It was said truly enough that human Christianity in its recurrent weakness was sometimes too much wedded to the powers of the world; but if it was wedded it has very often been widowed. It is a strangely immortal sort of widow. An enemy may have said at one moment that it was but an aspect of the power of the Caesars; and it sounds as strange to-day as to call it an aspect of the Pharaohs. An enemy might say that it was the official faith of feudalism; and it sounds as convincing now as to say that it was bound to perish with the ancient Roman villa. All these things did indeed run their course to its normal end; and there seemed no course for the religion but to end with them. It ended and it began again.

`Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.' The civilisation of antiquity was the whole world: and men no more dreamed of its ending than of the ending of daylight. They could not imagine another order unless it were in another world. The civilisation of the world has passed away and those words have not passed away. In the long night of the Dark Ages feudalism was so familiar a thing that no man could imagine himself without a lord: and religion was so woven into that network that no man would have believed they could be torn asunder. Feudalism itself was torn to rags and rotted away in the popular life of the true Middle Ages; and the first and freshest power in that new freedom was the old religion. Feudalism had passed away, and the words did not pass away. The whole medieval order, in many ways so complete and almost cosmic a home for man, wore out gradually in its turn: and here at least it was thought that the words would die. They went forth across the radiant abyss of the Renaissance and in fifty years were using all its light and learning for new religious foundations, new apologetics, new saints. It was supposed to have been withered up at last in the dry light of the Age of Reason; it was supposed to have disappeared ultimately in the earthquake of the Age of Revolution. Science explained it away; and it was still there. History disinterred it in the past; and it appeared suddenly in the future. To-day it stands once more in our path; and even as we watch it, it grows.

If our social relations and records retain their continuity, if men really learn to apply reason to the accumulating facts of so crushing a story, it would seem that sooner or later even its enemies will learn from their incessant and interminable disappointments not to look for anything so simple as its death. They may continue to war with it, but it will be as they war with nature; as they war with the landscape, as they war with the skies. `Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.' They will watch for it to stumble; they will watch for it to err; they will no longer watch for it to end. Insensibly, even unconsciously, they will in their own silent anticipations fulfil the relative terms of that astounding prophecy; they will forget to watch for the mere extinction of what has so often been vainly extinguished; and will learn instinctively to look first for the coming of the comet or the freezing of the star.

A promising word is powerful enough to bring forth an entirely new world.

Are you quoting someone, or is this an original quote?

Which god one wants to know of Chesterton, and how did you get there? His point that it keeps surviving is hardly even related to whether it is true (note the rest of the religions lasting quite nicely), his zeal for a savior is right out of the superstitious 1st Century.

The savior thing is made up, and made up over and over in the 1st Century. Human beings do good things and bad things, have nobleness and baseness in them. None of that needs a supernatural savior replete with mass killings of humans and sacrificing of deities. That's made up religion designing.

The question isn't "Which religion is right?" ... it's "What is reality?" To go into the 1st Century for metaphysics is about like going into the 1st Century for a lot of other things. You run smack dab into superstition, myth, magic, legend, totally unscientific "beliefs." That's what it is.

I don't disagree with the opinion that the general thoughts Chesterton expressed are applicable to other religions. In George Lucas's interview with Bill Moyers he said "When I was 10 years old, I asked my mother — I said, ‘Well, if there’s only one God, why are there so many religions?’ And over the years — I’ve been pondering that question ever since. And it would seem to me that the conclusion that I’ve come to is that all the religions are true, they just see a different part of the elephant."

For the most part, I agree with that statement. However, I also think there's value in devoting oneself to a specific faith, adopting it's traditions and aligning one's life with it.

Science and religion aren't incompatible. Yes, there are Young Earth creationists and such, but even many of the early church fathers knew that the stories of the Bible were allegorical. Science allows us to explore physical reality; religion is more of a guide on how to be.

