Just Starting To Doubt - Question About The Bible

[NotBlinded]

Alrighty, since Dave seems to be able to visit the thread but does not wish to take the floor I figured I'd just hit the old "rewind" button and go back to the last "real" posting by him so that we might be able to get this thing moving forward again. If this isn't what he wishes to discuss he is always free to jump right in and tell me in greater detail what issue(s) he had with my post(s) and/or take the floor and present his ideas. Until then...

 

...The NT is supposed to represent the word of a god. ...

This is what most Christians will tell you, but I see it otherwise.

I don't go by the taken out of context and rationalizations the christians tell me. I go by what the book itself says. The book claims to be the word of a god. All of the NT authors were very fond of preceding much of what they said with; "I tell you the truth....." Then there's Luke 11:28 "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." He claimed to be preaching the word of his god. That's just one I pulled out of my hat. I'm sure you could find more without searching too hard.

Well, I have to agree with Dave...in part. The NT itself is a collection of books and so it can't claim anything as a result. Just as a public library doesn't claim a position based on the books it contains. Now some of those books claim to be the word of their god and by extension people try to make the entire collection the official word of this god (had it contained different books then they would be covered by the same umbrella as the ones that are there now).

 

But, the fact that a character in the book says that he is speaking on behalf of his god does not make that book, or the collection of books, the absolute word of that god. It makes those words the word of that god. Paul says he speaks on behalf of a god (supposedly the same god) but he also has sections where he says he speaks solely for himself. This would remove these sections from the "umbrella" so to speak.

 

I'd have to check but I wouldn't be surprised if more than the NT authors used statements like "I tell you the truth" and whatnot. It seems the logical thing to do when making a point and could be just a stylistic or translation issue (like some people say "Honestly" or "Truthfully" when speaking even though there's no need).

 

mwc

Many times (not all) when that is said, I would think that they are talking about a spiritual truth. This is where Dave must understand the spiritual nature of metaphor and language used to talk about the ultimate mystery. If he doesn't, then he won't and can't understand.

 

Like Campbell would say (sorry, I know I'm stuck on Campbell right now ) :

 

Paraprasing...

 

"I have figured out that there are the fundamentalist that take metaphor as fact and call themsleves believers and then there are the ones that take metaphor as lies and they call themselves atheists."

 

Neither is true. If you want to know what they are saying when they say, "I tell you the truth", you have to understand what the metaphor is pointing to. The word God is a metaphor.

[NotBlinded]

Some here just cannot accept being disagreed with.

I bet most here can accept apologies.

[NotBlinded]

...Joseph Campbell...

This is an excellent post. I had to read it twice to "get" about half of it.

 

In addition to understanding the purpose of myth, I think it is important to at least recognize that a person's story can be myth and history.

 

There is Lincoln the myth and Lincoln the man.

 

The myth: Rail-splitter who sought out books by walking long distances, became president, freed the slaves, saved the Union, gave up his life as a savior. That's one thing, and all of these myths are, partly, true.

 

Then there is Lincoln the man. Born in 1808. Died in 1865. Married to Mary Todd. Elected president of the United States. Assassinated.

 

Both are Lincoln. It can be argued that we are inspired more by Lincoln the myth as the myth is about all anyone knows, but Lincoln the man has much to teach us, too.

 

-CC

What can I say...I love the man's work!

 

I also agree that myth has history incorporated into it. But one can't simply say that it's all history because that sets the metaphor in concrete and then it becomes lies.

 

As you know, spiritual truth and historical truth are not the same. They will conflict with absurd contradictions, but it doesn't mean they are lies or partial truths. Some is historical truth and other is spiritual (or psychological) truth. Then there are the parts that are misunderstood and taken to be historical truth and it becomes so confounded that it's hard to get back to the intent.

 

I feel that many people that put the bible together, even the diciples, didn't understand what form of truth was being addressed; historical or spiritual so we get a book that leaned towards the literal, historical understandings. That doesn't mean the spiritual isn't there or that all its history is false, it just means that religion has become a block to spirituality.

 

I would agree that the New Testament was intended, by many, to be taken literally. They were the ones that won. That doesn't mean the teachings and the symbolic nature of the language were meant to be. Only by the religious theologians did its intent get screwed, IMO.

[Dave]

Well, I have to agree with Dave...in part. The NT itself is a collection of books and so it can't claim anything as a result. Just as a public library doesn't claim a position based on the books it contains. Now some of those books claim to be the word of their god and by extension people try to make the entire collection the official word of this god (had it contained different books then they would be covered by the same umbrella as the ones that are there now).

 

Then we pretty much agree on that part. The authors claim, via the characters in the story, claim to be telling the truth. They represented what they had to say as the truth. They intended what they had to say to be taken as the truth. They were not talking "spiritually" they were talking literally and to them there would have been no difference.

 

But, the fact that a character in the book says that he is speaking on behalf of his god does not make that book, or the collection of books, the absolute word of that god. It makes those words the word of that god. Paul says he speaks on behalf of a god (supposedly the same god) but he also has sections where he says he speaks solely for himself. This would remove these sections from the "umbrella" so to speak.

 

He believed his words were under the "umbrella" of this god's words. The author absolutely believed he was speaking for this god.... just like several preachers do today.

 

I'd have to check but I wouldn't be surprised if more than the NT authors used statements like "I tell you the truth" and whatnot. It seems the logical thing to do when making a point and could be just a stylistic or translation issue (like some people say "Honestly" or "Truthfully" when speaking even though there's no need).

 

If you were writing a religious text wouldn't you write it so that your word was the only word? Two recent examples, that I've already mentioned, are Smith of the LDS and Hubbard of Scientology.

 

To them a god was not in any way shape or form a metaphor. They believed in an actual god, a creator, that must be worshiped, obeyed, and feared. They would have been very receptive to the idea that their god REQUIRED a blood sacrifice to atone for Original Sin. No metaphorical BS, a real blood sacrifice. That's why the jesus character had to be killed off. It is a common theme in many religions.

[Dave]

Some here just cannot accept being disagreed with.

I bet most here can accept apologies.

I can, but they're not necessary.

[Ouroboros]

Like Campbell would say (sorry, I know I'm stuck on Campbell right now ) :

I got stuck with Joe years ago, and I'm still stuck...

 

"I have figured out that there are the fundamentalist that take metaphor as fact and call themselves believers and then there are the ones that take metaphor as lies and they call themselves atheists."

 

Neither is true. If you want to know what they are saying when they say, "I tell you the truth", you have to understand what the metaphor is pointing to. The word God is a metaphor.

Another word for metaphor (IMO) is symbol. Like a sign at the side of the road, it can portray a certain thing, but it's a symbol for it, and the sign isn't in itself "it". God could just as well be the symbol or metaphor for existence, all-that-there-is, nature, universe and life. The Universe is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, in the sense that all energy there is to existence is in the universe, the universe is everywhere and all knowledge that ever can be obtained is within the framework of the universe. But that's just my idea of a redefinition of god. Of course the religious mind wants god to be a tad more than all-that-is, and to them god has to become transcendent into a metaphysical world, only because the spiritual experience a person can have gives the feeling that there is something beyond the 3 or 9 or 11 dimensions.

 

I actually had that feeling a few times, and extremely strong, just after I deconverted. A few weeks after I had realized I didn't believe in god anymore, I was walking outside in the night and looked up to the moon and the stars, and I had a very strong feeling of connection and unity with the universe and life. It was very profound, very spiritual, but yet I knew it was natural. At that point nature, reality and spirituality became one for me, and nothing was supernatural or mystical anymore, but it all became very sublime. It was the feeling of awe of nature and life itself.

[NotBlinded]

...

 

The parable about the 3 women not keeping their lamp burning therefore missing the groom is about, IMO and others, not being present in consciousness. It's like the Zen master that can smack you on the head because you have let your mind wander, whereas, if you were present you would have seen him coming. No different, but literalists take this to mean the literal end of the world!

 

...

I like this a lot. The concept of "being awake" is shared universally in the various wisdom traditions. The story goes that the Buddha was asked if he was a god or an angel or a prophet. He answerd in the negative. What are you, then, they asked. "I am awake." That's powerful. Remember what Paul wrote: "Awake, O sleeper, arise from the dead and Christ will give you light." At the very least, the sleeper and the light are metaphors. Or maybe Jesus does give out flashlights!

 

-CC

Yes, and arise from the dead and Christ giving light are also metaphors. You arise from the dead when you become awake to the Self (Christ-nature).

 

Rising from the dead is in many religions as being reborn, new birth, new life. That's what Easter is all about...metaphorically speaking.

[NotBlinded]

You three -- mwc, HanSolo, and notblindedbytheblight -- have lost me so now I'm delirioius and making funny.

 

 

-CC

To make sure no one takes what you say and tries to help you out, thereby, insulting your intelligence, what do you mean by "lost"? You know, everyone hates to be helped out and will take any offer of the same as an insult.

 

Do you mean that you didn't follow, or do you mean that you lost interest?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, and arise from the dead and Christ giving light are also metaphors. You arise from the dead when you become awake to the Self (Christ-nature).

 

Rising from the dead is in many religions as being reborn, new birth, new life. That's what Easter is all about...metaphorically speaking.

Exactly. To die and be resurrected is to die from one old nature or behavior into a new realization. I think the Freemasons have that play too. Someone put in a coffin, symbolically dead, and then arise again into the next level of knowledge. It's the ultimate symbol of life, death and rebirth, night and day, fall and spring...

[currentchristian]

You three -- mwc, HanSolo, and notblindedbytheblight -- have lost me so now I'm delirioius and making funny.

 

 

-CC

To make sure no one takes what you say and tries to help you out, thereby, insulting your intelligence, what do you mean by "lost"? You know, everyone hates to be helped out and will take any offer of the same as an insult.

 

Do you mean that you didn't follow, or do you mean that you lost interest?

 

 

I wasn't following....but that's okay....I don't "follow" (i.e., get) a lot of things.

 

-CC

[NotBlinded]

I wasn't following....but that's okay....I don't "follow" (i.e., get) a lot of things.

 

-CC

Ahhhhh....blessed humility. A breath of fresh air.

[NotBlinded]

Yes, and arise from the dead and Christ giving light are also metaphors. You arise from the dead when you become awake to the Self (Christ-nature).

 

Rising from the dead is in many religions as being reborn, new birth, new life. That's what Easter is all about...metaphorically speaking.

Exactly. To die and be resurrected is to die from one old nature or behavior into a new realization. I think the Freemasons have that play too. Someone put in a coffin, symbolically dead, and then arise again into the next level of knowledge. It's the ultimate symbol of life, death and rebirth, night and day, fall and spring...

How can you find out so much about the Freemasons? Did they come out of the closet too? (Just a little joke to CC)

 

Really though...I think there was a show on Discovery about them that I didn't catch all of, but is there more that you know of?

[Ouroboros]

How can you find out so much about the Freemasons? Did they come out of the closet too? (Just a little joke to CC)

 

Really though...I think there was a show on Discovery about them that I didn't catch all of, but is there more that you know of?

Something I heard once. I've heard and read so many different things I'm not sure where I got it. I probably have to listen throught the Infidel Guy's shows again to check if it was mentioned there. He interviewed two Freemasons, one that was still active and one ex-mason. We had a presentation from an ex-mason in our church too long time ago, maybe I got it from there, which means it could be wrong.

[NotBlinded]

Another word for metaphor (IMO) is symbol. Like a sign at the side of the road, it can portray a certain thing, but it's a symbol for it, and the sign isn't in itself "it". God could just as well be the symbol or metaphor for existence, all-that-there-is, nature, universe and life. The Universe is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, in the sense that all energy there is to existence is in the universe, the universe is everywhere and all knowledge that ever can be obtained is within the framework of the universe. But that's just my idea of a redefinition of god. Of course the religious mind wants god to be a tad more than all-that-is, and to them god has to become transcendent into a metaphysical world, only because the spiritual experience a person can have gives the feeling that there is something beyond the 3 or 9 or 11 dimensions.

 

I actually had that feeling a few times, and extremely strong, just after I deconverted. A few weeks after I had realized I didn't believe in god anymore, I was walking outside in the night and looked up to the moon and the stars, and I had a very strong feeling of connection and unity with the universe and life. It was very profound, very spiritual, but yet I knew it was natural. At that point nature, reality and spirituality became one for me, and nothing was supernatural or mystical anymore, but it all became very sublime. It was the feeling of awe of nature and life itself.

 

Isn't that funny that once the concrete image of a God is dropped, you can actually feel "God"?

 

To me, that is evidence in itself of what we do when we allow our minds to make a human out of God. I only get flashes of this, but it is wonderful. The second I start wishing it would last longer, it disappears. Damn!

[mwc]

Many times (not all) when that is said, I would think that they are talking about a spiritual truth. This is where Dave must understand the spiritual nature of metaphor and language used to talk about the ultimate mystery. If he doesn't, then he won't and can't understand.

