eala
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by eala on Mar 8, 2023 13:45:50 GMT
Ah, so you were new to it. I had it from as far back as I remember, and left it when I was about 13. I don't have an issue with the literally true part, it's isn't, and never will be — neither is poetry or myth, which isn't the same as saying it is false or not worthwhile etc. My problem is the hypocrisy with regards the abuse scandals. You may enjoy Frye's 'the Great Code' better than fearful symmetry. I do think religion makes literal truth claims in the way poetry and myth doesn't. But I accept that people might still find value in it even if they don't accept that literal truth. I was raised Catholic, like most people in Ireland until recently. But I think I was a natural agnostic up to my thirties, even as a little kid. |
|
eala
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by eala on Mar 8, 2023 14:01:35 GMT
Some religious people make literal truth claims for the Bible, and some atheists dispute them on literalist grounds. Both miss the point. Such stories ARE untenable literally. To pick two, the animals didn't all fit on a boat, linguistic diversity didn't start with the tower of babel. A smart little kid can figure this out. A person could go with the 'demytholigising' of Bultmann or similar, but I think this also misses the point. Our oldest stories tell vital and deep truths, and we haven't exhausted their meaning. Not all deeper truths are literal, and Christian hermenutics has long recognised differing ways of interpretation literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical etc. So I'm not adverse to being Christian in principle, but I'm not sure where my home is with Christianity. Culturally, I'm Catholic but there is so much that the church has done and what it has failed to do during my lifetime, I can't see how the Irish church can maintain or claim a position of moral arbitrator.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 8, 2023 14:09:34 GMT
Some religious people make literal truth claims for the Bible, and some atheists dispute them on literalist grounds. Both miss the point. Such stories ARE untenable literally. To pick two, the animals didn't all fit on a boat, linguistic diversity didn't start with the tower of babel. A smart little kid can figure this out. A person could go with the 'demytholigising' of Bultmann or similar, but I think this also misses the point. Our oldest stories tell vital and deep truths, and we haven't exhausted their meaning. Not all deeper truths are literal, and Christian hermenutics has long recognised differing ways of interpretation literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical etc. So I'm not adverse to being Christian in principle, but I'm not sure where my home is with Christianity. Culturally, I'm Catholic but there is so much that the church has done and what it has failed to do during my lifetime, I can't see how the Irish church can maintain or claim a position of moral arbitrator. As you say, there's much in the Bible that can't be accepted literally, but I do literally accept the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. It's no surprise to me that there is evil embedded in the very structures of the Church; if its doctrine is true, and Satan is real, he would undoubtedly be working his hardest to corrupt priests, bishops and the like. But you undoubtedly have a point and the abuse crisis did cost the Church in Ireland enormously in terms of its moral authority. I agree with you about the "deep" truths of stories, myths and legends as well. I think the Englightenment and utilitarianism has painfully narrowed our experience of life, even from a purely secular perspective. |
|
eala
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by eala on Mar 8, 2023 23:50:33 GMT
Some religious people make literal truth claims for the Bible, and some atheists dispute them on literalist grounds. Both miss the point. Such stories ARE untenable literally. To pick two, the animals didn't all fit on a boat, linguistic diversity didn't start with the tower of babel. A smart little kid can figure this out. A person could go with the 'demytholigising' of Bultmann or similar, but I think this also misses the point. Our oldest stories tell vital and deep truths, and we haven't exhausted their meaning. Not all deeper truths are literal, and Christian hermenutics has long recognised differing ways of interpretation literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical etc. So I'm not adverse to being Christian in principle, but I'm not sure where my home is with Christianity. Culturally, I'm Catholic but there is so much that the church has done and what it has failed to do during my lifetime, I can't see how the Irish church can maintain or claim a position of moral arbitrator. As you say, there's much in the Bible that can't be accepted literally, but I do literally accept the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. It's no surprise to me that there is evil embedded in the very structures of the Church; if its doctrine is true, and Satan is real, he would undoubtedly be working his hardest to corrupt priests, bishops and the like. But you undoubtedly have a point and the abuse crisis did cost the Church in Ireland enormously in terms of its moral authority. I agree with you about the "deep" truths of stories, myths and legends as well. I think the Englightenment and utilitarianism has painfully narrowed our experience of life, even from a purely secular perspective. The supernatural material in the OT and the NT are equally implausible to me on a literal level. I don't see any reason to say the one is figurative or symbolic or whatnot and the other isn't. The literal bodily resurrection of Jesus is as as implausible to me as Noah's Ark. Same with the literalness of Satan. As I say this doesn't mean this material is false, not valuable etc. As to the church, I've not seen the clergy address the abuse scandals in any meaningful way, the silence is deafening really. It still does cost them enormously because it seems to many of us they are so caught up in the authority and magisterium that they can't really follow their own doctrines of atonement etc. By their fruits shall you know them etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 9, 2023 9:24:00 GMT
As you say, there's much in the Bible that can't be accepted literally, but I do literally accept the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. It's no surprise to me that there is evil embedded in the very structures of the Church; if its doctrine is true, and Satan is real, he would undoubtedly be working his hardest to corrupt priests, bishops and the like. But you undoubtedly have a point and the abuse crisis did cost the Church in Ireland enormously in terms of its moral authority. I agree with you about the "deep" truths of stories, myths and legends as well. I think the Englightenment and utilitarianism has painfully narrowed our experience of life, even from a purely secular perspective. The supernatural material in the OT and the NT are equally implausible to me on a literal level. I don't see any reason to say the one is figurative or symbolic or whatnot and the other isn't. The literal bodily resurrection of Jesus is as as implausible to me as Noah's Ark. Same with the literalness of Satan. As I say this doesn't mean this material is false, not valuable etc. As to the church, I've not seen the clergy address the abuse scandals in any meaningful way, the silence is deafening really. It still does cost them enormously because it seems to many of us they are so caught up in the authority and magisterium that they can't really follow their own doctrines of atonement etc. By their fruits shall you know them etc. Well, there are so many credible mysteries in the history of the Church-- for instance, the miracle of the sun at Fatima, the Turin shroud, various Eucharistic miracles, and so on. I'm very sceptical myself, and the miraculous was a big hurdle for me, but one I did eventually come to accept. It's impossible to PROVE a miracle, but I think there are many instances where the evidence is very compelling. |
|
eala
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by eala on Mar 9, 2023 10:49:11 GMT
Well, there are so many credible mysteries in the history of the Church-- for instance, the miracle of the sun at Fatima, the Turin shroud, various Eucharistic miracles, and so on. I'm very sceptical myself, and the miraculous was a big hurdle for me, but one I did eventually come to accept. It's impossible to PROVE a miracle, but I think there are many instances where the evidence is very compelling. |
|
eala
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by eala on Mar 9, 2023 11:06:10 GMT
Such things have been claimed in various times and places, the church has no particular monopoly on them. They don't hold water for me personally, but the possibility of the existence of things that are arational is not primarily the stumbling block for me. The authority claimed from these things in the context of the church's recent past is the problem I see. Particularly, the church has been so busy being high mindedness and spiritual a in its own estimation of itself that it refuses to get in to the very real and provable muck of its recent past. It's as if they think keeping up the mystery people will forget about the sordid, and maybe some do. It's appalling carry on.
I suppose I'd like to find a home with a nonliteralist reading of Christianity as part of conservative project, but I can't accept the church's continuing sins of omission. I'm in middle age, the church went from being central to whatever it is now, it's been a spectacular fall, and thoroughly brazen throughout the course of my life.
|
|
