Are The Religious Moderates Better Than The Fundies?

[bush country]

Were they "Cherry Picking"? Hardly. I've said this for years that Liberals don't 'cherry pick'. Fundamentalists cherry pick. There is a huge difference between 'ignoring' parts of the Bible as the Fundi's do in trying to defend their doctrines, and taking an entirely different angle to how one approaches the Bible. It's not picking and choosing what's "accurate", but excusing away the bad bits. It's putting things into a context. If someone reads the Bible as containing spiritual truths that speak to them written by humans with many different ideas about culture, science and history, then to call it being intellectually dishonest is to frame it in the context that fundamentalists view it. It's not a case of literally true verses literally false, and to see anything in between makes you dishonest. It's a case of rising above that argument and seeing that it's a piece of literature that contains some valuable things, even if not everything within it is historically or scientifically factual. Is Homer's Oddesy? Does it have no value? It's moving beyond saying it IS the word of God, to saying it 'contains' the word of 'God', or words that speak to the spirit (God being a symbolic word of the "divine" in the human expression).

 

This is why I will not engage in arguing the "accuracy" of the Bible. It's a totally moot argument. It's not what it's about. It's human expression of ideas in the language of myth. Myth is not a lie. Myth is language. It's only our stupid culture and the damn literalists that somehow have been allowed to define it this way! Screw 'em. I would stop acknowledging them framing the argument like that. To say liberals are "cherry pickers" gives credence to a literalist perspective. The fundi's perspective is not credible. Liberals really, if not necessarily consciously, see the religion as something created by them, for them. This is what Christianity always has been from day one, until the Institution wrote in down in a Canon and called it stopped it from being a creation of people, and turned it into their Warden. This is why the religion itself has many pagan elements in it. People created it! So what if todays' Christianity takes on Eastern flavor. It's nothing new.

 

Antlerman,

 

do you remember the conversation with NBBTL, O_M and a few others in which we talked about cherry picking? I am sure you do .... just wanted to say that in the course of this thread I FINALLY GOT IT! (I feel like Eliza Doolittle .. in fact, By jove ... I may start calling you calling Professor Higgins )

 

I find that after all this time, from time to time I still unearth in myself, residual literalist thinking, so for many years had regarded liberals as 'cherry pickers' because of my literalist thinking ... literalist thinking assumes that liberals will be thinking in the same way so thinks they see them 'picking and choosing' more cherries than the few they pick themselves and excuse away, when in fact the context is completely different. Liberal theology only looks like cherry picking if viewed through a literalism lens.

 

I've realised that there is a big difference between deconverting literalists who walk through liberalism (as I did), watering down their still literal thinking into something 'more acceptable' in society at large and the liberal theology you describe above AM.

 

Bush County and Evolution Beyond ... I think this is really worth looking into - I would have been saying exactly the same as you a little while back (it took me AGES to grasp the difference) in fact Bush County, I think it was your intervention in my struggle to explain myself to Deva that finally switched the light on for me.

 

The significance of 'literalism' has really come home to me. I think this better describes a lot of people who currently earn the label 'fundamentalist' - for me I think I may reserve the term 'fundamentalist' for unloving literalists and use 'literalist' for those who 'think like a fundamentalist' in terms of their approach to the Bible but are genuinely trying to be loving and thoughtful.

 

This has been such a good conversation for me!

 

p.s Come on Gramps - wont'cha tie up a few loose ends?

 

Ok, sorry for throwing up the wall of text in a long quote but I think they both deserve repeating.

 

Alice - yes, the light went on for me in reading AM's post. Just did not have time to respond earlier. One of those really obvious things, the cherry picking by both literalists and liberals, that I never tied together. As a christian I was a literalist but not an unloving fundy. I knew there were passages that should not be taken literally. The one about plucking out your eye if it causes you to sin is a great example of non-literal interpretation. I like your distinction between a fundamentalist is an unloving literalist, and literalist in interpretation but genuinely trying to be loving and thoughtful. As I am still stuck in church I am around both and it is easy to hate the former but difficult to dislike the latter.

