The "Truth" of Symbol Part I (Demanding Evidence part 2)

[warpspeedpetey]

1. I refuse to believe it is literal. I can’t say why without loosing charity.

why do you refuse to believe it is true?

( i dont buy the charity excuse. your an adult, you can choose to describe the reason for your rejection in a civil manner if you want too.)

You can’t seem to say why and have all the freedom in the world here to do so.

i am happy to accept the Scriptural account. i see no reason to reject it. but ive said this before. this is the reason.

 

[StrawberryJam]

why do you refuse to believe it is true?

( i dont buy the charity excuse. your an adult, you can choose to describe the reason for your rejection in a civil manner if you want too.)

i am happy to accept the Scriptural account. i see no reason to reject it. but ive said this before. this is the reason.

You don’t understand something. You confuse biblical events with historical facts. Some could be, some may be, some are not. Do you even understand when you claim something is historical fact, you must back that up with, er… um historical facts maybe??? Jonah and the Whale is not anywhere CLOSE to being considered “historical fact” by anyone!

 

[Magnanimity]

“Almost every Christian I am aware of sees affirming the historical truth of at least some claims (e.g. the crucifixion and the resurrection) as important to Christianity–they are almost all Fundamentalists to greater or lesser degree–and with such claims come the obligation to provide evidence in support of these beliefs which are intended as participation in the public project of doing history.”

Leela, I don’t understand the aside you make above. You seem to say that individuals who affirm that the historical nature of Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection are “important to Christianity,” are all fundamentalists in some way. Please explain.

“…but Campbell argues that both sides are guilty of missing the point of myths. In Campbell’s view, historical and scientific truth are completely separate issues from that of the truth of myth. Myths should be read with an ear for symbol and metaphor rather than with the criteria for discernment of historical or scientific fact.”

“Completely separate,” huh? Boy that would be nice. The suggestion is simple, reductive, and thereby easier to defend. But, I doubt it would ever do. As Hans Urs von Balthasar argued, the central mystery of Christianity, which very much separates it from any other variety of theism, is that the Son became Man. Son of God (eternal) and Son of Man (grounded in history) in one Person.

As to your last remark above, I agree and disagree. Myths definitely should be read with an ear for symbol and metaphor, but I see no either/or dilemma here with history. It’s both/and.

 

[Magnanimity]

“In affirming the truth of religious mythology, Fundamentalists are asserting the scientific-historical truth of the writings of people who never could have intended such because they wrote in a pre-scientific era.”

Is that an intentional word omission above in order to carry the point? You begin by saying the “scientific-historical truth…,” and end with the charge that the scriptural authors (presumably) were “pre-scientific,” which no one could deny.

First, why unite science and history as if they are somehow part of the same thing or conjoined? Second, the Greeks and Romans, both of whom significantly pre-date Christianity were rather accustomed to a discipline of history. (recalling Herodotus and Thucydides, right?) The New Testament itself was written in the Roman/Hellenistic world which gave rise to the likes of Tacitus and Plutarch. Pre-scientific? Granted. Before historians? I don’t see how you could argue that point.

“The most sincere believers then often misinterpret the myths of their own religious traditions entirely and instead are merely clinging to bad history and bad science in the guise of faith”

This point seems odd to me, almost elitist. How would someone like Campbell who is outside some, if not all, religious traditions, know whether a group of believers were misenterpreting the myths of their own religious traditions? In one sense, what Campbell describes here is literally impossible–who else, besides the believers within a particular religious tradition, are going to describe and interpret the myths within their own tradition?!

“To understand Campbell’s perspective on reading myths as symbolic, he suggests that we read the myths of other cultures rather than those of our own, ‘…because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts’”

I don’t think the main texts of the major world religions lend much support to his idea here. It is true, I would agree, that the religious texts of the West do tend to have a fairly heavy dose of history (even for the Book of Mormon this is true), however, this historical genre is interspersed with all manner of other literary genres (poetry, wisdom literature, parables, songs, prophecy, and, yes, prose too). And, I’ve read a bit in the texts of Hinduism and Buddhism (with its thousands of “texts”), and I do not see the same tendency towards history and facts as one finds in the religions of the West.

