It's all essentially a metaphor?

mewmoo

My question is, my local priest has taken many of the popular Christian belief and turned them on their head..

i.e. Mary being a virgin is a metaphor that she was pure of heart...

He often talked about the true meaning of words and the structures of sentences... since the bible was translated through lots of different languages and modern languages have completely different meanings when it comes to that kind of thing.

There were more things such as the one above, I was wondering are their more ones that people here might know of, that is misinterpreted messages...

MrStuffins

Your local priest doesn't make up the rules buddy! He might be a cool guy and say it's metaphorical, but that's not the stance of the Catholic Chirch as a whole.

Athiests ARE open-minded. It's religious people (IMO) who are not.

PDN

Let's not discuss the A&A forum here. It's not good form to diss one forum in another.

To be honest your priest sounds like an ass.

mewmoo

PDN wrote: »

Let's not discuss the A&A forum here. It's not good form to diss one forum in another.

To be honest your priest sounds like an ass.

Pure of heart IMO sounds far more important that a literal sexual virgin...

But I suppose you aren't quite as open minded as I was hoping.

PDN

mewmoo wrote: »

Pure of heart IMO sounds far more important that a literal sexual virgin...

But I suppose you aren't quite as open minded as I was hoping.

The point is not what is important but what is true.

Sorry to disappoint you - but I'm not open-minded enough to let my brains fall out.

bushy...

MrStuffins wrote: »

Your local priest doesn't make up the rules buddy! He might be a cool guy and say it's metaphorical, but that's not the stance of the Catholic Chirch as a whole

They might benefit from accepting that maybe it wasn't always translated perfectly . Just the odd word here and there , like Cinderella's glass slipper which has been believed by some to come from a mistranslation ( vair=fur verre=glass). It doesn't really matter if her slipper was glass or fur ( vair was ermine or something as expensive afaik) , each is as good as the other.

mewmoo

PDN wrote: »

The point is not what is important but what is true.

Sorry to disappoint you - but I'm not open-minded enough to let my brains fall out.

But that's the point, how can you say it's true? It's translated through masses of languages with their own quirks and just in the same way that modern English is different to it's older ancient equivalent, Hebrew...etc is very different to it's anicent form...

How can you be sure you are not being given the right translated with all the language in the right context... with the stuff that was real being real, and the stuff that is metaphor being metaphor?

Soulja boy

PDN wrote: »

The point is not what is important but what is true.

Sorry to disappoint you - but I'm not open-minded enough to let my brains fall out.

Does true infer meaning? What are the consequences of it being true?
What kind of god would discredit its own beautiful creative process?

PDN

mewmoo wrote: »

How can you be sure you are not being given the right translated with all the language in the right context... with the stuff that was real being real, and the stuff that is metaphor being metaphor?

Because I read it in the original languages - Hebrew and Greek.

BTW, feel free to ask genuine questions, but be careful - having viewed your posting history my troll radar is on full alert.

PDN

Soulja boy wrote: »

Does true infer meaning? What are the consequences of it being true?
What kind of god would discredit its own beautiful creative process?

What on earth are you talking about? How did God discredit anything?

Soulja boy

PDN wrote: »

Having viewed your posting history my troll radar is on full alert.

I would hate to have you responding to someone in a crisis of faith.

Soulja boy

PDN wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about? How did God discredit anything?

God created the sexual reproductive system. Something sacrosanct and beautiful and not even fully understood by scientists (on a genetic level). Why would god use a less holy channel to deliver his child into the world?

PDN

Soulja boy wrote: »

God created the sexual reproductive system. Something sacrosanct and beautiful and not even fully understood by scientists (on a genetic level). Why would god use a less holy channel to deliver his child into the world?

I don't know for sure why He did it in a miraculous way (though I've heard plenty of speculation as to the transmission of original sin). It certainly does not demean or discredit the usual process in any way.

