Hawkingfan

I do not believe what the bible says from a literal OR metaphorical interpretation. Its claims are preposterous either way. I was a born again Christian and very active in the Church of Christ for over twenty years. I've heard every kind of interpretation, literal and metaphorical. I preached them as well. But it's hogwash. I have an INTELLECT that helps me determine what is truth (like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc.), and I have life's experiences that help me in my thought processes. I prefer to take the standpoint of Stephen Hawking, a scientist who is perhaps smarter and more imaginative than Einstein (in my opinion). He is a devout atheist. And Einstein denounced religion and the bible on many occasions. It's pretty safe to say these men know what they're talking about. Maybe if god wrote a literal, clear, and concise bible, everyone would AGREE on the truth. Then we could spend more time "in praise" and less time arguing. There would be one religion, alot more PEACE in the world, and much less suffering.
To me, it makes no sense to believe in something that does not have literal truth. Yet, believing in science, which is 100% literal and factual, makes perfect sense. If I want lyrical, poetic metaphors, I sure wouldn't read the bible. I'd enjoy John Steinbeck or Ray Bradbury much better.

aikido7

I submit that it's ALL metaphor; that is just the way the world* "works."
____________________
* I define "world" as the relationship between the living elements plus our human "take" on it.

If we say that "America is not the same country anymore" we are speaking in metaphor. We are not, then, discussing the land mass between Canada and Mexico but are speaking of America as....

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

Clarice

People who treat some parts of the bible as metaphor and some parts as literal truth have no basis for deciding which is which, other than personal preference and prevailing social customs of the time. If a non-literalist Christian comes here and tries to use the "metaphor" argument to convert us, this is pointed out to him. Likewise, when a fundamentalist tries to weasel out of a corner he got backed into by literalism by appealing to metaphor.

People who treat the entirety of the bible as metaphor would, to my mind, be non-Christians, wouldn't they?

I think the story of Eden can be read as a metaphor for the incompatiblity of knowledge and blithe innocence, as well as the driving power of human curiosity. But that's all I believe it is. So what's your point here?

Tercel

Perhaps you mean Matthew and Luke?

Well, actually the writer probably did mean it as a parable. I'm no inerrantist and happy to declare things flat out wrong where necessary... but I have to admit the most convincing arguments and interpretation I have seen regarding early genesis (ie pre the patriarchal narratives) leads me to believe that the writer did not actually believe the literal truth of the stories but rather was using widely known myths to make some basic theological points regarding God and man.
But no doubt you'd be happier thinking of it as an after-the-fact rationalisation by modern Christians.

Yes. Try taking a look at what percentage of the ancient Christian writers (ie pre 500AD) thought it meant the world was created in 7 24hr days. Answer: A very very low percentage. (ie ~10%) Another after-the-fact rationalisation perhaps? Perhaps modern science was needed to tell them it wasn't literal?

Of course not, just the writers putting God's seal of approval on the actions of their nation.

Come on, that's stretching it a bit. Aren't humans allowed to make mistakes? I don't see much point in a liberal position which tries to pass everything off as "metaphor" rather than accept errancy.

Tercel

Interesting, since the the first two seem to have been the originators of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. Or perhaps while admiring them as thinkers you ignore what they thought about God? I strongly suspect they would be Christians were they alive today.

Do you think perhaps Einstein might just have been a tiny bit emotionally biased - given the influence of Hitler slaughtering Einstein's people?

And intelligent theists don't? Was it safe to say Newton knew what he was talking about? Descartes? Leibniz? Galileo? Bayes? Occam? Euler? Boyle? Maxwell? Faraday? Kepler? Kelvin? Lemaitre? Boole? Pascal?

But of course the great Hawking must certainly know more! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

hinduwoman

Well if all religious books are metaphors, what is the true meaning behind these metaphors? Who gets to decide?

Sephiroth

*Is embarrassed*

*shrug* At least I don't claim to be the divinely inspired word of god. And the metaphor trying to be delivered is? The story was told in the same fashion that a true story would be. Evidence? If Christians believed in literal Creationism in the Victorian Age then I doubt it would be much different before then. Not to mention that the poor writers got the order of events wrong . And then those writers would be so honest when it comes to their encounters with god.......why? Humans are very much allowed to make mistakes, just don't expect me to take a mistake-filled book any more serious than the Illiad .

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sephiroth ]</p>

Amos

</strong>

Exactly Clarice and that is why it is all metaphor and the historic component is just to present the metaphor, or a time when laws were introduced or changes were made etc.

This means that Gen. is valid today, as well as the flood, and the resurrection etc.

There is one place where it distinctly removes the metaphor image where in John 6 it says "my body is real food and my blood is real drink" and this is precisely what people think is metaphor. See how backwards literalism is?

Of course real food and real drink as the body of Christ is the pantheist view as the end of religion with God (Christ) in nature. Either that or they are not Christians but just wannebe's. It doesn't matter to me either way.

Starboy

Yes that is it Heathen Dawn. Once you see everything metaphorically then all religious texts become equally valid. Then there is nothing special about Christianity.

Starboy

Amos

How can there be a war between religion and science if science extrapolates from omniscience? On the other hand, religion is grateful for science and I would argue that they depend on each other for illumination. Science gains from the objective aim and religion benefits from the subjective exposure from where the many insights are added to omniscience that emerge after the experiment is over in the form of questions.