The Bible is Entirely Allegorical

[Gangstawombatninja]

I posted this at http://www.mtgfanatic.com/ a long time ago but no one wanted to talk religion. It turned into a debate on embryonic stem cells and abortion but even that ended. Oh, well. I copied and pasted because I'm lazy. I'm going to post a topic on utopia in the philosophy section. (Oh, and I don't care if u don't like my name because I do).

Before I get started I’d just like to say that this is not an attack on spirituality or religion. This is simply an attack on a literal interpretation of the Bible. I respect people who love the Bible.

The simple fact that we can see the light from super galaxies hundreds of millions of light years away (in my mind) proves that the universe is at least hundreds of millions of years old because it would have taken hundreds of millions of years for that light to reach Earth. A creationist defending a completely literal interpretation of the Bible that says the universe is only 6000 years old and that a global flood occurred 4400 years ago will likely (and has) counter(ed) that “God makes us see the light.” Well, if the universe is 6000 years old that means that light from Andromeda hasn’t reached us yet and we’re witnessing events that never occurred. Bit of a stretch but that’s the difference between religion and science: religion comes a conclusion and doesn’t let actual observations interfere with the inflexible conclusion; science observes, comes to conclusion, tests the conclusion and revises the conclusion (Or rather the study of science--science is absolute, perception of science is not). “Science provides proof without certainty while religion provides certainty without proof.” That is what faith is: belief without proof. You can romanticize it all you want but that’s what it is. Like when Joseph Campbell was talking to a preacher and the preacher said something like “I guess there isn’t anything I can do to prove to you that God exists?” and Mr. Campbell (scholar of mythology and religion) responded “Then, what would be the value of faith?”

We all know the story of the Rosetta Stone: close of the 18th century some of Napoleon’s soldiers discovered an ancient tablet with the same thing written on it in three languages: ancient Greek (which scholars could read), hieroglyphics and deiratic or something like that. Well, we can all agree that the Rosetta Stone was successfully translated eventually and that now we can read hieroglyphics. Okay. So, we can read all stuff the ancient Egyptians left behind on all those tombs. And the tomb walls left record of that particular pharaoh; his (or her--I believe there were four female pharaohs) exploits, his life, the biggest things he built; the length of his reign. So, modern archeologist have created a timeline of the dynasties of ancient Egypt and Surprise! Surprise! the hieroglyphics the ancient Egyptians left us conflicts with the Bible’s depiction of history. Type in “Egyptian dynasties” at Yahoo! and you’ll get numerous hits for detailed chronologies that say Menes united Upper and Lower Egypt around 3000 BC and that the fifth dynasty reigned from 2465-2323 BC (or about that), the time during which the Bible says Noah’s “world” flood occurred. Furthermore the Bible implies that Egypt didn’t exist until after 2400 BC (after the flood); “Egypt” the father of the land of Egypt was a grandson of Noah. Also, the Bible says all people were of the same (Hebrew) skin tone--white--and language. And the Egyptians, ancient and modern, sure as hell weren’t and aren’t light skinned. And the ancient Egyptians also had their own language and writing system long before the Bible says the flood occurred. So, we can conclude, that since the Egyptians left us detailed records that literally span several thousand years and the time during which Noah‘s flood occurred, that Noah’s flood is entirely metaphorical, the byproduct of changes that are bound to occur when a story of an actual flood is passed down for hundreds of years through an oral tradition.

