I Thought That Was Metaphorical!

liah

Thought it was mildly amusing.

Here's a question for the Christians who read this forum-- how exactly do you decide what's metaphorical and what isn't? There's nothing in the Bible that clearly defines the difference, and it seems a lot of people just pick out things that suit them and decide what they want to be metaphorical and what they want to be fact.

Like, what makes it okay to eat shrimp and wear items of clothing that are blended, but not okay to accept homosexuals, other than one suits you and the other doesn't?

Fanny Cradock

liah wrote: »

Here's a question for the Christians who read this forum-- how exactly do you decide what's metaphorical and what isn't?

Use you brain. Failing that, one could always pigyback on the thoughts of some decent exegetes.

liah

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Use you brain. Failing that, one could always pigyback on the thoughts of some decent exegetes.

So you're telling me it's common sense to disagree with homosexuality? That if I disagree, or choose to think that part of the Bible is metaphorical, I'm not using my brain?

philologos

liah:

Firstly, since you have such a understanding of the Scriptures, why was Jesus pleased to see that Zacheus had given half of his wealth to the poor rather than his wealth in it's entirety if it was really the intention of Christ to order Christians to give all their possessions to the poor? (See Luke 19:8-10). Do you think there is a reason for why Christ has told the rich man to give away all his possessions in comparison to Zacheus giving away half his possessions. Why did Jesus say that Zacheus was saved if Zacheus had indeed still been in transgression?

Now continuing on, Jesus in saying that rich men would find it difficult to enter the Kingdom of Heaven distressed the disciples asking who could be saved? What was Jesus' answer and how should this effect your interpretation of what has been said previous? (See Mark 10:23-27)

Secondly, how do you normally tell what is allegorical or metaphoric from other books in comparison to what is intended literally, just curious?

Thirdly, in relation to shrimp. Do you know how the Sanhedrin works if we are going to discuss Jewish law it's going to be key. There is an answer to these questions if you apply yourself to seek them.

Fourthly, what makes you think that Christians don't accept homosexuals? If any gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered person comes to the Church to seek God will they not be welcome? Does God show partiality and does God look at humans in the same way that other humans do? (See James 2:9, and 1 Samuel chapter 16 before replying)

Fifthly, since you know what the Scripture argues. What does the Bible say about the capacity of non-believers to receive the Gospel in comparison to believers? (See 1 Corinthians 1:18)

Finally, just out of curiosity. Should I have to be the one who prompts you to take an assessment of the Bible for yourself, or should you have researched this yourself before posting?

liah

Jakkass wrote: »

liah:

Firstly, since you have such a understanding of the Scriptures, why was Jesus pleased to see that Zacheus had given half of his wealth to the poor rather than his wealth in it's entirety if it was really the intention of Christ to order Christians to give all their possessions to the poor? (See Luke 19:8-10). Do you think there is a reason for why Christ has told the rich man to give away all his possessions in comparison to Zacheus giving away half his possessions. Why did Jesus say that Zacheus was saved if Zacheus had indeed still been in transgression?

Now continuing on, Jesus in saying that rich men would find it difficult to enter the Kingdom of Heaven distressed the disciples asking who could be saved? What was Jesus' answer and how should this effect your interpretation of what has been said previous? (See Mark 10:23-27)

Secondly, how do you normally tell what is allegorical or metaphoric from other books in comparison to what is intended literally, just curious?

Thirdly, in relation to shrimp. Do you know how the Sanhedrin works if we are going to discuss Jewish law it's going to be key. There is an answer to these questions if you apply yourself to seek them.

Fourthly, what makes you think that Christians don't accept homosexuals? If any gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered person comes to the Church to seek God will they not be welcome? Does God show partiality and does God look at humans in the same way that other humans do? (See James 2:9, and 1 Samuel chapter 16 before replying)

Fifthly, since you know what the Scripture argues. What does the Bible say about the capacity of non-believers to receive the Gospel in comparison to believers? (See 1 Corinthians 1:18)

Finally, just out of curiosity. Should I have to be the one who prompts you to take an assessment of the Bible for yourself, or should you have researched this yourself before posting?

