How do theists determine which messages should be taken literally and which should be taken metaphorically?
A long story ahead, please grab a cup of coffee...
How do theists determine which messages in their holy book (bible, quran, etc.) should be taken literally and which should be taken metaphorically?
Are all positive (defendable) messages meant to be taken literally?
Are all negative (indefensible) messages meant to be taken metaphorically?
If theists can't defend a message they usually say:
- It is "taken out of context", without mentioning any context that can justify it
- You are not translating it correctly, but how did they determine the correct translation?
- You are not interpreting it correctly, without explaining how they determined the correct interpretation. Are they choosing another interpretation because it is easier to defend? Or it aligns slighly better with reality? Or it aligns with our current morality?
- Only a highly educated religious scholar can understand the meaning. Why would God create a message that can only be understood by 1% of the population, but at the same time judge everyone for accepting or rejecting it? Is God intentionally setting most of the people up for failure?
- It was not meant as a (literal) scientific statement, but as a symbolic one. What use are vague scientifically inaccurate statements in a holy book? Could God not create an elegant description of the science that is consistent with reality?
- This (good) idea was too advanced for primitive civilization, that's why God didn't send it
- This (bad) idea only applied to a specific situation, specific people (tribe) and time. There is no indication in the religion whatsoever that the rules should only apply back then. Is there anything in the religion that explains that the rules should expire in 00 years?
- This (bad) idea was necessary for the people of that time, but we don't have to adhere to it anymore. Why should we not follow the rule anymore and how did you decide it? Did God not anticipate how things would turn out in the future?
- etc.
Theists will come up with any excuse so that they themselves don't have to defend the religion, the problem of defending is then pushed to someone else (religious scholar, priest, imam, etc.).
How can you follow an ideology without any willingness or interest to defend it? Did you read the entire holy book as an adult? Did you notice any of the "problematic" passages in the religion and how did you reconcile them?
It is sadly common for many children to be indoctrinated into a religion from a young age. As they get older they will stick with the religion, because that is all they know. Theists can't voice any of the criticisms they have (even when they want to), because of the harmful treatment from their friends, family and community.
What are your observations of theists defending "problematic" messages in the religion? Can you name the arguments they used?
16
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
17 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
Which genre are you reading is i guess also kind of important; much of the OT is “conquest genre” which contemporaries knew not to read literally, just like we know not to take “The Yankees annihilated the White Sox” literally. So iow are you reading that, or poetry, or mythology, etc
bbyrd009
Level 7
May 22, 2021
1
Regarding certain writings (there are many versions of the Bible) there is no such thing as literal. Everything has been translated multiple times and changed through thousands of years so everything is metaphorically. People who think there is any form of 'literal' are only fooling themselves.
JackPedigo
Level 9
May 22, 2021
1
The whole point is, that there is no method.
You may use whatever method you like, including just mindless prejudice, to decide which bits you take literally, which metaphorically, and which bits you ignore altogether. And what makes books like the bible, and the religion it founded so popular, is that, since it is such a shambolic scrapbook cobbled together by many different editors sourcing many hundreds of authors, that you can find in it anything you want in it.
So that whatever idea you have, however mad, prejudiced, inhuman, selfish, corrupt, or baseless, you will find support for it in the bible or some christian sect. And having done so, you can then make the fake claim that your ideas have the support and authority of god and sacred tradition. It is the old politicians trick of, if you stand for nothing, you can sell yourself as standing for everything, and a non existent god is the best politician you could possibly get on your side. He never asks you questions, never questions your motives, but always freely lends his vast authority, and that of his writings, to any con-trick you choose. Which accounts for christianities popularity, it is all things to all people, but especially good at being a prop for the fake, phony and dishonest.
Fernapple
Level 9
May 22, 2021
3
If the believers are Evangelical you can count on 98% of everything being literal in their bible teachings.
