Truth Or Relevance?

[Antlerman]

The truth is, I personally think that those who tenaciously pedal the most toxic elements of xianity, who manipulate, who control, who use their religion to do bad things, really are asshats. christians like Open Minded and Antlerman's mother, in my opinion, are perfectly nice, in their case I might say wonderful people who just happen to harbor some illogical and unsupported beliefs.

I do respect your thoughts here, as you are approaching them both rationally and respectfully. I’ll repeat a lot of what I’ve said for a long time here, within this context, to hopefully cast some light on those thoughts.

 

They really aren’t “unsupported” beliefs. I say that because behind the symbols, is a sentiment, and creed, a doctrine, a social agreement that has a support within the context of the group expressing them. The symbols, the myths are just support mechanisms for those beliefs. There is in all the cases a logic to them. There is because they would not exist if they had no logic value socially. They all choose a system of symbols to support that logic, that rationality supports that group symbolically. They actually are not irrational at all. “God” isn’t about some god out there, but some truth down here – to that group: the group's truth.

 

I’ve been lately considering a topic relating to this around mythology titled, “Truth or Relevance? The Christian myth in a modern world”. Arguments around the existence of God or not, are really not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether or not as a mythological symbol the Christian notions of the divine, have enough symbolic value to work for society? That’s is vastly more powerful and deep a question than any “proof-type" arguments from the apologist camps. They are so utterly beside the point.

 

Actually, though I use the term relevant as the question to the myth’s value, perhaps a better word should be adequacy. Is the Christian myth adequate for today’s world? That’s really far more potent a question than anything any apologist can offer to persuade anyone to adopt Christianity as a system.

 

So all that to say, regarding OM or my mother, they really aren’t harboring “unsupported beliefs”, as that criteria is actually irrelevant to how they use it. Is it relevant symbolically? Is it adequate? I guess I’d have to answer, if pressed, it is for them, at this time, for their place in the scheme of things. Is it adequate for the world, for greater society? Well… certainly, definitely not in its conservative Evangelical flavor! And in most traditional forms, it is stilted in the face of questions beyond the contexts in which it was created.

 

It was a bit funky writing that last sentence because it sounds like an attack, yet I claim it is a simple truth. I certainly would not be so rude to Antlerman's mother as to tell her that her beliefs are bullshit. In fact, the vast majority of people, xian, christian, or not, harbor some illogical and unsupported beliefs, and deists, agnostics, atheists, etc. (you take your pick) are not necessarily immune. That does not make somebody an asshat.

I take no offense. When it comes to the Evangelical Conservative variation of Christianity, there most certainly are unsupported beliefs – for the sole reason they try to make it rational! They try to make it a competitor with science! They make it laughable, scornful, a sad offering to the world of a dying cause. Myth. Myth is a language of symbols.

 

But as I’ve said, for probably the majority of people who adopt that system of myth it does not in their minds, or emotions, operate in such literalistic ways. My mother may not be able to articulate the rationalities of “faith” (a system of mythic symbols), but in her heart and mind they function as does something like music, art, and poetry. Representations of something inside her.

 

As OM herself has said, and I respect her for it, she adopts Christianity because it is the language of her culture. As a mythic system, a system of transcendent symbols, it’s the one she knows. That’s what it is for most people who identify as Christian.

 

Logic and rationality are irrelevant on this level. I can’t count how many times I’ve said that.

 

Further ironic, one could make an argument, perhaps much to the dismay of Antlerman's mother, that it is she that is exactly the sort that SHOULD be considered an "authentic" christian.

Ahh.. but in her mind that is irrelevant. It’s NOT about being right! It’s about the value of it to her. I don’t know how better to state that. This is why I said to slap a conservative mentality, Christian icon on someone like here is to say the least misplaced, if don’t downright completely inappropriate. She doesn’t think in terms of authentic or false. That’s a conservative evangelical mindset. And that is but one minor slice of the whole.

 

After all, despite everything else, most christians and xians (the nice ones, but even the mean ones) purport that christianity/xianity is a force for the Good. From what I've heard/know about them, it is exactly people like Antlerman's mother and Open Minded who put kindness/goodness into action in their lives. Even if they are not arrogant enough to label themselves as True Christians^TM, they would most certainly fit some of the popular perceptions of what a "true christian" is, and I think this is actually one of those levels on which the term "authentic" christian is apt.

May I ask whose popular perception of what a true Christian is? Certainly not the Evangelicals. Are you meaning to say ours? What we would like to see as what defines a genuine Christian attitude and life?

 

I almost hope you would say yes, as that would open a huge conversation about Western culture and our ingrained Christian perspectives of the world that is inextricably tied into our entire mindsets. It would raise the question of mythic identity on a cultural level, and the impetus behind our stances against the power bases within that system.

 

Damn, let’s have a real meaty conversation here! Let's crack open something of some real depth.

 

"Apologist," "Authentic," "Apostate"--not "good or "bad" words in and of themselves, but the connotations that take on in our little microcosm can be very interesting.

Yes words. The power of life. “In the beginning was the word”. We create God in our own image, whom we employ to create us in ours through him. Harking back to some really early thoughts here.

 

 

"Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings". Thanks mom for your truth in simple love.

