Religion Is Made Up

[sojourner]

Hey Neon

 

What I found wonderful in the original post was the whole tone of it. That what is important is not religion, not books but people.

 

I dont personally know what is myth and what is not in the bible and I dont feel it is essential for me to know. That might seem weird but I guess I do the same thing with the bible I do with other religious or even secular writings. I treasure what inspires me when it jumps off the page and am having to just leave it at that. Honestly the more I thought about it the more I realized the literal just wasnt that important to me. It seems to be what has inspired more wars, hate, tribalism and all sorts of garbage where as on a more mythical level I can find some strength for my journey.

 

So that is why I can find much in the bible still relevant to my life and other writings for that matter as well.

 

sojourner

[Ouroboros]

My but we are hijacking this thread...

I blame Soj!

 

 

 

You're okay Soj, no worries.

 

 

 

I suggest that someone start a new thread about Cell/Genetic memory, Jung Space and ... whatever goes into whatever subject it would be...

[The-Captain]

My but we are hijacking this thread...

I blame Soj!

 

 

 

You're okay Soj, no worries.

 

 

 

I suggest that someone start a new thread about Cell/Genetic memory, Jung Space and ... whatever goes into whatever subject it would be...

 

We really are bad about being formal

 

Too many interesting things to talk about I guess.

[sojourner]

How come there is no blushing smiley here? I looked for him but he seems to have run off or never found his way to this forum?

 

'blushing smiley here'

 

lol

 

sojourner

[Ouroboros]

Soj, this is a very interesting topic, so don't blush for bringing it up.

 

I started another thread under Colosseum for this subject. Lets continue there.

 

It might be possible to move the posts over there too...

[The-Captain]

Da

[sojourner]

sojourner is packing up her thoughts in pink boxes with pretty bows and labels addressed to the new thread, as she is a total blonde on this topic but loves it anyways!

[Ouroboros]

Posts moved to other topic.

[Grandpa Harley]

How come there is no blushing smiley here? I looked for him but he seems to have run off or never found his way to this forum?

 

'blushing smiley here'

 

lol

 

sojourner

 

it's WUB braced by colons thus

[sojourner]

Thanks Grandpa, I thought that one was in love or something, didnt know it was blushing lol

 

sojourner

[Grandpa Harley]

I've never been sure either... I've seen it used both ways...

[R. S. Martin]

Kratos, I truly recommend anything by Joseph Campbell. It will open your eyes.

It's not on the Christian ministers list... Only clergy I know who've read it are 'odd' (Fr. Richard, Fr. Charlie, Bishop Spong... )

 

OK - Gramps - I'm going to call you on that one. Not only is it on the shelf of my church's pastor, it is also on the reading list of our regional ELCA Lutheran (fairly mainstream) seminary. I know this - because I know the professor of Hebrew Scriptures at that seminary. My guess is - that if it's on their reading list - it's on the reading list of most ELCA Seminaries.

Not only that - but within my congregation - we discuss mythology all the time. Just a few Sundays ago - during our contemporary service - we discussed the mythology around the virgin birth story. I'm not saying every ELCA congregation would discuss those things, but our church is not your typical "liberal" church. It's a 150 year-old congregation with a lot of elderly people raised on the traditional theology. They're open minded folks - but they're hardly raving liberals either.

 

It's all relative - Gramps. The whole of Christianity cannot be defined by one individual's experience of it.

 

 

It's not on any reading list I got from my ELCA seminary. Oh let's see, you're in the States and I'm in Canada. So mine would be ELCC. And we're probably not quite 150 years old. But we're the oldest ELC seminary in Canada. As you say, OM, you can't define the entire Christian community by one individual's experience of it. Your experience of the Evangelical Lutheran Church is apparently not everyone's experience of it.

[R. S. Martin]

Actually Lutherans are a lot like Texas... some of them are quite sophisiticated and educated and other seem to spend their time wallowing in their indigent feculence while inbreeding...