The tower of Babel. What is there to say that hasn’t already been said? Well, first of all the building of ziggurats or temples to reach the sky (bridging Mother Earth and Father Sky--heavy in symbolic meaning--almost spiritually sexual if you choose to see it that way--the perpetual state of life being born) is one of most primitive archetypes; it’s to be seen in the Mesopotamian ziggurats as well as Mesoamerican temples--often having an underground cave beneath, as a symbolic connection to the underworld. Wanting to be close to God--what wrong with that? And why wouldn’t God want to be reached? Christians have rationalized this as saying they wanted to be Gods, thought they were Gods. Well, the Bible (as far as I know) doesn’t mention anything like that (though I may be wrong). All it says is that they wanted to make a name for themselves; meaning they wanted social status, maybe fame and/or ruler ship. At http://www.ethnologue.com/language_index.asp?letter=A there’s list of 6,500 different main languages; not including different dialects that is. Six thousand five hundred. I know that “many children” can go a long way in rationalization but the simple fact is that the ancient Hebrews had no idea that the Orient, Australia or Mesoamerica even existed and so the ancient Hebrew cosmological view of the universe was thus: the sun and moon are entirely unique and the stars are not suns*; the world is flat (the soliloquizing YHWH (this is entirely metaphorical of course--a spiritual being does not have vocal cords (and sound waves can’t travel in space)) calls the dome (“a hemisphere resting upon a (flat) plane”) Sky); the Middle East and Africa comprise the earth; the earth moves around the sun (this is implied by Joshua when the sun stops moving (and thus rotating) in the sky--which would have ripped Earth out of its orbit and sent us hurling into space); the earth is the center of the universe--the predominant ancient world view. A person trying to say the Bible is 100% literal--well, what it is trying to do is rationalize the science of several thousand years ago with science of today. Furthermore the philosophy and cultural atmosphere of the ancient Hebrews is vastly different than modern American outlook (which is a--if not the--predominant influence in globalization). For example: women. The Bible and YHWH are unequivocally sexist. Don’t believe me? Visit http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ . The aforementioned includes passage by passage Biblical excerpts that show the absurdities/cruelties/injustices etc., of the Bible. *In Mark 13 Jesus prophecies the apocalypse: that “This generation will not pass away until (these things have taken place)” the sun and moon have lost their light and the stars have fallen from the sky and angels have gathered up the “elect“. There are about 200 billion stars in our galaxy and another 200 billion in our satellite Magellenic Clouds. Then there are…oh, about a googol more in our universe alone (I believe there are an infinite number of universes in the cosmos, of Big Bangs, that have been exploding and imploding forever and will continue to do so forever). This passage reaffirms the fact that even Jesus didn’t (who is (an avatar of) God) know the stars are suns. And Jesus also said that the apocalypse would come ‘before this generation has come to pass’. Well…isn’t that interesting. Jesus (who is God) made a prophesy that didn’t come true. After Jesus was crucified all the Jews and Christians were expecting the end of days any day now. That’s why the apostles waited (was it forty?) years to write their testaments; they didn’t see much point because they were just waiting around for Armageddon. I’m sure the creationists response to all this is “Well, generation isn’t being used literally.” Eureka!!! That’s my entire argument! That the Bible is not a literal or accurate telling of history or actual events; it’s allegory meant to provide spiritual meaning. Like Joseph Campbell saying “The Virgin Birth has nothing to do with biology and the Promise Land has nothing to with real estate.” The Bible is entirely symbolic!

If God made Adam and Eve that means “He” (spiritual being do not possess genitalia) engineered every single atom and molecule and programmed their (our) basic psychology and how their minds would work. Furthermore, all that happens is in His Divine Plan (Contradiction: Genesis 6:6: And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at heart.). That means that He purposely created a flawed (how is curiosity a flaw, by the way?) race and He knew Eve would eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (He wanted for Adam and Eve to remain in ignorance--or in bliss optimistically. But you can have knowledge and still be blissful). (And knowledge of good and evil is knowledge of God: Isaiah 45:7: I form the light and create the darkness, I make the weal and create the woe; I the Lord do all these things. The fact that YHWH is half evil shouldn‘t surprise anyone--just read the atrocities He tells His chosen people to commit in Joshua and Judges and the end of Second Kings chapter 2.) Why didn’t God just rearrange a few atoms in Adam and Eves’ brain in the first place? And why did God allow Lucifer to possess the serpent in the first place? (By the way the Bible says that all the beings in the Bible were herbivorous before the fall. Well, humans must have been pretty goofy looking because eyes on the front of the head is what gives us depth perception and allow us to hunt--if there were no predators there would be no depth perception (This is facetious, of course)). And it’s ridiculous to say that He punished all snakes just because He purposely allowed the Devil to tempt Eve. (Actually, this is just the Christian interpretation. Jews don’t believe in the Devil or hell--they believe that heaven and hell exist on the same plane of existence and that distance from God is hell and closeness to God is heaven and it’s you own ego that separates you from God.)

