Myth does evoke thought, and even biblical stories can be valuable when treated in this manner.  The problem is that biblical stories are not predominantly treated as myth.  The bible and biblical god(s) have not ascended to the status enjoyed by many other mythicized former dieties, where we can collectively read them as literature, philosophy, and cultural heritage and pull from them exclusively philosophical or literary value.  Biblical myths are selectively treated as metaphor and literal truth depending on the intent of the believer.  Being gay literally is an abomination, but eating lobster is okay.  This blunts the bible’s value as myth with chatter of literalists, faithful and extremists.  You can’t take jesus down the road of a hero’s journey with all of his identical twins of other dead faiths.  Christians won’t let you do that with him.  They certainly won’t go on the journey themselves for fear of stepping on jesus’s be-sandled toes—and thus, the entire point of a jesus myth is lost on those who would believe in it.

Mike: Myth does evoke thought, and even biblical stories can be valuable when treated in this manner.  The problem is that biblical stories are not predominantly treated as myth.  The bible and biblical god(s) have not ascended to the status enjoyed by many other mythicized former dieties, where we can collectively read them as literature, philosophy, and cultural heritage and pull from them exclusively philosophical or literary value.  Biblical myths are selectively treated as metaphor and literal truth depending on the intent of the believer.  Being gay literally is an abomination, but eating lobster is okay.  This blunts the bible’s value as myth with chatter of literalists, faithful and extremists.  You can’t take jesus down the road of a hero’s journey with all of his identical twins of other dead faiths.  Christians won’t let you do that with him.  They certainly won’t go on the journey themselves for fear of stepping on jesus’s be-sandled toes—and thus, the entire point of a jesus myth is lost on those who would believe in it.

I certainly agree.  However, there are Christian denominations that do not interpret these stories literally.  I just feel the need to remind people of that sometimes.  I also see an “evolution” occurring in many churches; that is, the young people are much more tolerant of diversity and much less doctrinaire than their elders.  There are exceptions, of course, but I think it is a general trend.

saralynn - 29 August 2012 07:25 AM

Mike: Myth does evoke thought, and even biblical stories can be valuable when treated in this manner.  The problem is that biblical stories are not predominantly treated as myth.  The bible and biblical god(s) have not ascended to the status enjoyed by many other mythicized former dieties, where we can collectively read them as literature, philosophy, and cultural heritage and pull from them exclusively philosophical or literary value.  Biblical myths are selectively treated as metaphor and literal truth depending on the intent of the believer.  Being gay literally is an abomination, but eating lobster is okay.  This blunts the bible’s value as myth with chatter of literalists, faithful and extremists.  You can’t take jesus down the road of a hero’s journey with all of his identical twins of other dead faiths.  Christians won’t let you do that with him.  They certainly won’t go on the journey themselves for fear of stepping on jesus’s be-sandled toes—and thus, the entire point of a jesus myth is lost on those who would believe in it.

I certainly agree.  However, there are Christian denominations that do not interpret these stories literally.  I just feel the need to remind people of that sometimes.  I also see an “evolution” occurring in many churches; that is, the young people are much more tolerant of diversity and much less doctrinaire than their elders.  There are exceptions, of course, but I think it is a general trend.

Well it’s movement in the right direction, but I won’t feel it arrived anywhere until jesus, krishna, horus, heracles, and luke skywalker can be discussed simultaneously without the old white guys squirming in their chairs and tugging at thier collars.

.

Well maybe Abraham and Jesus are useful for providing a mythology of the what, but certainly not the how, of transcendence. They give you a version of the monomyth:  Departure, Call to Adventure, Supernatual Aid, Crossing of the Threshold, Belly of the Whale, Initiation, Trials, Goddess, Atonement, Apotheosis, Boon, Return, Crossing of the Threshold, Master of Two Worlds, and Freedom to Live.  We understand that the point is to teach us that we all have to undertake a transformation of this kind and answer some call.  As mythology it is an interesting lesson of embracing the challenges of life and undertaking change, but there’s no prescription for literal trancendence.  That’s why these are myth.  But doesn’t Christianity truncate the monomyth for the rest of us?  Jesus is given to us as transcendent from the outset, both god and man already.  We’re only offered a lesser version of transcendence, and only through him.  We cannot become the Christian hero.  That spot is occupied.  We can only become a servant of the hero.  The journey is not ours to encounter and prevail.  We are to walk a path already trodden, view where the victories were won as if on a tour, and arrive in heaven like a theme park gift shop where you can bask in the glory of the previously experienced and buy a t-shirt.  The old myths are better, or maybe we need new ones.

