Is the Christian story a myth?

[PilgrimsProgress]

What are the fundamentals of atheism?
The fundamentals of christianity are I believe, biblical inerrancy, the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and his return.
So please what are the fundamentals of atheism? And sorry this is off topic. But needs to be ask. Now it has been put forward. And incidentally, I'm not saying, that there aren't over zealous atheists, but that isn't fundamentalism.

Read the book and you will understand what he means. (But over-zealous atheists is on the right track). You have to have a non-literal mind when it comes to interpreting a Biblical text (according to Tacey). If you're only capable of reading literally it would not be the book for you. I don't think Tacey was using a literal definition of fundamentalism -so, not the book for you.

 

[Luce NDs]

A book that made a lot of sense to me was "Beyond Literal Belief" by David Tacey. Tacey is an Emeritus Professor of Literature, and I particularly like the way he repudiates both Christian and atheistic fundamentalism.

Imagine if there could be a middle part to those poles ... a processing medium? impossible in the present situation when all lean towards the emotional ends ... as ort of Kant without a thought! Eire of ohm mission as difficult? Incomplete as incarnate ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Read the book and you will understand what he means. (But over-zealous atheists is on the right track). You have to have a non-literal mind when it comes to interpreting a Biblical text (according to Tacey). If you're only capable of reading literally it would not be the book for you. I don't think Tacey was using a literal definition of fundamentalism -so, not the book for you.

Imagine inerrant belief up against inerrant observation when so many are blinded to either by mystery of uncertainty and thus phobia of gods either way!

Then how does one process what is denied as evidence that suffers omission ... a character trait of C Thomas no doubt! Thus deficiency of something that was believed to be nothing in this world of chaos ... a' greed? Avi gnone ... close to Brighter Avalon ... as we have had it ... it wends as if perfect Eyre or ideal gas ... so much hidden in the wee black code ... beta lather it up ... for Finnegan's wash ... catharses? Thus poked ...

 

[paradox3]

Does this author mean extremism rather than fundamentalism, perhaps?

 

[paradox3]

What are the fundamentals of atheism?
The fundamentals of christianity are I believe, biblical inerrancy, the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and his return.
So please what are the fundamentals of atheism? And sorry this is off topic. But needs to be ask. Now it has been put forward. And incidentally, I'm not saying, that there aren't over zealous atheists, but that isn't fundamentalism.

Agree. I can't see any fundamentals to atheism other than lack of belief in a deity.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Does this author mean extremism rather than fundamentalism, perhaps?

I think he may have done, or simply meant over zealous. However I do wish they would use the right terms when trying to express a thought.

 

[paradox3]

Back to the question of how to read the Christian story. I certainly see both symbolism and metaphor in the gospels. Jesus himself used parables as a teaching tool.

I am not as big on metaphor as I used to be, however. I think that the gospel writers probably believed literally in the healings and other miracles of Jesus.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Read the book and you will understand what he means. (But over-zealous atheists is on the right track). You have to have a non-literal mind when it comes to interpreting a Biblical text (according to Tacey). If you're only capable of reading literally it would not be the book for you. I don't think Tacey was using a literal definition of fundamentalism -so, not the book for you.

Hence why we have so many different versions of the bible. All due to interpretation from those Lol. "Non literal minds." It seems to me he is trying to make certain terms fit his demographic.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I think that the gospel writers probably believed literally in the healings and other miracles of Jesus.

Note: That the people who interpret the bible using their non-literal minds lol. Don't tend to reinterpret those parts. Only the things that don't fit with their
narrative

 

[paradox3]

Was the story of the virgin birth in Luke ever anything but a literary device?

What about the Resurrection and the post resurrection appearances? I am inclined to think these stories circulated and were believed literally.

Today we may see these things as metaphor but I seriously doubt they were written down that way.

This brings me back to history mythologized.

 

[Luce NDs]

If the word myth is misunderstood as something beyond mortal in psyche ... does this define what an OBI in a perspective that is out there to the paradigm?

Then if word is despised because of the great mysterious pool of them (words) should that be disturbing and generally dissociative? Thus one can play with what people don't accept regardless (as without sight of the fringe as Lost Horizon).

I'm to understand that a psychologist wrote novella (novel A) on the topic of mental departure ... the fundamentally fixed on certain ballads would exclude that from the process ... things that go on in the Himalayan Hills ...

Is it common that wealth is confined to possession in limited groups? More to shush up for a lush stile ... one has to admire those that will answer to nothing until parts are caught up in the machinations of psyche ... crushing consequence! The things to look forward to with some prescient nature!
Pres monitions as pre Moni Ka ... Kas 've the spiritual essence ... virtue unseen?

 

[paradox3]

Note: That the people who interpret the bible using their non-literal minds lol. Don't tend to reinterpret those parts. Only the things that don't fit with their
narrative

The non-literal minds are very fond of metaphor. So Jesus healing a paralytic might really be about a spiritual ailment, for example.

Others might look at the story and interpret it as a psychosomatic healing or attribute it to the power of suggestion.

Not sure if the latter is a non-literal reading or a literal reading of a different type i.e. historical but not supernatural.

 

[Mendalla]

Not sure if the latter is a non-literal reading or a literal reading of a different type i.e. historical but not supernatural.

More literal of a different type, I think. There's still a healing, just not necessarily the result of Jesus being divine or a child of the divine.

