree with his view that certain beings associated with God are mere hypostatizations of God. If we read the text, it is clear that they are indeed.... God manifest. A good example is the mlk yhwh ("messenger of YHWH") who appears in several episodes. What helps remove the hypostatization theory - in my mind - is what occurs after the birth annunciation episode of Samson, delivered by the mlk yhwh. They think he is merely a "man of God", perhaps a prophet, until he amusingly messes with their heads, refuses to give his name (much like in the River Jabbok / Jacob night incident) until he finally disappears before their eyes. Then the truth hits them. But with that truth comes the awful dread of having seen YHWH:
YHWH's envoy did not reappear to Manoah and his wife. Then Manoah acknowledged that he was YHWH's envoy. And Manoah said to his wife, "We are going to die! We have actually seen God!"
But his wife said to him, "If YHWH had desired to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, or shown us all these things, or just no announced to us such a thing as this.:
So the woman bore a son and named him Samson. The boy grew, and YHWH blessed him. The YHWH spirit [or "breath of Yahweh" - difficult to translate] began to arouse him at a Danite camp between Zorah and Eshtaol.
(Judges 13:21-25, AB Boling - with editing of the Name to consonants alone)
Like in various episodes with Jacob, the humans admit they have seen God - no matter what name or role he played. I think I take this at face value, and not as some sort of abstract hypostatization of the Deity. In this, in several instance, I differ from Sommers. I think he may be correct - I'm just no ready to jump to that side of the camp quite yet ha ha! Perhaps he is correct in that they are some sort of way of humans being able to interact with God without being vaporized ha ha! I have to give it some more thought.
The psychological aspect of God would be an interesting study. The first one that pops up is Jung's classic Answer to Job - though a bit biased, and I do disagree on much, it is very interesting. He pyscho-analyzes the God of the Book of Job - which is a task!
"C'mere, you little brats from Bethel. Remember that time when you called me 'old baldy'? Well say hello to my pet bears, muahaha ... sic 'em, Yogi and Booboo."
That story used to offend me, but now I find it absolutely hilarious since it is just a story, after all. I'm not sure if my theory is shared my anyone else, but it is possible that the prophet's baldness may have been a result of mourning for his dead predecessor (self-mutilation was common, even if prohibited later) - so his rage may have been coupled with the sense that the children were insulting a prophet of God. Still doesn't make it okay for a she-bear to maul them, but dang its funny when you imagine him as some balding prophet who has absolutely no sense of humor or tolerance for little bratty kids ha ha!
That story used to offend me, but now I find it absolutely hilarious since it is just a story, after all. I'm not sure if my theory is shared my anyone else, but it is possible that the prophet's baldness may have been a result of mourning for his dead predecessor (self-mutilation was common, even if prohibited later) - so his rage may have been coupled with the sense that the children were insulting a prophet of God. Still doesn't make it okay for a she-bear to maul them, but dang its funny when you imagine him as some balding prophet who has absolutely no sense of humor or tolerance for little bratty kids ha ha!
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh the Bible...... the "Good" Book.
LOL yeah, I agree, they're just stories. The only thing that offends me is when Christians try to defend this action as somehow moral because God did it.
LOL yeah, I agree, they're just stories. The only thing that offends me is when Christians try to defend this action as somehow moral because God did it.
Yeh, the more Fundamental Christians view the entire Bible as the "Word of God" (when technically, the only "Word of God" found in the Bible are the oracles delivered to the prophets - the actual, supposed verbatim "Word of God" as it is termed in the Hebrew Bible; sure, some of the Torah is presented as coming from God, but it is not called "The Word of God" as the oracles are), and this presents them with some very problematic issues.
The majority of later Biblical interpretations are so far from the plain-sense reading of the text, simply because later believers adopted this "Word of God" view and thus had to rationalize why their god acted in ways that seemed to contravene their pre-conceived notions of deity. It's a vicious circle! I've always been of the notion that one should take the text for what it says (whether you believe it to be true or not is neither here nor there) and not try to "explain away" problematic aspects of God.
The Book of Job is a great example. The most blasphemous and honest book in the entire Bible, relegated to a lesson on Job's so-called patience. He was probably the LEAST patient individual heh heh. At some point in the Bible's reception history, it became common to try to ascribe to every single character a theological "apology" that changed their very human and flawed actions to some hidden ethical lesson intended for later readers. That's just... silly. Jacob was a trickster who had no problem bold-face lying to his father, and while one source excuses his behavior as fulfilling God's will, the more original source presents Jacob as the liar he is - and the rest of his life is spent in a series of retributions for his actions: the trickster becomes the tricked, and so on... all the way to Joseph. But in time, Esau becomes an evil character in Jewish and Christian tradition who "deserved" to be robbed of his birthright.
James Kugel has a great book on the history of interpretation and goes through much of the Hebrew Bible and how it changed. The layman's version is shorter than the scholarly edition - but still worth reading. It's called The Bible As It Was. I know there's an ebook version of the scholarly edition online for free. It merely adds more information at the end of each section. Great read.
Yes, he's a rare breed in which he actually promotes discussion from his listeners - they are a part of the discussion. I'm glad you are enjoying it. It gets even better as it moves along.
The prohibition of the Name (at least in Orthodox Judaism) is probably inferred, since the lectures are taking place at a Jewish studies center. In addition to that, he probably expects most of his listeners to follow along as he reads the original passages in Hebrew heh heh! So I think he's just operating with the assumption that anyone there will already be familiar with that. Warning, from what you have written, I am assuming that you are Jewish, so I will alter my normal practice of vocalizing the Name, and just substitute the Letters. I hope that is okay. Since you are not using the every-annoying G-d abbreviation, let me know if vocalizing the Name is okay with you or not.
I do agree that some passages in the Hebrew Bible explicitly state that seeing God will result in annihilation, and he goes into this in some detail later with how the different tradents envisioned God and disagreed with one another on these key points. But I do not personally agree with his view that certain beings associated with God are mere hypostatizations of God. If we read the text, it is clear that they are indeed.... God manifest. A good example is the mlk yhwh ("messenger of YHWH") who appears in several episodes. What helps remove the hypostatization theory - in my mind - is what occurs after the birth annunciation episode of Samson, delivered by the mlk yhwh. They think he is merely a "man of God", perhaps a prophet, until he amusingly messes with their heads, refuses to give his name (much like in the River Jabbok / Jacob night incident) until he finally disappears before their eyes. Then the truth hits them. But with that truth comes the awful dread of having seen YHWH:
YHWH's envoy did not reappear to Manoah and his wife. Then Manoah acknowledged that he was YHWH's envoy. And Manoah said to his wife, "We are going to die! We have actually seen God!"
But his wife said to him, "If YHWH had desired to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, or shown us all these things, or just no announced to us such a thing as this.:
So the woman bore a son and named him Samson. The boy grew, and YHWH blessed him. The YHWH spirit [or "breath of Yahweh" - difficult to translate] began to arouse him at a Danite camp between Zorah and Eshtaol.
(Judges 13:21-25, AB Boling - with editing of the Name to consonants alone)
Like in various episodes with Jacob, the humans admit they have seen God - no matter what name or role he played. I think I take this at face value, and not as some sort of abstract hypostatization of the Deity. In this, in several instance, I differ from Sommers. I think he may be correct - I'm just no ready to jump to that side of the camp quite yet ha ha! Perhaps he is correct in that they are some sort of way of humans being able to interact with God without being vaporized ha ha! I have to give it some more thought.
The psychological aspect of God would be an interesting study. The first one that pops up is Jung's classic Answer to Job - though a bit biased, and I do disagree on much, it is very interesting. He pyscho-analyzes the God of the Book of Job - which is a task!
Whoppers, There's no need to alter your writing style on my account, as I am not Jewish. I actually don't have any religious affiliations. You've got me curious though about Jung. Any recollections on some of those things that you agreed or disagreed with?