Soulja boy

PDN wrote: »

I don't know for sure why He did it in a miraculous way (though I've heard plenty of speculation as to the transmission of original sin). It certainly does not demean or discredit the usual process in any way.

If you are unsure as to that then how do you know the people who recorded the events were sure? Could it not be that the meaning is in the Glory of Jesus birth as opposed to the physical means to delivering him to us?

PDN

Soulja boy wrote: »

If you are unsure as to that then how do you know the people who recorded the events were sure? Could it not be that the meaning is in the Glory of Jesus birth as opposed to the physical means to delivering him to us?

I don't see that Matthew and Luke had to be sure of why God did what He did. What I do know is that their use of language clearly indicates that they intended the virgin birth to be understood as a literal event.

mewmoo

I apologies to best of my extent, I have been doing some messing over the last few hours because I was quite irritated with the behavior I was witnesses in threads which I had interest in here and in other forums..

I'll keep my behavior in check from now, I hope to have some more discussions regarding religion here in the future.

Soulja boy

PDN wrote: »

I don't see that Matthew and Luke had to be sure of why God did what He did. What I do know is that their use of language clearly indicates that they intended the virgin birth to be understood as a literal event.

They may well have interpreted it as a literal event. However, there are pleanty of people who have misinterpreted gods teachings, Leviticus for instance.
Matthew and luke were very good men, but not infallible, nor geniuses given the education of the time. Is it possible that their literal interpretation of some events could miss the actual meaning of the events?

PDN

Soulja boy wrote: »

They may well have interpreted it as a literal event. However, there are pleanty of people who have misinterpreted gods teachings, Leviticus for instance.
Matthew and luke were very good men, but not infallible, nor geniuses given the education of the time. Is it possible that their literal interpretation of some events could miss the actual meaning of the events?

The Christian belief is that the biblical writers (including the author of Leviticus, as well as Matthew & Luke) were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Of course you are free to believe something different if you wish.

Soulja boy

PDN wrote: »

The Christian belief is that the biblical writers (including the author of Leviticus, as well as Matthew & Luke) were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Of course you are free to believe something different if you wish.

Ah yes Leviticus, yes I believe he missed the point of gods teachings many many times, in damaging ways to others, still showed good faith though so at least there is the good intentions.

This is a bad direction for this otherwise good thread. I wish to discuss the other events in the bible that could also be construed as metaphors.
For instance the loaves and Fishes.

Jesus dividing up the loaves and the fishes to me sings true of the human ability to, through his own ingenuity and through god, can have the work ethic and self control to survive on little means, and overcome insurmountable odds. What do others think of this event?

jaffa20

It raises and interesting argument that surely that something that did not exist cannot be condemned in modern times.

I was reading this article about the translations of the bible from its ancient language.

Now, for example, a committed relationship between man and man or women and women did not have a word back then and yet the bible seems to be happy with a committed relationship between man and women but then surely there is nothing to be said that it condemns a committed relationship between man and man or women and women if be based on the same values and morals.

Then doesn't this mean that something did not truly exist (since there was nothing to describe it) has led has led to us in modern translations for it to be described and since condemned not that it does exist. Sodomy or commitment without fornication are different, no?

I just thought it was interesting. Apologies for my lack of understanding of the bible but you get what i'm talking about. I have studied translation and it is a very difficult task to retain meaning through translation when we are not only translating into a different language but also a different culture with a different set of beliefs defined in a time where things can be viewed differently from what was the original intention in the text.

Soulja boy

jaffa20 wrote: »

It raises and interesting argument that surely that something that did not exist cannot be condemned in modern times.

I was reading this article about the translations of the bible from its ancient language.

Now, for example, a committed relationship between man and man or women and women did not have a word back then and yet the bible seems to be happy with a committed relationship between man and women but then surely there is nothing to be said that it condemns a committed relationship between man and man or women and women if be based on the same values and morals.

Then doesn't this mean that something did not truly exist (since there was nothing to describe it) has led has led to us in modern translations for it to be described and since condemned not that it does exist. Sodomy or commitment with fornication are different no?

