However, because religious texts are necessarily written in mythical/poetic form (they must express ideas that are larger than the words they have to use, and so much draw from analogies and metaphors), they are left open to interpretation. When Jesus says, "the only way to the Father is through me," a strict interpretation becomes quite possible. It is what it is. And yet, the same Gospels cry out for interpretation beyond what they appear to say. Did Christ really expect us to leave everything and live like the sparrow, on faith alone? Did he also expect us to "despise our parents" and family and friends and wander alone and apart? That is, while strict fundamentalists have no problem following the first, that Christ is the only way, they also have no problem NOT following the second set of principles. And yet, if the Bible is to be read strictly, mustn't we conform to it just as strictly? If not, then it is WE who are picking and choosing, and we would be falling into the same category as those theologians who favor the looser interpretations.
And so I feel justified in questioning the meaning intended for the audience of any religious dogma - and feel justified in seeing it ALL as a symbol of something far greater than what we are used to. If I look to my own religion, R. Catholicism, it is now believed that all True Religions (we will not go back into a definition of them here, but for the most part, we may simply say they are those that have a large or steady following and a long pedigree) are justifiable paths to God. This is not New Age soft stuff, but from the very Church despised by many who consider themselves to be progressives. One might also note that this attitude was not always the case - which is an admittance (that the Church has always maintained) that God intends us to grow and reform certain views along with that growth. I should also add that, on the other hand, the Vatican also holds that Catholicism is the BEST way to find God - an attitude one should expect from any religion.
On the New Age, although it is often sloppy, sentimental and too feel-good, I do not think it is a foolish thing, but rather a movement to find a True Religion that suits a rapidly changing world. As far as I know, it began in the 1960's, fueled in part by an increasing awareness of Eastern religions and the use of psychedelic drugs. The Seth book, which I have just read, might well be called the Mother of the New Age, for it contains nearly all its offshoots and puts them into a coherent whole. As I have said before, it is a much better book than I had imagined, and an inspired work if nothing else. And yet - as usual with New Age ideas, it does not consider the full human condition as it is experienced on this Earth from our understanding. My last essay, "Nightmares," delves into this human condition - for, just as we might all be eternal and beautiful in the full scheme of things, so we also suffer horribly in this segment of reality. The True Religions recognize this - look at the words used in the famous song, "Turn, Turn, Turn," by Pete Seager, taken from Ecclesiastes. To everything there is a season - a time to hate, a time to love - a time for peace, a time for war - a time to rejoice, a time to mourn. None of these are forgotten or passed over as "mere" emotions. In Christianity in particular, suffering is front and center, and intended (in part) to comfort the sufferer with its inevitability as well as its eventual negation, or the triumph, in the end, of joy over pain and sorrow. But suffering here is never epiphenomenal; it is front and center and for real. And so, if we do indeed need a more relevant body of religious wisdom to connect us with eternal reality, it must face these, the toughest parts of life. Saying that we can "think" or "intend" them away is no answer. FK