The Silly-Putty(r) Bible

[Alice]

You are right I think that 'literal' christianity is about a relationship with a 'book', its 'Bible worship'. Not that the majority of fundamentalist christians would word things in this way. I don't think you'd get many to admit the role of fear either - in that many believe their faith gives them freedom from fear, and this relief brings feelings of joy.

 

Where I see 'echoes' of literalism outside of fundamnetalist religion is in the idea that if something is a 'mythical' it is somehow a 'lie', the 'truth' of something is seen as being 'whether it actually happened or not', rather than 'truth' lying in the impact the story can have on one's heart and mind.

[NotBlinded]

I think that all religons derive from the same source and all were meant to be allegories. Since no description could ever describe what 'is', this way they were able to get others to understand. But the meanings of the stories were lost when people took control of the writtings (not all religions, I think India retains the knowledge) and promoted them as literal. This knowledge is ancient and was hidden because if anyone even spoke of this knowledge, they were executed as heretics (in the Christian circle).

 

All the world suffers because people have taken stories and made them real. Now...that is a nightmare indeed, but when taken as they are meant to be taken, they make sense (to me anyway!).

 

That goes along with The Jesus Mysteries book I read. It talks about how the mystery religion of christ was copied after the other mystery religion (having an outer court of knowledge which anyone can know) and an inner court (you get the true meaning here). And how Paul wrote before New Testament xtianity was even around, because he was a part of these christian mysteries. I won't read what he wrote in the same way again! The same for what the "gospel" writers had Jesus saying. Mystery Religion. And xtianity was called a poor copy of these religions. Others were actually more exciting, fulfulling, etc. Really this book is so interesting that if you get the chance to read it, go for it. It blows me away sometimes.

I feel the same way! The internal conflict that has haunted me for as long as I can remember is vanishing! It makes much more sense to understand that all religions are (or were before they lost their meaning) saying the same thing.

 

Here is an excerpt from The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol. 1

 

Read by the light of the Zohar, the initial four chapters of Genesis are the fragment of a highly philosophical page in the World's Cosmogony. (See Book III., Gupta Vidya and the Zohar.) Left in their symbolical disguise, they are a nursery tale, an ugly thorn in the side of science and logic, an evident effect of Karma. To have let them serve as a prologue to Christianity was a cruel revenge on the part of the Rabbis, who knew better what their Pentateuch meant. It was a silent protest against their spoliation, and the Jews have certainly now the better of their traditional persecutors.

 

 

<snip>

Where I see 'echoes' of literalism outside of fundamnetalist religion is in the idea that if something is a 'mythical' it is somehow a 'lie', the 'truth' of something is seen as being 'whether it actually happened or not', rather than 'truth' lying in the impact the story can have on one's heart and mind.

That is wonderfully stated.

 

Edit...I wish I knew how I got both of my replies to show up on one post!

[NotBlinded]

Grinchster...

 

Let us simplify this discussion if I may step in:

 

Constructing a building to the Building Code requires a firm, flat, level foundation, a basis that the rest of the mterials will be fitted to.

 

One can argue what the foundaton consists of, how it is to be built, what materials, etc.

 

The ONE thing that the foundation requires is that is level to an inarguable degree.

 

We can use a decent amount of technology from high to low to make *level* work, but the actual flatness of what we are proposing to work on is the basis of what we want to do.

 

No level? No workee, as nothing will fit according to accepted measures/

 

Transposing this thought on *foundation*, we need to agree what it being discussed before the various tangents and opinions start being added to what the "*under the gingerbread and paint* of the building."

 

Remember, a "foundation" is something unmovable, soild and in time unchanging.

 

Everything added from the *ground up* can be moved, changed, painted, added to, but foundations are what everythng is based upon..

 

First Book of daFatman, 167:13.b: "I am stoned, therefore I am gonna be your Rock, or some other cool shit."

 

kL

That is some cool shit! And, you are correct. I think there is a foundation from which all religions were built and in order to understand it, we have to be able to sort through the nonsense (which is literal religions). It's all based on ancient philosophies written in a manner that can only be understood through feeling. The liberal can interpret them anyway they wish as long as it remains in the realm of the mystical. It can't be brought into the physical world as actualities. The ones that preached for the literal meanings are the ones that had alterior motives.

[Open_Minded]

Well thank you everyone.

 

This has been an eye-opening conversation... to say the least. It would be nice to end it on a high note, but it is difficult to feel good when so many people are living in the kind of fear y'all describe.

 

One thing is for sure - I will try to be a little more compassionate the next time a fundy tells me that the contemplative Christian group I'm involved in is "of the devil"

 

But like you, Mr. Grinch, fundamentalists of ANY religion, scare me to death as well. They are exceedingly dangerous creatures. So, it has been difficult for me to feel compassion, but this knowledge will make it a bit easier.