Mike78 - 29 August 2012 11:50 AM

Well maybe Abraham and Jesus are useful for providing a mythology of the what, but certainly not the how, of transcendence. They give you a version of the monomyth:  Departure, Call to Adventure, Supernatual Aid, Crossing of the Threshold, Belly of the Whale, Initiation, Trials, Goddess, Atonement, Apotheosis, Boon, Return, Crossing of the Threshold, Master of Two Worlds, and Freedom to Live.  We understand that the point is to teach us that we all have to undertake a transformation of this kind and answer some call.  As mythology it is an interesting lesson of embracing the challenges of life and undertaking change, but there’s no prescription for literal trancendence.  That’s why these are myth.  But doesn’t Christianity truncate the monomyth for the rest of us?  Jesus is given to us as transcendent from the outset, both god and man already.  We’re only offered a lesser version of transcendence, and only through him.  We cannot become the Christian hero.  That spot is occupied.  We can only become a servant of the hero.  The journey is not ours to encounter and prevail.  We are to walk a path already trodden, view where the victories were won as if on a tour, and arrive in heaven like a theme park gift shop where you can bask in the glory of the previously experienced and buy a t-shirt.  The old myths are better, or maybe we need new ones.

Christianity originally offered the hero’s journey.  Remember, in Jesus’s time, he was offering a different perspective, offering that people could be “born again” into a new way of thinking.

.

.

Much of mainstream Christianity is about obedience to an interpretation of the Bible and reality according to a particular denomination.  For example, the church congregation will recite the Apostles Creed en masse, and each member feels the duty to embrace those tenets.  Doubt is recognized, but they cultivate trust in the power of faith to be stronger and truer.

So this sort of Christianity is more about obedience than self-realization.

As it has been said, we all have to “serve somebody.”  So obedience has a place in everyone’s life.  However, willed obedience to a belief is not possible for me.  I trust my sense of doubt.

sara - 29 August 2012 06:53 AM

Funny how our interpretation of material often reflects more about ourselves and our worldview than it does about the text.  Granted, most people, like Answerer, interpret these stories literally, but there have also been other perspectives. ... 

It makes life much richer,

This is very interesting. Here’s the reason why I say it is sara and star who create the schism that skews the divide of extremism. For one, you two have totally mischaracterized my position as an Atheist and miscomprehended the discourse with your bias of religious protectionism and, I think, a failed non-theistic perspective. It is fine that we can disagree, but I can not respect a view that strays from the facts of reality and truths of the matter so that we are arguing points that are not real and pertinent. I trust that should be the exclusive reserve for real extremists who misapply the faculty of reason in developing their world-views such as, Mario, Nick, Cel, etc. I simply can not trust your good judgment when we’re not speaking of correct facts and arguing on the basis of what is not true. Yes, I have been equally as guilty with my accusations and name-calling out of anger and frustration and I apologize to the both of you for that; my patience isn’t all that’s ever been nor what it should be probably resultant of old age and other problems. But that doesn’t negate the facts for which I would like to set straight.

My faults aside, anyone that has been exposed to my views over the course of my participation here and was interested enough to formulate an objective and reasoned view of me and my ideas, I would hope, has the recall of enough information to be able to recognize the errors of your assumptions and accusations. It is incredible that I simply posted two central quotes, one from the OT and one from the NT, that are germane to the OP and author Bruce’s view simply for you/anyone to analyze and make of what you will/wish and you, sara, interpose on your own that I am taking them literally only, and I must say, with the offensive presumption as expressed by your subsequent Bible and philosophy lessons, that I can’t make of them otherwise. You’re simply arguing with N/A’s conceived shadow of me in a cave. I think star started down this path and pattern, and sara immediately jumped on the bandwagon. And, of course, with my help, it escalated to the point it did. Anyone can see that it happens with me with the nut-bags too, but in all fairness, after two thousand pages of trying to converse on a sensible basis without cooperation, I think anyone’s patience and civility can be tried to the limit.

Answerer - 04 August 2012 11:48 AM

srd44 - 04 August 2012 11:30 AM

stardust91977 - 04 August 2012 08:20 AM

You really seem to have taken offense that I haven’t bowed down to your perceptions and then you have the gall to label me the idolator.

8. So in the end, you were right about the conversation being over. As the above shows, you can’t do it honestly and so there is nowhere to go with it but down the toilet.

I’m out.

Read a freaking book and educate yourself stardust. I don’t have time for your silly games. All your numbers above a presuppositions that you take as ordained givens, which then function as an interpretive lense for you to claim what the Bible is and isn’t.

