the bible, a metaphor of laws and instructions.

[brntout]

So, if I am getting you right, you could have framed it and summarized it thusly:

The bible is a man written book on based on a simpler understanding of the universe and of human nature and makes much use of metaphor and allegory. It was used by its writers to teach/convince simple people how to follow societies rules.

This is a simple belief that every one of us here share pretty much. The specifics that you use that you seem to think is a new idea is the common understanding of the creation story, even in religious circles. In a Catholic highschool, nearly 15 years ago, I was taught something very similar to your analysis as the the true meaning of the creation story. It's not some stunning new analysis. Though it is a very nice job of breaking it down on your own... grats for that! Great Jorb!

Hmm... I'm sure there are catholics who believe in an actual personal god, hell, and heaven. I am also sure they pray. If common understanding of the creation story in religious circles, is taken for just as a story of creation, there would be NO prayer and NO belief in heaven and hell. Yet they still pray and believe in an actual heaven and hell. This means that the creation story is STILL BEING RELAYED AND CREDITED TO A PERSONAL GOD FOR CREATION due to prayers and beliefs in actual heaven and hell.

This would contradict their knowledge of the creation story, since they know it's a metaphor unless their knowledge of the creation story is incomplete because they still credit a personal god and pray to it.

Unless I am wrong about catholics or christians praying to a personal god, and believing an actual heaven and hell, even though they have a common understanding of the creation story? Sounds like blind faith to me.
How can prayer even exist if the creation story is known, to be a story. Besides, when you take the bible completely metaphorically aside from obvious outright rules, which even some of the rules aren't naturally good, an example is owning slaves, it isn't a religion anymore, since religion requires faith, the bible is then simply a good book to follow.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I was only referring to your breakdown of the creation story as metaphor as what was taught. The jesuits that taught me believe the creation story is metaphor as well as some other bits (revelation, flood story, etc) but that many other parts of the bible are literally true. Particularly the new testament of course.

They believe that men wrote the bible, but they were inspired by a Universe that was designed and set into motion by a Prime Mover. In that way, the entire bible is inspired work of God. Further, they believe that the New Testament is a real and true story about the actual incarnation of God as Man.

I should add that I completely agree, and most of us probably do, that the bible and god are partially intended as metaphor. However, most of us believe it was also intended as a tool to control weak minded. A means of ruling the people. While we can get some interesting thought out of thinking about the bible metaphorically, we lose out on some of the actual history of religion and its own interpretations of its source material which to me are much more interesting than the source material itself.

 

[blinddesign]

i think the creation story was written by phenomonally intelligent biologists, psychologists and anthropologists who were WAY ahead of their time. the 'coming from mud' is clearly a metaphor for abiogenesis. the 'eve coming from a rib' is a metaphor for gametes and reproduction. the 'being naked' is an example of how pre-hominid primates wore not any clothes and were still 'just animals'. the 'talking snake' is a reference to freud's work on suppression of desires, more specifically the snake being th Id winning over the Super-Ego. the 'fruit of knowledge' is OBVIOUSLY humankind's rise to sentience. being cast out of the garden means we left behind being just animals. and the whole adam and eve's incest was simply another freudian reference.
so in conclusion, it was one of the greatest works of scientific literature EVER. but they could have just fucking told us straight. it would have saved our ears from Kent Hovind.

 

[Ozymandyus]

^ Yup!

This is why I was comparing this effort to religious efforts to interpret a shitload of meaning into the bible. It's really not that special of a book, and not worth our time examining it in such detail. We should instead be using this mental effort to interpret other truly amazing examples of human creativity.

 

[brntout]

If some christians and catholics etc. take the bible and even god as a metaphor, surely they must also take heaven and hell as a metaphor also. I would then ask, what is the purpose of being a christian or catholic, since, it is known to these catholics and christians that the bible and god is a metaphor. What would they get from being a christian or catholic?

 

[Ozymandyus]

If some christians and catholics etc. take the bible and even god as a metaphor, surely they must also take heaven and hell as a metaphor also. I would then ask, what is the purpose of being a christian or catholic, since, it is known to these catholics and christians that the bible and god is a metaphor. What would they get from being a christian or catholic?