 

All Gods Fail - your description of the "mind-fuck" really brings the fear home - the description will stay in my mind next time I'm called upon to have compassion for a fundamentalist.

 

And last - but not least, thank you again Hesitent, for simply expressing what I feel.

 

Where I see 'echoes' of literalism outside of fundamnetalist religion is in the idea that if something is a 'mythical' it is somehow a 'lie', the 'truth' of something is seen as being 'whether it actually happened or not', rather than 'truth' lying in the impact the story can have on one's heart and mind.

 

It has been good to meet all of you... and I look forward to connecting with you on other threads. I don't think I'll be all that active as most of the time there won't be much that I can say. When I read threads where people are trying to figure out how to live post-fundamentalism, I've not much personal experience to bring to the discussion. But, when there is an applicable thread I'll jump in and I look forward to meeting you all there. And I'll understand if we end up coming at the discussion topic from different points of view.

 

Catch you on the other side

 

Open Minded

[Amethyst]

What I am now assuming - and this is where I need you to correct me if I'm wrong - is that this supposed "personal relationship with Jesus" is really a dependence on the Bible.

 

So... if this theory is correct ... and there is a real part of me that hopes I am wrong.... then what does one feel in ones heart when involved in fundamentalism... fear??? Is there no joy??? no peace??? from what you are all saying people stay with fundamentalism because of the oppression, the fear.

 

When I went to a Mo. Synod Lutheran church, I felt mostly fear, guilt, and self-hate. I didn't feel a lot of joy when I was growing up. I had extremely low self-esteem because I had an overly critical, fundamentalist mother and I was bullied a lot (in a Christian elementary school, no less).

 

My "relationship" consisted of what I had been taught by my mother and school, and what I had memorized of the Bible, nothing else. I believed what they believed because I wanted to be accepted and not treated like an outcast, although they treated me like one anyway.

[mwc]

The ones that preached for the literal meanings are the ones that had alterior motives.

I have to disagree with you here. I think that anything can be abused if someone is properly motivated (and it's always the same things: money, power, etc.). For example, a purely mystic or spiritually view sounds good (the assumption being tolerance and an everyone walks their own path type of thing) but how easy is it for someone to claim they have the "special" knowledge or "secrets" and will give them to you if you join them? If any of these movements catch on then you're back in the same boat with a different dogma attached to the same words (and of course the "fear," in whatever form, will come back for those who aren't "getting it" according to their masters).

 

Since most people seek acceptance and are drawn to groups (only the one(s) they agree with of course) it's only a matter of time that this state of abuse occurs in any such situation (Scientology comes to mind as a non-xian version but the abusive xian mystics I'm sure will appear once the movement catches on and maybe one of them will be the "new" Roman Catholic Church...since the bible is no longer literal to them maybe it will be the Roman Catholic Church).

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

The ones that preached for the literal meanings are the ones that had alterior motives.

I have to disagree with you here. I think that anything can be abused if someone is properly motivated (and it's always the same things: money, power, etc.). For example, a purely mystic or spiritually view sounds good (the assumption being tolerance and an everyone walks their own path type of thing) but how easy is it for someone to claim they have the "special" knowledge or "secrets" and will give them to you if you join them? If any of these movements catch on then you're back in the same boat with a different dogma attached to the same words (and of course the "fear," in whatever form, will come back for those who aren't "getting it" according to their masters).

 

Since most people seek acceptance and are drawn to groups (only the one(s) they agree with of course) it's only a matter of time that this state of abuse occurs in any such situation (Scientology comes to mind as a non-xian version but the abusive xian mystics I'm sure will appear once the movement catches on and maybe one of them will be the "new" Roman Catholic Church...since the bible is no longer literal to them maybe it will be the Roman Catholic Church).

 

mwc

I completely understand what you are saying and I probably didn't state that right. I find it to be not so much forming another group, but getting back to what it originally was intended to convey. I don't think this "movement" is something that is out there to gain adherents because it has been around for centuries. I understand that someone could claim knowledge to it and use it for such a cause, but they would have to have a very vague understanding of it in order to make it into something it's not. I am having a hard time explaining what I am trying to convey... This is something that is getting to the very heart of it's origins. It's not taking a look at one religion and saying this is the way to understand it. It's taking all the religions that ever were and showing what is common between them. There is not one right religion, all of the religions are saying the same thing if one can get back to the origin through all the clutter and the key to doing that is by finding what they have in common. So if it is a movement, it is only as such because of the desire to understand what the ancients knew and wrote about. I don't see that really as a belief, but a search for the truth.

[Amethyst]

I understand that someone could claim knowledge to it and use it for such a cause, but they would have to have a very vague understanding of it in order to make it into something it's not.

 

I disagree here. The creators of Christianity knew exactly what they were doing when they made it up and used it for mind control. I would think the opposite, that you actually have to have specific understanding of the religion in order to abuse it.

[DanInPA]

....all of the religions are saying the same thing if one can get back to the origin

through all the clutter and the key to doing that is by finding what they have in common.

 

I think a lot of them were saying that the Sun is the almighty giver of light, warmth and life.

[NotBlinded]

I understand that someone could claim knowledge to it and use it for such a cause, but they would have to have a very vague understanding of it in order to make it into something it's not.

 

I disagree here. The creators of Christianity knew exactly what they were doing when they made it up and used it for mind control. I would think the opposite, that you actually have to have specific understanding of the religion in order to abuse it.

You may be right and I do think that it was perverted from it's original intentions. I just think that there is something more to it than a complete fairy tale. I think it was originally meant to be taken metaphorically, hence the commonality to prior religions. It was hijacked, so to speak, by certain individuals in power and distorted and it's meaning changed. They killed the ones that could understand it and forced the messages to be hidden. Still, I think way back in time, it had meaning and it may be possible to gain meaning from what is left of it.

 

....all of the religions are saying the same thing if one can get back to the origin

through all the clutter and the key to doing that is by finding what they have in common.

 

I think a lot of them were saying that the Sun is the almighty giver of light, warmth and life.

I like this explanation of the meaning of the sun:

 

The sun is the Logos of any hierarchy, which manifests itself as seven rays. The sun is the father of the gods. In mythology we find him represented as Helios and Sol, as Phoebus and Apollo. Sun worship has always been universal. Ignorant people have supposed that sun-worshipers worship the visible orb of day only; they imagine that the sun is nothing more than a vast globe of incandescent gases, and say that people who worship a globe of incandescent gases must be poor untutored savages. What is really worshipped is the spiritual sun, of which the visible sun is but an outer garment; and it is only natural that the spiritual sun should be invoked through its outer symbol. The outer ceremonial is made to correspond with the inner meaning; but there would be times when the inner meaning would be forgotten and the worship degenerate into empty form, as may happen in other religions. The sun is the divine light striving to manifest itself in us; its light is reflected from a number of planets, and these may stand for the subordinate phases of our mentality.

 

From here.

[Checkmate]

Major league BUMP. Wow. A blast from the past. Dusting off an oldie, but a goodie.

 

I never did like the way this thread fizzled out. It was so anti-climatic, and we seemed to come to no affirmative conclusion. Everyone just seemed to wander away scratching their butts, essentially agreeing to disagree. So I’ve revived the thread momentarily, not to start up another fight, but to give it kind of an “Epilogue”. (I despise “loose ends.”)

 

I recently joined the Jesus Never Existed Forum and I read a thread where a Liberal Christian challenged the theist-atheist literalist opinion, and I think he has made a good counter-argument. I responded to his views (he subsequently responded to mine and has given me permission to quote him here), and I thought that I would share what was said since I believe it neatly dovetails with the issue of the “Silly-Putty® Bible”.

 

Here is the link for the entire discussion: http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=400.0

 

And here is are two excerpts from the thread starter, “GakuseiDon” (Liberal Xian)…

 

True, but again, this says more about you than about liberal Christianity. Certainly, some people -- atheist and theist -- need certainty in their lives, and taking the Bible literally provides that. There are some atheists who are not happy to see the Bible treated non-literally since they then ask "But how do you KNOW???" I usually call them "fundy atheists", since they share the same belief as fundy theists: "God needs a book to communicate, and the book has to be literally true or it's all rubbish". Yet the NT didn't exist 2000 years ago, and the OT didn't exist 3500 years ago. How did they KNOW then?

 

And a few sentences later he further clarifies with this…

 

Liberal Christianity reflects a person's belief based on their understanding of history and people. Genesis, for example, is a myth that people created to explain the creation of the universe. The OT is the distillation of the experience and recordings of a group of people struggling to survive throughout a number of centuries, and is as mythical as the ancient history of any country, since it was born out of the same impulse -- the desire to give some kind of account that validated the people's opinions of themselves at the time the recording was made.

 

For myself: God doesn't need a book to communicate. I love the Bible, and I think it is an incredible piece of literature, and there is a lot of interest in there. I'm sure there are atheists that agree. I have no problem defending the Bible when it needs to be defended, and attack it when it needs to be attacked. But IMHO to suggest that God needs a book to communicate seems to place a limit on God.

 

Here is my response,

 

GakuseiDon, comments such as yours have given me pause. I confess to have always been what you call a "fundy atheist."

 

I have always held to the all or nothing practice of biblical literalism. Either the bible is ALL the word of God or it’s all rubbish. I despised “cherry picking” scriptures. What I often referred to as “buffet style” Christianity. Keeping those parts of the bible that appeal to you, while rejecting the embarrassing or uncomfortable bits.

 

My opinion has been that if Christians find so much disagreeable about the bible -- and if they themselves consider it to be mostly, if not entirely myth -- then why remain “Christians”?

 

But, why do I believe that “Christians” MUST adhere to a literalist interpretation of the bible? They didn’t always do so. In fact, before the canon of scripture was set in stone in the 4th century, Christians had NO set bible, doctrines or dogma. It was almost all oral tradition, combined with the odd assortment of early writings (possibly apostolic, possibly not).

 

So you have got me thinking that perhaps my insistence of an all or nothing approach is in error. Perhaps Christians can “cherry pick” their scriptures. Perhaps they can even reject them outright, if the mood so strikes them. And they can STILL choose to call themselves “Christian.”

 

For in the end what really matters is what each one BELIEVES about “Jesus.” And I’m not speaking about according to the bible or the Apostle’s Creed or Canon Law.

 

So, I believe I’m finally ready to relent on my formerly firm position regarding biblical literalism/fundamentalism. No one has to take the Bible literally or even seriously to be a Christian. “Cherry pick” away people. Be as literal, or liberal or lukewarm as you like. You’re all “Christians”. I stand corrected. Mea Culpa.

 

But this changes little. I STILL believe Christians are as mad as a March Hare.

 

Bible or no bible, if you believe that this “Jesus” was born of a virgin, via the Holy Ghost, performed miracles, was crucified for our “sins”, got resurrected and then ascended into “heaven” and is still alive and taking prayer requests from believers, then YOU, my dear sir/madam, are a delusional human. You’re right up there with the Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Scientologists, Raelians, Hindus, Heaven’s Gate, pet psychics, ghost busters and anyone else professing belief in unprovable supernatural horse manure.

 

Because when it comes right down to it, without the Bible as some set standard or guide, then you Christians are just inventing things based on both oral traditions and your own feelings/opinions. (Hell, even WITH the Bible you were inventing things!) “God doesn’t need a book to communicate”. Correct. OK. So now what? Are you telling me that you’re hearing from “God” personally now? If you thought that I disrespected the Bible's authority, guess where I place “revelations“, “opinions” and “oral traditions” on the scale of believability? Right down there with the testimony of people abducted by “Aliens” and Elvis spotters.

 

So, by “cherry picking” your scriptures you’re no longer forced to be intolerant of gays, women and minorities. Goodie, goodie for you. How progressive, tolerant and mainstream you are. But you still believe that “Santa God” is coming to town. Which just makes you a Politically Correct delusional human.

 

Bravo. You’re more house broken and socially acceptable than your narrow-minded, misogynistic, racist, homophobic fundamentalist brethren.

 

Yet, your position has NOT improved. A Christian who believes in “Jesus”, but disregards (or is surgically selective with) the teachings of scripture, (even the words of “Jesus” himself) is like someone who believes in Spider-Man™, but sporadically rejects or accepts the authority of Marvel Comics©. You’re just making yourself look even MORE insane.

 

To put it bluntly, you Liberal Christians are damned if you do and damned if you don’t adhere to biblical literalism. Either way, you’re ALL as nutty as fifty fruit cakes.

 

~ Checkmate

 

(Click the link above to the forum if you care to read his reply to my commentary.)

 

So there you have it. My tightly closed mind has been opened to another point of view. (Let’s see a Christian do THAT!) It no longer concerns me how Christians interpret their scripture. Literal or “Liberal” interpretation, it makes no difference to me. And why should it, when I think they’re deluded either way?

 

Thus endeth the saga of the Silly-Putty® Bible. It ends not with a bang, nor with a whimper, but with a “who-gives-a-shit?”

[Open_Minded]

Major league BUMP. Wow. A blast from the past. Dusting off an oldie, but a goodie.

 

I never did like the way this thread fizzled out. It was so anti-climatic, and we seemed to come to no affirmative conclusion. Everyone just seemed to wander away scratching their butts, essentially agreeing to disagree. So I’ve revived the thread momentarily, not to start up another fight, but to give it kind of an “Epilogue”. (I despise “loose ends.”)

Ahhhh ... hello Mr. G Long-time no sparring.

 

 

Here is my response,

So you have got me thinking that perhaps my insistence of an all or nothing approach is in error. Perhaps Christians can “cherry pick” their scriptures. Perhaps they can even reject them outright, if the mood so strikes them. And they can STILL choose to call themselves “Christian.”

 

For in the end what really matters is what each one BELIEVES about “Jesus.” And I’m not speaking about according to the bible or the Apostle’s Creed or Canon Law.

 

So, I believe I’m finally ready to relent on my formerly firm position regarding biblical literalism/fundamentalism. No one has to take the Bible literally or even seriously to be a Christian. “Cherry pick” away people. Be as literal, or liberal or lukewarm as you like. You’re all “Christians”. I stand corrected. Mea Culpa.

Well - I did look at the other thread. And I must say - I'm in full agreement with GakuseiDon's response to you.

 

It's not a matter of "Cherry picking", though. If Genesis appears to have been a myth partly based on earlier Babylonian myths, isn't it reasonable to believe it is a myth? If Jesus's virgin birth appears to have been a later development to impress pagans, isn't it reasonable to believe that he wasn't virgin born? If the laws in the Torah appear to have been created for a culture 3000 years ago, isn't it reasonable to ask what relevance they have for us today?

