Poor Sells engaging in his nostalgia for the return to the comforting Parental Deity.

Never mind that the Christianity was never ever about Real God or the Divine Conscious Light. The "god" of Christianity was, like all "gods", just a projection of the tribal ego. Mommy and Daddy projected on to the cosmos.

Plus this "god" was (and is) always posited to be entirely other, separate, or objective to Man---the objectified "deity".

The moment you objectify anything you immediately seek to control, and eventualy destroy the objectified other. You are always at war with the "other".

Always at war with the Divine Conscious Light.

Put in another way this objectification of the Divine Conscious Light was a collective means for reducing the Divine to the meat-body human scale, and thus of controlling the Divine.

The Divine could then be called upon to justify all of the inevitable horrors done by power seeking collectives. The PARENTAL DEITY with a big stick.

Beginning with the Renaissance and on through the "enlightenment" this childish parental deity was quite rightly thrown away and all that left was meat-body secular man. MAN became the entire focus of Western culture instead of God, or rather the fanciful self-serving ideas ABOUT the Divine Conscious Light.

What was left of "religion" was a sentimental exercise in nostalgia for a lost source of comfort. Mommy and Daddy. Daddy with a big stick to punish us when naughty. And mommies breast to comfort us in our times of trouble.

Among other things this reference dscribes the origins & consequences of the European turning away from the then (ruling) entirely fanciful god-idea to focus on meat body man only. And MORE IMPORTANTLY to the rigid objectification of EVERYTHING.

1. http://www.adidabiennale.org/curation/index.htm

This objectification, and hence control of everything, INEVITABLY lead to the situation described in this essay.

2. http://www.ispeace723.org/realityhumanity2.html

*YAWN*....ho..hum... hmmm.. ok.. time for some 'corrective action' Ho..

You said:

<<The "god" of Christianity was, like all "gods", just a projection of the tribal ego.>>

Nothing could be further from the truth!
Have you ever read the prophets? Isiaah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos, Hosea?

IF...it was about 'Tribal Ego' you would find nothing but SELF JUSTIFICATION for all that they did or wanted to do.

What you miss, is that the prophets called them back to the Lord,FROM the gods of tribal and human ego, because the LORD had called Israel to a TASK....and here it is:

"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth." (Isaiah 49:6)

-SALVATION...
-to the ENDS OF THE EARTH...

The Israelites PREFERRED the pagan fertility gods..NOT the God who called them to holiness and purity and responsibility.

It's NOT...about 'tribal ego' but salvation of mankind including you.

If you want 'tribal ego'..goto the pagan gods of the Assyrians,Phillistines and Babylonians etc.

"Now the lords of the Philistines gathered together to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god, and to rejoice. And they said: "Our god has delivered into our hands Samson our enemy!"

While you WILL find this type of theme expressed in the Israelite Psalms, it is in the CONTEXT of their calling as a nation of priests to the world.

You miss an important point. God was the God of NOAH.. ABRAHAM.. ISAAC etc.. before there even was such a thing as the 'tribes' of Israel.

What an extremely odd article. Why, one is left to wonder, has Sellick chosen Austen from amongst the plethora of giants in English literature, to single out for castigation? It seems such an arbitrary choice.

Sellick does perhaps give partial explanation when he touches on "The Jane Austen Industry"? But why not the Conan Doyle Industry, the Agatha Christie Industry or even, let it be whispered, the Shakespeare Industry? All are alive and well and pulling in thousands of secular pounds.

It is also strange that one whose stated field is Physiology should thus depart into the worlds of literature,history, and 18th century sociology where he is, palpably, not at home and treads rather shakily.

His passing reference to The Spectator thus becomes even more surprising as surely the rise of this broadsheet, through its dissemination of the field of broad satire, paints a much broader canvas and illustrates much more accurately the points Sellick is trying to prove than does the far gentler and ironic brush of Austen?