In Eden Adam and Eve lived in bliss, at one with nature and without ego until they ate the fruit and became aware of their “shame” and put fig leaves on. They couldn’t have eaten from the tree of knowledge if they suddenly thought nudity was shameful. They must have eaten from the tree of ignorance. Nudity is a perfectly natural, beautiful thing. The purpose of clothing is threefold: to keep warm; to provide minor protection against thorns and pricker bushes and such (and bacon grease--yikes!); and to decorate and designate rank and status. It baffles me that modern, educated Americans can believe the fall from Eden was an actual event. The whole idea of nudity being a sin makes no sense. Nudity is merely the aesthetic incentive for wanting physical love--which by way is just as integral and legitimate as emotional love; you need both in equal proportion; yin and yang, you can’t have one out of balance.

Christians and Jew and Mormons all worship YHWH as the Supreme Being. But the Biblical portrait of the uniting spiritual force of the universe is very warped. First of all the Biblical YHWH is portrayed as vengeful, wrathful and jealous (Oh, and I saw this thing on the history channel a while ago on Sodom and Gomorrah. Basically, while not all the scholars condoned homosexuality they were all in agreement that violence against homosexuals was worse than the sin of actually being gay--so they were all in agreement that God had sinned in murdering all the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah). The latter two emotions are in fact two of the seven deadly sins (anger and envy--let’s not get into semantics between jealousy and envy) of Christian mythology (a myth is simply a sacred story and a mythology is simply a set of sacred stories so whether or not you believe the Bible is literal it’s still mythology). As for the first--well, one of most poignant and truthful statements I’ve ever heard was Gandhi’s “An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind”. It really is a beautiful and true statement. I think the reason a child molester should go to prison is because he or she might do it again. Not for the sake of vengeance. Feeling hate towards someone for doing that is not going to get us any where. Not to say we should condone their actions. The emotion we should feel towards murderers and rapists is compassion and sympathy. Because you have to understand that our personality is largely circumstantial and behavioral, determined by what zeitgeist we born to and how we were raised (“I’m just a product of ma raisin‘” as Gretchen Wilson says). Genetics is only a part of what determines our personality. What kind of a person we are and our outlook on life is largely circumstantial. (Semi-facetious) example: If that art collage hadn’t been so mean to Hitler if they’d said “You’ve got potential. Try back in a few years.” or if they’d out and out accepted him he probably wouldn’t have ever joined the army. Or if he’d been raised small Midwestern town with good wholesome parents his view of the world would have been completely different. What I’m trying to say is that I don’t think God would be a sexist, belligerent homophobe who wants to be worshipped. (And since Jesus (God) said “love thy enemy” that makes God a hypocrite since He does the complete opposite in Joshua and Judges; and throughout the whole Hammurabian Old Testament, in fact. Like the adage “To ere is human, to forgive is divine). Wanting praise is a very human emotion not applicable to spiritual force of the universe. The only logical thing to say is that God wants to be worshipped not for His benefit but for ours. For us to have something to believe in and to put our hearts in the right place. Is YHWH truly omniscient? Would an omniscient being really be sexist and prejudicial towards gays and people of other faiths. Would an omniscient being really send the four of five billion non-Christians of the world to burn for all eternity? Is that compassion and love? Is that divine justice? Is that even fair??!!

In Steven Baxter sf novel Evolution which I started but never finished reading a few years ago he provides a hypothetical example a primate that might have existed several million years ago. I’m a little hazy on the details but from what I remember there was a chapter about a vagabond and solitaire primate name Solo. He born a freak with giantism. He was unusually big and extremely strong. When mating time came along, when males fight each other to mate with the females, Solo killed all the other males and mated with all the females of the band. You assume he’d done this several times before, every year, to a different pack during mating season, and would continue to as long as he was potent. Since he’d passed on his giantism to all those females the next generation would probably have had a lot of giants. Granted not all those babies would have been born with giantism but a fair number would have and they all would have carried the recessive traits. Since being big and strong is a good adaptation for survival it is likely that in the next generation the giants would have been the successful ones at mating season. After several generations a new subspecies of giants would have begun to emerge. Before you immediately judge this as unrealistic let’s put this into perspective. First of all human giants can mate with regular humans just fine--and dwarves, for that matter. Furthermore, mutations as such are relatively common among humans, so I can’t really see anyone finding this example unrealistic. If you want to understand what evolution think of it in terms of mutations and genetics. Evolution is simply adaptation. Like tulips. I think the Turks brought them from Asia when there were only a few hundred species. Now, tulips are one of the most common Western flowers with thousands of different types. The tulips evolved. Meaning over many generations of breeding noticeable changes emerged. If you want documentation of plants and animals actually evolving from one species to another (I kid you not) visit the faq section of http://www.talkorigins.org/. (And be sure to visit http://www.hotcom.net/users/shagbark/co ... tions.html)

