It's time for another miracle!

[Wombat]

I don't think it's true that Mary's virginity is crucial to Christian faith. I accept and respect as part of my faith tradition that this doctrine says something of value. But, frankly, if I could somehow learn today that it's not literally true, it wouldn't bother me a bit.

It could be symbolically central. I suppose you are leaving this open. Refreshing my memory of the catechism from your earlier post, I couldn't see a single thing which would commit a Roman Catholic to a literal reading of anything controversial contained therein.

I've been thinking a lot about American culture and views of the Bible and I wish I had time to devote to researching and writing a book about it. I've been thinking about the dominant, popular view of the Bible: Literalism, which is the default belief among Americans, I think, and a sense of Biblical prophecy that sees the Bible as containing all kinds of coded references to things that are supposed to unfold in the future.

Just to comment on literalism, I think it is not only not compulsory to read the Bible as being literally true on scientific and historical matters; I think it borders on the insulting and, as such, flirts with sacrilege. I don't mean it is sacrelige to believe that some things reported are literally true but rather that to hold that everything that could be history must be history is at the very least highly suspect. All great literature is richly nuanced, complexly layered, interpretable at several levels and deeply poetic. None of it is easy. None of it is obvious. To hold that a work of literature that is divinely inspired lacks these essential qualites of great literature seems to me to be deeply insulting to its authors. IMO, then, Biblical scholarship should remain where it started: firmly rooted in the Talmudic tradition.

I think I"ve written on the board before about how I'm convinced that a lot of agnostics and atheists actually are Biblical literalists. They read things in the Bible that they understand can't be literally true, or they find contradictions and they say to themselves, "see, the Bible can't be true if it contains things that aren't scientifically and historically accurate and so since the bible is not 'true' (in this unfortunate, narrow sense of the word), I can't take it seriously."

That isn't true in my case but it is true that the mindset behind literalism was one thing that drove me away from a formal attachment to Christianity. (That said, until recently literalism was much less popular in Australia than in America and it used to be scarcely visible in England.) Other things were more important in driving me away but I retain a deep love for the relatives and friends who chose not to leave and a deep concern for the environment they have to put up with in order to stay.

[Dale]

--if you don't believe the Bible is 100% true, including scientifically and historically, then you don't believe in the Bible and you're not a Christian. THAT, in my opinion, is a complete disaster...

Dale, I'd like to see you write a book on this perspective.

What would be the main points or principles of Christianity that you feel are important, supposing a lesson from a non-literal story could be learned (that should help humanity forward) that hasn't already been taught or learned in pre-Christian settings? IOW, what's new here?

Oh, gosh, I don't know that I'd presume to try to outline the "principles of Christianity."

I think the only reason atheists and agnostics hold the bible up against the literalist standard is because Christians think the bible belongs in the non-fiction category.

The fiction/non-fiction thing, IMHO, doesn't work here, and it's certainly not true to say that "Christians think...." etc. That's my point. There's a lot of diversity regarding how to approach, read, and understand the Bible that remains faithful to the Christian faith. My point was that some elements with the Christian fundamentalism movement are intolerant of anything short of a literalist approach.

The reason I think the fiction/non-fiction labels are inappropriate is that those are largely modern terms that work pretty well for a modern, Western perspective on books. This novel is fiction. Work of art. Not a problem. This book about the Bush administration is non-fiction. Although the accuracy of it may be called into question, that doesn't make the book "fiction."

The Bible, in my opinion, is a blend of (among lots of other things and LOTS of literary genres recorded over a LONG period of time) (1) historical material that may be pretty much as reliable, or moreso, than other ancient writing which attempts to tell stories about things that happened. (2) Orally transmitted stories that were central to the lives of ancient peoples, which were designed to teach lessons, and to give people a way of understanding who they were and what the world was and who God is. It's unfortunate, I think, for us to take a creation account of an ancient people, told around fires for generations, and then assume this is God's message to us modern people to be understood as EXACTLY HOW THE WORLD WAS CREATED. It is INCREDIBLE to me the amount of energy that goes into the apologetics designed to support this approach.

Example: In the synoptic Gospels, there are different sequences, different details, sometimes strikingly different tellings of what clearly ought to be considered one single event. Rather than saying that those sequences and details are different because the different Gospel writers had different intentions and belonged to a time in which journalistic accuracy was unknown and not cared about, literalists turn back-flips to explain it away. Like: If two different sequences of Jesus' travels are depicted in two gospels, these must be depicting two different journies, reported separately.