As I said, its the creation story and some of the other stories in the bible that have clear metaphorical value that they take in this way. From the beginning I told you I was only referring to your lengthy discussion of the story from genesis which was the central point in your argument. What they get out of it is to be able to say it is still divinely inspired work with all this great rich meaning, and it doesn't have to be scientifically accurate. That is why they do it. Heaven and hell are taken as metaphor even in the official doctrine of several religions, including Catholicism. They still believe because they want to believe, because its part of their history and their culture, and because the parts that they believe aren't metaphor (the Jesus story) are truth. Those are a few reasons anyway.

Some take that additional step of God as the physical laws and beautiful complexity of the universe, most religious scientists do this... You CAN do this with the bible, but the question is - why would you? You would only do it if you really respected the Bible as some sort of really impressive inspiration. I personally don't see the point, so I was partially questioning your motives for trying to ascribe such rich meaning to it, as the only people that I have seen dedicate this sort of thought and deconstruction to the Bible have been religious.

 

[brntout]

They still believe because they want to believe, because its part of their history and their culture, and because the parts that they believe aren't metaphor (the Jesus story) are truth
... What is it that they believe?

I personally don't see the point, so I was partially questioning your motives for trying to ascribe such rich meaning to it, as the only people that I have seen dedicate this sort of thought and deconstruction to the Bible have been religious

I was trying to give reason to why the bible in general is a book to folow, because it helps straighten lives out. Besides, thought, deconstruction, and seeing the views of others isn't a bad thing. This is what helps a person grow. Now, the matter of what the bible is and used for, is set aside, I refer to my previous comment in this reply by asking " what is it that they believe" if they know what they believe is metaphor?

 

[Ozymandyus]

I'm not saying they believe in precisely your interpretation, I'm saying they believe that it is meant as a metaphor. Creation in 7 days = an allusion to God's omnipotence, not a literal 7 days... The Tree of knowledge = our ability to reason for ourself and simply follow instructions... Story of the fall = tendency to be curious, not follow instructions, and what it means to have free will... woman being created from man = men and women are made for each other and foundation for family structure... Being expelled from eden = being born/an explanation of the human experience... Theres other interpretations I don't remember. You would have to ask a thoughtful priest to get a full explanation.

I just don't support the effort to read these sorts of meanings into this book which has already been overanalyzed to the breaking point. I don't buy that its because it helps straighten lives out - because I don't believe it does that at all. You could read some meaning into it that would help straighten lives out maybe, but it would be easier to do with some other works... you would have to ignore/reinterpret a lot of stuff that really was not meant that way.

Unless you are truly meaning that the entire bible is honestly meant as a method for NOT believing in god and leading a good life anyway. Because The bible would be a VERY poor attempt at that, as is obvious by the fact that it is the foundation for over 50% of the world's faithful. That seems like a pretty hard to defend stance. I assumed your interpretation was more of a revisionist attempt, not some honest attempt at finding the author's meaning. Are you saying that the bible is ACTUALLY intended in the way you presented and has just been misunderstood? Why did the authors fuck it up so bad?

You can read your own meaning into just about anything... as we have seen many examples of with this particular book.

 

[brntout]

I'm not saying they believe in precisely your interpretation, I'm saying they believe that it is meant as a metaphor. Creation in 7 days = an allusion to God's omnipotence, not a literal 7 days... The Tree of knowledge = our ability to reason for ourself and simply follow instructions... Story of the fall = tendency to be curious, not follow instructions, and what it means to have free will... woman being created from man = men and women are made for each other and foundation for family structure... Being expelled from eden = being born/an explanation of the human experience... Theres other interpretations I don't remember. You would have to ask a thoughtful priest to get a full explanation.

I just don't support the effort to read these sorts of meanings into this book which has already been overanalyzed to the breaking point. I don't buy that its because it helps straighten lives out - because I don't believe it does that at all. You could read some meaning into it that would help straighten lives out maybe, but it would be easier to do with some other works... you would have to ignore/reinterpret a lot of stuff that really was not meant that way.