DenoPenno
Level 9
May 21, 2021
3
Described as the blind leading the blind, ya
so one should prolly do an about face, and assume everything is idiom or allusion, til proven otherwise? Lot of evidence for that
Also, English bibles are pretty bad, I’d read straight from a lexicon
[biblehub.com]
Cut out the scribe
Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27
Why do you refer to religion as only a theist activity when illogical atheist very well can help widows and orphans while avoiding worldly corruption?
Word
Level 8
May 21, 2021
2
Agreement on word meaning is extremely important in discussion. Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll ask you if you meant to conflate atheists with theists?
Word:
@Falsifiable1 Please explain how you see I have conflated atheist with theist. Conflate - verb
combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.
I am not understanding how you say I have conflated the 2.
@Word With this statement,” Why do you refer to religion as only a theist activity when illogical atheist very well can help widows and orphans while avoiding worldly corruption?”, are you suggesting atheists are theists or are you attempting to make the point that both theists and atheists can both “... help widows and orphans while avoiding worldly corruption”?
Word:
@Falsifiable1 I am saying both can do the activity of "religion " that has been defined for at least almost 2000 years and is currently contained in text that has achieved Guinness book world record for being most copied text of it's kind in modern usage. Religion, so defined as, helping widows and orphans while avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27 biblical text .
@Word It doesn’t matter to me how high on the Most Copied List a religious text is. Popularity doesn’t impress me.
The definition of religion you present is not the current common definition and the appeal to antiquity and argument you’re making is a fallacy that also doesn’t lend credibility to the information held within it.
Word:
@Falsifiable1 why do you call biblical text "religious " text?
I just explained the modern current established fact for modern times in current usage that religion is defined as helping widows and orphans in need while avoiding worldly corruption.
I fully understand a word can, or many words do have more than one accepted definition. I ask, why do you use the word "religion " with your applied definition and where do you get it and why?
@Word well he does have a point eh, the wolves have taken over as Paul said they would, and it is now called “religion” surely bc the practitioners were seen to do things “by rote, ritual” whatever.
But i agree, it is not a religion, only wisdom is hidden from the wise right, so, he calls it “religion” bc that is what society calls it, and i (he) just accepted that at face value?
Word:
@bbyrd009 Evolution of words?
the original greek word used has to do with being cerimonious towards god thingies.
What I think the James 1:27 writer is says is to make a ceremony or ritual out of visiting widows and orphans while avoiding worldly corruption .
Then translated into English (or what ever early Latin or what ever the language was ) "religion " or religare
● However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond....
So "to bind fast" as in helping widows and orphans while avoiding worldly corruption is to say a person should tie themselves to a responsibility.
Etymology of religion also has to do with mosaic vows, as in some one 'binds themselves " to an oath or vow particularly to a God thingie.
I can accept one definition with consideration from an atheist point of view that sees a monk and says the monk is being "religious " because it would appear the monk is doing a life of an oath or by living a vow.
so, the cult of sol will xlate one way, and a seeker will xlate another, and i think one can rely on the way a person interprets to kind of get a "read" on them; but i don't think there is a "correct" translation, per se? One honored method, though, would be to seek a "witness" to an interpretation in another part of the Bible; iow an incorrect interpretation will have no "witness"
"theists" would be prolly the last group i would pay any attention to whatsoever, bible-wise; weird, i know, but many interps come down to a definition? And theists (gnostic ones, anyway) are just going to insist upon theirs, and reject all others, right? Same goes for atheists, imo; nothing wrong with either per se, ok, just that they are now biased
ergo the fact that our word "eternal" comes from "aion: a space of time; an age" just will not sway a theist away from interpreting "eternal" as "forever"
bbyrd009
Level 7
May 21, 2021
0
are you thinking of eon instead of eternal? Do they have a common root?
