Is It Really A Delusion?

[Mriana]

I know it's French, but even so... Tradusca por favor.

[Antlerman]

AM, you think symbolically while most others do not. They believe the symbols to be concrete reality.

A minor correction, we all think symbolically. But a few understand that and recognize the limits and significance of that. It's sort of like being aware we are aware. If you know what I mean.

 

But yes, most assume that their symbolic systems are actual reality. In many regards that's quite natural for us as a species to do that, so it's not that they are some aberration. I would just consider it more along the lines of cognitive development, not some clinical illness of mind. Is the six year old delusional for understanding that the tall glass has more water than the short one, even though the saw the same water poured directly from one glass into the other?

 

The twist I like to throw in, is do you think all the ways you understand the world actually, really, truly represent reality? Or is it how you/we understand it symbolically ourselves at this stage of our evolution, and that at some point in the future, those who are like many of us now who think this way, and continue to hold onto that way of looking at the world, will be the next group called delusional by the next group to reach that next stage of evolution?

 

Rather than saying they are delusional, wouldn't it seem better to say they are more simplistic in their way of looking at the world? That seems more accurate to me. It's just a less sophisticated understanding of the symbols, not that they don't use them, which they certainly do.

 

Ultimately, in my beliefs, there is a point where no symbols will be needed. But that's pretty much a direct apprehension of what is. That state transcends all reason and all symbols. But for now, it's how we all talk about the world, whether to each other or ourselves.

 

I'm saying that anyone who thinks his God literally talks/communicates to him as a real and external being is delusional in a clinical sense.

And again, how many *really* believe that, and not just stretch the language a bit to sound spiritual to fit in? In my experience, the ones who *really* do (at least on a regular sort of basis, are in fact nuts, and I would agree that they are delusional, or clinically off kilter.

 

But your average person who says they hear God speak to them, what does that really mean? That still small voice, that feeling of inspiration, of calm, of faith that goes deeper than just your average experience of daily life? Most of the time, that's what I've heard people express when they say God speaks to them. That's not delusional thinking, that just symbolic language.

 

Those who think Jesus was born of a virgin and performed miracles just like it says in the Bible is deluding himself in the common sense of ignoring certain things to maintain a cherished or useful belief.

But back again, what is their criteria? Are they trying to ascertain historical events, or inappropriately defend a religious symbol on a scientific level against the skeptic? It's not delusion per se, but them not being able to discern that their faith is categorically different! That's not delusion, it's ignorance.

 

The second delusional type is common, and likely everyone is deluded to some degree about something. I delude myself that people actually give a damn what I think and say here!

Which is where I hear many defenders of using the term against the religious cite as it being appropriate. But my point to that is, it's basically meaningless then. It's nothing but some epithet cast at them as a detraction. As you say, we're all delusional in way in this context. So why make an issue of singling them out as delusional then? It's not logical.

[Shyone]

I know it's French, but even so... Tradusca por favor.

folie á deux.

 

folie á trois.

 

In abnormal psychology the term folie á deux refers to a shared delusion by two people. Say one person believes they are in contact with aliens, and the other person can hear them too.

 

Ouroboros was kidding and suggesting that he shared Florduh's thoughts, even if they were delusional.

 

I added that I also care what Florduh says, so that makes three (trois) of us.

 

I don't really think there is such a term as folie á trois in psychology. It was a remark made in jest. En plaisantant s'il vous plaît.

[oddbird1963]

Antlerman,

 

You may think me thick-headed and you may be right! But did we ever come up with a clear differential between actual DSM-IV clinical delusion and the kind of unwillingness to accept scientific facts that many on this thread have been talking about?

 

Still, I do see your point about "delusion" being an unfruitful, pejorative term to be avoided.

[Mriana]

Oh ok. I understand and I don't recall such a term, but you know how memory can be. Thanks for translating.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman,

 

You may think me thick-headed and you may be right! But did we ever come up with a clear differential between actual DSM-IV clinical delusion and the kind of unwillingness to accept scientific facts that many on this thread have been talking about?

That's the thing. Some people use it one way, that it's clinical, others say no it's the colloquial use. And quite a few, like me, say it's not the right word to use in either case. I've shown in both cases why it's not appropriate. And still... no one has answered my question, where all humans prior to the Enlightenment in the 17th Century delusional?

