I believe the bible contains many truths, but that does not make it literally true. There are too many hallmarks of mythology to make it believable as literal truth. Even the names are symbolic. But it does not have to be literally true to be useful. Star Wars contains many truths as well, but there is no wise creature who actually lived on Dagobah in order for the things he said to be wise and true. “Do or do not; there is no try.” In other words, don’t put in a half-assed effort. Show some courage. The bible, just like many other mythological writings, was meant to teach wisdom in the same way fables help children learn about values. Greed, for example, has many unfortunate consequences. I was raised RC, but when I became a man, I learned to put aside childish things (as Paul would say). There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water; that’s what moderation means. We can still learn valuable lessons without having to believe things to be literally true.
not really a spoiler, just a question
Ever seen or read Life of Pi? It is really about two versions of the same story. Which story do you prefer?
Then I’d say we are all crazy. I believe we a all create God in our own image. Except atheists of course. And agnostics would create God in their own image if there were only enough evidence. He tends to be perturbed by the same things we are, God does. Democrats see him as a hippy, Republicans see him as a guns advocate. I guess we’re all a little bonkers. Bonkers for Jesus!
Read it… I didn’t see it as “two versions of the same story,” but, rather, as a post-modernist deconstruction of storytelling. The books opening and most of the middle follows the traditional format of a story. A narrative of events which the reader is invited to “suspend disbelief” regarding. Even the impossible elements – a tiger on a lifeboat – are skillfully justified, with details about circuses and animal training.
Then the author laughs in the reader’s face and sneers, “Oh, yeah? You’ll believe any old shit, won’t you?” and smears a grotesquerie – a floating water-purifying carnivorous island with an impossible specialization of fauna.
The author deliberately breaks the implied contract of storytelling, and violates the trust that he has invited us to share with him.
I found it insulting. (Pity, as the beginning and middle were brilliant.)
(I don’t mind some deconstruction, when it’s understood from the beginning. Sondheim’s “Into the Woods” is excellent. But Sondheim doesn’t set you up and then rip the rug out from under you. Martel does exactly that, and I despise him for it.)
No, that’s fine. I think you’re right on the money in your description, except that my conclusion was that the book was brilliant because of the masterful manipulative storytelling tricks you just alluded to. But I particularly liked the ending.
** spoiler ahead **
I think that when the Japanese freighter’s insurance company needs a more believe able answer from Pi is when it really gets interesting. Same story, more or less, but without the animals, just horrible things enacted by humans including Pi himself, an avowed vegetarian. It really comes down to what myth would you prefer to believe in? The one with the animals, implausible though it may be, or the actual version (which could also be fabricated, but at least it sounds more likely). Richard Parker represents the survival instinct within Pi himself. The animal version of the story is much like religion; implausibilities that we choose to accept because the alternative may be too frightening to accept. An example of myths that we hold on to to get through our lives.
Grin! I’ll actually happily acknowledge the book was brilliant.
A big “pie in the face” – in my opinion – but, yes, definitely set up elegantly and thoughtfully.
As to your actual question, I guess I prefer the “possible” version of the story, and would conclude that the “impossible” version was a lie, or possibly the hallucinations of a mind long deprived of adequate nutrition.
It’s an “Occam’s Razor” sort of thing, with an extra penalty for absolute impossibility.
(But, doggone, the opening chapter, where the kid is growing up in Pondicherry, and talks to the various religious leaders, was truly marvelous. Beautiful and engaging, and partaking of the best of both religion and humanism. I think I would very much have preferred to read that book, rather than the “meta-book” that Martel was interested in.)
I think it’s human nature for us to all do it in subtle, unconscious ways. Obviously, when you interpret vague parts of the Bible, how you interpret it will depend a lot on what you’ve already been taught and your worldview.
But some people consciously reject clear Biblical language and a couple thousand years of doctrine, despite claiming to be believers because the teaching just isn’t what they want. It makes them feel unpopular with the people they hang out with at cocktail parties.
Tell me about it. Try teaching in an RC school system when your own RC views have changed substantially since you were a kid. And the kicker? Most of the kids I teach see the world much the same as I do. We are moderate religious people by necessity and try to steer clear of those who put the fun in fundamentalism.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t object to moderation in religion. I only object to it when it’s presented as being true to that religion. As I said earlier in the thread, Jews have a pretty honest relationship with their faith: there are Jews who practice the Law, and Jews who do not. There are no Jews who do not practice the law and call themselves pious Jews. Any pork-eating, Sabbath-working Jew will freely admit he’s a bad Jew. Trying to have it both ways is primarily a Christian pathology. If Catholics, especially Catholics, would just admit that they are in rebellion, it’s just too hard to live up to the expectations of their faith, then that would be fine. Instead, they actively campaign for the faith to change to fit their views of what it should be. They want their morals to be endorsed by the Church.
All religions change in many ways and the external and internal pressures for those changes are many and varied. Your blithe condemnation of the motivations of those who seek changes seem particularly uninformed.
Your desire to condemn the actions of some modern Catholics is silly unless you can demonstrate a similar condemnation of Pope Paul III who introduced the change of condemning slavery even of unbaptized persons, (or the several popes who followed him who reversed each other, first condemning and then tolerating the practice), or Augustine of Hippo whose explication of Original Sin was a change, or even of Paul of Tarsus who agitated for a change to the very definition of who was Christian.
Your post made it sound as though there was some great movement among “moderate” Catholics to simply overturn the rules in the church. Your current claim points to a small number of small groups who are hardly representative of “moderate” Catholics.
There have always been members of the church that wanted it to change to support their beliefs. The group Paul called the Judaizers wanted to reverse changes in the 50s. Today, the Blue Army, the Pius X groups, and the sedevacantists are doing the same thing, pretending that the Council of Trent was conducted in 34 C.E. and that things like a Latin liturgy was ordained by God. Throwing the word “moderate” around the way that some people hurl the word “liberal” as an insult simply indicates what banner you would choose to march under without actually making a serious point.
= = =
Married popes and priests have been scandalous in some periods and normal in others. Celibacy is a discipline of the church that can be and has been modified by the church and no one with the faintest awareness of history pretends that it is established by God.
The solution is to throw away the notion of “sin” and replace it (to the degree useful) with the more secular notion of “crime.” We can define crime, just to begin with, and we have processes to determine it to the necessary degree of proof.
“Sin” is a childish notion, and, worse, isn’t even agreed upon by members of the same religion.
Judge people by what they actually do, not by some imagined property of their soul.
Dude, you realize there are many (many) different Jewish sects with different interpretations of the law and different practices? There are plenty of devout Jews who do not consider themselves strictly bound by dietary laws. I guess by your criteria they’re not “really” Jews? Or are they just blatantly disregarding their scripture? Or maybe, just maybe, there is room for legitimate debate about how the scriptural law should be applied today.
This is not unique to Christianity, and frankly, by saying it is, you reveal yourself to be pretty ignorant of a lot of other religions.
I am a Jew and well aware of the different congregations. While Reform Jews do not follow the Law in most cases, you won’t find any saying that this is the way it should be. It’s more a recognition that you can’t get a lot of Jews into the synagogues with the traditionalist approach. There is no one within Reform Judaism demanding that orthodox rabbis endorse their pork consumption.
Sure, if Christians want to live a lifestyle just like everyone else, that’s fine, but recognize that it is a more liberal church than the mainline version and don’t demand that the more traditional authorities endorse you.