Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted


RationalOkie

Recommended Posts

Interesting discussion about whether preachers are lying to their flocks. I agree with Chef that they aren't - with the exception of a few. What qualifies as lying in this context is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. That someone may parrot a pile of ill-founded, or misinformed rhetoric is simply a matter of being careless and irresponsible in their positions as leaders. But there are those who specifically stretch truth, distort it, and outright misrepresent it (Creationists), in order to make themselves right. Those I condemn as lairs. Most people are prone to being duped because they are ignorant and not well motivated to do the hard work of making their religious beliefs work with the new data, and so emotionally just become vehicles of propaganda for their most vocal political voices of their camps.

 

As far as the liberal churches, that's an entirely different matter. They generally are more open to other points of view and what critical scholarship reveals and try to find a way to fit their beliefs into that, rather than the other way around. Speaking to the congregation about God is not any misrepresentation of facts, as that is a religious belief and that is what they are sharing sincerely. If someone doesn't believe in God, they can't say that the preacher is speaking a lie, because to him, that is what he believes. He is speaking the truth about his beliefs.

 

My distaste for Evangelicals is that the closed-minded approach they take makes it near-impossible for there to be any meaningful dialog. It is the elevation and purchase of a mythic-membership at the expense of intellectual, spiritual, and social integrity. It is the seeking of salvation through group identity bought by rejecting this world, not through finding the means in which to embrace and value it; to be a part of making it beautiful. Theirs is a spiritual pathology. In this sense, on an existential level, I would say they are living insincere lives. They are not living true to their hearts and minds.

 

Then why won't they allow the information that it is rewritten myth to be told to the public? Afraid they would lose their jobs? They probably would. The Church still charges people with heresy, esp if it contradicts or is not quite in-line with what they are preaching to the vulgar. They don't want the truth to get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • LNC

    270

  • Ouroboros

    201

  • Neon Genesis

    105

  • Antlerman

    104

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

 

Then why won't they allow the information that it is rewritten myth to be told to the public? Afraid they would lose their jobs? They probably would. The Church still charges people with heresy, esp if it contradicts or is not quite in-line with what they are preaching to the vulgar. They don't want the truth to get out.

I think it's partiality because of that. There was a really good documentary I'd highly recommend that was on MSNBC awhile back called To Hell And Back. It was about how this televangelist, Bishop Pearson, had converted from fundamentalism to liberal Christianity after he started doubting the existence of hell and started comparing the original Greek and Hebrew languages of scriptures to the English translations which he realized were very different from each other. He had 5,000 members in his megachurch and every one of them expect for his close friends and family just got up and abandoned him after he started preaching there was no hell and that Hitler was in heaven. I think a lot of preachers who know this material are afraid to speak it to the congregation for the fear that they would be abandoned. But I also think there are a lot of dishonest preachers who are distorting the information on purpose because they know nobody would support their agendas otherwise. It's like how creationists have to twist the information they know about evolution around to make it seem like a faulty theory in order to win support for Intelligence Design because they wouldn't be given the light of day otherwise if they debated it honestly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why won't they allow the information that it is rewritten myth to be told to the public?

Not everyone is convinced it is rewritten myth. I'm not actually. I believe it is mythological, to be sure. But it's not a mere case of simple plagiarism. Those it adopts common mythical symbols, it is unique and I thing unto itself, just as all myth systems are.

 

But that aside, allowing that they recognize things at this level, the question is why would they choose to not inform people of it's nature as myth? That's actually a complex thing to answer. Let's say the minister (an educated, enlightened minister who allows himself to actually dig into it), understands the nature of it as symbolic and not factual history, then why shouldn't he enlighten his church to this 'academic' understanding of it? Shouldn't he? Shouldn't he tell his congregation that these are stories that tap into certain cultural images, thus eliciting a response of faith in something 'above'? Should he explain they are vehicles to a human transcend thought that may hopefully lead them to an opening up of themselves beyond the mundane world? Is it dishonest to not divulge the psychological, literary, cultural, social, emotional, poetic, elements that are all going into their experience? Is not educating them first, a sin of omission?

 

What about the poet then? The film maker? The musician? Should they explain that the reason the experience certain things are because these devices they are using is creating a response in them? That these things are mechanical in nature, that they are physical and biological responses, and that they should realize this first. Or does the poet simply play his instrument and let the response be the response? Would stopping them to shift the focus away from the experience, to the analysis of it be counter to the purpose of it?

 

Like Chef said, people aren't interested in understanding the details. They are interested in the experience.

 

There is a problem though I'd like to address when I come back to this, which is that at what level are the average church-goers taking the myths literally, and at what point is that problematic, and at what point should the minister of understanding guide them into a "higher" understanding? I'll come back to this later tonight....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a post to alt.atheism a long time ago from a man who was in seminary but lost faith.

 

I thought it was interesting because they taught the stuff in seminary school and then said not to teach it to the flock. That deceptiveness is what Mriana is talking about. They know this stuff (if they went to seminary), but are instructed not to divulge it because it would damage others' faith.

 

Hi,

 

I need some help, and I'm hoping you can offer it.