 

 

Still, I do see your point about "delusion" being an unfruitful, pejorative term to be avoided.

That's really my whole point of making such an issue of it. It kills digging deeper into what's really going on, understanding it, addressing it, and moving beyond it. At least that's my purpose. If the purpose is just being insulting, then that would be a word to use in the 3rd sense of use, a pejorative.

[oddbird1963]

Antlerman,

 

My answer to the 17th century question is , No. They were not delusional then. They did not yet have the benefit of the scientific knowledge and methodology we have developed in recent centuries. They were going, more or less, with the prevailing cultural understanding of things.

 

There is a toll to be paid, though, when believers don't grow to see their religious system in light of current understanding.

 

The same religion which can move people to help the poor, launch relief efforts to Haiti and express themselves in music, art and literature can also move them to weed Thomas Jefferson out of the world history curriculum, insist upon exposing school children to intelligent design, refuse to allow blood transfusions for their children or even shoot their daughters for dishonoring them.

 

Each of these happenings, whether they are labeled "good" or "bad," frequent or infrequent are fruit that grow out of a similar dynamic which involves expecting a correspondence between religious belief and earthly actualization. It seems to me that they are fruit from the same tree. That's what I find disturbing.

 

I think it is a helpful exercise to drop the word "delusion" and think of what might be happening in other terms. For now, I think that the idolatorization of faith may not result in behavior that is completely cut off from the best findings of science and history. When faith becomes faith in the symbol itself as a concrete reality we will still have orphanages, soup kitchens and relief efforts. But we also get the atrocious attempts to force the "things of God" to be real in space and time.

[Kathlene]

Antler I would like to thankyou for your well thought out responses in here. They are, so far the most logical and critical thinking ones as far as I can tell. I will be the first to point out I am by no means up to date with the level of deep thinking in here. I did want to see what the responses in here would be about labelling a religion of any sorts a delusion. There is a huge population of the world that has spiritual experiences or look for something, apart from christianity. It would seem absurd to sweep it away as nothing or as delusion.

If you added up all the religions and beliefs on the earth, it would appear that humans have a need to seek a deeper sense of existence.

[Vixentrox]

Antler I would like to thankyou for your well thought out responses in here. They are, so far the most logical and critical thinking ones as far as I can tell. I will be the first to point out I am by no means up to date with the level of deep thinking in here. I did want to see what the responses in here would be about labelling a religion of any sorts a delusion. There is a huge population of the world that has spiritual experiences or look for something, apart from christianity. It would seem absurd to sweep it away as nothing or as delusion.

If you added up all the religions and beliefs on the earth, it would appear that humans have a need to seek a deeper sense of existence.

Some humans....

The rest of us outgrew delusions of Santa, fairies, and gods.

[Franko47]

 

If you added up all the religions and beliefs on the earth, it would appear that humans have a need to seek a deeper sense of existence.

 

 

Absolutely. It seems strange to me sometimes that a God would insist upon a "specific" and "unyielding" method of criteria in order for humans to achieve "salvation", or make "contact". Christianity and other religions have their mindset, upon many believers, that there is a "specific" way to God and Salvation, and only their specific way. This doesn't surprise me, since humans are cliquish by nature, but from a "god's point of view" you would think that "he" would be impressed by anyone with aspirations for higher truth, spiritual enlightenment, truth, integrity, virtue, peace, fulfillment, and so on.

 

You may well be right on one level, Kathlene, that there is perhaps something inherent in human nature that yearns for all these elements that we see pursued throughout the world and throughout the ages; and that humans use tremendous symbolism and allegory and even myths to explore these aims.

 

I don't believe that religious or spiritual people are delusional in this sense, but I do believe that within any spiritual discipline or religious continuum (I love that word) that many people can entertain delusions. Sometimes the delusions can be helpful, comforting, or compel people to be benevolent to others; but sometimes delusions can emerge that are harmful and self-defeating.

