If I could change one thing about religion...

[brewer]

...it would be a shift away from the idea that holy books are "the word of god" and towards the idea that they are "[ancient] man's interpretation of god".

The second I think is a much more sensible, rational, safer and accurate description. It also actually fits in with the current trend (which I'm very thankful for) of picking and choosing from the books. If this message was passed onto children, rather than the dogmatic idea that the text can't be questioned, I think things would be better for everyone. I wish people would be encouraged to interpret the texts themselves and to find their own meanings, rather than be told what it means.

Hey Rob.

If xtians shift to the second, "[ancient] man's interpretation of god", wouldn't many xtians see that as admitting that man made god? Man made stories about the fantasy. If they are man made then they could not be god made. I think most xtians would find this to be unacceptable. god said "this" therefore it must be absolute vs man said "this" therefore it's open to interpretation and may not be absolute.

Thoughts?

[robvalue]

I agree that fundamentalists would mostly never consider it for a second. I would hope to reach the more liberal minded.

I wasn't meaning to suggest man made God with this description (although obviously, I do think that's the case) but rather to concede, for the sake of argument, that primitive man really did "meet God". But then admitting the medium of text can never fully capture such an experience accurately, and that it's just being realistic to admit humans make occasional errors. It's also acknowledging the vast time gap, the difference in cultural references, the translations and reproductions that all leave us with something not exactly like the original document.

Does that make sense?

Some of the more thoughtful Christians on this forum seem to take this line of thought already. And, annoyingly, even literalists will appeal to "translation errors" and such when they want to do some mental gymnastics as to why God condones horrible things.

[brewer]

Yeah, I get it.

I've never met one who would admit that the entire book is/are only god inspired stories/tales/fables about god. Some they say aren't exact, others they say are exact. Maybe not in the wording but the action/event. To my way of thinking they can't have it both ways. Well, actually they can and do but I think that makes them less creditable, silly.

[robvalue]

Someone on the forum (I won't say who) thinks virtually the entire OT is metaphorical, yet the NT is literally true.

(Obviously there's a problem with the second bit due to contradictory accounts.)

Although this makes no sense to me, I like it as an approach. It's an inventive way of dismissing all links to the atrocious text. If this message was propagated, it would improve the religion in my opinion. Taking the NT literally is obviously a contradictory approach, but since it's the less harmful of the two, it's a good compromise.

[robvalue]

Someone I know thinks virtually the entire OT is metaphorical, yet the NT is literally true.

(Obviously there's a problem with the second bit due to contradictory accounts.)

Although this makes no sense to me, I like it as an approach. It's an inventive way of dismissing all links to the atrocious former text, rather than making up weak apologetics. If this message was propagated, it would improve the religion in my opinion. Then taking the NT literally is a very strange shift, but since it's the less harmful of the two, it's a good compromise. I suppose it's an admission of cognitive dissidence. "Don't like all that bit, it can't be part of the religion."

Good. I agree. Tell people it's not part of the religion. (Serving suggestion only). The oral myths are the religion.

[SteelCurtain]

Religion: the only medium where the most palatable version is the most intellectually dishonest.

[robvalue]

Indeed.

All this crap about "real Muslims" and "real Christians".

The only objective yardstick is to see how closely they follow the actual words in their books, at least among people who insist it is "the word of God". That makes moderates not true ones, and people like ISIS the nearest thing to true ones. Ignoring almost all the books have to say and behaving decently is the real radical approach. [Double NTS maybe? Haha!]