 

 

I've been a Christian of one sort of another all of my adult life. I

even became a seminary student a few years ago, only to discover that

what is taught in seminaries and what is taught in Sunday School are two

completely different things.

 

 

Most seminary curriculum in the mainstream churches teaches that Jesus

likely never considered himself God, that he would have considered the

Nicene Creed heresy, that he never claimed to be the Messiah, that most

of the theology in the gospels were later interpolations, that the

Virgin Birth was just a nice story, etc., etc.

 

 

The discovery of what scholarship says and the subsequent secrecy about

whether to reveal this information to the church-goers ultimately led me

to leave the church. It was clear to me that Christianity, thanks to

scholarship, is an emasculated religion and that there is a

near-conspiracy of clergy keeping this information from the masses.

Whenever I asked why such information was not told to the people in the

pwes, I was told that the "people wouldn't understand such complex

concepts." that "we're more interested in faith than in facts," and more

honestly, that "you'd get fired if you told parishioners this stuff."

 

 

For a while, I found comfort in a simple universalist, monotheistic

faith. But lately, it's getting increasingly harder to believe in God at

all.

 

 

I keep hearing people thank God for doing various things for them,

getting them the job they wanted, getting them home safely, etc.

 

<I'm snipping the rest of his post that goes into other details about why he is an ex-Christian>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a post to alt.atheism a long time ago from a man who was in seminary but lost faith.

 

I thought it was interesting because they taught the stuff in seminary school and then said not to teach it to the flock. That deceptiveness is what Mriana is talking about. They know this stuff (if they went to seminary), but are instructed not to divulge it because it would damage others' faith.

 

Hi,

 

I need some help, and I'm hoping you can offer it.

 

 

I've been a Christian of one sort of another all of my adult life. I

even became a seminary student a few years ago, only to discover that

what is taught in seminaries and what is taught in Sunday School are two

completely different things.

 

 

Most seminary curriculum in the mainstream churches teaches that Jesus

likely never considered himself God, that he would have considered the

Nicene Creed heresy, that he never claimed to be the Messiah, that most

of the theology in the gospels were later interpolations, that the

Virgin Birth was just a nice story, etc., etc.

 

 

The discovery of what scholarship says and the subsequent secrecy about

whether to reveal this information to the church-goers ultimately led me

to leave the church. It was clear to me that Christianity, thanks to

scholarship, is an emasculated religion and that there is a

near-conspiracy of clergy keeping this information from the masses.

Whenever I asked why such information was not told to the people in the

pwes, I was told that the "people wouldn't understand such complex

concepts." that "we're more interested in faith than in facts," and more

honestly, that "you'd get fired if you told parishioners this stuff."

 

 

For a while, I found comfort in a simple universalist, monotheistic

faith. But lately, it's getting increasingly harder to believe in God at

all.

 

 

I keep hearing people thank God for doing various things for them,

getting them the job they wanted, getting them home safely, etc.

 

<I'm snipping the rest of his post that goes into other details about why he is an ex-Christian>

Sure. This is pretty much what I said, with the exception that he took the motivation behind it as some conspiracy to deceive and exploit the masses for personal gain. I don't see it that way, in all cases.

 

What I said holds true. It would confuse them. It would cause them to loose the value of it, should they not be prepared to understand the more "adult" nature of it. It literally is protecting your kids from 'too much' information before they are 'ready' for it. You can actually cause such a crisis for them that could actually harm them. And let no one say that truth alone always is a positive. That's idealistic, and unrealistic.

 

I'm hoping to find the time to get to my point tying this into what I want to say about when believing myth on a face-value level is problematic, versus 'helpful' for the time - where the person is at. I'll try to pick that up, but I ran out of time again... :)

 

P.S. LNC is so far afield from this discussion at this point, it's like we've taken over to something of real interest in discussion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO they do practice to deceive, control, and manipulate and it has been going on for centuries. I am not convinced that they aren't being deceitful and I think you know they are being deceitful too.

 

This is a curiously fundamentalist point of view. That is, "you don't agree with me therefore you are being deceitful, because you know I'm right, because it is impossible that you don't know the facts of the matter like I know them."

 

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

But Captain this is illogical. You have bestowed upon the clergy intelligence that they don't have. Was there not a time when you believed that Jesus actually rose from the dead? Perhaps not. Perhaps you are not an Ex-Christian. Perhaps you have always known it was hooey. If so it may be hard to imagine a faith mindset.

 

A preacher who knows about higher criticism may not teach it for a number of reasons. He may believe in inerrancy so to teach higher criticism would be to deceive. She may feel that it would be like teaching quantum theory to Chef.

 

The church is not a school. It is a community, an entity that thrives on common mindset. A minister (even one who knows the secret handshake) would not be doing what he was hired for if he sowed doubt for the sake of fact.

 

Common idenity is important. "We are the tribe that dances around the fire to the left", is important. It doesn't matter a lick why we dance around the fire to the left. Any story on that matter will do just so we know we are not of the tribe that dances around the fire to the right -- god forbid! It is the job of the clergy to remind us to circle to the left by telling the story over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We are the tribe that dances around the fire to the left", is important. It doesn't matter a lick why we dance around the fire to the left. Any story on that matter will do just so we know we are not of the tribe that dances around the fire to the right -- god forbid!