I just thought it was interesting. Apologies for my lack of understanding of the bible but you get what i'm talking about. I have studied translation and it is a very difficult task to retain meaning through translation when we are not only translating into a different language but also a different culture with a different set of beliefs defined in a time where things can be viewed differently from what was the original intention in the text.

VERY interesting point, I feel the bible was not designed to cover every instance, we are gods people and have to be able to make our own decisions using our own intelligence and overarching guides that were given to us by god and moses.

Thou shalt not kill, love they neighbor. I think that for homosexuality the important issue again is love. No one should endure an unloving relationship or knowingly enter one that they know it will never come.
For this reason Marriage should not be denied of homosexual people, but be compulsory before sex, and the same should go for hetrosexual couples.

Húrin

MrStuffins wrote: »

Your local priest doesn't make up the rules buddy! He might be a cool guy and say it's metaphorical, but that's not the stance of the Catholic Chirch as a whole.

Athiests ARE open-minded. It's religious people (IMO) who are not.

Some atheists are open minded, and some are not.
Some religious people are open minded, and some are not.

Genghiz Cohen

Húrin wrote: »

Some atheists are open minded, and some are not.
Some religious people are open minded, and some are not.

A closed minded Athiest is really some sort of pseudo-Atheist. An Atheist should look at the facts and base their opinions and beliefs off of those alone. Ignoring important facts is just creating a belief system without backing, which is pretty much defeating the point of being Atheist in the first place.

I imagine most of the regular Christian posters are quite open minded, they have researched the Bible and experienced things they can only attribute to a Higher Power. Those are the kind of Christians I like debating with rather than those solely believing what they are told.

Húrin

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

A closed minded Athiest is really some sort of pseudo-Atheist. An Atheist should look at the facts and base their opiniions and belifs off ot those alone. Ignoring important facts is just creating a belif system without backing, which is pretty much defeating the point of being Atheist in the first place.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. It is not someone who doesn't believe in illusions. I don't think there are any humans who are free of illusions - we need them to live. Anyway, believing in illusions is not the same thing as being open or closed minded. Closed-minded atheists are just as atheist as those who are open minded.

What "the facts" themselves are is a point of contention, and not between people who are and are not open minded. This notion that if everyone has the same information, they will interpret it to the same conclusion is nonsense IMO.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

The point is not what is important but what is true.

Sorry to disappoint you - but I'm not open-minded enough to let my brains fall out.

Isn't the word 'virgin' a mistranslation of 'young woman' or something? Or am I being closed-minded?

Genghiz Cohen

Húrin wrote: »

What "the facts" themselves are is a point of contention, and not between people who are and are not open minded. This notion that if everyone has the same information, they will interpret it to the same conclusion is nonsense IMO.

Right, but at least an open-minded person will make a conscious effort to treat all facts as equal. Once you start treating equally proven information with varying degress of respect, the whole thing falls apart.

It is impossible to guarantee the same conclusion, but it's the genuine trying that counts.

Also: you got in there before I could correct my spelling, curse you! :pac:

mewmoo

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Isn't the word 'virgin' a mistranslation of 'young woman'.

Oh, that's the one, I think that exactly the line he said, thanks for reminding me.

Black Swan

mewmoo wrote: »

My question is, my local priest has taken many of the popular Christian belief and turned them on their head..

i.e. Mary being a virgin is a metaphor that she was pure of heart...

Although I cannot address the content validity or reliability of what your priest taught, or its context, I can address the method. The use of metaphor was brilliant! Using metaphors is a metacognitive teaching technique that enhances learning, and improves understanding and retention over more literal approaches that tend to be linear and less effective or efficient (see R.E. Clark at USC in the cognitive psychology of learning).

Did Jesus of Nazareth teach using 33 parables as recorded by others in the Bible? Are parables a metaphorical teaching technique used to improve understanding and recall?

