The Bible: God's Word and Inerrant or Metaphor/Analogy

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

The Bible: God's Word and Inerrant or Metaphor/Analogy

Post #1

Post by johnmarc »

De Maria and johnmarc have decided to explore the Bible from the perspective of God's inerrant Word (Catholic) position vs. metaphor, mythological (liberal) points of view. We are interested in a quiet conversation which stays as far away from formal debate points and proofs as possible.

De Maria takes the position that faith is directly proportional to the knowledge of God. The more one knows God, the more one loves Him and the more faith one places in Him.

johnmarc takes the position that the Bible properly read is a collection of metaphors and mythologies to be taken seriously as a Christian and not to be taken literally.

johnmarc will start this thread:

First, I would like to know who you are. Not in any personal sense (not asking for personal information) but in the sense of who you are in your faith. What faith do you hold specifically and how did you get there?

Yes, you have already surprised me once. The Catholics that I know are a pretty mellow bunch not at all inclined to take the Pope or the Bible literally (or even seriously in some cases) However, your name, De Maria, should have been a clue.

A little history of johnmarc:

My forum name might give a clue as well. I am a student of the gospels. I came to love the Bible through a long tedious hatred of all things God, Bible, and Sacred. Had I joined this forum as a young adult, I would have been banned in minutes. I read the Bible on a dare with an Episcopal theology group known as EFM (Education for Ministry). To make a long story short, EFM does not hold to a literal translation of the Bible. More than that, books that I read on the side written by priests, ministers, and various and sundry theologians also claimed that a literal reading of the Bible was a misreading of the Bible. Many times I closed my book to look again at the back cover and sure enough, it was written by someone who was in church leadership. It became clear that my understanding of the Bible was an incorrect or incomplete understanding of the Bible and I began to actually listen to the words on the page. The Bible is full of nonsense, confusion, and tribal pettiness. It is also full of some of the most insightful, meaningful, and prophetic messages ever penned. The human community has still not grasped nor implemented the lessons in the Book of Job---written as much as 3000 years ago.

Yes, I love the Bible, but only if it can be read as metaphor or as important, life-changing mythology (no, that is not an oxymoron)

I attend a liberal Presbyterian church which tolerates me because I build things for them. I built their library and was their librarian for a few years. ( I think that they would accept the devil, if he was willing to do some work around the place) My wife has attended for years and years (and years) and that has given me some credibility. They still don't trust me with anything like Deacon or Elder, but the truth is that I have been close enough to church politics that participating in either office would convince me that God was the last thing on anyone's mind around there.

OK, that's me. Who are you? (and you can ask the next question)

De Maria
Sage
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: The Bible: God's Word and Inerrant or Metaphor/Analogy

Post #2

Post by De Maria »

johnmarc wrote:....

johnmarc will start this thread:....

A little history of johnmarc:

My forum name might give a clue as well. I am a student of the gospels. ....

OK, that's me. Who are you? (and you can ask the next question)
Very similar background actually. Except that I am now Catholic.

As a youth, I was rebellious. Born into a Catholic family, I soon learned to reject anything Catholic. An avid reader from my youth, I soon picked up on all the secular ideas floating around in the books I loved. Mark Twains famous quip, "faith is believing in something that isn't true" and Jack London's "every man makes his own God", these sayings were very influential in my development. By the age of 13, I was atheist. The day of my First Communion, was probably the last time I attended the Church as a Catholic. Although my skepticism began much before that time.

Strange thing about me however, even as an Atheist, I kept having these conversations with a Being which I professed did not exist. Especially when I was in trouble. That's when I forgot that I was an Atheist and frequently pleaded with this Being for assistance. Only to be disappointed, or so I thought.

I went along this way, contended and happy for about 17 years. Then one day, after having been married about two years, my wife announced that we were having a baby.

I wasn't surprised, because we wanted children. But something completely unexpected happened to me. As I went out in the street, I could suddenly see the hand of God working in the world. I don't know if you've ever played sports. But during a game, there comes a time, some people call it "the zone". When you're in the zone, your senses seem to be heightened to the nth degree. Everything moves in slow motion and you seem to be able to see every little detail.