 

...which end of the egg do you break when you cook chef? :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I said holds true. It would confuse them. It would cause them to loose the value of it, should they not be prepared to understand the more "adult" nature of it. It literally is protecting your kids from 'too much' information before they are 'ready' for it. You can actually cause such a crisis for them that could actually harm them. And let no one say that truth alone always is a positive. That's idealistic, and unrealistic.

You are speaking as though the entire congregation were "kids". Preachers preach to adults, and adults are smart enough to know the truth. Aren't they?

 

The truth of Nature is sometimes cruel. We aren't really going to see our dead relatives or live forever. Your approach to telling the truth reminds me of a comment by Voltaire when he and some dinner guests were discussing religion. At one point he leaned into the group and said in a low voice, "Not in front of the servants."

 

 

I'm hoping to find the time to get to my point tying this into what I want to say about when believing myth on a face-value level is problematic, versus 'helpful' for the time - where the person is at. I'll try to pick that up, but I ran out of time again... :)

 

P.S. LNC is so far afield from this discussion at this point, it's like we've taken over to something of real interest in discussion. :)

I can understand your paternalistic reasoning behind withholding the truth from the ignorant hordes, but I don't agree that this is the way forward for people. Those who know should tell others.

 

Shout it from the mountaintops!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a post to alt.atheism a long time ago from a man who was in seminary but lost faith.

 

I thought it was interesting because they taught the stuff in seminary school and then said not to teach it to the flock. That deceptiveness is what Mriana is talking about. They know this stuff (if they went to seminary), but are instructed not to divulge it because it would damage others' faith.

 

That is exactly what I'm talking about and IF you do learn it via the priests or from some other source, you aren't suppose to talk about and told "atheism isn't the answer". WTF? Seriously though, if you know and can't buy into what is taught to the vulgar and don't even have a concept left, what is left? Maybe Pantheism, but as Dawkins says, "It's sexed up atheism."

 

Sure. This is pretty much what I said, with the exception that he took the motivation behind it as some conspiracy to deceive and exploit the masses for personal gain. I don't see it that way, in all cases.

 

How can you say it's not deceptive and exploitive? It is exploiting the gullibility of others who, as one priest put in in Maher's "Religulous", "People need their fairy tales". I say tell them the truth, regardless if it hurts their ears, instead of telling them a bunch of lies.

 

What I said holds true. It would confuse them. It would cause them to loose the value of it, should they not be prepared to understand the more "adult" nature of it. It literally is protecting your kids from 'too much' information before they are 'ready' for it. You can actually cause such a crisis for them that could actually harm them. And let no one say that truth alone always is a positive. That's idealistic, and unrealistic.

 

How do you know it would confuse them? What value does it have? Except maybe to point to the human condition. They need to know the truth, IMO. OK sure, I would not disabuse my mother of her belief, esp since she is about to go into surgery- heart surgery, but what about the healthy younger generation? It didn't confuse my sons when I told them, but they grew up with learning the truth.

 

P.S. LNC is so far afield from this discussion at this point, it's like we've taken over to something of real interest in discussion. :)

 

:lol: As we should.

 

 

IMO they do practice to deceive, control, and manipulate and it has been going on for centuries. I am not convinced that they aren't being deceitful and I think you know they are being deceitful too.

 

This is a curiously fundamentalist point of view. That is, "you don't agree with me therefore you are being deceitful, because you know I'm right, because it is impossible that you don't know the facts of the matter like I know them."

 

I don't think it is. I'm not saying believers disagree. I'm saying they need to know the truth of the matter.

 

But Captain this is illogical. You have bestowed upon the clergy intelligence that they don't have. Was there not a time when you believed that Jesus actually rose from the dead? Perhaps not. Perhaps you are not an Ex-Christian. Perhaps you have always known it was hooey. If so it may be hard to imagine a faith mindset.

 

No, I never believed he actually rose from the dead, not even when I was a kid stuck in Evangelicalism because all the adults around me were Evangelicals. However, in the Episcopal Church, that belief fit just fine, because the Bible is not taken literally. So, um... who is to say who is/was an Xian? The truth is, it can't be taken literally and THAT was one of the good things about the Episcopal Church.

 

A preacher who knows about higher criticism may not teach it for a number of reasons. He may believe in inerrancy so to teach higher criticism would be to deceive. She may feel that it would be like teaching quantum theory to Chef.

 

sigh. I hardly think it is that complicated. Either that or I'm gifted. My IQ doesn't have me in the gifted range though. 125/126 is not gifted.

 

The church is not a school. It is a community, an entity that thrives on common mindset. A minister (even one who knows the secret handshake) would not be doing what he was hired for if he sowed doubt for the sake of fact.

 

Well then, good thing I quit being a lay minister, because I wasn't going to teach Santa Claus to the masses.

