RufusAtticus

I'd becareful with such an argument because Christians for decades argued that the bible was not to be taken literally.

St. Augustine for example wrote in the fifth century the following.

• Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?
  
  Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions".
  

Jimmy Higgins

The real contradictions.
First story: Everything is a watery chaos
Second story: Everything is dry

First story: God seperates the waters
Second story: God envelops a flood to water the land

First Story: Man is created last pretty much by word of mouth, all of creation awaits him
Second Story: Man is created very carefully by the hands of God

The order of creation is off in both. The creationists will say whatever they want, that doesn't change.

In addition, the man names the animals in the second story, which has a much much greater significance than one'd think. The Hebrews believed in naming things after their purpose. When the man named the animals, he was literally "designing" their purpose in the world. In the first story of creation, animals are merely created by God. And that includes the platypuss.

Interesting note, from the commentary by Hermann Gunkel I was reading and am now in a holding pattern, he puts forth a rather convincing argument that "The Fall" was actually a very different story, with roots still existent in Isahiah and Psalms. That originally man was created as a demi-god, the serpent was the hero, and God the "loser" who wanted to keep man from becoming a god. This is clearly witnessed in the "The Fall" where the man and woman are banished because they had become like he was, a god. The serpent really doesn't lie in the story. And Paradise used to be on top of a mountain.

But to be most effective, I like to use what I brought up first, regarding the original state of the world. In story 1, it is flooded and the waters are seperated. In story 2, it is dry and a flood moves upon it to nurish it. Creationists even have an answer to that, but its not a satisfactory one.

Dr.GH

Thanks for the link, RA. The temptation to throw it at socrat is a strong as it is futile.

RufusAtticus

I've used it on occation to chastise fundie-bots.

Mageth

I'm sorry, but that's a classic pro-religious b.s. response.
Christians argued for decades that the bible had to be believed literally, that was a vital part of the equation until the 19th century, when archaeologists and historians started questioning the inerrancy of the bible.

The "metaphor" arguments evolved because it became painfully clear the bible was not a valid historical document.

Well, I'm not making it as a "pro-religious" response. I firmly believe that the writers recorded what they knew were myths (or metaphors). Science has illuminated that this must be so, for obviously no one witnessed, or was told by god, of the various accounts (science has established they didn't happen, after all). I believe the original intention of the myths was to construct and support a religion featuring a vengeful, exclusive war-god that "chose" a particular tribal, nomadic people, thus justifying them in their actions against their neighbors. At the time, it mattered not whether the average person accepted the myths as history or metaphor; they served their purpose, either way.

It was really only later that the metaphors were interpreted as history, that poetry became prose. And that's what we're dealing with today in the creationists. I would much prefer it if they switched to the proper, metaphorical interpretation of Genesis; true, their religion would probably survive, but at least the bother of having to respond to their ridiculous nonsense, and defend our schools from their attacks, would be done with.

And then if we could only get them to realize that the Gospels are equally metaphorical...

Recognizing the accounts as metaphorical rather than historical is hardly "pro-religious", in my opinion. Not recognizing it allows the continued existence of religions featuring a vengeful, exclusive war-god that "chooses" a particular people, backed by the "historical" account of the bible, thus justifying them in their actions against their neighbors.

Further, recognizing the stories as metaphors allows one to recognize the motifs in the metaphors common among many of the world's mythologies/religious myths. Coming to an understanding of these universal motifs and what they really say about the commonality and universality of the human condition (rather than using then to generate a personification of a creator god that's obviously on "our side") is the only justifiable use for these myths, IMO. There may be something to be learned there, but whatever it may be is lost by interpreting the myths as history.

And if all the world's great religions could agree that they followed different metaphors for the same thing (whether that "thing" is true or not), that none of them was exclusively true, that might help to bring about a little more stability in the world, no?

Read some Joseph Campbell (if you haven't already) to better understand why my stance (recognizing the stories as metaphor rather than history) is not necessarily a "pro-religious" response. He doesn't have much good to say about most religions, and in particular the Abrahamic, Bible-based ones.

Doubting Didymus

So the bible was originally written as metaphor, and accepted that way by most people?

I just had a horrible vision of the future, where the silmarillion, holy book of the global religion, is being desperately defended for infallible literal truth.

Mageth

So the bible was originally written as metaphor, and accepted that way by most people?

It's my strong opinion that parts of it were originally written as metaphor (or myth, if you prefer) (much if not all of Genesis, parts of the rest of the Pentateuch, and even parts of the Gospel accounts). Revelation is obviously metaphorical. Accepting, for example, the Genesis creation and Flood accounts as "history" requires one to believe that someone witnessed and recorded (or passed down) events that we now know obviously didn't happen. Plus, you have the problem of the parallels for many of the metaphors found throughout the world's mythologies.

I think the authors knew they were writing metaphor (or myth). But I don't honestly know whether "most people" accepted it as metaphor or history. I suspect, back then, myths, legends and metaphors were quite often recognized as such, as such tales were prevalent, but that's just my gut feeling. Perhaps the distribution of history vs. metaphor believers was much the same as it is today!

I just had a horrible vision of the future, where the silmarillion, holy book of the global religion, is being desperately defended for infallible literal truth.

Well, seeing as what's happened with other works of Fiction, that's possible (consider the bible and, more recently, the Mormon writings and L. Ron Hubbard).

Radcliffe Emerson

Mageth, I apologize. I believe you are correct in your statement that the writers of some of these stories intended for them to be metaphors.
The Genesis stories for example, were probably early camp-fire oral stories, passed down and written down years and years later after they originated.

There have been intense arguments over the years from different Christian factions however on believing the bible literally.
I think several fundamentalist denominations believe it literally.
My parents believe most of it literally, which is really annoying, especially when my father starts talking about Revelation happening now.
He buys those end times books, watches Hal Lindsay etc, and it burns me those jerks are getting rich off of people's insecurities and gullibility.
I've tried telling my dad historians and scholars believe Revelation was written about the Roman Empire, not some coming age, but it's no use.
Sorry, about that, I just went off on a rant.
p.s. The church I grew up in (and left) is the Disciples of Christ. I believe Joseph Campbell was one of its founders.

Mageth

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
Mageth, I apologize. I believe you are correct in your statement that the writers of some of these stories intended for them to be metaphors.
...
Sorry, about that, I just went off on a rant.

No problem.


p.s. The church I grew up in (and left) is the Disciples of Christ. I believe Joseph Campbell was one of its founders.

No, that was Alexander Campbell. The church was founded, I believe in the 18th Century. Joseph Campbell was a 20th Century writer/scholar/teacher known mostly for his work in comparative mythology.

ps418

No kidding. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I just have a hard time believing that anyone really takes 'scientology' seriously . . . yet some people do. I guess yo just have to let L.Ron into your heart, and then it all makes sense. Or something like that.

Patrick