aikido7

Often I have noticed that both skeptics and believers take the biblical texts at face value--literally, that is.

I had always thought that stuff like "the Virgin Birth," for example, was actually talking about the importance of Jesus to Christianity rather than the biology of his mother. Taking things literally leads to an impoverishment of life to the extreme. To my way of thinking, the most enlightened scientists are those who have an imagination and a lyrical, poetic view of existence. They are not believers, but they are curious and able to deal with ambiguity.

I think the "infidel fringe" would be a lot more effective with thinkers such as physicist Neils Bohr, anthropologist Gregory Bateson or someone similar. Rationalism split into both scientism and fundamentalism after the Enlightenment and both sides deserve each other.

Any feedback?

Starboy

akido7,

Are you suggesting that the bible be interpreted metaphorically? If so who gets to make the interpretation? Wouldn't that turn the bible into poetry? Why would most people be interested in the poetry of two thousand years ago?

Starboy

Carlos

Part of me agrees with you. If we make a case against a literal interpretation of the Bible, our arguments will have a diminished effect on those christians who do not treat the Bible as fact. If the intent is to reach as many people as possible, it would seem that a different method might be more appropriate.

IMO, the reason many arguments are made against literal interpretations is that it is the easy choice. There's no need to chase a changing target; the Bible doesn't change. There are more "juicy" targets that are easier to shoot down - the same stories that other denominations interpret metaphorically.

The problem in trying to address a more liberal interpretation of the Bible is that many people believe their version is the correct one, as Starboy suggests. We might have to come up with a different case against each interpretation.

aikido7

Using literalism to disprove or point out contradictions in evangelical fundamentalism would only seem to further spur literalistic explanations of those same contradictions. Another way to put this is simply that when you push people, they tend to push back.

Also, cau, is it not the case that most literalists (secular and religious) also believe their version is the correct interpretation?
You say that "the Bible doesn't change"--which would seem to me to be the flip side of the fundamentalist "inerrancy" claim.

Given that the Bible is "inerrant" (whatever that means), we may still have to further agree that our understanding of its "inerrancy" is decidedly not.

And to Starboy, I can only turn the tables before someone tips them over in the temple courtyard:

I am not suggesting that the Bible be interpreted only literally. Who might get to do that, and wouldn't it tend to turn the text into secular history? And why study ancient history anyway? I have a bus to catch.

Amos

Most people here became atheist because they were literalists and if they would reverse this trent would there not be danger that they would become believers agian? That is, if the truth lies behind the metaphor you really can't help but stumble upon it.

Starboy

akido7, perhaps amos is on to something. We live in literal times. Metaphorical interpretations are not how things are done in this day and age.

Psycho Economist

Well, being a failed fundie (raised in an evangellical church, but their teachings backfired), I'll admit I don't have any other way of thinking about the Bible. But it seems to me that there is stuff that is literary metaphor and there is also stuff that is passed off as fact. The two are seprate, even if not always well seprable.

I think the more important question is not whether a metaphorical meaning can be found once you disregard the literal meaning, but rather what was intended by the authors, especially in a book that claims to be non-fiction. Even if you assume that the story of the virgin birth was an shameless lie put in by the Greek church, they still intended for it to be believed (or disregarded) at face value. If you want to take some belief-easing middle ground, have fun But it seems like a lot of the baloney in the Bible was either believed (a ressurection) or known to be baloney (a physical ressurection) when it was writ down, and it was meant to be swallowed whole.

That's what myths are: stories meant to explain the nature of the world. When the Judahites saw a pig-eating polytheist neighbor city-state that was otherwise similar in many respects (the Edomites), they explained it in terms of being distant, degenerate relatives. That's what they considered fact, as much as the Greeks believed that Persephone's being in hades brought about winter. We might recognize the story of Persephone as a "neat story" now, but that doesn't make us worshipers of Zeus.

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

Corwin

Two issues:

Christians who aren't literalists aren't as much of a direct threat. (They're more likely to be liberal and tolerant.)

And honestly, a large number of nonliteralists are just intellectually dishonest. It's either a way for them to not have to face how bizarre and twisted their beliefs are, (such as a sky fairy poofing reality into existance, dribbling corn oil on one's head, or the virgin birth) or for them to provide a moving target to critics. Creationists have done this for decades. (Constant redefinition of the terms 'kind' and 'evolution' to their temporary needs, for example.)

Heathen Dawn

A non-literal Bible is no longer the Way, Truth and Life, but a book of myths, on a par with Greek and Mayan mythology. Once you have given literalism, you have effectually relinquished absolute claims.

The war between science and religion is the war between literal scientific facts and literal religious ideas; non-literal religion is relatively immune to the attacks of science. Religion is safe from science only when it abandons its literal, real-world claims.

Sephiroth

AFAIK, the Bible is the only book that can get away with so many so-called "metaphors".

Why does Mark and Matthew disagree on the genealogy of Jesus? Metaphor.
Why is there absolutely no evidence (in fact evidence against) for the Flood? Metaphor.
7-day Creation Story? Metaphor.
All the OT genocides? Metaphor.
Contradictions? Metaphor.
Historical inaccurate information? Metaphor.

I respect liberal Christian's right to believe what they want but to tell me that I should read the Bible in a way no one would read any other is, IMO, odd to say the least. Anyway, from what I can see, without a literal, or mostly literal OT there is no reason for a "Messiah".

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