"Anyone who has read the first four books of the New Testament will know that one of the most common teaching tools used by Jesus during his ministry was the parable. There are a total of 33 different parables recorded in the books of the Gospel..."

Source: http://www.squidoo.com/parables-of-jesus

"At its simplest a parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought."

Source: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Parables.htm

Seaneh

MrStuffins wrote: »

Athiests ARE open-minded. It's religious people (IMO) who are not.

I laughed my arse off reading this post.

The most militant, obnoxious, up-their-own-holes idiots I have ever discussed matters of faith with were Athiests.

How someone can be so passionate and hatefull about their belife in nothing is beyond me, get over it, people believe in God, you don't, we get it, now go get yourself a life and stop worrying about how I live mine and what I believe.

Seaneh

Soulja boy wrote: »

They may well have interpreted it as a literal event. However, there are pleanty of people who have misinterpreted gods teachings, Leviticus for instance.
Matthew and luke were very good men, but not infallible, nor geniuses given the education of the time. Is it possible that their literal interpretation of some events could miss the actual meaning of the events?

C.S. Lewis call this line of thinking "Academic Snobery" the idea that people couldn't be literate and articulate just because there weren't life long acedemics is snobbery of the highest order and bare no reflection on relatiy.

Genuis is only minimumlly linked to schooling and is in reality just a naturalk occurence, some peoples brains just work better than others in certain areas.

I know lads who got 600 in the LC who, in reality, are as thick as pig sh1t and just spent half of their early lives in their room studying and when they got to college fell appart because they couldnt do that anymore and have any sort of normal life.

Acedemia and intelligence are not the same thing and they weren't 2000 years ago either.

Some of the greatest thinkers of all time had some of the least schooling.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Isn't the word 'virgin' a mistranslation of 'young woman' or something? Or am I being closed-minded?

Not closed-minded, just misinformed. This urban legend is now raised by atheist visitors to this forum on a weekly basis.

Luke 1:34 gives Mary's response when an angel told her she would have a child, "ειπεν δε μαριαμ προς τον αγγελον πως εσται τουτο επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω" which literally means "How can this be, since I have never known a man?"

The debate over translation is whether Matthew was correct in applying a prophecy from Isaiah to the virgin birth of Christ - but that does not alter the fact that Luke clearly refers to Mary as a virgin.

A Primal Nut

mewmoo wrote: »

My question is, my local priest has taken many of the popular Christian belief and turned them on their head..

i.e. Mary being a virgin is a metaphor that she was pure of heart...

He often talked about the true meaning of words and the structures of sentences... since the bible was translated through lots of different languages and modern languages have completely different meanings when it comes to that kind of thing.

There were more things such as the one above, I was wondering are their more ones that people here might know of, that is misinterpreted messages...

Virgin was a miss translation of young woman. As far as I know any bible in hebrew it is understood as young woman. But when it was translated into greek, the word for young women and virgin was the same and this caused confusion. Not sure if that is totally true, but thats the jist.

The fact that this fitted in with the sex is evil stance of the catholic church and many leaders of the time meant it was too good to be true!

PDN

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Virgin was a miss translation of young woman. As far as I know any bible in hebrew it is understood as young woman. But when it was translated into greek, the word for young women and virgin was the same and this caused confusion. Not sure if that is totally true, but thats the jist.

The fact that this fitted in with the sex is evil stance of the catholic church and many leaders of the time meant it was too good to be true!

All Hebrew versions of the Bible clearly say that Mary was a virgin.

pts

PDN wrote: »

All Hebrew versions of the Bible clearly say that Mary was a virgin.

On a semi-related note, why is the virginity of Mary so important?

PDN

pts wrote: »

On a semi-related note, why is the virginity of Mary so important?

To some Christians it is important because they see original sin as being passed down through the seed of man.

To me it's not particularly important, just as it's not particularly important to me that Jesus fed 5000 people, or walked on water, or that he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea rather in the tomb of Joe Bloggs from Tiberius.

