Should Religion...

[MC]

Be taken literally?

When the Bible speaks of "God", should "God" be interpreted as a old man with a grayish-white beard, wearing white robes, sitting in the clouds, watching over everything? Or does "God" simply represent that which is beyond human comprehension?

Looking at other religions, "God" seems to be more of the latter - representation of that which is beyond human comprehension. If that were the case, then "God" is no different than "Dharma" in Buddhism or "Tao" in Taoism. All of which represent that which is beyond human comprehension, an underlying "reality" or "order" of sorts.

Likewise, when the Bible speaks of "Heaven" or "Hell", should "Heaven" be interpreted as a place of bliss in the clouds and "Hell" as a place of suffering deep below the ground? Or does "Heaven" or "Hell" simply represent an experience of bliss or suffering we experience in our everyday lives?

And I'm not asking if religion should be abolished. I'm asking, regardless on your stance of religion, if religion should be taken literally or not.

 

[Kaination]

Personally, no. I think the bible and religion is fine and dandy, but don't take it for literal.

As I say, Heaven to me doesn't exist. The bible and religion should be taken figuritively, or metaphorically. Meaning it shows you how to live a good life, not how to actually get in Heaven.

 

[DJ-Ready]

Thats a definite no.
If you take it literal I say you're a nutjob

Just think logically .. how many times have all those texts translated and intentionally edited? (by man, not by god or any higher being.. for that matter)

 

[Chakra-X]

No. That is why I consider myself towards agnostic than Christian. God isn't some anglo-saxon old man loving America, hating gays, and having conversations with the Devil in English.

Some people believe God is a placeholder for what we don't understand, which is partially true in my opinion, but I do believe there is some "force" behind the world we an study and observe. It's pretty arrogant to think we are capable of understanding all that there can be.

But, humans are pretty damn unique race. We're almost gods ourselves. But still, the bible and other religious works should not be taken literally.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

when i said "i'm in heaven" after a night with my girlfriend. i didn't mean i'd died.

 

[sub]

Prepare for a long rant.

I think if you interpret religion literally, you get all sorts of questions that just don't add up. I'm fine if you believe in god. I can understand that. I myself am an agnostic. I personally don't believe that any of the religions are true, but I am open to the possibility of there being a cosmic force out there that can be defined as godlike.

What I'm not fine with is people interpreting the bible literally. I grew up in a catholic family. My mother is very religious. I was sent to a catholic school. I think the fact that I went to a catholic school is the reason I'm not fine with people interpreting the bible literally. I've learned about the bible. It's a horrible, horrible book. Really, it is (I'll get to this in a second). Why anyone would want to interpret this book literally is beyond me. Let's break this down

1. Throughout the years, the Bible has been edited and translated countless times.
2. The bible was written by man. We don't even know who wrote the bible.
3. There are gospels that are not in the bible that should be every bit as valid as the gospels that are included in the bible. This is not the case, however, because the bible was put together by a committee (Yes, a committee). They decided which books should be put into the bible and undoubtedly edited the bible quite a bit.
4. The bible contradicts itself countless times. Seriously, one need not look further than the genesis creation stories to see the contradictions.
5. Here comes the part where I claim the bible is a horrible book. If you were to follow the bible to the letter, it would not be a good moral guide. There are a lot of things stated in the bible that are utterly horrible. Sure, it does have good stories that are meant to teach people morals, but in order to get to these good stories, one must wad through the horrible, horrible stories inbetween. Don't believe me?

According to the bible, who should we kill?
- Homosexuals (lev.20:13, Rom.1:26-32
- Adulterers (Lev.20:10, Deut.22:22)
- Disobedient children (Duet.21:20-21, Lev.20:9, Exod.21:15)
- Women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut.22:13-21)
- All non-Christians (parable told by Christ - Luke.19:27)
- Those accused of "wickedness" by at least two people (Deut.17:2-7)
- Anyone who works on the Sabbath (Exod.35:2-3, Num.15:32-6)

Here's what the bible has to say about women. . .
- It's "Shameful" for a woman to speak in the church (1Cor.13:35-5)
- A man must OK his wife's words if they are to have force (Num.30:8)
- A woman must not teach or hold authority over a man (1Tim.2:12)
- Lot saves the messengers from the men of Sodom by offering up his virgin daughters to "do to them as you please" (Gen.19:8)
- "Kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man" (Moses - Num.31:17-8)

The bible also delves into slavery
- God supports slavery (Lev.25:44-6, Exod.21:2-8, Eph.6:5, Col.3:22)
- Having a hard time selling your daughter to slavery? No problem, the bible will provide the instructions! (Exod.21:7-8)
- When should you give your slaves a "severe" or "light" beating? The bible explains! (Luke.12:42-8)
- It's ok to beat slaves as long as they don't die within 2 days (Exod.21:20-1)
- If anyone is having trouble marking their slaves, the bible explains the proper procedure: Drive an awl through their ear (Deut.15:17)

Here's what the bible has to say about Marriage
- It's best if all people remain unmarried. Marriage is a lesser-of-two-evils compromise for Christians too weak to resist their sexual urges, "for it is better to marry than to burn." (Paul - 1Cor.7:1-2, 8-9, 25-6, 38)
- The rapist of an unwed woman must buy her and make her his wife (This is a far more loving relationship than a genuine, loving same-sex relationship according to the bible) (Deut.22:28-9)

As for justice. . .
- If a man suspects his wife of cheating he can serve her a cursed drink; if she becomes deformed, that proves her guilt (Num.5:12-31)
- God kills 42 children by bears for calling a prophet 'baldy' (2King.2:23-4)
- It's ok to beat your children with a rod - It won't kill them. (Prov.23.13-4)
- Pretty much any atrocity you can think of god commits. No joke. Pick a page of the old testament at random.

Even the ten commandments are a woefully incomplete moral guide. The first four have nothing to do with morality, their just blatant religious propaganda. As for the remaining six, why do "lying" and "envy" make the big list, but not rape, torture, child abuse, racism, slavery, etc. Their also a tad black and white. "Thou shall not Kill." Really? What about self defense? "Thou shalt not bear false witness." World war 2, you're hiding jews from the nazis, you're kind of required to if you want to be moral. Every case should be judged on it's own merits, not a black and white guide for everything.

A lot of people will use the argument that the bible was written in different times so some things no longer apply. According to the bible, though, the bible will always apply. Every "jot" and "tittle" (Christ - Matt.5:17-9)


Moving on, when the Bible speaks of "God", should "God" be interpreted as an old man with a grayish-white beard, wearing white robes, sitting in the clouds, watching over everything? No. This entire concept never made sense to me. I think it's far more likely that if there is a god, it does not interfere with our day to day lives. This aspect of Christianity always bothered me. I'll show you why using the example of prayers

Your mother has cancer. You pray every day to god that she gets better. After a long struggle with the cancer, your mother finally overcomes it! You've never been so happy, god is thanked for curing her.

However, did your prayer really do anything? Did god save her because of your prayer? If not, why even bother to pray? If god did infact save your mother because you prayed, let's create another scenario: Same situation except you're an atheist and, as a result, did not pray to god for her to be cured. Will god really not have save her simply because you did not pray? What kind of a just god is that?

As for the afterlife, I do not believe there is one. You should be happy with the life that you do have and forget about your selfish desires for another one.

I think that's about it. I hope I answered the question.

 

[Denz]

whacha mean then J?

 

[Synth]

See every line in the bible as metaphorical provinces, explaining the path of man under the light of God, and how people have reacted to it.

What causes what, and how you should percieve your actions.

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

http://www.biblemeanings.info/index.htm

A man lying with mankind as with womankind, denotes the man of the external church who profanes the truth by conjoining it with falsity from sensual love; an abomination denotes the same spiritually, being surely put to death denotes entire vastation, and their blood being upon them, denotes that they must abide in their own falsity.

By the punishment of death in general is meant a state of evil and falsity separated from a state of goodness and truth, for we read: '"The reason why heaven generally, and eternal happiness specifically, are called life is, that in heaven there are the wisdom of good, and the understanding of truth, and in the wisdom of good and the understanding of truth there is life from the Lord, from Whom is all life. But in hell there are the contraries, namely, instead of good, evil, and instead of truth, falsity, and thereby spiritual life is extinct; therefore in hell there is respectively death; for spiritual death is evil and falsity, and with man it is to will what is evil, and thence to think what is false. Evil genii and spirits are unwilling to hear it said of them that they do not live, or that they are dead; for they say that they have life because they can will and think; but they are told that since there is life in good and truth there cannot be any life in evil and falsity, for they are contraries," 5407. But death by stoning, as we have seen, signifies to be vastated, or deprived, of all truths, and death by burning signifies to be vastated or deprived of all good; or what is the same thing, it is to be consumed by selfish love. By being cut off from their people, or in the sight of the children of their people, is denoted inevitable separation from the church, and thus losing the knowledge of the truth; and we see here that total vastation is not implied; for a person may, by wicked actions, be thus separated, and yet there may be left the opportunity for salvation by sincere repentance. But now notice also the difference between bearing iniquity and bearing sin as occurring respectively in different cases, and as denoting confirmation in falsity and confirmation in evil. And lastly, by dying childless is signified no increase of good and truth; and from all these instances we surely learn that the results of indulging in various forms of evil and falsity are also various, and hence that every kind of wickedness has its appropriate punishment which can only be avoided by the rejection, outwardly and inwardly, of the particular evil or falsity from which it comes.

What I've gathered from reading the bible in a spiritual manner, and taking notes from this site... is simply this.

There is no wrong in doing right and wrong, only in not knowing the difference.

If a man is blind too his actions, bridge the gap.

And if he sees no reason to cross over... tell him he's always got the chance to until he dies.

Everyone has people watching over them, so... don't think you aren't protected without being merciless.

 

[sub]

I think most people do view the bible figuratively. Thinking about it like that, though, it still doesn't make sense to me. If god wanted something to be understood, why does it dance around the meaning? Why does it make the meaning open to interpretation? Surely, if god has something to tell us, it must be important, important enough that the meaning should be understood by all. Stop with the vague references and tell us what you want.

So I guess whether or not the bible is interpreted literally or figuratively is a lose lose situation for me.

 

[Synth]

And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war with Him that sat upon the horse, and with His army. Revelation 19:19

http://www.biblemeanings.info/Bible/revelation.html

Signifies that all the interiorly evil, who have professed faith alone, with the leaders and their followers, will fight against the Lord‘s Divine truths in His Word, and will infest those who will be of the Lord’s New Church. That by "the beast" are signified those who are in the religious persuasion of faith alone, may be seen above. That it is only they who are interiorly evil, and have professed that religious persuasion, will be seen below. By "the kings of the earth" are signified those who are in the falsities of that religious persuasion more than the rest, thus the leaders; for by "the kings of the earth" are signified those who are in the truths of the church from the Word, and in the opposite sense those who are in falsities here those who are in falsities. By "their armies" all those among them are signified who in like manner are in falsities. By "making war" is signified to contend against, since by "war" in the Word spiritual war is signified, which is that of falsity against truth, and of truth against falsity. By "Him that sat upon the horse" is meant the Lord as to the Word and because they cannot fight against the Lord Himself, but against His Divine truths which are in the Word, and thus they fight also against the Lord, because the Lord is the Word, this therefore is meant by "making war with Him that sat upon the horse." That by "an army" those are signified who are in Divine truths, thus abstractly Divine truths, consequently those who are of the Lord‘s New Heaven and New Church, because Divine truths are with them, may be seen above.

All I can really say is that God is not asking that much of you to read the bible a couple times, so you can understand what means what. The bible PROVES that no one is completely evil and worth being killed over their actions.

I've also done some digging with the names and dates in the bible, and have uncoded stuff that I personally believe was meant for me to be decoded. Also, I believe you can't just go grand-stand at a church to prove your faith, betting your soul on what a preacher has to say, you need to have your own opinions.

A section from above...

That by "the beast" are signified those who are in the religious persuasion of faith alone, may be seen above. That it is only they who are interiorly evil, and have professed that religious persuasion, will be seen below.

Which pretty much justifies though who would jump to conclusions on God's morals, goals, and inventions, in the name of an insecure justification, will probably be the only humans who will go to Hell. As I recall another verse (I'll try to find it) said that there is no Hell for humanity, we are not internally evil.

 

[Skiwan]

Literal interpretation can lead to fanaticism

[ame]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R7qRk_U83dc[/ame]

 

[Brosiris]

No. That is why I consider myself towards agnostic than Christian. God isn't some anglo-saxon old man loving America, hating gays, and having conversations with the Devil in English.

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but, yes he is. To an extent.

But that's besides the point.

Should it be taken literally? Not in my opinion. Also in my opinion it shouldn't be taken figuratively either. You're all generalizing the Bible to one thing over another. To me, there is a time and place for everything. There is a time to interpret what the bible says as literal, and a time to interpret it as metaphorical.

But FP what ever do you mean? What I'm saying is you can't just say "The Bible should be taken this way" or "the Bible should be taken that way." You have to take each little anecdote or story, or moral value and judge it by itself. For example, the ten commandments:

Some would take most, if not all of the ten commandments and take them ever so literally. "Thou salt not kill" - that's a pretty easy one, you shouldn't kill anyone for any reason. God didn't really follow this ever, which kinda makes him a hypocrite(killing everyone's first born before moses parted the sea comes to mind), but I won't get into it. But what about genuine self defense?
"Thou salt not bear false witness" - which, do you believe is more right? Lying to the Nazi officer who asks if you are hiding Jews? Or telling him the truth? Because lying would be a sin.


So, short answer: Both

 

[Almighty_Gir]

oh snap, that family was on jeremy kyle.

why are they flying the old glory upside down? isn't that a sign of distress, or that you're under attack? whenever a member of our forces see someones flag upside down, we're instructed to approach them as if they are either surrendering, or are pretty much dead.

 

[MC]

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but, yes he is. To an extent.

But that's besides the point.

Should it be taken literally? Not in my opinion. Also in my opinion it shouldn't be taken figuratively either. You're all generalizing the Bible to one thing over another. To me, there is a time and place for everything. There is a time to interpret what the bible says as literal, and a time to interpret it as metaphorical.

So, short answer: Both.

And what determines when it's appropriate to interpret the Bible literally or metaphorically?

 

[sub]

Saying it's both is such a cop out.

 

[Synth]

There is no determining factor.

God is LOVE.

POINT BLANK!

 

[Brosiris]

And what determines when it's appropriate to interpret the Bible literally or metaphorically?

It depends on the passage. Understand, that like every other book, the Bible is just that: A book. And like all books it can be taken multiple different ways depending on the views, and thought process of the person interpreting it.

One can't merely read the Bible, it must be thought about. One would have to sit down, and read each passage and think about what the Bible is trying to say. And once done, deduce what it's trying to teach, impose, or cast out.

Should this passage be taken literally? Did God REALLY turn the Devil into a snake, or rather, is he being portrayed as a scary tricky element? Did some of the characters in the Bible really live to be over 800 years old? Or is it merely an illusion of time?

Take it from an English Teacher's standpoint. In "The Handmaid's Tale" By Margaret Atwood, she finds carved into the wall "Pen is envy."

My teacher and I had a big discussion about this statement in the book, because it's a play on words. She believes this derives from Freud's "Penis Envy." However, the Handmaid's neither envied the penis, nor do they mention anything about sex. They, however, could not write because they weren't allowed, thus altering "Penis Envy" to "Pen is Envy."

It's all how you want to interpret it. But to take the entire Bible and say "It's all literal" or "It's all metaphorical" is asinine.

 

[Synth]

But to take the entire Bible and say "It's all literal" or "It's all metaphorical" is asinine.

I don't think you understand how metaphors work.

When you interpret a metaphor, it's like saying something literal in a mystical way.

 

[Brosiris]

I don't think you understand how metaphors work.

When you see a metaphor it's like saying something literal in a mystical way.

Metaphor's are representations for literature. I don't think you understand fully what a metaphor is.

Saying the Devil is a snake is a metaphor - it represents that the Devil is: sly, tricky, and full of deceit. The Devil really isn't a snake. The snake just represents those qualities.

 

[Synth]

Saying the Devil is a snake is a metaphor - it represents that the Devil is: sly, tricky, and full of deceit. The Devil really isn't a snake. The snake just represents those qualities.

I have to disagree.

You take the literal cognitive of the Devil having the theological aspects of the snake.

The 'snake' doesn't mean a serpant, it means a social disbehavaior.

But, why argue semantics... in the end, LOVE IS GOD!