@skado all of the NT instances of our "eternal" that i am aware of have the root aion, from which we also get eon, ya
[biblescan.com]
[biblehub.com]
OT i'm not so familiar with,
[biblescan.com]
@skado but can eternal mean forever? Forever is a space of time, right?
lol
so that’s maybe where the witness comes, in; how is one trying to make eternal into forever? There is only One Immortal and many other vv, No one has ever gone up to heaven... i mean no one wants to take those literal eh lol
Such are the mental processes of the cognitively deficient, resulting in all manner of logical fallacies, including but not limited to:
- Circular reasoning
- Special pleading
- Strawman
- The fallacy fallacy
- Personal incredulity
- Burden of proof
- Bandwagon
- Appeal to authority
- Begging the question
- Anecdotal
- Cherry picking
- Middle ground
anglophone
Level 9
May 21, 2021
2
Every theist is different... just like every atheist is different. They (we) all do whatever we have to in order to make life make sense to us, given our different genetic inheritances and very different life experiences. If that means heavily “interpreting” the data that we happen to be aware of to compensate for the data we are not aware of, then so be it. Very little difference, in that regard, between the two camps.
That said, the great majority of theists AND the great majority of atheists take the idea of God literally, the former accepting it as true while the latter rejecting it as untrue.
Only the tiniest of minorities sees value in a metaphorical-only God. In this light, the philosophically significant difference is not between theists and atheists, but between literalists and figuratists. The figuratists have no motivation at all to fudge or deny the data, while the theists and atheists have to maintain their respective delusions with great vigilance.
skado
Level 9
May 21, 2021
2
I don't think the majority of atheists reject the idea of God as untrue. It is simply meaningless as there is no empirical test of its truth or falsity. If someone said there are aliens living among us who look and act EXACTLY like human beings I wouldn't say that was a untrue, only that it would be impossible to tell one way or another and therefore an empty statement. By the same token, I do not 'reject' our supposed alien visitors as Christians sometimes accuse atheists of rejecting God.
It boils down to the contest between "faith" and evidence. When one is indoctrinated to believe that faith trumps evidence, that belief is difficult to reject. I speak from experience.
Education, discussion and debate are the path forward. Insulting the faithful is ineffective.
PBuck0145
Level 7
May 21, 2021
4
Based upon my decades of experiences with the Christfools, aka, Faithfools, one must first TRY, and it is EXTREMELY difficult/absolutely impossible in fact, to comprehend Christ fool Circular Thinking.
Whereas, we the Non'Believers, Doubters, Agnostics, Atheists and the like, use the Reasoning and Logic centres of both sides of our brain first to dissect the question or whatever is posed to us, then we think and reason our way through it all, weigh up the Pros and the Cons, then, often as needed, discuss the matter further BEFORE coming to a conclusion whether it be merely a tenative one or a permanent one.
In simpler words, We see the effect, look for the cause and check out the reaction and the end result.
The Christfools, imo, simply hear/read what they are told to hear or read, take as being Truth and NOTHING but the Truth and will run around in rings, mentally, to defend, support/verify and validate it EVEN when, in the furtherest corners of their minds they are still questioning, even slightly, but still questioning it non-the-less, that IS their Circular Thinking.
Triphid
Level 9
May 21, 2021
1
Insulting the faithful is, and will continue to be, ineffective and counter-productive.
@PBuck0145 You're right, of course but sometimes the ignorance and stupidity they spew makes being respectful damn near impossible.
@PBuck0145 Tell me this, do you hurl insults, etc, at a driver who cuts you off in traffic?
Do you ENJOY having others tell you what YOU should think, believe, etc, etc?
Have YOU ever found it enjoyable/pleasant to be insulted by a Christian because you are NOT one of their Flock?
A little hint here for your enlightenment, In their much Exalted book, aka, the bible/The Goat-herders Guide to the Galaxy , there is a passage that states CLEARLY to them the following, "Do unto others as YOU would have them do unto YOU."
In more simpler terms and my opinion, it means, "If you want the Right to be respected then you must also respect that Right in and for others as well."
Would you not agree here?
If you DO agree, then explain to me WHY they can and do be most disrespectful of others who are Christians and the like BUT demand that those they disrespect MUST respect THEM none-the-less?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.