In a previous thread about atheism and debate, Rational guy wrote:

"I guess you're saying you can gain value from religious ideas the same as you do from fiction like Shakespeare or Star Wars. If so, I do agree. I just don't know any religious people who do it that way. Even if they don't literalize, they still imbue the stories with some sort of mojo that came from GOD. That's a different way of looking at it compared to other literature. But then I only really know Mormons, so....

I do, in fact, use Mormon scriptures in my life. I use them as something to react against."

Rational guy - yes, just like the stories in Shakespeare, Star Wars, or Superman, the mythology and symbolism in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures can be used as a catalyst for change ... or "something to react against."

As Raptor Jesus pointed out in the previous thread, "You don't have to believe in superman to understand the symbols and metaphors his stories can represent."

In fact, George Lucas credits Joseph Campbell's writings for shaping the movie "Star Wars."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

We all tend to take the universal stories and symbols in our lives and, as you say, "imbue it with some sort of mojo." That's only natural.

I agree with you when you say that Mormons imbue it with powerful God mojo, and go to the extreme.

To me, stories from Shakespeare, Star Wars, Nathaniel Hawthorne, carry equal weight as biblical stories or folklore from other religions. They are all stories made up by man.

You can use the stories to justify making war on others, marginalizing them, or murdering them.

Or you can take these myths and use them to do good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 03:58PM by Senoritalamanita.

I've been really appreciating your posts. Thanks!

I spotted a few superman as christ symbolic nods during " Man of Steel" by the way

What bothers me about the "it's just symbolism" dodge is that on the one hand the bible is portrayed as meaningful metaphor, but on the other hand the bible's metaphors are given priority over all other metaphors. Bible as metaphor proponents generally don't quote the Upanishads or Sophocles as giving similarly divine wisdom.

The priority the bible recieves suggests that, despite the claim that the bible is mere metaphor, liberal theologians of this sort nevertheless suspect a literal, prophetic, divine origin of the bible that gives the lie to their metaphor idea. Otherwise, the bible would simply be one of THOUSANDS of holy texts employed by christians of this sort.

In the end, bible as metaphor christians tell the outside not to worry about the bible--it's just fun stories--but seem to really BELIEVE the bible deep down. In other words, the bible as metaphor just provides them with cover from criticism for believin that the bible is actually god's word.

For most of my life, I took the story of Moses and the chosen people as purely historical, because I've been brainwashed by Christian churches and my society to view these things as fact. I feel quite embarrassed to admit it.

I've always wondered why the Bible trumps other religious texts. I am equally confounded by Christianity. How did the story of Christ take such hold? Why does it have such power over so many people for over 2,000 years. Is this just a brief blip in the religious/culture wars that will pass?

Maybe it doesn't trump other world religious texts -- perhaps it's my narrow worldview as an American in a largely Christian society.

One of my dearest friend is a female pastor. It was with much regret that I left her church after a dozen years. She had an inclusive and dynamic congregation.

She had a stellar education at a seminary that required studies in Buddhism, Judaism, Greek, Islam, etc. -- she has always been ecumenical and belongs to a large interfaith community of clergy from all walks of life. They do a lot of charity work as a cohesive group.

She teaches the bible as metaphor. She was an atheist before becoming a Christian. But I think she is earnest in her belief in Christ, and especially that he had an open table. I think that she believes that the Bible is indeed God's word.

I no longer believe. She is one of the most splendid people I have ever met and I have the highest respect for her.

I don't have an answer for your observation, resipsaloquiter. To my former pastor, biblical metaphors have great meaning. To me, not as much.

I value her friendship though, and don't want to throw her friendship away, merely because we have different viewpoints.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 05:47PM by Senoritalamanita.

En Sabah Nur,

You presented that so eloquently. Thank you.

I think there's value in trying to understand the symbolism within the Bible, and there's certainly something to be gained from debating the merits of its teachings. Here in the United States, as well, in many other countries, various peoples of faith have used its words to advocate their particular world views and social agendas. There's a HUGE divide in how the secular world views the symbolism within the Bible and how the average religious adherent considers its teachings, and I think it boils down to:

What did the authors/compilers of the books of the Bible intend to say to their reading audience?
-vs.-
What messages does GOD want us to glean from this book?