Uhh, just to clarify, I wasn't the one who wrote the comic. I was just asking how YOU PERSONALLY decide what's metaphorical and what isn't.

You pulling those bits of scripture out doesn't really change anything-- also a lot of the ones you have provided are contextual and not hugely relevant to the questions I asked-- some denominations of Christians (whether you belong to that or not) do believe homosexuality is a sin due to how they have interpreted the bible.

Each denomination of Christianity interprets the bible in a different way. My question was how do YOU decide what is metaphorical and what isn't, such as the talking of the snake or the devil possessing the pigs like the comic referenced, and other equally ridiculous things.

Cite the things people commonly misinterpret and the reasons you believe they've misinterpreted. Cite the parts of the bible you find to be utter truth and why. That's what I mean.

philologos

They're totally relevant to the criticisms that you have applied to Christians on this thread. I'm asking you to be accountable to the material that you post, and to be fair in researching subject matter before you post on it. I'm asking you these questions to assess your understanding of Christians before asking us questions that you haven't sought answers for yourself.

You made claims about Christianity which are to be questioned.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm asking you these questions to assess your understanding of Christians before asking us questions that you haven't sought answers for yourself.

Isn't he seeking the answers by asking the questions?? :rolleyes:

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

Isn't he seeking the answers by asking the questions?? :rolleyes:

Perhaps. My questions would have helped to encouraged liah to seek out answers instead of having us getting into a fruitless debate about it.

As for homosexual relations being forbidden, this is different from not accepting homosexuals. That's the first misunderstanding we would need to clear up. I'm personally willing to accept any gay person to come to church to learn about Christianity. Whether they choose to follow it is another matter. That is their choice, it is nothing to do with us not accepting homosexuals.

liah

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps. My questions would have helped to encourage people to seek out the answers for themselves instead of having us getting into a fruitless debate about it.

My "material" was a comic I found to be amusing-- that wasn't what I intended for you to attack, which you did, which is why I'm ignoring it.

I'm simply curious as to each individual Christian's interpretation of what's metaphorical, what isn't, and why. No need to wax lyrical about it. I am trying to seek answers for myself-- considering my question is "What do individual Christians believe to be metaphorical and factual about the Bible!"

I'm not looking for debate at all, and I'm not sure why you think I am.. it's genuine curiosity.

philologos

liah: At least answer this. How do you usually tell what is allegory or what is metaphorical from what is literal in a text other than the Bible?

I would also request moving this thread to the Christianity forum if Dades or robindch are around.

liah

Jakkass wrote: »

liah: At least answer this. How do you usually tell what is allegory or what is metaphorical from what is literal in a text other than the Bible?

I would also request moving this thread to the Christianity forum if Dades or robindch are around.

We're not talking about texts other than the bible, though. We're talking about the bible. I'm talking about the differences of interpretations between Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, Evangelists.. hell, even Witnesses, or even just individual views. Any denomination that uses the bible. Why they choose certain things to be fact and certain things to be metaphor, such as the creation story (world in seven days, Adam and Eve, etc). Some Christians argue that seven days is fact and that the world is only a few thousand years old, whereas others would argue that it's more a case of evolution through god.

It's nothing to do with how I interpret texts other than the bible, because I see all of the bible as a fairytale and very little of it based in reality or fact, which is why I'm asking Christians to provide their own personal views because I obviously cannot see them.

Just because you interpret it one way doesn't mean all Christians will, and it doesn't mean interpretation is left to common sense, either, which seems to be what you're hinting at.

philologos

It is relevant to the discussion. Look I'm just asking you to answer the question as it'll make it easier for me to elaborate on how I see what is literal from what is allegorical in the Bible. It isn't as ambiguous as you describe.

liah wrote:

It's nothing to do with how I interpret texts other than the bible, because I see all of the bible as a fairytale and very little of it based in reality or fact, which is why I'm asking Christians to provide their own personal views because I obviously cannot see them.

