Distinguishing biblical metaphor from reality

Ush1

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Quoting from The God Delusion:

Yeah, sort of horrible really.

At least he was honest with the conflict between science and the bible. Not tip toeing around and cherry picking saying which parts literal and which are parable.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

Yeah, sort of horrible really.

At least he was honest with the conflict between science and the bible. Not tip toeing around and cherry picking saying which parts literal and which are parable.

I'm pretty sure he treated the Parable of the Talents, for example, as a parable and not as literal history. He might disagree with most other Christians as to which parts of the Bible are parable and which are literal (particularly if his qualifications are in geology rather than biblical studies). However, to portray him as therefore being honest (with the implication that those Christians who disagree with him are being dishonest) is marvellously apt given the title of this thread.

Still, it's nice that you can have a whale of time setting up strawmen by pretending that those with more nuanced views are thereby dishonest. (Sorry for using a metaphor about a whale - I hope it wasn't too tiresome having to tiptoe round and cherry-pick to discern that I wasn't referring to a literal whale).

The Mad Hatter

Are you suggesting that we think that Christians take parables that are labelled as such in the bible literally? Because if you are, then there is certainly a straw man on the field here, but not where you think.

It's funny, any time literal biblical truth comes up, you seem to counter it with the example of the parables. Of course the parables aren't meant to be literal - they're parables.

Dades

Dougla2 wrote: »

what mythical hell dimensions , grow the **** up do you also believe in the easter bunny?

Yes, it was late last night, but such responses are uncalled for. This thread isn't worth getting into trouble over.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he treated the Parable of the Talents, for example, as a parable and not as literal history. He might disagree with most other Christians as to which parts of the Bible are parable and which are literal (particularly if his qualifications are in geology rather than biblical studies). However, to portray him as therefore being honest (with the implication that those Christians who disagree with him are being dishonest) is marvellously apt given the title of this thread.

Still, it's nice that you can have a whale of time setting up strawmen by pretending that those with more nuanced views are thereby dishonest. (Sorry for using a metaphor about a whale - I hope it wasn't too tiresome having to tiptoe round and cherry-pick to discern that I wasn't referring to a literal whale).

That is some what of an ironic post considering you have consistently tip toed around the issue of whether the wider historical narrative in the early books are to be taken as literal history or not, particular the bits that conflict with actual historical data such as Noah or Moses.

It is easy to fudge the question of Adam and Eve (eg not the first humans, first humans with souls or some such interpretation) since a lot of Biblical scholars think the creation story is a poem. But the rest of Genesis and Exodus?

sensibleken

bluewolf wrote: »

Best larger than what?

its has Devils bit and lucifer beer. plus rock n roll, casual sex, central heating and best of all...no christians


....and banjo. woo!

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he treated the Parable of the Talents, for example, as a parable and not as literal history. He might disagree with most other Christians as to which parts of the Bible are parable and which are literal (particularly if his qualifications are in geology rather than biblical studies). However, to portray him as therefore being honest (with the implication that those Christians who disagree with him are being dishonest) is marvellously apt given the title of this thread.

Still, it's nice that you can have a whale of time setting up strawmen by pretending that those with more nuanced views are thereby dishonest. (Sorry for using a metaphor about a whale - I hope it wasn't too tiresome having to tiptoe round and cherry-pick to discern that I wasn't referring to a literal whale).

Yes it is honest. So what are you saying? It should be totally obvious which parts are parable and which parts aren't?

Disagree with most other Christians, which sect of Christians do you mean? They seem to disagree on quite alot of things within their faith.

Nuanced views!:pac: Yeah, there is deep parable in Barney the dinosaur, it's not actually for children. Really, really sophisticated minds actually get it.

FionnMatthew

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Im having a major issue with this thread and may soon have to stop perusing it. Any time I read JC's posts now I read them in either a strong North of Ireland accent just like the bible bashing loons one regularly find on street corners threatening passers by with fire and brimstone. But more and more often now i read them in a deep South 'Billy Bob plays the banjer' accent. Help :eek:

I'm just assuming he's being completely sarcastic.

[sarcasm]Jesus loves you too.[/sarcasm]

sensibleken

sensibleken wrote: »

its has Devils bit and lucifer beer. plus rock n roll, casual sex, central heating and best of all...no christians


....and banjo. woo!

What
that still doesnt answer best bigger than what

sensibleken

bluewolf wrote: »

What
that still doesnt answer best bigger than what

he meant lager. theres no lager in hell.

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Of course the parables aren't meant to be literal - they're parables.

Believe it or not, there are christians out there who think that the parables are literally true, and that the events described in them actually happened.

It's certainly not a common position, but it does exist.

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

Believe it or not, there are christians out there who think that the parables are literally true, and that the events described in them actually happened.

It's certainly not a common position, but it does exist.

...

...

*twitch*

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we think that Christians take parables that are labelled as such in the bible literally? Because if you are, then there is certainly a straw man on the field here, but not where you think.

It's funny, any time literal biblical truth comes up, you seem to counter it with the example of the parables. Of course the parables aren't meant to be literal - they're parables.

I'm suggesting that some people know fine rightly that Christians don't take the parables literally, but that it suits them to pretend otherwise in order to present creationists as honest and other Christians as dishonest.

The Mad Hatter

We're not talking about parables.

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

We're not talking about parables.

You might not be, but it's not all about you.

My post was in response to one by Ush 1 in which he stated:

Ush1 wrote:

At least he was honest with the conflict between science and the bible. Not tip toeing around and cherry picking saying which parts literal and which are parable.

So, as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "Who is this we you speak of, paleface?" (They were surrounded by 5000 angry Sioux warriors and the Lone Ranger had just said, "Tonto, I think we're in trouble.")

Lemegeton

J C wrote: »

He loves everyone and died to Save everyone (including Gays ... and Atheists).

:D:D lol. you guys crack me up when you spout this horse****. you use this concept to scare people into feeling like they OWE jesus something and its a ****ing guilt trip. lets assume just for arguments sake this jesus person existed. How exactly did his death save us. and none of your "the bible/god said it, so its true" nonsense

joseph brand

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Quoting from The God Delusion:

from wiki:

Dawkins continued:
We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference

Very interesting stuff. No matter what evidence, he will not change. Maybe he enjoys the God idea/ organised religion more than science.

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

You might not be, but it's not all about you.

My post was in response to one by Ush 1 in which he stated:


So, as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "Who is this we you speak of, paleface?" (They were surrounded by 5000 angry Sioux warriors and the Lone Ranger had just said, "Tonto, I think we're in trouble.")

I suspect, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that Ush1 misused the word parable, and was referring not to the parables of Jesus but to the sections of the bible which are clearly meant as historical narrative but contradicted by the historical record, and which thus have come to be thought of as metaphor.

Paparazzo

I listened to john mays interview on phantom, he says that Francis Collins, head scientist on the project mapping the human genome believes there's a creator. 10th seconds of research online and I found:
In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and intelligent design.

sensibleken

Paparazzo wrote: »

I listened to john mays interview on phantom, he says that Francis Collins, head scientist on the project mapping the human genome believes there's a creator. 10th seconds of research online and I found:
In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and intelligent design.

If you really listened to the interview youd know that facts prove nothing!

Ush1

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I suspect, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that Ush1 misused the word parable, and was referring not to the parables of Jesus but to the sections of the bible which are clearly meant as historical narrative but contradicted by the historical record, and which thus have come to be thought of as metaphor.

I don't think I did misuse in the word.

"A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters. It is a type of analogy.[1]"

What I was saying was that I think it is intellectually dishonest or ignorant to try to pass as things that are now socially unacceptable or scientifically inaccurate as metaphors when there seems to be no real set differentiation and they were not originally thought of in this way.