 

The problem with many aspects of religious thinking is that it does not use a criteria that we would normally use in our study of the natural world. To think about employing a "scientific method" to explore one's religion would sound almost strange. And yet, religion itself is a form of "science", or was at least in more ancient times. The attempt to explain existence, our place in the universe, and what is required from "supreme beings" needed answers, and there certainly emerged a lot of theories.

 

At any rate, it's all way too complex to be merely reduced down to a singular accusation of "delusion".

[Ouroboros]

Antler I would like to thankyou for your well thought out responses in here. They are, so far the most logical and critical thinking ones as far as I can tell. I will be the first to point out I am by no means up to date with the level of deep thinking in here. I did want to see what the responses in here would be about labelling a religion of any sorts a delusion. There is a huge population of the world that has spiritual experiences or look for something, apart from christianity. It would seem absurd to sweep it away as nothing or as delusion.

If you added up all the religions and beliefs on the earth, it would appear that humans have a need to seek a deeper sense of existence.

I have a question back to you Kathlene, do you consider us unbelievers to be fools, like the Bible says?

[florduh]

And still... no one has answered my question, where all humans prior to the Enlightenment in the 17th Century delusional?

Nobody is using delusional as a synonym for incorrect.

 

A delusion is (in common usage) deliberately incorrect. It's maintaining a belief (not just religious) in opposition to the evidence. Much, if not most Christian belief fits. That's why most of the faithful need weekly indoctrination sessions to drown out reality. In my humble, delusional opinion of course!

 

Also, we're already apparently speaking several different languages here so stop with the French already!!! S'il vous plait???

[Autonomous]

 

A delusion is (in common usage) deliberately incorrect. It's maintaining a belief (not just religious) in opposition to the evidence. Much, if not most Christian belief fits. That's why most of the faithful need weekly indoctrination sessions to drown out reality. In my humble, delusional opinion of course!

 

 

Quite. Anyone read "Battlefield of the mind"?

[Mriana]

Also, we're already apparently speaking several different languages here so stop with the French already!!! S'il vous plait???

 

Hey, mine was Spanish. I don't know French, so I respond in Spanish to French speakers. Almost like the boarder between France and Germany. I guess I could respond in a Germanic language, but I figure if they are giving others a hard time, I can give them a hard time back with a Romantic language other than French.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman,

 

My answer to the 17th century question is , No. They were not delusional then. They did not yet have the benefit of the scientific knowledge and methodology we have developed in recent centuries. They were going, more or less, with the prevailing cultural understanding of things.

And so then, in modern times, even though access to that knowledge may be more readily available, that doesn't mean they have found a way to incorporate it into an overarching worldview in ways that their religious/mythological framework of understanding does. And that to me seems the true issue, not whether a mythological god belief is delusional thought by default, which considering before the Enlightenment it can't be considered that way because of its function. That function is still here today. But being alongside science and reason as it is today, it creates an internal conflict within that system.

 

It seems understandable that people will choose to either ignore or even outright deny irrationally evidences that purport themselves to challenge ones entire worldview, whether that threat is real or only perceived. Again I mean their entire worldview, not simply some comfort zone here or there they may not want to face. What cohesive system is in place that touches on all three areas of Kant's big three; Subjective truth, Inter-subjective truth, Objective truth (the Beautiful, the Good, and the True)? What all this talk of objective truth is only that one-third of the whole person.

 

Prior to the Enlightenment, all three were under the mythological system, but post-Enlightenment it split apart and religion struggled to find its place in the loss of speaking to that Objective Truth side of things. Those that proclaim the Objective Truth focus as all there is, don't speak across that divide to those who see truth subjectively and inter-subjectively as of equal value and importance, whether they understand that consciously or not.

 

And so in many regards, as I said before, even in an irrational rejection of Objective Truth, there is a certain rationality behind it. Without something sufficient to catch them on the other side, to abandon what serves as the foundation for ones sense of connection to reality would be an act of suicide, in many respects. To not choose to put oneself at risk of an existential crisis in some regards is a rational choice, even if based on fear and a lack of faith.

 

There is a toll to be paid, though, when believers don't grow to see their religious system in light of current understanding.

This is true and I agree. But at the same token, from the other side, there is a toll that may be paid when someone abandons altogether the baby in the bathwater of myth. That's why you have some clinging to the old system, because they don't see that baby in the new. Are they totally nuts in their choice, even if the offered reasons seem irrational as a purely logic argument defending them as objectively based? I'd say they are objectively based in a sense. What's being offered doesn't do what they need it to do, on the level that touches the whole of life for them. And so they are broken, we are broken, in many regards.

 

 

out of time...

[florduh]

To not choose to put oneself at risk of an existential crisis in some regards is a rational choice

And again I will say that 'rational' is not the opposite of 'delusional'. It may, under certain circumstances, be rational to maintain a delusion. It is still a delusion. It is still an untrue belief, though it may be helpful to the person.

[Shyone]

And still... no one has answered my question, where all humans prior to the Enlightenment in the 17th Century delusional?

Nobody is using delusional as a synonym for incorrect.

 

A delusion is (in common usage) deliberately incorrect. It's maintaining a belief (not just religious) in opposition to the evidence. Much, if not most Christian belief fits. That's why most of the faithful need weekly indoctrination sessions to drown out reality. In my humble, delusional opinion of course!

 

Also, we're already apparently speaking several different languages here so stop with the French already!!! S'il vous plait???

I was going to answer AMs post, but after deciding that the 17th century people were not delusional (I agree with you), I couldn't think of a difference in people who are fooled by religion today. So they too would not be delusional.

 

Priests and pastors who "know that there is no god" but still preach it are not delusional. They are shysters and charlatans, so that's a different thing.

 

Even people who have seen evidence contrary to their belief system at least believe there is evidence for their belief system that outweighs the contrary evidence for the most part. They wouldn't be considered deslusional either.

 

It really does seem to come down to numbers. If one or two hold a belief that others don't about something that is clearly "wrong" then they are delusional. Psychiatrists can spot that easily. When it's billions of people with those beliefs, it's a religion and not delusional.

 

50,000 French men can't be wrong. Oh, and pardon my French. That was every word I knew in French.

[Antlerman]

And still... no one has answered my question, where all humans prior to the Enlightenment in the 17th Century delusional?

Nobody is using delusional as a synonym for incorrect.

 

A delusion is (in common usage) deliberately incorrect. It's maintaining a belief (not just religious) in opposition to the evidence. Much, if not most Christian belief fits. That's why most of the faithful need weekly indoctrination sessions to drown out reality. In my humble, delusional opinion of course!

 

Also, we're already apparently speaking several different languages here so stop with the French already!!! S'il vous plait???

I was going to answer AMs post, but after deciding that the 17th century people were not delusional (I agree with you), I couldn't think of a difference in people who are fooled by religion today. So they too would not be delusional.

Progress. (Now if we can just move that over to the whole reductionist thing... )

 

Priests and pastors who "know that there is no god" but still preach it are not delusional. They are shysters and charlatans, so that's a different thing.

This would be true. To attempt convince others of something as true that you don't believe is the height of insincerity to the whole world.

 

Even people who have seen evidence contrary to their belief system at least believe there is evidence for their belief system that outweighs the contrary evidence for the most part. They wouldn't be considered deslusional either.

You see, and that is the sticking point in this discussion and in why people want to use that term delusional, because they hang it on people denying evidence presented directly to them. But what is their understanding of that evidence? How do they perceive it?

 

The problem is is that to your average believer, as one of a thousand examples, when you present evidence that earth is 4.5 billion years old, when they have always imagined it as the mythology (created by various theologians) that the earth is 6000 years old, what happens is the myth is part of a system of understanding that includes God, that includes all their cultural values, that includes ideas of truth, of meaning, etc, etc. So what happens is they are obviously resistant to accepting this evidence because of the actual false belief, that all the rest is tied to accepting the myth of the age of the earth.

 

And if you don't think that's how they hear it, I could point to thousands of posts on this site alone that does tie the Bible being "wrong" to specific 'errors' like this. What people hear is this is evidence that God isn't real. Now, when they become irrational in their logic arguments in response, even to the point of elaborate irrationalities such as those sideshow clowns at Answers in Genesis, I believe it is because they are motivated by being stuck in mythological systems of thought that tie all of it together. This isn't delusion per se, but being developmentally stunted in the arena of worldviews.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make. They, and even many skeptics and critics, make belief in God contingent upon a view that the whole thing is some truth dropped from heaven, whole and complete, and therefore impossible to contain error. If you have evidence the Flood never happened, this somehow makes all their beliefs wrong. That is a false analogy. Both are thinking of beliefs in God as being defined and created entirely by that mythological system, and if that system is wrong, God doesn't exist and everything they associate with God is at risk. They both believe the created myth as being the make or break point.