Sorry, there are independent observers. Her analysis and reasoning seems to me to be quite objective and accurate. You seem to be too vested in the topic to even comprehend what she’s saying. Do you really want to join the ranks of the OusermanOs, Nick As, et al, srd44?

stardust91977 - 04 August 2012 02:06 PM

*snicker

sara - 06 August 2012 05:18 AM

Applause

The above is just one example of why I stake-out and stand by my position in this argument (the one with star and sara against me; the OP peripherally, not directly). Ironically, I am supporting the same view that I’ve always had about my Atheistic position which coincides with the same perception that you two have flip-flopped on me. In the above case, the same misunderstanding of the crux of the arguments on both sides led to broken communication or, as star says, going down the toilet. At the time, I thought srd was promoting the contextual historic view of the Bible, and while star was expressing the figurative and spiritual side, I thought srd was misunderstanding star more than she was misunderstanding him (or so I thought), so I made srd aware that I happened to support star’s position (actually I thought both sides were valid and not exclusive of each other), and that he wasn’t comprehending her point accurately. In other words, I was supporting the point she now turns around as me being against or of me being unaware. It seems I got kudos for that, all of a sudden, now I’m an extreme religion-hating militant Atheist who only understands the Bible literally. Yet, I’m the same person with the same expressed views I’ve had since day one which have been consistent over time, I think.

Be that as it may, although we may have extreme ways of arguing, I take great offense to the notion that you have any accurate understanding of my position and my knowledge. Indeed, I don’t need you or any other one in the world, to tell me how to interpret religion, people and ideas, I have long learned to trust my judgment and crystal ball over most others except in cases when I can’t fully trust that, or when I trust that I can learn from someone else who is honest and more knowledgeable and insightful than me. So go on and satisfy your egos by twisting the facts of reality to support a position that you admittedly admit and accept you are incapable of being decisive about. This is one time that I will take the liberty to speak for other Atheists here, including the ones that I consider to be particularly enlightened in the highest sense of intellectual and spiritual possibility of human development, to say that I think many people are past your banal arguments that you hammer on, they are the (you) understood of the analysis process that forged the conclusions of our Atheism. I can tell from listening to them, and for which I strive, that nothing, no factors, are left out in arriving at our worldviews. You seem to practice the same over-generalization of which you accuse me. It is elementary to argue that there is good in religion and then site Jesus quotes under the assumption that I or many Atheists here don’t understand and accept what is being said on whatever level and its applicability or on its contextual merits, no matter how much railing against the faults of religion we post. It is presumptuous of you to think that we haven’t completely and thoroughly dissected and analyzed quotes such as I posted above in the context of this thread on every level imaginable, yet at the same time, think that any figurative interpretation is omitted. The arguments from our side, I think, are well beyond that, and once the subject is completely splayed open for examination, only then can all the factors be considered and pieced together to understand the crux of the issue.

So, if you wish to continue to argue with yourselves on points that are not at issue, knock yourselves out. As long as somebody brings up a discussion on points that decidedly deserve scrutiny and where there is room for contention, that’s what is going to happen. You draw the lines where you wish in defense of religion and your interpretation of it, even where it’s not required or in knee-jerk reaction to your perceived unjustifiable attacks, but at the end of the day, if it can be supported by facts and is closer to the sense of reality we strive to navigate towards, the facts should win out. In this case, I think it is clear that the notion of the superiority of an ancient religious revelation as it is conveyed and as it relates to a modern humanistic perspective of love is highly circumspect. Removing the plank from your eyes before trying to remove the splinter from your neighbors’ as a humanistic value has nothing to do with what the crux of the argument is here, as I see it. Cristian revelation as superior to any other regarding the concept of love is. The argument and disagreement is not where any and all may overlap, it’s where they don’t or where they constitute a departure from it, thus placing its claim of superiority in question.

The sad part of this whole exercise is that I not only lost a little respect for you two, I lost a little of myself.

Hannah2 - 29 August 2012 06:42 PM

Much of mainstream Christianity is about obedience to an interpretation of the Bible and reality according to a particular denomination.  For example, the church congregation will recite the Apostles Creed en masse, and each member feels the duty to embrace those tenets.  Doubt is recognized, but they cultivate trust in the power of faith to be stronger and truer.

So this sort of Christianity is more about obedience than self-realization.

As it has been said, we all have to “serve somebody.”  So obedience has a place in everyone’s life.  However, willed obedience to a belief is not possible for me.  I trust my sense of doubt.

Christianity will always be more about obedience than self-realization so long as there are people who believe it is “true”.  Nobody worships MacBeth, Odysseus or the little paperclip guy who used to show up to help in Windows ‘98, which I think makes them all more useful heros than jesus in coming to any kind of self-realization.  We could probably get something pretty good out of the golden rule, if the faithful would emphasize the rule more than the hippie who muttered it.  Sadly, the jesus of the faithful is a real attention hog, who pretty much keeps everyone else off the stage and in the audience where our share of obedient “transcendence” is to hold up our lighters in unison.  The love lesson of the bible, through jesus, has devolved to fawning over the celebrity figurehead.  Elvis simply will not leave the building.