Also I’d like to mention tectonic plates. The continental drift theory is a fact in the sense that indeed the continents drift--at a rate of two inches per year I believe. Is the fact that South America and Africa fit neatly together entirely coincidental? And all the craters on the moon and Earth. Not to mention numerous other craters created by apocalyptic meteors or comets, let’s just take the Yucatan crater as an example. It’s over a hundred miles across! I wish I could give you some hardcore data on meteors but even a layman can agree that something that big smashing into the earth creates all sorts of apocalyptic mayhem: tsunamis, earthquakes, cloud of dust that enshroud the entire planet (I think Mt. St. Helens sent ash all the way to Asia). And the simple fact is no meteor of any size of consequence has hit Earth in the past few thousand (million, for that matter) years.

WHAT I BELIEVE
The website http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html says the simplest self-replicators yet discovered are formed of just six dna nucleotides (I don’t claim to know what a nucleotide is--I imagine it’s a strand). Such a composition would have evolved from things like amino acids over billion years ago. So, self-replication, the compulsion to pass on our genetic material, is our most primal instinct next to converting matter to energy (eating). And since the most sacred thing on Earth is life itself, to say that sex (or rather fornication, which is the issue), the miracle that begets life is sinful is contrary to life itself. Sex is simply the physical side of love. A Christian would tell you that our purpose in life is to worship God (I think that even if God did exist “He” wouldn’t demand worship. I think “He“ would want us to be happy and enjoy our live and help make others’ lives happy. Actually I think that‘s the definition of utopia: when everyone is more concerned with others’ welfare than with the welfare of themselves. And I think the definition of sanity is finding happiness in making others happy; insanity being finding happiness in impeding the happiness of others). I think our purpose in life is to have sex; to contribute to the grand tapestry of Mother Nature by passing on our genetic material. And I think that a person should take advantage of and enjoy life. To this end, I think there are five things a person wants in life: self preservation, food, happiness, social acceptance, and self definition (hobbies, religious beliefs, etc.). Before those self-replicators all there were were things like amino acids but they weren’t conscious; their functions were based purely on instinct determined by atomic structure. But as those self-replicators mutated and evolved consciousness developed. And with the advent of thought those primal instincts could be analyzed. I think with this analyzation the first I want was survival. But why do we want to live? I think it’s because our strongest and most primal desire is to pass on our genetic material. And in order to do that a being has to live long enough to reach a state of sexual maturity--physiologically your body starts to shut down just a few years after sexual maturity. And to live we must be--at least to some degree--happy. You’re not going to live long enough to have sex if you’re a manic depressant who wants to kill yourself. And happier you are the more you’ll want to live, to fight death as long and as tenaciously as possible. A person wants to be socially accepted because humans are naturally gregarious and dependant on others to survive--and it contributes to happiness. As for the fifth one as Socrates put is “The unexamined life is not worth living”. As far as emotions go I believe the most important is love (with hope rounding a close second). It pushes the food on the table. I mean, it puts the baby in the birth canal. I mean--you know what I mean. Which brings me to the third most important emotion: laughter. One of the most poignant truths I’ve ever heard (next to Gandhi’s eye for an eye and his “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” and Tom Robbins “If being alive is not a virtue then there is little virtue in virtue.”(Jitterbug Perfume pg.91)) is the part in Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land when he says that the reason we laugh is so the world seems less miserable than it is. While I have to say I disagree with Rumi in that we should treat all emotions equally and invite them in I do admit that sadness and anger are indeed part of the human experience and sadness is better than nothing. I don’t believe in God but if God did exist, more importantly if a personal god existed, It would be one of compassion, peace and love not belligerence, war and prejudice as is presented in the Old Testament.

I’d like to end with two quotes from http://www.fifer.net/quotes/:
All great truths begin as blasphemies.
-George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

[richic]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

That's funny, Intelligent Design is going through this process as we speak.