I think we can appreciate what Campbell is trying to do, but it’s generally too reductive and overly-simple to account for the rich variety found within religious texts. It’s also fairly condescending, I think, to try to stand outside of a certain group, looking in, and presume to tell that group about what literary genres are and are not contained within their own texts, about the proper function of the group within the overall culture, etc.

All for now, Leela. Thanks for sharing all of this. Hopefully, you’re spurring on some discussion anyway.

 

[Leela]

“Almost every Christian I am aware of sees affirming the historical truth of at least some claims (e.g. the crucifixion and the resurrection) as important to Christianity–they are almost all Fundamentalists to greater or lesser degree–and with such claims come the obligation to provide evidence in support of these beliefs which are intended as participation in the public project of doing history.”

Leela, I don’t understand the aside you make above. You seem to say that individuals who affirm that the historical nature of Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection are “important to Christianity,” are all fundamentalists in some way. Please explain.

Fundamentalism is distinct from more moderate Christianity in that it takes parts of the Bible as factual what others recognize as symbolic. I don’t see any hard line to be drawn between Fundamentalists and non-Fundamentalist Christians. It seems to me to be a matter of degree.

“…but Campbell argues that both sides are guilty of missing the point of myths. In Campbell’s view, historical and scientific truth are completely separate issues from that of the truth of myth. Myths should be read with an ear for symbol and metaphor rather than with the criteria for discernment of historical or scientific fact.”

“Completely separate,” huh? Boy that would be nice. The suggestion is simple, reductive, and thereby easier to defend. But, I doubt it would ever do. As Hans Urs von Balthasar argued, the central mystery of Christianity, which very much separates it from any other variety of theism, is that the Son became Man. Son of God (eternal) and Son of Man (grounded in history) in one Person.

As to your last remark above, I agree and disagree. Myths definitely should be read with an ear for symbol and metaphor, but I see no either/or dilemma here with history. It’s both/and.

Parts of the Bible are clearly myth and others history wrapped up in legend. On that much I think we agree. What is left is trying to discern history from legend. Campbell would say that this is an intellectual exercise rather than a spiritual concern. Whether or not something happened at a given point in history is of no concern to whether or not it is happening to you right now in this moment. This is the spiritual concern. The question is whether these stories perform their function in taking you beyond ordinary experience to experience of the divine. The question of whether or not these stories also have a function in chronicling history is by comparison a trivial matter. At least it should be. In reality nothing has been the source of more conflict in the history of the world than questions about which dogma is to be believed. This is not generally a problem in the east where their gods are not God–they are manifestations or incarnations of God as you yourself are–which itself is held to be beyond all categories. Not this, not that. Not infinite, not finite. Not being, not non-being. If so then it would seem silly to argue whether a story meant to convey the unknowable is history or legend.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You confuse biblical events with historical facts.

i want to know the technical basis for your rejection of the story. what is your evidence it is false? i dont want to know about feelings, i want to hear facts.

do you reject every history book? do you reject the reality of other events you didnt witness?

Do you even understand when you claim something is historical fact, you must back that up with, er… um historical facts maybe???

if you cant tell me why its not historical fact, then why shouldnt i accept it as such?

Jonah and the Whale is not anywhere CLOSE to being considered “historical fact” by anyone!

then surely you can explain to me why ‘no one’ considers it historical fact?

im not just going to take your word for it. my evidence that this event occured is teh account of it in Scripture. what is your evidence that it did not occur?

dont assume anything at all. right now it seems like youre assuming that i should know why its not historical fact. i do not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

are you going to defend your position or not? simply assuming the basis of this other persons argument as true, isnt going to cut it. if its foundations are false it is.

you cant even get to campbells argument without justifying its foundations.

so how do you know certain parts are clearly myth? provide youre evidence. or admit your cherished belief is false.

 

[Leela]

so how do you know certain parts are clearly myth? provide youre evidence. or admit your cherished belief is false.