.

stardust91977 - 29 August 2012 11:28 AM

Being firmly atheist and not at all agnostic, it seems to me that the major theme of the Bible is that there’s only one true Guide that can help save a society/people from themselves as well as their enemies. The survival of society is paramount and certain sacrifices are required to hold it together, including the willingness to obey the law and respect or break with tradition as wisdom and reason dictates. 

The story of Abraham depicts a type of man who is faithful, obedient, and willing to make whatever sacrifices are required of him, yet is not so enslaved by the force of tradition that he cannot be persuaded to change course.  That is wisdom and reason and even love in action. 

Jesus was so disturbed by the decadence and degradation he saw in his society that he broke with tradition according to the dictates of his own conscience, took on the leaders of his people, and accepted the burden of living a life of example and caring for the Have-nots.  He apparently did so knowing that the Haves would persecute and execute him for stepping on their toes and going over their heads.  Another demonstration of wisdom, reason, and love in action, IMO.

Remember here that people who are not scientifically literate aren’t necessarily trying to fool anyone when they posit a God. Often all they’re doing is using the term god for some aspect of nature or consciousness they don’t know how to describe any other way.

That may be true to some extent, but I think a skeptic’s and modernist’s view reveals much more. Without trying to force your synopsis into the entire Abrahamic story for which this description makes it difficult for me to do, one still has to ask, does his kind of obedience to the one true Guide, God, truly represent Wisdom? And what of Love? Love for whom? And what about actions? Is it truly an expression of a “healthy” or “right kind” of love of humanity, or is it exclusively of God?

On its face, the Isacc story serves a very particular purpose of conveying a simple message to, as you say, an illiterate people looking toward an authority, their leader/uniter. How might that be accomplished? By claiming selective and exclusive party to the covenant and relaying it to the people. How much faith should I have in God? The same as Abraham, to the ultimate degree for which I can provide a meaningful example that one can understand. It is in terms of the already ultimate capacity of our species to love, our children. It is a transference of faith, from the direct faith in Abraham to be conveying a truthful message that transfers indirectly to faith in God. God said to Abraham you have proved your faith and love in me, this is how much one should believe in me and my authority. The question is, is this a superior form of humanistic love by way of example?

While Jesus’ brand may represent progress, it is also expressed in the same terms as the requisite faith in God as the lesson conveyed, with the same cost to the ultimate degree of expression. Only this time, it’s God doing his own dirty work, that of carrying out the sacrifice of his son. So while there are indisputable messages and lessons of love throughout the Jesus story, the main plot is the ultimately unquestionable faith in God (blind faith) that is its central message. The latter story seems to be a rewrite of the first with some discretion for artistic liberty and with a slight change in characters.

Surely, it is not meant to be the standard for the ultimate expression of love, and if it is, it is misdirected to the primacy of religious love, the love of God. The Jesus story just does not go far enough, although it was a first step and courageous for its time. As to the original question of the OP, how the meassage is being conveyed still today is not, in my view, superior, while perhaps some of the objectives are timeless in their application. But I guess it depends on where one places the main focus, on the love of God or the love of man. I would say the proofs are evident to each one differently.

.

Stardust: “I had 130 congregations when I was the Bishop of Newark.  All of them were Episcopal churches and yet within that single diocese we had traditional churches, catholic churches, evangelical churches, folksy churches, liberal churches, conservative churches, Anglo churches, Hispanic churches, Korean churches, Haitian churches, West Indian churches and American black churches.  Our diocese was one of a hundred dioceses in the American branch of the Anglican Church.  Those dioceses varied as widely and perhaps more widely that the individual congregations in our single diocese.”

He also went on to remark
“This was never much of a concern for me.  I do not believe that the mind of any human being or any human institution can embrace the totality of the meaning of God.  I regard it as a manifestation of idolatry when that claim is made by any religious tradition.  I think the Christian faith is a pathway that I walk into the mystery and wonder of God.”

“I do not believe human beings can walk directly into the abstract mystery of God.  We have to start where we are.  For me that is the Christ path, but to walk it faithfully is to transcend all religions in general and Christianity in particular. God is ultimate, Christianity is not.”

Spong, along with Desmond Tutu are two people who come to mind when I am frustrated by those who insist on defining Christianity in terms of the Fundamentalists, rather than the Enlightened.  Most Christians fall somewhere in-between.  Philosophically and intellectually, these in-betweeners are easy to mock, but it makes me uncomfortable when people do so.  I guess it’s all that loving-kindness stuff I read when I was a Buddhist.