You said you can’t locate any.
but they are very common.
You decide your own narrative.
If I say there are streetlights and you deny they exist and I point it out that they do exist but you are choosing not to recognize them - that’s not a description of Critical Theory Method.
But again, congratulations on diverting attention from coming to terms within yourself of your own understanding of your own beliefs and putting attention onto finding a fault with an external person.
I’m not blind to these - but to me they are cut from the same cloth of extremism as door to door prosletysers. I’m not being selective. I can also ask such people questions. I saw an antivax demonstration near my house two the weekends ago (Jill Biden was visiting a HS near my home). I can easily ask the same people (who seemed to be a mix of both extremes of the spectrum) “Do you literally believe that there is tracking technology in the vaccines?” or pick any other group with some kind of literal mythic concept. Illuminati, whatever. Greenpeace. Sure.
Again - who is building their world view about street corner Unicorns? Unicorns are considerably rarer than documented 3 in 20. Time and again - you are using hyperbole to divert away from the topic. The point you were making is that you can’t see them therefore they do not exist. When I point out they are common you swing to the hyperbolic extreme of people are making that the center of their universe.
Man, this really does seem to be a common thing with you.
Do you see it?
Thank you for finally admitting they do actually exist and are fairly common (3 out of 20 Christians in the US). This isn’t the basis of a world view about unicorns, just a statement of facts.
Now - back to the topic.
Questions:
“Where will you be more likely to find this 15%. In an organized religion or outside of organized religion?” (I would guess A)
“What percentage of Christians participate in organized religion?” (I would guess very low)
“If you are in an organized religion, what percentage of that group would be Mythic Literal?” (I would guess a very high percent)
So what I am saying is:
That 15% percent is disproportionately represented in organized Christian Churches. While in the general Christian population on the street they may be 15% literal mythic, when you actually go into Church this percentage will just be higher. I doubt if Literal Mythic are LESS likely to go to Church and participate in organized religion. If you don’t want to recognize it, that’s your choice. It’s just taking your own number and using a bit of logical reasoning - not Critical Theory Method or anything else.
You mean like searching for, finding and posting what seemed to be the best survey available on these “Mythic Literal” Christians. The 3 of 20 that even as a practicing Christian I don’t run into, yet are highly representative of Christianity as a whole? Is this what you would call a Strawman argument?
It’s interesting. I think that religion tries to describe the indescribable. So your statement: “But how to talk about a topic if both parties aren’t clear in themselves what they actually believe? If either or both are unaware or unwilling to actually state to themselves what they believe.” illustrates the conundrum.
For me as a Christian, God as “fully human/fully man” and “sinless” makes perfect sense, but not in a “words-explained” way.
For instance, drinking alchohol in some sects is certainly a “sin,” but Jesus clearly had no problem with wine…and we (even the teetotalers) choose to believe that Jesus was “sinless.”
As a person who experiences the infinite-intimate-inner 3-person (3 perspectives of relation), the Christian representation of the “Holy Trinity” “three in one” God/God/God, who/it is both imminent and eminant and and of this 3-1/1-3 perspective, fits, but at a level of explanation that is “beyond thought, beyond words” (Father Keating). Still, it seems truer than true.
PS - Jesus is quoted as saying “God is spirit.” St Paul “God in whom we live and breathe.” Indicates that likely God as a physical entity as WE humans would describe is likely inaccurate or at least inadequate.
Let me break it down in math:
65% of the population describes themselves as Christian (as opposed to 85% in 1990)
15% of the 65% Christian population is Literal Mythic (your number)
So, in the general population only 9% of the population is Literal Mythic.
BUT
Only 47% of Americans go to church. It’s reasonable to assume that all the Literal Mythic go to Church.
