Freethought & Rationalism Archive

11-21-2003, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Devilnaut
I think (oh the irony) our intellect works by building scaffolds on top of scaffolds that support eachother and understanding is achieved whenever inductions (inferences from experience?) meet from separate angles. So a good work of art is kind of like something that creates emotion on the top floor that meets with a 'deeper' (closer to the source) meaning in the basement. I like to think this kind of thing can never be truly achieved by a salesman (representer!) but I'm not sure.

Exellent and hillarious! The clergy are the pandering salesmen and religions are the warehouses that are stacked full of scaffolds with its members being the innovators responsible for the design because they either reached their destiny on them or crashed down from them (or both when they are identical).

Noboby said this better than dean Jocelin in "The Spire," who himself was a Babelonian tower builder and it was not until he reached the very top of his delusion that he saw a little round hole in the bottom which nevertheless was the top.

In the perfect symmetry of time we find this on the first page of chapter 6:

Quote:

For the tower was to reach another eighty feet into another chamber [this would be heaven], with more lights, more hosannaing heads, more platforms and ladders, so that the mind winced to think of it; winced at any rate up there, where solidity balanced in midair among the birds, held its breath over a diminishing series of squares with a round hole at the bottom which nevertheless was the top.

Mageth · 11-21-2003, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adora
Just one quick example I remember off the top of my head is the Geneology of Jesus listed in Matthew...

I was referring to the OT genealogies, not the Genealogies of Jesus.

And thanks for the Spong recommendation. I'm familiar with the good Bishop, but haven't yet tackled any of his works. I have explored others' works that address myth and metaphor in the Bible and elsewhere, particularly Joseph Campbell and C. G. Jung (his Answer to Job is a fascinating, but challenging and quite controversial, psychoanalysis of the biblical God-image). I'm definitely interested in branching out into other authors.

My point about the genealogies not having metaphorical meaning is that the genealogies were created to esablish a line of descent from Adam and the Patriarchs (there's a band name for you) to the "present" for the Hebrews. As such, they are mythical, but I don't think you can say they can be interpreted metaphorically (unless one says they are a "metaphor for the historical lineage of the Hebrews", which doesn't make much sense to me as it seems to be stretching the meaning of the word "metaphor"). To me, to have a metaphorical interpretation, the genealogies would have to have some other interpretation or meaning than the "literal" interpretation as a line of descent which I see as their intent.

mike_decock · 11-21-2003, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Devilnaut
All words are metaphors so there is no way to not read something metaphorically.

The problem is that we forget that they are metaphors and then we forget how to play with them.

Yes, all words are metaphors but they are a direct representation of the objects and events we wish to describe. When we extract a secondary or implied meaning to the "literal" objects an events, we are dealing with "metaphor" as is being discussed in this thread.

-Mike...

Mageth · 11-21-2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
Yes, all words are metaphors but they are a direct representation of the objects and events we wish to describe. When we extract a secondary or implied meaning to the "literal" objects an events, we are dealing with "metaphor" as is being discussed in this thread.

-Mike...

Exactly.

Mathetes · 11-21-2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
So . . . yes, Mk did want to tell a story in order to get his message across. He . . . and readers . . . did not have to care that every bit was "accurate"--they were interested in the message.

I agree that in all the examples you mentioned (Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Mark), it is obvious that they are inventing or fictionalizing details, and the story seems "constructed". And in spite of this, all authors believed the core of the story (the "message", if you like) to be real. But this message is not a metaphorical description of anything; it is a historical fact: JFK assassination, GM layoffs or Jesus being crucified. Would you agree?

Same with the flood. I accept that the author (or redactor of the pre-existing myth) knew that he was adding details and changing them in a sort of "poetic license". But he believed the core: the world had been drowned by a global flood some time in the past. He was just attributed the deed to his own tribal god, Yahweh (actually, it might have been El at this point).

Mathetes · 11-21-2003, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
No. I don't accept the words of one character in the bible as proof of the literal existence of another character or event in the bible. But note that I don't think all those references you quoted are necessarily to mythical characters or events (I do not, and have not, claimed that all the Bible is myth).

The ones I cited as most likely myth: Noah, Abraham and Moses have no place in history. Job and Jonah really read like fiction. Balaam... well, I think it is obvious.

Quote:

Such references can be used for that purpose whether literally true or not, and whether the teller considered them literally true or not. For example, I could say "Like Don Quixote, you are tilting at windmills". That doesn't mean I think the Man from La Mancha is a historical character.

Well, I would agree if that were an isolated occurrence. But look at the number of them and the consistency of the quotes. Never there is the slight suspicion that the events referred may have been mythical. This is a strong indication that they were not consider to be mythical in the different centuries where the subsequent books were written.

As you said, not all the Bible is mythical. Some place around the book of Kings events start to be recognizible as historical, even if exaggerated and distorted. When this "somewhat historical" characters quote the Scriptures, they assume them to be factual. This shows, in my understanding, that there was not a sharp distinction for them between legend and fact, and that they also considered legends to be historical, not "metaphorical".

Quote:

But it's possible (probable, IMO) that the genealogies were at least partially invented genealogies to give the Hebrews lineages back to the Patriarchs (probable because certain of the characters in the genealogies, e.g. Adam and Noah, and quite possibly Abraham, are almost certainly mythical).

Note that between Adam and Noah are ten generations. In Mesopotamian mythology, there are ten generations of kings before the Mesopotamian flood myths. A bit of an odd coincidence?