[Vigile]

The problem is, symbols and mythology are not working for society. Instead they give society reason to stick it's head in the sand as all sorts of nonsense takes place including support for immoral wars and immoral law. On top of that, society gets goosebumps instead of questioning the reality around them. Mob rule ensues and decisions are made on emotion and not the facts. It might be argued that symbolism works on a micro level with some individuals but from a macro perspective it has done far more harm than good whether it be religious symbolism or political.

 

Moreover, it's self perpetuating. Rational thought will never be taught because those with goosebumps will always fight it.

 

And even those who get some obscure benefit from their mythology end up causing harm to others whether it be how they vote or how they raise their children. Whatever role religion had in getting us where we are today (I discount it heavily, but that's another debate) IMO it would be a big improvement to now move on. If you want more of the same, and the same is pretty ugly, then don't change a thing.

[Neon Genesis]

I’ve been lately considering a topic relating to this around mythology titled, “Truth or Relevance? The Christian myth in a modern world”. Arguments around the existence of God or not, are really not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether or not as a mythological symbol the Christian notions of the divine, have enough symbolic value to work for society? That’s is vastly more powerful and deep a question than any “proof-type" arguments from the apologist camps. They are so utterly beside the point.

 

Actually, though I use the term relevant as the question to the myth’s value, perhaps a better word should be adequacy. Is the Christian myth adequate for today’s world? That’s really far more potent a question than anything any apologist can offer to persuade anyone to adopt Christianity as a system.

But isn't the relevance of some parts of the Christian myth dependent on it being literally true or not? For example, take the whole conflict between Galileo and the Catholic church regarding that the Earth is the center of the universe. The Catholic church justified their belief based on the bible, mainly from that verse where Joshua stopped the sun in the sky and this created a conflict because science said something different than myth. Then when it was undeniably proven that the Earth rotates around the sun and not the other way around, the Catholic church was forced by reality to accept that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and so that belief was no longer relevant. I was recently watching a debate between Richard Dawkins and Alistair Mcgrath over the bible and I think Dawkins brought up a valid point that it's like saying the literal existence of the double helix doesn't matter, what matters is what symbolic meaning your belief in the double helix has for you. This isn't to say I don't see the point you're making. I more or less agree with you. I'm just playing New Atheist's advocate here. Aren't some beliefs relevant based on whether or not they're true? Why is it that some beliefs that are disproved have more relevance than other disproved beliefs? Why don't people still try to find value in Greek mythology other than from a historical point of view? Here's the debate if you want to see it:

[Antlerman]

The problem is, symbols and mythology are not working for society.

But they are used all the time, everyday, by everyone. I'm not limiting mythology to the supernatural, mystical components of it. But to the broader sense of myth. Abraham Lincoln being viewed as for the equality of blacks is itself mythological, even though Abe was a real person. It's how someone frames these figures in their imagination to inspire, to create an icon of ideals, etc that is what myth does. Myth is about using symbols and language to foster an image of some contemporary ideal socities wishes to support. The myth of the individual is another example. So on that level, even myths using gods and heroes are functioning the same way. These can be used to support both good and bad ideals, depending on ones point of view.

 

So I would say that myths do work for society, otherwise they wouldn't have ever been created in the first place. The real issue is that Christianity, as imagined historically, its component elements of worldviews framed in its symbols is what, if held dogmatically, is inadequete as a framework to deal with a pluralistic society. It would have to be re-imagined and its symbols loosened and reshaped to be inclusive.

 

The failure you speak of is its being held in an outmoded form, and trying to force fit society into it, rather than it to society. It being molded to society is in fact what created it. The argument then essentially isn't about the myth, but about the ideals of a society. Right now, what we see is society trying to reshape its myths to support its vision of itself today. That process of mythmaking will never leave us. You can't get rid of myth. The myth of the rational mind, is just another manifestation of this. No myth is reality in itself, but a projected ideal, a symbolic form that people use to communicate these ideas to themselves and others in society. In this sense, the gods become real by virtue of belief - whether its the god of the mythic Abraham, or the myth of equality of the mythic Lincoln.

 

 

Instead they give society reason to stick it's head in the sand as all sorts of nonsense takes place including support for immoral wars and immoral law.

It's true the myth is used to support these ideals. New myths are also being created to support new ideals. You can never get rid of myth, unless you change how humans think and function in societies, in which case reality as we know it ends and we break away from social groups and go back to foraging the forest floors having no thoughts of the meaning and value of things. Myth is so integral to our notions of reality they are invisible to us. But they are there.

 

On top of that, society gets goosebumps instead of questioning the reality around them.

Questioning reality in essence is question the current myth structure. Reality needs to be different for us, and that's why we're busy creating newer supporting myths. It's not always about goosebumps. It's about supporting ideals symbolically.

 

Mob rule ensues and decisions are made on emotion and not the facts.

Choices of social value are all based on emotions. Social formation is about both the physical needs, and the emotional needs of individuals being met in that group. Rules of conduct have to be established, and myth is the intellectual enterprise to create supporting stories for those rules. The equality of Jefferson's "All men are created equal" for instance, if taken literally in its original context did not have the scope in mind as we use the term today. The term is mythical, yet it represents a reality of life to us today as we see it.

 

Therefore I find arguments of facticity regarding symbols to be like swinging at the wind believing it to be a solid to be confronted as such. Those arguments have value, but only in challenging someone arguing they are in order to argue to maintain them as a valid myth. Soon the argument is shifting from the underlying arguments to a side argument, which itself is symbolic of the issue of social disagreement - like arguing over the tube of toothpaste when the issue is a general lack of communication. We get so embroiled in the words themselves, we fail to try to understand the underlying meanings.

