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)

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

Post #11

Post by johnmarc »

johnmarc wrote: No source, no subsequent meaningful effects.
De Maria wrote: 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.
What I meant to say was (hoping to accurately convey your point of view) If there is no source (God) there would be no subsequent meaningful effects. Sometimes I cut sentences short. I think that we are on the same page now. For you, God comes first and the metaphor comes after that. For me the metaphor is all that there is.
johnmarc wrote: How is one to tighten the lug nuts on the minister's new Mercedes if the lug wrench is understood to be a metaphor?
De Maria wrote: 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.
Correct. Exactly so.

De Maria wrote: 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?
Correct. And I think that we are doing a pretty fine job, up to this point. Agreed?
johnmarc wrote: I don't believe that Jesus is God, and I don't believe that God is God either.
De Maria wrote: 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?
I just don't believe in God.
De Maria wrote: 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?
I will attempt to answer your question with the following:

If the Resurrection is reduced to mere metaphor and is not the result of a God sacrificing himself for the sake of his children, then what possible power could this specific metaphor have? If we separate metaphor from the event which caused it, how could it possibly have any credibility?

Assuming that there is no God behind the Resurrection, the story still has power because it works. The authority is pragmatic. Whatever works has validity and power. The Resurrection story has been told in many forms across culture and across time. Jesus is not the central figure in all of these myths, certainly, but the story is pervasive. The example is given and there is expectation of follow through. One must leave childhood selfishness and assume a mature and selfless role both to please the gods and to create harmony for oneself. I believe that all of the world religions have this story in one form or another.

For me it is simple, When I lived outside of this metaphor, my life was a continual struggle with wife, children, co-workers, and friends. Once I accepted and began to live this new life, dead to selfishness and reborn to selflessness, the world became a brighter place. No need to convince me that this metaphor has power, I live it everyday. What role did God play in all of this? As far as I know, none. I have never believed in God and don’t know what it would be like to believe in some supernatural being. I accept that we must die to our old life and be reborn into a new life because it makes sense. The metaphor has power because it makes sense, not because God demands it. It is not about God, it is about us.

I further believe that God just gets in the way sometimes. We literalize our sacred texts until believing in God is equal to or greater than participating with God. Can you imagine a conversation with someone who has literalized one of Aesop’s fables?

“Donkeys can talk.�

“No, Donkeys can’t talk.�

“Yes, Donkeys can talk!�

“No, Donkeys can’t talk!!!!!�

It rather misses the point and too much of Christianity (and too much of this forum) is about this particular frustrating misunderstanding.

Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?� Then I will declare to them. I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.�

These are the people who literalize the text to the point that the important stuff gets missed. The focus is not about God, and not even what folks are doing for God. It about what folks are doing for the fragile and vulnerable. If it is about praising God and doing for God, then, if I were them, I would pack light for the afterlife.

Jeremiah 22:15,16

“Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and the needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me?� says the Lord.

From the verse above, justice and righteousness are equal to direct contact with God---no need to pursue God at all. If we pursue justice and righteousness, we discover God. Not the other way around which is pursue God and discover justice and righteousness. When the word, God appears in the Bible, I don't even read it as God. I read it as Godliness. Pursue Godliness.



Support for the preceding comes from selected Bible verses, my own personal faith story, and ‘The Power of Myth’ by Joseph Campbell. (none of which can be seen as proofs)

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

Post #12

Post by De Maria »

johnmarc wrote:
What I meant to say was (hoping to accurately convey your point of view) If there is no source (God) there would be no subsequent meaningful effects. Sometimes I cut sentences short. I think that we are on the same page now. For you, God comes first and the metaphor comes after that. For me the metaphor is all that there is.
Ok.
johnmarc wrote: Correct. Exactly so.


Correct. And I think that we are doing a pretty fine job, up to this point. Agreed?
Yes.
johnmarc wrote: I just don't believe in God.

