11 Mar '07 19:33>
Originally posted by whodeyA myth is inherently a falsehood of some kind, no?
Well this opens a whole bag of worms in terms of labeling the original Torah in the realm of myth. If it is inspired by God, would God inspire a myth? A myth is inherently a falsehood of some kind, no? Could God lie? If it is not inspired by God, then it only has meaning in terms of a persons own "Torah". Then you may as well pick up an issue of Better H ...[text shortened]... neither can you divorce his word from its source. They are one in the same.
No. A myth is a way of telling stories with an embedded symbolism that points to truth.
Now, you and I come at this entirely differently. Whether or not the authors of the biblical texts were inspired (and whatever that may mean), and whether or not there are historical places, rulers, events in the stories—I still see them as mythological in nature. I do not take the Bible as “the word of God”—literal or inerrant or otherwise—and I have argued before on here, from the NT texts generally used to support that view, that in fact they do not. That is, one cannot arrive at a position of sola scriptura using solely the “scriptura” to do so. (I take a “midrashic” approach to the NT as well, although in a different manner because the structure and language of those texts is a bit different.)
I think that literalistic/historicistic readings of the texts trivialize them. I also think that treating the Biblical texts as somehow the inerrant “word of God” at least runs the risk of being idolatrous. I have argued that several times now just in the last week or so. Unfortunately, I think I am starting to anger some people by those views.
How did I define idolatry recently? Putting ones trust in, or cleaving to, anything but the living God.
Jonah (reluctantly) obeyed the command of God, preached to the Ninevites that they would be destroyed—no ifs and or buts, no second chances if they repented; the offer of pardon if they repented was not offered them. “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it. But this was very displeasing to Jonah, and he became angry.” So many Christians seem to cling to a biblical fundamentalism that they think insulates them from God changing his mind...
Faith means openness to possibility and, in the religious sense, the ultimate ineffable mystery. One who is afraid that the biblical texts might be wrong—or who needs to insist at all costs that they cannot be wrong—is putting one’s trust in the wrong place. There is no such thing as riskless faith.
People scream at fundamentalists such as myself for taking portions of the Bible literally that they do not agree with, however, when it is something they can use to attack the Bible they have no problem taking such stories as the literal truth and then bashing us over the head with them.
No doubt. I, however, never play that game, and have argued against it a time or two. I have been lambasted by both sides in that debate... Actually, when theists (of whatever particular religion) insist on idolizing texts, then they are fair game on that count; the problem is that there are those outside of all religious bounds, who have also accepted the notion that these texts must be taken literally. But who has taught them?
For me, when you say you read the Bible as "literal" you are merely saying that you believe the original text is correct even though it can have multiple meanings, however, there are NO myths. You then could say that the interpretations are not always correct. For example, the 6 days of creation I think have not been interpreted correctly. I do believe the earth to be billions of years old. The original words for morning and evening in Genesis can be translated as order and disorder. In Genesis 2:4 this is even hinted at by referring to the "generations" of creation. The Biblical critic of the fundamentalist would then charge that I must take the original translation and interpretation in my KJB if I claim to be a fundamentalist, however, I would charge that it is equally important, if not more important, to look at the original wording and possible translations.
I don’t disagree with any of this, except the “NO myths” part. However, I do think you are using the term “literal” a lot broader than some others—or that perhaps I use it.
Also, the word “fundamentalist” has come to mean different things. Originally, it referred to a particular Christian doctrine based on the five “fundamentals.” Now it has come to refer generally to a kind of religious rigidity. I can drop the term, but frankly, the new conventional usage has, I think, overtaken us.
_______________________________________
You know, Whodey, I have ventured very carefully—and indeed very little—into the Christian paradigms, or the NT. And when I have, it has been pretty tentative, even though that’s where my roots are. To me, the logos tou theou is the “Tao,” the patterns, the suchness, of the One-without-a-second—and that logos manifests in the material. (Think of the “logos” of the grain in wood.) Manifest as human being, that logos is referred to as ho Christos. And the gospel about Jesus is that he represents that in a particular (unique) but not exclusive way; one could say, using standard Christian language, that Jesus as ho Christos is a sacrament of the pre-existing logos.
Now, I am still working on this expression of my non-dualistic view within Christianity (it is not new, by any means—nor do I think it is generally heretical)—but I am not prepared to argue it yet. I just offer these tidbits for thinking about...
__________________________________________
You know, I am afraid that I am just going to enrage a lot of Protestant Christians as I continue my attack of what I call idolatry.
Here is a statement by a prominent rabbi of recent history. But I also apply the same ideas to every religious expression—including Christianity:
“Every definition of God leads to heresy; definition is spiritual idolatry. Even attributing mind and will to God, even attributing divinity itself, and the name “God”—these, too, are definitions. Were it not for the subtle awareness that all these are just sparkling flashes of that which transcends definition—these, too, would engender heresy. ...
”The greatest impediment to the human spirit results from the fact that the conception of God is fixed in a particular form, due to childish habit and imagination. This is a spark of the defect of idolatry, of which we must always be aware. ...
”The infinite transcends every particular content of faith. “
—Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (former Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine), quoted in Daniel Matt, The Essential Kabbalah
In the end, it is idolatrous expressions, as often as not, that atheists are attacking. I’ll look for the references, but I have read some Orthodox Christians who have not thought that was wholly a bad thing...