Stories to live by

I’ll grant you “substantial aspects of life remaining across the ages.” Aspects such as death, the need to live in relation to other people and the world, etc. These do form a base-line human condition of sorts.

I also agree that any story that sticks must be about, or must take up, (some of) these base-line conditions. In the potency and individuality of its message the story can achieve a universality, which is to say a lasting relevance to the matter at hand. Furthermore, should its message touch a chord, the story can achieve an even deeper relatability to those concerned. That is, not just a relevance but a deeply moving experience…

So maybe that’s my point: this relatability (or chord-touching) is not guaranteed. For instance, certain myths that take up the matter of life and death, such as the Illiad where death is the end and the goal of life is to make it brilliant, if short, so that one will live forever in memory, might not touch a chord with a Christian, who believes in resurrection and won’t see the point of such a life. A Christian won’t be able to get into Achilles’ story in the same way as an early Greek, even though they share the same base-line human condition as the Greek. The Christian may find the story relevant, and therefore interesting, but not relatable, or truly chord-striking.

It is not just a matter of making the story “current” either. It’s more the fact that the teaching of the story simply does not relate, no matter how relevant it is.

There I may have to disagree with you. I understand what you’re after with the bard and the personal telling. I do get it. But I also get, as you do too, the need to change with the times. Bards are no longer confined to personal performances or performances to small crowds. The modern bard, if there is to be such a thing, must leverage modern mediums.

The point, it seems to me, is to get the message/story out there, to as many people as possible, in the most relatable way possible. To make stories come to life through mass-media: that is ideal. (Hence the transition from oral to written?..) In this way a bard could relate all persons in the world through a story relatable to all, one capable of carrying the world forward into the future and out of this murky, directionless time. (Just like the Greeks were carried forward into the future by Homer, which arguably realized its teaching through Alexander’s immortalizing impact.)

To me it’s all about mass-impact. About doing what you are describing on mass. This isn’t to say that the time of the bard is over but that the bard must evolve, and find new ways to tell their stories in this technological world, no longer confined to intimate performances but making the power of their performances accessible to all.

Tell me what text you had in mind, when you wrote this, and perhaps I’ll shock you with a fine piece of ethical wisdom from it.

If everything that you and Bob have said is well worth thinking true, then you would be far better off reading a pseudo-science self-help book from a pharmacy bookshelf, beside the romance novels. That, or Harry Potter. Again, choose your text and I’ll show you why.

You simply cannot say that “scripture reveals ‘life truths’”, and also say that any given part of the text about those ‘life truths’ (e.g., the claims about ethics, codifications, laws) are bunk. Perhaps you can make yourself into a cultural relativist (problematic, in itself) and say that those ‘life truths’ were good for people, thousands of years ago, …but then I’m going to tell you I think you’d be better off heading to the pharmacy book shelf.

Love,

Mo

I had a very interesting discussion with Alyoshka here that seems relevant to this line of discussion. You’d have to read a lot to catch up, though - not sure if you have the time or inclination.

No text in particular. One that has been on my mind, and that I discussed a bit with Bob above, is Jeremiah 13 1-11:

Have at it.

I never said the laws are bunk. I said that the laws were given to help Israel back onto the path of right living. Obeying the law does not constitute right living. Rather the law was an afterthought. A corrective so to speak. (Indeed, every jot and tittle of the law will be fulfilled. But the law is not the point.)

Maybe there will be something to this effect in the conversation Anon pointed to. It could also be that I’ve changed my mind since then, so don’t take me too seriously! (Then or now for that matter. This is challenging stuff.)

I’m largely linking that thread because of our discussion of the story of Isaac and Abraham towards the end. (How should we live, according to that story?) But of course the conversation leading up to that point provides important background regarding our respective views.

This is the second time you have written this kind of comment but you never actually come across with what your contention is. What gets on your nerves so much that you just can’t ignore what I or Alyoshka have written, but makes you react in this way?

Where are you coming from? A Christian background or an Atheist/Agnostic approach? What can you say that isn’t just a butt-in to show you’re around?

