Book Review 2 – The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur

Madonna with Child and Angels, Filippo Lippi
Originally uploaded by f_snarfel

I read this book a few years ago and was very surprised that a former Professor and Anglican priest would argue that Christianity is a synthesis of Ancient Egyptian and pagan mystery religions with a Jewish twist. It even reconciled me to Christianity a little, because I discovered that despite the overt suppression of Greek and Roman philosophy and the burning of pagan libraries by Christians, many of the ideas and myths of the ancient world in fact survived by being integrated into Christianity. It is a well researched book with good footnotes and an extensive bibliography that has provided me with lots of further reading by authors such as Bishop Spong, Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar and Sir James Frazer (author of the seminal Golden Bough).

The theme of the book is complex but the main thrust is the incredible similarity that exists between Jesus and the many saviour gods that existed in the ancient world particularly the Egyptian God Horus, whom Harpur claims is the original archetypal Christos. The idea that a man-god who could be born of a virgin, perform miracles, suffer and die yet be resurrected to eternal life it seems did not originate with Jesus. Harpur believes that the truth and relevance of these tales have nothing whatever to do with actual happenings in history but everything to do with changing consciousness to “receive sublime truths accessible in no other way”. He means by way of symbols, allegories and myths.

Harpur believes Plato’s idea that we are all “sparks of divine fire struck off from the flint of the Eternal”, immortal souls clad in mortal bodies and that the divine is within all of us. He says that the ancient messiahs were symbolic sun figures who came not only each day with the sunrise and sunset, but were renewed through the seasons, the solstices and the equinoxes. Worshippers could take part in this renewal through mystery dramas and rituals and thereby awaken their own divinity. He believes that the sole and crucial difference between the ancient myths and Christianity is that Christianity eventually concentrated this endless universal concept into a single historical person, Jesus, and the unrepeatable events of his life.

In Harpur’s opinion, timeless myth had been misread as biography. Christianity took a tragically wrong turn at the end of the third century by denying and trying to destroy its pagan roots. People were then forced to look externally to a morally perfect and unreachable Saviour instead of looking within for the divine and understanding the true meaning of the cross as the symbol of spirit entering matter. Oddly enough, Jesus appears to says this in Luke 17:21 “for in fact the kingdom of God is within you.” It is fascinating stuff and I realised that in the end, perhaps it is just a matter of terminology that separates me from religion as I prefer to use the words nature, the universe and life-energy instead of the words god, divinity, and immortal soul.

Balancing reason with mythology

Dionís
Originally uploaded by Sebastià Giralt

It occurs to me that I may have unintentionally given the impression that I am some kind of modern day Aristotle wrestling with deep metaphysical concepts such as Truth, Justice and the meaning of life while leading a life of impeccable virtue and moderation under the grapevines. This is not exactly the case. I don’t think I practice what I preach any more than your average philosopher. I have to confess that the only thing that stops me giving in totally to the sins of the flesh is concern for my health, not classical ideals of self-control and restraint. My virtues only really consist of being kind to animals and small children. I thought it best to be up front on that point before continuing my exploration of the philosophy and religion of the classical world.

Greek and Roman philosophers discussed morality, ethics and how to lead the Good Life from an entirely human perspective because their Gods were by and large uninterested in questions of morality. The Gods were larger than life humans who happened to be immortal and seemed to spend most of their time quarrelling, chasing lovers and sulking. The concept of life after death was mostly confined to a ghostly existence in the gloomy Hades along with everyone else. Only special heroic individuals like Heracles could look forward to the blessed fields of Elysium wherever they were!

The Gods obviously began as nature gods who developed special attachments to places or to cities. Temples were the houses of the Gods not where a congregation met for worship. You could pray to a particular God for protection when travelling for instance but all Gods and humans were at the mercy of the blind, indifferent Fortuna or chance. Religion was part of the civic duty toward your country and honoring the Gods meant honoring the State and its institutions. (This is why the Christians were seen as a treasonous cult and got into trouble later)

There was no revealed scripture but stories of the gods and their all too human antics abounded. Greek dramatists used the myths about the Gods to reveal profound truths about what it is to be human. The Oedipus complex described by Freud took its insights from the ancient myth. Plays like the Bacchae by Euripides pointed out the danger of trying to suppress the irrational in humans, a tendency that the Greeks and some would say our own culture, had. As the play shows, the desire to forget moderation and reason and find transcendence in a frenzy of ecstatic worship of Dionysus, the God of the Vine, had become increasingly popular.

Logos or rationality led to some of the great developments in mathematics, science and philosophy yet the role of mythos or the irrational perhaps equally contributed to classical culture. Maybe it is too easy in a rational world to underestimate the importance of the imagination and the outlet or catharsis that stories, music, dance and art provide in expressing human emotions and anxieties.

