Starboy

I understand that there are historical metaphorical interpretations of the bible that can be of great help in understanding the original intent of its passages. Let me ask you this, what good is a guide to life for the population at large that requires everyone to learn the historical metaphors of a long gone era? That is my point. More contemporary sources have got to be much better guides.

Starboy

Mageth

I understand that there are historical metaphorical interpretations of the bible that can be of great help in understanding the original intent of its passages.

And I think these metaphorical interpretations (from the bible and other sources) can be beneficially applied to one's life, even today.

Let me ask you this, what good is a guide to life for the population at large that requires everyone to learn the historical metaphors of a long gone era?

Well, one could take the approach of Joseph Campbell and learn the common metaphors that extend through most if not all of mythology, old and new (similar motifs can be found in Thomas Mann, Joyce, Star Wars, The Matrix, and a lot of other more modern art and literature). Then one could recognize these metaphors in whatever source one examines.

In any event, I think at the core of many ancient myths are metaphors, symbols, stories, situations and characters that many can identify with. I really think that modern life, while definitely different in many respects, still follows the same basic threads that life has throughout the ages.

That is my point. More contemporary sources have got to be much better guides.

Well, that's a good thing to hope for. Mormonism and the works of L. Ron Hubbard seem to be counter-examples to that, as I don't think those works (and many other contemporary sources) are exactly "better guides." Obviously, when something was written doesn't necessarily have much to do with its quality or usefulness.

Yes, perhaps some modern sources may be better guides for the "common man", but just what are those sources, and are they approachable by/available to the "population at large"?

Anyway, I'm not suggesting any particular ancient text as a guide, necessarily, but rather as possible sources. I think in this age, the individual is ultimately (or ideally) his or her own guide (as opposed to guidance coming from without, as organized religion tends to do), and is free to access from whatever source they have access to and can understand. Freeing individuals to, and teaching individuals how to, approach their life journey on their own, how to "cherry pick" from the various sources, how to think for themselves, how to recognize the common threads in sources, would seem to be a worthy goal. And yes, providing them with more up-to-date sources from which to draw their "mythologies" is an important, worthy goal as well. I believe Campbell suggests artists as the ones responsible for that task (providing the mythological motifs in forms applicable to the modern age).

Rational BAC

Interesting thread. Especially lately.

A couple of things

Starboy------Where did you get the idea that I take the Bible as my only source of spiritual enlightenment?----------I think I stated quite the opposite (I know this has turned into a long thread and it is easy to forget what has been posted-----I am guilty of that myself.)

Mageth------Actually I have looked into the different forums and subjects mentioned and recommended by you and others on this forum.

A lot of good stuff here. I have learned a lot. I hope some of you have also learned at least a little bit from me.

It is always good to have an open mind. -------whether theist or non-theist.

Starboy

Perhaps you missed it, but one of my first questions was essentially that question. And you just let slip on by. You kept accentuating your desire to pick on the bible.

Starboy

Sabine Grant

Homeopathy has been succesful in France... not to deviate the thread but should one also look at the positive result to present an objective criticism? or should the focus remain on whether or not one dislikes one thing or the other?
Can you see some positive results in terms of human behavior and treatment of other individuals if a believer rejects the dogmatic aspect of any religion?

Starboy

Mageth, I agree with you that man of the past had many of the same problems as we face now, who to marry, when to marry, how to marry, how to conduct business, how to treat your wife, children, family, neighbors, what to eat, how to live life. But even thought the questions are the same, the answers in these ancient texts are for another time. We live in a different world. I must say though that there are no obvious replacements for the old texts and there is probably a good reason for that. Our civilization is in flux. The heroes of the past are not sufficient for the present. We are in a brave new world and have yet learned to live in it comfortably. We are making it up as we go along and no one has been able to write the definitive guide. Maybe that explains the surge in fundamentalism. The old sources aren’t working. Many think that maybe they just have to be applied more rigorously. That if they can just find the right interpretations of the bible or Koran or whatever then they will be able to make sense of our world. As I see it, it only makes things worse. It is so much like the poor devil in front of the computer trying the same thing over and over again hoping that they will get a different result but to no avail. The less it works the more they try.