 

That literalist mind-set is a hard one to shake even after deconversion. For me, I had over 40 years for it to become entrenched.

 

AM - thank you very much for opening my eyes!

 

Edit:

I realize AM says that liberals do not cherry pick. Respectfully I disagree. Both literalists and liberals do. It just took both of the quoted posts for me to tie it together.

[Vigile]

"It's not picking and choosing what's "accurate", but excusing away the bad bits."

 

There is then the debate as to whether there is a baby in the bath water, or just a tiny, wrinkly, bluing corpse bobbing about in there being prodded while someone tries to convince you it's alive...

 

The only part of the whole damned book that ever even resonated with me was the idea of Judas sitting outside Gethsemane, pondering whether he'd done the right thing, and even then that is my hanging flesh on the bones of the story... if you actually DON'T add to narrative, there isn't much there. It's not like Homer, where there is characterisation, it's a shadow play. Thus the concept of there being 'something deeper' there I don't see... there are no characters there of any depth. Unless you actually write your own story based on what is really a plot synopsis, there is nothing there. The emperor is naked and really, we're giving more reverence to the book than it deserves... what is deathless and mythic is really stuff added by us, and not in the tale. It's a glyph... but it really points to nothing, other than the meaning that one imputes to it... The mental Rorschachery needed to gain anything seems to be neglected in any discussion of the nature of the text. It's not a rich allegory, it's not a deep story, it's not even well constructed... its only redeeming feature is that you can make up anything you like to say about it and claim it's inspired by god, when an objective analysis of the text reveals it's not even a good puppet show.

 

Can someone show me something de profundis?

 

Now here I agree 100%

 

Isn't it just another meme that concludes that there is something deeper to be unearthed in that one book?

[Amethyst]

Were they "Cherry Picking"? Hardly. I've said this for years that Liberals don't 'cherry pick'. Fundamentalists cherry pick. There is a huge difference between 'ignoring' parts of the Bible as the Fundi's do in trying to defend their doctrines, and taking an entirely different angle to how one approaches the Bible. It's not picking and choosing what's "accurate", but excusing away the bad bits. It's putting things into a context. If someone reads the Bible as containing spiritual truths that speak to them written by humans with many different ideas about culture, science and history, then to call it being intellectually dishonest is to frame it in the context that fundamentalists view it. It's not a case of literally true verses literally false, and to see anything in between makes you dishonest. It's a case of rising above that argument and seeing that it's a piece of literature that contains some valuable things, even if not everything within it is historically or scientifically factual. Is Homer's Oddesy? Does it have no value? It's moving beyond saying it IS the word of God, to saying it 'contains' the word of 'God', or words that speak to the spirit (God being a symbolic word of the "divine" in the human expression).

 

I have to disagree because I was a former liberal Christian in the last stage of my belief, and I *know* I was cherry picking. There were things I liked and things I didn't like, and I just tossed out the things I didn't like in order to keep the Christian label. It is being intellectually dishonest, and I personally feel very strongly about that. If it was not, I would still be a Christian for the sake of social acceptance. I would still be lying to myself about what I believed.

[SWIM]

Irrational is irrational. The reason they are not pounced on is because the focus is on ex-c people, not atheists. People jump on anyone with a xtian label because xtianity has harmed so many.

But we are mostly adults here. Surely we can look beyond labels alone and see that OM is not clinging to anything like the form of xianity that all of us have so many problems with. For me, I see her as no different from the deists on this forum. Her label is irrelivant.

 

Isn't that the point I made? CINO is basically just another Deist. And no, like Thur, I have no problem with them, nor do I feel the anger, or urges to "beat them up" like I do fundie assholes. In fact, she seems like someone I could get along with IRL, however my personal veiw on CINOs is the same, they too are wrong, they just are not "in-your-face". And, like AM pointed out, many CINOs that have came here, through learning and patience, have finished the de-conversion processs. Maybe both OM and Soj are right, they may never de-convert, that's their lose not mine, I don't like them any "less" because of it, but it is still a wee bit disapointing IMO to see people, no matter how much we like and respect them, to still suffer to some degree, the great delusion.

