The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Hi Bruce,
Following on from xSP's comments, can we say that MAN (no sex implied) created god is his/her image rather than the reverse. A quick example, as a kid a could not avoid being exposed to some bible stories including the Adam & Eve caper. I recall being appalled at the foul and evil god who punished them (and ultimately all humanity?) for eating the fruit of what tree??? The tree of violence? nope. The tree of ignorance? nope. The tree of oppression? nope. It was the tree of knowledge. My moral code was and still is that the acquisition  knowledge was a good thing. And now here's god forbidding it. So I disagree with god. (or is this another metaphor). And what was the original sin? The thing that Jesus allegedly died for and what we are all "guilty" of from birth? The original sin was disobedience, correct? And yet in my moral code disobedience of authority was a virtue and not a sin. So here am I just a little kid thinking that this god is a monster. In brief, I disagreed with god on a large number of moral issues. I also disagree at some point with every single person I've ever met: sometimes just one or two minor things (just enough to spice up a relationship) and with other people, more major. That is normal when we are speaking of two independent beings.

Hi Attila, please don't invade me. I'm just sitting here in my Roman fortress hoping that your Huns don't breach my defenses.  I don't see myself as disagreeing with God as much as disagreeing with people's interpretation of God. The Bible is essentially a human interpretatiojn of God. My primary basis for interpreting God comes from my own experience with the Holy Spirit.  That's what personal relationship is all about, and as you point out, we all disagree with everyone with whom we are intimately involved. That's how we grow.

My next question, Bruce, is the obvious one: on what points do you disagree with your god? To make this more concrete, consider the "christian"  reaction to homosexuality. Some christians claim that "god hates fags". Others claim that "god doesn't hate fags". Now let look at the personal opinions of each set of believers: I would predict that believers of the god of the former group also "hate fags" (their god agrees with them) whilst the members of the latter group "don't hate fags".  Notice I can be wrong -- this is not a faith-based statement but rather an empirical claim subject to falsification. So again, can you imagine the following scenario. Someone completely accepts homosexuality as quite natural and believes in a god that hates it. That person says, "I have nothing against gay people but the big guy thinks different so I gotta go with Him on this one." Does that strike you as plausible.

Again, I don't so much disagree with God as I disagree with others' interpretation of God. I don't think that the Hebrews in the wilderness got it all right. Jesus is more influential with me, and he never mentions gays. Paul gets into it a couple of times, but there is disagreement about what Paul was describing exactly. The overall teaching of Jesus is that we should love one another, and that he came to save men's lives, not destroy them. So, I try to love all people, and like Jesus said, I attempt to "judge not that I be not judged, and condemn not that I be not condemned."

[Attila]

Ultimately you will have to fall back on some authority of some sort, who in turn can't demonstrate to anybody outside their group that they are an authority, such as the Pope and the Vatican, or on what you personally (and subjectively) feel is right.

I respectfullyl disagree.  Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and Christians are not required to commit logical fallacies in their relationship with God.  There does not have to be a black and white answer to every issue, and different people may come to different conclusions. That does not mean that the whole thing is invalid.  As I indicated in the OP, the various books of the Bible cover a wide range of literary styles, and we have a great number of tools in our modern tool chest to assist us in interpreting the author's intent.  Appeal to authority is not one of them, anymore for the Bible than for Shakespeare or Milton.

Hi Bruce,
Interesting answer. Disagreement is the spice of life. Being respectful about it is worthy of ...uh... respect.  It's a normal part of life to disagree with others on some or many things. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy but I thought Aquinas showed that it was a necessary road to god. Reason alone (or at all) doesn't get you to god. Faith is required. But isn't faith an appeal to authority? Back to disagreements: on what points (if any) do you disagree with god?
ciao,
Attila

[Too Few Lions]

I'd still like to know what parts of the Bible CForce and Bruce deem as historical, which as allegorical or poetical, that was supposed to be the point of the thread. To see how people pick and choose how they're going to interpret the Bible. I think Bruce's comment that 'I don't think that the Hebrews in the wilderness got it all right' might be rather relevant. It suggests you read the story Exodus historically, yet archaeolgy has shown it never happened. That was a myth written 6-700 years afer the supposed event that a lot of Christians still believe to be history. It's written quasi-historically (like the gospels), not poetically, yet it's pure myth.

As for Isaiah 40.22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

I think it's worth bringing up. It shows Isaiah (a supposed prophet of Yahweh) believed in a flat Earthdisk, with the canopy of the heavens spread out above. You'd have thought Yahweh could have been bothered to explain to him the true nature of the universe!

[Attila]

@TFL
It's the italics, TFL. The rule is, if it's in italics then you don't have to pay attention to it. If it's in green ink, then take it under advisement. If it's in red ink, you arse in on the line.
ciao,
Attila

[Attila]

Hi Attila, please don't invade me. I'm just sitting here in my Roman fortress hoping that your Huns don't breach my defenses.  I don't see myself as disagreeing with God as much as disagreeing with people's interpretation of God. The Bible is essentially a human interpretatiojn of God. My primary basis for interpreting God comes from my own experience with the Holy Spirit.  That's what personal relationship is all about, and as you point out, we all disagree with everyone with whom we are intimately involved. That's how we grow.

I am not such a one as would invade anyone. I just enjoy sightseeing. It's all quite innocent. Regard my and ghosts (holy or otherwise) I have had no such experience so I can't really comment. You would agree that anything you claim about god by your testimony is the equivalent of your opinion. There is no independent agent here.

Again, I don't so much disagree with God as I disagree with others' interpretation of God. I don't think that the Hebrews in the wilderness got it all right. Jesus is more influential with me, and he never mentions gays. Paul gets into it a couple of times, but there is disagreement about what Paul was describing exactly. The overall teaching of Jesus is that we should love one another, and that he came to save men's lives, not destroy them. So, I try to love all people, and like Jesus said, I attempt to "judge not that I be not judged, and condemn not that I be not condemned."

So you go by your interpretation and assume that god agrees with you as opposed to anyone else? Nah, I don't think so. Let's be frank with each other here. You are taking your on views and attributing them to god. I'm sure you're a fantastic guy and all that but seriously, why should I believe your interpretation rather than anyone else's? In fact my prediction seems to be correct. Theists create god in their own image simply to impose their authority on the rest of us. God is just an aberrant form of the first person pronoun. If you think about it honestly you'll admit that, at the very least, it applies to your own situation. Conclusion: you never disagree with god.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
ciao,
Attila

[Too Few Lions]

I think you're spot on Attila, Christians create their own personal god and their own personal religion. They pick and choose which parts of the Bible they like and agree with and interpret those historically and as being true, and the other bits they ignore or write off as mythology or allegory. Hence we can get hellfire preachers, literalist flat Earthers and YECs, people who believe in mythological events such as the flood and exodus, and people who believe that everyone other than their very particular denomination of Christian is going to burn in hell for all eternity. Yet we also have more tolerant Christians who don't necessarily believe in these things. Some who place the emphasis on the gospels, some on the teachings of Paul, some on the teachings of whichever Church they belong to, and some on their own personal feelings and interpretations that they justify as 'the holy spirit'.

I think more authoritarian and conservative people are going to be attracted to a similar form of Christianity and interpret the Bible and their god in a way that suits their personality, and the same goes for more liberal minded Christians.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think more authoritarian and conservative people are going to be attracted to a similar form of Christianity and interpret the Bible and their god in a way that suits their personality, and the same goes for more liberal minded Christians.

I think this is true. People go about existence just validating things. Validating what's beyond yourself can get a bit difficult at times.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I'm starting this thread because it was suggested by Too Few Lions, I think.  Fundamentalists generally interpret the entire Bible as the literal word of God, and hold that it should always be interpreted literally.  Of course, they don't interpret books like Revelation literally, even though they say they do.  It's pretty obvious that a seven-headed, ten-horned beast coming out of the sea is metaphorical, and fundamentalists go to great lengths to tell us what each head and each horn mean, but they still claim that they are literalists. So when they get to the Lake of Fire in Chapter 20, they interpret that as a literal, burning hell. But why should that be literal, when the seven-headed, ten-horned beast is not literal?  The point here is that each writing in the Bible must be interpreted first according to the genre of literature into which it falls: historical narrative vs. poetry vs. wisdom literature vs. homily vs. didactic vs. apocalyptic, etc.  One size does not fit all.  That's enough for now.

If you take the bible literally then because it is so ridiculous in parts you have no real basis for faith. If you view it metaphorically, and pick and choose, you are just making god up in your own image and you have no real basis for faith.

Has this never occurred to you Bruce?

Theists can't win either way because whichever way you look - be it one way, the other or mix n match - the castle is built on sand.

Atheism wins.

[Attila]

Holy Moly Batman I think we have a consensus here. Having solved one of earth's major problems the super heroes Norfolk And Chance, xSilverPhinx and Too Few Lions  along with their faithful side-kick Attila, meet in the batcave to plan out their next caper. 
Stay tuned for the next episode.
ciao,
Attila

[Too Few Lions]

Holy Moly Batman I think we have a consensus here. Having solved one of earth's major problems the super heroes Norfolk And Chance, xSilverPhinx and Too Few Lions  along with their faithful side-kick Attila, meet in the batcave to plan out their next caper. 
Stay tuned for the next episode.
ciao,
Attila

can't wait!

[xSilverPhinx]

Holy Moly Batman I think we have a consensus here. Having solved one of earth's major problems the super heroes Norfolk And Chance, xSilverPhinx and Too Few Lions  along with their faithful side-kick Attila, meet in the batcave to plan out their next caper. 
Stay tuned for the next episode.
ciao,
Attila

LOL

Oh dear. Nothing good can come of this

[Ecurb Noselrub]

But isn't faith an appeal to authority? Back to disagreements: on what points (if any) do you disagree with god?

Faith as I understand it is a subjective response to spiritual experience/revelation. Authority doesn't really have much to do with it from my perspective. But that's just me. 

I disagree with God not allowing me to travel to Brasil when I was in my 20's.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I'd still like to know what parts of the Bible CForce and Bruce deem as historical, which as allegorical or poetical, that was supposed to be the point of the thread. To see how people pick and choose how they're going to interpret the Bible. I think Bruce's comment that 'I don't think that the Hebrews in the wilderness got it all right' might be rather relevant. It suggests you read the story Exodus historically, yet archaeolgy has shown it never happened. That was a myth written 6-700 years afer the supposed event that a lot of Christians still believe to be history. It's written quasi-historically (like the gospels), not poetically, yet it's pure myth.

As for Isaiah 40.22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

I think it's worth bringing up. It shows Isaiah (a supposed prophet of Yahweh) believed in a flat Earthdisk, with the canopy of the heavens spread out above. You'd have thought Yahweh could have been bothered to explain to him the true nature of the universe!

In some passages you have a mixture of history and edited exaggeration.  I think it is likely that there was a Moses, but that he led some families/tribes out of Egypt and not millions.  Like stories we have about Lincoln and Washington, there is fact mixed with fiction, and stories tend to get more legendary over time.  It's just a matter of looking at each document and analyzing it.

From a purely historical standpoint, I would put a lot more stock in the stories about Jesus that fit the basic kerygma (apostolic proclamation) of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, compared to the problematic birth stories and some of the strange additions like Matthew's account of many resurrected OT saints being seen after Jesus' resurrection. 

Generally, I think that Abraham, et al were historical, but there has been a lot of editing about their lives, so it's difficult to determine exactly what happened.  The general outline of I & II Kings is probably historical, although there is lots of editing and interpretive gloss in the stories.  The flood story probably has a basis in an historical event, but it was local, not worldwide. There was probably some guy like Job who was a good man, suffered greatly, and then recovered, and the Book of Job was composed around him - the dialogues themselves are not verbatim accounts, if they ever happened at all. The author used this man's situation to express his thoughts on suffering. 

That's some general idea on where I'm coming from.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If you take the bible literally then because it is so ridiculous in parts you have no real basis for faith. If you view it metaphorically, and pick and choose, you are just making god up in your own image and you have no real basis for faith.

Has this never occurred to you Bruce?

Theists can't win either way because whichever way you look - be it one way, the other or mix n match - the castle is built on sand. Atheism wins.

I wasn't aware that the game was over. Why are so many players still on the field?

My basis for faith is primarily my personal, subjective experience - this is what happened to me, so this is what I believe. My interpretation of the Bible is secondary to my experience, as far as my faith goes.  So whether I view parts of the Bible as literal or metaphorical, my personal experience is primary.  The castle is built on personal experience. 

[Attila]

I wasn't aware that the game was over. Why are so many players still on the field?

Hi Bruce,
Since you asked: (not in any particular order): thirst for power/privilege/control, fear, irrationality, ignorance, prejudice, hatred...
There are theists who are not "players on the field" for whom faith is a strictly personal thing and not to be discussed unless explicitly asked; certainly never to be talked about publicly. I have known such people for years never realising they held such beliefs. I have no problem with such people.
ciao,
Attila