 

Common idenity is important. "We are the tribe that dances around the fire to the left", is important. It doesn't matter a lick why we dance around the fire to the left. Any story on that matter will do just so we know we are not of the tribe that dances around the fire to the right -- god forbid! It is the job of the clergy to remind us to circle to the left by telling the story over and over.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I said holds true. It would confuse them. It would cause them to loose the value of it, should they not be prepared to understand the more "adult" nature of it. It literally is protecting your kids from 'too much' information before they are 'ready' for it. You can actually cause such a crisis for them that could actually harm them. And let no one say that truth alone always is a positive. That's idealistic, and unrealistic.

You are speaking as though the entire congregation were "kids". Preachers preach to adults, and adults are smart enough to know the truth. Aren't they?

 

The truth of Nature is sometimes cruel. We aren't really going to see our dead relatives or live forever. Your approach to telling the truth reminds me of a comment by Voltaire when he and some dinner guests were discussing religion. At one point he leaned into the group and said in a low voice, "Not in front of the servants."

 

I agree, they are NOT children. They are adults and most adults don't want to be lied to, but yet they are and have been since birth. Yet no one even tries to tell them the truth ever in their life. Adults aren't stupid. They can either chose to accept the truth or not. I say present it too them, allow them to learn, and then let them, not clergy, decide what to believe and what to teach their children. It should not be left solely in the hands of the Church. It is a form of controlling people to do otherwise.

 

 

I'm hoping to find the time to get to my point tying this into what I want to say about when believing myth on a face-value level is problematic, versus 'helpful' for the time - where the person is at. I'll try to pick that up, but I ran out of time again... :)

 

P.S. LNC is so far afield from this discussion at this point, it's like we've taken over to something of real interest in discussion. :)

I can understand your paternalistic reasoning behind withholding the truth from the ignorant hordes, but I don't agree that this is the way forward for people. Those who know should tell others.

 

Shout it from the mountaintops!

 

AMEN BROTHER! PREACH IT! :lol:

 

BTW, isn't this basically what Erhman and others are trying to do via their books? Why don't the clergy do the same thing? I do not believe it is because the masses can't handle it. I think it is because clergy want a job and that maybe the only thing they know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What I said holds true. It would confuse them. It would cause them to loose the value of it, should they not be prepared to understand the more "adult" nature of it. It literally is protecting your kids from 'too much' information before they are 'ready' for it. You can actually cause such a crisis for them that could actually harm them. And let no one say that truth alone always is a positive. That's idealistic, and unrealistic.

 

I'm hoping to find the time to get to my point tying this into what I want to say about when believing myth on a face-value level is problematic, versus 'helpful' for the time - where the person is at. I'll try to pick that up, but I ran out of time again... :)

 

 

Ehrman brought this up in Jesus Interrupted. He mentioned one instance where he was invited to teach biblical scholarship at a church and this lady came up to him and told him how upset this made her. But he said that she wasn't upset because of anything he said about the bible. She was upset because the church apparently knew this information but nobody had told her and she felt like she was deceived. It might seem better to withhold the truth from the members for fear that they wouldn't be able to handle it, but what if they later find out the truth on their own and feel more upset that they were deceived than if the church had just been up front and honest about it? It's one thing if the church leadership isn't aware of these facts themselves but isn't it dishonest for them to withhold the truth if they know the facts? Isn't it also condescending for churches to presume that only church leaders are intelligent enough to handle the real truth? I'm not saying you're being condensending or anything like that. I'm just saying that some Christians might perceive this attitude that church leaders have in that way. Isn't this one of the reasons why Gnosticism died out? Because it was only for an elite group of Christians that could "handle" the truth and they didn't think the masses could handle it? Awhile back I listened to a podcast sermon from a liberal Metropolitan church and the preacher flat out told the audience that Paul didn't write Ephesians and the preacher criticized one of the verses in Ephesians about the armor of God and the audience wasn't phased by this info, so I also think we have this tendency to under-estimate the human ability to adapt. Even fundamentalist churches have gone through changes of doctrine in the past, so it's not like they're entirely unable to handle change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it also condescending for churches to presume that only church leaders are intelligent enough to handle the real truth?

 

This reminds me of the Catholic Pedophile Priest Problem. They hid the truth so they wouldn't hurt the feelings of the people attending church (and donating). While it is done for a different reason than withholding information about the Bible and biblical criticism, it has the same intended result - leaving the parishioner in ignorance for their own good (and for the good of the church).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why won't they allow the information that it is rewritten myth to be told to the public?

Not everyone is convinced it is rewritten myth. I'm not actually. I believe it is mythological, to be sure. But it's not a mere case of simple plagiarism. Those it adopts common mythical symbols, it is unique and I thing unto itself, just as all myth systems are.

 

But that aside, allowing that they recognize things at this level, the question is why would they choose to not inform people of it's nature as myth? That's actually a complex thing to answer. Let's say the minister (an educated, enlightened minister who allows himself to actually dig into it), understands the nature of it as symbolic and not factual history, then why shouldn't he enlighten his church to this 'academic' understanding of it? Shouldn't he? Shouldn't he tell his congregation that these are stories that tap into certain cultural images, thus eliciting a response of faith in something 'above'? Should he explain they are vehicles to a human transcend thought that may hopefully lead them to an opening up of themselves beyond the mundane world? Is it dishonest to not divulge the psychological, literary, cultural, social, emotional, poetic, elements that are all going into their experience? Is not educating them first, a sin of omission?