Take Care

However, I ask myself, why would a Christian want to take on the story in this way, if his own tradition is sufficient? If his idea of heroism differs so, he will take on the image of Christ. And yet, the story of Achilles has inspired people for thousands of years – right through the domination of Christian thought. Why, perhaps because they found a quality in the story of Achilles that you haven’t taken into account. I don’t assume that the stories will always carry an ethical message which applies to all, but it seems that there is something in the classics which does attract people long after the Greeks of that age have died out.

Well, first off, I think that the effect I am describing and have experienced is only possible where people can interact and therefore see each other clearly. However, there are people who perform in large auditoriums and combine different media to transport the stories. One who comes to mind is Coleman Barks who performs Rumi poetry with music, Clarissa Pinkola Estés is another who also uses audio recordings to tell her stories. Here in Germany there has been bible-readings performed by actors and enhanced with classical music, although that had more to do with the bible as literature and acting than with story-telling.

Take Care

Being like Christ is basically unnatainable, as he is seen as the sinless incarnation of God

people can relate to tragic heroes because they see within them the same faults that they themselves possess, and the inevitably doomed longing to be more than just animals.

What Christ are you referring to? The Christ of the later Christian Churches was God seated above, but observing Christ to be the first of many (firstfruit), and reading his story as a vehicle to further our empathy and sensitivity, and thereby refining our culture, could help us. Jesus appears as an enlightened man, but as a man in all of his fragility.

Mark wrote his Gospel as a tragedy with the recurring question, “Who is he?” The answer must be given by the person who hears the question, but one answer is that he is the son of man, the heir of Adam, who spiritually engendered a new humanity. What could he be for you?

People relate to tragic heroes because life is tragic on the surface and they have the curious gift of being able to reflect on this existence, as though from a vantage point out of time. This doesn’t seem to be given to all animals.

Take Care

The one described in the Bible, mainly the gospels

I think we naturally tend to reflect on our own existence because existence itself is not enough for us. We see the futility inherent in life and this world, and intuitively feel it is not our natural habitat. Our minds are too superior to be able to thrive in an animalistic pointless world, unlike all other species on the planet. We live; but we create tragic plays and artworks to wallow in our own misery as we do so.

I’m responding to your thesis (in the OP) that religious texts are “not meant to be believed, but lived” and that they nevertheless represent “substantial ethical codes”. You were prompted to say this by reflecting on fundamentalist extremism. (I took your point to be a Robertsonian one, who was just rephrasing Tillich and others).

I had two main points before:

1a. You are doing what many do when caught in a horrible lie or bad position. (E.g., “Ohhhh you thought I was being serious…? Ohhh you thought I meant it literally…?”).
1b. If the text is just mythy-type stuff, then you are better-off taking yourself to a bookstore and choosing a new myth—one that has the full breadth of thousands of years of human learning behind it, and which wasn’t written by ignorant, barely decended from the tree, tribal overlords.

  1. I am sure that you are a highly intelligent, sensible, and caring person. That is why when you read the text, you do not actually think someone should be stoned for fucking the wrong way. But nothing about the text itself taught you this. This is because ideas that are on a par with the idea that someone should be stoned for fucking the wrong way are often entirely justified by the text.

I don’t think Scriptures should be believed in the sense that they happened, that they are historical fact. If that’s what “taking them literrally” means then we should not take them literally.

However, I don’t see what believing in their historical fact has to do with their representing substantial ethical codes. Or, I don’t see why we can’t believe that Scriptures represent substantial ethical codes and that they do not represent history. I see no issue there.

Did you live back then? Can you really comment on the wisdom of the writers? Don’t be so full of yourself thinking that, because you sit here at the receiving end of history, you’re in a better position. That’s just bullshit. Look around you. Does it look like we’ve got things figured out?

Here is where I would say a literal reading would reveal the truth. Not a reading that takes what is said as historical fact, but one that takes every word seriously.

Jesus took the law literally for instance. Every jot and tittle. And what did he do when faced with an adulteress? Did he cast a stone? No, he understood the law. Those who think it means they can stone someone for “fucking the wrong way” have not taken it literally enough.

