Agnostic yet I believe in Christ.

[grape_nephi]

Sounds like a bit of a conundrum doesn't it? How can one be an agnostic and yet still believe in Christ?

This posting was inspired by the following quote: "After that I went hog wild decorating for Christmas (even though I don’t believe in the Christ part of it)."

When I was TBM it was easy to believe in Christ. I looked at everything factually and historically and even considered the Book of Mormon historical. However when the floodgates of truth began to open I could no longer consider the "scriptures" and especially Mormon specific scripture to be factual. Where did this leave me? Initially I became more believing in Christianity as a factual entity. But at the same time the niggling thought came to me that if Mormonism was not "true" could Christianity also fall into the same category? I decided fairly quickly that it could and that I had to find out.

Over the past few years of study, I have determined that Christianity as well as Judaism is full of myth. And like all cultures religion must play some sort of role. But what is that role and how can I reconcile belief in myth?

Marcus Borg in his book <i>The Heart of Christianity</i> writes: "The third affirmation at the heart of Christianity is the utter centrality of Jesus. Jesus is the third merely in order of exposition, for Jesus is as important as the Bible and God. The significance of jesus, God and the Bible are all interwoven. We know about the God of Israel and the figure of Jesus primarily through the Bible. And we know about God -- about God's character and passion -- most deciselvely through Jesus."

For the Christian approaching or understanding God is through the person of Jesus and what the Bible says about him. This affirmation of God through a person is unique to Christianity and is not found in any other major world religions today. And doing this does not make Christianity superior to any other religion but it does make it different. But does this make Christianity the only route to God or does it simply make a route for a certain set of people? I believe tha latter.

Religion predates science and may be seen as a way of explaining or understanding life. Man as a sentient being has many question some revolving around those that religion may attempt to answer. And it takes faith or an ability to believe something that cannot be verified factually to understand the things of the "spirit". Which includes a belief in "Christ".

Two paradigms may be seen in Christianity today. Which includes Mormonism. The first paradigm revolves around a belief that the Bible and Jesus are actual factual entities. That what the Bibles says took place did in fact take place. The second paradigm approaches the Bible as being a metaphorical tool that may be used to help teach us not only how to behave but also how not to.

The first paradigm is used by many Mormons. They look at the Bible and the Book of Mormon as fact. Their "truth" lies in the fact that all evidence must show that the Book of Mormon is factually true and that the Bible is like unto it. What can a person do then that sees factual evidence to the contrary? i.e. no dna evidence or archaeological evidence etc for the Book of Mormon claims, or no evidence of the Exodus in the Bible? At this point apologetics must come into play and the person looking at the problem must play mind games to continue to believe.

A person using the second paradigm hass an easier time of it. They do not need factual evidence because they realize that many of the accounts are simply stories. Thay may look at the metaphoical aspect to gain insigght into what message the author was trying to put across. As an example let me use the wedding at Cana...

Everyone knows the miracle story of changing water into wine. But what can this story teach us? Throughout the Bible we see references to God being a bridegroom and Israel the bride. That the relationship between God and Israel is like a marriage partnership. Using thisa motif in looking at the wedding at Cana, we may see that Jesus as an example of a Bridegroom cares for the guests and makes sure that there is enough wine for the party. And not only that but he serves the best at the last indicating that he will continue to provide the best for his people. During the time of Jesus, many people were without. And at times poor wine had to be used to supplement the good. The story here is that God will provide. Of Goid as the lover and we humans as the beloved. It is not just a showing of a factual account of a miracle but a metaphical event that can show us a relationship between God and Man and a way of looking postively at the world.

If we use this second type of paradigm we may use the Bible as a teaching tool and treat it as true, and yet at the same time realize that it is not factual truth that we are referring to but metaphoical truth.

And so, even as an agnostic, I can believe in Christ. Just as I believe in Frodo, or the Old Man and the Sea. Frodo lives and so does Christ.

[peter_mary]

I heartily agree with the premise of your post, Grape, namely that there is power in positive stories when you use them to explore the complexities of the human experience rather than cling to them as historical fact that are the key to entering heaven. "Wisdom literature" is good stuff.

But for me, I choose not to get too wrapped up in the Jesus story, because I worry that it does more harm than good. Not directly, but by association. It's for much the same reason that I can't get to excited about Islam, either...it's guilty by association. If "by their fruits ye shall know them," then these mythical traditions seem to yield a pretty awfull harvest at times.

Now I understand that it's people interpreting the stories that is the biggest problem, but there's enough material in those stories for them to work with, resulting in some pretty nasty outcomes, that is sufficiently disturbing to keep me at arms length...or further. I no longer want to explore the complexities using "water into wine" myths...that's exploring the complexities from a third-person, "outside" perspective. I want to explore the complexities on a much more personal level. What's YOUR experience? What's mine? How do they differ? Why? What can we learn about life in general based on our mutual experiences? That sort of thing. I'm not sure just how useful broad, generalizable morality stories are anymore...

So for me, I can say, "Yeah, the Christ story has some interesting points," but I choose not to care about it much anymore. Sometimes FOX news makes some interesting points, too, but that doesn't mean I should watch it all the time! (Or at all!)

[helemon]

Using thisa motif in looking at the wedding at Cana, we may see that Jesus as an example of a Bridegroom cares for the guests and makes sure that there is enough wine for the party. And not only that but he serves the best at the last indicating that he will continue to provide the best for his people. During the time of Jesus, many people were without. And at times poor wine had to be used to supplement the good. The story here is that God will provide.

Except for the fact that Christ did this "miracle" grudgingly and only after the pleadings of his mother guilted him into it. Is this the model of divinity or husbandry we should emulate? We only bless our spouse or the less fortunate when we are harrassed and harangued to do so?

[grape_nephi]

Should one toot one's own horn? Was he grudgingly doing it or was it himm hanging back so as not to cause a problem. Many ways to look at these in a metaphorical notif.

As for the why bother question. I suppose it is to get people thinking. We have way too many fundies in the US. If a movement can start and continue that helps people look at Judeo-Christian scriptures in a different light it might help. So I choose to do that instead of ignoring the problems.