One also gains the impression from this article that Austen's writing actually influences society rather than providing the accurate mimesis for which she is so justly famed. To extrapolate the thesis that it is Austen's "godlessness" which sustains her popularity through to contemporary times is completely to belittle her writing skills and strikes one as a somewhat curmudgeonly conclusion.

One reaches the end of the article still wondering why one whose grasp of the subjects he expounds upon is so tenuous has made such an arbitrary choice as Austen? Any one from among a vast pool of contemporary "godless" authors could have been used to illustrate his point. He would thus, it is to be hoped, have been able to sustain his venture into cross-discipline waters much more ably.

Boaz_D wrote:

"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth." (Isaiah 49:6)

The idea that the tribal myths of one people should be extended to the entire earth is dangerous. Judaism is no longer a missionary religion as Jews have realised the futility of missionising. The above often means that a person is considered good or bad because of their beliefs. Christianity and Islam, rather than accept the fact that other people accept different unprovable propositions from them, attempt to push their beliefs on others.

The odd thing in the above quote from Isaiah is that gentile Christians take the Jewish Bible as authorisation to spread a non-Jewish religion.

A version of the old jazz standard:

Six feet two, eyes of blue
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew
Has anybody seen my lord?

Big hooked nose, There he goes
Preaching so that everyone knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared by a Roman
In the abdomen
Blood gushing out

Rose from the dead
So it is said
People believe without a doubt

Jesus died, still a Jew
He's a Jew so why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my lord?

The song was written for Christians since Christ means messiah, and
Jews have not experienced him. He remains a mythical concepts like the
WMDs Bush got us into Iraq for.

The messiah is a figure in Jewish theology. The messiah does not take
anybody's sins upon himself since Jews maintain no one can do it. They have given up the idea of a scapegoat. The messiah is a herald who ushers in a Messianic Age where 'nations study war no more' and 'swords are beaten into plowshares' according to the prophesy in Isaiah. Wars are still going on. I don't believe in messiahs, but those who do should still be waiting.

just got here so I could check off notifications of comments

Thanks again Peter for an interesting article.

It just so happens that I am currently reading Stephen Toulamin's "Cosmopolis", essential background (it seems to me) for understanding the period you write about.

He explains the change that took place in 17th century Europe, bringing in a mindset that lasted even into the 20th century.

From the fact that Jane Austen says nothing about God Peter Sellick manages to produce two whole pages of waffle. Imagine how much he could have written if she actually had said something!

Sells,

"Thus Austen’s characters live at ease with God in that God has no place in their lives." -- Peter Sellick

"Had I died, it would have been self-destruction. I did not know my danger till the danger was removed; but with such feelings as these reflections gave me, I wonder at my recovery--wonder that the very eagerness of my desire to live, to have time for atonement to my God, and to you all, did not kill me at once. Had I died, in what peculiar misery should I have left you, my nurse, my friend, my sister! - Pride and Predjudice" - JA

"I have been so fortunate as to be distinguished by the patronage of the Right Honourable Lady Catherine de Bourgh, widow of Sir Lewis de Bourgh, whose bounty and beneficence has preferred me to the valuable rectory of this parish, where it shall be my earnest endeavour to demean myself with grateful respect towards her Ladyship, and be ever ready to perform those rites and ceremonies which are instituted by the Church of England." Pride and Predjudice" - JA

"I am bound to let you into the secret, for you are a party concerned. I dare say you have seen enough of Edward to know that he would prefer the church to every other profession." - Sense and Sensibility - JA

"A clergyman cannot be high in state or fashion. He must not head mobs, or set the ton in dress. But I cannot call that situation nothing which has the charge of all that is of the first importance to mankind individually or collectively considered, temporally and eternally, which has the guardianship of religion and morals, and consequently of the manners which result from their influence." - Mansfield Park- JA

Jane Austen's world is a world of total disempowerment of women, people believed in Queen [Victoria] and Empire. We never want to go there again. That said, the benign nature of the country minister was surely influencial in quashing over-zealous dogma and religiosity.

Peter, I can’t tell why you’re writing about it, but I agree that God doesn’t feature in Austen’s novels.