So you are saying that I, Bob, am caught in a horrible lie or bad position having posited such ideas. Well, I haven’t posted that much here despite my long-time friendship with ILP, but I was actually one of the people who tried from the outset to show that we need another look at Christianity and that we can’t take the Bible seriously if we take it literally. I also made clear that I find the Bible to be an anthology of religious writings which reveal a development of the theistic idea and a gradual release from idolatry towards a spiritual approach. For this I received a lot of criticism from Christians who felt I was peeing on their pitch. Having been brought up Christian and having some experience with Christian writings, I have orientated myself on Christianity for the most part, but have sought a contrast in other traditions. I personally feel an affinity to Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion.

Whilst there were always tribal overlords around, the religious texts which we have as the basis of religion were not written by them. The language and the mythological background is too complex for someone who as more familiar with warfare than with writing. We don’t even know where the source of this all actually is and how far back it goes. Much of the Bible has been collected over centuries from various cultures and probably the OT was assembled after the Babylonian captivity. The wisdom literature is older and from an unknown source.

Thank you for the roses. The fact that you bring the OT down to this one crude aspect reveals that you are not really familiar with what the Bible is about. Of course there are laws and punishments in the Bible which correspond with the time it was written – life was hard all that time ago, wherever you were.

It is your own way of pushing it aside – which is OK by me. But then again, things that I push aside don’t trouble me further. You should ask yourself what brings you back to the religion forum over and over again. Perhaps you would let me have a conversation with people who are interested instead of behaving like a troll and contributing nothing whilst at the same time accusing the contributors of things you can only assume, but don’t know.

Take Care

They can’t represent substantial ethical codes because their basis is in divine command. That would be perfectly fine, if (1) you didn’t treat that as mythy-type stuff, and (2) had some good reason to think it true—but with regard to (1), at least, you are. Remove the reason as ‘mythy-type stuff’, and what sort of ethics do you have left? --Not one that has any reasons behind it, right?

Of course I can, and so can you. We’ve read their book(s)…

It’d be nice to be able to agree with you here, but the fact is that Jesus was not a very good Jew. He didn’t take the law literally for instance.

You’re positing the ideas in your OP because when you read the story that you like literally, you get bad results, (which you noted). Your OP is not a horrible lie or bad position, it’s a defence of one.

This is worth repeating, because it wasn’t addressed. You jumped on the overlord comment.

Are you saying we ought to throw out the 10 commandments, because they were just meant to correspond back then? Why don’t we throw out the whole book—it’s thousands of years old—(talk about corresponding…).

As you know, what people believe is not contained in the walls of their skull, but manifests itself in their actions. No matter what you want to talk about, you should have to talk about it with people who think what you’re saying is bunk, and worse. If not talk to them, then at least not ask that they exclude themselves and call them “troll”.

It is a different take on something which I feel has been taken out of proportion by evangelical Christians. If they want historicity, then they should accept that there are archaic aspects of the stories which, in an oral tradition, would have been disposed of as time goes on and the refinement of society takes place.

Not so, if you would go back and look, I wrote this: “Whilst there were always tribal overlords around, the religious texts which we have as the basis of religion were not written by them. The language and the mythological background is too complex for someone who as more familiar with warfare than with writing. We don’t even know where the source of this all actually is and how far back it goes. Much of the Bible has been collected over centuries from various cultures and probably the OT was assembled after the Babylonian captivity. The wisdom literature is older and from an unknown source.”

Apart from the commandments which are purely theistic, the remaining eight commandents correspond with the Buddhist Dharma.

Perhaps you could consider the fact that you at least gave rise to the idea that you were a troll, and only now, in conversing, does it seem to not be the case. Your first comments were indeed that you thought what I was saying was bunk, but you didn’t follow up. The second time you virtually repeated your statements.

At present I am preparing a story I told about eleven years ago (unfortunately it was in German) about Elijah, so that I can show what I mean. But it is late here and I might have to put it off until tomorrow.

Take Care

Not divine command. Divine revelation. God reveals a certain life in Scripture to us. Or better yet, Scripture reveals God’s life to us. God doesn’t dictate. God doesn’t even do the revealing. Rather human writers did that. I think this consideration dismantles the force of point (1).

