Trial Balloon Discussion - Page 4

evangelicalhumanist · #31 (**permalink**) 25th June 2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

If most religion is metaphor and myth, how can there be anything negagive about it? From what I have observed any negativity is in how people interpret the myth and metaphor. It seems the problem would be trying to change people's interpretations. We could try to stop myth and metaphor, but I don't think that is going to happen. Can we change how people perceive and interpret and is that the point of your project?

If religion were only myth and metaphor, there would be little to worry about. But religio means "I bind [myself]" and therefore, for most people, religion means taking that myth and metaphor, and turning it into dogma. (Atheists do it, too. "There is no god, therefore...").

I don't ever want to stop myth and metaphor. It is the poets who speak most eloquently about the longings of the human heart, about the things that matter most to us. The myth and metaphor give expression to our most intimate perceptions about ourselves.

However, it may be possible that, some day, people will stop interpreting the myth and metaphor as concrete realities about which they must do something, or behave in a particular way that emulates the myth. Metaphor allows us to look at a story, and allow it to help us perceive our present situation, which in turn may, just may, help us to see how to proceed.

Just to take one tiny example out of Christianity: when Jesus, speaking of the lilies of the field, said "take no thought for tomorrow," some mendicant friars took that quite literally and do not store up anything, but continue to hope that whatever they need will be provided for them. That's a dogmatic attitude. What if, instead, we looked to it as metaphor for a very different "tomorrow?" Would that change something about the meaning, and how we might (not should) interpret it?

evangelicalhumanist · #32 (**permalink**) 25th June 2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angeleyes

I was also wondering how it's possible to list all the positives of religion(s) and where we draw the line between religion, spirituality and metaphysics. Can we include Buddhism or A Course in Miracles? One of the biggest advantages of my choosen path is "reducing the number of reincarnations I have to go through to achieve enlightenment." Does that count as an advantage in this project?

At first I thought perhaps we were looking for a way to stop the focus on differences and look at the positives. But now I'm curious if this is just a "kinder, gentler" approach to keeping the conflict going. How do you see it EH?

No, no, no! No drawing lines. If you have a positive that comes from a belief system, let's hear about it! That's the whole point. It may turn out that there are things that can -- or even should -- be believed on little more than faith. Buddhism might contain some of the kernels, I don't know and I wouldn't want to say right now (too early in the process).

Lightkeeper · #33 (**permalink**) 25th June 2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

If religion were only myth and metaphor, there would be little to worry about. But religio means "I bind [myself]" and therefore, for most people, religion means taking that myth and metaphor, and turning it into dogma. (Atheists do it, too. "There is no god, therefore...").

I don't ever want to stop myth and metaphor. It is the poets who speak most eloquently about the longings of the human heart, about the things that matter most to us. The myth and metaphor give expression to our most intimate perceptions about ourselves.

However, it may be possible that, some day, people will stop interpreting the myth and metaphor as concrete realities about which they must do something, or behave in a particular way that emulates the myth. Metaphor allows us to look at a story, and allow it to help us perceive our present situation, which in turn may, just may, help us to see how to proceed.

Just to take one tiny example out of Christianity: when Jesus, speaking of the lilies of the field, said "take no thought for tomorrow," some mendicant friars took that quite literally and do not store up anything, but continue to hope that whatever they need will be provided for them. That's a dogmatic attitude. What if, instead, we looked to it as metaphor for a very different "tomorrow?" Would that change something about the meaning, and how we might (not should) interpret it?

Quote:

* RELIGIO: The definition of religion has changed dramatically from the Latin of pre-Christian times! In common use for ages, it has come to mean a distinctive creed, belief system, or affiliation. The Latin word RELIGIO had quite a different sense, based on affinities with three pairs of verbs:
religâre, to bind, from ligâre, to tie, close a deal, cement an alliance, or unite in harmony;
relêgâre, to banish, from lêgâre, to commission, bequeath, or entrust;
relegère, to collect again or review, from lègère, to read, recite, or choose.
There are further etymological connections with:
dîligère, to esteem, value, or appreciate.