 

TBH, it's down to the Lutherans that most of the Biblical Criticism we have is extant (although they started losing clergy hand over fist until they moved the goal posts) In many ways the Lutherans are the unwilling fathers of the Jesus Seminar, the Jesus Project and their later incarnations...

 

Thank you Grandpa - I appreciate your recognition of the high standards of Biblical Criticism in the Lutheran tradition. And I fully acknowledge we're "a lot like Texas".

 

I do know in the more rural areas things are not quite so liberal as where I hale from - but, I also know that the Lutheran's ability to house such diverse opinions is pushing people to change and to think. And - I'm not so sure all Lutherans would consider the denomination an "unwilling father" of the Jesus Seminar and such. Many of us would be very willing.

 

 

The Lutherans around me are definitely not willing. The few times we students got the profs to even say the damn word they did not suggest that it was a Lutheran project. I didn't know that till just now. I got the impression that it was some overly enthusiastic but not really scholarly people with their heads up their ass who did the Jesus Seminar. (BTW, that's my langauge, not theirs.)

[Open_Minded]

It's not on any reading list I got from my ELCA seminary. Oh let's see, you're in the States and I'm in Canada. So mine would be ELCC. And we're probably not quite 150 years old. But we're the oldest ELC seminary in Canada. As you say, OM, you can't define the entire Christian community by one individual's experience of it. Your experience of the Evangelical Lutheran Church is apparently not everyone's experience of it.

Ruby - I should qualify. My church is 150 years old. I've no idea how old the seminary is. The buildings on its campus are quite old, my guess is the seminary itself is nearer to 100 years old. The only reason I say this is because my church was founded during the pioneer period of this area. I can't believe the seminary would have been founded that early.

[Open_Minded]

The Lutherans around me are definitely not willing. The few times we students got the profs to even say the damn word they did not suggest that it was a Lutheran project. I didn't know that till just now. I got the impression that it was some overly enthusiastic but not really scholarly people with their heads up their ass who did the Jesus Seminar. (BTW, that's my langauge, not theirs.)

 

Oh I don't think most Lutherans are "willing". I was just having some fun with Gramps. But, I do know many Lutherans who believe the Jesus Seminar is good for Christianity. They (and I) feel that because of the Jesus Seminar Christians have to dig deeply into what they teach and why.

 

And the Seminar is not a "Lutheran project". But the high scholarly standards of the Lutheran church inevitably led to such a seminar. Because the Lutheran church led the way in so much of the same modern Biblical criticism picked up and used by the Jesus Seminar. That's why Gramps said, "unwilling fathers of the Jesus Seminar".

[R. S. Martin]

I shared my "testimony" before how I met Jesus when He came into my room and spoke to me. I had tried to find God through religion prior to this. In fact, I was surprised when I was speaking to a college counselor before graduation and was told that I could declare a double minor if I wanted to. I knew I would get my BS in chemistry and minor in mathematics, but he said that when he added up the electives I had chosen in my 4 years, I had earned a minor in comparative religion. This included classes in Zen Bhuddism, B'ahai, Hinduism, philosophy concerning God, as well as, the Bible as a historic and poetic book.

 

I don't understand this. Are you saying it's a miracle of divine intervention that you happened to take the right number of courses for a double minor? How in the world can that be considered a miracle? People naturally take courses in their field of interest. You are interested in religion so you took a batch of courses in it that are offered and the required courses are offered so that is what you take. Presto! you end up happening to take the right number and type of courses to count for minors. Not terribly creative if you ask me--just follow the crowds. The more creative students would be hidden away in some cubby-hole taking electives nobody ever heard of.

 

BTW, if five courses would count as something, then I would have more minors on my transcript, too. I needed six to count for anything and I didn't get that. If five courses would have counted at my school, I'd have one major and two minors. Major in social work and minors in religious studies and philosophy. Or was it in anthropology. I forget how we were counting them. I really wanted philosophy but couldn't handle some of the required courses, so I explored other interests. I "discovered" cultural anthropology in my very last year and insisted on taking the intro course for my last semester. The course was full so that I couldn't get in but I attended class. The prof said someone might drop it. Finally, when he saw how much I wanted in, he signed me in even though it was full. I have day-dreams of going back and doing a degree in it, though I have no idea how to make it happen.