Also, or to continue with the theme of divine revelation versus command, when I say “ethical code” I don’t mean law so much as way of life. The point of Scripture is to show us the way, not to give us the law.

With point (2) though I think you are absolutely right. I need good reason to think it true. That the way or life revealed by Scripture is the truth. How do I do that? I think that’s a question we all have to wrestle with, no matter our source material. No immediate answers, although I’m sure Scripture gives clues (you will know them by their fruits?).

That’s an unfair comment. Scriptures, in terms of depth and difficulty, are beyond anything written these days or even for the past centuries or even millenia. We don’t put the same into our writings anymore. Why? I think it’s partially as Bob described. These days once written a work is done. Authorship is individualized. Before it was a cultural endeavour and works were able to mature over time with subsequent writers.

But true or not, this obviously doesn’t prove the wisdom of Scripture or its writers. You certainly haven’t proved your point either though. So please, show me how Genesis 1 or 2-3 is stupid. Show me how these simple texts alone, which have challenged the greatest thinkers up to today, are indicative of immature authors. In truth, they say more in hundreds of pithy words than what philosophers are able to say in hundreds of thousands.

Where did he not take the law literally? Did he not say every jot and tittle will be fulfilled? What are you referring to here?

Whether you treat it as command or revelation (btw, I’m not even sure what the difference is—because I was not suggesting the command came in the form of a loud yell from behind the clouds) does not matter; it’s whether you treat it as fact or fiction that matters. I.e., matters to (1).

False. Not only do we put more into our writings, we have more to put into them. There are more insights into the human condition in one chapter of any of George Elliot’s books than in the entirety of the Torah, Bible, and Koran combined. The fact is that if you want to understand and answer any of the most basic questions that people have (why am i here?, how should i behave?, who am i?, etc) you are far better off, if not in literature, then picking up any of the tremendously fallible philosophers, none of whom claim to be god. I’m thinking Mill, Freud, Nietzsche, etc.

What criteria are you accepting as “stupid”? Usually we take that to mean things like, inconsistency, contradictions, outrageous falsehoods, being boring or dull, lacking any sort of reasoning or support for claims…

Please explain how these texts “challenge the greatest thinkers up to today”.

It’s a work of human hands. Stories that never necessarily happened. Therefore fiction. So again, maybe to help orient me, why is it that fiction can’t represent an ethic? You said before because the basis of Scripture is in divine command, which suggested that this gave it a factual character. But why is it that a piece of fiction can’t reveal something factual, or have a factual character?

Let’s be fair: neither of us can bring any finality to this. I’ll say there is more depth to Scripture, you will say no, there is more depth to modern literature. Fine. I grant you there is some brilliant literature being produced. Or that has been produced. There is no denying that.

Any criteria you want. Or better, objective ones (leave dullness out of it for example). Let’s hear your full assault on Genesis 1. May as well start at the beginning.

Okay. For starters, in the West, most philosophers were Christian, even up to and through the Enlightenment (Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard). Even the famous atheists dealt heavily and deeply with Scripture, indicating that it was a major influence in their work (Freud, Nietzsche, Sartre, Heidegger…)

Today? Zizek, Badiou, Agamben. There’s three who have wrestled with Scripture. It’s kind of a silly question though, no? There’s endless names I could list here, religious people, despisers of religion, or just secularists, all of whom have wrestled with Scripture. (Pardon my continental drift.)

What makes you think you’ve got it all figured out I wonder? Please, if you’re so confident in your assessment, give me the jist and tell me why it’s so (clearly) wrong.

An ethic can be represented by a fiction, but not justified by a fiction. There are all kinds of truths in fiction, as the saying goes, but none of them are true because they are in the fiction.

I’ll provide the some contradictions soon-ish. Are you denying they exist there?

Most people were Christian, and there were often penalties for not declaring you were. If you’re suggesting that people like Freud, Nietzsche, Sartre “wrestled” with religion—as in they thought it was a serious candidate explanation for how things actually are—you’re wrong. They were interested in what was wrong with people who continued to think that religion was a serious candidate explanation for how things actually are.

  1. I don’t have it figured out.