It is wilful ignorance of the highest order and "nuanced views" is a comical excuse. They are better off saying it's wrong, or just disregarding science and believing the bible altogether. The man in the story in the God Delusion, chose the latter.

sensibleken

sensibleken wrote: »

he meant lager. theres no lager in hell.

Yeah, so I made a joke in response "larger than what".
I didn't really understand your response


nevermind

sensibleken

Lemegeton wrote: »

:D:D lol. you guys crack me up when you spout this horse****. you use this concept to scare people into feeling like they OWE jesus something and its a ****ing guilt trip. lets assume just for arguments sake this jesus person existed. How exactly did his death save us. and none of your "the bible/god said it, so its true" nonsense

Hey! he did die for all of you. remember at the end of the new testament when he ascends into the main lazer in the aliens spaceship and blows it up after they uploaded the virus that brought down their shie.....no wait sorry, thats independance day.

The Mad Hatter

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't think I did misuse in the word.

"A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters. It is a type of analogy.[1]"

What I was saying was that I think it is intellectually dishonest or ignorant to try to pass as things that are now socially unacceptable or scientifically inaccurate as metaphors when there seems to be no real set differentiation and they were not originally thought of in this way.

It is wilful ignorance of the highest order and "nuanced views" is a comical excuse. They are better off saying it's wrong, or just disregarding science and believing the bible altogether. The man in the story in the God Delusion, chose the latter.

Yes, but I'm assuming you were not referring to the parables told by Jesus to his disciples to illustrate a point, but to the accounts of Genesis and the like which purport to be history, but which many biblical scholars now claim were not meant literally.

Ush1

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, but I'm assuming you were not referring to the parables told by Jesus to his disciples to illustrate a point, but to the accounts of Genesis and the like which purport to be history, but which many biblical scholars now claim were not meant literally.

Yes, I'm talking about the bits that aren't parable being called parable.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

What I was saying was that I think it is intellectually dishonest or ignorant to try to pass as things that are now socially unacceptable or scientifically inaccurate as metaphors when there seems to be no real set differentiation and they were not originally thought of in this way.

So, you're not referring to the first chapter of Genesis since people like Augustine taught that it was a metaphor long before there was any social pressure or scientific evidence to do so?

There is a problem with intellectual honesty and ignorance here, but I don't think it lies with those Christians who are not creationists.

The Mad Hatter

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, I'm talking about the bits that aren't parable being called parable.

Grand - that's all I was getting at, stemming from this post.

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

So, you're not referring to the first chapter of Genesis since people like Augustine taught that it was a metaphor long before there was any social pressure or scientific evidence to do so?

There is a problem with intellectual honesty and ignorance here, but I don't think it lies with those Christians who are not creationists.

Funny how "people like Augustine" always seems to mean "Augustine" too.

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Funny how "people like Augustine" always seems to mean "Augustine" too.

I'm not quite sure what that's supposed to mean.

I was thinking of the likes of Johannes Scotus Eriugena - what with him being Irish and all. Do you think he was Augustine too? Like reincarnation and stuff?

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

So, you're not referring to the first chapter of Genesis since people like Augustine taught that it was a metaphor long before there was any social pressure or scientific evidence to do so?

There is a problem with intellectual honesty and ignorance here, but I don't think it lies with those Christians who are not creationists.

Genesis wasn't scientifically inaccurate when Augustine was around so he could use it whatever way he liked.

Try and read what I actually said.

sensibleken

PDN wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what that's supposed to mean.

I was thinking of the likes of Johannes Scotus Eriugena - what with him being Irish and all. Do you think he was Augustine too? Like reincarnation and stuff?

I know he talked about the eucharist being symbolic, where did he talk of genesis being not literal history.

Either way, I dont think it matters.

Everyone can forgive people 1500 years ago believing the biblical account of creation if there was nothing wlse to go on. However if there is a massive amount of evidence contradicting it its a bit silly to still believe it in this day and age

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

Genesis wasn't scientifically inaccurate when Augustine was around so he could use it whatever way he liked.

Try and read what I actually said.

So you're saying that it was intellectually honest for Augustine to treat Genesis Chapter One as metaphorical because there was no scientific evidence against it being literal, but that anyone today who treats it as metaphorical is being ignorant and intellectually dishonest because their views are consistent with the available scientific evidence? Hmmm, the thread title becomes more apt by the page.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

[...] the first chapter of Genesis since people like Augustine taught that it was a metaphor long before there was any social pressure or scientific evidence to do so?

On the one hand, it's a worrying thought that somebody might be so in thrall to the idea that the bible is "[...] is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history [...]"* that they might need somebody so exalted as a Doctor of the Church to imply that the story at the start of the bible is simply made up.

On the other hand, at least it's entertaining to see that Augustine was having trouble with creationists 1600 years ago and found them and their ideas as risible as last night's crowd found John May:

Augustine wrote:

It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

PDN

sensibleken wrote: »

I know he talked about the eucharist being symbolic, where did he talk of genesis being not literal history.

In Books II to IV of the Periphyseon.

Either way, I dont think it matters.

I think it does matter when you have posters with little or no knowledge of ancient literature, the Hebrew language, biblical studies, or theology - yet they claim to be better able to discern the meaning of a Hebrew text than do those who work with such texts all their lives in academic settings. Then they misrepresent history in order to support their view that those who disagree with them are intellectually dishonest and ignorant.

Everyone can forgive people 1500 years ago believing the biblical account of creation if there was nothing wlse to go on. However if there is a massive amount of evidence contradicting it its a bit silly to still believe it in this day and age

So, they're silly if they take it literally, and intellectually dishonest and ignorant if they don't? Hmm.

sensibleken

PDN wrote: »

So, they're silly if they take it literally, and intellectually dishonest and ignorant if they don't? Hmm.

Well those are your words not mine. I don't think its intellectually dishonest for them to take it figuratively. Thats very mean of you to call them that PDN

PDN

robindch wrote: »

On the one hand, it's a worrying thought that somebody might be so in thrall to the idea that the bible is "[...] is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history [...]"* that they might need somebody so exalted as a Doctor of the Church to imply that the story at the start of the bible is simply made up.

Robin, I live in hope that when I correct factual errors and misrepresentations by posters in this forum that one day, just once, you might acknowledge that I have a point instead of yielding to the Pavlovian response to ridicule the Christian who ventures to post in your forum.

And I think you're much too smart to seriously think that any use of a metaphor is therefore "simply made up".

PDN

sensibleken wrote: »

Well those are your words not mine. I don't think its intellectually dishonest for them to take it figuratively. Thats very mean of you to call them that PDN

The words of Ush1 actually, not mine (as you well know).

sensibleken

Yes, everyone shut up and listen

ah nevermind

sensibleken

PDN wrote: »

The words of Ush1 actually, not mine (as you well know).

alright, so i never said they were ignorant. I said believing in it literally is silly in this day and age. the end

no need to imply i was arguing something when i wasnt.

can we be polite now?

Ghost Buster

sensibleken wrote: »

Hey! he did die for all of you. remember at the end of the new testament when he ascends into the main lazer in the aliens spaceship and blows it up after they uploaded the virus that brought down their shie.....no wait sorry, thats independance day.

Youre mixing up your movies. You of course mean the one where Brian sings that happy song with the whuistling bit in it.

Gang of Gin

"Origin of Specious"? I'm not aware of the etymology of specious. Some posts here are of the specious variety:pac:

PDN

sensibleken wrote: »

alright, so i never said they were ignorant. I said believing in it literally is silly in this day and age. the end

no need to imply i was arguing something when i wasnt.

can we be polite now?

Politeness is my middle name.

sensibleken

PDN wrote: »

Politeness is my middle name.