 

The only reason "I" accept both OM and Soj is "not" any form of agreement with them. I most certainly feel they are wrong. However, like Thur, who does NOT push his beliefs on people, neither do they. Plus they show understanding for the ex-c point of view.

 

Exactly. I'm a died in the wool atheist myself. I see it as irrational to profer any form of deism without evidence. But these people are not threats to anyone as far as I can tell. I'm happy to let people believe whatever they want as long as they aren't pushing it down the throats of others. That includes atheists.

 

 

No I don't percieve them as threats either, except maybe to themselves, but like us, they have a right to their belief, as long as no attempts to evangelize, we could learn a lot on how the whole evolution of people's religous stances occur. Like I said before, if this were an "atheist" board, I think they would have a lot of problems here, but it's not, it's ex-c.

 

Other CINOs could learn a lot from those two, better to talk and discuss then try to convince anyone of their position. As long as CINOs don't try to "share" *the good news*, I doubt I will ever personally "have a problem" with them.

[SWIM]

It's not a rich allegory, it's not a deep story, it's not even well constructed... its only redeeming feature is that you can make up anything you like to say about it and claim it's inspired by god, when an objective analysis of the text reveals it's not even a good puppet show.

 

I agree, and have been saying this for some time. There is *nothing* deep in the bible. I had read it a few times over years ago, other then being totally bored to tears, there was nothing in it "good" that was not already known, or just basic, grade-school level social common-sense. And the way it gets totally picked apart, one could use the same method and make a religious book out of nearly any book at all if you pick and choose whats:

 

1. a metaphor

2. totally untrue

3. literal fact

 

Juggle these three reading techniques around enough and the book "the grinch who stole christmas": can be holy scripture.

[white_raven23]

CINO is basically just another Deist. And no, like Thur, I have no problem with them, nor do I feel the anger, or urges to "beat them up" like I do fundie assholes. In fact, she seems like someone I could get along with IRL, however my personal veiw on CINOs is the same, they too are wrong, they just are not "in-your-face". And, like AM pointed out, many CINOs that have came here, through learning and patience, have finished the de-conversion processs. Maybe both OM and Soj are right, they may never de-convert, that's their lose not mine, I don't like them any "less" because of it, but it is still a wee bit disapointing IMO to see people, no matter how much we like and respect them, to still suffer to some degree, the great delusion.

 

 

But the very fact we are calling them CINOs emphasizes they are different from christians. We see it. We recognize it. And we do respect it. How many christians will? And in this sense, I mean christian as in "the-shit-we-saw-and-got-the-hell-away-from" christians?

 

O_M. I'm sure the christians tolerate you, but do they really accept you? I cannot remember, did you ever go all the way into christianity, or did you only go in as far as you are now? It's an important distinction when being able to accurately assess the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Like the difference betwen a polite hug and a bear hug.

 

Is there a "waiting" quality to the christians around you? Like they are just waiting for you to "get it"? That's more tolerance than acceptance. Wheras if they are inviting you to the hospital vigil at the birth of a baby and are quick to invite you into the room when it arrives....that would be acceptance (Note: hospital vigils for practically any other reason don't count as your presence is meant to be a working presence by getting the prayer antenna closer to where it's needed).

[Taphophilia]

From a fundy perspective, liberal Christianity is cherry picking. However, liberals are not saying it's all literally true and then are cherry picking. That is what would be dishonest. They are simply choosing a spirituality with Christian themes that works for them. It is the Christian themes, as ex-fundamentalists, that get our jammies in a bunch. In much the same way as an abuse victim is triggered by something benign that was used to abuse.

 

I don't think it's fair to lump liberal Christians in the same basket as fundamentalists. They just are as appalled and offended by them, as we are. Being ex-fundamentalists, it's simply prejudiced and ignorant on our part to judge them with a fundamentalist yard stick. It also shows we still have a lot of issues left over from our experience as fundamentists which I truly believe that OM and others have been more than sensitive and understanding.