The Book of Job, for example, doesn't describe a specific historical event, but it does speak to reality, and it uses poetry to do so. The idea is that bad things happen to good people. This is obviously true. We keep asking ourselves: "Why? How could a loving God allow this to happen?" but the answer never comes. That is reality. What the story teaches is that even though it seems like we suffer needlessly—even when we think we're doing everything right—it's best to remain faithful; or rather, it's good stay good. Don't become resentful. Don't turn cold. Don't get lost drugs or whatever. It seems like there are some things we're not meant to understand. Accept this and strive forward honorably.

Anyway, the main reason I posted this is because it's so beautifully written. There are plenty of things one can disagree with G. K. Chesterton on, but he wasn't boring. The man had a way with words and a truly unique way of seeing things. Probably one of the most prolific writers ever.

Most of his stuff is public domain, and since the topic of "science" got brought up, I thought I'd share this essay he wrote about H. G. Wells. Great read in spite of its flaws.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Heretics/5

Since this thread is about Chesterton and I referred to The Book of Job, here's a wonderful essay he wrote about it.

https://www.chesterton.org/introduction-to-job/

This YouTuber did a really good synopsis of Chesterton's article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmB7HCqKouw

Yup, you can sure be addressing reality with poems, metaphors, fables. It helps to know when it is poetic or fictional as opposed to literal reality. On the subject of Job I recommend Jung's "Answer to Job."

Good gawd the religious speak, fanciful sophistry of those pieces. It's just chock full of it, even dropping in a bomb about how the Old Testament is about the loneliness of god ... you know, the guy that murdered the entire human race. He's a lonely guy. A loving guy. But he's so righteous he has to resort to killing to be just, you understand. Now imagine that you love your children, your creation, and when they were bad you're about killing them. If we wish to have perfect love like "him," that's the program. If we say to ourselves secretly, "No, such things are an abomination, a genocide, a holocaust," then we have a problem with the story. And once we see it as a story, it's okay to have a problem with it. If we see it as literal, we have to start lying for it.

Same thing torturing a human being. It isn't borne of love, or justice, or righteousness. But who are we to decide what is righteous when we can get it from the barbaric writings of thousands of years ago?

I'm somewhat surprised that a fan of Jung's (we're talking about a guy who believed that dreams could predict the future) work would be so averse to the God of the Old Testament and interpret those stories (and Chesterton's words about "the loneliness of God") as you do here. I remember reading some excerpts and summaries of Answer to Job a while back but have to admit I don't remember the details. Of course, when Jung was asked in an interview late in his life whether or not he believed in God, he answered that he didn't need to believe, he knew. Sadly, the interviewer went on to the next topic after Jung gave that answer. (It's actually kind of funny. Jung says that he knows God exists and the interviewer says something along the lines of "Moving forward. Why'd you decide to become a doctor?") However, Jung did write a letter clarifying his thoughts: https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/...ung-on-god.pdf.

Thanks for the link. Great stuff. I've quoted that interview many times about Jung's comment there. Glad to have that rundown. I had ventured at times that I thought maybe Jung was backing of the question to describe his general stance: "I don't believe. I know a thing or I don't." So ... not that he knows god exists, but that he doesn't operate by belief. In other quotes offered in the link, he describes exactly this. He also describes a god that is totally mysterious and unidentified, so to the extent anyone claims this as textbook theism, that ain't it.

As to the commenters in the link "knowing He exists," that's nothing but a narrative in their head that went unchallenged. The idea that it's a "He" is straight out of Sunday School. 100% of the time when you ask someone with this position to describe and explain the experiences or revelations or insights that prove the "Him" to them, it's flippin' joke. They have absolutely nothing, revealing it all as a fanciful narrative going on in their head that has gone on for so long that they are "all-in" on it. This means nothing about its truth. It means the same thing as a poker player going all-in: it could be either a total bluff or the nuts. The all-in move on the god question is pure stubborn bluff, self convincing attempt. Chesterton's biographical account is even subtitled: "The Unlikely Pilgrimage Toward Absolute Certainty." The absolute certainty there is just meh. It's a bluff. And when they have to turn their hand over, it's nothing every time. I've ordered the book.