That's how I felt. I was looking at the trees and it seemed as though I had microscopes strapped to my eyes. Because I could see every detail in the leaves and the grass. Anyway, suddenly, I realized that God existed. I was absolutely certain. No doubts.

And I was certain of something else. That He is good. And I felt a tremendous amount of gratitude to Him for my life, for my wife and for my child we had just conceived.

Of course, then I had to find out which God I was grateful towards. I still rejected Catholicism, so I studied in turn Protestantism, Islam, Hinduism and the Oriental philosophies in search of God. But to no avail.

The only remaining religion which I had refused to study was the Catholic Church. I turned towards it and my questions were all answered. My only obstacle was the Eucharist. At that point I came to a certain idea which I thought was original to me. Either the Catholic Church is filled with morons and crazy people or it was the only True Church.

I am now convinced it is the ONLY Church of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for putting this together. I look forward to engaging you in debate.

Sincerely,

De Maria

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: The Bible: God's Word and Inerrant or Metaphor/Analogy

Post #3

Post by johnmarc »

De Maria wrote:

Strange thing about me however, even as an Atheist, I kept having these conversations with a Being which I professed did not exist. Especially when I was in trouble. That's when I forgot that I was an Atheist and frequently pleaded with this Being for assistance. Only to be disappointed, or so I thought.

That's how I felt. I was looking at the trees and it seemed as though I had microscopes strapped to my eyes. Because I could see every detail in the leaves and the grass. Anyway, suddenly, I realized that God existed. I was absolutely certain. No doubts.

And I was certain of something else. That He is good. And I felt a tremendous amount of gratitude to Him for my life, for my wife and for my child we had just conceived.

Of course, then I had to find out which God I was grateful towards. I still rejected Catholicism, so I studied in turn Protestantism, Islam, Hinduism and the Oriental philosophies in search of God. But to no avail.

The only remaining religion which I had refused to study was the Catholic Church. I turned towards it and my questions were all answered. My only obstacle was the Eucharist. At that point I came to a certain idea which I thought was original to me. Either the Catholic Church is filled with morons and crazy people or it was the only True Church.

I am now convinced it is the ONLY Church of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for putting this together. I look forward to engaging you in debate.

Sincerely,

De Maria
The Eucharist was particularly troubling to me as well. Once I saw it as symbolic and not literal, the problems went away.

I did not start this thread to dispute miracle stories. (1) I cannot prove otherwise and (2) I have had my own miracle moments. (See: Science and Religion---Has anyone experienced what they believe to be miracles---post 53). More than that, literal folk, such as yourself, claim to be literalists through their miracle moments. Deny that, and you deny any meaningful conversation. For the purpose of this conversation, I will claim that your experiences are real and that they come from God.

Yes, I have been in that very same zone, both as an athlete and as a person trying desperately to get as far from God as possible. God gets into the heads of folk, talks to them, influences them, and having said that, I believe the Bible to be a book of metaphors and allegories---nothing more. That makes my position difficult to defend, but defendable nonetheless.

It is interesting, however, that we both have similar backgrounds and have come up with virtually opposite answers for ourselves and our theology.


I bolded the parts of your post that I wanted to address.

(1) What were the questions that you asked and how were they answered?

(2) Here we are hopelessly far apart. You are looking at the world in black and white, yes or no, up or down, good or bad. I see the world is so many shades of grey that I can't find any institution as all good nor another as all bad.

It may simply be that conservative folk see the world in black and white and liberal folk see the world in shades of grey.

What is it about your church that causes you to see it as: morons and crazy people or as the only True Church? What is it about your life experiences that cause you to see in such vivid contrasts as black and white?

De Maria
Sage
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: The Bible: God's Word and Inerrant or Metaphor/Analogy

Post #4

Post by De Maria »

johnmarc wrote:
The Eucharist was particularly troubling to me as well. Once I saw it as symbolic and not literal, the problems went away.
Ok.
I did not start this thread to dispute miracle stories.
Why would you? I'm entering this as a discussion.

