Carl Jung: I know God exists...

[INTP]

Almost.

Why just almost?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I feel that God showed me something through my revelation yesterday about faith. God wants us to come to him in prayer and word. If we're tapping into the spirit realm and talking to spirit guides, we are not seeking God by faith. We are seeking God in signs and wonders because of a lack of faith.

Do you believe in the authenticity of apparitions along the lines of those given to St. Francis and Saul of Tarsus? I ask because in both cases these were not men of faith before their apparitions. They became men of genuine faith, but they were not always so. Their journey of faith began with signs and wonders. They are also not the only examples. If we acknowledge that it's possible for these men who previously led checkered lives to experience God personally and change their tune, then we have to allow that it is a legitimate path to God. I'm not suggesting that God was specifically reaching out to Jung, but I'm suggesting that we can't discount it strictly on the basis that Jung was not a religious man.

 

[Synapse]

Why just almost?

Not hypothetical entity, a thought form given impetus and created in dimension of time that gains momentum to become the dragon, that deep level of racial and archetypal thought form is termed the Collective Unconscious

 

[INTP]

Not hypothetical entity, a thought form given impetus and created in dimension of time that gains momentum to become the dragon, that deep level of racial and archetypal egregores is termed the Collective Unconscious

Jesus is an symbol of an archetype, but belief in jesus and following his teachings isnt an archetype.

 

[jixmixfix]

Given the whole Jung INTJ INTP debate he actually seems INTP to me.

 

[Synapse]

Jesus is an symbol of an archetype, but belief in jesus and following his teachings isnt an archetype.

Maybe yet people seem to miss the point of what he was teaching, how can one become christconscious, conscious like a christ archetype. Its fun talking to people who analyze and aren't prepared to expand their consciousness, same patterns come around a lot.

Its refreshing when someone expresses in an awakened state of consciousness, so far its been analysis only.

 

[iwakar]

Do you believe in the authenticity of apparitions along the lines of those given to St. Francis and Saul of Tarsus? I ask because in both cases these were not men of faith before their apparitions. They became men of genuine faith, but they were not always so. Their journey of faith began with signs and wonders. They are also not the only examples. If we acknowledge that it's possible for these men who previously led checkered lives to experience God personally and change their tune, then we have to allow that it is a legitimate path to God. I'm not suggesting that God was specifically reaching out to Jung, but I'm suggesting that we can't discount it strictly on the basis that Jung was not a religious man.

Quit makin so much damn sense!

 

[INTP]

Maybe yet people seem to miss the point of what he was teaching, how can one become christconscious, conscious like a christ archetype. Its fun talking to people who analyze and aren't prepared to expand their consciousness, same patterns come around a lot.

Its refreshing when someone expresses in an awakened state of consciousness, so far its been analysis only.

Ah, your definition of archetype isnt correct, thats why you claim religion being an archetype.

 

[Synapse]

Do I claim? Religion comes from a thought form that is like becoming an archetype, an energy channel into a social dimension, an entity that is now part of mass consciousness.

 

[INTP]

Do I claim? Religion comes from a thought form that is like becoming an archetype, an energy channel into a social dimension, an entity that is now part of mass consciousness.

Archetypes/collective unconsciousness are in our genes, learned belief is not -> isnt an archetype. However religions are based on archetypes and when these archetypes are projected on the external entity or item(like sun, moon, giant rock or what ever) god is born.

 

[Mole]

Psychosis and Religion

The most religious place I have visited was the Psychiatric Ward of Little Bay Hospital in Sydney.

And Carl Jung himself admits to having a psychotic breakdown.

And I can see a psychosis is not the same as a religious experience.

 

[Synapse]

Archetypes/collective unconsciousness are in our genes, learned belief is not -> isnt an archetype. However religions are based on archetypes and when these archetypes are projected on the external entity or item(like sun, moon, giant rock or what ever) god is born.

Yeah true to form.

 

[Jaguar]

You do realize the technical blunder in his first post?

The blunder is you not knowing the many ancient beliefs—bizarre as they were— regarding menstruating women or even the blood itself, believed my some to 'spawn demons'. My post had nothing to do with any specific wording in The Bible, if by chance you were entertaining such a thought.