 

None of this is "cherry picking", if by that term you mean just rejecting what is inconvenient. It is coming to a conclusion based on one's knowledge of the development of the text itself. If I end up rejecting all of it, am I still a "cherry picker"?

Also, just a year ago, Alice addressed "cherry picking" right here at Ex-C. I love her comments.... they follow...

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=140393

I thought of this today ~ In defence of Cherry Pickers ...

 

Fundamentalist christians have all kinds of cherries in the pie of life they bake and feast on. They don't examine the cherries - they all go in ... the bitter ones, the stones, the diseased and wormy ones, it ruins their pie but as long as they believe hard enough that it tastes good (and the occasional mouthful truly is) they can convince themselves it is - however bad it tastes.

 

The Bible is a bowl of cherries and I am resolved to cherry pick for my pie. I'll season it with a little Taoist cinnamon and sprinkle of some buddhist sugar if I fancy it - sometimes I'll add a little celtic christianity custard. I'll put in whatever I want and leave out whatever I want, and I'll eat it with whatever I want as well.

 

Because when it comes to it ... it makes sense to cherry pick, its only a fundamentalist mindset that says - its all or nothing. its only if someone is claiming that the bible is a magical written by god book that this applies - as soon as one accepts that it is a compilation of ideas about man's search to understand spirituality - it becomes clear that the way to use it is to cherry pick and it's as helpful to know what and why we discard some parts and why we keep other parts.

 

My name is Alice ... and I am a cherry picker ....

 

But this changes little. I STILL believe Christians are as mad as a March Hare.<snip>To put it bluntly, you Liberal Christians are damned if you do and damned if you don’t adhere to biblical literalism. Either way, you’re ALL as nutty as fifty fruit cakes.

Ahh.... Mr. G - you haven't lost your charm.

 

Here's the deal - if (as a liberal Christian) I'm as nutty as fifty fruit cakes - then I'm in good company:

 

Marian Wright Edelman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Wright_Edelman

 

Marian Wright Edelman (born June 6 , 1939, in Bennettsville, South Carolina) is the American president and founder of the Children's Defense Fund.

 

Her thinking was influenced by her father, Arthur Wright, a Baptist preacher who taught that Christianity required service in this world and by A. Philip Randolph.

 

A graduate of Spelman College and Yale Law School, Edelman worked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Poor People's March on Washington, and on a variety of other civil rights and public interest causes before founding the Children's Defense Fund in 1973. She was the first black woman admitted to the Mississippi Bar.

 

 

Corrie ten Boom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrie_ten_Boom

 

Ten Boom was able to rescue many Jews from certain death at the hands of the Nazi SS. The family's work in saving Jews was motivated by their staunch Christian beliefs. They helped Jews without forcing conversion, and they even provided Kosher food and honored the Sabbath. The Germans arrested the entire ten Boom family on February 28, 1944 with the help of a Dutch informant (Corrie would later discover his name to be Jan Vogel); they were sent first to Scheveningen prison, then to the Vught political concentration camp (both in the Netherlands), and finally to the notorious Ravensbrück concentration camp in Germany in September 1944, where Corrie's sister Betsie died. Corrie was released in December 1944[1]. In the movie The Hiding Place, Corrie narrates the section on her release from camp by saying that she later learned that her release had been a clerical error: it so happened that the women prisoners her age in the camp were killed in the week following her release.

 

And then - of course - there is Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jimmy Carter.

Now - we all know anyone on this board can go find things to diminish the character of any one of these people. They are human and they are not perfect. But, they have left the world a better place than they found it. Their Christian faith was/is a large part of who they are.

 

You know me well enough to know that I recognize goodness and leadership come in all shapes and sizes - across all boundaries of religion. But, to discount all of Christianity for the likes of literalist fundies and ignore the goodness that comes from it is also a nutty proposition.

 

It isn't Christianity - it's what one makes of Christianity. Just like:

• It isn't Democracy - it's what one makes of Democracy
  
• It isn't capitalism - it's what one makes of capitalism
  
• It isn't Athiesm (or Agnosticsm) - it's what one makes of Atheism (or Agnosticsm)
  
• It isn't liberal or conservative - it's what one makes of being liberal or conservative.
  

Blame the institution till your dying day - in the end - it's not the institution it's what those within the institution make of it. As humans we can spend our time lumping groups of people together and labeling them - or we can spend our time trying to reach across the human created boundaries and seeking a peace that transcends labels and pre-conceived notions.

 

Thus endeth the saga of the Silly-Putty® Bible. It ends not with a bang, nor with a whimper, but with a “who-gives-a-shit?”

And yet - you resurrected it from the "dead".

