Jung wrote in CW 11: "Saul owed his conversion neither to true love, nor to true faith, nor to any other truth. It was solely his hatred of the Christians that set him on the road to Damascus... He was brought to this experience by following out, with conviction, his own worst mistake."
@@centerofthecross I'm not sure. He calls himself a "Protestant" and compares his technique to "sensing the unseen presence of the divine will" already in the 1938 "Psychotherapist or the Clergy." Perhaps it is less a question of conversion as expressing his shadow, since "the patient [he himself?] does not feel himself accepted unless the very worst in him is accepted too" (Jung 1938).
@@j.joseph8330 thanks for clarifying. Also Murray Stein in his analysis of Answer to Job emphasized the “counter transference” reactions of Jung in this work.
The Book of Job is an edifying metaphorical story. It is not an objective account of God's psychology, and thus it cannot be used to "put God on the coach". Jungian author Michael Gellert ("The Divine Mind", 2018) takes the psychologization of God even further, diagnosing God with PTSD, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc. It is just silly.
Jung's program is to re-ground the Christian symbols in the unconscious. It's not -- on my reading -- to offer a new religious essence. When he refers to Yahweh, I take him to be referring to the concepts or symbols of God in an historic period. Not the essence of God. I read Answer as an ironic critique, e.g., "If you believe X, then you also have to believe Y. Y is nonsense, therefore you cannot believe X" where X is some overly rational (what he calls sometimes, "ecclesiastical") statement about God. That's why I think Jakob's idea of the Jungian "Reformation" of Christianity is spot on. He's trying to change the form, not the essence.
@@j.joseph8330, Christianity centers on faith, Jung on subjective experience. That's the difference. These two standpoints are incompatible. What we subjectively experience isn't necessarily true, or else mental patients are really soothsayers. Jung's unconscious corresponds to a spirit-world that has a multitude of gods. It is fantasy, which means that it lacks truth value. Yet, Jung says that "[t]he psyche creates reality every day [and the] only expression I can use for this activity is *fantasy*" (CW 6, para.78). Jung is a fantasizer, and he thinks that Christian faith inhibits fantasy. Fantasy is good, but why must it dethrone faith and science?
@matswinther8991 I disagree that he ever tried to argue that it was or should. I think he was saying that it's an Integral part of both. After all you yourself just claimed that the book of job was metaphorical and not literal. If you ask me it sounds like you just describe Job as a useful fantasy.
@@jacobshoup No, I think Job is a thought up story. This is how they did theology in those days. That's why we must take biblical exegetes seriously, and not ignore them, as Jungians do.
God spoke to Job out of the whirlwind indicating hostility from God even towards righteous Job. Job was pre-Tabernacle. The Tabernacle being the mechanism by which man could be at peace before God. The Tabernacle speaks of Christ. God spoke from the Tabernacle even as He thundered from Sinai. God spoke softly to Elijah, indicating peace between the Almighty and His prophet. If Jung was stuck at Job he missed the point completely. We are not mere men 'under the sun' as Solomon writes in Ecclesiastes. We are blood-purchased through Jesus Christ.
Jung wrote in CW 11: "Saul owed his conversion neither to true love, nor to true faith, nor to any other truth. It was solely his hatred of the Christians that set him on the road to Damascus... He was brought to this experience by following out, with conviction, his own worst mistake."
Are you implying by quoting this that Answer to Job was and/or could have been Jung’s ‘Damascus experience’ of conversion?
@@centerofthecross I'm not sure. He calls himself a "Protestant" and compares his technique to "sensing the unseen presence of the divine will" already in the 1938 "Psychotherapist or the Clergy." Perhaps it is less a question of conversion as expressing his shadow, since "the patient [he himself?] does not feel himself accepted unless the very worst in him is accepted too" (Jung 1938).
@@j.joseph8330 thanks for clarifying. Also Murray Stein in his analysis of Answer to Job emphasized the “counter transference” reactions of Jung in this work.
Jung spent most of his time wandering through the darc sparcs that would twinkle in the mists of his childhood
🦁⌚🌪️
The Book of Job is an edifying metaphorical story. It is not an objective account of God's psychology, and thus it cannot be used to "put God on the coach". Jungian author Michael Gellert ("The Divine Mind", 2018) takes the psychologization of God even further, diagnosing God with PTSD, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc. It is just silly.
Jung's program is to re-ground the Christian symbols in the unconscious. It's not -- on my reading -- to offer a new religious essence. When he refers to Yahweh, I take him to be referring to the concepts or symbols of God in an historic period. Not the essence of God. I read Answer as an ironic critique, e.g., "If you believe X, then you also have to believe Y. Y is nonsense, therefore you cannot believe X" where X is some overly rational (what he calls sometimes, "ecclesiastical") statement about God. That's why I think Jakob's idea of the Jungian "Reformation" of Christianity is spot on. He's trying to change the form, not the essence.
@@j.joseph8330, Christianity centers on faith, Jung on subjective experience. That's the difference. These two standpoints are incompatible. What we subjectively experience isn't necessarily true, or else mental patients are really soothsayers. Jung's unconscious corresponds to a spirit-world that has a multitude of gods. It is fantasy, which means that it lacks truth value. Yet, Jung says that "[t]he psyche creates reality every day [and the] only expression I can use for this activity is *fantasy*" (CW 6, para.78). Jung is a fantasizer, and he thinks that Christian faith inhibits fantasy.
Fantasy is good, but why must it dethrone faith and science?
@matswinther8991 I disagree that he ever tried to argue that it was or should. I think he was saying that it's an Integral part of both. After all you yourself just claimed that the book of job was metaphorical and not literal. If you ask me it sounds like you just describe Job as a useful fantasy.
@@jacobshoup No, I think Job is a thought up story. This is how they did theology in those days. That's why we must take biblical exegetes seriously, and not ignore them, as Jungians do.
You’ve got it so terribly wrong. Pages 57, 69 and 70 is the answer to Job. Jung knew what he was doing.
God spoke to Job out of the whirlwind indicating hostility from God even towards righteous Job. Job was pre-Tabernacle. The Tabernacle being the mechanism by which man could be at peace before God. The Tabernacle speaks of Christ. God spoke from the Tabernacle even as He thundered from Sinai. God spoke softly to Elijah, indicating peace between the Almighty and His prophet. If Jung was stuck at Job he missed the point completely. We are not mere men 'under the sun' as Solomon writes in Ecclesiastes. We are blood-purchased through Jesus Christ.
You obviously did not read or understand the book, because the entire thing is about how Job was the precursor for God becoming man through Christ.