 

 

It might be argued that symbolism works on a micro level with some individuals but from a macro perspective it has done far more harm than good whether it be religious symbolism or political.

Well any system on a macro level can bring about greater harm. You're describing a society. Just look at the myth of the American Ideal and the damage to societies around the globe that result. It's a misplaced argument, is all I'm saying, to focus on religion as the culprit. It's humans and society. It's an inherent problem.

 

Moreover, it's self perpetuating. Rational thought will never be taught because those with goosebumps will always fight it.

I agree all myths become self perpetuating. It's their nature to do that. But I disagree that rational thought won't be taught because it doesn't create goosepumps or the 'ooh ahhs" sort of thing. "Rational thought" as contemporary myth symbolizes it, in certain contexts, simply may not be considered important - or relevant.

 

If you were a farmer, or living in some poor rural area, the things important to you would be far different than someone needing to understand the history of Western Philosophy in the shaping of culture, or even matters of the origin of the species through evolution, or geophysics, or any other higher level knowledge than those who live outside that community may need. Understanding how to function in tight-knit social groups working out a living off the land through the learning the rituals and patterns of that society and how to get along in it, is a vastly more importance than being an intellectual. Those simple skill sets and supporting myths are themselves in fact "rational thought", even though they may not be heady by some standards. It is rational to them.

 

So its not a matter of it being not taught because it doesn't excite emotionally, but what is seen as relevant. Arguments about that, are about social identity and needs, and not so much about being intelligent.

 

 

And even those who get some obscure benefit from their mythology end up causing harm to others whether it be how they vote or how they raise their children. Whatever role religion had in getting us where we are today (I discount it heavily, but that's another debate) IMO it would be a big improvement to now move on. If you want more of the same, and the same is pretty ugly, then don't change a thing.

I certainly don't advocate more of the same. If I did, I would be a part of it arguing for that. It is time to move on, but I don't believe that that's going to manifest itself into reality by being unrealistic about the nature of myth and its role in human society. Otherwise, as I said, it's arguing over the tube of tooth paste in a relationship, rather than addressing the real underlying causes. Getting separate tooth paste tubes isn't a solution, nor is slapping someone's hands and deriding and ridiculing them. Both extremes are focused on the symbol. Both are seeing the myth of the tube as the problem. Flip sides of the same coin.

[Vigile]

So I would say that myths do work for society, otherwise they wouldn\'t have ever been created in the first place.

 

I understand, but for every symbol that has been used for good there are more used for bad. It\'s not a healthy way to run a society. If people were taught to question and not make every important decision and distinction on an emotional basis then society would be less vulnerable to manipulation. I\'m not saying it would be perfect or easy but I\'m certainly not going to embrace the myth just because it has done some good. It has done a great more deal of harm.

 

The flag, for instance. How many send their sons and daughters off to fight immoral wars because the flag gives them a lump in their throat? How many evil things have been done based on a call to duty and honor?

 

 

These can be used to support both good and bad ideals, depending on ones point of view.

 

Again, true but when people are left defenseless and without reason they are left vulnerable to those who control the message. Other societies in Europe are learning to question their values and the people are far less vulnerable to their leadership than they are in the US where the majority is still mystified by their symbols.

 

You can never get rid of myth, unless you change how humans think and function in societies, in which case reality as we know it ends and we break away from social groups and go back to foraging the forest floors having no thoughts of the meaning and value of things.

 

The power of the myth does change. As I pointed out, in France for example, people have shunned not only their religious mythology, but due to a better education and a culture that has developed around such, they do question their government and the church and are not breaking away from society.

 

Wouldn\'t you not agree that the less educated a person is the more he/she is vulnerable to emotional persuasion? We may not get rid of mythology in society and even ourselves, but in my mind it\'s a question of degree.

 

Questioning reality in essence is question the current myth structure.

 

I think it\'s juxtaposing the myth structure against fact. For instance, it\'s a myth that your grandmother\'s home remedy cures colds. A statistical study can prove the efficacy or lack thereof of home remedies. Those most prone to mythology over fact are likely to discount statistical analysis and rely on anecdotal evidence instead. Education cures this in most people.

 

Likewise, when a symbol, like the president, says \"you are either for us or against us, support our troops, god bless America, etc...\" those with the most education are least prone to accepting this on an emotional level and instead examine the deeper implications of these ideas. They use facts in doing so, they aren\'t replacing one myth with another myth.

 

Choices of social value are all based on emotions.

 

Many moral values are grounded in pragmatism and harsh reality. Mythology builds on this sometimes but without the mythology harsh reality would still be there. I don\'t murder because I can empathize, because I would go to jail, because society can\'t function, not just because as some would say \"it\'s wrong.\"

 

Social formation is about both the physical needs, and the emotional needs of individuals being met in that group.

 

I can agree with that.

[Antlerman]

(I've broken this topic away from another one to its own topic. I've moved the pertinent posts into this one.)

[Deva]

But as I’ve said, for probably the majority of people who adopt that system of myth it does not in their minds, or emotions, operate in such literalistic ways. My mother may not be able to articulate the rationalities of “faith” (a system of mythic symbols), but in her heart and mind they function as does something like music, art, and poetry. Representations of something inside her.

 

I live in the south, in Florida for 20 years and prior to that, Texas for 8 years. I would say that in my experience there is far more of the literal understanding than otherwise. My parents are like this, although my grandmother was not.

 

It may be different in other parts of the country. I understand now there is yet another bid in Texas to put creationism in schools.

 

I agree that religion is closely related to the arts and on an emotional level. Unfortunately, though, many people (I don't know if its the majority or not) still see it as on the same level as a scientific explanation of the natural world. You might say they are misreading the myth, but unfortunately it is part of the myth (the Bible is inerrant) for these many people.

[par4dcourse]

I've oft wondered how my own loving mother could belieive the, to me, ridiculous things that she did. I thank you all for this thought provoking thread and opinions.

[Vigile]

Cont...

 

Rules of conduct have to be established, and myth is the intellectual enterprise to create supporting stories for those rules.

 

And again, I mention the dangers involved here. Myth isn\'t the only way to achieve this purpose but since it is relied on so firmly society is left vulnerable to those who control the message and who have selfish agendas.

 

The equality of Jefferson\'s \"All men are created equal\" for instance, if taken literally in its original context did not have the scope in mind as we use the term today.

 

And those of us who have been trained or conditioned to question question the value of these types of platitudes. I accept it because it has value for society but I also recognize it as a platitude. People who learn to question will find the flaws in slogans and, if they are reasonable, will accept those that do have intrinsic value. As it stands now, the tail wags the dog and that\'s never healthy because as I said, the tail is more often than not, self interested.

 

It\'s humans and society. It\'s an inherent problem.

 

But usually it\'s not just humans and society. Usually it\'s a small group of elites who control the message who are self interested. The average guy on the street doesn\'t care to go and kick the Indians off their land. It is to the benefit of the railroads and other industrialists to paint the picture of a vile heathen that moves the farmer off his property to take gun in hand to go and kill the red man. But teach that farmer how to think clearly and he will likely see it in his own best interest to stay home and farm his land and feed his children telling the industrialist to get bent.

 

But I disagree that rational thought won\'t be taught because it doesn\'t create goosebumps or the \'ooh ahhs\" sort of thing.

 

That\'s not really what I was saying. I was saying that rational thought gets shunned because it offends the goose bump-invoking myth.

 

\"Rational thought\" as contemporary myth symbolizes it, in certain contexts, simply may not be considered important - or relevant.

 

This is frighteningly true in the US of late as the educated are being shunned as ivory tower, out of touch elites. This is a reflection on our education system not on human nature since I can point to a lot of other countries where this is not true.

 

If you were a farmer, or living in some poor rural area, the things important to you would be far different than someone needing to understand the history of Western Philosophy in the shaping of culture, or even matters of the origin of the species through evolution, or geophysics, or any other higher level knowledge than those who live outside that community may need.

 

That\'s true, but we live in a democracy and since this farmer can vote it\'s important that he has a basic foundational understanding of things otherwise we are all vulnerable to those who would manipulate him for their own selfish interests.

 

Bottom line here, I'm not suggesting we all become Spock. I'm saying that good myth will not replace bad myth because those who control the message are self interested and it's in their best interest to maintain the bad myth. But should more members of society be given tools of critical thinking they can protect themselves from being manipulated by the message. The self interest of the individual is much better than the self interest of the tyrant or the greed driven industrialist. The individual's self interest is in preservation. He doesn't have the power to cause damage the way the former does.

[florduh]

But as I’ve said, for probably the majority of people who adopt that system of myth it does not in their minds, or emotions, operate in such literalistic ways.

 

I must agree with Deva. In my experience, the Christian "myth" is experienced as literal truth in an alarming number of people. Its strength and value for them is in its literal truth and its exclusivity.

 

The myth of Jesus has not, in large part, adapted to modern society. The religion today fails as truth, and it fails as myth. Academic examination of Christianity has little to do with real world application of this harmful view of reality.

 

Of course, it is people at the root of the problem. The religion was, after all, invented by people - a long, long time ago. It doesn't lend itself to adaptation. The Bible that the Christians base their religion on was written from an "us vs. them" viewpoint. There is but one way to God, and Christians have the corner on that market. You are with Jesus or against him. You either serve God or you serve Satan. It portrays itself to be the literal word of God. Many, many Christians believe that without reservation.

 

People read that shit and want to march against the infidels, burn witches, bomb abortion clinics and teach Creationism in public schools. To those people, and to this day there seem to be plenty, it is no myth at all.

[ShackledNoMore]

Antlerman,

 

This is a substantive topic, and it was my post and your response to it that got it rolling.

 

Just to let you know I am neither being rude nor ignoring this: I have massive amounts of work both today and tomorrow. I will pitch in if and when I get some spare cycles, but more likely than not, it will not be until sometime on Friday (I predict the topic will still be going strong then).

 

Until then, I will bow out while the thread follows its course...

 

--SNM

[gypsy79]

I must agree with Deva. In my experience, the Christian "myth" is experienced as literal truth in an alarming number of people. Its strength and value for them is in its literal truth and its exclusivity.

 

The myth of Jesus has not, in large part, adapted to modern society. The religion today fails as truth, and it fails as myth. Academic examination of Christianity has little to do with real world application of this harmful view of reality.

 

Of course, it is people at the root of the problem. The religion was, after all, invented by people - a long, long time ago. It doesn't lend itself to adaptation. The Bible that the Christians base their religion on was written from an "us vs. them" viewpoint. There is but one way to God, and Christians have the corner on that market. You are with Jesus or against him. You either serve God or you serve Satan. It portrays itself to be the literal word of God. Many, many Christians believe that without reservation.