However, if the Bible records these things then I think it is important to point out the lousy arguments that a few non-Christians try to use to rubbish them.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

To some Christians it is important because they see original sin as being passed down through the seed of man.

To me it's not particularly important, just as it's not particularly important to me that Jesus fed 5000 people, or walked on water, or that he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea rather in the tomb of Joe Bloggs from Tiberius.

However, if the Bible records these things then I think it is important to point out the lousy arguments that a few non-Christians try to use to rubbish them.

Because of the Bible is perfect, right?

pts

PDN wrote: »

To some Christians it is important because they see original sin as being passed down through the seed of man.

To me it's not particularly important, just as it's not particularly important to me that Jesus fed 5000 people, or walked on water, or that he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea rather in the tomb of Joe Bloggs from Tiberius.

However, if the Bible records these things then I think it is important to point out the lousy arguments that a few non-Christians try to use to rubbish them.

Cheers, I was always curious about that one. In relation to your post do you mean that those details in the Bible are "not important" in a, "they set the scene nicely, but don't contribute towards the main plot" kind of way, but you still believe the happened.
Or do you mean that they may or may not have happened, but that's "not important" to you as your faith is not based on those particular details?

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Because of the Bible is perfect, right?

I personally believe the Bible (by which I mean the original manuscripts) is perfect. Many, possibly most, Christians disagree with me.

I have no problem with anyone saying they don't believe the Bible is perfect. I don't have a problem with anyone who presents coherent arguments to support that view. Nor do I have a problem with anyone asking questions that have not been answered on this forum a hundred times already. I do have a problem with the same old urban legends being repeated as true because somebody read it on a propaganda website or half remembers a comment from a programme they saw on National Geographic.

PDN

pts wrote: »

Cheers, I was always curious about that one. In relation to your post do you mean that those details in the Bible are "not important" in a, "they set the scene nicely, but don't contribute towards the main plot" kind of way, but you still believe the happened.
Or do you mean that they may or may not have happened, but that's "not important" to you as your faith is not based on those particular details?

I believe they happened, but they are not crucial to any of the main truths of Christianity or to the way of salvation. Others, such as the death of Christ or the resurrection, are crucial in that without them there isn't really any Christianity left worth bothering about.

If such incidental details did turn out not to be true then it would change my perception of the Bible's nature, but need not affect my faith in Jesus Christ.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

I personally believe the Bible (by which I mean the original manuscripts) is perfect. Many, possibly most, Christians disagree with me.

I have no problem with anyone saying they don't believe the Bible is perfect. I don't have a problem with anyone who presents coherent arguments to support that view. Nor do I have a problem with anyone asking questions that have not been answered on this forum a hundred times already. I do have a problem with the same old urban legends being repeated as true because somebody read it on a propaganda website or half remembers a comment from a programme they saw on National Geographic.

But unless you believed the authors were divinely guided, then you wouldn't be so sure? I mean, it doesn't take a biblical scholar or a avid NG fan to work out that 2nd/3rd hand accounts can never be regarded as perfect. Anytime I have brought this matter up, I always get directed back to the 'they were divinely guided' point, which is simply impossible to argue against coherently.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But unless you believed the authors were divinely guided, then you wouldn't be so sure? I mean, it doesn't take a biblical scholar or a avid NG fan to work out that 2nd/3rd hand accounts can never be regarded as perfect. Anytime I have brought this matter up, I always get directed back to the 'they were divinely guided' point, which is simply impossible to argue against coherently.

So you have your set of presuppositions and I have mine. That doesn't worry me since I'm making no effort to convince you that your presuppositions are wrong or that you should share my presuppositions.

However, if you feel concerned enough to come into the Christianity forum and push your presuppositions then I think you should produce some coherent arguments that might convince me. Isn't that fair?

dvpower

Seaneh wrote: »

I laughed my arse off reading this post.

The most militant, obnoxious, up-their-own-holes idiots I have ever discussed matters of faith with were Athiests.