That aside, I am entitled to my belief system just as you are entitled to yours. For example, I believe anyone who espouses beating children with a belt is an evil witch and should be burned at the stake, while a crowd shouts: "Be gone, evil one! Be gone!" See how little belief systems work?

I am free to believe anything.

I can tell people I know what you post to me is the work of The Devil.
I can say that hundreds of times and to hundreds of people.
And still . . . that doesn't make it true.

That is why you are free to post that Jung was gripped by demons.
Post it hundreds of times and to hundreds of people.
And still . . . that doesn't make it true.

Beliefs can keep people from jumping off buildings or drowning themselves in a bottle of Scotch.
Beliefs can also cause a person to drown their children in a bathtub.

Aren't beliefs grand . . .

 

[A window to the soul]

Do you believe in the authenticity of apparitions along the lines of those given to St. Francis and Saul of Tarsus? I ask because in both cases these were not men of faith before their apparitions. They became men of genuine faith, but they were not always so. Their journey of faith began with signs and wonders. They are also not the only examples. If we acknowledge that it's possible for these men who previously led checkered lives to experience God personally and change their tune, then we have to allow that it is a legitimate path to God. I'm not suggesting that God was specifically reaching out to Jung, but I'm suggesting that we can't discount it strictly on the basis that Jung was not a religious man.

I didn't even consider that. You're right.

 

[Scott N Denver]

No, its not that either. Although synapse is trolling.

Like he said, no he's not. I'm not going to pretend that I somehow understand everything synapse says, and I definitely dont concur with all of it either, but he is not trolling. The things he's saying, I've heard them before elsewhere, and there are people who strongly think/feel/believe that way.

I dont claim to be a Jung expert, but I'm willing ot grant that some of what he talks about seem like "typical" mystical experiences to me. "Conventional religion", at least in the major western monotheisms, has never been particularly comfortable with mysticism [and has sent people to their deaths over it]. If a person following a "conventional religion" from a "conventional viewpoint" has issues with mysticism, that says more about that person than it does about mysticism, at least in my book. For comparative purposes, Buddhism and Hinduism are much more comfortable with thier mystical sects, but then again Hinduism and Buddhism are fundamentally different than your traditional western monotheisms. As someone versed in eastern thought, nothing about Jung scares or bothers me. And, fwiw, I consider topics like "archetypes" or even "spirit guides" to be small potatoes relative to other things out there.

Anyways, I've always thought of Jung as being in tune with mystics, and he was blatantly very interested in eastern thought.

 

[wildflower]

Do you believe in the authenticity of apparitions along the lines of those given to St. Francis and Saul of Tarsus? I ask because in both cases these were not men of faith before their apparitions. They became men of genuine faith, but they were not always so. Their journey of faith began with signs and wonders. They are also not the only examples. If we acknowledge that it's possible for these men who previously led checkered lives to experience God personally and change their tune, then we have to allow that it is a legitimate path to God. I'm not suggesting that God was specifically reaching out to Jung, but I'm suggesting that we can't discount it strictly on the basis that Jung was not a religious man.

i came to my faith in christ because of a mystical experience. the thing is there are different types (sources actually) of mystical experiences. some are of God--and scripture tells us how to test the spirits to know where they are from--and some are not of God and are from evil spirits. what i'm saying here is from a christian point of view so i don't expect most of you to believe that and that's ok. i sure didn't used. it is quite foreign to the modern, western mindset. not so much in other parts of the world. i do think it's one of those things where for many if not most people, including christians, they have to experience it to believe it.

 

[Lark]

Like he said, no he's not. I'm not going to pretend that I somehow understand everything synapse says, and I definitely dont concur with all of it either, but he is not trolling.

I'll explain, I'm not doing it again, when you make a point, whether that point is understood or not, that's fine, in some way it contributes to the discussion but when you make a point, there is no response from the person you have aimed it at, and you then post the same thing repeatedly in response to each post they make throughout the forum in other threads then that's trolling, its essentially becoming a pest because you dont feel you've got the attention you deserve and one of a range of behaviours I associate with trolling.

Perhaps its too broad a definition of trolling for some but its definitely not adding to the discussion in any way what so ever and more to do with that individual and their symbolic interaction and needs than anything useful. Which to me is trolling.

 

[Lark]

Like he said, no he's not. I'm not going to pretend that I somehow understand everything synapse says, and I definitely dont concur with all of it either, but he is not trolling. The things he's saying, I've heard them before elsewhere, and there are people who strongly think/feel/believe that way.

I dont claim to be a Jung expert, but I'm willing ot grant that some of what he talks about seem like "typical" mystical experiences to me. "Conventional religion", at least in the major western monotheisms, has never been particularly comfortable with mysticism [and has sent people to their deaths over it]. If a person following a "conventional religion" from a "conventional viewpoint" has issues with mysticism, that says more about that person than it does about mysticism, at least in my book. For comparative purposes, Buddhism and Hinduism are much more comfortable with thier mystical sects, but then again Hinduism and Buddhism are fundamentally different than your traditional western monotheisms. As someone versed in eastern thought, nothing about Jung scares or bothers me. And, fwiw, I consider topics like "archetypes" or even "spirit guides" to be small potatoes relative to other things out there.

Anyways, I've always thought of Jung as being in tune with mystics, and he was blatantly very interested in eastern thought.

Yes he was but he also published books before the war and during the interwar years about Odinism and Western monotheisms, he was actually incredibly conservative and traditionalist in a western monotheistic sense, if you're only equated with Jung's writings about the east then you dont know Jung, his material on eastern religion is collected into one book, his material on western cultural archetypes and religion constitutes almost the rest of his work including Modern Man In Search of His Soul, The Undiscovered Self, Notes On The Present Crisis, Aspects of the Masculine, Aspects of the Feminine, Answer to Job.

When you post something like that about Jung and readily claim him for a particular tradition contra another and display how unacquainted you are with Jungs actual writing and books are you not embarrassed? Wouldnt it be a better idea to post when you're not being so hot headed and apt to write something which is just so mistaken?

 

[Lark]

Do you believe in god(as in some entity)? If so, how can you be sure that your ego simply refuses to see it since, well you know how the ego works, right?

Do you have any arguments why not or are you simply refusing to believe it?

You maybe could have framed that better or worded that better but I'll try for a response anyway.

Suggesting that God is merely a projection of the mind and that religions are just consequent of human needs being projected in one way or another, explaining non-deist aswell as deist religions, is a result of an unfortunate habit that is as old as the hills.

I would have thought that something like the Copernican revolution wouldnt have to be repeated each generation to keep it fresh but there you go, the crux of the mater is that mankind is not the centre of the universe, mankind is not God, and in fact the cosmos does in fact exist independent of and besides mankinds existence. That includes God.

No one would question whether or not gravity is a social construction, a psychological projection or is a fable agreed upon through the symbolic interaction of seperate beings motivated by memes, illusions or unconscious needs. That there is, inexplicably, an objective, external ordered cosmos is a fact.

The same applies to God (and I might suggest other things such as society) but really powerful ideologies such as individualism, subjectivity and the like continually assert themselves and people fall back into a habit of thinking which is egocentric, Cartesianism and Bishop Berkley's imagined world are just two examples of it elevated to the level of philosophical "science".

 

[Synapse]

I'll explain, I'm not doing it again, when you make a point, whether that point is understood or not, that's fine, in some way it contributes to the discussion but when you make a point, there is no response from the person you have aimed it at, and you then post the same thing repeatedly in response to each post they make throughout the forum in other threads then that's trolling, its essentially becoming a pest because you dont feel you've got the attention you deserve and one of a range of behaviours I associate with trolling.

Perhaps its too broad a definition of trolling for some but its definitely not adding to the discussion in any way what so ever and more to do with that individual and their symbolic interaction and needs than anything useful. Which to me is trolling.

You quoted me and responded, how do you mean there is no response? You mean to tell me I troll you and now Nerd Girl.

Or is it my perspective on religion are different from your value system so you consider it trolling?

And how do I say the same thing again?