3 ms·

Was it Josephus who called Christians "literal minded fools" for believing in the literal truth of the same foundational myth of so many other religions at that

Was it Josephus who called Christians "literal minded fools" for believing in the literal truth of the same foundational myth of so many other religions at that time? To take a myth literally does it disservice; there is value in the basic myth of a dead, dying, and reborn god. If you don't think so, then you are incapable of understanding and appreciating "American Gods" properly as well as any other aspect of religion / spirituality - and I feel sorry for you. Anyhow, America in 1965-1970s was just as naive, from this later vantage point in time. Carlos was a trickster and to write up a fable that repackaged all the info he acquired in his extensive research as a real world anthropology study makes perfect sense. His early books has literary value, and for those who can see below the surface of it, some more value. You just have to be open to it, and that is how a trickster operates. A friend of mine who has Native American ancestry was livid when I gave her the first book to read - there were things in there "not for the white man to know". I understand what she meant these days. White people are idiots. I have heard of de Mille, have his book somewhere, but had no idea he was a Scientologist. That explains _everything_. Big upvote for sunsbelly. A few people I know who lived the "60s" are rather down on Castaneda. They understand what he was trying to do, but they had friends who were too literal minded and so got lost in the bullshit. It was a chaotic era. But there is always going to be a large number of people who get lost in the bullshit, the current bullshit being around ayahuasca these days.

coldtea 9y ago
>Was it Josephus who called Christians "literal minded fools" for believing in the literal truth of the same foundational myth of so many other religions at that time? To take a myth literally does it disservice Or does it? Because taking it literally can also give you certain powers and certain outcomes that you cannot get from merely treating it as myth (strength of conviction, for one). That said, even old Christians were quite complex creatures, and they have been able historically to both take christianity it literally and not take it literally, in intricate psychological ways. It was more of a philosophy for orthodox christians and more of a morality mythology for catholics, when protestants brought it back to naive literal interpretation.
scandox 9y ago
I don't think it was Josephus TBH. He makes very, very few references to Christianity and those he makes are subject to some doubts as to their complete authenticity.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>A friend of mine who has Native American ancestry was livid when I gave her the first book to read - there were things in there "not for the white man to know". Could you give an example or two of such things?
- dfraser992 9y ago
  She did not go into detail, was a bit upset, and I was driving at the time... I would guess there were allusions to rituals and the like; it has been two decades since I read the first book so I'd have to again before making an attempt to answer your question. The important thing is to understand the allegorical nature of the story and what psychological insights about life one might get from it, as another commentator pointed out. "White people" (the stereotype) don't have a clue about such things, hence my wisecrack.

coldtea 9y ago

>Was it Josephus who called Christians "literal minded fools" for believing in the literal truth of the same foundational myth of so many other religions at that time? To take a myth literally does it disservice Or does it? Because taking it literally can also give you certain powers and certain outcomes that you cannot get from merely treating it as myth (strength of conviction, for one). That said, even old Christians were quite complex creatures, and they have been able historically to both take christianity it literally and not take it literally, in intricate psychological ways. It was more of a philosophy for orthodox christians and more of a morality mythology for catholics, when protestants brought it back to naive literal interpretation.

scandox 9y ago

I don't think it was Josephus TBH. He makes very, very few references to Christianity and those he makes are subject to some doubts as to their complete authenticity.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

>A friend of mine who has Native American ancestry was livid when I gave her the first book to read - there were things in there "not for the white man to know". Could you give an example or two of such things?

dfraser992 9y ago
She did not go into detail, was a bit upset, and I was driving at the time... I would guess there were allusions to rituals and the like; it has been two decades since I read the first book so I'd have to again before making an attempt to answer your question. The important thing is to understand the allegorical nature of the story and what psychological insights about life one might get from it, as another commentator pointed out. "White people" (the stereotype) don't have a clue about such things, hence my wisecrack.