 

People read that shit and want to march against the infidels, burn witches, bomb abortion clinics and teach Creationism in public schools. To those people, and to this day there seem to be plenty, it is no myth at all.

 

Although I think most extreme fundies don't want to burn or bomb anyone, I understand why that was used as an example and I completely agree with Deva's and Florduh's assessments that the Christian "myth" is experienced as literal truth by many, many, MANY people. That certainly is the case everywhere around me.

[Antlerman]

I've oft wondered how my own loving mother could belieive the, to me, ridiculous things that she did. I thank you all for this thought provoking thread and opinions.

You know, this is probably one of the most meaningful things for me to hear in all my time here over many years. Thank you.

 

 

Antlerman,

 

This is a substantive topic, and it was my post and your response to it that got it rolling.

 

Just to let you know I am neither being rude nor ignoring this: I have massive amounts of work both today and tomorrow. I will pitch in if and when I get some spare cycles, but more likely than not, it will not be until sometime on Friday (I predict the topic will still be going strong then).

 

Until then, I will bow out while the thread follows its course...

 

--SNM

I fully understand the frustration of wanting to contribute but not having the resources of time and energy to do so. Take your time. I have one going on about Biblical literalism with Rayskdude who is gone for a month now. Sort of like playing a game of chess that takes 5 years to complete. I don't think this thread will disappear. Take your time. I look forward to your participation. It was afterall your post that forced this topic that been brewing under the surface to the top.

[Guest end3]

Hey AM,

 

This scripture presented itself to me yesterday:

 

Jhn 7:28 Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him,

Jhn 7:29 but I know him because I am from him and he sent me."

 

This in conjuction with

 

Luk 23:34 Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." [fn] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

 

This seems definative (by faith), to me regarding your question.....that Jesus understood humanity doesn't or are unable/inabled from understanding the "truth".

 

If we are, why the continued debate/discomfort with our present state? And for the record, I am not at all comfortable with "objective truth" being all that there is. I mean I will be waaay disappointed if physics and chemistry is the whole enchilada...

[Legion]

I don’t doubt that myth serves some function. It is a construct, a created thing. And most manufactured things serve some purpose. So what is the function of myth?

[The-Captain]

I don’t doubt that myth serves some function. It is a construct, a created thing. And most manufactured things serve some purpose. So what is the function of myth?

 

The dissemination of ideas and values, namely those of a particular culture. A story, rather than a textbook, remains a more effective (and enjoyable) means of learning.

 

I think that poetic or dramatic language can convey things that while understandable, are difficult to put into plain language. Sort of a perfect vector for human ideas.

[Vomit Comet]

There's a lot to be said about the power of storytelling.

 

But if it involves craziness like the Sky Daddy sending 90% of everyone to hell, there's plenty of room for abuse. Storytelling ought to focus on people's emotions and experiences, and not on ghosts and goblins.

[ShackledNoMore]

They really aren’t “unsupported” beliefs. I say that because behind the symbols, is a sentiment, and creed, a doctrine, a social agreement that has a support within the context of the group expressing them. The symbols, the myths are just support mechanisms for those beliefs. There is in all the cases a logic to them. There is because they would not exist if they had no logic value socially. They all choose a system of symbols to support that logic, that rationality supports that group symbolically. They actually are not irrational at all. “God” isn’t about some god out there, but some truth down here – to that group: the group's truth.

The symbols and myths we use to weave our societal belief perpetuate the beliefs themselves. Of course our sociatal beliefs molded (and continue to mold) our myths and symbols (sort of like Escher's two hands drawing each other). The structure imposed by our myths seems frustrating to me when I see them holding us (the collective us) back from becoming more enlightened. We can't just rewrite our myths, we're stuck with what we have, and they can only evolve so quickly. It seems the only solution is to start taking our myths less seriously, something we do to greater or lesser degrees in different parts of the world.

Actually, though I use the term relevant as the question to the myth’s value, perhaps a better word should be adequacy. Is the Christian myth adequate for today’s world? That’s really far more potent a question than anything any apologist can offer to persuade anyone to adopt Christianity as a system.

I think that today's world may be in peril because xianity is not proving adequate. The xian myth tells us that we (we being our god-fearing nation(s) and body of believers) are the elect. The concept of god's "chosen" people is built into the judaic religions and in not close to a point of dying out (notwithstanding that some liberal sect members may be more inclusive than the fundamentalists of judaic religions). The core of this philosophy adopted thousands of years ago for a primitive tribe has not been all that altered over time. Two thousand years ago xianity refined it: we're born into sin, we require a savior to rescue us from our depravity, at which point we become the elite. How relevant can that be if our global community (made so by technology) is to thrive?

So all that to say, regarding OM or my mother, they really aren’t harboring “unsupported beliefs”, as that criteria is actually irrelevant to how they use it. Is it relevant symbolically? Is it adequate? I guess I’d have to answer, if pressed, it is for them, at this time, for their place in the scheme of things. Is it adequate for the world, for greater society? Well… certainly, definitely not in its conservative Evangelical flavor! And in most traditional forms, it is stilted in the face of questions beyond the contexts in which it was created.

I am reminded with a conversation I've had with a good friend of mine, another ex-christian. He used to be a sort of pagan--he would waver between calling himself an atheist and calling himself a pagan, etc. He would offer to burn colored candles for me if I was sick, or in some situation hoping for a good outcome (and then he'd do it). I'd politely thank him, considering his act for me as a benign symbolic ritual, and I think he would have more or less concurred.

