Merko
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,899
Which message? There are so many different interpretations of what this 'message' is. And they all seem to draw upon the 'mythological overlay'. If some Christians would draw up a document explaining the 'message' and leave out all the 'mythological overlay', and then declare that this specific, defined message is the crucial point of their Christian interpretation, then we could do as you say. But as long as Christianity is based on documents and 'messages' that are completely intertwined with this mythology, there is reason to debate the mythology when confronting Christianity.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,377
John looks like he's having a "moment" in one of his movies with the leading lady. Because you know gorgeous Hollywood type women just can't keep their hands off 400lb. men.
John Candy with his money, maybe. Not one of John's bumbling characters.
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
There will always be differing interpretations of "the message" largely because while there may be some final, ultimate message (if one assumes that there is a God and that He can be the final arbiter of what is) we cannot know it for sure. The written sources are all texts (of course), and all we can do with a text is read and interpret it. There are better and worse readings (defined by good argument and evidentiary backing); but, for us, there is no final text -- so it would be impossible for any Christian to provide THE MESSAGE, though many have supposed that they have (Martin Luther certainly comes to mind). Personally I think all religious types would benefit from a short course in deconstruction to realize that texts are simply not absolutely fixed (outside of the very simple, like 1=1=2; or the real wackos who think reality is a text, which I find a stupendously silly idea), so no absolute reading is possible -- maybe then they would stop killing each other because they think the other guy read the book wrong. That, or follow Ramakrishna's advice and realize that most religions provide valid paths toward God but none of them get it completely correct (which is the same basic idea).
Personally I also think that the folks who read the gospel accounts and treat the mythological elements as reality/history are simply bad readers. I think their interpretation sucks, to be brief.
Merko
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,899
Fair enough, but what would you characterise as non-mythological elements? Care to give some example?
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
The ethical injunctions (golden rule), the call to love God with all your heart (love the universe, baby) and the idea of redemption. None of that requires any mythology.
Merko
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,899
Fair enough, but none of that requires Christianity either.
Personally I don't agree with any of this, though.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,501
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
Yeah, that pretty much covers it.
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
Gord in Toronto said:
Personally I think it would help if everyone realized that there is no other possibility. Interpretation is an absolute
necessity with text/narrative. It is the perverting of the WORDS, as though any of us could know THE MEANING, that everyone must relinquish. No one has the final reading. Even if you got it right (if such a thing even exists), you couldn't possibly know it (yes, this is an epistemic and not ontologic statement).