[Checkmate]

Hey O_M. I anticipated your responses (both the appeal to numbers/popularity and the "Christians have done good things" rap) and I have two standard replies...

 

"If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

..........Anatole France

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ......Stephen Weinberg

 

You're not taking me down this futile road of argumentation, weighing the "good" versus "bad" that people/religions do. Anyone can point to accomplishments and then claim that their religion or their atheism accounted for it. This is pointless blather.

 

The question is not, "can religious people do good"? Obviously they can. But then so do atheists. (I, too, am in "good company." So what?)

 

I am STATING that "Religion is delusional." I am also declaring that "Good people would be GOOD with or without this delusion."

 

Ergo: Lose the delusion. It ain't needed and it's screwing up less stable minds. (Fred Phelps anyone?)

[Open_Minded]

Hey O_M. I anticipated your responses (both the appeal to numbers/popularity and the "Christians have done good things" rap) and I have two standard replies...

Yes... we anticipated each other.... see the following:

 

You know me well enough to know that I recognize goodness and leadership come in all shapes and sizes - across all boundaries of religion.

 

The question is not, "can religious people do good"? Obviously they can. But then so do atheists. (I, too, am in "good company." So what?)

So what????? Let's at least acknowledge the goodness in people that transcends surface differences and labels. That is the first step in building peace.

 

I am STATING that "Religion is delusional."

Call it anything you want, Mr. G... seriously. It matters not. I've had my day in and out of Christianity. I came back to Christianity for personal and subjective reasons - none of which can be explained here. There is a depth to life that has nothing to do with the scientific worldview nor objective hard concrete reality. I choose to express this depth through Christianity. Others choose to express and live this depth through other means. It is not delusional at all to recognize that 99.9% of the human experience is subjective and (at some point) beyond human ability to put to words or conceive of in concrete ways. It is not delusional to tap into other - more subtle - ways of connecting to the subjective experience of humanity.

 

I am also declaring that "Good people would be GOOD with or without this delusion."

Whatever "delusion" is, I would agree with you. But, given the very real fact that we all see the world through our own personal (and biased) lenses - how the hell does one objectively determine what "delusional" is?

 

I asked this in another thread: "Do we reduce reality to that which can be measured in a quantitative, scientific way?". That question is valid here. Is everything outside of quantitative ability to verify "delusional"?

 

If it is - I'll remain "delusional" - it's far more pleasant and encumpasses so much more.

[NotBlinded]

I really don't think you have opened your mind at all Checkmate. You have just added a "fine...whatever" attitude to your view.

 

You keep thinking in the black and white mindset that forces you to see it as all or nothing. What if it is neither? We know it can't be the word of God and we know that it is dealing with the life of humans. If you throw it out as rubbish because it's not the word of God, then what it is won't matter to you. You don't care about the truth of it, you just care about whether God wrote it or not.

 

I'm not sure anyone would throw out the Odessy or Homer or other myths because they aren't the word of God. If you see it as no loss to you, then that's okay. I happen to find great insight into the plight of humanity in myths, but that's just me.

 

So, go on and keep being Grinchy.

 

Honestly, I could understand why someone would want to toss the entire thing. I just don't think anyone has the right to call someone delusional because they find value in what it is.

 

If the symbols in Christianity works for people when they are recognized as such, then that is wonderful. It really doesn't matter at all if there was a real person Jesus or not as long as one can understand the symbols of the myth.

[Vixentrox]

Wow...some serious thread necromancy going on here?

[chefranden]

..And then - of course - there is Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jimmy Carter.[/indent]Now - we all know anyone on this board can go find things to diminish the character of any one of these people. They are human and they are not perfect. But, they have left the world a better place than they found it. Their Christian faith was/is a large part of who they are...

 

That's nice and all, but here's the problem. Just because the radical, bloody, hate filled Christian memes aren't being expressed in one generation or another doesn't mean they won't be expressed in later generations. The memes are still passed on by liberal touchy feely Christians when they hand their children a floppy bible for their very own. It only takes one strong willed charismatic individual in times of trouble to say, "Hey, look what we've been missing. No wonder we have all this trouble!." Pretty soon you've got one of those pesky awakenings happening. Remember Josiah and Johnathan Edwards!

 

Perhaps if you really threw out the book and passed the religion on orally only it could morph into something nice. Of course it could morph into something ugly too.

[chefranden]

It isn't Christianity - it's what one makes of Christianity. Just like:

 

* It isn't Democracy - it's what one makes of Democracy

* It isn't capitalism - it's what one makes of capitalism

* It isn't Athiesm (or Agnosticsm) - it's what one makes of Atheism (or Agnosticsm)

* It isn't liberal or conservative - it's what one makes of being liberal or conservative.

 

 

Blame the institution till your dying day - in the end - it's not the institution it's what those within the institution make of it. As humans we can spend our time lumping groups of people together and labeling them - or we can spend our time trying to reach across the human created boundaries and seeking a peace that transcends labels and pre-conceived notions. biggrin.gif

 

Baloney. Institutions wouldn't exist if they weren't necessary for maintaining the status quo. When institutions are no longer effective at maintaining the status quo, they whither and die. Their death is often aided by the new institutions in the interest of perhaps a new status quo, or to more effectively support the old one. People, for the most part, are controlled in thinking and in actions by institutions via coercion, peer pressure, and persuasion. Try to apply your logic to the following:

 

It isn't the KKK. It's what you make of it.

It isn't al Queada. It's what you make of it.

It isn't prison. It's what you make of it.

It isn't prostitution. It's what you make of it.

 

The institution of the Church exists in part to prevent the multiplication of people like yourself. You are as much a threat to it as I am.

[Fweethawt]

It isn't Christianity - it's what one makes of Christianity. Just like:

 

* It isn't Democracy - it's what one makes of Democracy

* It isn't capitalism - it's what one makes of capitalism

* It isn't Athiesm (or Agnosticsm) - it's what one makes of Atheism (or Agnosticsm)

* It isn't liberal or conservative - it's what one makes of being liberal or conservative.

 

 

Blame the institution till your dying day - in the end - it's not the institution it's what those within the institution make of it. As humans we can spend our time lumping groups of people together and labeling them - or we can spend our time trying to reach across the human created boundaries and seeking a peace that transcends labels and pre-conceived notions. biggrin.gif

 

Baloney. Institutions wouldn't exist if they weren't necessary for maintaining the status quo. When institutions are no longer effective at maintaining the status quo, they whither and die. Their death is often aided by the new institutions in the interest of perhaps a new status quo, or to more effectively support the old one. People, for the most part, are controlled in thinking and in actions by institutions via coercion, peer pressure, and persuasion. Try to apply your logic to the following:

 

It isn't the KKK. It's what you make of it.

It isn't al Queada. It's what you make of it.

It isn't prison. It's what you make of it.

It isn't prostitution. It's what you make of it.

 

The institution of the Church exists in part to prevent the multiplication of people like yourself. You are as much a threat to it as I am.

 

This isn't Cheffy. It's what you make of it.

 

 

 

 

 

[chefranden]

This isn't Cheffy. It's what you make of it.

 

 

I could have added that but that would have thrown off the symmetry of my list with the previous list. This obsession is what I get for having studied Psalms in Hebrew.

[Open_Minded]

That's nice and all, but here's the problem. Just because the radical, bloody, hate filled Christian memes aren't being expressed in one generation or another doesn't mean they won't be expressed in later generations. The memes are still passed on by liberal touchy feely Christians when they hand their children a floppy bible for their very own. It only takes one strong willed charismatic individual in times of trouble to say, "Hey, look what we've been missing. No wonder we have all this trouble!." Pretty soon you've got one of those pesky awakenings happening. Remember Josiah and Johnathan Edwards!

 

Perhaps if you really threw out the book and passed the religion on orally only it could morph into something nice. Of course it could morph into something ugly too.

Firstly - the reality is that the Bible and Christianity aren't going away. We all know that.

 

And you are right - even if it did - it could morph into something ugly. We are dealing with humanity - in all of it - we are dealing with humanity. If someone is intent on violence - there will be violence. They will justify it using anything at their disposal. Everyone here knows that religion and its "gods" are a reflection of those who create them. How many times have I read (on this board alone) - that humans create god in their image.

 

Good grief - get rid of Christianity - get rid of the Bible - it won't solve the violent tendancies within the human species.

 

 

This isn't Cheffy. It's what you make of it.

Fwee - you can always make me laugh.

 

It isn't Christianity - it's what one makes of Christianity. Just like:

 

* It isn't Democracy - it's what one makes of Democracy

* It isn't capitalism - it's what one makes of capitalism

* It isn't Athiesm (or Agnosticsm) - it's what one makes of Atheism (or Agnosticsm)

* It isn't liberal or conservative - it's what one makes of being liberal or conservative.

 

Blame the institution till your dying day - in the end - it's not the institution it's what those within the institution make of it. As humans we can spend our time lumping groups of people together and labeling them - or we can spend our time trying to reach across the human created boundaries and seeking a peace that transcends labels and pre-conceived notions.

Baloney. Institutions wouldn't exist if they weren't necessary for maintaining the status quo. When institutions are no longer effective at maintaining the status quo, they whither and die. Their death is often aided by the new institutions in the interest of perhaps a new status quo, or to more effectively support the old one. People, for the most part, are controlled in thinking and in actions by institutions via coercion, peer pressure, and persuasion. Try to apply your logic to the following:

You have a point, Chef and so do I - and you know I do.