Humanism and the Enlightenment

Delacroix, Eugene (1798-1863) - 1830 Liberty Leading the People (Louvre)
Originally uploaded by RasMarley

It occurred to me on re-reading last week’s post that I was a little dismissive of Socrates. After all, he was perhaps one of the earliest documented sceptics. He was also unusual amongst sages and prophets that, instead of giving people rules to live by, Socrates demanded that people think for themselves and continually question the status quo. In Plato’s Euthyphro Socrates asks if something is good because God ordains it, or if God ordains it because it is already good. He was influential in the development not only of Ancient Greek rationalism but also that of modern humanism.

Humanism embraces modern science, democratic principles, human rights, free inquiry and the separation of Church and State. It rejects the notions of sin and guilt particularly in the area of sexual choice. I think it is a very liberating and joyful philosophy of life. It means taking control of one’s own life and finding your own answers to the great questions of life. It does not mean that anything goes or that all worldviews are equal, rather that there are objective criteria against which we should evaluate these views. Respect for the law and for human rights being amongst the most important.

The Enlightenment (1700-1800) had a profound effect not only on Humanism but also on law in the Western world with the idea expressed in the American Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal” and deserve equality under the law.(It would take another century before these concepts would be applied to women, children and non-white people as well!) The Enlightenment was opposed to the arbitrary use of power by Monarchies and the Clergy and further influenced the American Declaration of Independence with the revolutionary idea that we all have a “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” regardless of social status.

At the same time, advances in science encouraged the idea that direct observation of nature rather than reliance on sacred texts could be the answer to some of the most important questions that confront humans. Ethics and values began to be discussed for the first time since antiquity in terms of a humanist world rather than one lived in obedience to God-given rules.

John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, famous philosophers of the Enlightenment, believed that humanity, in a pursuit of a better and more civilized way of life, has agreed to an implicit ‘social contract’ through which people grant certain rights to their neighbors in order to get the same rights for themselves. However with these rights come civic responsibilities. I think most people now accept that the rights of the individual sometimes need to be balanced by the greater good of society as a whole. But I will discuss the Utilitarianism philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham and their contribution to my Atheist view of the Good Life another time!

How to Live the Good Life

Plato & Aristotle
Originally uploaded by Muli Koppel

Ancient Greek philosophy is appealing to me as it is very much concerned with how to live the Good Life or how to achieve eudaimonia. This word is often translated as happiness but should be viewed as a state of mind rather than as a result of a particular pleasure. It is often described as ‘flourishing’ or the realization of human potential.

Greek philosophers also believed that virtue or arête was essential to happiness. Arête is not just about moral virtues such as justice, moderation, courage and wisdom, it also includes attributes such as beauty, good health and doing something well. Socrates claimed that a person who is not virtuous cannot be happy and that a person who is virtuous cannot fail to be happy. Different schools of thought grew up around the exact balance needed between virtue and happiness in order to lead a good life. Discussion on these issues was human-centred, often heated and independent of any super-natural law giver or deity which, in my opinion, makes it still relevant today.

Despite this, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are not my favourite philosophers probably because I find them so hard to understand. I prefer my philosophy or guide to life a little simpler which is why I prefer Epicurus (although Socrates was good in encouraging people to think for themselves and be sceptical). However, a study of Aristotle’s book Ethics is useful, as he claimed that the natural function of humans was to reason and that to reason well is to reason in accordance with virtue. Epicurus agreed with him saying that of all the virtues, wisdom is the greatest, for through it we can learn which pleasures to seek and which to avoid.

Aristotle believed that we are driven by our natural instincts or passions and that we can achieve virtue if we seek the mean in the expression of these feelings. For example, for the feeling of fear, courage is the mean, rashness is the excessive expression and cowardice is the deficient expression. Virtues include generosity, prudence, patience and modesty. All the old biblical vices or sins such as envy, licentiousness, vanity and shamelessness are mentioned as either the deficient or excessive expression of human feelings or actions. Aristotle believed that virtue is not necessarily a capacity we are born with, we must develop it through practice and reason.

Unlike the Stoics who believed we should be indifferent to power, wealth and bodily pleasures and be happy with virtue alone, Aristotle was not so extreme and believed that friendship and good fortune in life and body were as important as reason and virtue in living the good life.

[I have found Philosophy: 100 Essential Thinkers by Philip Stokes (Arcturus Publishing, London 2008) and This is not a book: Adventures in Popular Philosophy by Michael Picard (Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest NSW 2007) and of course Wikipedia helpful for this post and for the post on Epicurus.]

Book Review - The Book of Job

I thought I would make the Book of Job my first book review as it is probably my favourite book of the bible. It questions why God allows unfairness and suffering – an issue that interested Epicurus greatly – see quote of the day.

The story takes place in the land of Uz, not in Israel which makes a nice change, and Job does not appear to be Jewish. However, Job is an upright and blameless man who “feared God and set his face against wrongdoing.” He was very comfortably off and had lots of children. God is one day talking to Satan and boasting of the God-fearing Job, when Satan needles him and says of course he is God-fearing as he has been rewarded by God, but that it would be a different story if God took away his protection. So God lets Satan kill Job’s children, destroy his flocks and cover Job with disgusting sores as long as he doesn’t actually kill him. Horrible things happen to Job who laments his life and wishes he was never born to “wander blindly hedged in by God on every side.”

He then has this dialogue with three of his friends who try to get him to blame God for his troubles. The reader knows that in fact they are right to do so, but although Job comes close to accusing God of injustice he refuses to curse him. My favourite line is “Am I the monster of the deep, am I the sea-serpent, that thou settest a watch over me?” In other words he just wants to be left alone to scratch his sores and not have endless theological discussions. But they give him no peace and he goes on to say that God “destroys blameless and wicked alike.” And then in another passage Job asks “why do the wicked enjoy long life, hale in old age” when they do not care about God and yet they prosper. Why indeed? The friends in the end change their tune and tell him not to judge God as we can not possibly comprehend his mysterious ways and that anyway Job must have sinned. Job starts to get justifiably resentful and says that he has not sinned and that all this suffering is pretty unfair. He still fears God but he wants some answers.

Strangely enough God does answer – the last time he does speak directly to a human being in the original Jewish version of the Bible. He says “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations?” He says that unless you were there while he created the universe, you have no right to criticize him or ask him questions. I suppose it’s a fair point. He talks of his power and his wrath and then says my other favourite line, “Consider the chief of the beasts, the crocodile,” and goes on to give a superb if rather irrelevant description of the animal and its power. Perhaps it is a metaphor?

For some reason Job is convinced by all this but I suspect that, wonderful though the crocodile speech is, it is only now that he has actually seen God with his own eyes that he shuts up. God rebukes the friends for telling the truth, and restores Job’s fortunes, presumably heals his sores and he has new children. I wonder if that is any consolation for the loss of the original ones? It is a quite an astounding book with some of the best lines in the Bible, but in the end Job’s questions are evaded by God and one is left with the uncomfortable impression that God plays with human lives all for the sake of a wager.

[Quote of the Day was: "Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent; Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent; Is he both willing and able? Then whence cometh evil?; Is he neither willing nor able then why call him God?" Attributed to Epicurus]

Ying Yang Symbol

Temple Of Heaven-Beijing, China
Originally uploaded by Anup_Nikon D40

So I said I would explain the significance of the Yin Yang symbol pictured. A few years ago I began to learn Tai Chi and became very interested in the origins and history of this health dance or moving meditation practice. I started reading about Chi or Qi and found myself struck by how the ancient Chinese idea that the energy of the universe is present in all living things and that it is also reflected in the human body. Like the atomic view of the world held by Epicurus, it is not inconsistent with modern Physics.

The Yin Yang concept was formulated to explain the workings of Chi and represents how seemingly opposing forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, giving rise to each other in turn with the aim of achieving balance or harmony. There is no good and evil and no dark side of the force! It is a very ancient concept and these symbols, in the form of a tiger and a dragon, have been found in a Chinese Neolithic burial site dated 5000 BC.

The Tao of Chi can be translated as the way of energy and the Tao Te Ching was written by Lao-Tzu the founder of Taoism, in the 6th century BC. The three jewels of the Tao are compassion, moderation and humility. Sound familiar? Lao Tzu also wrote:

The way that can be described is not the eternal way
The name that can be named is not the eternal name

I think it is a warning about being too certain in your beliefs and thinking that the mysteries of the universe can be adequately described in one book or set of texts or perhaps even by words at all. The Chinese incorporated these views along side those of Confucius and Buddha, which is one of the good things about Polytheism – it generally promotes religious tolerance with its view that your god must just be a local manifestation of one of my gods phenomenon. I will end with the quote “There are many ways to the top of the mountain, but once there the view is the same.”

My favourite philosopher Epicurus

epicurus
Originally uploaded by tim natoli

The philosopher Epicurus (4th century BC Athens) believed that the purpose of philosophy was to achieve the happy life which he called ataraxia or indifference. He is quoted as saying “Be happy with little for being interested in and needing much brings unhappiness.” He established a school in his garden where the aim of students, both male and female, was to live a simple life in order to attain happiness. He conceived of happiness as the elimination of pain, both mental and physical.

Although unfairly credited with promoting unrestrained hedonism, in fact he believed that many of the bodily pleasures bought with them pain or had painful outcomes. He believed that it was better to live a virtuous life as the vices usually resulted in pain which should be avoided. It is similar to the idea promoted by Aristotle that everything should be done in moderation. Denial was as dangerous as excess.

He believed in a random world of atoms and that the world has come to exist by chance and not by divine decree. Gods were regulated to a far off sphere without any interest in mankind. He believed that religion promoted the idea that the dead were unhappy but he believed that the soul perishes with the body and that therefore death is not to be feared.

His views are similar to those of Buddha and Lao-Tzu who pre-dated him and Jesus who came after him, in that he emphasised minimising harm and maximising the happiness of oneself and others which is known as the Ethic of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule. I find his simple philosophy very refreshing, liberating and still applicable today.