[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Acrobat]

4. Non-literal writing can promote divisions.
 

While atheists vs Christians (particularly fundies) often tend to be arguments about science and history, arguments divisions between Christians sects are almost never about history or science.

Even for literalist, literalism doesn’t negate whatever non-literal meaning is to be found in the the text. And the meaning is always superior to any supposed scientific and historical fact the Bible supposedly contained.

Pretty much all Christians literalist as well, would agree that Christianity isn’t reducible to quasi-scientific or historic facts, Accepting them doesn’t equate to being a Christian.

[Darwin1245]

Generally speaking, it applies to most popular religions. Exceptions may exist, but such consoling myths do exist in most religions which include the primitive ones. Myths about death is an example, which is why "death" was preceded with "like."

Buddhism? After death you may be reincarnated as a worm, a hungry ghost, a tormented soul in hell. Is this knowledge consoling? If you did a good job before, you can get a better deal, but you don't know until you get there. In the end, after a zillion reincarnations, you may manage to disappear completely.

Christianity (many forms) you have a good chance of eternal torture, and you don't know until you go. Well, that's consoling. 

I don't know anything about Islam. 

Ancient Greek religion: the afterlife is terrible. Ancient Roman religion: depending on how you did in this life, you might get a nice neighborhood in Hades. But you don't know until you go there.

Generally speaking, it applies to most popular religions. Exceptions may exist, but such consoling myths do exist in most religions which include the primitive ones. Myths about death is an example, which is why "death" was preceded with "like."

This doesn’t seem to be even generally true. People in practice generally are consolatory when dealing with death, we pretty much tell everyone grieving over loss, something like he’s in a better place, or he’s no longer suffering, etc...

But religious myths, even as Belaqua pointed out, that have an after life of some sorts whether reincarnation or heaven, hardly seem to fill the same role, in fact they tend to offer an alternative destructive place or state as well. So whatever purpose myths that contain suggestions of an after life, it doesn’t seem to be for the purpose of consultation.

Norse religion:

We're all screwed at the end. Even the gods.

It appears that they believed in different fates that did not all involve Hell-like places. However, they are not as simple as Heaven-or-Hell. Valhalla seems much better than Helheim. 



It is hard to claim that there was one and only reason for religions to be made up. I did make it clear that "consolation" was probably a reason, which may be demonstrated by beliefs about afterlife in many religions, but, surely, there might be other possible explanations, especially when this does not seem applicable in such examples. 
 
I believe that any kind of afterlife seems more understandable than disappearance; however, it seems that myths that survive are those that combine a bit of consolation (like the possibility of Heaven, Valhalla, reincarnation) with the seemingly "facts" (like the fact that bodies, when they die, seem to suffer/disappear by becoming skeletons).

[Belacqua]

It is hard to claim that there was one and only reason for religions to be made up.

Thank you. I think that when we're talking about things that absolutely can't be proven, it is good not to be too certain. 

Speculation is fun, of course. That's one reason why it's good to know as much as possible about the topic: to speculate better.

[The Grand Nudger]

But seriously, if you have some single characteristic that's definitional for Christianity, please let us know.

Try belief in a literal, historic, and scientific Christ. Or as “Paul” puts it....if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile. That’s seems like a good start for defining....Christian....belief, lol.

This handily separates those who are literally Christian, from those who are only metaphorically or culturally christian. The difference between a belief in a specific god and the belief in good and meaningful fables.

Seems like an important distinction......what with one group being Christians, and the other, not.

[Belacqua]

Or as “Paul” puts it....if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.

Some Christians take "raised" to mean that living people currently have to "raise" Christ by behaving like him. That is, they have the Holy Spirit, which is living in the spirit of what Christ did. 

I know that some Christians want a literal bodily resurrection, but some don't. 

what with one group being Christians, and the other, not.

This may be your definition. Probably some Christians agree with you. Others don't, and I don't see how I can call them fake.

[Belacqua]

The chief subject of Nietzsche’s first book, The Birth of Tragedy (1872), is the nature of Greek tragedy, which he interpreted as an art-form that overcame the lack of meaning in human life by reframing it as an aesthetic spectacle.

The most celebrated aspect of Nietzsche’s interpretation is his claim that Greek drama turns on an interaction between an Apollonian striving after reason and order, and a Dionysian yearning for chaos and frenzy. But the most important section of the book, to my mind, comes when he applies his account of Greek tragedy to the secular faith of modern times, which he calls “Socratism” — the belief that the world becomes properly intelligible only when the human mind has rid itself of myth.

“Socrates is the archetype of the theoretical optimist,” Nietzsche writes, “who in his faith in the explicability of things, attributes the power of a panacea to knowledge and science, and sees error as the embodiment of evil.” Later in the book, Nietzsche asks the reader to imagine “abstract man, without the guidance of myth — abstract education, abstract morality, abstract justice, the abstract state…then we have our present age, the product of that Socratism bent on the destruction of myth”.

The end-result of Socratism for the West is “a resolute process of secularization, a break with the unconscious metaphysics of its previous existence”. In turn, the triumph of Socratism leads to a violent rebirth of mythic thinking, inspiring the frenzied totalitarian movements that Nietzsche saw coming and which, ironically, he was blamed for inspiring.

-- John Gray

https://unherd.com/2019/08/why-the-human...-be-saved/

[Darwin1245]

It is hard to claim that there was one and only reason for religions to be made up.

Thank you. I think that when we're talking about things that absolutely can't be proven, it is good not to be too certain. 

Speculation is fun, of course. That's one reason why it's good to know as much as possible about the topic: to speculate better.

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.
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 agree with you that holy texts are a good source for ancient literature, and we can use them to derive some acceptable morals. You are adherent to your opinion for some reason that I am not interested in knowing about.