Corrigendum: Edmund, the second son who takes holy orders, is in MANSFIELD PARK.

In PERSUASION, I can recall a triumphant report to Anne that, in some debate or other in Bath, “the atheists were routed” – but, it seemed like a kind of sport.

Pax,

"The debate between evolution and scripture in the English-speaking world was won by the followers of Darwin and Huxley, but in the parallel debate between atheism and faith, the atheists were routed."

- Theodore Caplow on the nineteenth century church.

- Not in Jane Austen

In this period women were more liberated than Austen's time. The effects greater liberty, higher literacy, less [rostitution and great drug [opium] abuse.

Romany
My choice of Jane came about because I had just finished “Persuasion” and I have been reading for a PhD about the 18th century English divines where I came across the observation of there laicisation. I did not mean to slander Austin, I have enjoyed her novels enormously it is just that her presentation of virtue invites criticism from a theological point of view. Without this view I admit the article makes little sense but I write mostly for the theologically literate who are coming to be sparse on the ground.

john kosci
Thanks for the ref to Stephen Toulamin's "Cosmopolis", I will hunt it down.

Peter Sellick

I'm surprised that you didn't make the obvious connection, Sells.

>>...her presentation of virtue invites criticism from a theological point of view. Without this view I admit the article makes little sense but I write mostly for the theologically literate who are coming to be sparse on the ground.<<

While most folk seem to enjoy Austen (I confess that I myself can't stay awake through more than a couple of pages) for her ability to create a sense of familiarity and "presence" in her world, you look for signs of advanced theology.

With such a fundamentally barren outlook, it is little wonder that there are ever fewer "theologically literate" as the years pass, while the legions who admire Austen's ability to connect with humanity continue to increase.

You should try it occasionally, Sells. Connecting with humanity, that is.

You might find it strangely exciting, if a little challenging at first.

Peter Sellick,

Thank you for taking the time out to post.If Austen was just an arbitrary choice resulting from the fact that you have just finished one of her books then yes, that does clarify things somewhat.

Are you in fact going to include the emergence of fiction as a contributory cause to the laicism of 18th century clergy? If so, I would still be puzzled if you intended to make reference to Austin in particular. Once education was secularised it was inevitable that the process of which you write should begin even had Henry never set eyes on Ann Boeyn.

The rise of fiction genres by Austen's time, I would have thought important only, as I said before, for its mimetic qualities: by then writers were merely reflecting society. The time for shaping it would, I consider,have begun with Cavendish and Behn, and the influence of Addison and Steele in actually influencing it far more convincing than that of Austen?

Good luck with your thesis and happy times with your research.

Romany
I never meant that Austin was a cause and you are right in that she was mimetic. Addison and Steal were an earlier and more powerful cause. As I perhaps did not indicate to the full, John Locke and his Reasonable Christianity, Newton’s physico- theology, Erasmian and anti Erastian sentiments, Antidogmatism and a whole lot more influenced the English church in the early 18th C. The result was what one author called laicisation of the clergy that is evident in Austin’s novels. Of course any other novelist of the time, or of our time would have done as an example, but Austin, because she is so popular, mainly because she is so good, seemed an apt example.

However, my real point was that Austin’s understanding of virtue gels with our late modernist ethos. It is essentially Pelagianism in nice surroundings and that appeals to us.

Thank you for the interesting article, Peter. I am not sure why so many have considered the article a criticism of Austen. The energetic debate that the article has generated is, however, a good indication that Austen's novels and the existence of god are still , surprisingly, hot topics for debate.

Hi Peter. I see the regulars are bagging you out again. I'd just like to say that your writings have given me a new lease of faith.

You've convinced me not to waste time with natural theology apologetics, and to understand God not as the principal of determinism, but the spiritual ruler of a spiritual Heaven to whom we all should seek for salvation from ourselves.

Sells,

You didn’t to reply to me. Nonetheless, being Humanist, I will “turn the other cheek” and try to help you.