1. You claimed that you wanted a thread which was free of dispute. At least that's what I thought you said.
2. You asked for an introduction, I introduced myself.
3. What's this about miracle stories? That is how I came to my faith. If that is somehow classified as a miracle story, so be it. I didn't divulge it for you to dispute it. Its true whether you believe it or not.
(1) I cannot prove otherwise and
Again, you asked for a discussion free of proofs, didn't you?

You said:
But I have no intention of turning this into a formal debate.
And I agreed. I'm not afraid to debate anyone. If you don't believe me, you can research my messages on this forum. But I'm fully capable of engaging in an edifying conversation with anyone who is so inclined. As you claimed to be, that is my intent in this "conversation."
(2) I have had my own miracle moments.
Wonderful!
(See: Science and Religion---Has anyone experienced what they believe to be miracles---post 53). More than that, literal folk, such as yourself, claim to be literalists through their miracle moments.
Why do you call me a literalist? I'm Catholic.

The Catholic Church does not teach literalism nor legalism in the understanding of the Revelation of God either in Scripture or Tradition. Exegeting of Scripture is counseled as follows:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

There is much more. If you're interested, read this page:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#111
Deny that, and you deny any meaningful conversation.


You've lost me. Deny what? Deny that I'm a literalist?

As for the so called "miracle moment", I'd rather characterize it as a moment of grace. And I didn't come to literalism at that time. For many years afterwards, I didn't understand Scripture. In fact, I would have been quite happy to remain a Scriptural illiterate.

I began my journey to faith at that time. I learned that God existed and I learned that God is good. Then I learned to trust Him and my faith in Him was born. It was not until maybe four or five years after I had become Catholic, when challenged by Protestants, that I began to learn about Scripture.
For the purpose of this conversation, I will claim that your experiences are real and that they come from God.
I suppose someone might come here to make all that kind of stuff up. But I'm not the one. My experiences are real and I attribute EVERYTHING good in my life to God.
Yes, I have been in that very same zone, both as an athlete and as a person trying desperately to get as far from God as possible. God gets into the heads of folk, talks to them, influences them, and having said that, I believe the Bible to be a book of metaphors and allegories---nothing more. That makes my position difficult to defend, but defendable nonetheless.
If you mean to defend the position that the Bible is strictly metaphor, then you are right. It is very difficult to defend that position because the Bible has many verses which are meant to be understood literally.

I believe the Catholic Church teaches the most reasonable position on that matter. Scripture is composed of every literal style known to man. There is explicit text, there is implied text. There are metaphors, there are myths which portray facts in a manner more understandable to mankind. Etc. etc.
It is interesting, however, that we both have similar backgrounds and have come up with virtually opposite answers for ourselves and our theology.
How are two Christians opposites?

[qutoe]
I bolded the parts of your post that I wanted to address.

(1) What were the questions that you asked and how were they answered?

2) Here we are hopelessly far apart. You are looking at the world in black and white, yes or no, up or down, good or bad. I see the world is so many shades of grey that I can't find any institution as all good nor another as all bad.[/quote]

That was my intro which you asked me to provide. I didn't mean to derail the thread by acquiescing to your request. You stated that we were going to discuss our respective understanding of Scripture and the idea that faith is dependent upon knowing God which I uphold.

I'm not averse to continuing a discussion on our faith journeys, if that is what you would like. Are we still introducing ourselves, or what?
It may simply be that conservative folk see the world in black and white and liberal folk see the world in shades of grey.
Perhaps. If I knew the answer to that question, I would be a millionaire. Remember the Rodney King film. Everyone saw the same thing, yet everyone interpreted it differently.
What is it about your church that causes you to see it as: morons and crazy people or as the only True Church? What is it about your life experiences that cause you to see in such vivid contrasts as black and white?
I have no idea. Nor really do I have any idea why you would jump to such a conclusion.

As for why I once thought the Catholic Church was either crazy or absolutely right, it was their audacity.

Can you imagine teaching that a cookie is God?

The idea didn't fit into my head. But since the Catholic Church had the best answer to all my other questions. The question of suffering foremost. The question of how faith and reason relate to each other. The question of the reason for our existence.