I will attempt to answer your question with the following:

If the Resurrection is reduced to mere metaphor and is not the result of a God sacrificing himself for the sake of his children, then what possible power could this specific metaphor have? If we separate metaphor from the event which caused it, how could it possibly have any credibility?

Assuming that there is no God behind the Resurrection, the story still has power because it works. The authority is pragmatic. Whatever works has validity and power. The Resurrection story has been told in many forms across culture and across time. Jesus is not the central figure in all of these myths, certainly, but the story is pervasive. The example is given and there is expectation of follow through. One must leave childhood selfishness and assume a mature and selfless role both to please the gods and to create harmony for oneself. I believe that all of the world religions have this story in one form or another.

For me it is simple, When I lived outside of this metaphor, my life was a continual struggle with wife, children, co-workers, and friends. Once I accepted and began to live this new life, dead to selfishness and reborn to selflessness, the world became a brighter place. No need to convince me that this metaphor has power, I live it everyday. What role did God play in all of this? As far as I know, none. I have never believed in God and don’t know what it would be like to believe in some supernatural being. I accept that we must die to our old life and be reborn into a new life because it makes sense. The metaphor has power because it makes sense, not because God demands it. It is not about God, it is about us.

I further believe that God just gets in the way sometimes. We literalize our sacred texts until believing in God is equal to or greater than participating with God. Can you imagine a conversation with someone who has literalized one of Aesop’s fables?

“Donkeys can talk.�

“No, Donkeys can’t talk.�

“Yes, Donkeys can talk!�

“No, Donkeys can’t talk!!!!!�

It rather misses the point and too much of Christianity (and too much of this forum) is about this particular frustrating misunderstanding.

Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?� Then I will declare to them. I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.�

These are the people who literalize the text to the point that the important stuff gets missed. The focus is not about God, and not even what folks are doing for God. It about what folks are doing for the fragile and vulnerable. If it is about praising God and doing for God, then, if I were them, I would pack light for the afterlife.

Jeremiah 22:15,16

“Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and the needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me?� says the Lord.

From the verse above, justice and righteousness are equal to direct contact with God---no need to pursue God at all. If we pursue justice and righteousness, we discover God. Not the other way around which is pursue God and discover justice and righteousness. When the word, God appears in the Bible, I don't even read it as God. I read it as Godliness. Pursue Godliness.

Support for the preceding comes from selected Bible verses, my own personal faith story, and ‘The Power of Myth’ by Joseph Campbell. (none of which can be seen as proofs)
Very well articulated. I believe this is part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Except the Catholic Church goes on to tell us who is the Author of the Metaphor (i.e. the Faith). And to describe to the extent possible by finite human language, the effects of living the Metaphor. Which is life after death in union with the Author.

Now, you also say:
If we pursue justice and righteousness, we discover God.

Which, I think, could use a bit of explanation considering the previously stated:
I just don't believe in God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

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

Post #13

Post by johnmarc »

De Maria wrote: Very well articulated. I believe this is part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Except the Catholic Church goes on to tell us who is the Author of the Metaphor (i.e. the Faith). And to describe to the extent possible by finite human language, the effects of living the Metaphor. Which is life after death in union with the Author.
Yes, the only difference between our positions is that you accept that the original stories are of God and about God. My position leaves God completely out. This is no small matter. The stories are made up, fiction, the product of the storyteller's art. The writers who gave us these stories (of the Resurrection) certainly believed what they were writing, but they were mistaken just the same. Your position is that God creates the metaphor and I believe that the metaphor stands alone.

My position is simple. The story of the Resurrection is a story with such import and such relevance that it continues to have significance today. God is not needed. The story of the Resurrection maintains its influence over today's world, not because God is involved, but because the story has a pragmatic value. It works.

A story does not need to be true to have an impact on us. It only has to be believable. We are the product of what we believe. If we believe that the Ark repopulated the world, we disbelieve geologists. If we believe geologists, we disbelieve the story of the Ark. None of this religious stuff is about facts, it is about perceptions.