UWA is unlikely allow a dissertation, which is both qualitative and constructionist: Your views on one theme about one author. Herein, I would recommend to compare and strong contrast: Austen visa~a~vis Melville or Dickens.

Melville:

“The Wale” [Moby Dick, MD]:

‘Melville did not take Bible as absolutely infallible, & that anything opposed to it in Science must be wrong .He believes that there are things out of God and independent of Him,—things that would have existed were there no God:—such as that two & two make four; for it is not that God so decrees mathematically, but that in the very nature of things, the fact is thus." – source: Vincent (1952)

“Delight is to him, whom all the waves of the billows of the seas of the boisterous mob can never shake from this sure Keel of the Ages.And eternal delight and deliciousness will be his, who coming to lay him down, can say with his final breath—O Father!—chiefly known to me by Thy rod—mortal or immortal, here I die.I have striven to be Thine, more than to be this world's, or mine own.Yet this is nothing; I leave eternity to Thee; for what is man that he should live out the lifetime of his God?" – MD, Melville

- “God-omnipresent, coral insects, that out of the firmament of waters heaved the colossal orbs.He saw God's foot upon the treadle of the loom, and spoke it; and therefore his shipmates called him mad.So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God. “ – MD, Meville

In Moby Dick [and Captain’s Couragous - Kipling] , Men face a life and death struggle with the sea; not knitting needles and choosing suitors. Austen’s Women are removed from imminent death. Fear is close to religion.

-Continued-

-2-

Dickens:

“ Bring it back, afore the day comes when even his Bible changes in his altered mind, and the words seem to him to read, as they have sometimes read in my own eyes-in Jail: 'Whither thou goest, I can Not go; where thou lodgest, I do Not lodge; thy people are Not my people; Nor thy God my God!'' – CD – The Cricket on the Heath

Above is an allusion to: Nor thy God my God!: Ruth 1: 16. 'And Ruth said for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.'

It was a very Moloch * of a baby, on whose insatiate altar the whole existence of this particular young brother was offered up a daily sacrifice. Its personality may be said to have consisted in its never being quiet, in any one place, for five consecutive minutes, and never going to sleep when required. ' CD – The Haunted Man and the Ghosts Bargain

Above is an allusion to: Moloch: the god of the Ammonites, for whom children were sacraficed. Sells, see 2 Kings 23:10.

Austen writes for a mainly female audience, methinks. Melville, Dickens & Kipling perhaps write a male audience Mediating variable? . Being all-secure in a Manor House does take one as close an alleged God, as would a nineteenth century ship at sea.

- Golgotha in literature? Sydney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities? -Dickens

Alternatively:

What about Austen and Goethe’s Dr Faustus and/or Prometheus? Strong allusions here to courting of a different sort: A different [evil] suitor: Mephistopheles. Likewise, The Devil and the Good Lord – Sartre & Austen ? Sartre’s heroes seem to be peasants, unlike Austen’s English idle rich. Milton’s, Paradise lost?

- Clergy are ordinary any people. What else can they be?

Hope the above helps and I have not wasted my time given you don’t like me, because of my beliefs and advices.

- Good luck with your thesis

Sells,

Golgotha in literature:

Given you haven't replied I assume you might not have understood the content:

Sydney Cartons last thoughts and footsteps:

"I see the lives for which I lay down my life, peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy, in that England which I shall see no more. I see Her with a child upon her bosom, who bears my name. I see her father, aged and bent, but otherwise restored, and faithful to all men in his healing office, and at peace. I see the good old man, so long their friend, in ten years' time enriching them with all he has, and passing tranquilly to his reward."

"I see that I hold a sanctuary in their hearts, and in the hearts of their descendants, generations hence. I see her, an old woman, weeping for me on the anniversary of this day. I see her and her husband, their course done, lying side by side in their last earthly bed, and I know that each was not more honoured and held sacred in the other's soul, than I was in the souls of both."

