Logical

Is it a legitimate approach to the Bible? What are the criteria?

The Bible contains cruel brutal behavior by an alleged God, and the threat of eternal hell against all who disagree.

But certain schools of thought, such as Unitarian Universalists and post-modernists approach the whole Bible as an allegory, full of good principles.

And they always find ways to explain away the bad parts, such as ethnic cleansing, etc.

My question is this: Couldn't one use the same approach to turn Mein Kampf into a good allegory?

Is this a legitimate approach or is it an "anything goes" non-method that could really be used to justify any garbage you use it on?

So are the atheists correct in saying the Bible is not literally true, therefore it is garbage, or are the liberal religionists correct in saying that the Bible, while not literally true, is "true" as an allegory and full of wisdom, moral truths, etc?

ApostateAbe

While I am with the camp who claims that most of the essential passages of the Bible were intended to be taken literally, I think value judgments are generally useless at best and misleading at worst when trying to make sense of the Bible.

With that in mind, we need to make judgments of whether or not any given passage in the Bible is literal or figurative based on what which explanation fits the passage with the greatest probability, not based on our prejudices. If all of our earliest evidence indicates that adherents literally believed the claims of the text, then there is a problem of plausibility, and I think a very strong argument would be required to surmount the prima facie conclusion that the texts were intended to be taken literally. If the texts themselves do not explicitly tell the readers that the texts are metaphorical (such as when Jesus explains a parable), then it seems all but impossible to successfully argue that the texts are merely metaphorical, except of course with the help of the prejudices of those who wish to accept the conclusions that the texts may contradict.

So, yeah, anyone with a special interest may find his or her own conclusions in the texts by making abundant appeal to metaphorical interpretation. It is not just the liberal Christians who are guilty of this, but conservative Christians and atheists are also among the convicted, in my judgment. Atheists who think Jesus never existed often rely very heavily on that method to make the canonical Christian authors agree with that position (i.e. Earl Doherty).

Logical

@ApostateAbe: I agree that the texts were intended to be taken literally. I debated this issue with liberal Christians before, and I have always been baffled by their position.

But what about those who concede that the Bible was intended to be taken literally, but that intention in the mind of the author betrays a deeper meaning that we should derive? Let me give you an example: A child tells you that he is Superman. In his young mind, he may intend for that claim to be taken literally, and you know that. But despite the fact that you don't believe the claim literally, you find ways to find truths behind it, regarding the child's desire to be a hero who fights evil. Perhaps you could find the false claim inspiring.

ApostateAbe

I agree. We can infer a lot of truths by analyzing statements of mixed reliability. All texts reveal the perspectives of those who wrote them and accepted them.

No Robots

The Christian Left is in a war of interpretation with the Christian Right. The latter hold to what they claim is a literalist view, and charge that the former are just reading what they want into the text. Rightist anti-Christians side with Rightist Christians in this war of interpretation. Thus, the Christian Left has two enemies: the Christian Right and the anti-Christian Right. In my view, the greater danger is from the latter, and they should be opposed first and foremost.

ApostateAbe

The latter? The anti-Christian right?

No Robots

Yes. Leftist Christians need to oppose primarily Rightist anti-Christians. After all, the Christian Left and the Christian Right have at least one thing in common, whereas there is nothing at all to unite Leftist Christians with Rightist anti-Christians.

ApostateAbe

OK. You think that the rightist anti-Christians are a greater danger than the rightist Christians?

No Robots

Absolutely. Fuck 'em and the horses they rode in on.

ApostateAbe

I agree with the former proposition but not the latter.