I love coming back to my hometown. I love and respect SO many people here, and associate so much of who I am with the values and ideas I picked up while I was living here in Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania. I’ve been back in Bryn Athyn for a week or so, having travelled from San Diego, CA. It’s been interesting, to say the least, as every time I come home, I’m confronted by hundreds of realizations about my former faith and community that absolutely shake me to my core.
For example, I attended the 7:30pm Christmas Eve service at the Bryn Athyn Cathedral this week. It was quite an experience for me. First, I overheard some folks ignorantly gossiping about my ‘EvolveFish” car magnet, which is predictable in a small church town, but still disheartening. Shortly after I entered the main hall, a recitation was read, and I realized that along with probably a hundred other passages, I still knew all of Luke 2: 8-14 by heart. Then I started to analyze the words in the hymns, the commentary given by the minister… pretty soon my mind was racing.
Most depressing of all was the Christmas Story handout, which not only stated that every word in the story has a meaning, but that “Every detail of the story IS TRUE.” (my caps)
If that’s not dogmatic, I don’t know what is.
So, now the ‘rational’ religion (which the NC so boldly calls itself) is claiming that every detail, from the virgin birth, to the angels appearing over and over, to the 3 wise men/kings, to the census, to the slaughter of the innocents, etc… every detail. TRUE.
Kids. If you’re reading this, please ask for proof. Parents, if you’re reading this, demand it. In the likely absence of some form of historical or medical proof, accept nothing less than an admission of (at LEAST) partial ignorance on the topic, or an admission of subjective, personal faith on the topic that serves as a catalyst allowing the leaders of the church to be so dogmatic at such a crucial and public time. If you’d like to do some reading on the subject of doubting the Christmas story (or anything in the gospels), I’d suggest reading The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert M. Price.
Demand honesty, folks! The intellectual integrity of your educational system is most definitely at stake.
The evidence supporting this bold truth claim is SO inconclusive (to put it nicely), that it would do all Jesus-based religions well to simply admit that they don’t really know if Jesus was born of a virgin (like so many other supposed “Gods” were in that day). If it’s what you ‘believe on faith’, then SAY THAT, and say it OFTEN! Don’t allow your personal faith to corrupt your intellectual integrity as an educator, because it makes you less trustworthy, and gives the children you’re trying to convince good reason to doubt you as a source of the information you seem to think you represent. If you think you represent the truth, allow your truth to compete for it’s place at the top of the heap by admitting what you do/don’t/can/can’t KNOW.
Last thought. As I was sitting in the Cathedral and listening to the sermon, the prayers, the hymns and the readings, I looked around at all the children in the audience and I was struck by the most profound sense (subjective) that intellectual freedom and educational integrity are NOT priority #1 in the New Church. It wasn’t so much what was being said by the minister (mostly niceties), but by remembering the process of being a child and growing up watching the adults reciting, memorizing, singing and praying words of adoration to THE God, without so much as an utterance of doubt during the church service, or the use of the words ‘I don’t know’ during church. It’s embarrassing and it was quite depressing to think of all the mis-information going on in the lives of the hundreds of kids in my hometown that are being educated about the nature of the universe in a dogmatic way, on top of experiencing this very convincing form of education through ritual.
It may seem like a small thing, like I’m nit-picking maybe? I can see how you might think this. However, I’m still calling to all parents, educators & kids, and saying (in the words of Todd Snider) “brothers and sisters, I’m only one guy, but I can tell you right now without batting an eye”, that your process for passing the truth to the next generation is far more flawed that you like to imagine. I beg you to fix it, or the people who are unwilling to bend the truth will win the minds of your next generations. And deservedly so. I’ll consider it a huge step if you’ll just edit your handout more thoroughly next year.
Peace,
Ben
December 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
Your observations upon returning to your small home town are fairly common. I talk to people each month who are surprised to see how different all those normal routines appear after a year or two in the “real world”. Pity the person who never gets outside of the that “village” and never gets a chance to see it through the world.