 

Like Campbell would say (sorry, I know I'm stuck on Campbell right now ) :

I guess I'm going to have to go and see what this Campbell is all about since you seem to speak so highly of him. Like CC my reading list is growing far faster than I possibly ever hope to keep up with.

 

"I have figured out that there are the fundamentalist that take metaphor as fact and call themsleves believers and then there are the ones that take metaphor as lies and they call themselves atheists."

 

Neither is true. If you want to know what they are saying when they say, "I tell you the truth", you have to understand what the metaphor is pointing to. The word God is a metaphor.

Now, do you believe this to be universally true about the entire bible, just the NT or something different entirely? It looks like you're saying that we need to, in a way "cherry pick" our way through to discover which items are which. I can agree to this (mainly because I've sort of said the same thing myself only from a different direction ).

 

I feel, for example, that the stuff in G.Mark is less "spiritual" and more "historical" than what G.Matthew and definitely G.John presented. As I said in my theory, the religion we knew (in that region) almost started political and grew more theological. As time went forward the analogies moved in that same direction...some usurping the other (the Passion Play being, once again, a prime example...once used politically and now the central theological story just re-purposed). This is why a "one size fits all" explanation doesn't work. Different times, places, peoples and so forth all interact in a very complex way as I see it.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

Many times (not all) when that is said, I would think that they are talking about a spiritual truth. This is where Dave must understand the spiritual nature of metaphor and language used to talk about the ultimate mystery. If he doesn't, then he won't and can't understand.

 

Like Campbell would say (sorry, I know I'm stuck on Campbell right now ) :

I guess I'm going to have to go and see what this Campbell is all about since you seem to speak so highly of him. Like CC my reading list is growing far faster than I possibly ever hope to keep up with.

He has enlightened me tremendously. Not so much in the mystical sense as a spiritual one. I think they are separate?? Spiritual as in a knowing about something which is of ourselves, such as a common physchological function of humans.

 

I know you would enjoy his works, mwc.

 

"I have figured out that there are the fundamentalist that take metaphor as fact and call themsleves believers and then there are the ones that take metaphor as lies and they call themselves atheists."

 

Neither is true. If you want to know what they are saying when they say, "I tell you the truth", you have to understand what the metaphor is pointing to. The word God is a metaphor.

Now, do you believe this to be universally true about the entire bible, just the NT or something different entirely? It looks like you're saying that we need to, in a way "cherry pick" our way through to discover which items are which. I can agree to this (mainly because I've sort of said the same thing myself only from a different direction ).

 

I feel, for example, that the stuff in G.Mark is less "spiritual" and more "historical" than what G.Matthew and definitely G.John presented. As I said in my theory, the religion we knew (in that region) almost started political and grew more theological. As time went forward the analogies moved in that same direction...some usurping the other (the Passion Play being, once again, a prime example...once used politically and now the central theological story just re-purposed). This is why a "one size fits all" explanation doesn't work. Different times, places, peoples and so forth all interact in a very complex way as I see it.

 

mwc

What I am thinking is that people have spiritual moments that are described to others as metaphor and sometimes it's not understood exactly what they are meaning. It could also be true that what a person experiences in a vision is taken as something outside themselves and then related as such.

 

Maybe like if an American Indian had a vision of an animal guide and then related that as a being that visited them and the vision was taken as a concrete form. If this is the case, then I think the psychology of that vision is not really understood. They come from our "minds" or psyche and when projected outward, they tend to loose their meaning. Am I making any sense at all?

 

I guess what I am saying is that psychologically, whether they think they are out there for real or not isn't really as important as what the vision was telling them. They are like dreams, but on a higher(?) level...they contain more consciousness. The symbolic nature of these are applicable to humans in general and I think this is why they are saying the same thing basically.

 

If Paul has a vision of Christ being in him, then it seems that he is understanding what Jesus was saying through his own consciousness.

 

So to cherry-pick is the only way to discover the meanings of things it seems because when visions and symbols are misunderstood, they become messed up and really mean nothing. The virgin birth is not a possiblity, yet when understood as a symbol of awakening ourselves, it becomes significant. The same symbol has been used everywhere. A sacred mother giving birth to a divine presence...psychologically. Then people come along and don't understand that, they try to say it actually happened. This so-called historical moment was used, along with many others, to suit a certain purpose.

 

Like you said, you have Mark promoting one idea, more historical and others promoting something else. It is indeed a complex, well, mess.

