Allegorical feels like a strong cherry picking. Fundamentalism is badass, hardcore stuff.

(March 26, 2022 at 8:58 am)purplepurpose Wrote: Allegorical feels like a strong cherry picking. Fundamentalism is badass, hardcore stuff.

Weed versus acid?

There is nothing wrong with the concept of allegorical religion. We all have stories that define our place in the universe, our values, and our purpose.

The issue is "what do the stories say"? Accepting 2000 year-old stories to be true or meaningful may also mean discarding the stories of a modern liberal culture.

Are modern ideas always better? No - but for FSM's sake, come up with your own stories that combine the best of all that you read, experience and believe.

(March 26, 2022 at 10:17 am)HappySkeptic Wrote: There is nothing wrong with the concept of allegorical religion.  We all have stories that define our place in the universe, our values, and our purpose.

The issue is "what do the stories say"?  Accepting 2000 year-old stories to be true or meaningful may also mean discarding the stories of a modern liberal culture.  

Are modern ideas always better?  No - but for FSM's sake, come up with your own stories that combine the best of all that you read, experience and believe.

The stories that define our places in the universe, values, or purposes may almost appear to be a religion, but few would really call them religions unless there a fundamentalist advocacy for it.

For me the term allegorical religion is nonsensical because fundamentalism is what makes religion a religion.  

That is not to say all or most followers are dyed in the wool fundamentalists.    But the religion would Peter out if there is not a core of people attempting to impose fundamentalist interpretation and justification to keep the religion alive.    I would caveat that by saying the core of people attempting to impose fundamentalist interpretation and justification may not even be fundamentalist themselves in the literal sense, but “while I may not think the Bible is the literal truth, you must believe it is the literal truth or else I lose control, or else the world would go to shit, etc, etc”.

At work.

Skimming over the headings and misread the title of thiz one as "Are allergic reactions better than fundamentalism."

And I was really hard pressed as to which way to lean.

Glad the title makes more sense though.

Is there really a 'better'?

I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. It is theology 101 with respect to Scripture that it can satisfy on multiple levels. As with some maps, the edges of understanding are often labeled "here ther be monsters".

(March 26, 2022 at 3:54 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. It is theology 101 with respect to Scripture that it can satisfy on multiple levels. As with some maps, the edges of understanding are often labeled "here ther be monsters".

Well, case in point, there is no Scripture. Saint Irenaeus chose, out of dozen to two dozen different Gospels, four, because, in his view, the Earth was flat with four corners, and so, there just had to be four gospels. I suppose that such is the realm of theological studies.

(March 26, 2022 at 3:54 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. It is theology 101 with respect to Scripture that it can satisfy on multiple levels. As with some maps, the edges of understanding are often labeled "here ther be monsters".

that’s a little like saying a substance contains lethal poisons and a substance contains innocuous constituents are not mutually exclusive, and it can be taken up by the body at multiple levels.

indeed the substance contain lethal poison and less harmed up substance both.   The key is the substance would be unstable and would largely evaporate away before it can be drunk by too many people without the lethal poison acting as the stabilizing agent to preserve it to be drunk.

Its more like how sharing a drink can be both refreshment and celebration.