 

What about the poet then? The film maker? The musician? Should they explain that the reason the experience certain things are because these devices they are using is creating a response in them? That these things are mechanical in nature, that they are physical and biological responses, and that they should realize this first. Or does the poet simply play his instrument and let the response be the response? Would stopping them to shift the focus away from the experience, to the analysis of it be counter to the purpose of it?

 

I think this is a false analogy. When the poet, film maker, or musician, tells a story most of the time they're not implying that the story actually happened, and if they did state that the story actually happened when they knew it hadn't happened then they would in fact be lying. Whether or not they did it to get a more satisfying physical/biological response is irrelevant. Isn't that the reason behind most lies to get a desired response.

 

Like Chef said, people aren't interested in understanding the details. They are interested in the experience.

 

There is a problem though I'd like to address when I come back to this, which is that at what level are the average church-goers taking the myths literally, and at what point is that problematic, and at what point should the minister of understanding guide them into a "higher" understanding? I'll come back to this later tonight....

 

What does this guiding into a "higher understanding" or what have you got to do with Christianity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Then why won't they allow the information that it is rewritten myth to be told to the public? Afraid they would lose their jobs? They probably would. The Church still charges people with heresy, esp if it contradicts or is not quite in-line with what they are preaching to the vulgar. They don't want the truth to get out.

I think it's partiality because of that. There was a really good documentary I'd highly recommend that was on MSNBC awhile back called To Hell And Back. It was about how this televangelist, Bishop Pearson, had converted from fundamentalism to liberal Christianity after he started doubting the existence of hell and started comparing the original Greek and Hebrew languages of scriptures to the English translations which he realized were very different from each other. He had 5,000 members in his megachurch and every one of them expect for his close friends and family just got up and abandoned him after he started preaching there was no hell and that Hitler was in heaven. I think a lot of preachers who know this material are afraid to speak it to the congregation for the fear that they would be abandoned. But I also think there are a lot of dishonest preachers who are distorting the information on purpose because they know nobody would support their agendas otherwise. It's like how creationists have to twist the information they know about evolution around to make it seem like a faulty theory in order to win support for Intelligence Design because they wouldn't be given the light of day otherwise if they debated it honestly.

 

Interestingly enough my great grandfather was shipped off to New Zealand because he came to much the same conclusions when studying the bible in the original Greek and Hebrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it also condescending for churches to presume that only church leaders are intelligent enough to handle the real truth?

 

This reminds me of the Catholic Pedophile Priest Problem. They hid the truth so they wouldn't hurt the feelings of the people attending church (and donating). While it is done for a different reason than withholding information about the Bible and biblical criticism, it has the same intended result - leaving the parishioner in ignorance for their own good (and for the good of the church).

 

Their own good? Somehow I don't see the good in that. It seems like it is more in favour of the Church's good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I love you AntMan but here's the deal....you have a character flaw. You only see the good intentions in people and sometimes ignore the people that really ARE out to get you. There truly are people in the pulpit that knowingly spread lies and disinformation. We’ve had this conversation before about how in Oklahoma there is a real disease of evangelic militant activism. I’m NOT KIDDING. They don’t want to have an intellectual dialog with you about your philosophic beliefs. They want to kill you. Do you understand that? Keep in mind, I am on your side and I’m not trying to be melodramatic. Live here, where I do, and you will see that there is a reason to take these people seriously.

 

Before you respond, let this sink in:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-state-capitol-to-display-ten-commandments/article/3370730?custom_click=headlines_widget

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3641,Oklahoma-legislator-proposes-resolution-to-condemn-Richard-Dawkins,Todd-Thomsen

http://www.examiner.com/x-4107-Gay--Lesbian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m7d2-Rep-Sally-Kern--Gay-marriage-is-to-blame-for-the-bad-economy

 

Does this sound like Minnesota? There is real hatred for people like us here. It’s not just Oklahoma either. A great deal of the South is like this. These pastors openly bash homosexuals during Sunday morning services. They openly bash “Liberal” religious groups and I’ve even heard them say that they are “Satanic”. Your opinion is not welcome in Oklahoma. Obviously, neither is mine.

 

What i'm trying to say is be glad that you live in the North AntMan. There you can have a reasonable conversation with people without getting the shit kicked out of you by some ‘good ole boys’ in the parking lot later. Try to remember, however, that this is not what those of us in the South deal with. So when you read a response that you think is to harsh toward the other side try to remember those poor intellectuals in the South. They are silent, hidden and for a good reason. Many of us have been frightened by the extreme hatred we experience here.

 

I completely respect where you are coming from but we live in two different worlds. - R.O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually I craft my responses so as to plug possible holes of misunderstanding in them prior to them becoming an issue. I had little time yesterday to be as meticulous, and so there's a need to spend time clarifying here. Not that that will mean everyone will accept or agree with my point of view, but there is misunderstanding of what I said that I can see. There's a lot to respond to here and I'll try my best.

