Marduk

"IS THAT RIGHT????!!&&%%?? Hmmm....amazing! - I do think this view was around before Asimov- "

I'm sure it's been around for awhile, Asimov just mentions it, I don't believe he trys to claim it as his own. He quotes many scholars, since this is not really his primary field.

Answerer

Hi Tercel, I'm curious, just how many of you here view the bible in a pure symbolic way like Amos did?

Tercel

Amos is crazy. I don't even bother to read his posts anymore. To answer your question: 2 - Offa is equally as wacko as Amos.
I don't view the entire Bible as symbolic the way Amos apparently does. Obviously most of the Bible is meant by the writer to be taken literally and to start interpreting everything allegorically at will is just stupid. However a few things like pre-history mythology in Genesis, Revelation etc are clearly meant by their writers to be symbolic not literal.

Bible Humper

Ironically, Amos has by far the strongest theology I've seen, simply because he makes no claims of magical events.

Well, it seems to me that the only ones with consistent theologies are those who take it all literally, and those who take it all symbolically. What methodology is available to decide what parts to believe and which to declare "metaphors"? The parts you don't like all become allegory? Is that it?

What's so obvious about that? Early Christians took many things literally which most modern Christians don't. If they got it wrong, how can you say that you haven't got many things wrong also since your brand of Christianity evolved out of theirs?

You say to "interpret everything allegorically at will is stupid", well from my perspective it seems that the mix and pick theologies are the illogical ones. Once you have decided to rely on "intuition" to decide, you can't help but let your own biases creep in.

Ever notice how the narrow-minded fundies believe in a bigoted Yahweh? They intuitively judged the OT admonishments against homosexuals to be Yahweh's eternal will. They "intuitively" know that the sacrifice of the avatar didn't change this law. You won't find one believing that Yahweh doesn't mind gays these days, but that the old laws should be observed anyways, they all believe in a Yahweh who hates fags.

Now do you notice the Yahweh of liberals like Seebs and Rev Joshua? They don't believe in a Yahweh who disapproves of gays, and their decision to not be personally judgemental towards them is thought to be exactly what the deity expects. They actually believe in a more gentle Yahweh who changed the rules with the sacrifice of his avatar, and loves gays as much as anyone.

Start using "intuition" and "common sense" to interpret your religion, and you will inevitably recreate your deity in your own image.

Tercel

Amos has a theology? I seriously thought he was just crazy...

It seems perfectly possible to consistently follow your common sense as to whether a passage warrents literal or symbolic interpretation.

Generally I follow common sense, I do what I see as best in each situation and don't follow any hard and fast like of rules. Augustine's ideas on the subject are certainly not bad:
But I think there are many other things that need be considered - writers intent, scholarly analysis yada yada.
But yes, certainly whether I "like" something or not is going to play a part especially since how much I like something is going to depend on how well it fits in with the rest of my understanding of Christian theology.

Er, don't you mean <strong>allegorically</strong> there not <strong>literally</strong>?
In which case, yes, I grant that and I have nothing against allegorical interpretation. But the even the Alexandrian school unlike Amos didn't do allegorical interpretations all the time and at least recognised that some things are obviously supposed to be literal Christian truths.

I'm quite happy with my own biases.

Well I wouldn't quite use those words, but I agree with the thought. But unfortunately there isn't any other way to do it... unless you have a better solution?

WRW Mattfeld

I would just like to interject here as a new arrival to this list, how much I enjoy the "outrageous humor" on this list. At times I find myself laughing so hard, tears run down my cheeks !
All the best, Walter

Vorkosigan

And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one's neighbour; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one's neighbour.

Ah! So when god commanded the Israelites to kill everyone in region X and take their land, that must have been figurative language...

Where have you been hiding, Tercel?

Bible Humper

Hi Tercel,

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation!