So if you go to church suddenly the number shoots up to almost 50% of the Churchgoing population is Literal Mythic. But that depends on the church. You gave the example of Unitarian Church, which has some Literal Mythic beliefs in regards to Mysticism but does not believe in the absolute literal truth of every word in the Bible. In the Unitarian type Churches people will be more in categories 2, 3, and 4 of Scott Laden’s chart, while lets say Southern Baptists will have a much larger percentage of the population in category 1. So just using basic math when you say you go to Church and don’t know anyone who has literal Mythic beliefs … Unless you go to the Unitarian Church or similar “New Age” church full of liberals, what you are saying just doesn’t add up mathematically. I don’t think you go to the Unitarian Church, though because in my experience they are friendly to polyamory and other very liberal concepts.
But rather than just accept this as a kind of fact based somewhat in statistics, math and logical reasoning - you go all over the place in hyperbole and ad hominem rather than just accept that actually - yes, if you go to a traditional church anywhere up to 50% of the active churchgoers will have literal mythic beliefs.
I don’t know why you are struggling with this data. It’s only data and it’s up to you to determine what it means for yourself. For myself I have chose that traditional Church and traditional (conservative) Christianity isn’t a good place for my own spiritual growth. My decision about myself isn’t a conclusion about you.
You find what is most productive for your spiritual journey. I’ll give you a hint though - it probably isn’t to be found in trying to find fault with liberals and hoping against hope that they fail.
Yes, I completely agree.
My analogy is a flea on the back of a dog probably understands more about the price of a latte at Starbucks than we do about the Universe or an infinite God.
In my view each person and religion is only able to grasp a single thread in a large tapestry at a single moment. Even grasping two or three threads at one time is considered genius or “enlightened”.
I appreciate discussing religious texts as I would any other great work of literature. What’s the surface meaning? What’s the deeper meaning? What’s the author’s motivations and prejudices. Unfortunately that third level of literary analysis is impossible to discuss with people who believe God wrote it and it is 100% infallible.
In general I don’t really care what other people believe and which threads of the tapestry they cling to. Until they try to burn down the rest of the tapestry.
When I do run into Christians who are able to discuss beliefs openly, my main question regarding Christianity is regarding the “feminine”. Call it whatever - yin, chaos, shadow, death, dark matter, void, famine, plagues and so on. In my 1970’s Christian education much of this was placed in the “evil / Satan” compartment. So for me personally I have to go to other systems of belief to reconcile these things aka “Integrate”.
Another interesting stat I heard from David A. French is that 65% of “Evangelical Christians” in the USA attend church less than 1X per month. In his words, “their highest allegiance and passions are for a political party…not following Jesus Christ.”
“Thus, the word “Evangelical” became primarily a political category, obscuring the historical meaning of the term and eradicating a distinction that is still deeply salient within American Christianity—the cultural, theological, and political difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism.” _ Davie A French
I have some fun memories of Evangelical Churches. “Christian Rock” concerts, for example when I was in my early 20’s and other young adult events. Lots of singing at church and people losing themselves in the moment. “feeling the spirit of the Lord”.
I’m not sure how much they think about Theology and if the Bible is literally true in every respect or not. Interesting that the subject never came up. They just praised Jesus mostly.
How concisely and comprehensively summed. Thanks @Scott_Layden . When I was a younger man, mind full of pseudo-rationality I too tried to explain, away mostly, faith in rational terms.
At some point, I realized that perhaps it’s better to look at “what works well” in the real world rather that spin fairy castles on how the world “should be”.
Yes thanks. After much introspection, I think I’ve got it. Your Integral-ness depends…
Integral Christian - it depends on the internal states
Integral Conservative - it depends on the internal states
Integral Monogamous - it depends on the internal states
Integral Heterosexual - it depends on the internal states
I think this reduces to the Pre-Rational / Trans Rational (in this case) Fallacy that KW has spent time on. Pre Rational looks very much the same as Trans Rational, so therefore it’s safest to paint anyone and everyone with any possible “Pre” indicators - wears a crucifix, goes to Church, doesn’t support Leftist Ideologies - as a Pre Rational, Mythic Literal (in the case of Christianity) by default. If and only if they can stand tall and calm to a rigorous inquisitive assessment with those highly adept in the Dialectic / Critical Theory Method, can they possibly be worthy of a Trans Rational integral designation.