 

I'd have to say that liberal Christians and I agree on a hell of a lot. They have done a lot for social reform and have been activists in women's rights, gay rights, racial equality, pro-choice, etc. etc. etc.

 

Taph

[Amethyst]

I agree, and have been saying this for some time. There is *nothing* deep in the bible. I had read it a few times over years ago, other then being totally bored to tears, there was nothing in it "good" that was not already known, or just basic, grade-school level social common-sense. And the way it gets totally picked apart, one could use the same method and make a religious book out of nearly any book at all if you pick and choose whats:

 

1. a metaphor

2. totally untrue

3. literal fact

 

Juggle these three reading techniques around enough and the book "the grinch who stole christmas": can be holy scripture.

 

The same could be said for Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, or Superman. For all we know, there could be a Gandalf cult in a thousand years.

[Evolution_beyond]

The same could be said for Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, or Superman. For all we know, there could be a Gandalf cult in a thousand years.

 

Or a Yoda cult

 

[Open_Minded]

O_M. I'm sure the christians tolerate you, but do they really accept you? I cannot remember, did you ever go all the way into christianity, or did you only go in as far as you are now? It's an important distinction when being able to accurately assess the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Like the difference betwen a polite hug and a bear hug.

 

Is there a "waiting" quality to the christians around you? Like they are just waiting for you to "get it"? That's more tolerance than acceptance. Wheras if they are inviting you to the hospital vigil at the birth of a baby and are quick to invite you into the room when it arrives....that would be acceptance (Note: hospital vigils for practically any other reason don't count as your presence is meant to be a working presence by getting the prayer antenna closer to where it's needed).

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=331445

From Michael

I believe they BOTH hang out here, and get along so well with us because they are actually ONE of us. They just have not found the courage and will power to overcome it.

<snip>

Sooner or later they both will see what so many have tried to tell them at this site. It is only a matter of time. I honestly feel strongly we will eventually be reading BOTH of their de-conversion testimonies eventually, they may not agree with that, but I am willing to take side wagers that at least ONE will either vanish from this site, or write a de-conversion testimony within one year of today. Any takers? Winner can be paid by paypal. Accepting any amount for the wager.

 

White Raven ---- I'm sorry but when I read your post I just had to laugh - not in a bad way - just a comical/ironic kind of way.

 

They accept me pretty much the same way I'm accepted on this site as sort of an eccentric, big mouth, generally likable person.

 

Some accept me enough to confide in me and call me a friend.

 

Others accept me and tiptoe around me because they know I bite - --- I'm laughing as I write this

 

Others accept me because deep down they know my insistence that they treat all humans as equal is right even though they don't like it.

 

Others accept me and like me they just can't figure me out.

 

But, bottom line, they moved two services (traditional and contemporary) to make room for a meditative/interfaith service that I led for two years. That service is currently suspended at my request - there weren't enough "takers" to keep it going and tie up the other two services.

 

And - White Raven - bottom line - this year has been the year from hell for my family - and those people (in addition to many more) were the ones who were there with me. And for that I am eternally grateful (I'm crying as I write this).

 

I like my church because it is human - it is full of all the human wonders and foibles as well - very much like this site. I like my church because - in general - they accept the human journey we are on together is not one of perfection but one of simply traveling the road together and discovering each other.

[Antlerman]

Were they "Cherry Picking"? Hardly. I've said this for years that Liberals don't 'cherry pick'. Fundamentalists cherry pick. There is a huge difference between 'ignoring' parts of the Bible as the Fundi's do in trying to defend their doctrines, and taking an entirely different angle to how one approaches the Bible. It's not picking and choosing what's "accurate", but excusing away the bad bits. It's putting things into a context. If someone reads the Bible as containing spiritual truths that speak to them written by humans with many different ideas about culture, science and history, then to call it being intellectually dishonest is to frame it in the context that fundamentalists view it. It's not a case of literally true verses literally false, and to see anything in between makes you dishonest. It's a case of rising above that argument and seeing that it's a piece of literature that contains some valuable things, even if not everything within it is historically or scientifically factual. Is Homer's Oddesy? Does it have no value? It's moving beyond saying it IS the word of God, to saying it 'contains' the word of 'God', or words that speak to the spirit (God being a symbolic word of the "divine" in the human expression).