 

He happened to be on friendly terms with a local wiccan community and I asked him if they would almost unanimously overtly consider their pagan beliefs and rituals as merely a symbology with no literal truth value (I already figured a lot of them would--the wiccans I have met all having been pretty laid back), or whether some of them really believed (literally) in the goddesses/gods of their particular pantheons. There ARE people like him that viewed their chosen mythology purely and explicitly relevant on a symbolic, and not literal level, but he seemed to think that there were also those who were pretty serious and hard core.

 

If your mother's beliefs toward christianity were analogous to my friend's pagan beliefs, and there was no thought or pretense that the xian god is literally true, then I would owe an apology for the suggestion of harboring unsupported beliefs. However, I don't think I've ever met a christian who boldly proclaims that of course the xian god does not exist and s/he merely adopts christianity as a symbolically relevant mythology. At best, I have seen liberal christians who never seem to have thought deeply about these questions in these sorts of terms. Either way, I can see how that criteria of their beliefs needing to be supported as not relevant to the way some might use what they have taken from the cultural mythology.

 

Still, I cannot understand how these liberal christians, including the well received, polite, and respectful ones we have seen in these forums, resolve the benevolence of the xian mythos in the context of a world where this mythology is taken very literally, or at least very seriously and is widely applied inflexible and with an iron fist, to the ill of the world, by world leaders and supported blindly and zealously, and has a bloody history. I think I even asked Current Christian something very close to this question back when he posted. He had an answer, but I still don't think I really understood.

 

And so many teach the next generation that the xian mythos is literally true. Why not present it as relevant mythology, parables, or fairy tales? Neon Genesis had a very good question: "Why don't people still try to find value in Greek mythology other than from a historical point of view?" Better yet, can't we improve on the values we foster, than merely anthropomorphizing our gods and in many cases glorifying human vice?

 

Most of the earlier religions had many gods, usually focusing on one element of the human character. While it's still true that we created these gods in our own image, I have to ask if as a mythology, monotheism, which has spread over most of the world thanks to xianity and islam, serves society (if indeed it does serve society) even as well as polytheism might have, with room for a god of love, a god of war, a god of virtue, a god of vice, jealous gods, selfish gods, benevolent gods, tricksters.

But as I’ve said, for probably the majority of people who adopt that system of myth it does not in their minds, or emotions, operate in such literalistic ways. My mother may not be able to articulate the rationalities of “faith” (a system of mythic symbols), but in her heart and mind they function as does something like music, art, and poetry. Representations of something inside her.

I think your mother and Evangelical Conservative xians represent two different extremes, and most people fall somewhere in between.

 

Case in point: my wife. She is a not really practising catholic who ignores the pope and official doctrines of the church right up there with the best of 'em, and has been to mass maybe three times in the 11 years we've been married (each time for some special circumstance and each time with me, interestingly enough). She is a wonderful person who I love dearly and I would never tactlessly say that her beliefs were bullshit, either. Nevertheless, if you started probing her about certain things: namely the literal existence of the judeo-xian god and heaven, she would not hesitate to affirm her belief in these things--she takes comfort in the belief that her mother is in heaven. If she fully recognized this as some sort of an abstract symbology with no literal basis (perhaps as a way to represent her mother's continued existence in her "heart") then it would be otherwise, but I still have to say that her beliefs in this are illogical and unsupported. Are they adequate? Do they serve her? Would they serve society at large? Maybe, but how much better to openly seek truth and recognize mythologies for what they are. Once you grant them the power of literal truth, you take away their flexibility and start running the risk of people killing each other because their mythologies differ. But back to my point, if your mother and OM would actually freely make the claim that there is no xian god, but they find a useful mythology/symbology rooted in xianity, then my wife is almost at their extreme, if not, then she probably is at their extreme. The teaming masses of xian believers, I'm afraid, are far more prone to take elements of their mythology as literal truth, to varying degrees between my wife/your mother/OM and Evangelical Conservatives, I think, in general, to their own detriment and to the detriment of society. I have to agree with Deva, Floriduh, and Gypsy that there are an alarming number of people who take the xian mythology as literal truth, but I'll add that I don't think that the intermediate levels of assumed, unexamined literal belief are a particularly healthy thing, either.

Further ironic, one could make an argument, perhaps much to the dismay of Antlerman's mother, that it is she that is exactly the sort that SHOULD be considered an "authentic" christian.

Ahh.. but in her mind that is irrelevant. It’s NOT about being right! It’s about the value of it to her.

Well first, I think that if your mother's mindset was more the norm among christians, the world would be a better place than it is now.

She doesn’t think in terms of authentic or false. That’s a conservative evangelical mindset. And that is but one minor slice of the whole. (emphasis SNM's)

I'm thinking that herein lies some of the basis for the difference of perspective we are discussing. Are you sure that this minor slice also has a minor impact? Xians, and their mentalities, do not fall neatly and perfectly into conservative evangelical and non-conservative evangelical mindsets, but exist as a continuum (or perhaps better, as a sort of continuum with a whole lot of variations thrown in). As squeaky wheels, the conservative evangelical element also has a disproportionate amount of influence. I'd have to say that there is a significant element of "being right," "truth," or what have you, for the masses of only modestly flexible moderate xians out there.