 

It really does seem to come down to numbers. If one or two hold a belief that others don't about something that is clearly "wrong" then they are delusional. Psychiatrists can spot that easily. When it's billions of people with those beliefs, it's a religion and not delusional.

In a sense that's true. I wouldn't consider millions of 6 year old's delusional for perceiving that the tall glass contains more water than than short glass despite direct evidence presented to them to the contrary by pouring the water directly from one into the other. Worldviews, to put it that way, develop.

 

Understanding the world from a more mature system allows for a greater understanding of the world, a more developed perception, or awareness, or consciousness. It's not really even a 'shared delusion' of billions. It's that with everything else tied to the way of thinking, it just hasn't happened yet on wide scale for society as a whole.

 

I believe as we are able to integrate all our value systems, personal meaning and freedom, and our knowledge of the natural world better, that allows a centered and community grounding in the whole of truth, the inner person and the outer world connected and growing, then we will have emerged fully from that past into the new. As of now, we're sort of half poking out still. Rather, it's more like we have emerged but just haven't quite gotten off life-support yet and started breathing on our own.

[florduh]

Progress. (Now if we can just move that over to the whole reductionist thing... )

The more we agree with AM the more we progress!

 

Often the problem lies with our language (symbols) more than with the concepts.

 

And if you don't think that's how they hear it, I could point to thousands of posts on this site alone that does tie the Bible being "wrong" to specific 'errors' like this. What people hear is this is evidence that God isn't real.

If people assume that it's either the god of the Bible or no god at all, that may be true. I give the folks around here more credit. Showing that throughout the Bible there are huge problems with facts regarding science and recorded history, and considering its murky history and internal conflicts, most people will dismiss that particular god but may become deists, pagans, or some other sort of spiritual person. Only by examining, and finding lacking, several god beliefs does one conclude it's time to stop looking for an external god.

 

If you have evidence the Flood never happened, this somehow makes all their beliefs wrong.

That makes everything from that source suspect.

[Antlerman]

Progress. (Now if we can just move that over to the whole reductionist thing... )

The more we agree with AM the more we progress!

 

Often the problem lies with our language (symbols) more than with the concepts.

That's right. Now you're talking. What I meant was that communication was happening. And yes, it is the struggle over word choices that is key. That's why I'll harp on something like this so much. If we start using the best terminology it'll take us a lot further in understanding and discussion. To use words that are typically taken as an insult when applied to entire system of thought doesn't accomplish that quite as well.

 

And if you don't think that's how they hear it, I could point to thousands of posts on this site alone that does tie the Bible being "wrong" to specific 'errors' like this. What people hear is this is evidence that God isn't real.

If people assume that it's either the god of the Bible or no god at all, that may be true. I give the folks around here more credit.

To be clear, I did not say or suggest everyone here does that. I simply said I have seen that expressed in the language used by many in society, both here and elsewhere, that if someone believes in God they are essentially deluded. It is of course understandable for some to see things that way coming from where they are coming from. It also needs to be recognized that the view was in fact prevalent enough, and vocal enough here, that the Webmaster of this site felt it important to create a safe zone on the forums for members who cared to explore theistic and alternative views of spirituality without being assailed as illogical, irrational, or whatnot, every time they brought it up. I'm not making a complaint, just pointing out this reality.

 

And so my point was and is, that your average believer in God within the Christian system is hearing the message pretty loudly by the most vocal such as Dawkins in calling belief in God a delusion, as it being a choice of one thing or the other. They hear that they either have to choose to reject all of it and be an atheist (which may be unpalatable to them depending on whatever they may perceive that to be to them), or accept all of it, and consequently be put in a position to defend it, all the way up to the point of irrationality defending myth as science. And so they are pigeon holed, the lines are drawn, and the unhappy polarization into opposites is completed.