[The Happy Humanist]

False memes go through the first two steps as well. They just never make it to the third.

[richic]

False memes go through the first two steps as well. They just never make it to the third.

How many people need to believe in a truth before it becomes self-evident?

[jwu]

If something is self-evident, then usually a lot of people believe it, but the reverse is not necessarily correct.

jwu

[otseng]

Gangstawombatninja, welcome to the forum.

Some comments. Please note that all threads in the debate category must have a clear question for debate.

3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

I would recommend reviewing the rules so that you will be familiar with how the forum is operated here.

Your post brings up many things to discuss. Threads here try to narrow down on a specific topic to provide better organization. Also, it helps to facilitate a more focused debate.

Also, perhaps this thread belongs in the Christianity subforum, rather than the C vs E subforum, since the title is about interpreting the Bible allegorically.

For your first point about starlight, a thread exists to debate about that - Light, stars, and creationism. You also might want to check out Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

For all your other points, you might want to consider starting up separate threads for those if you want people to debate about them.

[harvey1]

And it’s ridiculous to say that He punished all snakes just because He purposely allowed the Devil to tempt Eve. (Actually, this is just the Christian interpretation. Jews don’t believe in the Devil or hell--they believe that heaven and hell exist on the same plane of existence and that distance from God is hell and closeness to God is heaven and it’s you own ego that separates you from God.) In Eden Adam and Eve lived in bliss, at one with nature and without ego until they ate the fruit and became aware of their “shame” and put fig leaves on. They couldn’t have eaten from the tree of knowledge if they suddenly thought nudity was shameful. They must have eaten from the tree of ignorance. Nudity is a perfectly natural, beautiful thing. The purpose of clothing is threefold: to keep warm; to provide minor protection against thorns and pricker bushes and such (and bacon grease--yikes!); and to decorate and designate rank and status. It baffles me that modern, educated Americans can believe the fall from Eden was an actual event. The whole idea of nudity being a sin makes no sense. Nudity is merely the aesthetic incentive for wanting physical love--which by way is just as integral and legitimate as emotional love; you need both in equal proportion; yin and yang, you can’t have one out of balance.

A few things that I think are important to consider:

1) Snakes having walked in the past is not just Genesis mythology, it's an evolutionary fact:

"There are many examples of rudimentary and nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most pythons (which are legless snakes) carry vestigial pelvises hidden beneath their skin (Cohn 2001; Cohn and Tickle 1999). The vestigial pelvis in pythons is not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, vestigial legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside (Raynaud and Kan 1992)."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

2) Adam and Eve Naked: Unfortunately most miss this fact because the Hebrew Bible is of course translated, but the word for 'naked' in Gen.2:25 is 'arom' which means in Hebrew 'bare but not to the point of ridicule'. Here is another scripture where that word is used:

"The spirits of the dead tremble in the waters under the earth. The world of the dead lies open ['arom'] to God; no covering shields it from his sight. God stretched out the northern sky and hung the earth in empty space"

In other words, Adam and Eve were completely visible in every way, but it was a good way. There was no guile, no hidden agendas, nothing that wasn't visible to see. In short, Adam and Eve were some elementary form of being human. They had not yet evolved the complexities of modern existence that we take for granted.

The other Hebrew word used as part of their naked shamefulness before God (Gen.3) is the Hebrew word 'erom'. It carries with it the original root which means to be cunning.

So, prior to the Fall, humanity was innocent ('naked'), nothing hidden before God. After the Fall, humanity was shameful and cunning. They had evolved a sense of sophistication that comes from being able to see and understand Good from Evil. They were on their way to evolving into being like gods as the serpent had prophesied that they would become (which God did not deny, Gen. 3:22).

<i>It baffles me that modern, educated Americans can believe the fall from Eden was an actual event.</i>

I don't care whether the exact event happened, but speaking purely from the innocence that was lost in our evolutionary past, I do think that humanity gradually acquired the skills to be cunning at some point in their evolution. Genesis 3 is not just about the emergence of humanity in a more personalized account of creation, it is about what hasn't happened yet. It's about the increasing of our wisdom with regard to good and evil, both of which we have tremendous capacities to create. It's also about the redemption needed by man to come to God. For that redemption to occur, it required a second Adam. The man, Jesus, who's birthdate on earth we celebrate in less than a week.