 

I have to disagree because I was a former liberal Christian in the last stage of my belief, and I *know* I was cherry picking. There were things I liked and things I didn't like, and I just tossed out the things I didn't like in order to keep the Christian label. It is being intellectually dishonest, and I personally feel very strongly about that. If it was not, I would still be a Christian for the sake of social acceptance. I would still be lying to myself about what I believed.

I think Alice touched on this some in her response to this. What I would suggest, is that shifiting over to a 'liberal' theology, you in fact were still seeing things with the literalist mindset, and then of course would conclude rightly that you were being intellectually dishonest. I was doing the same thing in my days trying to find a home in the more liberal churches. I was still approaching it in terms of a literalist. There was still this expectation that it was from God and that truth is in there from him to be found. So in essence you wind up saying, "This part is from God, that part is not". That in fact would be cherry picking as you say. But this is a literalist mindset trying to read the Bible as a liberal.

 

I hear this sort of thing all the time where people say, "The Bible is crap. It's a book of lies." To me to say the Bible is a lie, is to approach it on a whole different level than one should. It's like saying the Lord of the Rings is a lie. How is understanding something in a different layer, if you will wrong? Isn't it possible that the liberal can find value in something like the idea of the resurrection without needing to believe it actually happened historically? Isn't the more important value to them what it represents? Isn't this what all myths are?

 

Of course someone will not find value in Zeus if one looks at it from a literalist point of view. But if they look at it from a symbolic point of view, there in fact could be some pertinent value there. The gods have existed and endured for a reason. Not everything in life has to be seen in a literalist light. Things can be looked at from many layers. If one looks at it as a book of religious symbols, then how is it a lie? Symbols are not literalist facts. They're symbols that point to something expressed in that language.

 

For a fundamentalist to shift their mindset over to this way of thinking is not something easily done. It's like learning a new language. I couldn’t do it on my way out either. It's retraining the mind to perceive the world from a new set of eyes. I've come to see the world as a relativist over time. That's not something one just "tries" and then concludes it's nonsense. The best that can be said is, "I couldn't do it", not conclude that those who do are being insincere and dishonest. Truth can exist on many levels and in many places. It’s really in how one looks at it.

[white_raven23]

 

Damn....you are right about the irony! So basically in your christian community you have varying levels of tolerence and acceptance.....just...like....here.

 

*ahem*

 

The real shame is the social stigma attached to people who "re-invent" religion. Unfortunately the people who have done this most "successfully" have ended up passing out special Kool-Aid in the end, so anyone else who tries it has to overcome that stigma. Not even the Mormons have fully overcome their "cult" status (we'll see....if Romney makes it into the White House).

 

If not for the megalomanic actions of these bozos, I'd say folks like O_M have a good chance of re-working religion into something more personally true and intimately spiritual. But because of the Jim Jonses, and David Koreshes, I think most mainstream christians are galvanized against change (as if they weren't resistent to change already).

[sojourner]

You know to me my beliefs are mine, and I really see everyone on a journey of coming to know creation, themselves and God, that is my current belief. Therefore no matter where people are at they are where they are supposed to be in their journey. It would be playing God to me to step into someones life and say 'you are here, you need to go there, this is how you do it'. What I can do is say 'I am here, or I was there, or I think Im going there or even Im coming here where I am as in Im here but havent really arrived yet in a certain way of knowing' haha but I just dont feel to play God anymore in peoples lives. I can commune with folks where they are if Ive been there or if I can imagine being there and with some folks I just cant go there, in that i will find how they believe to be so extreme that I cannot commune with them. Extremes totally shut down this center in me. It cannot be contained in extremism of any kind to me.

