concerning the ongoing religion flamefest

[blindpig]

I just finished reading Secret Origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan.Here's a tidbit from the final chapter:

In my opinion those who try to stretch the Bible to cover such issues do it almost as great a disservice as did Rabin's assassin when he used myth as a reason for murder. There are great myths themes in the Bible and majestic moments, as when God descends upon Mt. Sinai in fire and smoke. It is a myth to be awed by. Many who are not sympathetic to religion would trivialize the bible and in doing so discard such epiphanies. We do this at our peril. Failure to understand the power of these myths and their hold on people leads to nothing more than further division. Those faithful to the myth-and these comprise far more than fundamentalist-will simply ignore any critique of their beliefs if the critic are contemptuous of the Bible. Therefore one should respect the mythic material and understand that such myths endure, at least in part, because they resonate with deep psychological needs. Myths can also have validity beyond that of literal truth.

snip

Yet if these tales are held to be sacrosanct, if we must accept them as literally true, if we are forbidden from looking beneath the surface of myths, their secret meanings will remain dark and unprobed. When myths are distorted as literal truth they will almost surely be used by agents of repression, burdening society with unreasonable limitations and irrational directives and in extreme cases inciting assassination and war. Even if the forces of repression are held in check, they may alienate us from the myths they have so misused to the point that we will be robbed of the richness of mythic understanding and will lose the insights to be gained by seeing the human condition from the perspective of humanity's collective yearnings and strivings through the millennia to comprehend what lies behind the surface, what is the true nature of the cosmos.

Just for the record, sometimes I'm a Pagan, sometimes I'm a Deist and sometimes I'm an agnostic.
Peace

[LittleApple81]

1. Myths are OK as long as you treat them as myth. And that is an

impossibility for certain religions to be able to survive.

[Mike Niendorff]

2. Something that needs to be said.

Since the thread was locked, I didn't get a chance to respond there. So I'm responding here.

Specifically, I wanted to point out that NOBODY that I saw in that thread was attacking "mainstream Christianity". Not mopaul, not me, nobody. What people *were* talking about was a brand of false "Christianity" that is a festering mix of cultism, paranoia and apocalyptic fantasy -- and it is that phony pseudo-Christianity that has found a means to political power within the political machinery of the far right.

It's very much the same thing that the KKK attempted in the early 1920's, when they re-branded themselves as "defenders of 'Christian Culture'". They appropriated the NAME of a religion, but cast aside EVERYTHING that the religion actually stood for. They turned religion into a marketing tool for hatred, violence, paranoia, anti-Semitism, and every RW conspiracy theory imaginable.

Today's fake-Christians are trying the same stunt.

To call these frauds on their lies is not "anti-Christian", nor is it "anti-Christian" to reject their extreme (and conscious) perversions of Jesus' teachings. They are NOT Christians. They are RW cultists trying to appropriate religion for political and social gain.

For crying out loud, look back on how Jesus himself treated those in his day that behaved this way. He called them "vipers". "Hypocrites". "Whitewashed tombs". "The prostitutes and the tax collectors will get into heaven before you."

Was Jesus "anti-Christian" for doing this?

Some food for thought, I hope.


MDN

[NC_Nurse]

3. Great post!

Sorry I missed the thread...

I wholeheartedly agree with that perspective. Sometimes it's hard for me to articulate so I really appreciate you putting it into coherent words for me.

Thanks!

[depakid]

4. That's what I read, too

Seems to me the original post referred to the fundamentalist brand of apocalyptic "Christianity" of the type that says "why bother to conserve natural resources? The rapture will soon be at hand."

It had nothing to do with mainstream Christianity.

[Mike Niendorff]

5. (one minor clarification)

This was written primarily in response to a post on the previous thread (by poster 'ProdigalJunkMail'). Just wanted to clarify that, in case it looked like I was taking issue with the initial post on this thread, which I wasn't. Thx.


MDN

[blindpig]

7. well, that's good to know

(sorry about the late reply, my machine got very screwy last night.)
I saw your post and said "wtf?".
You might want to read that book. Tons of ammo for debate. It's not a real fun read, very heavy on the linguistics, but extreme in detail.
I did not post this with any individuals in mind, I've just been saddened by the level of animosity we've been having lately, not just on this topic but also the on going so-called pragmatics vs purists debate.
For that matter, I need to stay the hell away from cat threads!

[G_j]

6. I didn't get involved in all those threads

but since there are few, if any, fundies on DU, its hard to imagine what everyone has been arguing about. :shrug: