Not taking the Bible literally isn't a solution to the problems present in the Bible...

[Cleobulus]

claiming its "allegory" solves nothing when the stories and books in question have questionable morals and reduces said stories to folklore, myth, legend, and fairy tales. Hell, the first problem is with Genesis, and it gets a hell of a lot worse from there.

I was never raised to take the Bible literally, so I don't really understand that mindset, the Bible was, to me being raised Catholic, the place where we are to draw inspiration, ethical teachings, and history of the Israelites.

Nevertheless, on actually reading the Bible, it still lead to my unbelief in God, for various reasons, the primary one is the conflict I had between the Bible's stories "morals" and our modern enlightenment era, modern ethical construct that forms most of the basis of what we call "western values/culture". None of the Bible stories talk about the inherent value of human life, freedom, liberty, or even decency, no, not even Jesus talks about these modern, post-enlightenment virtues. Indeed, quite a bit of the Bible is devoted to actually denigrated humans as beings that fell from grace, to put it mildly, so much so that God supposedly killed every man, woman, and child but for one family because God was angry.

Of course, Catholics and other Christian denominations don't Noah's story literally, its allegory, myth, a fairy tale, but one that is supposed to teach us something, isn't that right? So what is the moral lesson buried within that story, I don't see one, outside of not pissing off God.

Given another example, the story of Lot's family, and again a mass destruction by God of, in this case some cities, with Lot's family being the only one saved due to his "virtue". I put that in quotes, because the story itself is rather grotesque. The man God thought virtuous offered his daughters to a crowd to be gang raped rather than giving up two angels to the same fate. After they flee, God smites down Lot's wife for looking back at the destruction wrought, turning her to salt. Then, his daughters, thinking they are the last humans on Earth or some shit, get their father drunk and rape him in turn. I guess turnabout is fair play, but seriously, what the fuck is the point of this story. What the hell does Lot symbolize? Virtue? Hardly, he was an asshole, going so far as to lie to a crowd that his daughters were virgins to make them more palatable to be raped by the angry crowd.

Let's examine this further, an allegory is a rhetorical device used to convey a meaning using symbolism and cannot be taken literally, a kind of extended metaphor. Fine, I get that, but from the two stories above, what meaning are we to take from them?

This is also leads to another problem, since things aren't taken literally, what's the symbolism, and what isn't? To put it simply, why aren't the stories written allegorically? The Bible isn't obvious in this, the the most obvious reason is because the original writers, particularly of the Old Testament, intended for the stories to be taken, at the very least, as being true recounting of events, even if not word for word accurate.

For example, what does God symbolize? He features quite prominently in many of these stories, his actions recorded as he intervenes in human affairs quite often. In addition, if we can't take characters like Lot or Noah as actual historical persons, but symbols of something(again, buried), then why treat God as real either?

Of course, just as other authors, both ancient and modern have done, the various authors of the Bible have used historical characters in many of their stories, but most of them are mundane humans that we were able to verify through independent evidence.

These types of questions definitely cracked my faith in God, for why treat that character as real, no matter how many times he's mentioned in the Bible? If some stories are fictional morality tales, and others aren't, then why believe any of them are accurately recounted in the Bible?

There's also the problems with the Commandments, all 618 of them or so, its more than 10 folks! Are these to be taken allegorically? When God commands how his people are to treat slaves, where they can acquire or buy them, and how severely they can be beaten, what are we to take from these types of instructions? Same for the numerous other commandments, many of which we would find abhorrent or as war crimes today, but were lauded as virtues back in the days of the Bible authors.

And the arrival of Jesus didn't really help matters, yes he talked about caring for the poor, but he also said slaves should obey masters for they will receive a reward in heaven, not exactly something I would teach my kids as a virtue. He also talked about breaking up families, and other insidious things that we see acted out but some Christians to this very day. The idea that Faith takes precedence over family is extremely evil. Not to mention the plucking out of eyes and other shit that makes absolutely no sense, in other words is stupid, even if allegorical, as if lust were a bad thing. Seriously, without lust, humans wouldn't be around, what is up with the anti-lust vibe from the Bible?

I think I've gone on long enough, but even taking the Bible as nothing more than historical literature with an ethical outlook we should follow makes as much sense as taking the Novel "A Clockwork Orange" and using Alex as model for good behavior.

[ejpoeta]

1. i take the bible as a work of fiction that may have stories with a moral

like and aesops fable.

[unblock]

2. as a practical matter, it's virtually impossible to separate the bible as idle text vs how it's used

by religious leaders and politicians who use it to hide behind and manipulate others, picking and choosing which parts to pay attention to or even take 'literally' and which parts to ignore, to justify action of government as if caeser was the way god implemented his will, and so on.

morals and ethics are far more important and nuanced and complex than any text could possibly capture, and those who claim that the bible or any other text is the only conceivable "source" of morals and ethics fails to understand either, or worse, is trying to manipulate you for some unethical or immoral purpose.

[thereismore]

3. I just read "Jeus, Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman. It's an eye-opener for those who believe

in the inerrancy of the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

[onager]

5. If you like Ehrman...

...you'll probably like Randal Helms, too. Author of Who Really Wrote the Gospels? and this one, Gospel Fictions:

Are the four canonical Gospels actual historical accounts or are they imaginative literature produced by influential literary artists to serve a theological vision?

In this study of the Gospels based upon a demonstrable literary theory, Randel Helms presents the work of the four evangelists as the 'supreme fictions' of our culture, self-conscious works of art deliberately composed as the culmination of a long literary and oral tradition...

Helms maintains that the Gospels are self-reflexive; they are not about Jesus so much as they are about the writers' attitudes concerning Jesus. Helms examines each of the narratives - the language, the sources, the similarities and differences - and shows that their purpose was not so much to describe the past as to affect the present.

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Fictions-Randel-Helms/dp/0879755725/ref=pd_sim_b_1

[laconicsax]

4. K&R

[backscatter712]

6. I don't take the Bible literally, I take it as a complete work of fiction.

At best, there are parts that document historical events. Granted, it's documentation that's been sexed up to promote the Deity, been mistranslated, misinterpreted, mistranslated again, modified for pure political propagandistic purposes, mistranslated again, reedited to make it politically palatable, and then horribly misinterpreted yet again.

[rug]

7. Measuring the Bible with "post-enlightenment virtues" is part of the problem.

[laconicsax]

8. So it isn't relevant today?

I keep hearing that the Bible is transcendent, a source of morality, and still relevant today. If you're not meant to assess it with modern values, than what worth does it have as a transcendent source of morality that's still relevant in today's world?

[rug]

10. I wouldn't use the word relevant, situational as it is.

"post-enlightenment virtues" themselves carry a particular mindest and set of assumptions that are not universally shared and have changed many times since the Enlightenment. It's like matching every dress with plaid.

[laconicsax]

11. That's another breakthrough, rug! Admitting that the Bible isn't relevant is a big step!

:applause:

[cleanhippie]

12. Wow, it really is a big step.. Congrats, Rug!

Gonna make sure to bookmark this milestone!

[rug]

13. It's not so much devaluing the Bible as devaluing relevance.

[laconicsax]

15. You can't have one without the other.

If "relevance" has no worth, then the expression "the Bible is relevant" attributes a worthless quality to the Bible. If you want the Bible to retain some worth, you have to say that it isn't relevant.

[rug]

17. To be relevant, the thing must relate to a specific, limited set of circumstances.

Such as the post-Enlightenment era. The reverse is not true.

The Bible can be relevant and meaningful to modern times as well as to past times. The same cannot be said of the Enlightment, the Cold War or the digital era.

That said, I am not a Bible fetishist.

[laconicsax]

18. My, how you backtrack.

On describing the Bible, you said, "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=263715&mesg_id=263909">I wouldn't use the word relevant, situational as it is" and now you say that it can be relevant.

Perhaps you could elaborate on how the Bible can be relevant and meaningful to modern times?

[rug]

19. Not backtracking. I was describing the word relevant.

And there are many beautiful portions of the Bible that are not simply relevant. Pick a Psalm. Unless you want to eradicate the thing entirely.

[laconicsax]

20. Let me get this straight...in response to the question, "So [the Bible] isn't relevant today?"

You wrote "I wouldn't use the word relevant, situational as it is," by which you meant, "Only certain parts."

Is that right? You only hold the "beautiful" parts like Psalms as irrelevant?

What relevance does the grotesque (an understatement to say the least) story in Judges 19 have?

[rug]

21. Situational is an adjective modifying relevant. Do you want me to diagram it?

[laconicsax]

22. And relevant is an adjective you rejected the use of to describe the Bible.

You said "I wouldn't use the word relevant, situational as it is" in response to the question 'is the Bible relevant?'

By denying that you said the Bible is irrelevant, you deny that your response couldn't be reworded to read, "I wouldn't use the word relevant to describe the Bible because relevant is situational" without radically changing its meaning. This demands the following question of your original statement:

If your meaning wasn't to disassociate the Bible from the word "relevant," for what were you saying you would not use the word "relevant" and why did you offer it in response to a question about the modern relevance of the Bible?

[rug]

23. Are you actually telling me what I wrote?

OK, tell me what I'm thinking.

[laconicsax]

24. Yes, I'm copying and pasting what you wrote.

As to what you're thinking, I haven't the foggiest idea.

[Cleobulus]

26. "and have changed many times since the Enlightenment."

And that is its strength, not its weakness, its an evolving understanding that human beings have an inherent worth, and eventually they are being applied to all people worldwide. That's the problem with the Bible, its static, unchanging, and has been for about 17 centuries now, people may pick and choose what they like in the Bible, and ignore the rest, but ultimately they attain their ethics and morality from outside the Bible itself. They have to to function properly in our modern society, those who don't end up being dangerous to the rest of us.

[Cleobulus]

25. Why? We judge other literature this way, and sometimes their authors...

but we regard most of them as irrelevant as far as morality goes because we have no choice but to judge all of them, including the Bible, through the values we are raised in. We sometimes appreciate stories of the psychopaths, as I used in my closing argument above, but we don't consider such literature as example of good behavior, but so many people do think the Bible should be used in that way. Are you saying that the Bible, when judge based on moral values we have today, is immoral or amoral?

[dimbear]

9. Ejpoeta hits near the mark, but

we need to notice that while some of the stories have morals, others have immorals. To keep everything up to date, your shaman/arbiter/prophet explains which are which and........... you're good to go.

(Which are which vary slowly over time.)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

14. Superstitious Bronze Age morality is inadequate for our times.

They were anti-intellectual, they knew nothing of science. They thought all disease, physical and mental, was a sign of disfavor by God and caused by demons.

Eating a Communion wafer is extremely primitive and magical thinking. If I eat this I will be like God. That's the law of similies in magic. Just like "If I eat tiger meat, it will make me big and strong and fierce like a tiger."


Not useful in the 21st century and certainly not rational or logical.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

16. Read Joseph Campbell. You'll know a lot more about myth.

The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. This explains the archetypal mythic journey of the seeker, that is constantly rewritten for new generations.

Also, The Golden Bough, by James Frazer.