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.