Is Allegorical Religion better than Fundamentalism?

[Anomalocaris]

the question isn’t whether the bible holds any truths. the question is was it crafted primarily to sell a lie, and it’s status perpetuated by those who find the lie useful for their own ends.

---

Really?   Can a religion not be shit and remain a religion?

I think it could. In principle. 

What if there was a religion that consisted of only a simple and truthful doctrine? Take your pick as to what that doctrine might be. Buddhism's Four Noble Truths... something like that... but with no doctrine of reincarnation.

I think that what makes religions problematic is that they are founded on falsehoods, engage in interpersonally destructive practices, and fail to question the truth of their own claims. On paper, it seems possible to remove these aspects from a given religion while still letting it retain something we might call religious in nature but yet not have the problems you listed above. Modern Quakerism (the liberal strains anyway) might come close to matching that ideal.

religion does not exist for any principle.  It exists to serve the worldly needs of those who can control the behavior of others with it.    When one asks what religion could do, the answer is really to be found in what it will likely do give whose ends it serves.

---

Really?   Can a religion not be shit and remain a religion?

I think it could. In principle. 

What if there was a religion that consisted of only a simple and truthful doctrine? Take your pick as to what that doctrine might be. Buddhism's Four Noble Truths... something like that... but with no doctrine of reincarnation.

I think that what makes religions problematic is that they are founded on falsehoods, engage in interpersonally destructive practices, and fail to question the truth of their own claims. On paper, it seems possible to remove these aspects from a given religion while still letting it retain something we might call religious in nature but yet not have the problems you listed above. Modern Quakerism (the liberal strains anyway) might come close to matching that ideal.

religion does not exist for any principle.  It exists to serve the worldly needs of those who can control the behavior of others with it.    When one asks what religion could do, the answer is really to be found in what it will likely do give whose ends it serves. 

how would the constructs that makes it a religion remain if it consisted of only a simple and truthful doctrine?

[The Grand Nudger]

The “basic message” of a religion is a bit of a moving target. It, put another way, sure the Bible or any other religious text can get its basic message right- but that won’t ensure that future people calling themselves Xian’s will still find whatever that message was satisfying.

Old Testament - New Testament.

[HappySkeptic]

Is it possible the bible holds many truths, but also fails in other areas without destroying the basic message? Many believe it should be read from a spiritual perspective and not a literal one.

Why would you "believe" the basic message if the bible can't be trusted?  The basic message, according to mainstream Christianity, is given in the creeds.  Jesus is God, Jesus died for your sins, and only through belief in Jesus do you get to heaven.  These are huge supernatural claims.

Now, if you choose to discard these creeds completely, and decide that the overall message is "be nice to others", you can find much better texts than the bible to support your views.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I wanted to derive " be nice to others" from an allegorical or spiritual reading of a thing...a lunch menu at a chinese buffet is enough raw material to work with. Others need more. In many cases, the social credit of traditional narratives (often supernatural ones) is a useful way to deliver a new message, even if a person must also then maintain that the new message has always been the same as the old message, right there in black and white.

The xenocidal wargod of an iron age ethnostate, for example, becomes moral arbiter before eventually sliding into the role of buddy jesus.

[Jehanne]

Is it possible the bible holds many truths, but also fails in other areas without destroying the basic message? Many believe it should be read from a spiritual perspective and not a literal one.

Why would you "believe" the basic message if the bible can't be trusted?  The basic message, according to mainstream Christianity, is given in the creeds.  Jesus is God, Jesus died for your sins, and only through belief in Jesus do you get to heaven.  These are huge supernatural claims.

Now, if you choose to discard these creeds completely, and decide that the overall message is "be nice to others", you can find much better texts than the bible to support your views.

The Jesus be nice & good message was motivated by his belief that the World was going to end soon during his lifetime, hence, giving away all of one's possessions didn't really matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus™ didn't hold any such belief. That belief's existence has been motivated by the fact that otherwise believing people felt that the old message failed to be inclusive and empathetic, and this change pleased them and non believing people.

[HappySkeptic]

Jesus™ didn't hold any such belief.  That belief's existence has been motivated by the fact that otherwise believing people felt that the old message failed to be inclusive and empathetic, and this change pleased them and non believing people.

Well, love God and love your neighbor was Hillel, so the idea might have been parroted by Jesus.

[The Grand Nudger]

Negatron, your neighbor might be the untermensch god demanded that you murder. The message of love and any notion of some brotherhood of man is certainly a reformers message, crammed into the mouth of a legendary man, or mythical god.

It was one of the main issues that had to be ironed out in proto christendom. Was christ....for the gentiles...? The jewish people, as you might notice, are still awaiting their messiah.

[Disagreeable]

A religion of absolutely everything you agree with, and nothing you don't.  

In fairness..the crop of garbage religions has been that religion for alot of people.

It seems to me, though, that the crux of a religion is religiousness or religiosity. Meaning that even if it was based around core beliefs that entirely made sense ... it would be believing in them for the wrong reasons—dogmatically. On faith, basically. Faith seems to be the core problem of religions.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd probably call that a component that would -not- be found in your idea of a religion of x.

Faith isn't a requirement of religiosity. The Most Faithful™ people need no faith, because they know (and/or are contended to have met) god in person, for example. Conversely, a religion of no gods may need no faith because it's premised on fact or a commitment to facts, instead.