 

I look at you all and see you experiancing what you are experiancing and wonder if I will experiance it too at some point? I dont know, but if I do I figure it will be an important part of my journey. And where you all are as ex-christians is an important part of your journeys. That is just how I veiw things so you all will know. That is why its important to me not to try and step into your journeys and try and change you or your journey. That would be very dishonest to how I believe.

 

 

 

sojourner

[Amethyst]

 

I think part of the problem is that so many of us were, in fact, raised with a fundamentalist mindset and were immersed in it for many years -- until adolescence or adulthood. When something like that is so much a part of who you are, it is very hard to break away from, especially when you are surrounded by people who actively discourage it. That is, I think, one reason why many people here still have all-or-nothing mindsets, even as non-believers. It is a hard habit to break. However, I do have to say that if it wasn't for that same mindset, some of us would still be Christians.

 

The trouble I also have with taking the Bible as a myth, and still calling it a religion, is that nobody does this with any other fairy tales. There is no Star Trek religion. There is no Lord of the Rings religion. This is because people realize those are fictions. Why is the Bible different? Because so many were raised to believe it is literally true.

 

I would have no problem with Christianity as a philosophy if the Bible didn't have so many hateful, violent things in it. Also, one can still live by the Golden Rule without taking on the Christian label. The problem, I think, is that people cling to the Christian label because it is socially desirable to have it. For example, if Buddhism was more socially desirable than Christianity, I daresay many of the people who call themselves liberal Christians would be Buddhists instead for the acceptance. Same with Paganism, or any other belief system.

[Antlerman]

Juggle these three reading techniques around enough and the book "the grinch who stole christmas": can be holy scripture.

Almost, but not quite. A masterfully written book of mythology using a series of archetypes will in fact work on this level. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is a good example (Dr. Suess doesn't quite plumb to those sorts of depths). I want to post something here I read a little while back about how the current movie Beowulf completely misses the mark, turning a great mythology into a silly Hollywood action film.

 

There’s a quote from it I want to post here:

[Zemeckis'] "Beowulf" doesn't fail because it changes the story: It fails because it is so busy juicing up the story that it does not create a mythical universe. It has no transfiguring vision. It seizes upon an ancient tale, whose invisible roots run deep into our psyches, and uses it to construct a shiny, plastic entertainment. It takes a wild fable and turns it into a tame story.

But "Beowulf" is the kind of story that is meaningless unless it is part of a cosmology. It is, in short, a myth.

 

J.R.R. Tolkien, the author who created the most powerful mythical universe of our time, was also a renowned "Beowulf" scholar. "The Lord of the Rings" was heavily influenced by the poem, and Tolkien wrote what is still one of the seminal essays about it. Tolkien's analysis of "Beowulf," and more generally of fantasy and myth, illuminate both why he was able to create a modern mythopoeic masterpiece, and why "Beowulf" falls flat.

 

"Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics," published in 1936, marked a turning point in critical studies of the poem.

Before Tolkien's essay, most scholars regarded the unknown poet's use of supernatural elements -- the monster Grendel, his equally monstrous mother, and the dragon -- as primitive or childish

.

Arguing that these "trivial" themes failed to do justice to the poem's exquisite language, they saw "Beowulf" as being primarily of historical, not artistic, interest. As the scholar W.P. Ker wrote in 1904, "The thing itself is cheap; the moral and the spirit of it can only be matched among the noblest authors." Tolkien overturned these assumptions. He argued that the poem should be read as a poem, and recognized as a great one. The fantastic elements in "Beowulf," far from being faintly embarrassing, were inseparable from its majestic artistry.

 

In a famous allegory, Tolkien compared the author of "Beowulf" to a man who, inheriting a field full of ancient stones, used them to build a tower. His friends, recognizing that the stones had belonged to a more ancient building, tore down the tower "in order to look for hidden carvings and inscriptions." What they did not realize, Tolkien ends, was that "from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea."