That’s one of the reasons why “small towns” have such a negative effect on our national culture. It’s so easy to hate the “other guy” when everyone you know agrees that he or she should be hated. A few years in a city and you realize that there are lots of different viewpoints in the world and that most of them deserve respect.
I was really glad to read that you left your pro-science emblem on your car. To the young mind struggling to figure out what’s really going on outside the small town, than emblem could be like a life-raft on stormy sea.
Gary
December 29, 2008 at 6:52 pm |
Love the Price book. Great recommendation.
December 30, 2008 at 8:20 am |
I was there too. At an earlier service. And I noticed the “True” comment as well.
As I was reading your commentary on it just now, it occurred to me that there is absolutely no incentive for them (the priestgood) to allow doubt into the conversation. First and foremost, they do not want to acknowledge the doubt that may or may not exist for them. By acknowledging it, they shine a light on it, and shining a light on it demonstrates that doubt is more material and substantive than belief.
Most believers are unwilling to face that.
And for those whose job it is to minister in the religion, it would be downright crippling.
The fact is, Ben, neither you nor I would make a very good priest because we would be unable and unwilling to sell the message. Which is, afterall, the crux of their job — to sell the message. If they allowed for doubt, they wouldn’t be doing their job very well. Likewise, a priest would probably not do a good job of presenting doubt and non-belief as a viable option, as they would not want to accept that in their heart of hearts.
I guess I am unseure of what the reasonable and “correct” path should be, but I would prefer a situation in which priests can continue to proseletyze, but in which alternative points of view are also available and discussed. In which non-belief is not presented as “evil” but instead as a viable alternative. For that to happen, the onus will have to fall on us.
So keep up the good work. (Interpret the word ‘good’ however you like).
December 30, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
While I’ve never attended church regularly during my lifetime, I have gone several times – once each sat., I believe it was, with a girlfriend of mine for a few months. The other times were when I went to a friend’s wedding and while I was there I went with them and sat through their sermons and things. I wrote about my experience if anyone is interested:
http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2007/09/my-recent-and-short-vacation.html
It was a very interesting and eye opening experience to say the least. I got to sit through their attempts at tearing down each individual in order to make them feel they need ’saving.’ I think I even tripped up the pastor with my response because he seemed to be shocked by what I said.
Also agree very much with Posolxstvo’s comments.
Ben,
I just remembered about the book review I had emailed you for the guest post a few months ago. Did you ever get it? Just curious. Thanks! : )
December 31, 2008 at 11:44 pm |
Hey Ben,
I too have some issues with truth telling in the faith we grew up in. I wanted to be a minister but didn’t feel good about saying I knew things for certain that I didn’t. I still believe that god is love and am grateful for philosophical training from birth about the will and understanding. I’m not sure how to pass on the parts of that experience that I still value to my kids without lying or feeling that I’m lying. I’d love to write a guest post about a piece of philosophy I want to float about how people of all faiths or lack there of can have a conversation and can be real but not be judged or judgmental. – Pants with zippers to you and yours,
Jeremy
January 1, 2009 at 10:39 am |
Jeremy, a guest post would be great! Let me know when you want to publish it, thanks!
Ben
January 4, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
curious about something Ben, did you sent this post to any of your teachers…or ministers in BA ? it would be interesting to hear their responses to you…would it not?
going back is always an interesting expereince for me as well
many a time I have been known to be shaking my head in a service looking around at all the people and wondering just how all these people I know can listen and not question…how do they do that each week???
usually I will go ask the minister about what he has said…or once I have had the minister comment to me afterwards…I saw you shaking your head…what is your question??…and so I said what I was thinking /questioning… I got a pat answer…and a number to read…
one time a woman at the service got up and said, , ..”everytime I have a problem, I reach for the WORD and open it and it is always just the right place with just the right answer!!! we are so lucky to have our religion and so many people here that support us in our efforts to live our lives from our beliefs…” !!! I was stunned.