What I would like to know is this. When you say that you believe that Scripture is metaphorical. You don't literally mean that ALL of Scripture is metaphorical without at least a few moments of explicit text, do you?

That seems unreasonable to me.

Also, I didn't see a comment on the idea that one must know God to have faith in Him. Perhaps I missed it. Do you really agree with Slopeshoulder that knowledge of God somehow disqualifies us from having faith in Him?

And does that translate to relationships with other people as well? Must we remain strangers in order to trust each other?

Sincerely,


De Maria

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: The Bible: God's Word and Inerrant or Metaphor/Analogy

Post #5

Post by johnmarc »

De Maria wrote:

1. You claimed that you wanted a thread which was free of dispute. At least that's what I thought you said.
2. You asked for an introduction, I introduced myself.
3. What's this about miracle stories? That is how I came to my faith. If that is somehow classified as a miracle story, so be it. I didn't divulge it for you to dispute it. Its true whether you believe it or not.
I may not have been clear. I intended to say that your faith stories are OK. For this thread, at least, they are exactly what you claim them to be.

Before we go too much farther along in this. Please understand that I do not have the time to respond to each and every point. If I have not satisfied you in any of my answers, please put that question into the the next post as a single point.
As these posts get longer and longer I am less and less able to be careful with each point.
De Maria wrote: Why do you call me a literalist? I'm Catholic.
Because you take a literal view to the miracles of the Bible. I take them to be metaphors and analogies. If this is not true, let me know, as I intended to discuss the Bible from those two opposing points of view.
De Maria wrote: I began my journey to faith at that time. I learned that God existed and I learned that God is good. Then I learned to trust Him and my faith in Him was born. It was not until maybe four or five years after I had become Catholic, when challenged by Protestants, that I began to learn about Scripture.

I suppose someone might come here to make all that kind of stuff up. But I'm not the one. My experiences are real and I attribute EVERYTHING good in my life to God.
That is good with me. Your faith story is exactly what you say it is.
De Maria wrote: If you mean to defend the position that the Bible is strictly metaphor, then you are right. It is very difficult to defend that position because the Bible has many verses which are meant to be understood literally.
Yes, that is what I mean. The Bible is strictly metaphor. That is not to say that there is no factual information in the Bible, but to say that all of the miracles in the Bible are metaphor. I don't have the time to go through each one. It is best for me to say that the Resurrection is best read by our modern society as metaphor. I assume that you would claim otherwise and we could begin our discussion on that point.
De Maria wrote: I believe the Catholic Church teaches the most reasonable position on that matter. Scripture is composed of every literal style known to man. There is explicit text, there is implied text. There are metaphors, there are myths which portray facts in a manner more understandable to mankind. Etc. etc.
Yes, correct. But for simplicity and clarity, lets stay with the Resurrection. I am calling it a metaphor.
De Maria wrote: I'm not averse to continuing a discussion on our faith journeys, if that is what you would like. Are we still introducing ourselves, or what?
I thought that we had finished our introductions and had begun asking each other questions. Maybe we need more formal transitions.
johnmarc wrote: It may simply be that conservative folk see the world in black and white and liberal folk see the world in shades of grey.
De Maria wrote: Perhaps. If I knew the answer to that question, I would be a millionaire. Remember the Rodney King film. Everyone saw the same thing, yet everyone interpreted it differently.
And in my mind, that is why we are here together in this discussion. Why do you see things in one light and I see things in another?
De Maria wrote: As for why I once thought the Catholic Church was either crazy or absolutely right, it was their audacity.

Can you imagine teaching that a cookie is God?

The idea didn't fit into my head. But since the Catholic Church had the best answer to all my other questions. The question of suffering foremost. The question of how faith and reason relate to each other. The question of the reason for our existence.
I assume that the cookie became a symbol for God. If so, you and I agree that the Bible includes symbols and those symbols are important life-changing events.

Your questions:

Why suffering?
Faith and Reason---how do they relate to each other?
What is the reason for our existence?

What were the answers that you found?
De Maria wrote: What I would like to know is this. When you say that you believe that Scripture is metaphorical. You don't literally mean that ALL of Scripture is metaphorical without at least a few moments of explicit text, do you?

