What is the name of the system of belief where God is metaphor for that which transcends all categories of thought. This idea was proposed by Joseph Campbell. It wouldn’t be atheism and atheist would argue that the metaphor is a lie, it wouldn’t be theism theism would argue that the metaphor is literal, it wouldn’t be agnosticism you can’t prove the metaphor as being false or true. What would you call it then?
Mysticism.
Is that really a ‘system of belief’ or just someone’s proposed definition of what God is supposed to be.
Both and more.
That modern statement can’t really be classed as the basis of mysticism though can it, since mysticism was a movement originating from Ancient Greece (polythiesm) that concentrated on more than just the concept of Gods.
I don’t associate mysticism with ancient Greece. To me it means the belief that direct knowledge of the ultimate reality can be attained through ineffable subjective experience. Thus, ultimate reality can only be described using metaphors.
Amongst the mythologies of the world, across the centuries there has been this common motif. So I would suggest that it is indeed a system of belief. In fact you could even interpret most religious belief as really an expression of this theme. There are after all Christian mystics and they would I’m sure totally agree with the assertion. Somehow I feel uncomfortable with mysticism though it’s just that mysticism carries more baggage. You are not really attempting to identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God. Although that is problably exactly what might happen. What you are asserting is that God is a metaphor.
First, let’s make sure we are not confounding mysticism with mythology. I think that James may have been confusing the two. Second, I offered mysticism for lack of a better word for the recognition that God is a metaphor. I think it is more apt to say that God is a symbol. Most of what can be said positively about God positively must use finite objects as analogies. This isn’t a new trend in theology. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and others recognized it. Many absurdities in popular discussions about God result from the failure to recognize this. I have been grappling with the problem in this forum because it seems that logic can only deal with finite objects. Speaking about God as an object is an error. But, I have found myself compromising and treating God metaphorically in order to discuss God in a logical context.
There is no God, it is just a name we call it. Objective reality only exists in silence. Silence spoken of is not silence, but silence housed in words.
To be a Christian would mean you are a theist. So if mysticism requires you to believe God is a symbol/metaphor/analogy etc… Being a mystic would mean you are a ???. What would be the correct name for ???
That’s for you to decide. There have been many mystics who called themselves Christian. I just quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas to an atheist on another thread. Aquinas said: “The first cause passes human understanding and speech. He knows God best who acknowledges that whatever he thinks and says falls short of what God really is.†What would you call Aquinas?
Right good point I suppose the best name would really be a mystic then.
I’m not really satisfied with it myself. Tristan on this site coined the term “Metaphoric Christians.” That doesn’t sound quite right either. I’ll look into it further.
God is a metaphor of human nature (anthropomorphic).
“Metaphoric Christians” bwahaha 
that’s funny anthropomorphic is getting closer but in this case God is not getting uniquely human characteristics and qualities.
Right because it’s a little known fact that humans created the universe.
Right because it’s a little known fact that the universe requires creation to exist, or that a “God” is necessary for “creation” to take place, even if it did.
Right the universe always existed and the so called big bang is a meaningless fiction in the minds of people who like math or who look through large telescopes or pick up meaning background static on their radios.
Right so although the “big bang” is only a theory, it gives religious fanatics an excuse to beg the question and deny the burden of proof in giving evidence that even if the “big bang” did occur, it required a “God” to do so, and therefore can retain their teaching positions in the academy so they can buy the BWM they’ve always wanted and pretend to be invited to hang out with the real scientists in the break room, after filling the heads of the students with propoganda bullshit that creates complacency in the public’s support of the Christian/democratic ideals America is pretending to establish in Iraq, while in reality only trying to get at its resources and create another consumer market to participate in capitalist trading so that whitey can get rich.
I love these forums it’s amazing how they always end up way of on a tangent about something else completely different. Start with a bannana and you end up with a Ferrari