See this is the problem. If you are coming with the assumption that the Bible is a fairytale, you've already put up barriers in your thought to any other alternative that people would want to demonstrate to you. You've effectively answered your own question. You think this is something that we have contrived, I'd argue that it isn't. However when I clarify how you generally tell what is literal from allegorical, we'll be able to deal with the question further.

liah

Jakkass wrote: »

It is relevant to the discussion. Look I'm just asking you to answer the question as it'll make it easier for me to elaborate on how I see what is literal from what is allegorical in the Bible. It isn't as ambiguous as you describe.

It's up to context and what you already know as fact, quite obviously. Happy now? Figured that much was evident, and making me answer a question we both already know the answer to does absolutely nothing for the discussion nor the questions I'm asking, considering it's fairly straightforward; why do you believe some parts of the bible to be fact (resurrection) and others to be metaphorical (seven days)?

philologos

Brilliant. Thanks for answering. Now why do you think that this isn't the same for the Bible? We take the context of the chapters which involve a certain subject, and we tell based on what the passage actually says whether or not it is literal or

Ezekiel 23 is a clear example of allegory. Why do I say that it is allegory? I say this, because the passage clearly outlines itself as being such.

Ezekiel 23:1-4 wrote:

The word of the Lord came to me: Mortal, there were two women, the daughters of one mother; they played the whore in Egypt; they played the whore in their youth; their breasts were caressed there, and their virgin bosoms were fondled. Oholah was the name of the elder and Oholibah the name of her sister. They became mine, and they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem.

There are numerous examples of this in scripture. Jesus' parables being the most familiar to us as Christians, today. For legalistic passages, well, we hold them as being such because they are clear commands, they have the language that is involved with an order or with a commandment.

Now, I know that the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5 - 7) is a legalistic passage due to the fact that it refers to Torah laws, and explains the New Covenant understanding on those laws. For example dealing with the law that Jesus brought forward on divorce:

Matthew 5:31-32 wrote:

‘It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Now one can tell that is straight forward. It is saying what is the case concerning divorce.

herya

Liah you shouldn't expect a rational answer as the issue in question is not rational in the first place. You will only get bogged down in endless quote disputes.

philologos

herya wrote: »

Liah you shouldn't expect a rational answer as the issue in question is not rational in the first place. You will only get bogged down in endless quote disputes.

What is rational? What generally does reasoning follow on from?

liah

Great, cheers for the response.

But I'm more looking towards something like this: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm

Check the "Inspiration & Inerrancy of the Bible" section and most of everything below it for what I'm getting at.

Why do denominations interpret so differently to one another, and what makes them believe some things, but not others, despite another denomination believing the opposite?

liah

Another good one that's of much dispute was Purgatory, now that I think of it.

But we'll start at the beginning: why do some believe Genesis and others not? What aspects do you/don't you believe, and why? Why do you believe others do/don't believe the way you do?

philologos

liah wrote: »

Great, cheers for the response.

But I'm more looking towards something like this: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm

Check the "Inspiration & Inerrancy of the Bible" section and most of everything below it for what I'm getting at.

Why do denominations interpret so differently to one another, and what makes them believe some things, but not others, despite another denomination believing the opposite?

This isn't what your question concerns though. You did ask me how I interpret what is literal from what is allegorical. I personally have answered you. I use normal literary constructs as I would use for any other text I would read.

Denominational differences generally arise from very minor issues such as in translation (disputes over the meanings of words in Greek between groups). I.E I'm not going to get into an argument with myself over all the different views that can be possibly gleaned from the Bible, but rather I am going to show you how I assess what is literal and what is allegorical. That's the furthest I think it is reasonable for me to go to to deal with the original question.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

What is rational? What generally does reasoning follow on from?

Common sense?

liah

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't what your question concerns though. You did ask me how I interpret what is literal from what is allegorical. I personally have answered you. I use normal literary constructs as I would use for any other text I would read.

Denominational differences generally arise from very minor issues such as in translation (disputes over the meanings of words in Greek between groups). I.E I'm not going to get into an argument with myself over all the different views that can be possibly gleaned from the Bible, but rather I am going to show you how I assess what is literal and what is allegorical. That's the furthest I think it is reasonable for me to go to to deal with the original question.

Actually, it's entirely what my question concerns-- my original question was what makes one thing any more believable than the next in the cases where it is not neatly outlined as to what's metaphorical and what's fact, and the continually proceeded to ask for reasons why some denominations take Genesis as fact and others don't, why some believe in Purgatory and some don't, what's the difference between sinning by eating shrimp and sinning by homosexuality, etc.

So, back to my question: why do some believe Genesis and others not? What aspects do you/don't you believe, and why? Why do you believe others do/don't believe the way you do?

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

Common sense?

There is no such thing as reason without empiricism. Empiricism comes from experience. In science it comes from scientific experiments. In religion it comes from source texts and religious experience.

When we have these sources, we reason on them, and we think about them. It isn't through reason alone that we come to any conclusion at all. Hence why I find this obsession with "reason", and "logic", and the notion that atheists have a monopoly on both to be absurd as it isn't actually reasonable to have reason without empiricism.

As for common sense, it makes perfect sense to me that God exists, that God revealed His message to man, and that Jesus fulfilled Biblical prophesy.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

I would also request moving this thread to the Christianity forum if Dades or robindch are around.

Good call.

Done...

Overblood

liah wrote: »

So, back to my question: why do some believe Genesis and others not? What aspects do you/don't you believe, and why? Why do you believe others do/don't believe the way you do?

Some christians don't take the creation story literally because of what a certain St. Augustine taught... is that right Jakkass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation

And Jakkass, you asked how people decipher what is metaphor and what is fact in other texts. What kind of texts are you talking about? Novels & poetry? It's pretty simple. If I wrote a poem titled: "My wife is a beautiful flower" which contained lines like "her eyes are emeralds" etc... would you really think that my wife was an actual flower and had eyes made of stone? Nope. Common sense tells you that this must be a metaphor, as it is outlandish.

But christian teachings are absolutely chock full of outlandish claims that are taken as fact such as the virgin birth, transubstantiation, water to wine, healing the blind with a touch, jesus' resurrection... who is anyone to say that all the above^^^ is to be taken literally, but all this stuff over here >>> like the talking snake, 7 day creation etc, living in a giant fish etc. is metaphorical?

If you believe something as outrageous as the virgin birth, why not take it ALL literally?

philologos

liah wrote: »

Another good one that's of much dispute was Purgatory, now that I think of it.

This is from the Anglican Articles of Religion, the one of the products of the English Reformation and held by the Church of Ireland:

22. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of
Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of
Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

I believe this concerning purgatory, there isn't a Biblical case for it. The reference commonly given for it comes from 2 Maccabees. I will quote from it and I will give you my reasons for concern when looking at it.

2 Maccabees 12:40-45 wrote:

Then under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin-offering. In doing this he acted very well and honourably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.

These soldiers violated the Jewish law by committing an act of idolatry.

They took up a collection for a sin offering in Jerusalem in accordance with the Jewish law (Leviticus 4) on behalf of the dead. Now in this passage you will find it says the following:

Leviticus 4:3 wrote:

"If it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering to the Lord".

Concerning unintentional sins of the entire house of Israel:

Leviticus 4:14 wrote:

"when the sin that they have committed becomes known, the assembly shall offer a bull of the herd for a sin-offering and bring it before the tent of meeting"

Concerning sins of rulers:

Leviticus 4:23 wrote:

"once the sin he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish".

Concerning sins in the general population:

Leviticus 4:28 wrote:

"when the sin you have committed is made known to you, you shall bring a female goat without blemish as your offering, for the sin you have committed".

You will notice that nowhere in this passage does it say that one can atone for the sins of another. As such I have no guarantee that God actually did forgive the sins of those who have already been deceased. I also do not have any guarantee that Yehuda HaMaccabi (Judas Maccabeus) is not trying to get the deceased out of hell, rather than out of purgatory.

Nothing is said of:
1) Purgatory

or

2) God taking anyone out of purgatory or hell after they are deceased.

Therefore I have no reason to assume the existence of purgatory without adequate Biblical reason.

liah wrote: »

But we'll start at the beginning: why do some believe Genesis and others not? What aspects do you/don't you believe, and why? Why do you believe others do/don't believe the way you do?