Drivel. God Jammed Satan in the ass just for laughs. Religious theology is the most idiotic waste of time.

Not textbook theism? I don't know about that. The concept relies on mystery and relation to the unknown. It's usually critics trying to narrowly define "God" and referring to Him as an invisible man in the sky.

The "He" question may partly be due to the limitations of language. A pronoun has to be used when referring to God as a character in the telling of stories. The emphasis on the Virgin Mary and the Immaculate Conception in Catholicism is an interesting counterbalance to this. This might trail off a bit, but I'll try to stay on track...

When we think about the beginning of the universe and this physical reality that we all share, there are many things we can confidently claim about it, but no matter how much we learn, or how far back we go, the questions of where that came from, or what was there before it, will always be valid ones to ask. We can never know everything. Theists will often use the argument from contingency. A rebuttal could be "Okay, sure, but then where did God come from?" and it's a fair one. What I would say is that we just don't know. Both the idea of there being something that has existed going back infinitely as well as the idea that there was once nothing seem equally mind-boggling. It's a fascinating paradox.

Now, I'm sure there are Christians who attach and actual personage to God, but in my experience, it's rarely the case, and it's definitely not the case when it comes to the serious religious thinkers. One way to think about God is as all that exists and all that is true. This sort of universal order in mythology is associated with the masculine, but creative potential is associated with the feminine, and an interesting detail about Mary's relationship to God, as it relates to this, is that since she gave birth to Christ (the embodiment of God as man), she also, in a sense, gave birth to all that exists and all that is true. That's one take on the paradox previously mentioned.

Are you talking about Orthodoxy? It is an apologetics work, but as far as I know, that's not his subtitle. Whoever published that edition added it.

I wondered about that because I saw it both ways, with and without.

And so the whole thing about god being a father and Jesus being an actual man and his son, this isn't about actual maleness? It isn't a literary device in their doctrine. Are we coming to the point where everybody who believes what exists exists and what is true is true is a theist (with that definition of "god")? Seems a sneaky way to get anybody who isn't psychotic into the theist camp.

I gave my take of quantum fields as god, or in the place of supernatural religious gods, and a guy counted that as theist. I obviously meant it in a Spinozan or Einstein type of way. But he heard the word "god," and that clinched the theism angle for him. That was actually at the poker table.

So I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that no Yahweh worshippers will describe why the lonely god murdered the entire human race. It's just one of those things that sort of strains belief. There is this tendency when something utterly absurd and contradictory gets exposed about the religion, it is met with complete avoidance. Oh, you get the occasional defender of slavery, defender of rape, defender of genocide, defender mass slaughter, defender of righteousness killings over things like homosexuality, unruliness, fornication ... but for the most part they know what they need to desperately avoid.

Any religion or philosophy can be misunderstood, bent or harnessed for nefarious reasons, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fundamental nature of the stories or philosophies. (Jung's work deals a lot with religious and mythological interpretation.) Although there are many points of disagreement, theologians and religious philosophers rarely present the Old Testament in such a crude way.

Take the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham had wanted a son for many years. Him and Sarah were unable to conceive, but at the age of one hundred, God blessed Abraham with a son - Isaac. Isaac was the light of Abraham's life. He loved him dearly. Years later, when Isaac was a young man, God called on Abraham to take Isaac to the top of Mount Moriah and sacrifice him. This, of course, was not what Abraham wanted to hear, but because of his unwavering faith, he began his journey to Mount Moriah, and three days later he went to sacrifice Isaac. At the last moment an angel appeared and told him not to hurt Isaac and that he had proven his faith.