With respect to those folks, I think they essentially take this approach: In order to be a Christian I must believe the Bible literally in every detail. So I do. Now, I must account for some of these apparent problems of historical and scientific information. Here I go.....
IOW, because of this poisonous attitude that belief in the Bible as literal, that believer feels he or she MUST find someone to account for apparent inaccuracies.

But, IMHO (and that of a whole bunch of Christians) he or she doesn't have to do that.

SO, back to the virgin birth. I understand Jesus as being by fully divine and fully human. I have never understood why belief in the virgin birth is necessary to believe Jesus was fully divine.

On I digress:

I have long felt that some confusion arises from Christianity not having a single core myth. It has TWO core myths which can be reconciled, but it ain't easy. The first myth (and everyone knows here I'm not talking about myth as made-up story) is that God was incarnate in Jesus. God became man and walked among us. The second myth is that Jesus is God's son and God SENT Jesus to be born as one of us. Those are very, very different stories. I think the first myth is completely compatible with a non-virgin birth. GOD is born, in the person of Jesus, to woman. Unless one is horrified and disgusted by human sexuality, why does one have to believe that was a virgin birth? (I'm afraid that the insistence on a virgin birth is partly about fulfilling OT prophecy but also due to the hostility of the early church re: women and sexuality. Catholic doctrine is that Mary REMAINED a virgin -- and sinless-- her entire life. Why is her perpetual virginity required?). The second myth, the Son of God idea, requires God to be the father, vis-a-vis Mary, and so it is easier to see how people want to insist that Mary had to be a virgin.

Oh, enough. I've bored MYSELF to tears.

[/quote]

[StewySmoot]

All I can say is that I witnessed one miracle in my life and that was enough to make this ex-altar boy, non-churchgoer accept that there is some Good Presence out there that may never be fully explainable or comprehended by the human mind.

To be honest I dont remember what that miracle was, but I witnessed it, thought to myself, "OK, that must have been a miracle" and in 20 years still remember the experience to still feel at Peace.

Therefore, I dont try to rationalize the concept of the Virgin Mary but recognize the power of true belief in the Immaculate Conception.

[Lorenzo]

Oh, enough. I've bored MYSELF to tears.

The maybe you shouldn't write that book!

You don't need to outline the principles, I was wondering about your use of the word "tregedy."

I frankly think it's a tragedy. And, I think a lot of fundamentalist Christian groups add to this tragedy by proclaiming, as I have heard so many proclaim--if you don't believe the Bible is 100% true, including scientifically and historically, then you don't believe in the Bible and you're not a Christian. THAT, in my opinion, is a complete disaster and it's why people like myself often feel alienated from the people who are supposed to be our fellow Christians that are splashed all over the TV.

What is important in the bible about Christianity that you feel can be spared from any sort of literal application? I should have said most Christians think.

[Lorenzo]

What's new anywhere, Lorenzo? Why did Shakespeare have to write ALL those plays when just a few convey the main ideas?

I think you incorrectly assume that the lesson or message is the only point of religious, ethical, or moral importance in a story. Who on earth would be moved to understanding with a Cliff's Notes kind of treatment of the meaning of the Prodigal Son story? I frankly think you undervalue the role of literature--religious or not--in human understanding and fulfillment.

As I stated several times before in this thread (you're forgiven ), I think true Christianity is beautiful the way it provides fulfilment and purpose in peoples lives and changes their hearts for the better. And as I've said before, I get as much spiritual insight and fulfillment from a story (religious or otherwise) as the next person.

Where I draw the line is the fusing together of all biblical aspect of Christianity. Between the things of the heart and the literal biblical instruction that must follow and ccompany a changed heart. A person, whose life has been renewed though the heart-felt conversion process suddenly is faced with other life-changes that must be met. "if ye love me, keep my commandments."

The role of a woman in this world, or in a marriage, is but one aspect of this necessary biblical change that surely must follow "if ye love me" (at least for the majority of conservative Christian denominations). It's no myth that Paul the Apostle took Christianity in its cellulose form and ground it into meal...bread for those who hungered for details on what is expected of a new Christian that has gone through the initial process, but lacks knowledge in what must follow. As for a Christian woman, Paul puts her in her place. I recently heard a TV evangelist say, "oh, that was for a different people in a different time," but he apparently forgot that Paul reemphasized the importance of this by using Eve as an example, which would transcend all times and all peoples.