That seems unreasonable to me.
Yes, all of the miracle stories in the Bible are metaphor. Lets, however, stay with the story of the Resurrection.

De Maria wrote: Also, I didn't see a comment on the idea that one must know God to have faith in Him. Perhaps I missed it. Do you really agree with Slopeshoulder that knowledge of God somehow disqualifies us from having faith in Him?
I did not respond to that because I don't believe in God. The point didn't seem to apply to me. I am not sure what Slopeshoulder believes on that point. I belong to a liberal Presbyterian church. As I joined (and was baptised) I made it clear to the pastor, "I believe that all of the miracle stories in the Bible are symbolic, not real"

He said, "That's OK".

I went on. "Let's be clear. I do not believe in any physical Resurrection, the story of the Resurrection is a metaphor."

He said, "That's OK".

I was later baptised and and accepted into the body of the church.
De Maria wrote: And does that translate to relationships with other people as well? Must we remain strangers in order to trust each other?
I intend to remain a stranger to everyone on this forum. Whether that be good, bad, or something in between, that is just the way it is going to be.

Respond to anything that you want and ignore anything that you want. For me it is best to stick with a topic or two and keep them under control. Why don't we talk about the Resurrection for a bit?

De Maria
Sage
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: The Bible: God's Word and Inerrant or Metaphor/Analogy

Post #6

Post by De Maria »

johnmarc wrote:Before we go too much farther along in this. Please understand that I do not have the time to respond to each and every point. If I have not satisfied you in any of my answers, please put that question into the the next post as a single point.
As these posts get longer and longer I am less and less able to be careful with each point.
No problem. I understand having to work.
Because you take a literal view to the miracles of the Bible. I take them to be metaphors and analogies. If this is not true, let me know, as I intended to discuss the Bible from those two opposing points of view.
So you're only concerned about the miracle stories in the Bible?
That is good with me. Your faith story is exactly what you say it is.
ok
Yes, that is what I mean. The Bible is strictly metaphor.
Every single word of it? So when Scripture says:
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is not to be taken literally?
That is not to say that there is no factual information in the Bible, but to say that all of the miracles in the Bible are metaphor. I don't have the time to go through each one. It is best for me to say that the Resurrection is best read by our modern society as metaphor. I assume that you would claim otherwise and we could begin our discussion on that point.
Good idea.
Yes, correct. But for simplicity and clarity, lets stay with the Resurrection. I am calling it a metaphor.
Ok. Can you explain why?
I thought that we had finished our introductions and had begun asking each other questions. Maybe we need more formal transitions.
I think we are now on the same page. Let us begin to discuss the Resurrection.
johnmarc wrote:And in my mind, that is why we are here together in this discussion. Why do you see things in one light and I see things in another?
I don't know. Do you?
I assume that the cookie became a symbol for God. If so, you and I agree that the Bible includes symbols and those symbols are important life-changing events.
This is one which most non-Catholics misunderstand what the Catholic Church actually teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is an EFFICACIOUS symbol which brings about what it symbolizes:
1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."

We believe that is why Jesus transubstantiated bread to His Flesh. In order to show that it is not by bread alone that man lives. But by the Word of God.

So, there is a two part doctrine here. The miracle really happens. The matter used symbolizes that which has happened in order to provide the human mind an illustration of the message God is conveying through the miracle.
Your questions:

Why suffering?
Suffering is expiatory:
1 Peter 4:1
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Colossians 1:24
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

1521 Union with the passion of Christ. By the grace of this sacrament the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ's Passion: in a certain way he is consecrated to bear fruit by configuration to the Savior's redemptive Passion. Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.
Faith and Reason---how do they relate to each other?
Faith and Reason do not contradict. Faith is superior to human reason because it is based upon the Wisdom of God:
159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."
What is the reason for our existence?
We live because it is God's will and God's will is to love us.
1719 The Beatitudes reveal the goal of human existence, the ultimate end of human acts: God calls us to his own beatitude. This vocation is addressed to each individual personally, but also to the Church as a whole, the new people made up of those who have accepted the promise and live from it in faith.
What were the answers that you found?
See each question above.
Yes, all of the miracle stories in the Bible are metaphor. Lets, however, stay with the story of the Resurrection.
No problem. Since you believe the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a metaphor, do you believe that Jesus Christ came back from the dead or not?
De Maria wrote:I did not respond to that because I don't believe in God.
Oh!? I thought you said you were a Presbyterian?
The point didn't seem to apply to me. I am not sure what Slopeshoulder believes on that point. I belong to a liberal Presbyterian church. As I joined (and was baptised) I made it clear to the pastor, "I believe that all of the miracle stories in the Bible are symbolic, not real"
Ok, that answers my question.
He said, "That's OK".

I went on. "Let's be clear. I do not believe in any physical Resurrection, the story of the Resurrection is a metaphor."

He said, "That's OK".

I was later baptised and and accepted into the body of the church.
Wow!?
I intend to remain a stranger to everyone on this forum. Whether that be good, bad, or something in between, that is just the way it is going to be.
That's not what I meant. But I feel the same about any forum on the internet.
Respond to anything that you want and ignore anything that you want. For me it is best to stick with a topic or two and keep them under control. Why don't we talk about the Resurrection for a bit?
Sure. I would love to. I've asked what seems to be the logical follow up question above. I'll await your response. We can focus on the Resurrection. If you wish to snip off any other info, be my guest.

Sincerely,

De Maria

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #7

Post by johnmarc »

I have a CNC machine running out in the shop. I completly misjudged the time that it would take to cut my project. It is going to run until midnight. The good part is that it is giving me time to fuss with this.

OK good.

(1) Efficacious. A big word. I had to look it up. I guess that it means effective and the example given is medication. Medication given for the specific purpose that it is intended is effective (efficacious) I would hope that the Eucharist is effective. By itself, it doesn't help me understand the Eucharist as practiced in the Catholic church. But the description as a whole does.

I would like to get back to these three questions and answers someday but not yet. My sense is that the answers you got to your questions were pretty much the answers that any Christian church would give. At least our church wouldn't have much quibble over these answers. Maybe I didn't read close enough.
DeMaria wrote:Faith is superior to human reason.
(2) Yes, absolutely. I agree

(3) We can pick any miracle that you want, but it seemed best to start right in on the big one.

Yes, the Resurrection is a metaphor---stated by some as the Ultimate Metaphor.
DeMaria wrote:Since you believe the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a metaphor, do you believe that Jesus Christ came back from the dead or not?
No I do not believe that Jesus Christ is coming back. He was a brilliant man who died and is still dead. I further believe that Jesus Christ as God and as Resurrected Lord and future Redeemer is a rather weak subsititue for Resurrection as metaphor. The literal events ask us to believe. The metaphorical events ask us to participate. All of this means nothing until we ourselves personally are crucified, resurrected and redeemed. To believe that all of this happened to someone at some specific date and time rather clouds the real resurrection which is not about God at all but about us.

De Maria
Sage
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:05 pm
Contact:

Post #8

Post by De Maria »

johnmarc wrote:No I do not believe that Jesus Christ is coming back. He was a brilliant man who died and is still dead. I further believe that Jesus Christ as God and as Resurrected Lord and future Redeemer is a rather weak subsititue for Resurrection as metaphor. The literal events ask us to believe. The metaphorical events ask us to participate. All of this means nothing until we ourselves personally are crucified, resurrected and redeemed. To believe that all of this happened to someone at some specific date and time rather clouds the real resurrection which is not about God at all but about us.
1. First, I want to agree with you that Jesus Christ entire life is a metaphor for ours.
Everything that He did, we are supposed to do according to our state in life. Including the Resurrection of our flesh on the last day.

2. However, the fact that His life is a metaphor, does not mean that He isn't who He claims to be. God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

I am accustomed to speaking with Scripture, so don't take this as a prooftext. However Scripture says that Jesus:
1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

The metaphor then is the example that He gave that we might understand that God wants us to humble ourselves and put our fellow man's welfare above ours.