 

I personally see the lines as much more like transecting and overlapping squiggles, crisscrossing all over and into each others domains.

 

Showing that throughout the Bible there are huge problems with facts regarding science and recorded history, and considering its murky history and internal conflicts, most people will dismiss that particular god but may become deists, pagans, or some other sort of spiritual person.

If faith were truly based on facts of science and recorded history, then there really wouldn't be any need for faith, right? It in fact would make no sense to join a Wicca group, since it's history is also peppered with modern creations of its own origin myths. It has no evidence of spirits being confirmed by science, no scientific proofs that any rituals actually make things different in others lives, and so on and so forth. Since those aren't reliable that system can't be "trusted" either, apparently.

 

Again, even in this what you say, the message is that the Bible better be factual or else its god can't be a part of anyone's religious experience. That is the message they hear, and underscores exactly what I'm trying to say. They have to reject God in their understanding because of errors in the Bible, and that to them means, how they hear it, is that they are being asked to dismiss all the value systems that are entwined in their lives with the symbol of that culture, social, and personal religious system. They don't know how to, have the tools to do so, to extricate them and find another home, another system that offers that sense of cohesiveness to their lives that their current system does. Of course they will respond defensively, to the point of irrationality if necessary. It's like protecting your child, or your very life, it can impact them as.

 

Only by examining, and finding lacking, several god beliefs does one conclude it's time to stop looking for an external god.

And that may be a valid choice for someone to make, and I would fully support them in that. I only hope that everyone continues to look to develop themselves, to expand themselves, and not conclude anything to the point it stops us there. It not what system is best for the person, it's that they are seeking to grow.

 

Ironically, fundamentalism was in fact the right system for me for the time of my life I was in it, then I outgrew it and it no longer was. I find it ironic how some will say there is only one way to know truth. It assumes there is an end potential that resides within one system only. I personally believe that potential to transcend and absorb them all into itself, into an infinite.

 

If you have evidence the Flood never happened, this somehow makes all their beliefs wrong.

That makes everything from that source suspect.

Does it? On what level? With what expectations?

 

What if someone understands it to be a story to tell an underlying message and that it happened in fact, is irrelevant to that? Finding out it's not fact would harm the meaning of the message to that person, exactly how? (I'm making that same point about setting up the same true/false choice that people hear. They're not given any other choice that respects anything associated with their misunderstandings of the purposes of mythology).

[par4dcourse]

Much to ponder. Thank you, gentlemen.

 

 

[florduh]

What if someone understands it to be a story to tell an underlying message and that it happened in fact, is irrelevant to that?

Whether a flood (or anything else in the book) is factual history is irrelevant to the myth meaning. You get that, I get that (believe it or not!)

 

HOWEVER, the Bible in particular presents itself as factual and true and that's how many, if not most Christians view it. Westerners do not take the Bible stories in the same way people understand the "miracles" surrounding the Buddha. Somehow we sense those stories to be allegories to make some spiritual point, but the Bible purports to be the recorded history of the one true God and His people, and the only path to salvation, by God! When one finds cracks in that book, which parts of it are we to believe anymore? If there was no flood, then maybe there was no actual Jesus or sacrifice after all. The claims come from the same source and neither story is presented as allegory or morality play.

[Antlerman]

What if someone understands it to be a story to tell an underlying message and that it happened in fact, is irrelevant to that?

Whether a flood (or anything else in the book) is factual history is irrelevant to the myth meaning. You get that, I get that (believe it or not!)

...then you concede the Bible does in fact speak truths?

 

HOWEVER, the Bible in particular presents itself as factual and true and that's how many, if not most Christians view it.

I'm not so sure I would be willing to accept that statement, on the level of "factual and true" with the criteria we hold today for those to be. They sure didn't seem too terribly concerned with facts when talking about whose census it was that Jesus was born under, they didn't seem too concerned about how many women were at the tomb, etc. The stories are similar, the details are different, and in fact the emphasis is different. It appears that each is using the story to talk to their particular communities, playing up, embellishing upon, a basic narrative tale, to tailor it to their community. That... is not the act of someone "recording the facts of history". The whole narrative Gospel stories are messages woven into and around a "story" of the life of this founding figure of their faith.