And what I was hoping to have, @raybennett, was a discussion on Integral Conservatism or Integral Christianity or Integral Heterosexuality or Integral in order for perhaps the Integral Community to warmly and openly “Include” the massive swaths of “those people” that are viewed as holding everyone back from “Transformation into an Integral Noosphere”.
It’s fun how you always put this kind of thing in almost every one of your posts. lol
I’d challenge you to state anyone specifically who holds this view.
Who specifically are you referring to who holds the view that anyone is holding anyone else back?
As happens in these kinds of threads, we are using bigger and more obscure lattice-related words (me, too) our discussion is becoming about them and spin rather than discussing facts.
To not be blowhards who love to hear ourselves talk, we need to continually recommit (akin to mindfulness when our mind wanders) to as objective as possible definition of terms, not inference by contemporary spin or snide association.
I believe that the most important term to define here is “what kind of conservative” are you talking about?
If one is being “conservative” as in the ways of Jesus, then one is radically liberal, giving, humble, socialist (as in sharing, not as in recent spin) and socially conscious. One lifts up others, is self sacrificing, and cares about widows, orphans and refugees, and also about the gospel and teaching and worship (Mary’s permitted pouring of oil over Jesus’s feet).
But, if one is to be “conservative” as in “evangelical Christian” in the current USA, then one doesn’t regularly attend church, loves tax breaks for the rich, doesn’t tithe (less than 4% of all Christians tithe), gets divorced more than non-Christians, loves guns over all else, believes Hannity more than the Bible, and believes that if you are a good Christian, God will make you a billionaire, you can have sex with porn stars while your wife tolerates it and you can ignore science, 600k + Americans can die and the economy can be trashed and you still worship Donald Trump.
The term Conservative ha also experienced a very recent dramatic change in meaning.
For me it makes most sense to use decades to prefix the word Conservative. There is the 1990’s Conservative, the 1970’s conservative and the 1950’s conservative. Now we are seeing a new 2020’s conservative.
The 1950’s conservative led directly to the 1970’s and the 1990’s conservative theories, but what we are seeing in the 2020’s Conservative is a jarring break. It’s rare to hear conservatives talk about what they believe in in 2020 except in very vague patriotic and religious terms. It’s more common to know what 2020’s conservatives are against - but it’s a moving target so they are often against one thing one day then for it the next day (for example deficit spending) or vice versa.
It’s been a little bit of whiplash on the deficit spending. I live in TN, where Marsha Blackburn was all fan-girl for Trump with his $6 trill deficit fueled by tax cuts rather that infrastructure, but now she’s all over Fox saying Dems are “leveraging” the future.
As a quick rewind, my intention initially was to distinguish Political (conservative), Sexual orientation (heterosexual), religious (Christian), and now Integral (focus here on IL).
We have found ourselves in a classic Mayhem Mashup with each of us collapsing and unfoldung and recollapsing and reunfolding the discussions. I really appreciate everyones thoughts inputs here.
What im coming away from in the dialogs are:
politicially conservative is almost impossuble to also be integral. At least not a soul, other than @excecutive and myself are even willing to consider the idea here on IL.
religion - if its a mainstream Christian religion, then its almost impossuble to be integral. There possubly could be some good ones, but that would require excruciating application of Critical Theory testing extreme boundary conditions in order to determine internal states and understand if ‘they’ are pre or post rational, pre or trans mythic, etc…
heterosexual diesnt seem to be a topic much
integral - while the community might look, sound taste, smell and feel like just another Religion, it is in fact comprised almost entirely of post rational, post almost everything people, groups and organizations that are being next level.