What I began to notice is that conservative literalist Christians, who teach that you should take the next necessary steps in the Christian process, start picking and choosing what they'd like you to read in the bible. Show them biblical instructions that are contrary to thier faovorite texts, and they begin acting like children afraid of the dark. They'd rather change the subject, reinterpret and spin an easily understandable passage, or find some other escape than to face the reality that what is really expected of a new Christian is not clear--if the bible as a whole is taken into consideration.

Tithing is but one of those aspects in the next step of serious Christianity. Diet and alcohol is but another. The importance of Church going another. The list seldom ends.

The spiritual aspect of Christian literature is one thing, but it's not the only card on the table that's dealt, ie, in most cases. Some more liberal churches might like to stop there, but there other cards that are usually mixed in later with the heart-felt experience and fulfillment of Christianity. That's where my interest lies.

BTW, forgiveness was new at one time, in religious devlopment.

[Lorenzo]

To be honest I dont remember what that miracle was, but I witnessed it, thought to myself, "OK, that must have been a miracle" and in 20 years still remember the experience to still feel at Peace.

I've seen them too, although I don't remember what they were. I just remember seeing them happen again...this time with people who were non-believers. It made me think twice.

[carrie]

As I stated several times before in this thread (you're forgiven ), I think true Christianity is beautiful the way it provides fulfilment and purpose in peoples lives and changes their hearts for the better.

I've always so liked forgiveness.

Carol

[lixnaw]

It looks more like that robot from "The Day The Earth Stood Still"

and that just might be Mary he's got in his arms there...

and this is Mary when she gets angry

[Lorenzo]

As I stated several times before in this thread (you're forgiven ), I think true Christianity is beautiful the way it provides fulfilment and purpose in peoples lives and changes their hearts for the better.

I've always so liked forgiveness.

Forgive me...I didn't mean "this thread." I meant that other thread, the Political and Sometimes Religious thread. Forgot where I was.

[emmline]

A person, whose life has been renewed though the heart-felt conversion process suddenly is faced with other life-changes that must be met. "if ye love me, keep my commandments."

I wouldn't go to a presumptuous church like that.

The role of a woman in this world, or in a marriage, is but one aspect of this necessary biblical change that surely must follow "if ye love me"

This is the kind of bullfewmets which separates forms of Christianity I respect from forms I don't.

As for a Christian woman, Paul puts her in her place.

More recent biblical scholars believe that not all epistles attributed to Paul were actually written by Paul--including the ones to which you allude. It's thought that certain epistles and even certain words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were contributed by church leaders trying to impose their often rigid or misogynistic pov on the development of the church at the time the books were written.

What I began to notice is that conservative literalist Christians, who teach that you should take the next necessary steps in the Christian process, start picking and choosing what they'd like you to read in the bible.

True dat. And those guys would probably like it if I did fall off the fence I'm straddling, on the UU side--but I've found an undercurrent of like-minded heretics at my life-long church, and I haven't quite given up yet.

[Lambchop]

(BTW, Izzy--yes, you're right about all that OT prophecy stuff--I just like to get all feminist about it and take offense at the sexuality-bashing of the church patriarchy. Just kidding. A little bit.)

edited because I called Izzarina Peggy, because my mind was muddling 2 threads, because I generally have a tendency to be muddled.

Oh, thanks a lot! I sign on to discover, oh, what, the first time probably EVER that somebody is quoting me. . . and on a Deep Subject, too . . . and it wasn't me. Pbbbft!

Sigh. I didn't even get a chance to pretend.

Takes self off to sit in the low-mariology pew. I'm with you on this one, Dale.

[emmline]

Takes self off to sit in the low-mariology pew. I'm with you on this one, Dale.

Scoot over Peggy. (look--I'm quoting Peggy!)

[Lambchop]

Takes self off to sit in the low-mariology pew. I'm with you on this one, Dale.

Scoot over Peggy. (look--I'm quoting Peggy!)

Well, ok, that's almost as good.

You're not going to embarrass me by putting your feet on the kneeler, are you?

[emmline]

You're not going to embarrass me by putting your feet on the kneeler, are you?

No. Provided I don't have to eat one of those styrofoam communion discs.

[Lambchop]

You're not going to embarrass me by putting your feet on the kneeler, are you?

No. Provided I don't have to eat one of those styrofoam communion discs.

This sounds like more of a whole-wheat group, to me!