Unless you are truly meaning that the entire bible is honestly meant as a method for NOT believing in god and leading a good life anyway. Because The bible would be a VERY poor attempt at that, as is obvious by the fact that it is the foundation for over 50% of the world's faithful. That seems like a pretty hard to defend stance. I assumed your interpretation was more of a revisionist attempt, not some honest attempt at finding the author's meaning. Are you saying that the bible is ACTUALLY intended in the way you presented and has just been misunderstood? Why did the authors fuck it up so bad?

You can read your own meaning into just about anything... as we have seen many examples of with this particular book.

You must have a grudge against straw men and be attracted to repetition. You can revise this thread if you don't believe me, as I have explained, set aside, and moved on to other topics pretaining to the original post, which I am ONLY guessing, is what a thread does.

WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE AND WORSHIP THAT REQUIRES FAITH?

I assumed your interpretation was more of a revisionist attempt, not some honest attempt at finding the author's meaning
There's no reason to assume anything, I've been saying that I've been attempting to find the authors meaning since the first page. But, this is what happens when you assume.

Are you saying that the bible is ACTUALLY intended in the way you presented and has just been misunderstood?
If I meant there was a misunderstanding, I would've wrote Something pretaining to a misunderstanding of the bible in my title of the thread. Although I didn't. I only labeled my idea a thought.

Unless you are truly meaning that the entire bible is honestly meant as a method for NOT believing in god and leading a good life anyway.
No, theres no method intended for disbelief in god. The actual content would obviously support otherwise. I don't see how this makes sense at all.
I AM GIVING PURPOSE BEHIND THE WRITING OF THE BIBLE. THE PURPOSE I AM THINKING OF IS SOMETHING APART FROM THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE BIBLE. THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE BIBLE WOULD HAVE YOU PRAY, FAST, FEAR AN ACTUAL HELL, AND BELIEF IN A PERSONAL GOD. THE ACTUAL CONTENT ONLY SOLIDIFIES THE TRUE PURPOSE BEHIND WRITING THE BIBLE, WHICH IS LEADING A GENERALLY GOOD LIFE, BY PRESENTING RULE AND INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO DO SO.
Hopefully, the capitals, underlines, and previous posts that I have made make you realize somthing because I hate using all capitals and underlining shit.

 

[Ozymandyus]

A grudge against straw men? Well, yes I suppose... not a big fan. I don't particularly like repeating myself but you keep asking questions I've already answered so I thought it might be necessary. Hell you asked the same one AGAIN in this last post.

There's no reason to assume anything, I've been saying that I've been attempting to find the authors meaning since the first page . But, this is what happens when you assume.

I AM GIVING PURPOSE BEHIND THE WRITING OF THE BIBLE. THE PURPOSE I AM THINKING OF IS SOMETHING APART FROM THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE BIBLE. THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE BIBLE WOULD HAVE YOU PRAY, FAST, FEAR AN ACTUAL HELL, AND BELIEF IN A PERSONAL GOD. THE ACTUAL CONTENT ONLY SOLIDIFIES THE TRUE PURPOSE BEHIND WRITING THE BIBLE, WHICH IS LEADING A GENERALLY GOOD LIFE, BY PRESENTING RULE AND INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO DO SO.

So anyway... yes of course if someone is writing about 'how God has been telling us how to act' down in a book its going to be about how to live a good life. It's not going to be about how to live a life full of evil... So yes, if you take everything as metaphor and try to interpret around all the silly bits then you are going to get a book about how to lead what was at the time thought to be a good life. The same could be said for the illiad... in fact this is exactly how we do cultural anthropology in some cases - we see what the authors valued by looking at their work.

I guess I understand why you are angry as I am being pretty confrontational - I honestly shouldn't have said anything on this thread as I found your writing style very hard to read in the first place and knew I was misunderstanding you. But then you said there wasn't a gist to catch in a rather dismissive way, which is never true... and so I responded based on my best estimate you got all angry with me.... and I can't resist arguing with someone who is all angry. It's one of my many flaws.