 

I think one thing can be said for sure, virgins don't give birth and dead men don't get up, so that has to be symbolic language regardless of what people thought. These are the common metaphors of many different religions. The human psyche produces these images based on how we interpret life and if someone has already used it and it fits perfectly with their understanding, why not incorporate it into your own understanding? How many different ways can we express dying to our old ways and being reborn into a new life? The new life being one of living in accord with our feelings of awe and mystery and the way we react to those emotions. Many called that awe God.

 

Oh...I think human nature is human nature no matter the religion. It just seems that some understand more than others and some don't use it to promote their own ends. The Hindu, from my little understanding, seems a little more put together so-to-speak. I don't think it was as misunderstood as the Judeo-Christian tradition and probably didn't have so much misuse put into it. I'm really not that well versed in that though, so I could wrong on that, but I think you know what I mean.

[NotBlinded]

mwc,

 

When I got home I started to read some more of my book Thou art That by...well, you know who and he can help me explain more of what I meant by my last paragraph in my post above. It was illuminating to me too on how much the Semitic religion turned the symbols into an opposite meaning and leaves one messed up.

 

He is speaking about how most religions use male and female aspects of the deity, symbolically, so that we can look at most of them and come away with some sort of insight regardless of the different combinations because they have essentially the same imagery.

 

I'll type in some of his insights to shine some light on my ignorance:

 

Of all the traditions I have studied in detail, the Semitic is the only one in which the game rules require that the deity is to be regarded as absolutely the other. One can only ask: "How did this singular position come to be assumed? Why did the Semites elect this attitude?"

 

The answer begins to appear, I believe, the moment one considers the general Semitic background in the Syro-Arabian desert as a congeries of fighting, raiding, nomadic tribes. It has been noticed that, whereas in practically all the other religious traditions of mankind the principal gods are nature powers, cosmic deities, with the various local groups in secondary roles, among the Semites generally, and the Hebrews most emphatically, the principal god is the patron deity of the tribe.

 

When you have a theology of the former sort, as of the Greeks and Romans, Hindus and Chinese, one can turn from one tradition to another and recognize that the power here called Zeus is over there called Indra; and there is no essential conflict. In the sixth book of Caesar's Gallic Wars, for instance, where he describes the mythologies, rites, and religions of the Celtic tribes, it is difficult to know just which of the Celtic gods he is talking about, since he always applies to them the corresponding Latin names. The Celts, he found, worshiped Mercury and Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva; concerning these, he observed that they held much the same opinions as other nations.

 

Can one, however, imagine a Jew discovering Yahweh in the character, say, of Jove? When your principal god is your tribal god, no other tribe can possibly possess the same theology. One cannot say, "That whom you call Baal, we call Elohim." Our gods are not the same. Moreover, the laws of a tribal god are mainly social laws. Rather than the general laws of nature, known to all mankind; they are local, historic, and specific.

 

The main thrust of the Old Testament tradition is clearly and specifically the struggle of "Yahweh," one tribal deity, against all the other gods of the world - the nature gods and all the other national gods. Many, indeed most, of the Old Testament kings, one after another, left the ways of righteousness to worship on the mountain tops, the deities of the great nature world whom everybody else was worshiping, and the priestly scribes of Yahweh's cause railed against them for this treason. Nature is a difficult power to resist. And within ourselves, as well, nature - Mother Nature - is a difficult power to resist. Nor is she an inferior guide to virtue and to the glory of life.

 

What I think history has proven is that these local social laws set against the laws of nature no longer hold as a guide to conduct, if, indeed, they ever did hold. Their whole history is of fanatic violence. In the biblical religions' unrelenting thrust against the laws of the nature religions, a tension was so built up that nature was indeed imaginatively corrupted.

 

...

 

This brings into our religious life a type of agony that I think is peculiar to our tradition and distinctly pathological. Only in certain rare periods, of which the Renaissance was one, and in certain rare spiritual geniuses, do we find people within the fold of this tradition who have found a way to pass, often through fire, to a reconciliation of its jejune spiritual lore with the glories of the world of life.

 

The world of life speaks within us when we let the active imagination function. That is why it is also a bit dangerous. Gods suppressed become devils, and often it is these devils whom we first encounter when we turn inward. Furthermore, the power that has been chiefly suppressed in the main thrust of our tradition is that which in most of the world is represented in the image of the great Goddess. She is called in the Bible (II Kings 23:13) "the abomination." But the very imagery of this Bible itself is derived from an earlier mythological context in which he Goddess was supreme. Her imagery and that of the nature deities, her children have been appropriated and transformed to accord with a strictly and ruthlessly patriarchal, male-oriented tradition, all the symbols of which, consequently, are turned topsy-turvy.