After all, despite everything else, most christians and xians (the nice ones, but even the mean ones) purport that christianity/xianity is a force for the Good. From what I've heard/know about them, it is exactly people like Antlerman's mother and Open Minded who put kindness/goodness into action in their lives. Even if they are not arrogant enough to label themselves as True Christians^TM, they would most certainly fit some of the popular perceptions of what a "true christian" is, and I think this is actually one of those levels on which the term "authentic" christian is apt.

May I ask whose popular perception of what a true Christian is? Certainly not the Evangelicals. Are you meaning to say ours? What we would like to see as what defines a genuine Christian attitude and life?

 

I almost hope you would say yes, as that would open a huge conversation about Western culture and our ingrained Christian perspectives of the world that is inextricably tied into our entire mindsets. It would raise the question of mythic identity on a cultural level, and the impetus behind our stances against the power bases within that system.

Hmmmm... Ours as in this community of ex-c? Ours as in Westerners? This particular "who" would all those perspective/focus on christianity is all about being love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control--and do not emphasize legalism, punishment, etc. This would include most liberal christians, as well as some who are not really christian, or not at all christian, but view xianity in a neutral or positive light and think that there is good stuff to derive from it (some deists, universalists, and generally non-religious sorts, among others). It may inconsistently include some moderate xians, depending on how they are compartmentalizing at the moment. I'm generally not talking about conservative evangelicals here.

 

I don't know if that was the "who" you were actually looking for, but I don't think it necessarily precludes a conversation about Western culture and our ingrained christian perspectives.

Damn, let’s have a real meaty conversation here! Let's crack open something of some real depth.

You!!??? Getting into a meaty conversation with some real depth!?? Well it's about time!

Yes words.  The power of life.  “In the beginning was the word”.  We create God in our own image, whom we employ to create us in ours through him.  Harking back to some really early thoughts [url="http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=15020&hl="]here[/url].

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." Indeed, words can wield power.

 

(Sorry that the last tag was a code tag rather than a quote tag. My last quote exceeded the allowable number by one.)

[Vigile]

This BBC series Rev Oxley posted proves several points for me: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...c=29768&hl=

 

The myth for this young girl is not some life affirming inspirational paradigm. This poor girl has a mind virus and like a virus, she runs around spreading it to others. I was once like her, though not as intense, so I know what I'm talking about.

 

This girl views the world in binary colors and her world view is surrounded by the idea that those around her are going to hell. She spends her days thinking she is a horrible person who deserves hell. She worries about every single thing thinking maybe it's a sin. She prostrates herself before an imaginary being and weeps bitter tears for suffering she imagines this being went through on her behalf. On top of that, she is self righteous and has a savior complex.

 

This girl is not an exception to the rule. This girl is a manufactured and predictable outcome of a virulent meme that is quite common. This myth does not make her life and the lives of those around her better. This myth is a cancer and it is ruining her life and making her an obnoxious pollutant to her neighbors and those she comes in contact with.

 

The second point this BBC series proves is that the average person is utterly unprepared to protect themselves against bad logic. Because critical thinking skills are not taught in school, when Deborah asks people "have you ever lied" and then concludes for them that because they have they are idolatrous, libelous, immoral murdering beings, they are deserving of eternal torture. Again, not a life affirming myth, but a myth that is driven by natural human emotions that are pre programed to avoid fearful situations.

 

The real myth is that these people are in a minority and that most receive some sort of affirmation from their myths. I'm ok, you're ok is as often as not psychobabble. The truth is, this is an ugly meme and simple critical thinking skills can protect society just like a simple immunization shot protects against small pox.

[shantonu]

The real myth is that these people are in a minority and that most receive some sort of affirmation from their myths. I'm ok, you're ok is as often as not psychobabble. The truth is, this is an ugly meme and simple critical thinking skills can protect society just like a simple immunization shot protects against small pox.

 

The virus analogy is a good one. This girl has been poisoned. But there's nothing in the Christian faith itself that mandates this outcome. Surely there were people under the Khemer Rouge and during the Cultural Revolution and other totalitarian states that were equally poisioned by atheism. There are forms of atheism that are virulent, there are forms of Christianity that are benign--and even helpful. The good forms of atheism tend to look a lot like the good forms of theism. The good forms are characterized by non-violence, openess, tolerance and good manners. The bad forms don't have these qualities.

[Neon Genesis]

The virus analogy is a good one. This girl has been poisoned. But there's nothing in the Christian faith itself that mandates this outcome. Surely there were people under the Khemer Rouge and during the Cultural Revolution and other totalitarian states that were equally poisioned by atheism. There are forms of atheism that are virulent, there are forms of Christianity that are benign--and even helpful. The good forms of atheism tend to look a lot like the good forms of theism. The good forms are characterized by non-violence, openess, tolerance and good manners. The bad forms don't have these qualities.

What forms of atheism? Atheism is merely a disbelief in God. Saying that there's different violent forms of atheism is like saying there's different violent forms of not believing in fairies. Atheism has no commandments or rules that say you have to be violent or force atheism on others, so atheism in itself cannot be blamed for violent communist regimes, as atheism is merely the disbelief in God. I don't always agree with everything Sam Harris says, but I think he brings up a good point in The End Of Faith that people like Pol Pot and Mao etc didn't do their immoral actions because they were atheists but because they were irrational and had irrational beliefs about politics and the government but who commits such atrocities because they were too rational?