 

[brntout]

I thought this was the league of reason. Instead, this seems to me a place to pick minute aspects out of ideas to provoke arguments. There is no anger on my part, for I have responded rather logically and reasonably. You also seem to dismiss what I say, almost all the time, or don't get the main ideas of what I'm saying. It was stated in this thread that there was some confusion over my original post. There was no problem for me explaining it, as I have done so. And the reason I said theres no gist to catch, was because everything I meant was in detail in my original post. But, people wanted me to break it down into shorter paragraph, which I knew was very hard because confusion would arise. But, I managed to break it down, and if there is still confusion, I can't help. Nor do I want to argue. Read the thread and it's responses. There is reason to why I sad you must have a grudge against straw men and are attracted to me repeating myself. I wont respond to picking at minute detail which amount to nothing. This is about the main idea. Do not respond if you will respond without reading the thread over and realize main, general ideas for which I have given reason to. Plus, how can you argue about this, if what I presented was an IDEA. Sounds subjective on your part to me to pick at this. Remember, there are main ideas to be noticed.
People would do anything to try and seem right, when there is no right and wrong in a person presenting an IDEA. This sickens me. I should'nt have responded to you in the first place because I knew I would end up saying this post to you, if not someone else.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Again, sorry if I offended you, I admitted to misunderstanding some of your original ideas. Anyway, please don't let one confrontation scare you off - As I admitted in the post above I was being confrontational because I felt you were being a little close-minded about not being able to clarify your post. We both degenerated a bit from there, and you certainly did display some anger. You used an all caps response in your first direct response to me I believe.

So anyway, feel free to blame me if you want - but I was seriously trying to understand your point, not 'pick apart minute details'. I asked questions that I honestly was wondering, as to why you thought it was important to do this with the bible, which I was curious to have the answer to. Though I admit the post that said you were doing something that has been done before was unnecessarily dismissive, I explained why I reacted this way.

Anyway, all the best!

 

[brntout]

Again, sorry if I offended you, I admitted to misunderstanding some of your original ideas. Anyway, please don't let one confrontation scare you off - As I admitted in the post above I was being confrontational because I felt you were being a little close-minded about not being able to clarify your post. We both degenerated a bit from there, and you certainly did display some anger. You used an all caps response in your first direct response to me I believe.

So anyway, feel free to blame me if you want - but I was seriously trying to understand your point, not 'pick apart minute details'. I asked questions that I honestly was wondering, as to why you thought it was important to do this with the bible, which I was curious to have the answer to. Though I admit the post that said you were doing something that has been done before was unnecessarily dismissive, I explained why I reacted this way.

Anyway, all the best!

Why do people take all caps response as offence? Why the hell would you need a reason for me doing this? Its like asking a person, why do you think? My point was simply to express ideals. Is this the personal answer you were loooking for, as opposed to my reasoning given of what my intent in my idea was? I am not scared off, this isn't a confrontation, and no one is angry.

 

[Aught3]

Read your posts aloud, but you have to shout everything written in caps. Then see how it sounds.

 

[brntout]

Read your posts aloud, but you have to shout everything written in caps. Then see how it sounds.

Sounds like I was offering clarity, besides, why would you take caps as shouting? I used caps because they are bigger, as opposed to lower case, to draw attention. Oh, and in the posts that include caps, there weren't any degrading, offensive, or derogatory statements made.

 

[Aught3]

The problem is that everyone online will read caps as if you are shouting, that's why Ozy (and probably everyone else who read your posts) was thinking you were getting upset or angry. If you want to emphasise something make it bold.

 

[brntout]

The problem is that everyone online will read caps as if you are shouting, that's why Ozy (and probably everyone else who read your posts) was thinking you were getting upset or angry. If you want to emphasise something make it bold.

I see. I am farily new to forum posting. I will keep this in mind.

 

[Aught3]

That's cool. It's quite common, at least you didn't type out your whole post in caps. I've seen that so many times, and it becomes quite painful to read.