How someone can be so passionate and hatefull about their belife in nothing is beyond me, get over it, people believe in God, you don't, we get it, now go get yourself a life and stop worrying about how I live mine and what I believe.

Was it you who wrote that bus ad in London?

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

So you have your set of presuppositions and I have mine. That doesn't worry me since I'm making no effort to convince you that your presuppositions are wrong or that you should share my presuppositions.

However, if you feel concerned enough to come into the Christianity forum and push your presuppositions then I think you should produce some coherent arguments that might convince me. Isn't that fair?

Honestly, I'm not that concerned. I haven't really been to this forum much in several months. Hell, I even weaned myself off the BC&P thread finally (bar the odd video i drop in). I was attracted to this thread by the author, as he mentioned it in the A&A forum.

As you correctly stated, you have your set of presuppositions and I have mine. Although, since your side are making the grandiose claims, the burden of proof should rightly be placed on your shoulders.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

As you correctly stated, you have your set of presuppositions and I have mine. Although, since your side are making the grandiose claims, the burden of proof should rightly be placed on your shoulders.

No, if I come into the A&A forum to argue with atheism then the burden of proof is on me. Atheists should not have to prove their case in their own forum.

If you want to go into the Soccer forum and argue that it's a crap game and they should all play rugby, then they have no burden of proof to convince you as to why they are passionate about Soccer.

And if you choose to post on the Christianity board to argue with Christian beliefs then the burden of proof always lies on you. The Christians here are not required to be continually justifying their beliefs to anyone who comes in here and demands that they do so.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Atheists should not have to prove their case in their own forum.

Why not?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Why not?

Essentially because I believe in good manners and respecting the rights of others to believe and practice their own faith.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

Essentially because I believe in good manners and respecting the rights of others to believe and practice their own faith.

Should faith and belief always be respected then?

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Should faith and belief always be respected then?

No. For example, I don't hold the slightest shred of respect for Islamic beliefs or practices. But I respect the right of Muslims to practice them (which is a very different thing). And I certainly don't see that I have any right to go into their forum and demand that they justify their beliefs and that the burden of proof lies on their shoulders.

Now, you are entitled to take a diffferent view about where the burden of proof lies, but you are not a moderator of this forum.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Essentially because I believe in good manners and respecting the rights of others to believe and practice their own faith.

The "burden of proof" has got nothing to do with "good manners and respecting others to believe and practice their own faith", it's a philosophical concept and to do with critical thinking.

Some good info on wiki.

"Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party."

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Now, you are entitled to take a diffferent view about where the burden of proof lies, but you are not a moderator of this forum.

Yeah I think that's more of the reason rather the "burden of proof".

My own take, in the real world would be I leave people alone, not because it's good manners but because political and religious opinions can be sensitive issues especially for people who don't know why they think what they think they think. But, if they try to argue their opinions with me, it's game on.

Soulja boy

Seaneh wrote: »

C.S. Lewis call this line of thinking "Academic Snobery" the idea that people couldn't be literate and articulate just because there weren't life long acedemics is snobbery of the highest order and bare no reflection on relatiy.

Genuis is only minimumlly linked to schooling and is in reality just a naturalk occurence, some peoples brains just work better than others in certain areas.

I know lads who got 600 in the LC who, in reality, are as thick as pig sh1t and just spent half of their early lives in their room studying and when they got to college fell appart because they couldnt do that anymore and have any sort of normal life.

Acedemia and intelligence are not the same thing and they weren't 2000 years ago either.

Some of the greatest thinkers of all time had some of the least schooling.

When I said education I did not imply Acedemic education. I meant education as in experience and understanding of existing available information, The pool of which was much different back them. I wasn't talking about school or any form of arbitrary standard. But it is safe to say that modern day analysis tools are a little more advanced then 2000 years ago.
My point remains. If the witnesses of the times bias/misconceptions entered the recording of data of the time, followed by 2000 years of chinese whispers, could have skewed the meaning.