 

Chef - I have know idea whether your American (or not). I am - and these days I'm pretty damned sick of our democracy and capitalism. I'm sick of the fact that we elected an idiot for a president two times in a row. I'm sick of the fact that our capitalistic society makes it possible to buy elections. You know as well as I do George Bush being president has as much to do with wealth, lobbyists, corrupt politics, corrupt election process as it does with the fundy Christians. In fact a good case could be made for the Bush team using fundies to get into the white house but not really caring about their agenda. A good case could be made for the Bush team being more a puppet of big oil money and power interests than puppets for the fundy Christian right. They USED religion - that doesn't necessarily mean they BELIEVE what they spout - and you know it.

 

And because of corrupt systems both within politics and our capitalistic culture we have a government that has caused untold amounts of damage, chaos and violence to this world.

 

Don't pretend that the violence in this world is soley due to religion (Christian or otherwise). The violence in this world is due to human beings who will use ANYTHING at their disposal to get and hold onto power (including - but not limited to - religion).

 

And EVERY SINGLE generation of humans must work for peace and progress. Just because one generation discovers a more humane way to run a democracy, or be a capitalist, or be a Christian, or be anything else ... doesn't mean following generations will follow suite.

[Fweethawt]

This isn't Cheffy. It's what you make of it.

Fwee - you can always make me laugh.

No I can't...

 

You're not laughin' now, are you?

 

And now is part of always, isn't it?

 

So if you aren't laughing now, then you aren't always laughing.

 

So I can't always make you laugh.

 

See?

 

Are you laughing now?

 

How 'bout now?

 

Are you laughin' yet?

 

Well?

 

Are you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Antlerman]

I'll add a thought to this since the issue of institutions came up. Chef is right that institutions are there to enforce the status quo, but who sets that status quo? People do. It's like citizens hiring a police department to enforce rules that they decide on. Those rules change, but not without going through the efforts to get the institution to change. Also, it's always a struggle with the fact of any institution that it is an easy target for power grabbers. It's not the institution that creates greed, but it's a prime target for it. It's the nature of the beast.

 

Even despite corruption, the bigger the institution, the bigger the bureaucracy. The RCC is singularly the oldest bureaucracy on the face of the planet. The "status quo" being defined incorporated thousands of countries, all with individual cultures and practices. Change in an institution like this happens, but it moves way slower than the social changes driving it.

 

Churches do maintain the status quo, but the status quo changes with time.

 

Fundamentalism in this country was born in a direct response to this change within Christianity, attesting to the fact that it happens. Even fundamentalism itself is not immune to change, even though they promote themselves as "the same yesterday, today, and forever." They too are an institution hired by people. They know if they don't change to fit the people they service, their days are numbered. It's all just marketing spin that they have the true, original beliefs. People buy the marketing slogans because it justifies their desire for an institution to protect their beliefs from being destroyed (or in reality, to protect them from too rapid a change).

 

It's always a tricky balance between stability and change.

 

BTW, I'm hearing a lot of talk lately how everything in the Bible is complete garbage and should be thrown out. How is that rational from a purely intellectual point of view? Should we trash the stories of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox, because they aren't real historical beings? Should we burn down all the theaters and movie stores because that's not reality either? Are those stories only for entertainment, or are there messages contained in them?

 

I don't know, maybe I've just moved beyond anger now, and this doesn't make sense to find absolutely no value whatsoever in something that once hurt me. Does that mean I embrace it? No. It just means it doesn't sound rational to dismiss anything so cavalierly, let alone a holy book used by generations of humans that have shaped the face of the world we live in and our very world views in the West. Is there no value in understanding humanity in its pages? Is there no value in understanding ourselves anthropologically? Is there no value in understanding ourselves through stories and legends and myths?

 

That almost smacks of fundamentalism that wants to destroy ideas that aren't the ones they believe. http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/archa...han-buddhas.htm

 

Isn't the argument really more about people who abuse it, and not the myth itself? Does everyone abuse it? Additionally, is mythology delusion, or a story? Isn't the delusion when someone mistakes what the story is, and not the story itself? Are we going to say that if someone finds value in it, that's delusional??? Wow, that's pretty judgmental. Maybe they're not taking it literally? Is celebrating and enjoying the myth of Santa an indication of a delusional mind, or is there something else going on?

[NotBlinded]

That almost smacks of fundamentalism that wants to destroy ideas that aren't the ones they believe. http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/archa...han-buddhas.htm

Wow...just wow.

[Open_Minded]

I'm smiling

 

I don't know, maybe I've just moved beyond anger now, and this doesn't make sense to find absolutely no value whatsoever in something that once hurt me. Does that mean I embrace it? No. It just means it doesn't sound rational to dismiss anything so cavalierly, let alone a holy book used by generations of humans that have shaped the face of the world we live in and our very world views in the West. Is there no value in understanding humanity in its pages? Is there no value in understanding ourselves anthropologically? Is there no value in understanding ourselves through stories and legends and myths?

 

That almost smacks of fundamentalism that wants to destroy ideas that aren't the ones they believe. http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/archa...han-buddhas.htm

Exactly - Antlerman - thank you!!!!