"I see that child who lay upon her bosom and who bore my name, a man winning his way up in that path of life which once was mine. I see him winning it so well, that my name is made illustrious there by the light of his. I see the blots I threw upon it, faded away. I see him, foremost of just judges and honoured men, bringing a boy of my name, with a forehead that I know and golden hair, to this place -- then fair to look upon, with not a trace of this day's disfigurement -- and I hear him tell the child my story, with a tender and a faltering voice.

"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." - Charles Dickens

- Peter, Sydney Carton is sacraficing his life for others. Moving to a Humanist.

Charles,

"I see that child who lay upon her bosom..." [sic whom lays upon...?] A single verb for a single noun and whom for the preposition, "upon"?

With my poor typing should I say a thing? Is there an English expert out there?

Sells,

I put in a fair amount of effort to help you, but you seem to be rude too reply.

Sells,

Of John Locke:

"Virtutes si quas habuit, minores sane quam sibi laudi duceret tibi in exemplum proponeret; vita una sepeliantur." [1704?, author unknown]

Of Austen's Clergy:

"The place of the church in Austen’s novels is the place allotted to it by the aforementioned laicisation in that the clergy represented seem no different from ordinary men."

Of course they wre ordinary men in ordinary higher-class settings. We, even you, are ordinary: Sorry to tell you. As are other men/women:

[Of] Man over men
He [God] made not the lord, such title to himself
Reserving, fumsn left from human free - Milton [Paradise Lost, vi, p.64]

But was it paradise lost or do we now have free will gained and the potenial for equality?

Austen's small power distance between her young suitors, and in reality pprobably dotty old churchmen, and the laity; helped the epilogue the Enlightment succeed, Sells; and provided the foundation for real progress.

Surely, secular humanism, "without" its feigned authorities and extra-ordinary know-all preachers give greater say to the laity, most of whom wish to simply live good lives, have friends and bring-up families; and, not go on religious/political wars to kill and torture their fellow creatures; as have Christians have done for millennia.

The more "ordinary" the minister the better. Let him care for his pepole in need and thumb his bishop. The ordinary British minister has been a "blessing [excuse my language].

Of Sells,

Particularly on the Jane Austen comments, I feel I need the courtesy of your reply: Or is that beneath you? Me be so ordinary and a Associate Deacon so high?

My comments are researched. I don't, hit, rubbish and run.

You could learn a lot aboout OLO debate from George and Philo.

I really wonder if Sells just posts sermons here, and lacks the spirit of OLO debate.

He rearely comments on his own posts, yet seems to have time research his stuff.

If he is an academic and double posting the same work, UWA would me most unimpressed. Of course, I do not make that accusation, but I do see some smoke.

I have withheld work from a conference paper when invited, as not compromise a journal article to be written a year down the track, after data are in. Likeweise I asked permision to use a table I produced for OTEN/SBS TV to use in a journal [to fourteen countries]. It would have made it passed, if I cheated, as I was on the editorial board.

Sells,

If you are double-using you need a written release from the Church the intellectual property owner [not the local minister] and must acknowledge the earlier publication in OLO.

If all contributions here are original, then, what I say is babble and you produce good work. Yet, you don't debate opponents, which is the whole idea of OLO.

I put two hours into the Austen, I think it would be reasonable to reply

What is up with you Sells do you totally lack courtesy?

Sells,

Unless, you are on holiday, caught at work or facing a crisis, it would seem you just like your name in print and totally unwilling to act in accordance with the real spirit of OLO. Dabating one's opinions. You preach and don't discuss.

Sells.

Despite despite your bad manners being a Humanitian I will not reciprocate. Stay with your thesis plan perhaps if you are doing a PhD [your second?) a Bible college but I would still recommend a compare and contrast Dickens maybe. A one theme qualitative, constructionist paper is a bit wimpy, of you do manage to have is accepted. UWA, it doubt. Edith Cowen still doubt but you will have to find a very synpathetic supervisor.

Don't forget it will need to externall examined. IF the supervisor is honest not within a clique of religionists but someone independent.

As said beofe good luck and I hope you success.