 

First, I tried to qualify that I fully recognize that there are those in the ministry that are outright con-artists and willfully deceive their congregations. I am offended by these hucksters and condemn them as liars. I said this explicitly in my posts yesterday. I have no 'character flaw' that can't accept that some people are despicable. In fact, I would say my condemnation of them is probably far deeper and stronger than those who are merely angry at them for their injustices. I condemn them as being against everything I hold as 'sacred' on a philosophical/spiritual level. They exploit other's trust for self-gain, and therefore reject their own souls. I am more than cognizant of them.

 

Secondly, my comments about those in the ministry who have an understanding of the religion through critical scholarship, who understand it at a 'higher' level, does not apply to your typical American Evangelical Christian minister. Their understanding of critical scholarship is like LNC's, where they know 'about' it, enough to manufacture enough faults in it to exploit in order to prop up their social group's tenants of membership (doctrines). They are not interested in gaining knowledge for truth's sake. They are interested in it only for the purpose of attacking it to protect themselves against a percieved enemy.

 

Again, people like this I consider to be existentially insincere, in that they are not interested in exploring possibilities and expanding their worldview, but are interested in maintaining their beliefs trading the integrity of the human spirit for the perceived security of group membership. When they preach to their congregations, they are vessels of the political propaganda, having gotten Masters degrees in the material that supports their camp's doctrines. They are 'sincere' in that they are not on a conscious level aware of their existential insincerity. They don't tell the truth per se, because they are part of the system. But I see them as telling the truth as they have arrived at it, even if that is through self-deception.

 

My remarks about those who have a 'higher' level of understanding not divulging all the 'background' knowledge of the system is mostly in regard to mainstream (non-Evangelical) churches, but more specifically those in those as ministers who actually do have a higher level of understanding of it, who themselves have made a transition from an ordinary mythic believer (one that approaches the stories as 'true' on a surface level, but potentially muddling the 'existential truth' of it and the 'scientific truth' of it together), to one who is able to differentiate the two levels of it.

 

When I speak of them perceiving that some members of their congregation may not be 'ready' for that sort of exposure (recall as Chef pointed out that they are responsible for a wide audience as well, and have a responsibility to 'minister' to people where they are at, which may require a certain 'dumbing down' of it), it is a matter of recognizing that your average church goer may not be a place with sufficient enough background upon which to build that understanding, simply on hearing it expounded. It could in fact cause a crisis for them instead of helping them. They hear it, and their first thought is "I've been lied to! If it's not true, it's false!" That black and white dichotomy is a difficult issue reflective of a much greater cultural problem.

 

How does a minister who is more philosophically aware (not the typical Evangelical again), having gone through a long and likely painful process of himself pushing through these issues, suddenly reshape this dualistic mindset that permeates society in the members of his congregation, all at once from young to old? To simply "shout the truth from the mountain tops!" without proper context can in fact work against them. In my thinking, if that minster sincerely believed that there was value in the myth, it would make more sense to try to speak to them through the mythic structure, allowing the symbolism of it to take them to a higher sensibility, one that moves them out of the ethnocentric/sociocentric nature of that simple mythic membership caters to. To that minister, he sees the church as a social entity through with society can come together and grow in the larger context of the world as it changes and progresses. He sees it as a service to them. He is sincere, even if he doesn't open the flood gates on those with an average exposure to these areas - which isn't very much.

 

These are not simple black and white, true or false, facts versus lies, sorts of issues. They are subtle and nuanced and extremely complex, sociologically, psychologically, philosophically, emotionally, and spiritually. I'm hoping that my comments about are to expose that aspect of it, and in fact help to move away from that sort of thinking ourselves - true/false dictomy. To say that I support deception, or that I have a character flaw in somehow not seeing how 'wrong' they are does not reflect the reality of my thoughts. I'll try to offer some response to individual points later today - as my limited time permits. But I think this as a backdrop might be helpful. There's a million things I can add to this to try to lay some of the context within which I am perceiving this. I can only hope it's not misunderstood that I'm one thing or the other in regards to this. I'm not. It's far more layered than that, which for my sake gives me to see the world in a way that satisfies me for where I am at in all of this.

 

I should add here to avoid misunderstanding, that my personal views of the best approach in how to deal with your average member of society in these systems is not really reflected above. I don't have solid thoughts about it at this point. But I have concern in the wisdom of racing into your average mother or grandmother in a church and ripping the rug out from under them by righteously shouting one perception of Truth from the rooftops. Sharing ones idea of truth is a beautiful thing in a society, but progress and growth comes through reasoned dialog in proper contexts, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify the 'Character Flaw' statement was a compliment. I assure you there was no sarcasm there. As for the rest... well stated as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...You are speaking as though the entire congregation were "kids". Preachers preach to adults, and adults are smart enough to know the truth. Aren't they?..

 

Snake-handling.jpg

 

You'd like to think so wouldn't you?

 

Have you watched any teabagger clips lately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Their own good? Somehow I don't see the good in that. It seems like it is more in favour of the Church's good.

No, no, no. I didn't mean "for their own good" really. I meant that the catholic church thought that they were acting on behalf of the parishioners "for their own good."

 

Imagine a bishop: "Oh, dear, we can't let this get out! So many people will be hurt, crushed, and we need to protect them!"