[Deva]

The virus analogy is a good one. This girl has been poisoned. But there's nothing in the Christian faith itself that mandates this outcome.

 

Surely it depends on how you interpret "Christian faith". To say there is "nothing" is certainly not true by the experience of the Christian faith I was raised with. That is too broad a statement.

 

Surely there were people under the Khemer Rouge and during the Cultural Revolution and other totalitarian states that were equally poisioned by atheism. There are forms of atheism that are virulent, there are forms of Christianity that are benign--and even helpful. The good forms of atheism tend to look a lot like the good forms of theism. The good forms are characterized by non-violence, openess, tolerance and good manners. The bad forms don't have these qualities.

 

I don't deny that atheism was part of these totalitarian states. I would say, though, that this type of militant atheism that outlaws religion in any form; bullying, spoiling for a fight and dictating what people should believe and think is an extreme. I do not think it is representative of most atheists, who simply want to live in peace.

 

Of course I could list a bunch of repressive Christian states for you.

 

I have no personal experience with benign or helpful forms of Christianity that I would say were not also dishonest intellectually.

[Vigile]

The real myth is that these people are in a minority and that most receive some sort of affirmation from their myths. I'm ok, you're ok is as often as not psychobabble. The truth is, this is an ugly meme and simple critical thinking skills can protect society just like a simple immunization shot protects against small pox.

 

The virus analogy is a good one. This girl has been poisoned. But there's nothing in the Christian faith itself that mandates this outcome. Surely there were people under the Khemer Rouge and during the Cultural Revolution and other totalitarian states that were equally poisioned by atheism. There are forms of atheism that are virulent, there are forms of Christianity that are benign--and even helpful. The good forms of atheism tend to look a lot like the good forms of theism. The good forms are characterized by non-violence, openess, tolerance and good manners. The bad forms don't have these qualities.

 

Well, I partially agree with you. The form we are talking about here is the Kirk Cameron form. The problem here is there is a huge problem with Christian viruses in the US and several other parts of the world that are of the bad form. It's a mistake I think to give Christianity a free pass and say that it is a positive life affirming myth when the vast majority of its followers are either CINOs or those affected by the virulent forms.

 

My argument is that it is merely an ivory tower academic exercise that excuses the xian faith by assigning to it the innocuous myth argument since this works mainly in intellectual circles. In the RW, its a source of bad forms or it's irrelevant.

 

Now, when you say

But there's nothing in the Christian faith itself that mandates this outcome.

I'm going to have to balk in a big way. The NT is rife with the fear bug, the guilt bug, the savior bug, and the self righteous bug. Different interpretations create different virulent concoctions but they needn't. The NT as a standalone does just fine on it's own poisoning generations of people.

 

I'd go so far as to argue that Paul was a meme maker just like Ray Comfort and a whole long list of others have done since. And the gospels themselves are not innocent. For every positive attributed to the Jesus character there are at least two negatives.

 

In order to get something positive and avoid the negatives you have to actually go way out of your way - much more than the meme makers have done; something the average believer won't/isn't able to do.

 

Bottom line: Just because some people have found a positive spin on the religion/myth doesn't eliminate the rule that the religion has by and large been a huge negative in the world and in the lives of millions.

 

BTW, atheism didn't poison anyone. Ideology did.

[Antlerman]

Just dropping a note saying I am intending to offer responses to those who have replied, but time is short right now. Hopefully this weekend.

[mwc]

From the little I've skimmed in this topic it seems a rehash of several that have come before. Not that that's bad or anything but I'm not really seeing what the point is I guess?

 

Is it that the xian myth has "evolved" or needs to "evolve?" That it's symbols take on new meaning? The point of repurposing the cross would be? Likewise an empty tomb? And so on?

 

There really are few symbols worth salvaging and those that are in the realm of consideration really have little purpose. A dying/rising human/god-man? Sure. The whole self-sacrifice thing? Why not? The teacher/disciple thing? Always relevant. But why lift them from this story? They're quite generic really and those "symbols," are more thematic in nature (or would that be idiomatic?) than the concrete examples I gave above (ie. the cross).

 

So what actual symbols are we talking about here? I can't think of any that translate well into a modern society without the xian myth to support it. Which leaves only the "themes" as it were.

 

Considering I've seen those themes in movies like The Matrix (though admittedly through a gnostic lens) this means this is already happening. It has been happening for some time. These "xian" themes have made there way into the culture at large, in various forms, for as long as I can remember. So what more needs to be done? What is left?

 

The xian myth has "evolved." It has entered the culture. It's "symbols" are specific to the religion and serve little to no purpose to the "wider" audience and so can be set aside and repurposed at some other time if the need ever arises.

 

It is really only the religion that needs to be addressed. And, frankly, I could care less about it. It can simply fall away for all I care. To those that wish to save it then that is on them. They can worry about what happens to the "good" people that are involved with the religion in a reasonable. Evolve or die so to speak. People like AM's mother. People like my own mother. People like OM. They can re-purpose their religious myth if they want, need or desire to do so. So they can continue searching for some sort of "spiritual fulfillment," or whatever one wishes to call it, from that set of stories. This is the area I actually believe AM wishes to address much of the time when this topic comes up (but I can't say I'm absolutely certain since the whole idea of "cultural myths" can be very large in scope).

 

The larger xian myth, however, has already transcended the stories in the bible and the churches and so I think it has already accomplished what I have seen proposed.

 

mwc