I believe in the Genesis account. What I disagree on is that the Bible is a science book. Genesis to me deals with the why and not the how. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and that it was indeed His will to do so, and that it is unfathomable to really consider that the universe created itself. This is currently my view, I'll be thinking about this for my entire life, and if someone can show me a better argued and a better reasoned case from Scripture, I am willing to be corrected on my understanding.

There is plenty on the Creation thread on the Christianity forum to deal with what people agree or disagree on.

Fanny Cradock

liah wrote: »

So you're telling me it's common sense to disagree with homosexuality? That if I disagree, or choose to think that part of the Bible is metaphorical, I'm not using my brain?

How about I just don't bother replying to you? Instead you can just answer for me and continue misrepresenting me in the process.

Where did I say any of the words you have shoved down my mouth?

Fanny Cradock

herya wrote: »

Liah you shouldn't expect a rational answer as the issue in question is not rational in the first place. You will only get bogged down in endless quote disputes.

Please expand on this.

Fanny Cradock

Overblood wrote: »

But christian teachings are absolutely chock full of outlandish claims that are taken as fact such as the virgin birth, transubstantiation, water to wine, healing the blind with a touch, jesus' resurrection... who is anyone to say that all the above^^^ is to be taken literally, but all this stuff over here >>> like the talking snake, 7 day creation etc, living in a giant fish etc. is metaphorical?

If you believe something as outrageous as the virgin birth, why not take it ALL literally?

Because it is not all supposed to be taken literally. You determine this by going back to the original authors and seeing what was their understanding and intent. I'll agree that there isn't always consensus, but such is life.

Overblood

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because it is not all supposed to be taken literally.

Who says? Is it St. Augustine as I mentioned earlier?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You determine this by going back to the original authors and seeing what was their understanding and intent.

So you determine what segments of the bible are to be taken literally or metaphorically by going back to the original authors. What does that mean? How do I go back to the original authors? Do you mean I must research their history?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'll agree that there isn't always consensus, but such is life.

Not my life.:pac:

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

Who says? Is it St. Augustine as I mentioned earlier?

No, it's not St Augustine. Anyone with half a brain can see that the Bible contains metaphor and poetry. This was the view of Jews and Christians long before Augustine.

So you determine what segments of the bible are to be taken literally or metaphorically by going back to the original authors. What does that mean? How do I go back to the original authors? Do you mean I must research their history?

Researching their history would help. Or you could listen to others who have researched their history.

Most types of communication, be they oral or written, contain metaphors and other figures of speech. We automatically recognise 99% of these as such - and the Bible is no different. We don't believe Jesus to be a literal door, nor do we think Israel was magically turned into a literal olive tree.

The further away we are from a text in culture and language, the more likely we are to misunderstand it. So, we are more likely to recognise a metaphor in a text written in English by a Dubliner in 2009 than in a text written in Greek by a Palestinian fisherman in 75 AD. Therefore, due to that cultural and linguistic distance, we have to work a bit harder to understand it.

BTW, what I have just written is just basic communication theory - it applies to all texts, not just to the Bible.

Fanny Cradock

Overblood wrote: »

Who says? Is it St. Augustine as I mentioned earlier?

I don't follow you. Yes, there are contentious areas, but can you not determine yourself (or make a stab at it) what is meant to be understood as literal and what is not? Do you suppose that an Iron Curtain actually descended over Europe midway through the last century?

Overblood wrote: »

So you determine what segments of the bible are to be taken literally or metaphorically by going back to the original authors. What does that mean? How do I go back to the original authors? Do you mean I must research their history?

Yes, like any ancient text - religious or otherwise - you have to take a step back in time to gain a better understanding of what was being said. Exegesis is the critical analysis of a text and also the factors that influenced it. For example, understanding the culture and the history that surrounded and influenced the author and the audience.

It may not be the best way of describing exegesis, but the goal is to critically evaluate the inputs (including the text) so you can better understand the outputs. In other words, we bring our understanding in line with what was originally understood and intended. One does not have to be a Christian or even a theist to be a exegete.