aikido7

Fundamentalists who take the Bible literally (e.g., they believe Jesus walked on water) and skeptics (who don't believe anyone ever walked or can walk on water) BOTH become fundamentalist literalists when they attempt to communicate.

(I am definitely talking about what scholars call a "nature miracle," not the garden-variety "healing" miracles involving body/mind cellular mysteries which medical science must honestly face every day)

So the Bible-believing fundamentalist points to the fact that the Bible (at least in Matthew, if s/he is a literate student of the text) SAYS Jesus walked on the water.

The skeptic may counter this line of thinking by going into scientific matters concerning water density and flotation studies, but this lesson in the way the world works to our senses has little effect on the believer who basically answers something to the effect that Jesus is God and God can do anything.

Jesus walked on water because the Bible attests to it and because Jesus is God.

Jesus did not walk on water because--if he existed--he would sink. Jesus was a human being.

This argument can go on all day at the literal level, but if one chooses to bypass the literal and talk about underlying meaning some important distinctions can be made, some terms clarified and some understanding perhaps achieved.
By focusing on meaning we can ask questions around the nature of belief and fact, myth and history and faith and substance.

Instead of both sides arguing against each other in the context of a literal Bible (secular news reports) the fundamentalist and skeptic can focus on the story (life-changing, inspiring narrative) and what possible meaning it was perhaps intending to communicate and what the result of that communication is today.

I feel I am close to saying something I feel is important but I am too tired right now to do anything more about it....

James Still

aikido7, it may be late for you but that doesn't mean your comments are off the mark. I think what you've written is very important. I agree that inerrantism (assumed by the fundamentalist as well as the skeptic) has stifled discussion on meaning and genuine belief. (I tried to get at some of these same issues in the last section of my contribution to The Jury Is In at <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/reliability.html)." target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/reliability.html).</a> When I say "genuine belief" I mean the Augustinian sense of matters that are believed first and understood later. To understand later is to infuse the belief with meaning and human context. It's a Kierkegaardian Leap with absolutely no evidence to justify it, which is what Josh McDowell misses in his search for "hard" evidence. The deeper truths in the biblical narrative are the stuff of literature not reality, yet fundamentalists and hardcore skeptics insist on reading every story through the lens of propositional truth. This positivist bias has warped more than one discussion on the Bible.

Jayhawker Soule

What 'deeper truths"? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

While perhaps of some worth in a sociology or comparative literature forum, what's its relevancy here? <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

-DM-

The argument can also go on all day at the "underlying meaning level" -- in fact, it is probably even more likely to do so.

Further, if we don't take as literally true at least some of what seems impossible and which the Bible says that the Gospelists say that Jesus said and did, then Christian faith loses its underlying significance. As Paul [allegedly] put it, "if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain" [1 CO 15:14]].

I agree with Paul. I agree with him now as a non-Christian and I agreed with him back when I was a Christian.

--Don--

James Still

<strong>What 'deeper truths"?</strong>

Why the deeper truths of all great literature of course! For example when Odysseus, disguised as a beggar, is recognized by his childhood nurse (Book 19 of the Odyssey) he silences her in order to prevent Penelope from learning his true identity. Then later he reveals himself to Penelope and is restored to his kingly role. I have yet to read Dennis MacDonald's book but I'll bet he made this connection between Odysseus and the "Secret Jesus" of Mark's gospel. Shakespeare toyed with this theme himself in King Lear and Henry V as the mighty king voluntarily (Henry V) or through his own foolishness (King Lear) is reduced to the status of a commoner and learns what people honestly think of him. This king-begger dichotomy gets at a deeper truth of humanity and great literature helps us to understand something universal about ourselves.

I don't mean to imply that the Gospel of Mark is great literature -- it is crude and derivative -- but the biblical narratives do get at deeper truths about what it means to be human and there is great wisdom in the remarks attributed to Jesus. Jesus pointed out that we tend to magnify the faults of others while ignoring our own shortcomings. "The mouth gives voice to what the heart is full of," "each tree is known by its fruit," and we seek the mote in our neighbor's eye. Do you not see this as a deeper truth about humanity?

emotional

Sounds like Gnosticism. Indeed the fundies accuse the liberals of returning to the Gnostic heresy of allegorizing everything.

Still, there's some hope. I have yet to meet the fundamentalist, whether Jewish or Christian, who takes the Song of Solomon literally. When people do that, the fundies say they're "making light of God's sanctity" and "imposing their depraved, rebellious nature on the scriptures". As one of my rabbis said to me: "The Song of Songs looks erotic at face value, and is a pitfall for the wicked; the righteous read its spiritual meanings and come closer to God". Orthodox Jews are mostly 6-day creationists, but taking the Song of Solomon literally makes them uncomfortable.

critical thinking made ez

Well if we want to talk deeper meaning, I have always thought the Bagwan Rashesh books have always been much deeper and more spiritual than the handful of concepts taught in the Bible.

His writings cover hundreds of texts on different spiritual topics and meanings. He not only went through most of the more profound meanings covered by the Christian texts, he also explored many other religions even including every important philosopher up to modern times. While I disagree with many of his points, he did a much more thorough job than all the writers of the Bible.

So why would anyone want to waste time studying an old outdated text with missing spiritual cocepts than the more modern teachers and texts of today provide? The study of the History of Spiritual Concepts is the only answer I can find.

aikido7

And what prevents us from seeing this argument (exchange, dialogue) as a good thing?

Paul may have been speaking of the begining of the general resurrection and apocalyptic consumation. Since the rest of Paul says almost nothing about the human life of Jesus I would say that questions of literalism or literature of the New Testament--which in fact had not been written down at the time of his letter to the Corinthians--did not really matter to him. Paul's focus was on meaning, not historical detail.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

aikido7

It helps to widen a narrow focus.

By the way, the Graemlin who is butting his head against that little wall might be able to "bounce up" a bit and look over it.

...and I would love to hear the melody of that violin music! Without just giving me the literal title of the piece, could you describe it for me?

(admitted didactic sarcasm, ReasonableDoubt!)

Cordially,
Aikido7

-DM-

Where did I say anything about this argument (exchange, dialogue) being good, bad, or neutral? And what has this to do with whether it could or could not go on all day?

You had said:
I was responding to your statement, above. Your statement seemed to me to imply that if we talked about underlying meaning, the argument wouldn't go on "all day." If you did not mean what I thought you were implying, then perhaps you can clue me in as to what the purpose was of saying "the argument can go on all day at the literal level, ..."

Yes, he may have. But he may not have.

I tend to agree with all of this, but I don't see that any of this in any way changes what I consider to be a fact of life for Christians: "if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain."

--Don--