As one of my favorite Saints was wont to say, "If God Himself, came to this earth to suffer and die for our sins, what makes you think that you aren't supposed to also? Are you better than God?" (St. Louis Marie de Montfort)

And so, it makes perfect sense to me. The best leaders, in my opinion, lead by example. That is what Jesus did.

Of course, that doesn't prove that He is God. I came to that belief from the testimony of the Scriptures, which depict a man who could calm the storm, walk on water and even bring others to life. Since I don't know any ordinary man who can do those types of things, I believe that Jesus is God. Because according to the testimony of these men, He could. In addition, God the Father gave testimony to Him calling Him His only begotten Son.

So, you don't believe that Jesus is God, but you do believe in God? Why then, do you remain a Presbyterian? They are a Trinitarian group aren't they? Wouldn't Unitarians or Oneness Pentecostals have more in common with your beliefs?

Sincerely,

De Maria

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #9

Post by johnmarc »

De Maria wrote: 1. First, I want to agree with you that Jesus Christ entire life is a metaphor for ours.
Everything that He did, we are supposed to do according to our state in life. Including the Resurrection of our flesh on the last day.

2. However, the fact that His life is a metaphor, does not mean that He isn't who He claims to be. God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

The metaphor then is the example that He gave that we might understand that God wants us to humble ourselves and put our fellow man's welfare above ours.

As one of my favorite Saints was wont to say, "If God Himself, came to this earth to suffer and die for our sins, what makes you think that you aren't supposed to also? Are you better than God?" (St. Louis Marie de Montfort)

And so, it makes perfect sense to me. The best leaders, in my opinion, lead by example. That is what Jesus did.
Let me paraphrase what you have said here so that we can both be clear. What follows is not my position but yours (in my words). If I am misrepresenting you in any way, please let me know.

You are claiming that there are two layers of truth. The first original event is one truth and the subsequent metaphors which are spun off from that are the second truth. The first must happen for the second to be true. In effect, it is the rock in the pond kind of a thing. For the ripples to be present, a rock must have been originally thrown. Take away the rock and the ripples disappear.

You are claiming also that the second events have power. It is those events that shape our lives. But for them to have the power to shape our lives, the example which created those subsequent events must come from a tangible and verifiable source. No source, no subsequent meaningful effects.

How is one to tighten the lug nuts on the minister's new Mercedes if the lug wrench is understood to be a metaphor?

----------------------------------------------------

If you will let me editorialize just a moment, all of the above seems a perfectly rational thing to believe.

As soon as we are both clear on your position, I will begin mine.
De Maria wrote: I am accustomed to speaking with Scripture, so don't take this as a prooftext. However Scripture says that Jesus:
1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Fine with me. I will be sharing my own Bible verses and I assume that you will treat them as I have treated yours---respectfully
De Maria wrote: Of course, that doesn't prove that He is God. I came to that belief from the testimony of the Scriptures, which depict a man who could calm the storm, walk on water and even bring others to life. Since I don't know any ordinary man who can do those types of things, I believe that Jesus is God. Because according to the testimony of these men, He could. In addition, God the Father gave testimony to Him calling Him His only begotten Son.
That's good with me. Your faith story is exactly what you claim it to be.
De Maria wrote: So, you don't believe that Jesus is God, but you do believe in God? Why then, do you remain a Presbyterian? They are a Trinitarian group aren't they? Wouldn't Unitarians or Oneness Pentecostals have more in common with your beliefs?
I don't believe that Jesus is God, and I don't believe that God is God either.

Presbyterian USA. Yes, we are Nicene Christians. I say the Nicene Creed with gusto, even though I don't believe a word of it (literally) As allegory and metaphor the Nicene Creed is deeply meaningful to me.

I spent a year with Unitarian Universalists and they were so deeply into Eastern religions, gay rights issues, legalization of pot, and alternative medicine, I had to leave. I had no dog in any of those fights and so the the constant harangue at the pulpit made Sunday unbearable. I would much rather listen to fire and brimstone. At least those folks have good music.

I guess that the real reason is that my wife has been a member for thirty years. The folks like me there. I feel a kinship with both the people and the faith. I believe it all---provided that they allow me to see God and Jesus in in terms of metaphor and allegory and they do.

