But at the same time, most of those folks haven't really thought through that construction to a logical conclusion.
Judging by your replies in this thread, I don't think you've thought things through either. There have been several times when I've brought up some contradiction in what you're saying, but you try to shut down the discussion by saying that it's not "theological".
For most folks, it comes down to "because that's what the bible says," or "it just is... M'kay?"
Sure, but that doesn't make them insincere.
Most of the folks you mention do realize that there's some sort of mythic dimension to their theology claims, whether they can articulate it adequately or not.
"Some sort of mythic dimension" <> "entirely mythic"
As the average church-going believer whether they think that God is a metaphor or a "principle" and they'll say "no".
I know for a fact (because I used to be one) that even the Catholics will admit that transubstantiation has a more mythic aspect to it than a physical aspect. Most priests will admit that, if the bread is subjected to lab tests, it will prove to be just bread.
And they have rationalizations for that, which I'm sure you already know about, having been a Catholic:
[W]hatever the senses perceive-even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses- is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance.
[...]
The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance.
Transubstantiation
And do you really believe that, or are you saying that "If there is a God, that's the sort of God I think God would be?" Because that construction closely follows the model that I see you so often argue against. Just trying to establish your view. Could you articulate further?
I'm saying that if someone pointed (either metaphorically or literally) to something and asked me "is that God?", if it didn't meet all those criteria, I would say "no, it's not God." I'm not sure that absolutely everything that meets those criteria would necessarily be a god, but I think it works as a lower limit.
I suspect that most have some inkling. They're either unwilling, unable, or not ready to fully admit just how extensive that approach truly is.
Indeed... since it leads to atheism when applied consistently.
And yet, most seminaries will readily admit the metaphorical nature of the preponderance of our belief system. I'm stating it here more strongly than they would, because I want to push those parameters to see how far they'll stretch.
So you realize that your views are extreme compared to the mainstream?
It doesn't. But that's the language we use, because it's "comfortable."
What makes this God of yours God, then? If your God is a God only metaphorically and figuratively, not literally, then wouldn't this make your thiesm only theism metaphorically and figuratively, not literally?
I saw a tweet the other day: "when God becomes a metaphor, you become an atheist." While it has a lack of nuance (it was a tweet, after all), I'd say that it's generally true.
Because those attributes are the ones we have perceived to exemplify a higher, deeper, more abundant humanity. If its true that we should act in accordance with the universe, then being in an attitude of love and compassion put in harmony with the cosmos, and hence, God.
There are a number of problems with the reasoning here:
- The two ends don't link up. Your previous arguments imply that being "in harmony" with God implies indifference to humanity. By arguing that "love and compassion" are (through the chain you describe) in harmony with God, then you've negated your previous arguments that excuse God's inaction.
- I disagree with your assumption that love and compassion are part of a "deeper humanity" or that "a deeper humanity" has anything to do with some sort of moral imperative of the universe. "Humanity" is a descriptive term; anything that any human being does, good or bad, is entirely, genuinely, "human". Your logical leap from "humanity" to "the universe" also makes no sense.
I'm not sure that truly enlightened people, such as the Dalai Lama, would punish a murderer. They've learned how to "let go" of their own baggage and embrace a broader perspective. Most of us aren't there.
I think you're focusing on the wrong aspect of my point: it wasn't about punishment per se; it was about recognizing causing death as negative and saving lives as positive, which it seems that the Dalai Lama does do:
Dalai Lama said:
All forms of violence, especially war, are totally unacceptable as means to settle disputes between and among nations, groups and persons.
First, yes, we do operate from our own perspective. But at the same time, we realize that there is a larger perspective, and where we find our perspective lacking, realize we need to strive for that greater perspective.
It's not a matter of "larger"; it's a matter of "different", and only certain perspectives are appropriate for a given individual. A fish, bird, and fox that all live in the same area will all have different perspectives on the same area.
Second, I'd be inclined to say that our limited perspective is what constitutes sin -- or a separation from the creative principle.
So being human is inherently sinful? That seems like an unhealthy belief.
I think you and I agree more than we probably disagree, if we were honest with ourselves.
So you're an atheist too, then?
You're absolutely right on this point, and I absolutely agree, with the following exception:
I'm "in the second camp," as you say, and I'm aware that, at some point, it does lose its epistemological justification. And I have to weigh that loss against the advantages such a belief system provides: a vehicle for me to find deeper meaning for my life and the world around me.
And I reject the idea that a baseless worldview is a reliable path to true "deeper meaning".
It might be a way for you to settle on something you find comfortable, but that's not the same thing.
Yeah, I think that all religious systems make that claim, and all have to rise above their absolutist claims. I think that most of our religious differences are differences of "window dressing." For me, I reject some claims of Xy and embrace claims of other religions, most specifically Shamanism, because that's what "works" for me.
So then why call yourself "Christian", then? I mean, you could take good ideas from any belief system you pleased without declaring yourself to be a member of one religion or another.
Those "literal truths," though, only reflect a bigger reality and are not that reality, itself. That's what I mean when I say that Xy is not based in physical cosmology.
Paul seems to disagree:
1 Corinthians 15:14:
And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty.
You're right. And other religions have other ways of stating the same larger truths.
So does this mean you do agree now that Christianity - along with many other religions - really does make literal claims?
Which was, I think, precisely what men like Jesus and Paul were doing. At some point, the moorings have to be loosed so the ship can sail...
I'm not sure you're getting my point: why would someone who takes Christian doctrine as a metaphor consider themselves a Christian at all? They've rejected the literal truth of the claims of Christianity, and by doing so, they've dissociated themselves from something that's defined Christianity throughout its history.
You touched on Paul: in the Epistles, Paul (or people purporting to be Paul, depending on the particular book) grappled with the question of whether a Christian had to be a Jew; the way he resolved this was by saying no: a Christian need not be a Jew. The two things had become distinct enough that Christianity does not entail Judaism.
I have a similar feeling about extreme liberal Christianity: while, to a certain extent, I accept whatever label a person wants to put on their religious beliefs (since I think all religion is a human creation, and I'm not going to claim one version of a religion is more authoritative than another). However, I recognize that there are serious fundamental differences between the beliefs of "God is a metaphor"-type Christians and the beliefs of the traditions that they draw their "Christian" label from.
I understand that. It's a work that's highly in process for me. I don't have an answer, but I'm willing to engage the questions.
Fair enough.
Bingo! Of course that's the case. Which is why you and I are able to hold constructions at arm's length and go with what works for each of us.
Of course, the fact that I hold God at arm's length is what I think makes me an atheist.
