Yes, I totally agree. I knew this answer already and was hoping someone would present it.

If there are as many interpretations of the bible as there are people who have read it, how can anyone take any part of it literally? OK, there are some historical truths, and some moral platitudes (don’t kill), but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about things like the seven days of creation, the virgin birth, even the resurrection. Aren’t these things best treated as metaphors? They mean to the reader what the reader gets out of them? I’m not dismissing them at all. They are very good metaphors. They have stood the test of time and they have helped a lot of people. But there is no concrete scientific proof that any of these things happened, and it is these things, not the minor historical details, that are the backbone of Christianity.

A number of Christians, and believers of other religions as well, agree with this either in whole or in part. It’s fairly common to find Christians who believe the seven days of creation is a metaphor, and that the actual scientific answer is evolution. Note that if you take the bible as a metaphor, science and religion can now get along. Just like there is separation of church and state, there should also be separation of church and science.

But why do they stop there? The seven days is a metaphor but the virgin birth is not? Who gets to decide what is a metaphor and what is literal?

If someone treats the bible as metaphorical, there is no “argument” against them. Valuable lessons can be learned, and it brings a lot of contentment into these people’s lives. But when they start taking all or part literally, then the arguments start. You even made the case for this when you said “I don't have to tell you that much of mankind's troubles have, and will continue to originate when factions push their interpretation on others.”

You pretty much got it Kang. At least I think so. There are two schools of thought out there with, of course, minor divisions within them.

First, and I think the one that causes trouble, is that the Bible IS the Word of God. Everything within it is literally true. Word for word. And I know what it means but you don't, dammit. And I'm willing to fight and die if necessary to get it through your thick skull. So there.

The second is that is CONTAINS the Word of God. He is speaking to us through it and using metaphor to do so. No one understands all of it, or even much of it. Parts of "The Truth" are to be found in it, but it's not the whole truth. There is more to it than that, and we probably would not understnd the rest any better than we understand what we have been shown.

I'm a Christian. I make no secret about that, but I don't wear it on my sleeve, either. I will never force my beliefs upon anybody, but I won't let anyone trample them either. I'll offer what I think I know (with the caveat that I'm really not sure of the details) to anyone that asks. Guess which of the above two camps I'm in?

But...but...Tabs speaks to us using metaphor so...?
:confused:

Kang, to me the Bible is a conglomeration of different literary styles. Some of it is prophecy, some is allegory, some is factual recounting of events, some is poetry, some is records of geneology. You need to understand that the Bible as we know it is simply the sum of sacred writings that was put together by the church. There are several writings that are not contained in the Bible, and the Catholic Bible has seven or eight more books in it than the Protestant Bible.

So to say that some of the Bible is allegory and some is literal is entirely acceptable to me. I don't think that the Earth was created in 7 24 hour days (see a prior thread on that exact topic...search on Intelligent Design) but I completely believe that Christ was born of a virgin, crucified and rose from the dead. If I didn't believe that I wouldn't be Christian now would I?

So again, trying to apply overriding truths to one's support of the Bible (or argument against it) doesn't hold unless you are talking to someone who thinks that the entire Bible is to be taken literally (which I do not).

This is the basis for Martin Luther's actions. Jeff said it was because the Catholic Church had corrupted the message, but it was really about who bears authority to make the interpretation. Catholics (like myself) believe that authority was commissioned upon the Church, and so therefore it is not within our authority to interpret the Bible's passages for our convenience and pleasure.

Yes, I know about the Church behaving badly. Just as a husband may direct his wife to behave badly. If she follows his directive, it is his sin and not hers. I do believe there is an official authority, and that the Bible is not open to my personal interpretive decisions. That's what separates the Catholic Church (and to some degree the Episcopal Church and to an even lesser degree Methodism) from the others.

True True, Supe...

Guess you can tell I'm not a Catholic , huh? LOL.

First, I have a lot more respect for the second school of thought than the first.

There is also a third school: The bible is just a book. There is no god. It is all just meaningful metaphors. It was all created by humans, with good intent. It meets numerous normal human needs: The need for absolution from sin, the need for life after death, the need to explain the unexplainable, the need for an absolute third party set of morals, the need to belong to a group, the need to feel superior to others, etc. We all have these needs, every individual slightly differently from the next. I recognize some of them in myself, but I meet them in other ways than religion.

It all started like this. Primitive man noticed his friend died. He figured it would happen to him. He also noticed things like the seasons, floods, crops that grew one year and failed the next. They invented the concept of god to explain this. Primitive religions often had gods that caused the seasons, or they sacrificed something to the gods to get a crop to grow, etc. “Priests” came along to intervene between man and this god. A set of rituals were developed to please this god.