St. Louis Marie de Montfort---hummmm---De Maria---hummmm?

De Maria
Sage
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:05 pm
Contact:

Post #10

Post by De Maria »

johnmarc wrote:Let me paraphrase what you have said here so that we can both be clear. What follows is not my position but yours (in my words). If I am misrepresenting you in any way, please let me know.

You are claiming that there are two layers of truth.
Correct.
The first original event is one truth and the subsequent metaphors which are spun off from that are the second truth.
Correct.
The first must happen for the second to be true. In effect, it is the rock in the pond kind of a thing. For the ripples to be present, a rock must have been originally thrown. Take away the rock and the ripples disappear.

You are claiming also that the second events have power. It is those events that shape our lives. But for them to have the power to shape our lives, the example which created those subsequent events must come from a tangible and verifiable source. No source, no subsequent meaningful effects.
You lost me. First you said:
The first original event is one truth and the subsequent metaphors which are spun off from that are the second truth.

With which I agree.

Then you said:

The first must happen for the second to be true.


With which I also agree based upon the assumption that the original and first event is describing Jesus life. And the example which He provided that we should follow being the metaphor for our life. And His actual Resurrection from the dead being a metaphor for our Resurrection on the last day.

But now you say:
No source, no subsequent meaningful effects.

Which seems to be out of synch with the previous statements. And with that which I intended to convey. I don't mean that Jesus did not exist. But that Jesus life is an example for us to follow. He is the model of our faith. Not forgetting that He is also God who came to save us by providing that example and giving us fountains of grace which would strengthen us on our journey as we walk in His steps.

I hope that is a bit clearer.
How is one to tighten the lug nuts on the minister's new Mercedes if the lug wrench is understood to be a metaphor?
The lug wrench is real and the car is real and the lug nuts are real. And all those real objects can be used as metaphors for:
1. tightening up one's moral life so that one can ride the road to salvation.

or

2. tightening the lugnuts could symbolize the work one must do to perfect oneself.

or something else.

Any person's real life can be used as an example of right or wrong behaviour and thus as a metaphor for some one else's life.
If you will let me editorialize just a moment, all of the above seems a perfectly rational thing to believe.
Yeah. I agree. O:)
As soon as we are both clear on your position, I will begin mine.

Fine with me. I will be sharing my own Bible verses and I assume that you will treat them as I have treated yours---respectfully
We agreed to avoid conflict. So, I assume that the moment either of us feel we are being treated disrespectfully, there is nothing stopping us from discontinuing the conversation. Isn't that right?
That's good with me. Your faith story is exactly what you claim it to be.
Ok.
I don't believe that Jesus is God, and I don't believe that God is God either.
That's hard to grasp? You don't believe that God is God? Does that mean you don't believe in God? Or that you don't believe in the classic definition for God?
Presbyterian USA. Yes, we are Nicene Christians. I say the Nicene Creed with gusto, even though I don't believe a word of it (literally) As allegory and metaphor the Nicene Creed is deeply meaningful to me.

I spent a year with Unitarian Universalists and they were so deeply into Eastern religions, gay rights issues, legalization of pot, and alternative medicine, I had to leave. I had no dog in any of those fights and so the the constant harangue at the pulpit made Sunday unbearable. I would much rather listen to fire and brimstone. At least those folks have good music.

I guess that the real reason is that my wife has been a member for thirty years. The folks like me there. I feel a kinship with both the people and the faith. I believe it all---provided that they allow me to see God and Jesus in in terms of metaphor and allegory and they do.

St. Louis Marie de Montfort---hummmm---De Maria---hummmm?
Yes. And St. Alphonsus Marie Liquori. Both I consider very important in the development of my faith.

And they did influence the selection of my e-name. De Maria...nunquam satis.

Wow! Very interesting. I've never spoken to anyone nor ever read anywhere about anyone who used the phrase, "I don't believe that God is God." I'm trying to get that in my head.

If God is not God. But God is only an allegory, who is making the allegory? An allegory is a figure of speech. So, who is speaking?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Post Reply