Starboy

Mageth

Well, Starboy, I can't find anything to substantially disagree with in that last post.

You appear to have read, and perhaps be a fan of, Joseph Campbell. I've just recently gotten into Campbell, after catching a bit of "The Power of Myth" on PBS, which really resonated with me. I've read An Open Life, am reading The Power of Myth and have picked up two or three others of his books to read. In addition, I've got The Hero With a Thousand Faces on CD and have listened to it. Much of your last post (esp. "Our civilization is in flux. The heroes of the past are not sufficient for the present.") seems to echo much of what I've read in Campbell.

In general, I've found much in Campbell that resonates with my own thoughts on religion, spirituality, mythology, etc. over the years.

I'd highly recommend anyone interested in learning more about myth, religion, and life in general, to pick up some of Campbell's books. IMO, An Open Life is a great place to start - it's a quick read, and summarizes much of Campbell's philosophy and views on religion and myth.

Sabine Grant

It appears that cherry pickers who watch for worms as Rational BAC or myself tend to do may have the desire to contribute positively to humanity. Maybe our focus is on " what positive behavior and treatment of others can I learn from the Bible?". " how will I make a difference in someone's life?" " how will I do the least damage as a human being to other human beings?" If those desires are in our minds, why would it be irrational to seek the motivation to apply them?
For the christian, Christ should be the motivation. To the secular mind, oneself should be the motivation. However, in the big picture.... with the same desires for the secular mind or the christian mind... are we not wanting and willing to do our best?
Is it productive to be critical of the means an individual chooses to apply those desires? if it results in positive interaction and in contributing to the welfare of others... frankly " my dears... I do not give a damn!"
I applaude anyone who has those desires and retains a focus on what is to be achieved.
Curiosity.... MAGETH...STARBOY... any sense in your minds of what is to be achieved on this planet during our brief lives? Though I realize that starboy's sense may expand to the rest of the universe...

Starboy

Hi Mageth, My daughter and I have read "The Power of Myth" several times and have watched the PBS show of the same name several times as well. We have discussed it extensively. She is an artist and I come from a background of the hard sciences. There was something my daughter picked up from Campbell that I glossed over, which she brought up the other day. That Campbell thought that the source of the new guide for mankind would not come from the sciences but from the artists. I think I have to agree with them.

After I read the book a notion that I picked up from one of my lives as a systems analyst clicked. That science and engineering create models of reality using constructs such as electrons, genes, gravity waves and so forth, but that these constructs are not reality itself. This realization is what drives the scientific method. The models are a picture of reality but are not reality itself and never will be yet can be used to explore reality. These constructs are metaphors of reality, that as humans we cannot know nature directly. The best we can do is to create metaphors for what we experience. So electrons, genes, gravity waves and so forth are the metaphors of the twenty first century. That any guide we create must be based upon these metaphors not those of the past which of course includes god. The artist will construct the future guides for humanity but they will be informed by the metaphors of science. This is why I think the bible is just wrong for this time and place. What is currently bunging up the works is that the old metaphors are so pernicious that for most of the population, artists included, the metaphors of the twenty first century are yet to become a main component of everyday culture. What I mean by everyday culture is that which is passed down from generation to generation at the level of families. We are all submersed in the results of science but very few of us actually understand it.

Starboy

Bumble Bee Tuna

RBAC, you have no idea how annoying this is. I write huge posts, asking many questions, pointing out numerous problems I have with your position, and you barely respond to them. You answer a single question, say you'll get back to it later, then never do.

If you aren't interested in actually participating in the discussion your thread creates, you shouldn't bother creating the thread. Take the time to answer your criticisms, please!

Imagine a friend of yours came up to you and started a conversation about God with you. "Let's have a discussion on the possible nature of God", he says. Deep stuff, but you enjoy it so you say sure, you're up for it. So you start to explain your religious beliefs, but now the guy who started the conversation says "Wow, you raise a lot of points, well my basic position is 'God exists' but I'm pretty busy so I don't really have time to talk, see you later".
WTF? If you're going to start a conversation, participate in it!

-B