 

IOW, I am saying that the Church was using the same excuse for not telling parishioners about the Priests as Preachers use not to tell parishioners about the bible.

 

Make sense now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify the 'Character Flaw' statement was a compliment. I assure you there was no sarcasm there. As for the rest... well stated as always.

Thanks, I did take it as a mixed compliment. I know you respect me and I value that. Although I'm a little out of sorts this morning having gotten only 2 hours of sleep last night, so forgive me if I chewed on that a little coarsely. :) There's a lot more I would enjoy exploring in this worthy topic, but fear expounding in this state might cause more confusion.

 

One thing I wanted to add, if I can express it well, hopefully, is that the we might fall into the temptation to project our experience of having the shingles fall off our eyes onto what others will experience hearing the sorts of things we did. If it had that profound of an effect on us, the Light of Reason shining into our clouded minds, sure all others will welcome the truth as well. It's a common thing for us to do. We did that when we believed we had the truth as Christians as well, at least that's how I was with it, as many are. It's wanted others to see what we see and experience what we experience because it's meaningful to us. At least if that's our motives, as opposed to seeking validation of our views by proving them right to someone else.

 

But the thing that's easy to blot from memory is that at one time we in fact ourselves were NOT ready to hear that. Many of these things are in fact extolled from the roof tops everywhere in our society - through media, news, literature, the arts, and even through the arguments against it by the detractors, thus exposing what those views are. But we didn't "hear" them until we were ready to.

 

I am a huge proponent of saying that somebody's either converting or de-converting from a belief has far, far more to do with their emotional readiness than any intellectual process. It is much less a case of someone's IQ, than it being a case of their EQ (emotional quotient). If someone is not emotionally prepared to hear something, their minds will attempt to thwart it somehow to protect themselves. The old saying is a true axiom that, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still".

 

It's my belief that context is everything. Someone's openness to receiving knowledge that challenges these structures of worldview in which they navigate life, is nothing that suddenly presents itself along with the information. It may appear to them that the 'revelation' suddenly came and all was changed, but that change was happening long, long before the 'revelation' came.

 

Change is a process, sometimes happening rapidly, but the groundwork for it was being laid for a long time before it suddenly burst through. What we see of course is the moment it hit us, not the foundation that was gradually being laid - unless we consciously examine it on that level. It's that foundation, the context, that has far more value than the truth itself to us that depends on it.

 

So is it important to share how we see things, to expose people to knowledge? Yes. I definitely agree with this, but preferably through the exercise of wisdom.

 

I'll leave it at that for now, and hopefully that made sense. I have more I'd like to add later as time and mind permit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When I speak of them perceiving that some members of their congregation may not be 'ready' for that sort of exposure (recall as Chef pointed out that they are responsible for a wide audience as well, and have a responsibility to 'minister' to people where they are at, which may require a certain 'dumbing down' of it), it is a matter of recognizing that your average church goer may not be a place with sufficient enough background upon which to build that understanding, simply on hearing it expounded. It could in fact cause a crisis for them instead of helping them. They hear it, and their first thought is "I've been lied to! If it's not true, it's false!" That black and white dichotomy is a difficult issue reflective of a much greater cultural problem.

But isn't it also just as possible for people to come to this crisis left to their own? Isn't that what happened to most of us at ex-c? In my own experience, I came to this conclusion that the bible was not literally true on my own even though my parents' church does their best to distort the facts to "protect" the flock. When I discovered the truth of the matter about the bible, I was upset and shocked but other than my online friends, I was alone in my journey. I had no one to turn to for support and I couldn't vent my frustrations to anyone. But if I had a church community who knew the same things I did at the time, I could have gotten some emotional support and it could have been an easier transistion out of fundamentalism for me. So while I agree some people may be very shocked and frightened by the new information, isn't it better for them to have a church community that's going through the same thing for them to turn to for support rather than have to go it alone because the church is trying to "protect" the flock from finding out what the church already knows? It's like when a parent tries to hide the fact that they're going through a divorce from their child but the child finds out anyway. The child might be more troubled if they find this out on their own and had no one to turn because the parents didn't want to talk about it then if the parents were open and honest about the divorce with their kid.

 

How does a minister who is more philosophically aware (not the typical Evangelical again), having gone through a long and likely painful process of himself pushing through these issues, suddenly reshape this dualistic mindset that permeates society in the members of his congregation, all at once from young to old? To simply "shout the truth from the mountain tops!" without proper context can in fact work against them. In my thinking, if that minster sincerely believed that there was value in the myth, it would make more sense to try to speak to them through the mythic structure, allowing the symbolism of it to take them to a higher sensibility, one that moves them out of the ethnocentric/sociocentric nature of that simple mythic membership caters to. To that minister, he sees the church as a social entity through with society can come together and grow in the larger context of the world as it changes and progresses. He sees it as a service to them. He is sincere, even if he doesn't open the flood gates on those with an average exposure to these areas - which isn't very much.