As we learned more and more, this religion “evolved” to meet the needs of the time. Religions also diverged, and different religions were created in different parts of the world, but they all meet the same set of needs. At first, religion was passed on from generation to generation orally. Religion evolved rapidly then, as the story changed from person to person. When writing was developed, the story got kind of stuck. The only thing left to change is the interpretation of the existing writings. I’m sure the interpretation has and will continue to evolve. For example, 100 years ago no one would have said that the seven days of creation was just a metaphor, but now that interpretation is almost mainstream. 100 years from now will bring even more change.

We’re now left with a god that meets our current human needs. We no longer sacrifice virgins to get a good crop, but we believe that Jesus will save us from sin. I imagine in another few thousand years or so, we will believe in something else.

What a way to pass the buck! You do realize you just absolved all terrorists, don’t you? “The Mullah told me that I would go to heaven and get my 72 virgins if I blew myself up in a crowded area.” Does that make the sin of murder belong to the Mullah, or the suicide bomber? By your logic the suicide bomber is innocent.

Re: Something I read in the bible today
 

jesus wept!

Are you happy with yourself now Beethoven?? ;) I'm buying you a Warsteiner tonite for this one.

The ultimate Authority is the one who wrote the Book. Not the church, or any other orgnization made up of men. Paul warned about people who would try to deceive. America looked at as a whole is very hypcrytical backwards wavering unsteady...

I hope I don't get started on Bush here to. I tend to lean towards the Republican party due to economics, but both dem's and republican's are a bunch of... Well, I won't get started.

Paul also said "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." Thought he was god. Mad as a cut snake. LOL.

Can you show me where he thought he was god? I must of missed it...

Thanks

He sure was a very upsetting man, to say in the least, though.

If you render that one in a more readable translation, it comes out more like "Follow me as I follow Christ," or loosely, "I'm doing my level-best to follow Christ; follow me following Him." There's no megalomania there, not from the man who claimed to be the Chief of Sinners. There's also no blasphemy. It only looks that way if you take one single isolated verse out of context without bothering to read any of the rest of Paul's work.

You see, that's where many of the disagreements about scriptural interpretation come from. One guy pulls one verse, another guy pulls another one, and taken on their own, they mean two conflicting things. However, taken within the context of all of scripture, most of it is pretty logical. I won't argue that there are chunks that are confusing ("My Lord said to The Lord," for example, or that bussiness in Thess 4 (?) about wielding your skeos, or the exact translation of upostasis), but there are some pretty large chunks that make a lot of sense. Look at Jesus' life: he taught love, he lived forgiveness, he told stories about being compassionate towards people. Is that so hard to deal with? Can we agree on that, at least, that we should be good to other people?

Are you are saying dont sweat the small stuff, dont take the literal meaning, go with the broad sweep of what Christianity is about? Love, compassion, charity etc?

Re- Can we agree about being good to ther people? Sure we can. But can we also agree that this idea is central to every religous and humanist doctrine there is?

Well, yes, sort of. There's a lot of material that is similarly obvious that I've left out, but love is a pretty clear foundation. And no, I really don't think that everyone else believes in love, too. Many religious doctrines support the concept of love, though there are a great many more that have something else as a central principle. Humanism, specifically, certainly is not a love-centric philosophy. Humanism is a philosophy based centrally around the rejection of God, with foundational concepts like "each person should make their own decisions," and "values are based in the human person." Humanism espouses moral and ethical relativism and materialism. Some humanists make a mention to "treating others with dignity and respect," but few (if any) talk about love at all.

But then, for proof of philosophy, all we need to do is look at The Real World. (In the Nuclear Power world, we call this "Performing a Theory-to-Practice.") What would the world look like if everyone who subscribed to any religious or humanist doctrine (that's almost everyone, whether they realize it or not) look like if love was foundational? What would the world look like if even all Christians actually lived with Christ's love?

And I though thought Schnitzels line of work was limited to... "hmmm... this leather bound bible is a bit heavier than than this paper bound bible."

:D

-Bernie

I think that's the whole idea, Stuart. Big picture stuff. The danger arrises when folks either deliberately, or through ignorance, take "the small stuff" out of context.

Your passage about Paul, and your use of that passage, is a great example. You either deliberately presented it out of context, not caring that it was as long as it suited your needs; or you did quite honestly, completely, missunderstand it and put it in your desired context out of pure ignorance. Both situations have occured ad nauseum throughout our past

Anyone that has read and studied Paul's work knows exactly what he meant in that passage. Djmcmath explains it quite well. The "big picture" concepts such as this are quite easily understood with even the most cursory study. You would think, then, that the "ignorance" part of this equation would be fairly easy to address, but it has proven to be anything but. Probably because there is a "stubborness" component to the "ignorance" factor that we will never surmount. Once again, thanks for the great example.

I continue to be amazed that those that will defend the rights of minorities in this country, be they racial minorities or lifestyle minorities, and will bristle at the thought of non-Christian religions being somehow oppressed consistently go out of their way to silence and persecute Christians...

Excellent thread guys, keep the faith!