 

Who, for example, wants Abraham's bosom? Who ever heard of man giving birth to a woman, as Adam to Eve? There is in all of this symbol making and storytelling a deliberate campaign of seduction, turning the mind and heart from the female to the male - that is to say, from the laws of nature to the laws and interests of a local tribe. Again, as I have already suggested, it is surely a bewilderment to the psyche to have to respond to images that say one thing to the heart and are presented to the mind as programming another, opposite meaning. This paradox produces a kind of schizoid situation, and undoubtedly one of the main reasons for the prosperity of psychoanalysts today is this tangling and short-circuiting of the symbolic imagery through which the conscious and unconscious systems of our minds were to have been held in touch.

Joseph Campbell, Thou art That pp 40-42

 

Talk about promoting one's own ends!

[currentchristian]

Joseph Campbell, Thou art That pp 40-42

 

Thank you, notblindedbytheblight, for typing all that up! Lots of work, but I find when I type a long passage it gives me a chance to meditate on it. Campbell is great. But....

 

So, all the other ancients (Greeks, Romans, Hindus and Chinese, according to Campbell) got it right in their wonderfully enlightened power-to-the-goddess, liberal, tolerant religions and the poor Hebrews created a male-monster-god, "ruthlessly patriarchal" with sybols turned "topsy-turvy" in a "campaign of seduction" and "fanatic violence" and "pathological...agony" leading to a "schizoid situation" and the "prosperity of psychoanalysts." Hmmm....

 

Campbell surely was a genius (I'm fearful of using that word again and some will know why I say that ) and he definitely had a point, but I usually have a reaction against views that hold that anyone's way is "all-good" (or nearly so) while someone else's is "all-bad" (or nearly so). There's too much gray; Campbell perhaps sees too much black and white in comparing the ancients.

 

His overall point, however, that we "short-circuit" ourselves when we turn the symbol into concrete is an interesting one. I really liked the paraphrase of his you provided a few posts back about the fundamentalist turning metaphor into concrete, etc. If you come across the complete quote, I'd love to have it.

 

Thanks, again, for all that typing!

 

-CC

[NotBlinded]

You're welcome CC and I was afraid it would come across as anti-Semitic. He has been accused of that, but from what I gather that is really not so.

 

You have to understand that he is speaking about what symbols do for the heart (psychologically) as opposed to what it does to the mind. When you mentioned the short-circuit when these symbols are taken as concrete (by Campbell) you get a disconnect. What he is saying here is that it is even harder to get to the spiritual truths when the psychology of the human is turned inside out. We don't have men giving life in reality, so it's hard to let the symbols move us to meaning. That doesn't mean that they can't, it's just harder to do especially when they are taken as concrete. There is no chance there, IMO.

 

There are many wonderful symbols that are in the OT that can be compared with other religions that do relate to the human in a proper context and he beautifully illustrates this several times. When I come across a good one or two, I will post it for you.

 

This is where one must cherry-pick or have the ability to understand the context in which, and why, the people chose to write in a male, patriarchal God.

 

Be honest with yourself CC and I think that you can see that it can't be a proper way to move people into the way of feeling like a whole person when half of the person is removed (female) from society. That leaves the society disconnected with the way things are. This isn't really anti-anything, it's just the truth about humanity. I'm not saying all of it is like that, but a lot of it is.

 

Yahweh is a warrior God in a lot of places because of the circumstances of the culture that wrote about him. Now, they knew of other myths because Yahweh will reflect those symbols in many places. Or, they had moments when their insights did reflect what was actually spritually true and aligned with other religions, automatically. It is this very commonality that enlightens people because of the truth of its intent.

 

It doesn't mean that someone was right and someone was wrong, it just means that the truth will shine through no matter who wrote it. It's not about a Goddess vs a God, it's about putting both into the story so it will reflect real life. It's the study of the commonalities that leads one to understand that we are all human and when the true human condition is reflected in myth, there the truth is.

 

With this in mind, can I ask you to re-read what I typed from Cambell and see if you can understand a little of what I'm saying. It may take more reading of him though in order to fully get what I'm saying. Add a little more to your growing Amazon order!