 

But how helpful would this really be? Doesn't this sort of method usually turn into a disaster? Like take this case in politics where people are being lied to by politicans about conspiracy theories and having their emotions manipulated to support an agenda. What if the people then find out later that they were lied to and it was all a sham? Wouldn't they be more angry if they were lied to about the truth than if the people were honest? It's like when a poltician gets caught in an affair and if they had been honest about instead of having secret cult organizations like the Family trying to cover up the truth, then there wouldn't be as media attention brought to it as it is now if they were just honest instead of getting caught up in more lies and conspiracies, if I'm making sense here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I love you AntMan but here's the deal....you have a character flaw. You only see the good intentions in people and sometimes ignore the people that really ARE out to get you. There truly are people in the pulpit that knowingly spread lies and disinformation. We’ve had this conversation before about how in Oklahoma there is a real disease of evangelic militant activism. I’m NOT KIDDING. They don’t want to have an intellectual dialog with you about your philosophic beliefs. They want to kill you. Do you understand that? Keep in mind, I am on your side and I’m not trying to be melodramatic. Live here, where I do, and you will see that there is a reason to take these people seriously.

 

Before you respond, let this sink in:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-state-capitol-to-display-ten-commandments/article/3370730?custom_click=headlines_widget

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3641,Oklahoma-legislator-proposes-resolution-to-condemn-Richard-Dawkins,Todd-Thomsen

http://www.examiner.com/x-4107-Gay--Lesbian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m7d2-Rep-Sally-Kern--Gay-marriage-is-to-blame-for-the-bad-economy

 

Does this sound like Minnesota? There is real hatred for people like us here. It’s not just Oklahoma either. A great deal of the South is like this. These pastors openly bash homosexuals during Sunday morning services. They openly bash “Liberal” religious groups and I’ve even heard them say that they are “Satanic”. Your opinion is not welcome in Oklahoma. Obviously, neither is mine.

 

What i'm trying to say is be glad that you live in the North AntMan. There you can have a reasonable conversation with people without getting the shit kicked out of you by some ‘good ole boys’ in the parking lot later. Try to remember, however, that this is not what those of us in the South deal with. So when you read a response that you think is to harsh toward the other side try to remember those poor intellectuals in the South. They are silent, hidden and for a good reason. Many of us have been frightened by the extreme hatred we experience here.

 

I completely respect where you are coming from but we live in two different worlds. - R.O.

You have got to be fucking kidding me! So much for our governor and the bunch of freakin' loones that occupy the congress. We can't even vote them out because of damn religious lunatics here. Even if he did veto it, it would have been overridden. I hope they get sued. They say it based on a history of laws which came from England, which came from Moses. My ass!! The ten commandments is based an a monarchial society and English laws are common laws. :Doh: Freakin' idots...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The history of many of our current laws can be traced to the Ten Commandments, and this monument will simply acknowledge that heritage.”

Really? How many are actual laws?

 

1. "I am the Lord your god" - Not a law

2. "You shall have no other gods before me" - Not a law

3. "You shall not take the Lord's name in vain" - Not a law

4. "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" - Not a law

5. "Honor your father and mother" - Not a law

6. "Thou shalt not kill" - Laws against murder, but even then it can be mitigated as self defense.

7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" - Not popular, but certainly not a law

8. "Thou shalt not steal" - Against the law

9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" - Unless we count perjuroy which is lying under specific circumstances - Not a law

10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass" - Coveting is the basis for american captialism - it's called "keeping up with the jones'"

 

So, what are we left with? 1 that's always a crime, 1 that's usually a crime, 1 that's sometimes a crime and the rest aren't.

 

Guess I'm just not seeing it... Why not put up Hammurabi's code? That's actually closer the mark on many points...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could in fact cause a crisis for them instead of helping them. They hear it, and their first thought is "I've been lied to! If it's not true, it's false!" That black and white dichotomy is a difficult issue reflective of a much greater cultural problem.

That is the honest truth AM. This was my mindset when I found out the truth as it probably was for many others. It doesn't matter where the information comes from, this is usually still the outcome for those of us that have this mindset.

 

But, I have to ask myself if this mindset would be prominent in a cultural setting to where the truth is preached from the get-go. Did the initial deception lead to this mindset or is it a combination of factors in our culture that causes this? I don't have the answers, but I am led to believe that if people were informed from an early age, this sort of thinking won't develop into such a hardened dichotomy.

 

I have tried to teach my daughter that there is a greater meaning in myth that what initally is seen. In her young mind, I can see that it doesn't sink in completely, yet I know that she knows what I'm saying. I think it will click in time.

 

Maybe it's because of the deceit (unintentional and sometimes intentional) in my life, I have chosen to tell the truth to my daugher. Yet, I went with the Santa thing even through many internal struggles with wanting to tell her the truth. I hate deception, but I can understand sometimes not telling the truth does a greater good. My grandmother had Alzheimer's disease and to try to pull her into reality was more cruel than visiting her in her world, which she loved.

 

Mental capacity is an issue along with the other things you mentioned for sure, but I would like to think that people would be willing to try to understand a greater depth to these stories if they were given a chance. This chance would be a greater opportunity if the black/white mindset was eliminated at an early age, IMO.

 

So, where/how does it start? Do we teach the kids early so they can grow up and preach the truth or do we shock the shit out of the old people first? I say go with the latter! :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.