Whoppers, There's no need to alter your writing style on my account, as I am not Jewish. I actually don't have any religious affiliations. You've got me curious though about Jung. Any recollections on some of those things that you agreed or disagreed with?
~nez
Okay, good!
It's been a loooong time since I dipped into Jung's work on Job, but from what I recall he seemed to eventually include some elements of Christianity into his analysis - and while this may hold a place for Christian interpreters and tradition, the Book of Job was not a Christian work and was never intended to be one. Those who see in the passages concerning the go'el a holy Redeemer with a capital "R" in the form of Christ are reading into the passage something that was never there. I'm sure you're familiar with the passage:
I know my vindicator [usually, "Redeemer"; Hebrew go'el] lives,
A guarantor upon the dust will stand;
Even after my skin is flayed,
Without my flesh I shall see God.
(Job 19:25-26, AB Pope)
Job wishes for a go'el - a type of kinsman-redeemer that would redeem one from slavery or other troubles - to redeem him via his words that he has etched onto a surface so that they cannot be forgotten. Even though he knows he will die from God's torment, his testimony against God's injustice and demonstrating his own innocence will not fade away. Christian tradition has typically seen this as a Christological foreshadowing of Christ's role as the "Redeemer". The entire passage illustrates the context much better (Job 19) and it is only be neglecting previous allusions to an intercessor between Job and God in a court context and the present context that Christians see Christ in the passage.
That's my biggest gripe with Jung's approach to the book - his adoption of Christian symbolism to an Israelite (possibly Edomite?) work. But I guess that's to be expected, since the work was written according to Jung:
The most immediate cause of my writing the book is perhaps to be found in certain problems discussed in my book Aion, especially the problems of Christ as a symbolic figure and of the antagonism Christ-Antichrist, represented in the traditional zodiacal symbolism of the two fishes.
(C. Jung, Answer to Job, "Prefatory Note", The Portable Jung, Penguin Books (New York) 1971, repr. p. 521)
So I suppose the book is slanted in that direction from the very beginning now that I check it out again heh heh! He sets forth what we would now call his"Reader Response Theory" in the first few pages of the actual work:
How the people of the Old Testament felt about their God we know from the testimony of the Bible. That is not what I am concerned with here, but rather with the way in which a modern man with a Christian education and background comes to terms with the divine darkness which is unveiled in the Book of Job, and what effect it has on him.
(ibid, p. 527)
But the main body of the work, if I recall correctly, is mostly straight-forward without Christian symbolism and is utterly fantastic. The symbolism does appear in the middle of the work, and that's where I tend to clock out. But as I said, it's been a loooong time since I've read it.
Perhaps I should revisit this book! It's been too long. It was the first work I read on the Book of Job back when I was a teenager, and I must admit it's been pretty formative.
Wikipedia on Jung and his interpretation of religion:
Quote:
Thus, proceeding by tenet #1 in Answer to Job, Jung interprets Yahweh as an archaic form of the self, Job as the ego, and Satan as the principle of individuation. Jung interprets the evolution of the god-image portrayed in the Old and New Testaments as a process of psychological development: In the Book of Job, the archaic self is prompted to develop toward consciousness by the more conscious ego, a process attended by dreams and prophesies (e.g. the Old Testament prophets). The self enters ego-consciousness (the incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth), followed by the emergence of the transcendent function (when the Holy Ghost comes to the disciples at Pentecost).[5]
In "A Psychological Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity",[6] again by tenet #1 Jung interprets the Father as the self, the source of energy within the psyche; the Son as an emergent structure of consciousness that replaces the self-alienated ego; and the Holy Spirit as a mediating structure between the ego and the self. However, Jung believed that the psyche moves toward completion in fours (made up of pairs of opposites), and that therefore (using tenet #3 above) the Christian formulation of the Trinity would give way to a quaternity by including missing aspects (e.g. the feminine and evil). (This analysis prompted Jung to send a congratulatory note to Pope Pius XII in 1950 upon the adoption of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to wit completing the quaternity.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was the first work I read on the Book of Job back when I was a teenager, and I must admit it's been pretty formative.