 

Tolkien's point is that the fantastic elements in "Beowulf" are ancient archetypes that have deep roots in human beliefs, fears and wishes -- myths, in other words.

And in "Beowulf," he argues, these myths are an essential part of a tragic tale whose theme is "man at war with the hostile world, and his inevitable overthrow in Time."

I’m particularly impressed in the parallels of this statement against the literalist mindset that take Biblical myths and brushes them aside as nonsense and fiction, “Before Tolkien's essay, most scholars regarded the unknown poet's use of supernatural elements -- the monster Grendel, his equally monstrous mother, and the dragon -- as primitive or childish.”

 

The problem is reading something literally that is the product of mythological language. Is there something deeper to the Bible than a surface “fact, non-fact” reading? Does it use archetypes found in other religions? Of course it does. It’s a blend of many mythologies. Are mythology’s “primitive and childish”? Is Beowulf?

 

Now do these archetypes speak to me and can I use them? No. (correction: yes and no. Archetypes speak to everyone, but doesn't necessarily mean one can use that system of symbols per se, in our case due to having been posioned by the literalist thinking). But I can see and appreciate how non-literalists can.

[Legion]

You know it occurs to me that OM, in some sense, recognizes that Christianity may be a style of performance art. And this medium of artistic expression is the one with which she is most comfortable.

[Open_Minded]

 

Damn....you are right about the irony! So basically in your christian community you have varying levels of tolerence and acceptance.....just...like....here.

Yep - pretty much -

 

But - it's ok White Raven - it really is. I've never been able to find a place where I "fit" nice and tidy anyway - it's certainly nothing new in my life to be a bit of an unknown to folks.

 

Vig caught it early on in this thread - http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=331164 - when he stated:

I think you just like to be a rebel; even here

[SWIM]

Juggle these three reading techniques around enough and the book "the grinch who stole christmas": can be holy scripture.

Almost, but not quite. A masterfully written book of mythology using a series of archetypes will in fact work on this level. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is a good example (Dr. Suess doesn't quite plumb to those sorts of depths). I want to post something here I read a little while back about how the current movie Beowulf completely misses the mark, turning a great mythology into a silly Hollywood action film.

 

 

Lord of the rings would make a great religion, but it is centered around a "middle earth" that does not exist, that would be a problem.

 

However, there are other stories that fit the bill better (used the grinch as a sarcastic example) a serious example would be like the adventures of ulyssis, (The Illiad and the Odyssey), or maybe even the spartan Helen of Troy story.

 

The reason these are not religion is there is no god-man proclaiming to be from heaven in them, had these stories had them, we would no doubt see churches for them today.

[Amethyst]

The problem is reading something literally that is the product of mythological language. Is there something deeper to the Bible than a surface “fact, non-fact†reading? Does it use archetypes found in other religions? Of course it does. It’s a blend of many mythologies. Are mythology’s “primitive and childish� Is Beowulf?

 

Now do these archetypes speak to me and can I use them? No. (correction: yes and no. Archetypes speak to everyone, but doesn't necessarily mean one can use that system of symbols per se, in our case due to having been posioned by the literalist thinking). But I can see and appreciate how non-literalists can.

 

I read a book called The Hero's Journey by Joseph Campbell that discusses the different kinds of archetypes in literature. The Jesus myth follows the typical pattern of hero stories, which the book points out, goes like this:

 

. Separation (from the known)

 

2. The Call

 

3. The Threshold (with guardians, helpers, and mentor)

 

4. Initiation and Transformation

 

5. The Challenges

 

6. The Abyss

 

7. The Transformation

 

8. The Revelation

 

9. The Atonement

 

10. The Return (to the known world)

 

11. The Return (with a Gift)

 

I think any well written literature story can follow these and gain a following of fans. There is definitely something to the hero's journey that appeals to the general population. Heroes inspire all of us, after all.

[Antlerman]

Lord of the rings would make a great religion, but it is centered around a "middle earth" that does not exist, that would be a problem.

You're seeing Middle Earth as something you can prove, and therefore has no value? This misses the point of it's significance in the mythology.