 

Looking again at the title of this thread. Yes, based on what I learned in anthropology of religion and elsewhere, I am convinced that religion is made up. But it's more intrinsic to the human than just a product of the imagination. There is a very real reason why people are religious but the reason is not that god exists. Rather, god seems to exist because of the way the human brain developed.

[R. S. Martin]

The Lutherans around me are definitely not willing. The few times we students got the profs to even say the damn word they did not suggest that it was a Lutheran project. I didn't know that till just now. I got the impression that it was some overly enthusiastic but not really scholarly people with their heads up their ass who did the Jesus Seminar. (BTW, that's my langauge, not theirs.)

 

Oh I don't think most Lutherans are "willing". I was just having some fun with Gramps. But, I do know many Lutherans who believe the Jesus Seminar is good for Christianity. They (and I) feel that because of the Jesus Seminar Christians have to dig deeply into what they teach and why.

 

And the Seminar is not a "Lutheran project". But the high scholarly standards of the Lutheran church inevitably led to such a seminar. Because the Lutheran church led the way in so much of the same modern Biblical criticism picked up and used by the Jesus Seminar. That's why Gramps said, "unwilling fathers of the Jesus Seminar".

 

 

Thanks for this. I've finally come through this thread. I appreciate so much of the Jesus research that has come out of the Jesus Seminar (stuff I saw previous to my seminary experience) that I cannot write them off. I think if my profs don't like them, it must be something on their part; I can like them anyway. I like Tom Harpur, too, but I know not to talk about him to my NT prof if I know what's good for me.

 

I'm trying to think what kind of stuff I've seen that came out of the Jesus Seminar. Would it be mostly stuff refuting the historical Jesus? That idea does not wash at my school, though I am not the only student who likes it. The level of defensiveness they bring against Harpur makes me think the historical Jesus is an idea whose time is dying in mainstream scholarship. Just checking the title of thread again--I think this might be on-topic. The evidence against a historical Jesus just seems too strong for it to hold, in my opinion. And that would definitely make for made-up religion.

 

But it's deeper than that. I'm not sure what the "next step" will be after religion. Nor do I think our generation will have to worry about that. We won't live to see it.

[Kratos]

I shared my "testimony" before how I met Jesus when He came into my room and spoke to me. I had tried to find God through religion prior to this. In fact, I was surprised when I was speaking to a college counselor before graduation and was told that I could declare a double minor if I wanted to. I knew I would get my BS in chemistry and minor in mathematics, but he said that when he added up the electives I had chosen in my 4 years, I had earned a minor in comparative religion. This included classes in Zen Bhuddism, B'ahai, Hinduism, philosophy concerning God, as well as, the Bible as a historic and poetic book.

 

I don't understand this. Are you saying it's a miracle of divine intervention that you happened to take the right number of courses for a double minor? How in the world can that be considered a miracle? People naturally take courses in their field of interest. You are interested in religion so you took a batch of courses in it that are offered and the required courses are offered so that is what you take. Presto! you end up happening to take the right number and type of courses to count for minors. Not terribly creative if you ask me--just follow the crowds. The more creative students would be hidden away in some cubby-hole taking electives nobody ever heard of.

 

BTW, if five courses would count as something, then I would have more minors on my transcript, too. I needed six to count for anything and I didn't get that. If five courses would have counted at my school, I'd have one major and two minors. Major in social work and minors in religious studies and philosophy. Or was it in anthropology. I forget how we were counting them. I really wanted philosophy but couldn't handle some of the required courses, so I explored other interests. I "discovered" cultural anthropology in my very last year and insisted on taking the intro course for my last semester. The course was full so that I couldn't get in but I attended class. The prof said someone might drop it. Finally, when he saw how much I wanted in, he signed me in even though it was full. I have day-dreams of going back and doing a degree in it, though I have no idea how to make it happen.

