Symbols as metaphors, not as facts

[Nielsio]

As we have come to understand science, we realise that stories are not facts, but that they are metaphors. We know that they are powerful and meaningful metaphors, because the stories continue to impress us.

Take the story of Jonah and the Whale for example. This is quite obviously not a historical fact:








But now the big one: what if all the stories in the Bible are not facts but metaphors.

The thing is: as metaphors these stories can be very meaningful and helpfull. They try to put us in accord with the mysteries in life.


If you are interested in this, check out Joseph Campbell - The Hero's Journey:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9572&hl=nl

[Alex-db]

If the "Bible's Fables" = "Aesop's Fables" thats fine, we can stop explaining that it is fiction.

I have never heard of anybody claim that.

Also I believe most of Aesop's fables teach morally positive lessons, unlike the horrific morality of the Bible's Fables.

Similarly, there is no Church of Aesop (that I know off), that actively encourages transmission of Aids, Homophobia, sexism, retarding of scientific progress etc etc.

So, broadly speaking, I welcome your interpretation.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is: as metaphors these stories can be very meaningful and helpfull. They try to put us in accord with the mysteries in life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was Pope John Paul who made a comment on the Garden of Eden story and others, saying something to the effect that we should not seek for the truth of the story but for the truth the story conveys.

Anyway, it's sure a lot easier to read when you ask what this or that story means, rather than could this possibly of happened.

[hashi92]

What about all the stories that encourage violence. an eye for an eye. the old testament would have to basically be thrown out. the new testament is a little better.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
What about all the stories that encourage violence. an eye for an eye. the old testament would have to basically be thrown out. the new testament is a little better.

[/ QUOTE ]

the whole old testament reminds me of telling my kids the boogie man will get them if they dont behave.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
What about all the stories that encourage violence. an eye for an eye. the old testament would have to basically be thrown out. the new testament is a little better.

[/ QUOTE ]


The point is not about whether they are good or bad values, but the point is whether they are facts or metaphors.

[flipdeadshot22]

But why should people pick and choose WHEN a story becomes metaphoric rather than literal? It seems rather arbitrary and self-serving to do so. I'm sure the average Bible thumping literalist will wholeheartedly disagree with you, and will be justified to do so.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But why should people pick and choose WHEN a story becomes metaphoric rather than literal? It seems rather arbitrary and self-serving to do so. I'm sure the average Bible thumping literalist will wholeheartedly disagree with you, and will be justified to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just silly. Its not picking and chosing but trying to understand what you're reading. Just giving up and saying duh thinking is tough, might make a mistake, lets just say its all fact is pathetic.

chez

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But why should people pick and choose WHEN a story becomes metaphoric rather than literal? It seems rather arbitrary and self-serving to do so. I'm sure the average Bible thumping literalist will wholeheartedly disagree with you, and will be justified to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just silly. Its not picking and chosing but trying to understand what you're reading. Just giving up and saying duh thinking is tough, might make a mistake, lets just say its all fact is pathetic.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

"Just giving up and saying duh thinking is tough, might make a mistake, lets just say its all fact is pathetic."

re-read my post; where in it was this implied?

[Alex-db]

I think the point may have been that if you accept the stories as metaphors, you should accept the concept of 'God'as a metaphor (for conscience, intuition, internal dialogue, whatever).

This is fine, but you can't argue (and use in law, medicine, real life) some parts are factually true (God) while some are metaphors, when the decision was theoretically arbitrary (but clearly based purely on what has already been factually discredited).