 

However, there are other stories that fit the bill better (used the grinch as a sarcastic example) a serious example would be like the adventures of ulyssis, (The Illiad and the Odyssey), or maybe even the spartan Helen of Troy story.

Most interesting you should bring this up. Did you know that the Gospel of Mark, the first Gospel written essentially uses Homer's Odyssey as vehicle to tell the hero's tale of the Christian faith? Mark's Gospel is really Mark's Odyssey. It was common place for all writers to be studied in the writings of Homer, and many works followed him thematically. There are long lists of parallels between Mark and Homer.

 

So then to argue ironically, if Homer would work, then why wouldn't Mark since it bases it's "narrative" on Homer? Does Ulysses need to be a real historical figure for the story to have something to say? (Just playing Devil's advocate here)

 

The reason these are not religion is there is no god-man proclaiming to be from heaven in them, had these stories had them, we would no doubt see churches for them today.

Is this true? Islam is a religion and has no god-man proclaiming to be from hevean in its story. Religions aren't based on god/men. But they generally will have hero's of the faith as symbols to represent the teachings. I believe the Jesus character is a developed one that serves as the messenger of the school of thought from various religious communities. I don't believe Jesus created the religion. I believe the religion created Jesus.

[Antlerman]

I read a book called The Hero's Journey by Joseph Campbell that discusses the different kinds of archetypes in literature. The Jesus myth follows the typical pattern of hero stories, which the book points out, goes like this:

 

. Separation (from the known)

 

2. The Call

 

3. The Threshold (with guardians, helpers, and mentor)

 

4. Initiation and Transformation

 

5. The Challenges

 

6. The Abyss

 

7. The Transformation

 

8. The Revelation

 

9. The Atonement

 

10. The Return (to the known world)

 

11. The Return (with a Gift)

 

I think any well written literature story can follow these and gain a following of fans. There is definitely something to the hero's journey that appeals to the general population. Heroes inspire all of us, after all.

Interesting. I just posted my post after yours before I read this. Yes, this is what I'm talking about exactly.

[Legion]

I read a book called The Hero's Journey by Joseph Campbell that discusses the different kinds of archetypes in literature.

Someone recently recommended Joseph Campbell to me. Now that I've heard this name a second time I may have to check it out.

[sojourner]

Amethyst

 

I just bought that book a couple of days ago. I am looking forward to reading it.

 

 

sojourner

[Fweethawt]

"It's not picking and choosing what's "accurate", but excusing away the bad bits."

 

There is then the debate as to whether there is a baby in the bath water, or just a tiny, wrinkly, bluing corpse bobbing about in there being prodded while someone tries to convince you it's alive...

You ummm.... You went ahead'n ummm...

 

Ya gave me quite a visual there, Gramps.

 

Thank you for that...

[R. S. Martin]

 

I think part of the problem is that so many of us were, in fact, raised with a fundamentalist mindset and were immersed in it for many years -- until adolescence or adulthood. When something like that is so much a part of who you are, it is very hard to break away from, especially when you are surrounded by people who actively discourage it. That is, I think, one reason why many people here still have all-or-nothing mindsets, even as non-believers. It is a hard habit to break. However, I do have to say that if it wasn't for that same mindset, some of us would still be Christians.

 

The trouble I also have with taking the Bible as a myth, and still calling it a religion, is that nobody does this with any other fairy tales. There is no Star Trek religion. There is no Lord of the Rings religion. This is because people realize those are fictions. Why is the Bible different? Because so many were raised to believe it is literally true.

 

I would have no problem with Christianity as a philosophy if the Bible didn't have so many hateful, violent things in it. Also, one can still live by the Golden Rule without taking on the Christian label. The problem, I think, is that people cling to the Christian label because it is socially desirable to have it. For example, if Buddhism was more socially desirable than Christianity, I daresay many of the people who call themselves liberal Christians would be Buddhists instead for the acceptance. Same with Paganism, or any other belief system.

 

Only in the last two centuries. Only in fundamentalism.