[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.

[Darwin1245]

But certainly, people cannot make a book divine, right? 

If you mean by "divine" that it really comes from God, then no, people can't make it divine. It actually comes from God or it doesn't. 

I thought it was useful to have a separate term -- "holy" -- to mean that people hold something to be spiritually important, whether it comes from God or not. 

So for example, I can refer to a Hindu holy site as holy, even though I don't think the Hindu gods really exist. It's a holy site because people say it's holy. 

Well, saying it provoked "serious commentary" sort of implies that this is serious business, something worth listening to. I'm not sure if that's the case.

It was certainly serious to the people doing the commentary. It was serious business to them. I can understand that you don't find it worth listening to, but that's your judgment call. 

What makes tradition anything worth listening to? Ever read The Lottery by Shirley Jackson?

Before I address your new question here, I'd like to reiterate the point I made above:

If you are talking about the religious tradition, it is good to know about the religious tradition. Because it's good to know what you're talking about. 

So suppose there's a modern Christian somewhere who says that the talking snake in Genesis has to be interpreted literally. I think that, since he's addressing a part of the Christian tradition, it would be good for him to know that for many important people in his tradition, the snake was not interpreted literally. 

Likewise, if an anti-religion person declared that all Christians are idiots because they believe in talking snakes, it would be good for him to know that many important people in that tradition didn't believe in talking snakes. 

When discussing the subject, it's good to know the subject.

As for your new question, what makes a tradition worth listening to -- there are better traditions and worse traditions. But we all depend on some traditions. Life would be too difficult if we had to invent everything new in every generation. I suppose we judge good and bad traditions according to the same standards we judge other things -- do I think it is best for people.

Of course the Jackson story is about a bad tradition, and that tradition should be stopped. But it doesn't mean that all traditions are bad. What do you think? 

And what I'm saying is that even dynamic interpretations of the Bible surely contain plenty of literalism. What parts do you think are taken literally?

Yes, as I've said several times, parts are read literally and parts aren't. I'm pretty sure that the Mosaic laws were intended by the original authors to be followed literally. As for the rest -- it's a big book, and going through it line by line would take time. As I said, it's not easy.

But, in suggesting this, you insinuate that there is one ultimate interpretation to be discovered, so long as you just "use [your] brain."

I'd be grateful if you stick with what I say, and not what you think I am insinuating. 

I don't think there is only one ultimate interpretation to be discovered. In fact I am arguing the opposite, and I have said so. A story like the Book of Job has many interpretations. The combination and history of these interpretations is largely what makes the Book of Job into a fascinating myth and a prompt for thinking. 

Using your brain in such a case would mean that you can hold the various interpretations in mind, comparing and contrasting and gaining from the process, without insisting that you are right. Non-literal poetry often (not always) works this way.

---

Hi Darwin,

Was this post intended for me? I seem to be the noisiest person on the thread, so I'll guess that it was. 

[Just for future reference: in the lower right of each post there's a button marked "reply." If you click that and then type in the box that appears, it will be clear to whom you're speaking.] 

What makes you so sure that people today would interpret those non-literal statements the same way as was intended 2+ thousand years ago? 

I'm quite sure that many people today wouldn't interpret those statements the way the authors intended them. 

Earlier in the thread, I think, I questioned whether this was important. My opinion is that whatever the authors intended, it's the centuries of interpretation which make the statements meaningful to us now. I don't know and don't much care whether the author of Genesis really believed that Moses could hit a rock and get water. I know for a fact that some later writers interpreted this literally and others didn't, and this is what we work on.

Understanding non-literal expressions is likely affected by knowledge and other factors. Trying to interpret is the same as trying to find a meaning that makes sense. What makes sense to us did not necessarily make sense to the authors thousands of years ago.

Yes, very much so. The interpretation of non-literary expressions is different for different people. In some cases, this seems to me intentional and wise. 

It seems more like a human mistake to not consider this by not making the book clear enough for the religion to last forever. 

Or it may be that the religion lasts forever (well, a long time) exactly because the non-literal expressions sustain ever-renewing interpretations. 

Jesus didn't address a single word to how we drive our cars. But that doesn't mean that the lessons he supposedly taught are irrelevant when we drive. The fact that he taught in parables, open to interpretation in different circumstances, means that we draw lessons from them that are not specific to the details of the parable. 

“Holy” texts seem very much like other ancient literature.

Yes, certainly. 

That's why it's good to know about the expressions, methods, and tropes used in other ancient literature. It's why I am confident that the early interpreters were comfortable with non-literal readings, in many cases.

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.

What you said about my views is inaccurate.

[Acrobat]

But seriously, if you have some single characteristic that's definitional for Christianity, please let us know.

Try belief in a literal, historic, and scientific Christ. Or as “Paul” puts it....if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile. That’s seems like a good start for defining....Christian....belief, lol.

This handily separates those who are literally Christian, from those who are only metaphorically or culturally christian. The difference between a belief in a specific god and the belief in good and meaningful fables.

Seems like an important distinction......what with one group being Christians, and the other, not.

Yet many denominations of liberal Christianity including some liberal scholars like Marcus Borg, Dominic Crosson don’t believe in a literal/historical resurrection. Yet they still view themselves as Christian.

They also will likely to not subscribe to the few that the Bible is free of errors, or that the writers of scripture couldn’t have been wrong about certain things, some might disagree with Paul.

It should be said that pretty much all Christians including liberal ones, understand the resurrection as metaphorical as well, as representative of the transformative nature of god in our lives, that the resurrection in such a way takes place in the life of believers. They don’t merely view as a historical truth, about something that took place 2000 years ago.

Christ rose from the dead, but the reality of the resurrected hope in the lives of the early believers was equally real, inseparable from the meaning of the resurrection.