I am also attracted to Jung due to Peterson. Man with blue shirt says Jung saw God as an archetype, I don't know if that's the case. From what I've gathered, so far, through the first five Biblical Series sessions, (and other videos), is that Jung acknowledged God as the hand that holds the structure of reality in which the archetypes live. Jesus, Satan, Luke Skywalker, those are archetypes, God is the stage.

@@developmentofavoid2643 I understand this idea of archetypes but when one believes in demons, Satan, Jesus as God incarnated in human form and other beliefs required for Christians, he thinks about reality is a less relativistic way, thus rendering archetypes not very useful. It was the moral and supernatural arguments in Christian apologetics that led me on (after the more abstract psychological ideas described by Peterson that was a necessary season for me) to Jesus' radical truth claims stated in the 4 gospels. Peterson reads the bible from a Jungian lense, which i appreciate and find fascinating but I think he prefers pontificating on these profound ideas in his head rather than making a leap of faith with his heart. Meaning alone is not enough for me, I need truth to justify my meaning - no matter how unpleasant it may be. For him I don't think this leap would be very big!

If you want to understand Jung's position on Christianity, read Answer to Job. Personally I find Peterson's approach to religion overly psychological and reductionistic, whereas Jung is much less "final" and more suggestive, although Jung still fell prey to "psychologism" quite often in his work

@@RNCM_Philosophy thank you for the recommendation. Yes Peterson is still very much in his mind like you say. I'm yet to watch his biblical series. Jung was very much into eastern esoteric philosophy. In his auto-bio he said he almost became a theologian before a doctor. I am suspicious because The Word is sufficient and should be primary for a believer, although it is not the end of knowledge by any means. I think believers should not feel the need to explore spiritual matter too far from home because they are content in Christ. I'd love to learn his opinion on Christianity since it is very exclusive and sees new-age mysticism as doctrines of demons.

@@eph6v16 In Jung's own words, "I am not, however, addressing myself to the happy possessors of faith, but to those many people for whom the light has gone out, the mystery has faded, and God is dead." A lot of Jung's dealings with Christianity were to aid him in his inner struggle with his father, who was a Swiss reformed catholic pastor, who had unfortunately lost his faith. Jung also kept a picture of the Shroud of Turin on his desk under a cloth, which implies that Christianity was of central importance to his worldview :)

Lol hinduistic 😂😂

Jung uses archetypes to help us understand god better... Imho. There are not words to explain it. Those were the words he used to best explain how he understood it. No harm in that that I see.

amen

People mistake the meaning of image from a Jungian perspective to mean something akin to movies, tv, picture books, phones and computers, but it is closer in its resemblance to experiences such as dreaming, out of body experiences, visions, hunches, voices from outside of physical reality and pictures that are memorized and patterned, such as highly defined fantasies. If we look at religious figures, then that is a common character trait that they share - they experience things that are born in the womb of the soul, which we also understand, and she mediates our offer of ourselves to god. Jung doesn't mask religion with a dress of symbols; he points towards its source. In the well of the unconscious we find the eternal pattern of events, and in events an eternity of patterns: “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is - Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” ― William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Be careful when over-generalising Jung, his ideas are very nuanced: "We cannot tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities. Both are border-line concepts for transcendental contents. But empirically it can be established, with a sufficient degree of probability, that there is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness. Strictly speaking, the God-image does not coincide with the unconscious as such, but with this special content of it, namely the archetype of the Self.” (Answer to Job) To say "God is the Self" is to misrepresent Jung - rather - the God-image "coincides with" the Self archetype. I hope this offers some clarity on your position 😊

Thank you for clarifying me ☺️, im still a beginner reader of jung, and I agree it's very nuanced, I think that the knowledge presented in his work is more comprehensible by transcendental experiences, god is unknowledgeble, it's a certain transcendante state of consciousness that make you know that god exist.

@@badrbenali7279 No problem :) If you want to read more Jung, I'd strongly recommend Answer to Job. It's short, but it packs a punch! Here's a reading of the book on youtube: kzfaq.info/sun/PLQZQUs-Hx3L1TglKR_bXkMH_2OgQp-XFT

Neither. God is a real entity, personal and omnipotent. He is not a CONCEPT, IDEA, or anything metaphoric. God is real, personal, and has a Will.

Christ is the symbol of the self. God is in the collective unconscious, or is the collective unconscious, or something... I don't get it exactly, but in Aion he explains Christ as the symbol of the self.