 

Looking again at the title of this thread. Yes, based on what I learned in anthropology of religion and elsewhere, I am convinced that religion is made up. But it's more intrinsic to the human than just a product of the imagination. There is a very real reason why people are religious but the reason is not that god exists. Rather, god seems to exist because of the way the human brain developed.

 

Ruby,

 

Glad to help you understand my post. It is always better than assuming what is not said. I never said anything about divine intervention or a miracle having taken place. I stated that I was searching for God in religion prior to meeting the Lord and used my double minor to show the inadvertent result of this search. I, also, listed 5 classes that I took which I said were among the ones that gave me the double major. I doubt the University I attended had any less requirements for a minor than the one you attend. I started college almost 35 years ago so I am surprised I could name 5 classes among my electives at all. I hope this helps.

 

John

[Grandpa Harley]

so are you saying that Jesus turning up wasn't a miracle, but some form of mental aberration?

[Grandpa Harley]

The Lutherans around me are definitely not willing. The few times we students got the profs to even say the damn word they did not suggest that it was a Lutheran project. I didn't know that till just now. I got the impression that it was some overly enthusiastic but not really scholarly people with their heads up their ass who did the Jesus Seminar. (BTW, that's my langauge, not theirs.)

 

Oh I don't think most Lutherans are "willing". I was just having some fun with Gramps. But, I do know many Lutherans who believe the Jesus Seminar is good for Christianity. They (and I) feel that because of the Jesus Seminar Christians have to dig deeply into what they teach and why.

 

And the Seminar is not a "Lutheran project". But the high scholarly standards of the Lutheran church inevitably led to such a seminar. Because the Lutheran church led the way in so much of the same modern Biblical criticism picked up and used by the Jesus Seminar. That's why Gramps said, "unwilling fathers of the Jesus Seminar".

 

You'd have made a fine Jesuit! There's me, you and Han now... Of course, being a woman means that the Order of St Ignatius would be closed to you, but that's their loss There again, you have the advantage of beleiving in something like their god, but the woman thing is the killer...

[Open_Minded]

Thanks for this. I've finally come through this thread. I appreciate so much of the Jesus research that has come out of the Jesus Seminar (stuff I saw previous to my seminary experience) that I cannot write them off.

I've read many of the Jesus Seminar authors and I do respect their quest. I have difficulty (at times) with their approach.

 

To me, Ruby - and this is just my opinion - as in most areas of life there are checks and balances. Let's take abortion for instance.

 

Now, I'm a liberal and I believe in a woman's right to choose. I feel - very strongly - that if a women gets raped she has every right to choose the morning after pill in the emergency room. I feel if the condom breaks a woman has every right to use the morning after pill. I feel that if a pregnancy advances and something awful happens (like a car accident) and the doctors have to make a choice between saving the life of the mother or the life of the baby - they should be able to make that choice based on the medical reality at hand and not worry about ending up in jail if medical reality dictates an abortion. (And I do know of a situation like that).

 

Having said that - I also believe that the pro-life fundy literalists have a point. We need to be respectful of life (even before it emerges from the womb). I don't like their literalism and I don't like their extremism - but they have a point.

 

I have also seen extremism on the side of the pro choice people. I have no problem limiting abortions in late term pregnancies as long as there are exceptions for the life and well-being of the mother. Awful things do happen in late pregnancy - and doctors aught to be able to act without fear of ending up in jail. But, some pro choice people want NO limits on abortion at all.

 

In reality I often find myself on middle ground with these types of discussions. I think that most people do. Most people can be a bit philosophical and acknowledge the validity of multiple points of view. But, those on the extreme ends of a debate - they serve as checks and balances.

 

So.... back to the Jesus Seminar and Lutheran Biblical Criticism - I can see both points of view. I do think the Jesus Seminar can play fast and loose (at times) with valid critical analysis. I also think that Lutherans can get "stuck in the mud" of their own high standards. In truth reality probably lies somewhere in the middle ground. And they both serve as checks and balances on each others approach to the historical Jesus.