 

[Mystic]

Pavlos gets the fundamentals of Christianity wrong, but that's a subject for another thread. Here I just want to point out 5 facts that make the mythology charge problematic:
(1) Mark is Peter's teaching notes and Peter was an eyewitness.
(2) Mark is criticized by those in contact with the eyewitnesses for getting some of the sequence of historical events in Jesus' life wrong.
(3) The resurrection appearance sequence is largely confirmed by Paul (who was converted by it from a militantly anti-Christian stance) and he received this list from the Jerusalem apostles, who approved his Gospel in 2 visits to Jerusalem (so Galatians).
(4) Gospel miracle reports contain embarrassing elements uncharacteristic of mythical miracles that are not likely to have been invented: e. g. (a) requiring 2 attempts to get a healing right; (b) having His own family reject His miracle claims and messianic pretentions.
(5) Ancient anti-Christian rabbis agree that Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus; and in Mark Nazareth residents who knew Jesus and His family are "scandalized" by Jesus as "the son of Mary," not Joseph.

These examples could be multiplied. I have already posted on these in detail and will, if requested, do so again here. I think the problem here is an ant-miracle bias resulting from impoverished experience of an alleged non-interventionist God in UCCan. Most posters here are or have been influenced by that progressive tradition. That bias warps the presuppositional matrix imposed on biblical interpretation. While progressive churches are in sharp decline, my tradition, Petecostalism, is growing in leaps and bounds (currently 600 million globally). The Pentecostal church of my youth has grown from a regular Sunday morning attendance of 1,300 to a current range of 1,700-2000 often youthful attenders.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Belief in an interventionalist god is immoral, cruel, and illogical.

To mind, were I somehow converted to that position (and I can't think of anything short of a lobotomy that would do that), I would know in my soul that I worshipped the 'real' Satan.

And I don't really care how much "evidence" anyone can provide for this. If it does exist, it is not of god.

I, personally, have very little interest in hysterical religions. I understand their appeal, but they do nothing for me. I attend a Pentecostal church once a year with my beloved sister in law, and I basically shut my ears to the words and sway along to the praise choruses.

 

[Mystic]

Belief in an interventionalist god is immoral, cruel, and illogical.

To mind, were I somehow converted to that position (and I can't think of anything short of a lobotomy that would do that), I would know in my soul that I worshipped the 'real' Satan.

This mindless pontification demonstrates that you are clueless about what the biblical teaching about an "interventionist" God entails.

And I don't really care how much "evidence" anyone can provide for this. If it does exist, it is not of god.

In other words, "don't confuse me with the facts."

I, personally, have very little interest in hysterical religions.

Ironic because your bitter responses demonstrate shrill hysteria! Religious bigotry thrives on hasty generalizations from limited personal experience.
Like many Pentecostal churches, the church of my youth was very sedate because the services were broadcast over the radio all over western Canada.

I attend a Pentecostal church once a year with my beloved sister in law, and I basically shut my ears to the words and sway along to the praise choruses.

You shut your ears? Your closed-mindedness reminds me of an incident that happened during a mass outdoor meeting during evangelist George Whitefield's crusade during the Great Awakening of the mid-18th century. He was preaching to a huge crowd in Pennsylvania. A skeptic climbed a tree to get a better view of the spectacle, but put his fingers in his ears to shut out the booming noise of Whitefield's preaching. But he was soon besieged by flies that caused him to devote his time to swatting them away. But that forced him to listen to Whitefield's message and, a result, he fell under conviction and was gloriously converted. For closed-minded mindsets like yours, I intend my posts to serve as annoying flies in the hope of at last awakening an honest and open spiritual quest.

It must bother you that progressive UCCan churches are quickly aging out, while Pentecostal churches like the church of my youth are flourishing largely due to their appeal to the open-minded younger generation who are drawn by the prospect of an intimate personal relationship with an interventionist God.

 

[BetteTheRed]

It must bother you that progressive UCCan churches are quickly aging out,

No, because I don't think it's a competition. And my game is a very long one.

In other words, "don't confuse me with the facts."

And that's not what I said. I said were there any empirical evidence (and debunkers have been looking unsuccessfully for the evidence of these 'miracles'), it would not be of god.

Like I said, I don't have much truck with emotional/hysterical religion. It doesn't suit my personality. So, it's not closing my mind to it. My mind objects to it strenuously. It's refusing to be frightened, coerced, manipulated or even lulled into an unnatural position. Like I said, the music is swayable, but it's boring, because it's repetitive, and the theology is just awful.

I'm just trying to point out the intrinsic immorality of the interventionist position.

But we've swayed from the topic, which is the mythology of the bible/all sacred scriptures? Can anyone think of a sacred scripture that doesn't encapsulate a culture/religion's "this is why things are the way they are" mythology?

 

[ninj]

@Mystic "For closed-minded mindsets like yours, I intend my posts to serve as annoying flies in the hope of at last awakening an honest and open spiritual quest."

Your witness seems a tad sour. Not helpful if your goal is to influence people to embrace your superior understanding and win souls. Opposite in fact. The bible isn't it's own proof. Is that what you walked away from Harvard with?

 

[paradox3]

Well, things are getting a tad acrimonious here. In post #35 @Mystic mentioned that we in the United Church have had an "impoverished experience" of an alleged interventionist God.

I wouldn't call my experience impoverished but I am inclined to believe we have been influenced by a very liberal agenda. I don't necessarily see this as a negative thing.

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

Social media has been an interesting experiment for me.......
In the beginning I embraced it eagerly -when the "real" world became dark for me (my husband had died). It was only after my visits to Canada that I realized that the folks on Wondercafe that I most related to were ones I met in real life.
Hence, social media has serious limitations. More than that, by being anonymous, it encourages both polarization and a propensity for interpreting posts with a "what's wrong here" attitude.
Nowadays zoom seminars involve me more - because it is a way of introducing me to new (to me) ideas..........

When it comes to faith, as many of you know, I use Process Theology as a framework for my faith. But, I'm willing to be challenged by "new" thought on faith that I encounter.
Hence, I would encourage others to read "Beyond Literal belief". Maybe it will introduce you to new concepts also?