Well, the problem is not that you are inconsistent in your use of intuition, the problem is that intuition isn't consistent. The use of intuition has not only resulted in thousands of sects within Christianity itself, but it has also somehow led the non-christian portions of the world to somehow imagine deities/spirits/animistic energies which we both know aren't real!!!

It seems to me that you have no choice but to acknowledge the unreliability of intuition, including your own, and avoid basing an entire worldview upon it!

This is the problem, your assumption that your own common sense is a reliable tool for divining the deity's will. All believers make this mistake, even the ones who have these questions answered for them by the religious authorities think that it is common sense that the priest/wizard/shaman knows supernature enough that his judgements can be taken as Truth.

LOL, surely if the passage seems to contain ideas that run counter to church doctrine, it must have been meant figuratively!!

Augustine is no help here, he is just saying that if something written in the bible contradicts the church, the church trumps the bible. He has merely codified the practice of divining the "real meaning" intuitively, note that he takes for granted that the "doctrine" he refers to is Truth, and so anything in the bible that contradicts that "must" have been allegorical.

This doesn't say anything, it is indeed "the writer's real intent" that everyone is trying to divine intuitively! These men are alleged to have been divinely inspired, so the question is rather critical, don't you think?

Remove the cart from in front of the horse, determine if the religion is true rather than skipping to how the religion is true.



Hats off for acknowledging this, most people would rabidly insist that their "understanding" is due to it being 100% truth.

There has to be something else Tercel, we can see how intuition has failed countless billions of believers! Your own "understanding" of Christian theology is coloured by your own biases because of your reliance on intuition, surely you realise that it wouldn't be prudent to rely on a tool which you know has failed the vast majority of humanity throughout time as the rock to build your own house upon!

No. The medieval Christians thought that the stories of Noah and Jonah were literally true. It used to be thought that disease and insanity were caused by demons, the stars were holes in the "fabric" of the sky between heaven and Earth, Heaven could be reached if you built a tall enough tower, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

And how did they decide which bits were which? Intuitively!

And don't use the word "obviously", because if it was obvious there wouldn't be bible literalists on one side, Amos on the other, and thousands of sects in between.

Sure, so am I! We have to be honest to even recognise that we have biases, but once we pass that hurdle we still have to endeavor to excise it from our perception of information. You have recognised that you have biases, like everyone, so it seems prudent for you now to reject a methodology for discerning truth which is little more than telling yourself what you want to hear!

Remove the cart from in front of your horse!

You have decided that the bible contains the Truth before you even look at it, it has always been a matter of discovering how it is true, skipping the natural first step of determining if it is true.

Be wary of your own biases, and always keep in mind that there are billions of people in the world, many of whom have dedicated their lives to their interpretations of supernature, who have got it wrong because they trust their own intuitions and think we are both "blind" not to see it!

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

Tristan Scott

Maybe he existed under a different name, like Utnapishtim or something.

Tercel

If you were following that system of interpretation, then I suppose, yes.
Personally I'd probably interpret it as the writer's conviction that God was on their side. Whether he was correct or not is hard to say from our perspective. My understanding of God's love leads me to suggest that God wouldn't do that sort of thing as a general rule. However, not being there myself it's hard to judge the exact circumstances etc so I cannot say that there was NOT as sufficient justification for God to act in the way he is presented acting.
Thus given my agnosticism on the literal interpration of the passage I'd settle for using it as a story with a moral... (ie back to Augustine's version really) if anyone can find a nice moral in genicide...

I kind of got fed up with posting and reading boards and took an intended permanent break. But with the James Ossuary thing I just had to read threads to see how you guys would react! (btw am I the only one whos had the idea that a second author on the "brother of Jesus" part of the inscription makes it more likely to be the authentic thing? My logic there being that the 2nd inscription would likely have been added later to distinguish for pilgrims etc that this (as opposed to any other "James son of Joseph") was Jesus' brother's Ossuary. Of course that assumes that the Ossuary's basically genuine - not necessarily a good assumption in a plot as convoluted as this one! )
And of course reading threads inevitably got me back posting again...