 

It's not the details of the story that are the message. The story is a vehicle, I would say largely unconcerned about facts. That concern is much more a modern response. The issue is on their end, that they can't seem to extricate the intended meanings from a modern understanding of "facts". That is them being somewhat a "stillborn", as the world moved out of the mythical systems into the rational systems. Religion tried to adopt (and still is), and modern fundamentalism was born as a reactionary response to just that trying to happen.

 

Now as far as the OT, of course it's set in history. It is after all, the Hebrew's Origin Myth. It is the story of how they imagine themselves, their significance to the region. Prior to the Monarchy, it's stories are tales handed down and embellished. Once it became a nation, then it touches on facts of history amongst its stories of prophets and poets. Did they understand it as 'fact'. Yes, of course... it was their story of themselves. Questioning it in the light of today's criteria was irrelevant. The truth of themselves was entwined with their narratives, but it was the truth of themselves, how they saw themselves, how they believed about themselves, how they imagined their significance and their future, was what was truth.

 

The facts of the actually historic events were insignificant to the point of irrelevance compared to all the rest tied into the story! That is the nature of symbolism. And so too with the NT and their imaginings of Jesus as like the prophet Elijah and Moses to one community, imagining him as the Eternal Logos to another, imagining him like the apocalyptic Son of Man to another. Their focus is on identity and societal truth, not science and facts of history!!

 

I'm going to quote from the Christian scholar Burton Mack on this, since it fits so well into this point:

 

A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.

 

Again, this is not an effort to tell history. This is about something entirely else!

 

Westerners do not take the Bible stories in the same way people understand the "miracles" surrounding the Buddha.

Well that is a problem, isn't it? I would suggest it's not that we need to trash the Bible as false, because it's not literally true. I would suggest we educate them to maybe try to look at their faith in a more fundamental, more essential, pragmatic way than literally. That's like the 6 year old who can't discern the amount of water is the same, even though the glasses are shaped differently. I don't see it so much as a source document problem, as a cultural problem. I like how this express that.

 

Somehow we sense those stories to be allegories to make some spiritual point, but the Bible purports to be the recorded history of the one true God and His people, and the only path to salvation, by God! When one finds cracks in that book, which parts of it are we to believe anymore? If there was no flood, then maybe there was no actual Jesus or sacrifice after all. The claims come from the same source and neither story is presented as allegory or morality play.

I only see that the Bible purports itself to be this way, to be a modern interpretation from a modern context, reading itself back into history to suit itself against its challengers today. I am certainly not alone in that assertion.

 

 

BTW, this a very good discussion. Very enjoyable.

[florduh]

...then you concede the Bible does in fact speak truths?

Good one. What I say is the Bible stories are vehicles to illustrate what the authors considered to be truth. However, it's sold as a divinely inspired revelation from the god of the entire universe, not an exposition of the thoughts of a few ancient authors.

 

 

I only see that the Bible purports itself to be this way

That's my whole point. It presents itself as magically revealed factual history and the one and only truth, and that's naturally the basis upon which people will reject or accept it. After all, not everyone is as deep and spiritually advanced as we are.

[Antlerman]

...then you concede the Bible does in fact speak truths?

Good one. What I say is the Bible stories are vehicles to illustrate what the authors considered to be truth. However, it's sold as a divinely inspired revelation from the god of the entire universe, not an exposition of the thoughts of a few ancient authors.

It is sold as truth using God symbolically because that's it's purpose to speak to some overarching truth for everyone. Of course it's put in the mouth of God. It's symbolic. It's not being sold as Authoritative by calling up the sorts of modern evidences of science and history that impress a modern audience. Totally out of context.

 

I only see that the Bible purports itself to be this way

That's my whole point. It presents itself as magically revealed factual history and the one and only truth, and that's naturally the basis upon which people will reject or accept it. After all, not everyone is as deep and spiritually advanced as we are.

You know, at first I thought, "WTF did I say??", until I looked back and realized you quoted me out of context!!!

 

Here's what I actually said: "I only see that the Bible purports itself to be this way, to be a modern interpretation from a modern context, reading itself back into history to suit itself against its challengers today." In other words, that's a modern misunderstanding.

 

You weren't being serious in your response were you?