Of course they are mythical, Mageth. Nobody is arguing that. But were they intended to be considered as fiction? I do not think so. After the lineages had been "invented" to give the Hebrews a nice pedigree, everybody believed them as true.

Quote:

What we seem to really be disagreeing on here is whether certain parts of the bible are myth.

I don't think we are disagreeing on this. Parts of the Bible are myth, period. What we disagree on, I think, is that your position is that the writers did not intended people to take these myths literally. This I cannot understand. Even if the stories are constructed and (to an informed XXI-century mind) they are impossible, they always were written with the intent to be taken as literal history, ever if adorned somewhat.

Quote:

Second, you could dive into Joseph Campbell if you dare.

(References skipped)

Thanks for the references. I clearly need to do some homework, so I well get back when I have "processed" your suggestions.

Mathetes · 11-21-2003, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adora
Just one quick example I remember off the top of my head is the Geneology of Jesus listed in Matthew... I think It's Matthew. Anyway, it's basically including lots of women, and leaving out many men. Matthew used both numbers to relate it to the Jewish readers of the time (something like 36 or 14 or something) as well as including women who, even though some were not directly blood-related to Jesus, were women sexually wronged in some way. Mary was, to Matthew's readers, a foregone conclusion to be a woman who had an affair outside of marriage, or was raped.

This does not seem right. Here is the genealogy: Matthew 1. Where are the women?

The symbolic numbers are three times 14.

Mathetes · 11-21-2003, 10:23 AM

For Mageth and Dr. X,

just to understand your position... what would you think that a normal devote Hebrew would have thought of the mythical characters in Genesis, at the times of the early Monarchy, the Babylon domination, and the 1st century, for example? Would he have considered that a global flood that cover the whole world had indeed occurred? Or would he have thought that it was just a symbolic account that was intended to tell him "deeper meanings" about his God?

I quoted Jesus speaking of Noah and Jonah. Do you think that Jesus, if he existed, believed them to be real? What would Jesus think?

And why?

(Instead of Jesus, you can consider an informed 1st century Rabbi.)

Mageth · 11-21-2003, 10:33 AM

What we disagree on, I think, is that your position is that the writers did not intended people to take these myths literally. This I cannot understand. Even if the stories are constructed and (to an informed XXI-century mind) they are impossible, they always were written with the intent to be taken as literal history, ever if adorned somewhat.

Well, I think if you look back through the thread you would see that this is not my position. Here is one such example, where I said:

I admit that myths are often believed as true in the cultures in which they are told. Heck, I even admit that they are often intended to be accepted as true.

I think that in many if not most cases the myths were intended to be taken literally (e.g. the genealogies). But I also think many if not most of the myths also were given other, metaphorical meanings, and that at least in some cases these conveying those meanings through myth was considered at least as important as conveying the literal meaning.

Mageth · 11-21-2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Mathetes
just to understand your position... what would you think that a normal devote Hebrew would have thought of the mythical characters in Genesis, at the times of the early Monarchy, the Babylon domination, and the 1st century, for example? Would he have considered that a global flood that cover the whole world had indeed occurred? Or would he have thought that it was just a symbolic account that was intended to tell him "deeper meanings" about his God?

Quite possibly a bit of both - the person in question quite possibly accepted the tale as a more-or-less historical account and recognized the symbolism therein.

I quoted Jesus speaking of Noah and Jonah. Do you think that Jesus, if he existed, believed them to be real? What would Jesus think? And why?

I think the same for Jesus as I do for the person mentioned above.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-21-2003, 10:23 AM	#78
Mathetes Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spaniard living in Silicon Valley Posts: 539	For Mageth and Dr. X, just to understand your position... what would you think that a normal devote Hebrew would have thought of the mythical characters in Genesis, at the times of the early Monarchy, the Babylon domination, and the 1st century, for example? Would he have considered that a global flood that cover the whole world had indeed occurred? Or would he have thought that it was just a symbolic account that was intended to tell him "deeper meanings" about his God? I quoted Jesus speaking of Noah and Jonah. Do you think that Jesus, if he existed, believed them to be real? What would Jesus think? And why? (Instead of Jesus, you can consider an informed 1st century Rabbi.)

11-21-2003, 10:33 AM	#79
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	What we disagree on, I think, is that your position is that the writers did not intended people to take these myths literally. This I cannot understand. Even if the stories are constructed and (to an informed XXI-century mind) they are impossible, they always were written with the intent to be taken as literal history, ever if adorned somewhat. Well, I think if you look back through the thread you would see that this is not my position. Here is one such example, where I said: I admit that myths are often believed as true in the cultures in which they are told. Heck, I even admit that they are often intended to be accepted as true. I think that in many if not most cases the myths were intended to be taken literally (e.g. the genealogies). But I also think many if not most of the myths also were given other, metaphorical meanings, and that at least in some cases these conveying those meanings through myth was considered at least as important as conveying the literal meaning.

11-21-2003, 10:36 AM	#80
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Mathetes just to understand your position... what would you think that a normal devote Hebrew would have thought of the mythical characters in Genesis, at the times of the early Monarchy, the Babylon domination, and the 1st century, for example? Would he have considered that a global flood that cover the whole world had indeed occurred? Or would he have thought that it was just a symbolic account that was intended to tell him "deeper meanings" about his God? Quite possibly a bit of both - the person in question quite possibly accepted the tale as a more-or-less historical account and recognized the symbolism therein. I quoted Jesus speaking of Noah and Jonah. Do you think that Jesus, if he existed, believed them to be real? What would Jesus think? And why? I think the same for Jesus as I do for the person mentioned above.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.