 

As to the historical Jesus - this is a discussion I've been involved with before on these boards. My father (who considers himself Christian now - but for many years during my teen and young adult life wavered between Agnosticism and Atheism) does not believe Jesus was an actual historical figure. So, I've had cause to really think about these things and study them from the time I was in my teens (I'm now 50).

 

In all the reading I've done (not only from the Jesus Seminar) but in other areas as well, I've come to the conclusion that there was an historical figure named Jesus. Last I knew (and it's been a few years since I really researched this issue) most mainstream scholars (even Hebrew scholars) believe that there was a historical Jesus. They accept that the gospels are not "historical" in the sense that you and I think of historical, but they do think there was an actual figure that the gospels are based on.

 

For my own part, I came to a comfort level that there was an historical Jesus not through the study of Biblical criticism but through the study of ancient history and oral traditions. I love ancient history and I learned how important oral traditions can be for uncovering something of a time in history before writing was as prevalent as it is today. In our modern culture we have very little appreciation for ancient oral traditions and oral histories. In fact - I think modern seminaries would do well to introduce this whole area of ancient history into their curriculum and Biblical criticism. But, alas they don't listen to me ... and are stuck in the mud of their own approaches. But, this could be said for the Jesus Seminar people as well. It's been a few years since I've read much of anything coming out of the Jesus Seminar (so I could be wrong) but I don't remember seeing much of their work taking into consideration the very real oral culture that the gospel stories came out of.

 

My only suggestion would be to keep an open mind both with the Jesus Seminar and with the Seminary in general. And - I'd also suggest - doing some intentional study into ancient oral history and how important that whole area of study is.

[Open_Minded]

You'd have made a fine Jesuit! There's me, you and Han now... Of course, being a woman means that the Order of St Ignatius would be closed to you, but that's their loss There again, you have the advantage of beleiving in something like their god, but the woman thing is the killer...

 

Yeah .... you're right .... the whole woman thing just gets in the way.

 

I suppose I could get a sex change operation - do they do those on women to men? Or can it only be done on men to women?

[Grandpa Harley]

Yup, and to no-gender (although that is vanishingly rare...and mostly women IIR the stats for that 're-assignment' surgery)

[R. S. Martin]

You'd have made a fine Jesuit! There's me, you and Han now... Of course, being a woman means that the Order of St Ignatius would be closed to you, but that's their loss There again, you have the advantage of beleiving in something like their god, but the woman thing is the killer...

 

Yeah .... you're right .... the whole woman thing just gets in the way.

 

I suppose I could get a sex change operation - do they do those on women to men? Or can it only be done on men to women?

 

 

Oh there's ways. You don't need the surgery. Women have found ways to make their mark in a man's world since days of yore but they had to be hard up and sometimes resort to extreme measures. Surgery used to not be an option. Besides, I don't think you're even marginally interested. Nor am I. The men who think they can mess with me because women are weak have another guess coming and I do have a special email account to deal with misogynist fundies. I use only initials and a last name on it. None of them are my real name. I think I got to second base with one fundy because he thought I was Mr. M____. I doubt I would have gotten to first base if he had known he was talking to Ms M____.

[Open_Minded]

Oh there's ways. You don't need the surgery. Women have found ways to make their mark in a man's world since days of yore but they had to be hard up and sometimes resort to extreme measures. Surgery used to not be an option. Besides, I don't think you're even marginally interested. Nor am I. The men who think they can mess with me because women are weak have another guess coming and I do have a special email account to deal with misogynist fundies. I use only initials and a last name on it. None of them are my real name. I think I got to second base with one fundy because he thought I was Mr. M____. I doubt I would have gotten to first base if he had known he was talking to Ms M____.

How right you are, Ruby:

 

When I first came on board, here.... everyone thought I was male. I used to go after the fundies in a big way, they always assumed I was male and I never bothered to correct them. The few regulars who knew (at the time) that I'm female didn't let on either. It was the first time in my life I had a concrete understanding of the difference in the way SOME people treat male and female.

 

I remember one time I was going after a fundy, and I finally had it and blew my cover. He disappeared quite quickly. He didn't like the fact that some female was smarter, about the Bible, than he was.