[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Belacqua]

I used it as an example that is clearly applicable to some religions. Did I say that there was only one and only reason? No, I did not claim that, and I used words expressing uncertainty. However, I am planning on finding out the reasons that can be applicable to most religions.
In addition, It was relatively unrelated to what we were discussing. I would prefer that you do not change the subject.


It appears to me that there is nothing else to be said regarding this subject. I made it clear why alternative ways of interpretations should not be acceptable as long as they do not meet the criteria I explained why should be met.

I've reread your posts to try to understand your views better. Especially about what criteria you think should be met for interpreting the Bible.

I think they can be summarized this way, but I hope you'll say if I'm wrong:

1) A holy book, to be more worthy of respect than any other ancient book must have a supernatural origin. Dictated or at least directly inspired by the supernatural. 

2) We expect the original authors of the text to be giving a straightforward account of these supernatural events or messages. Some figurative language is OK, but for the most part we are expecting journalistic style recounting of facts. 

3) When we read the texts, we should interpret them as meeting the above two criteria: that the meanings we should read in the texts are those intended by the original authors, and that those authors are purporting to account actual supernatural events or message. 

Probably I've stated my own position enough by this time. To summarize it in response to yours:

1) To the extent that a holy book is of more value than any other ancient text, it is because of the uses that have been made of it. I'm just stating a version of Roland Barthes' famous "death of the author" idea, where he said that literary criticism goes beyond researching the original author's desires, and treats the text as public property, open to uses that the author couldn't imagine. In fact I think that this approach is more useful to the Bible than to regular literature, because the Bible has been so important to people for reasons beyond the aesthetic. 

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

It's easy for me to hold this position, because I don't believe the text had a supernatural origin.

2) Written evidence from history makes it pretty clear that ancient authors seldom used anything like a journalistic approach to writing, particularly on subjects of spiritual or moral importance. 

3) The above two positions justify, I think, my interest in later interpretations that are almost certainly different from the original authors' intentions. If the words of the interpreter -- as their own literary or spiritual statement -- are of interest, then I am happy to read them. Maybe happier than with the original. If the Fall of Man in the Adam and Eve story is useful to Neoplatonist philosophers in recounting a fall from the One into materiality (as opposed to a story of disobedience) then I am happy to read it. In fact the Neoplatonic use is, to me, more beautiful and more worthwhile -- looking back to Plato and Plotinus it helps to explicate those views; looking forward to Nietzsche, it helps to understand his own Dionysus/Apollo separation. Plus it's fun. 

It might help to look at these things in relation to another ancient text. If we leave the Bible to one side, it might be less emotional. 

So there's a wonderful chapter in Cicero called the "Dream of Scipio." It is modeled on an earlier story, clearly labelled a myth by Plato: the Myth of Er. In this chapter, Cicero recounts a dream that someone else had, in which he does some supernatural stuff (flying up to look back down on the sphere of the Earth) and have a chat with his long-dead grandfather. Part of what makes this chapter important is the later use that was made of it. Macrobius, who lived 5 centuries after Cicero, did a fascinating Neoplatonic reading of the text which is worthwhile in itself. Now, if modern American literalists cared about Cicero or Macrobius, they would no doubt say silly stuff about believing it as is. But since they don't, we don't have to deal with them.