You could read this story at its surface level and think it's about a cruel God who tricks a guy into almost killing is son for no reason. Or you could go a bit deeper and see that the story illustrates the point that sometimes one needs to make great sacrifices in order to move forward, and even if they can't see what's on the other side, they intuitively know what should be done and have faith in their decision. Maybe the sacrifice is something that someone has worked long and hard for (one hundred years!) but recently divined that they should give it up. Maybe the sacrifice is something that others won't understand or agree with. Maybe it means giving up something that means a great deal to them. Maybe it's a monumental sacrifice. The Abraham and Isaac story does a drives this idea home in a very powerful way by using such an outrageous example. Examples such as these are seen throughout the Old Testament.

The gang member analogy I shared in the other thread, referring to Craig's comment about the evolutionary survival instinct and leveling up, demonstrates this point well. The gang member needs to sacrifice his freedom, safety, friendships and the emotional well-being of his loved ones if he wants to move forward.

When Chesterton talks about the loneliness of God and how all the characters in the Old Testament are merely His tools, he's saying that the characters are there to demonstrate truths about the reality of human experience - much like characters in a good novel or movie.

Jesus is clearly a man and an archetypal figure to model one's life after (re The Imitation of Christ). Clint Eastwood's character arc in Gran Torino is a neat example of this. But yeah, we're limited by language and do the best we can with what we have. I use the familiar language of "He" because it's encapsulated in those stories and there's no reason to disrupt it when talking within their context. However, I wouldn't attempt to clearly define "God" since I don't think the concept fits neatly into a box. Many artists choose not to depict the Father in art for this reason.

Anyway, what I was trying to say, however poorly, is that there is a feminine counterbalance in the Biblical stories, and more specifically in Catholicism, to the masculine portrayal of God and that it's the Virgin Mary. The person who gave birth to the Son of God (part of the Holy Trinity), was the perfect woman. It had to do with the idea that God is the source of all creation and how a woman gave birth to that, given the paradox that arises in the argument from contingency.

I'm following you. I think the Lady Wisdom tradition is also worth mentioning. The Gospel authors clearly think that Jesus is Lady Wisdom personified. Matt 11 28:30 seems to be Jesus alluding to Sirach 51 and speaking as the wisdom character Sophia. Proverbs 8 is also quoted directly by Jesus.

The female (mother, bride) is the source of everlasting life. Wherever she is - that’s where the kingdom of heaven is also. Because of this, she is such a dominating character that she doesn’t need to be promoted like the male does.

Every human is already deeply identified with the feminine. Jesus is the only human so far who has become fully male. The masculine, being associated with death, is marginalized by default. The way to the true female is through identification with the male, but make no mistake, the destination is the female. She is the princess being guarded by the dragon.

When people complain about patriarchy or toxic masculinity, it’s completely unsurprising to me. However, to complain that the Christian story is sexist is pure ignorance. Nobody can follow the path of Jesus and complete the hero’s journey without being a total simp for the female who calls out to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBlZVuq6Q-4

It's just one of the religions, guys. And it's nothing else. It couldn't be more palpable that this is true. It's a story with some wisdom and morality weaved through it. It's one of the religions. It comes from the same place. But if this is the one religion that is literally true, what's the evidence for that?

You have no valuable wisdom to share with us. You need to stop posting in this subforum and demand from yourself to stop acting dishonestly and in bad faith.

After doing this thoroughly, then you can come back to this subforum and reread what has already been discussed, rather than making people re-answer your questions over and over.

What happened to the question: "When did you first have the idea that you were revealing god's nature to others?" That's a little bit of an uncomfortable one, isn't it?

What I'm interested in is the spirituality of humankind that is not based on bullshyt supernatural claims, myths, fabrications, religionizing from superstitious times, etc. And that subject of the study of the nature of human consciousness is vast and sacred. The real sacred. Not "you're going to hell if you don't adopt our magic story."

You do not understand the fundamental claims of Christianity or this is more intentional bad faith engagement. Either way, you’re a lost cause.