I rarely go to regular services anymore…I will go to a funeral or wedding in support of friends and family members…but regular services…not much anymore.
I think some people just want /need to believe…
January 4, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
Gwen. You are right. Some people do just need to believe.
I have heard that line about the word being the place with all the answers. And all I could think was “I must be opening it wrong, cause all it does is raise more questions for me…”
Oh well.
January 4, 2009 at 8:16 pm |
Hi everyone,
Happy new year! I plan on picking up the Price book tomorrow at the Yale Div. school, and I hope to try to respond to it. However, I’m a scientist not a historian.
Personally, being as unbiased as I can, I can say that as far as I am aware, 95% of the New Testament supported by numerous archeological and extrabiblical historical sources. [Again, my background is that I was not raised as a Christian, a non-Christian course on the Origins of the NT at Princeton, and had a skeptical view of Jesus until I became a Christian in graduate school]. There is certainly 5% that is still puzzle to me. But every time I have looked more carefully into the gaps in my knowledge, I have found answers. If people have specific questions about the historicity of the bible, I’ll try to answer them to the best of my ability.
In the meantime, I found a great site that answers a lot of historical questions about the Bible.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
Check it out if you get a chance. (One caveat is that I haven’t been through the whole site. The owner seems pretty thorough in that he provides a lot of references, but I can’t vouch for absolutely everything he says because I haven’t read it all).
-Neil
January 5, 2009 at 10:35 am |
Hi Ben,
The absolutist sentiments which have been spewing from the pulpits each week are doing more damage to what the church thinks is constructive than I think they realize. I saw a headline in a newchurch paper a couple months ago associated with the campaigns to “reach a million people” and all that jazz. I’m paraphrasing here but it read “Can the New Church get out of its own way to reach those people.” This surprised me since I couldn’t imagine the magizine staff comprehending this question, alteast not in the way someone with indipentant tendencies would.
As far as that question goes I don’t think they can get out or their own way. An organized religion serves to indoctrinate and assimilate and create a large body of like minded people which follow on faith.
So many people are now finding thier OWN way to spiritual enlightenment which is awesome. I think the “NEW church” is old enough to be incapable of doing away with its dogma for the sake of truly being a positive force in education, learning and the spiritual future of individuals. Maybe someday an open minded approach will rise out of the ashes of one of these faith corperations.
January 5, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
i have often wondered if someone could formulate a system that would “debrief” people of “the new church” when they want to be…the teaching all day everyday goes in deeply and I am always amazed at how much I learned …ie like the recitations that are STILL with me….I have heard that people from cults can be debriefed…I wonder how it would work to debrief a ncperson…one that wanted to be. I agree POS…everytime I have opened the word in the past…I am filled with more questions…and alot of concern….for those just accepting…
January 5, 2009 at 7:01 pm |
Marco — following up on your comments, I think the question is not so much can the new church get out of its own way, but can the general church get out of the way. My exposure is primarily to the general church, and so I choose not to speak authoritatively on the other branches of the new church, but it seems to me that the general church is merely an outgrowth of a select group’s very conservative interpretation of the writings of swedenborg that swedenborg may not have ever intended. Other branches, I am told, have a less rigid and dogmatic view. If that is the case, than I think that the new church can get out of its own way.
I have never doubted that there is value and insight in what is taught in some of the writings, but I have always resented being forced to accept it all, head to tail, as absolute truth. And being looked at askance when I was unable to hide the fact that I was choking as I swallowed. It’s a bit like sushi. I like rice. And I like wasabi. And avacado. But the fish — never developed a taste for it. That shouldn’t be the basis of a value judgment of me as a person….
January 11, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
About the General Church: The General Church will always be more “rigid and dogmatic” because it has an episcopal polity – its authority is vested in a hierarchical structure of ministers. This government leads to a conservative church.
About Cathedral Sermons: I don’t think they are all necessarily brain-washing, but rather teaching what the bible or Swedenborg says. I feel like I commonly hear “The bible teaches us that…” or “Swedenborg writes that…”. Aren’t these phrases an acknowledgment that this is one perspective of the truth?
I agree there are some fuzzy lines between truth and opinion that could be delineated but nonetheless I don’t think its very problematic. Its the values in the General Church that I think are important. So why not get rid of the dogma? I don’t think you can – the dogma is the story behind the values. The values are entrenched within the dogma.
Besides is it really brainwashing to teach a child what a book says? Jesus clearly existed and revolutionized the religious world and the bible tells his story. Swedenborg claims to have the sequel to the story. I feel I always understood that these were perspectives subject to fallibility. Furthermore I feel efforts are made within the community not to force rituals and dogma upon practitioners of the religion. It was a common phrase that it is proper to doubt and question your faith. I would never generalize my NC experience as brainwashing although I can with some specific instances.
As someone who believes in the pursuit of spirituality I think religions are a viable source of inquiry. What seems more insane to me is the dogmatic claim that we live in a world of monism – that is a world of only matter and chance. I think people need to be open minded which means both more scrutiny on dogmas but also more credibility to spirituality.
January 13, 2009 at 9:23 pm |
As for being born and bred in the Bryn Athyn briar patch, I can tell you that moving away as an adult gave me the perspective I needed, and was able to intuit by age 18, that the General Church was a business, and that Swedenborg was just a man who saw things. That said, learning how to conduct my life like a business was something the teachers from first grade onward could have done a better job of. As a person who loves science and logic and pattern (we all aspire to this) my talents were left largely untapped while valuable time was used to present dogma. An excellent teacher knows how to reach the students he/she teaches, and this happens in every school – more experts end up teaching than real teachers. It’s not enough to know the religion, the teacher must captivate his audience through metaphor and storytelling and motivate his student to question anything and everything. We had a few good ones, mostly not good, however. I chose to move back after 23 years in a big city to raise my children in Bryn Athyn. I sincerely hope I made the right choice. And let me just add one point here, I am very careful who I make friends with now. I know myself well enough now so as to jump in when I like and retreat quickly when I don’t like. Going to church regularly has been shown to lead to a longer life. It’s a good thing to do. I cannot speak to the “literalness” of what you heard, as I was not there. But we used to all be taught that much of the word was allegory, not actual. Has that changed? If so, I’m with you in your questioning.
January 20, 2009 at 10:29 pm |
Ben, you stated a number of times that “we” and “parents” should “get the facts” and “demand honesty” and also mentioned that you were concerned about the children who were innocently absorbing all the information in the service as “truth”. Well, I am a parent and my children are more precious to me than anything. Furthermore what they learn inside our home, in our community, and in the world is of utmost importance to me, so much so that it has caused me to question everything I teach them. I would dare not send my children to a school, or take them to a church service where they would learn things that do not align with my beliefs. So I find it offensive when you call out to parents in your writings and caution us to make sure we know what our children are absorbing. Of course we know, and pay special attention not only to what is taught in church services, but also flashed across TV screens and on billboards and on the internet. But particularly having to do with church, I do believe what is taught in New Church services and happily pass it on to my children. I believe it not simply because I was brought up in the church and am following tradition, but because as an adult I have chosen to pick up the writings of Emmanuel Swedenborg to really learn what this religion is about. I also personally want to commend the Church for calling a fact a fact as a point of doctrine and not taking a stance that is less firm but “pleasing to all points of view”.
Not everything can be explained, if it could be then people would not be free. Religion being a sort of mystery to “rationality” forces each individual to turn inwards to find out what makes sense to them. This may not be any proof to you, but Swedenborg does write(in the first part of Arcana Coelestia volume I) that when trying to prove spiritual principles through logic one will most surely fail because although things on the natural and spiritual planes relate, the ways in which they relate do not always make logical sense. However if you work the other way around, and try to understand the natural world by first searching for spiritual insight, all will be revealed and will ultimately make sense. For some perhaps it is a rational process, but for me it is more of a feeling of peace that tells me I have figured out what I believe.
So yes, I think it important for people to make sure they know what they believe, and to know what their children are being exposed to, but instead of “demanding the facts” from the people that write the Christmas pamphlets, turn inward till you find some peace.
January 21, 2009 at 11:46 pm |
Ben I cant imagine yourself in a church for Christmas..! that must be like a sacrifice, as for myself I dont go to any church either my husband or children. We try to travel or do something different.
I remember when I was a little girl the tales and the “TRUE” at church for Christmas.
I really enjoy your writing, don’t stop doing it..
My kids are no longer little kids, but I give them a tour to all the churches available and told them that I didn’t know what is out there… but I know there is good energy, good information and bad information, and it was up to them to decide. As for me I dont believe in any religion, but that they are free to believe whatever they please, as far that doesn’t interrupt our peace and love in our hope.
Today (I dont know tomorrow) my kids respect all religions, and so far they dont belong to any.
Peace
Koco
Sorry about my grammar… is TERRIBLE I know… :/
January 22, 2009 at 9:06 am |
I love this discussion. I can resonate with the various points of view. Growing up in BA was a very complete experience. I have always loved religion and philosophy and was definately a “true believer” growing up. The schools, church, government, most of the people who live there all mostly believed in a literal understanding of the “writings” I remember very little discussion outside the context of the writings being the literal truth with a capital T. I’m not sure I can blame anyone for this but it has required me to “deprogram” myself a bit if I want to take an honest look at the truth. To me that is the heart of the issue, honesty. I feel like there were so many assumptions in the public dialog about the writings it was/is hard to get a fresh honest discusion about them.
I attended the other BA church for a while The Lord’s New Church. I didn’t even know it existed until I was a teenager. They have a more nuanced view of the writings as do the various convention churches. The convention churches I’ve attended have seemed much more open. The General Church in my mind has a very innocent childlike take on the writings. As I have grown older, I’ve had a hard time holding on to this interpretation. I no longer see the value in having an organization tell me what to think about the writings.
February 6, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
Hi Ben…
Venturing out with trepidation… I came for a look to see what Jeremy wrote, but was interested in this one, as assertions of “truth” get my attention, too, for (not entirely?) different reasons.
And let me stipulate to all of the ignorance that you’re demanding above… I believe in the Lord and the whole heaven-and-hell thing, but is it true? I have no idea… (Actually I do have an idea that it’s true, but let me explain why below.)
At any rate, I don’t feel any compunction to defend what was printed in the BA Church’s little leaflet, but thought I’d suggest a context that might make the “it’s true” statement a little less outrageous. And then a quick word on why I would say myself “it’s true” not just about the birth-of-Jesus story, but also the creation-in-seven-days story, too! (Read to the end! Please!)
Context: I would imagine the “it’s true” statement was put in there so as to avoid offending anyone with Biblical fundamentalist leanings who may have come to the service. (God forbid we offend them!) That’s a charge often leveled at the Swedenborgian perspective from that particular corner of the belief world, ie, we “spiritualize” everything in the Bible and thereby undermine its “truth”. So I would guess that that statement was put in the handout to let people know that we’re not rejecting the possibility that what’s described actually happened, even as we plumb the story for deeper meaning than “so there’s this Son of God who was born to bleed on a cross for six hours”. For what it’s worth…
Now… what is truth? I have a definition that’s probably different from yours. Facts, I would say, are whatever is provable by observation, ie, whatever can be discovered by the five senses. You and I might quibble about certain facts, but I imagine we wouldn’t find agreement on facts too hard. Truth, on the other hand, is a description of what’s good. That would be a lot harder for you and me to agree on, I suspect (though maybe not too hard in several areas). So if a story about a baby who was born to live a life that would provide redemption from evil for all human beings is a good story, then I say it’s true. If a story about a benevolent creator fashioning everything we see is a good story (especially since I think there’s a parallel meaning in there about each of us being “created” into something better and more human along the way), then I say it’s true. Is the creation story factual? Doesn’t seem to be to me… Is the baby story factual? There seems to be some evidence that at least parts of it are (the redemption bit would be a tricky case to argue though, not to mention the born-of-a-virgin bit) but on the whole I have no idea…
I still “believe” in it though, which means I recognize its truth, which means it tells me a story about something good. That’s another word I would define differently probably, “belief”. I don’t believe in science. I believe in God. The observations and predictions that science has made and does make are incredibly powerful and useful, but I still don’t “believe”, for instance, that an object with a given mass has a determinable amount of gravitational attraction. I fully expect that it -does- have it and I will act accordingly (I’m no fool… or at least not much of one) but I don’t “believe in” the attractive power of gravity. The only attractive force I “believe in” is Divine love. It’s a nice story, so I think it’s true.
But, of course, I could be wrong…
Best,
Kurt Hy. Asplundh (ordained New Church minister, and utterly content resident of Bryn Athyn, PA)
March 27, 2009 at 10:41 pm |
I understand that I am a little late in posting on this, but I read the post and the comments and felt compelled to say something. I am writing this particularly in response to Adam’s comment.
I completely agree with Adam on the point that it is not brainwashing to tell a child what a book says or what Swedenborg says. I think we all (Ben included) would agree on this point but I don’t think that is what’s to be drawn from this post. Saying all of the details of this story are true is very different than saying the Bible tells us that this is true. The former leaves no room for speculation while the latter leaves it up to the reader to decide, or at least look at it with their own degree of skepticism.
As for your experience that, “It was a common phrase that it is proper to doubt and question your faith.” I don’t know if you have had the pleasure of attending the BACES. I agree that in theory this is the case within the General Church but my reality was shockingly different. Many times throughout my time at BACS I was told that I was either being disrespectful or sacrilegious when my questions became too prying. I was once given detention because I over and over asked the question (when I didn’t get a reasonable answer) how do we know that we are the one true religion, when many other organized religions all say the same thing. I use the word KNOW because that is the way it was taught to me. I’ll finish by sharing my experience in sixth grade when I clearly remember the teacher beginning our comparative religions class by first writing on the board FALSE, and then listing the beliefs of other religions. When I pointed out that this was contradictory with the idea that we were supposed to be learning about other religions objectively I was pulled out into the hall and told that I needed to stop being disrespectful or I would be sent to the principal’s office. When I said I didn’t think that I was being in any way disrespectful I was sent to the principal’s office and was lectured about respect and told that I was being “passive aggressive.” I don’t see how this was in any way applicable to my situation.
Anyway…
My point is that I think it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth (this is, of course, only based on my own experience however) to say that in the church “efforts are made within the community not to force rituals and dogma upon practitioners of the religion” Furthermore I think, at least within the BACS that it is done in such a way that it turned me off of the religion completely. This is just my own experience, but I know many people for whom this is the case. For the school’s own interests even, this religious education seems counter-productive. I hope for the sake of many kids after me who attend this school that they never have to learn in an environment where skepticism is put in detention and doubt is sent to the principal’s office.
As usual keep up the good work Ben and thanks to everyone who commented before me.
August 6, 2009 at 4:49 am |
Nice comment Gray. Hmmm… still up to their old tricks down at the Indoctrination Center, huh? I personally had a severe allergic reaction to my early ‘training’ period. I think the school neglected to notice and/or fully study and apply that little ‘law of Providence’ against compulsion in the area of ‘things of religion’ (Divine Providence 129). Things would have been so much better if they had! Anyway, it wasn’t all on ‘them’ either – it was also partly hereditary don’t-tell-me-what-to-thinkism and partly the countercultural influence of the late 60s early 70s… Leary, Hendrix, Joplin, etc. etc. Tune in, turn on, and drop out and all that…. And, in spite of my early allergic reaction I feel that I have come full-circle and am now a die-hard “Interfaith Swedenborgian” who much prefers disorganized to organized religion. Take heart. Eventually, the old indoctrinators will end up at the local wrinkle ranch making room for new ones to come along with their version. Fortunately, the Lord is capable of working with everyone. Thanks for speaking your truth to power – so to speak.
April 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
Kurt, let me first say that I’m sorry I took so long to respond. Between moving from San Diego to Philly, and then Philly to Costa Rica, and getting settled down here, I’ve been quite busy, but I often have little pangs of guilt for not responding to your comments, and every time I open my internet up, I think “Oh man, I really need to write back to Kurt”. So hopefully you’ll still check this response out…
About context. I get that there are many reasons why the BA church would say something is true. But no matter which fundamentalist group is being pandered to, I think the definition of truth is what is at stake, and it seems irresponsible and Dangerous with a capital D to use the word truth lightly or inaccurately (or without defining truth on their own terms, in the footnotes).
The danger of losing out on a fundamentalist Christian that might have stopped by to see what’s going on at the Cathedral seems like it should be far less important than being COMPLETELY, intellectually honest. It seems like if the NC wants folks from other religions to realize we’re not ‘rejecting the possibility that what’s described in the bible actually happened’ then the leaflets should simply say that. Plain and simple. Saying that every detail is ‘true’ (without defining truth carefully) is a totally different ballgame. I think you probably agree with me here, but I felt the need to re-state that this is the real issue.
Now, as you say, facts are facts. I’m not so sure that truth is a different entity from facts, but I’ll go with your description for our discussion. Now, I LIKE the idea that truth may be a description of what is good, but that must be a circular (or at least subjective) definition. What is good to you, like you said, may not be what is good to me, right?
But if you see the stories of the bible as good, then they are true. But because the word ‘good’ is totally subjective depending on the person’s experience and worldview, then anything can be true. This, still, is fine by me. Everyone has their subjective experience and they are absolutely entitled to their definition of good.
My question is, why would something that is counter-factual be a more GOOD story? If people want the stories to be ‘good’ stories, and therefore true (for them), that’s fine, but I have a hard time understanding why ‘factual’ stories with the same ‘good’ value (in someone’s subjective experience) wouldn’t be seen as more ‘true’ (more descriptive of what is good). Isn’t ‘good’ something based (as much as possible) in reality/facts? Is there any reason why it would NOT be? Nice stories are nice stories, and if we can derive an interesting moral from them, all the better. But what then separates the bible from Moby Dick if all we’re looking for is a subjective description of our personal ‘good’?
You definitely define belief differently than I do, but that’s cool, too. It seems, though, that nice stories leading to a recognition of something you find ‘good’ doesn’t really leave much room for a religion, or doctrine, dogma, powerful childhood indoctrination, etc (all of which are found within the NC books and NC organizational/educational structure). Also, I think the more one questions the actual factual claims in a religion (of which there are many) and considers the implications of those claims being false, one begins to see the stories as not so nice. In fact, if you continually run into claims about reality that are illogical (the concept of a loving god along with the existence of hell) and historically inaccurate (creationism, slaughter of the innocents, etc), the stories become far from ‘nice’. They become destructive, because they actually lead children AWAY from interacting with the reality they are born into, in favor of a constructed (possibly imaginary) reality that is inseparable from concepts like sin, fear, Hell, judgement, guilt, etc.
One last thing. Are you really COMPLETELY content with BA, as is? I ask because I think there are probably tons of things about BA and the NC in general that you would change if you had the chance. I only say this from reading what you’ve written here… it just seems like your take/perspective is not quite the way information is presented in BA/NC. Maybe I’m way off.
Thanks for writing Kurt, and please don’t hesitate to write again. Maybe a guest post sometime? I thought it would be cool to get an NC minister to discuss the word ‘heresy’, or maybe just talk about the word ‘doubt’, as it applies to religious education. Let me know!
CCD,
Ben