 

I hope I haven't offended you and it's a good thing I used to be a data entry person that had set keystrokes I had to have per hour!

 

I'll check back later and see if I can find that quote for you.

 

And by the way, I hope the OP has had their question answered!

[currentchristian]

...

 

Be honest with yourself CC and I think that you can see that it can't be a proper way to move people into the way of feeling like a whole person when half of the person is removed (female) from society. That leaves the society disconnected with the way things are. This isn't really anti-anything, it's just the truth about humanity. I'm not saying all of it is like that, but a lot of it is. Yahweh is a warrior God in a lot of places based on the circumstances of tribe that wrote about him.

 

I hope I haven't offended you and it's a good thing I used to be a data entry person that had set keystrokes I had to have per hour!

 

I'll check back later and see if I can find that quote for you.

 

My goodness, no. Please, please, please, don't even think for one minute about ever doing that -- "offending" me. We're just talking issues here and no issue is off the table and no one offering an opinion as an opinion is offensive in any way to me and I hope to anyone else. Opinions are not offensive. Some attitudes can be, but not opinions.

 

Ultimately, I perceive of God as non-gendered spirit. It is, however, the default position to imagine God as "male." Too bad. I especially don't like the God as "warrior" symbol.

 

It's interesting that Jesus taught that God is "spirit," yet introduced "Father" as the metaphor for intimacy with God. I suppose "Mother" would not have gone over very well. I am touched by the symbol of God as Father, yet in my "real life" it is my mother with whom I have had the closest relationship and the deepest sense of mutual understanding and acceptance. So it's interesting, early programming of course, that when I think of God as a parent, I do think of God as "father."

 

I do all I can to avoid any pronouns when I talk of God. Occasionally I use a "he" or "him," but those are symbols, too, in a way; still, I try to avoid "making graven images" by making of God a man! I understand anthropomorphism as a way to understand God, but we'd all do well in terms of spiritual evolution to move beyond a literal genderization and personification of God. It is, as you put it, very limiting.

 

-CC

[NotBlinded]

CC,

 

Let me back up to the prior paragraph before I quoted above and that may help some.

 

Let me now remark, as a comparative mythologist whose professional career has been spent comparing the mytholgical traditions of mankind, that I find it extremely useful to let the mind range over the whole field, observing that what is said one way in one tradition is said another way in another. They are all mutually illuminating. Such a tradition is that associated with the great Indian god Shiva, in which a theological system based not simply on masculine deities but feminine powers as well is personified and seen in interaction with the male in the way of pairs of opposites pointing past themselves to "things that cannot be told." Here one encounters another set of game rules, often displaying essentially the same imagery, however, as that, for example, of God and his spouse, the Virgin, but in totally new combinations. These can illuminate occasionally some of the deep "unspeakable" things of the tradition out of which we all have come.

pp 40-41

 

...out of which we all have come.

 

This is the element that has to be there, I think. A real human condition whether it's male and female or something else.

 

A tribal God is exclusive because it represents a group, not mankind and he does compare other male gods that a conflict can't be noticed. But one that does not include the laws of nature, such as Yahweh, can only be seen as going against nature. That is not a common human condition because we are natural and follow the laws of nature.

[NotBlinded]

...

 

Be honest with yourself CC and I think that you can see that it can't be a proper way to move people into the way of feeling like a whole person when half of the person is removed (female) from society. That leaves the society disconnected with the way things are. This isn't really anti-anything, it's just the truth about humanity. I'm not saying all of it is like that, but a lot of it is. Yahweh is a warrior God in a lot of places based on the circumstances of tribe that wrote about him.

 

I hope I haven't offended you and it's a good thing I used to be a data entry person that had set keystrokes I had to have per hour!

 

I'll check back later and see if I can find that quote for you.

 

My goodness, no. Please, please, please, don't even think for one minute about ever doing that -- "offending" me. We're just talking issues here and no issue is off the table and no one offering an opinion as an opinion is offensive in any way to me and I hope to anyone else. Opinions are not offensive. Some attitudes can be, but not opinions.

 

Ultimately, I perceive of God as non-gendered spirit. It is, however, the default position to imagine God as "male." Too bad. I especially don't like the God as "warrior" symbol.

 

It's interesting that Jesus taught that God is "spirit," yet introduced "Father" as the metaphor for intimacy with God. I suppose "Mother" would not have gone over very well. I am touched by the symbol of God as Father, yet in my "real life" it is my mother with whom I have had the closest relationship and the deepest sense of mutual understanding and acceptance. So it's interesting, early programming of course, that when I think of God as a parent, I do think of God as "father."