If the message is from God, then the assumption is that the correct interpretations of the scriptures are universal truths and laws laid down by an infallible deity. On the other hand, if the stories were crafted and arranged by men intent on disseminating their particular ideology, then the Bible may be as wrong as the men who wrote it.

I've been on both sides of this debate. Personally, I find it much more interesting and sensible to view the Bible as a collection of ancient historical documents created by men rather than a construct of moral teachings inspired by a perfect divinity. Applying literary criticism to these ancient texts allows the contradictions and morally troubling messages to stand as they are without the necessity of constructing a web to somehow make everything mesh into a perfect whole.

There's an added problem to the faithful view of the Bible as a holy book, one that little Joey Smith claims to have wrestled with:

"Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be aright, which is it, and how shall I know it?"

In other words, who has the correct interpretation of the Bible's narratives? That question has been argued for literally thousands of years. Religious manuscripts have been both altered and included in the Bible, and some have been rejected completely. Some religions include books in their canon that others reject: for instance, the only religion that accepts the authenticity of the Book of Enoch is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, even though its content was well known and debated in the first- and second- centuries BCE and CE. The book of Jubilees seems to have had some influence on popular Jewish belief around this same time.

In my mind, the Bible is either a jumbled collection of various sects and religious ideologues or it's a tangled web woven by a God intent on obfuscating the secrets of his gospel. In either case, serious study of the stories, whether intended to be merely allegorical or historical, is completely merited. As a matter of fact, I wish more people would engage in open discourse about what we might be able to glean from the scriptures.

That's a good summary of where we are in the discussion. But it still doesn't answer the question of why the bible? Why not all of the thousands upon thousands of other holy and historical texts? If it's just because so many people in the west think it's important, and it informs their worldview, that's not good enough for me. I'm not interested in it just because lots of other people are. There is so much else out there that informs western civilization, and the bible gets unfair coverage.

The best justification I can think of to give the bible priority is in order to study it like any other public health concern. We rightly spend more resources studying influenza and salmonella than we do bubonic plague, simply because there are more outbreaks of them. Since the bible has gone viral, I don't mind giving more attention to finding the cure.

But not for its lessons. I'll take Camus or Chomsky over Paul any day.

If you like "better" literature - keep doing what you are doing - suggest it.

Explain why you like it. Explain why the bible isn't great literature.

I'll take Shakespeare, Joyce, Orwell, and so many others any day over the bible.

But I still like knowing where those stories were shaped. And that's also why I whole heartedly recommend that people read Greek mythology as well as the bible.

I also feel that people should read the WHOLE bible if they are going to preach its merits. That way people get to see for their selves how petty and evil Yaweh can be given our modern day morals.

"Why the bible? Why not all of the thousands upon thousands of other holy and historical texts?"

The Bible is relevant because it's a part of our social milieu, and at least 2 billion people claim to derive at least some moral value from its content. Twilight was a terrible series of books, as was 50 Shades of Grey, but we can't dismiss them as not being in some ways a reflection of our values. You can hate the Bible, you can think it's ideas on morality and the nature of the universe are wrong or repugnant, but it's a mistake to ignore it. That's part of the reason I read the Bible or non-canonical religious manuscripts virtually everyday. I want to understand it, I want to be able to discuss it with believers and nonbelievers with confidence. I want to dissect it, point out its flaws and correct what I believe to be inaccurate assumptions about its message.

I think it's very much a mistake to allow the faithful to monopolize biblical discussions, and thank Christ I'm not alone. Good scholars like Bart Ehrman and our own Richard Packham provide a valuable service in demystifying the scriptures and showing them for what they are.

Upon your recommendation, I shall look Camus and Chomsky over.
Smile.

Well damn, if Senorita Lamanita doesn't make a ton of sense. Thanks for contributing.

Thanks RJ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 08:35PM by jacob.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 09:19PM by Raptor Jesus.

Agreed

Thanks ladies and gentlemen. I've truly enjoyed our back and forth today. I hope you all have a great holiday tomorrow and stay away from those margarita-watermelon balls.

Then we really have no disagreement! I still would much rather get my lessons from good literature, rather than Mormon scripture though.. Unless I am having trouble falling asleep. That's cured instantly by simply opening the BoM and beginning to read; "And it came to pass..zzzzzzzzzzz.