I plan to do neither. The question of whether not any parts of the Bible are myth (which I’ve insisted is not to be read as “lies” but rather as symbol and metaphor) is not the concern of this thread. I hope you will start another thread on that topic if you would like to pursue it. Personally, I wouldn’t even no where to begin with someone who sees Jonah and the Wale [sic] as factual.

Also, since you get so frustrated when others do not respond to you in the way you would like, I’ll suggest that you may be more successful if you pay others the courtesy of using complete sentences and capitalizing the first words of sentences. It is usually very clear that you disagree, but it is difficult to respond when it is so hard to figure out what you are saying. Lastly, you have no right to make demands such as “provide you’re evidence. or admit your cherished belief is false.” I wasn’t even talking to you, and either way, you are not the boss of me. If you continue to try to pose as such you’ll wind up back on my ignore list.

Best,
Leela

 

[Magnanimity]

Parts of the Bible are clearly myth and others history wrapped up in legend. On that much I think we agree.

OK for now. Down the road we might have to flesh out the “wrapped up in legend” phrase, but alright.

What is left is trying to discern history from legend. Campbell would say that this is an intellectual exercise rather than a spiritual concern. Whether or not something happened at a given point in history is of no concern to whether or not it is happening to you right now in this moment. This is the spiritual concern.

I can only imagine that both you and Campbell are well aware of the very extensive and rigorous intellectualism found in the history of Christian (and especially Catholic) religious tradition. As I made a similar point above, there is no either/or dilemma here between intellectualism and spirituality, any more than there is between the historical facticity of Christ inasmuch as he was a man and the Son inasmuch as he is infinite God. The mystery of the Incarnation actually goes beyond this to include profound religious insight in the Son becoming Man. Iow, the deepest religious symbolism of Christianity would actually be thwarted without the historical, concrete aspects.

The question is whether these stories perform their function in taking you beyond ordinary experience to experience of the divine. The question of whether or not these stories also have a function in chronicling history is by comparison a trivial matter.

Ironically Leela, just the opposite is true, as I note above.

In reality nothing has been the source of more conflict in the history of the world than questions about which dogma is to be believed.

I take this line of thinking to fall within common atheistic rhetoric against religion, if I’ve understood you correctly. Quite the urban legend regarding religion and violence. Probably, the conquering desires of men would greatly exceed arguments over dogma as the greatest sources of conflict (witness Gengis Khan, Alexander, Hitler, etc).

This is not generally a problem in the east where their gods are not God–they are manifestations or incarnations of God as you yourself are–which itself is held to be beyond all categories. Not this, not that. Not infinite, not finite. Not being, not non-being. If so then it would seem silly to argue whether a story meant to convey the unknowable is history or legend.

Yes, as I noted in my second reply to you in this thread, Campbell’s suggestions seem to be much more commensurate with Eastern religious traditions. No wonder Lucas was a fan!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Personally, I wouldn’t even no where to begin with someone who sees Jonah and the Wale [sic] as factual.

by explaining why you believe that Jonah and the Whale, or any other Biblical event is not literal.

 

[Leela]

Hi all,

I found an interesting passage in one of Campbell’s books relating to the switch to the vernacular in the Catholic Mass. I know the decision is still somewhat controversial within the Church, so O thought the following may be of interest.

"The problem for and the function of religion in this age is to awaken the heart. When the clergy do not or cannot awaken the heart, that tells us that they are unable to interpret the symbols through which they are supposed to enlighten and spiritually nourish their people. When, instead, the clergy talk of ethical and political problems, that constitutes a betrayal of the human race. This substitution of social work, or heavy involvement in regulating the intimate decisions of family life, has nothing to do with the real calling of the clergy to open to their people the dimensions of the meaning of the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus. These later constitute a system of symbols that works perfectly.

Missing that simple orientation, the Roman Catholic Church, for example, has translated its Latin liturgy into local languages, thereby diluting or removing its essential mystery. When Catholics go to Mass in Latin, the priest is addressing the infinite in a language that has no domestic associations; the people attending are thereby elevated into transcendence.