 

I do all I can to avoid any pronouns when I talk of God. Occasionally I use a "he" or "him," but those are symbols, too, in a way; still, I try to avoid "making graven images" by making of God a man! I understand anthropomorphism as a way to understand God, but we'd all do well in terms of spiritual evolution to move beyond a literal genderization and personification of God. It is, as you put it, very limiting.

 

-CC

You know, what Campbell says here fits you perfectly:

 

...and in certain rare spiritual geniuses, do we find people within the fold of this tradition who have found a way to pass, often through fire, to a reconciliation of its jejune spiritual lore with the glories of the world of life.

 

oh dang it...I put more in my quote above as you were quoting this quote of mine here!

[currentchristian]

...

 

A tribal God is exclusive because it represents a group, not mankind and he does compare other male gods that a conflict can't be noticed. But one that does not include the laws of nature, such as Yahweh, can only be seen as going against nature. That is not a common human condition because we are natural and follow the laws of nature.

 

It is interesting to note the evolution within Hebrew-Israelite-Judean religion of YHWH from a "tribal god" to a univeral one. By the time of the destruction of the First Temple (about 586/7 BCE) the prophets were certain: There is but one God and this God is the God of all flesh.

 

One could argue that this evolution of thought might cut two ways: 1) The tribal god had taken over all the others and destroyed them and, therefore, the tribe that first was loyal to YHWH would be the big shots in the new world order; or 2) all humanity is one under one Being and, therefore, let's lay aside our petty squabbles and work together as the offspring of the Only One.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

You know, what Campbell says here fits you perfectly:

 

...and in certain rare spiritual geniuses, do we find people within the fold of this tradition who have found a way to pass, often through fire, to a reconciliation of its jejune spiritual lore with the glories of the world of life.

 

You are very kind. I accept your remark with deep thanksgiving to you and an acknowledgement that I also can be from time to time quite stubborn, prideful, and uncompromising (I'm working "against" all three), so don't think too highly of me just yet.

 

-CC

[Alice]

I go by what the book itself says. The book claims to be the word of a god. All of the NT authors were very fond of preceding much of what they said with; "I tell you the truth....." Then there's Luke 11:28 "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." He claimed to be preaching the word of his god. That's just one I pulled out of my hat. I'm sure you could find more without searching too hard.

 

Are these not just storytelling techniques ...

 

How can one be so sure that is really much different from the ghost story round the campfire when the teller says 'and I know because I was that boy ....' to send a tingle down the collective spines of the audience. All the world religions have their version of 'and god said' - only fundamentalists take such comments as being 'literally' true.

 

just because it never happened don't mean its not the truth!

 

 

The authors claim, via the characters in the story, claim to be telling the truth. They represented what they had to say as the truth. They intended what they had to say to be taken as the truth. They were not talking "spiritually" they were talking literally and to them there would have been no difference.

On what are you basing this conclusion?

 

 

Ultimately, I perceive of God as non-gendered spirit. It is, however, the default position to imagine God as "male." Too bad. I especially don't like the God as "warrior" symbol.

 

It's interesting that Jesus taught that God is "spirit," yet introduced "Father" as the metaphor for intimacy with God. I suppose "Mother" would not have gone over very well. I am touched by the symbol of God as Father, yet in my "real life" it is my mother with whom I have had the closest relationship and the deepest sense of mutual understanding and acceptance. So it's interesting, early programming of course, that when I think of God as a parent, I do think of God as "father."

 

I do all I can to avoid any pronouns when I talk of God. Occasionally I use a "he" or "him," but those are symbols, too, in a way; still, I try to avoid "making graven images" by making of God a man! I understand anthropomorphism as a way to understand God, but we'd all do well in terms of spiritual evolution to move beyond a literal genderization and personification of God. It is, as you put it, very limiting.

 

-CC

I'm really interested in the use of gender based metaphors in religion. Of course from a DNA perspective - all males are both male and female, whilst females are primarily female (although we all have levels of male hormones as well)

 

Gender isn't as straightforward as its been regarded in the modernistic mindset, whose to say its always been seen that way! Whose to say 'Fatherhood' meant to Jesus, the meaning we ascribe to the term? I'm guessing gender roles may have been seen differently ... this would explain the whole Abrahams bosom thing!