RELIGIO, to the Roman, further encompasses the meanings of sense of right, conscience, reverence, awe, sanctity, the object of veneration, ritual, taboo, and scrupulous regard. In 1997 I coined a term, Paramythia, to globally embrace my personal spirituality, but have found that all of this vast territory was once upon a time covered by RELIGIO; that later generations whittled down a vast magisterium essentially to attain better span of control, for religion long became associated with a totalitarian control over human beings quite impossible in the classical Roman religion. Emperor Julian tried and failed c.361 C.E. to create a unified organizational hierarchy for the temples and priesthoods of the traditional Deities... like herding cats, they did not respond to attempts to centralize power and authority in a manner that did not traditionally belong to the Pontifex Maximus, an office we would call ceremonial.

RELIGIO, then, is essentially a linking-back, as to ancestral covenants and customs; a re-collection of the shared traditions of a people; the common sense of awe; appreciation; conscience; and duty. Classical religion was founded in primal experience and traditions as a social covenant with Deities who have revealed themselves in Nature. This Covenant is called PAX DEORVM, the Peace of the Gods, without dogma, theology, soteriology, or scripture as such... only stories, folklore, plays, literature, art, poetry, and music. Religio is not about belief, but about the fulfillment of a contract or covenant, in this repect parallel to that understood in Judaism. DO VT DES: I offer to Thee that Thou mayest give unto me.... http://www.aztriad.com/religio1.html

I've seen many definitions of religion and what the root of it is. You are choosing the "binding" definition. I choose the "relinking."

Many religions and even some modern day Christianity is about finding what you have become separated from.

Can atheists and theists agree on a definition of religion?

What is your definition of the "lilies" parable?

Lightkeeper · #34 (**permalink**) 25th June 2007, 06:49 PM

O.K. This project has it's own subforum. In the subforum I've started separate threads for the benefits and pitfalls of atheism and religion. We can use this original thread for discussion and debate of the project.

RHEMtron · #35 (**permalink**) 25th June 2007, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by comet

Lol i will just watch this debate from the sidelines i'm too new yet

i still would encourage you to write down your thoughts and interprations on the matter. i guarantee in a couple of weeks, youll definitely grow and write down something else... and when you look back at what you first posted, youll be amazed

comet · #36 (**permalink**) 26th June 2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHEMtron

i still would encourage you to write down your thoughts and interprations on the matter. i guarantee in a couple of weeks, youll definitely grow and write down something else... and when you look back at what you first posted, youll be amazed

Ok RHEMtron i will think about coming involved i do love a good debate

I feel i am already starting to grow seeing alot of changes thanks to all of you

statrei · #37 (**permalink**) 27th June 2007, 03:31 PM

This project will fail if we hold on to the view that the underpinnings of atheism and religion are at ods with each other. They may represent two different perspectives but those perspectives must have been derived from observing the same thing. If we deny this basic truth we will end up in the same puddle we are now trying to escape.

evangelicalhumanist · #38 (**permalink**) 27th June 2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by statrei

This project will fail if we hold on to the view that the underpinnings of atheism and religion are at ods with each other. They may represent two different perspectives but those perspectives must have been derived from observing the same thing. If we deny this basic truth we will end up in the same puddle we are now trying to escape.

Well, many projects fail. Some should be tried anyway. Who knows, the next project, perhaps even evolving from this idea, might not fail.

But you know, I think we all may learn at least something by the effort. I know that I am learning things already, and I haven't even started the analysis part yet. Because of that, of course, I have no idea what the value of what I'm learning is, but I believe that nothing that is learned is completely worthless.

statrei · #39 (**permalink**) 27th June 2007, 06:10 PM

The project does not have to fail. Besides, failure only reflects the end of time.

tricky · #40 (**permalink**) 29th June 2007, 05:54 PM

As far as I can see, nobody really knows for certain whether there is a creative force at work or not. Of course, there are plenty who claim to know one way or the other.

Some strongly believe there is and others strongly believe there isn't but can they really, hand on heart, say that they actually know for certain?

If everyone accepted - even just a little bit - that they might possibly be wrong about their beliefs (whatever they may be), perhaps some progress could be made.

For me, it's an Occam's Razor thing

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode