Greatest I am
Active Member
Was seeking God more pleasant before literalism?
We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.
As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.
In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.
Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God’s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.
It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.
Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?
Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?
Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?
Regards
DL
We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.
As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.
In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.
Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God’s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.
It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.
Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?
Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?
Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?
Regards
DL