Sue your parents

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

So you're saying that it was intellectually honest for Augustine to treat Genesis Chapter One as metaphorical because there was no scientific evidence against it being literal, but that anyone today who treats it as metaphorical is being ignorant and intellectually dishonest because their views are consistent with the available scientific evidence? Hmmm, the thread title becomes more apt by the page.

I presume you mean inconsistent with scientific evidence? I'm not sure to what end Augustine was treating Genesis as a metaphor however I think if he was making it fit an end, then yes it is either intellectually dishonest or he was simply ignorant. It is either meant as a metaphor or it isn't. Someone is wrong.

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

In Books II to IV of the Periphyseon.


I think it does matter when you have posters with little or no knowledge of ancient literature, the Hebrew language, biblical studies, or theology - yet they claim to be better able to discern the meaning of a Hebrew text than do those who work with such texts all their lives in academic settings. Then they misrepresent history in order to support their view that those who disagree with them are intellectually dishonest and ignorant.

So, they're silly if they take it literally, and intellectually dishonest and ignorant if they don't? Hmm.

Did I not tell you if you study Barney long enough there is a metaphor in there?

Misrepresent history??:pac: Where have I done that?

You can spend lots of lifetimes reading works of fiction and you can be ignorant to the truth or spend your life worming around the obvious incongruities therein.

I think he was intellectually honest with himself by disregarding science altogether because both the bible and science couldn't be right unfortunately.

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

The words of Ush1 actually, not mine (as you well know).

They weren't my words. Apt thread title indeed.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

I presume you mean inconsistent with scientific evidence? I'm not sure to what end Augustine was treating Genesis as a metaphor however I think if he was making it fit an end, then yes it is either intellectually dishonest or he was simply ignorant. It is either meant as a metaphor or it isn't. Someone is wrong.

So you presume something that is the opposite of what I wrote. :rolleyes:

I wrote "consistent" because I meant "consistent". The views of those who interpret Genesis Chapter 1 metaphorically are consistent with scientific evidence (and with what we know about Hebrew literature). These are the ones you accused of intellectual dishonesty and ignorance.

Ush1 wrote:

Someone is wrong.

Indeed.

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

So you presume something that is the opposite of what I wrote. :rolleyes:

I wrote "consistent" because I meant "consistent". The views of those who interpret Genesis Chapter 1 metaphorically are consistent with scientific evidence (and with what we know about Hebrew literature). These are the ones you accused of intellectual dishonesty and ignorance.

Indeed.

No, I said intellectual dishonesty OR ignorance. They are only consistant if the metaphor is for something scientific.

So yes, if they pick and choose which parts are parable and which parts aren't based on scientific discovery or/and social acceptance they are intellectually dishonest.

Yes, indeed. Someone is wrong, wrong on purpose.

sponsoredwalk

PDN wrote: »

The views of those who interpret Genesis Chapter 1 metaphorically are consistent with scientific evidence

Can you tell me how people are consistent with scientific evidence when
they read genesis and see earth was created on the third day while the
sun and moon were created on the fourth day?

9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed,
each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit
in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night.
And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.
17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=ESV

Lets just say that this is a physical impossibility due to the nature of how
our solar system formed, I see no metaphorical way you can squirm out
of that one and still claim consistency.

Ush1

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Can you tell me how people are consistent with scientific evidence when
they read genesis and see earth was created on the third day while the
sun and moon were created on the fourth day?

Lets just say that this is a physical impossibility due to the nature of how
our solar system formed, I see no metaphorical way you can squirm out
of that one and still claim consistency.

He meant if their metaphor is exactly consistent with current science.

Convenient isn't it?:)

PDN

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Can you tell me how people are consistent with scientific evidence when
they read genesis and see earth was created on the third day while the
sun and moon were created on the fourth day?

Lets just say that this is a physical impossibility due to the nature of how
our solar system formed, I see no metaphorical way you can squirm out
of that one and still claim consistency.

Er, do you actually understand what 'metaphorical' means?