But when the liturgy is recited in a person’s own local language, and the altar is turned around, the priest resembles less an intermediary of mystery than he does Julia Child, the television cook. The very possibility of transcendent experience is destroyed. A person may have a nice comfortable feeling, but that is not difficult to achieve and people do not go to church just to have such feelings.

The religious symbols were, therefore, short-circuited by this process that Church authorities mistakenly thought of as progress."

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Hi all,

I found an interesting passage in one of Campbell’s books relating to the switch to the vernacular in the Catholic Mass. I know the decision is still somewhat controversial within the Church, so I thought the following may be of interest.

"The problem for and the function of religion in this age is to awaken the heart. When the clergy do not or cannot awaken the heart, that tells us that they are unable to interpret the symbols through which they are supposed to enlighten and spiritually nourish their people. When, instead, the clergy talk of ethical and political problems, that constitutes a betrayal of the human race. This substitution of social work, or heavy involvement in regulating the intimate decisions of family life, has nothing to do with the real calling of the clergy to open to their people the dimensions of the meaning of the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus. These later constitute a system of symbols that works perfectly.

This reminds me of La Trahison des Clercs, a book by Julien Benda, in which he criticised the failure of intellectuals, not necessarily religious, to reason objectively as a result of their political beliefs. In 1926 he predicted that mankind was “heading for the greatest and most perfect war the world has ever known.”

Missing that simple orientation, the Roman Catholic Church, for example, has translated its Latin liturgy into local languages, thereby diluting or removing its essential mystery. When Catholics go to Mass in Latin, the priest is addressing the infinite in a language that has no domestic associations; the people attending are thereby elevated into transcendence.

But when the liturgy is recited in a person’s own local language, and the altar is turned around, the priest resembles less an intermediary of mystery than he does Julia Child, the television cook. The very possibility of transcendent experience is destroyed. A person may have a nice comfortable feeling, but that is not difficult to achieve and people do not go to church just to have such feelings.

The religious symbols were, therefore, short-circuited by this process that Church authorities mistakenly thought of as progress."

Thanks for that quotation, Leela. I’m fortunate enough to be in a church choir in which we sing Latin Masses, Gregorian chants and motets by classical composers - a rare phenomenon these days. People come from far and wide, not because we’re particularly good but because the uplifting effect of a work like Mozart’s Ave Verum is very difficult to achieve in English. One atheist on another forum remarked that the closest he came to a religious experience was when he heard music like Handel’s Messiah - but that was in English.

I am sure this goes to show that we cannot understand the value, meaning and purpose of life by reason alone. As Pascal observed:

“Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point. On le sent en mille choses. C’est le cœur qui sent Dieu, et non la raison. Voilà ce que c’est que la foi parfaite, Dieu sensible au cœur.”
The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason.

Even in our daily lives emotion is often our guide rather than logic - not always successfully but more often than not when it comes to personal relations. But I think Pascal went too far:

“Tout notre raisonnement se réduit à céder au sentiment.”
All our reasoning boils down to yielding to sentiment.

In some ways the Reformation did lead to reform in the Church but extreme sects like the Calvinists who did away with all the “paraphernalia” of rites and ceremonies did not realise the importance of symbolism in religion. The simple flame of a candle in the pitch dark at Easter which signifies the light of truth brought by the Resurrection of Christ evokes emotion far more directly than words.

It is unrealistic to deny the value of physical objects in the spiritual life. Even the Buddhists who aim at detachment have beads and prayer wheels! Symbolism is essential because human thoughts and words are hopelessly inadequate to describe that which exceeds our understanding. It is ironic that a three letter word is used to refer to the Supreme Reality!

 

[edwest2]

Joseph Campbell is a storyteller. His books are nothing more than an attempt to universalize storytelling. Nothing more. They are not great philosophy or truth, such as would concern day to day living. They are simply storytelling templates shared by all the world’s cultures. As a professional storyteller and published author, I found his books tedious and biased.

The Bible is not symbolic. It is called Sacred Scripture because it records what God did. The entire Bible is a dialogue with God and His people and His actual actual work among us. It is the Living Word of the Lord. Those who seek to simply place it among other books as just a book do not understand it.

Finally, those who believe in evidence have not thought this through. A scientist standing next to Jesus would not be able to provide any evidence as to how HE raised Lazarus from the dead, fed thousands of people with leftovers after, or cleansed lepers or gave sight to the blind.

Too many think, oh, it happened so long ago, it’s just a story. The Catholic Church today bears witness to it. A relationship with the God of the Bible is the good news that the Church offers to everyone. That is why it exists and why it is the one true Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[warpspeedpetey]

yeah, i didnt think so.

any arguments premise that cant be defended is just so much ivory tower bloviating. hot air.

therefore, campbells arguments are false. they have indefensible premises.

 

[Leela]

Joseph Campbell is a storyteller. His books are nothing more than an attempt to universalize storytelling. Nothing more. They are not great philosophy or truth, such as would concern day to day living. They are simply storytelling templates shared by all the world’s cultures. As a professional storyteller and published author, I found his books tedious and biased.

The Bible is not symbolic. It is called Sacred Scripture because it records what God did. The entire Bible is a dialogue with God and His people and His actual actual work among us. It is the Living Word of the Lord. Those who seek to simply place it among other books as just a book do not understand it.

It is more than a little ironic for you to say that the Bible is not symbolic and then also say that it is the Living Word. Really? It’s a word? Just one? And this word is actually alive? That’s pretty hard to imagine. Do you mean this one word is a living thing in the way birds and trees are living things or do you mean something more profound?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Finally, those who believe in evidence have not thought this through. A scientist standing next to Jesus would not be able to provide any evidence as to how HE raised Lazarus from the dead, fed thousands of people with leftovers after, or cleansed lepers or gave sight to the blind.
Peace,
Ed

youre dead right.

when they claim that some miracle is implausible, its no different than some ignorant, bone-through-the-nose amazonian tribesman shrieking in fear at the bad juju of a light bulb because he doesnt understand the process that makes it work.

which is hypocritical because the same people that deny these events are usually the ones that think that scientific progress will eventually explain everything.

except of course, those events.

its laughable the gyrations that they will perform to protect their cherished belief.

 

[edwest2]

It is more than a little ironic for you to say that the Bible is not symbolic and then also say that it is the Living Word. Really? It’s a word? Just one? And this word is actually alive? That’s pretty hard to imagine. Do you mean this one word is a living thing in the way birds and trees are living things or do you mean something more profound?

At Mass, the person who reads from the Bible, ends by declaring: “This is the Word of the Lord.” We also say at Mass, “He has spoken through the prophets.” What the prophets said is recorded in the Bible.

God is God of the living, not the dead. The Bible was meant for all times and all people.

Joseph Campbell, and Hollywood, the new purveyors of mythology, understand that there are only a finite number of story templates. There may be a Hero With A Thousand Faces in all cultures and countries, but Sacred Scripture is the Word of God and not just a book.

What I propose to you is this: God has spoken to man. His word is in the Bible, and in Tradition, and was passed down to us. He is alive right now and He would like to be in a relationship with you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StrawberryJam]

At Mass, the person who reads from the Bible, ends by declaring: “This is the Word of the Lord.” We also say at Mass, “He has spoken through the prophets.” What the prophets said is recorded in the Bible.

God is God of the living, not the dead. The Bible was meant for all times and all people.

Joseph Campbell, and Hollywood, the new purveyors of mythology, understand that there are only a finite number of story templates. There may be a Hero With A Thousand Faces in all cultures and countries, but Sacred Scripture is the Word of God and not just a book.

What I propose to you is this: God has spoken to man. His word is in the Bible, and in Tradition, and was passed down to us. He is alive right now and He would like to be in a relationship with you.

Peace,
Ed

Jesus is said to be the living word. Which is correct?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Jesus is said to be the living word. Which is correct?

are you planning on answering post #26? supporting your assertions and assumptions?

 

[StrawberryJam]

are you planning on answering post #26? supporting your assertions and assumptions?

You made the positive assertions. I never found out how you arrived at them, as you feel no need to justify them at all other than say the “bible says”.