We have already agreed that faith trumps reason. These are not just words to me. I believe that virtually everything comes to us by faith. There is very little mathematics in our lives.
De Maria wrote: Now, you also say:
If we pursue justice and righteousness, we discover God.
This was my interpretation of a Bible verse---what I believed that the verse was saying.
De Maria wrote: Which, I think, could use a bit of explanation considering the previously stated:
I just don't believe in God.
I don't believe in God. A belief in God just muddies things up. Take God out of the Bible and you end up with one very fine handbook on how to live a productive, relevant life. Put God back in and you get a lot of fussing over who has the biggest and bestest God.

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

Post #14

Post by De Maria »

johnmarc wrote:
De Maria wrote: Very well articulated. I believe this is part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Except the Catholic Church goes on to tell us who is the Author of the Metaphor (i.e. the Faith). And to describe to the extent possible by finite human language, the effects of living the Metaphor. Which is life after death in union with the Author.
Yes, the only difference between our positions is that you accept that the original stories are of God and about God. My position leaves God completely out. This is no small matter. ....

I don't believe in God. A belief in God just muddies things up. Take God out of the Bible and you end up with one very fine handbook on how to live a productive, relevant life. Put God back in and you get a lot of fussing over who has the biggest and bestest God.
Very well expressed. Thanks for your explanation.

Well John,

We agreed to explain our respective interpretations of Scripture. And we did.
We agreed to explain our respective understanding of faith. And we did.

We agreed not to nitpick each other. And I'm afraid if we continue, that is the only option left to us.

What I find REMARKABLE to no small degree, is that I agree with your synopsis. You said:
Yes, the only difference between our positions is that you accept that the original stories are of God and about God. My position leaves God completely out.

Normally, in discussions with people who have vastly different premises, the differences become greater as the logical inferences are added to the respective premises.

I'd like to exit this discussion on a high note. So, in conclusion, I'd like to touch upon what I said in the introduction which I am now glad that you asked me to provide.

As I mentioned, I didn't come to faith in God from studying the Scriptures. I came to faith in God when my wife announced that our first child was conceived. It was at that point that I began to search for the best, "analogy", that is to say, the best explanation of the purpose of our lives. I felt that if I found that, it would lead me to discover the True God amongst all the "analogies" in this world.

You called it a miracle story, and I agree, it was a miracle. Part of that miracle was my ability suddenly to see that right reason proved the existence of God. What I saw then is probably best explained in short analogy set out in a book which was written many years later by a pair of Protestant apologists. The book is entitled, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".
http://www.crossway.org/books/i-dont-ha ... heist-tpb/

it goes something like this. If I were walking on the beach and I came across a message scribbled in the sand, "John loves Suzy", would I assume that the action of the waves upon the sand created this message? Or that little creatures had come out of the sand and written this message?

No, the only creatures which we have seen write messages are human beings. Therefore I would assume another person had come down this same beach and stuck his finger in the sand to write the message.

Science has found that every creature, from the most complex to the most simple, contains messages embedded in their dna thousands of times more complex than the simple "John loves Suzy" message on the sand in the beach. A complexity which human intelligence has not yet achieved. So, if it takes an intelligence of a higher order to write a simple message. What sort of intelligence does it take to write the messages embedded in the dna of every living creature.


That in a nutshell, sums up why I believe in God. Only a power of the greatest magnitude could have created the miracle of life which came to existence in my wife's womb.

Anyway, thanks for setting up this discussion and for such a friendly and interesting give and take. May your faithfulness to the analogy continue to bring blessings to your life. I will, of course, await your summation. I'm sure it will be as interesting as the rest of your explanations have been, but this is my final message.

Sincerely,

De Maria

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

Post #15

Post by johnmarc »

De Maria wrote:
We agreed to explain our respective interpretations of Scripture. And we did.
We agreed to explain our respective understanding of faith. And we did.

We agreed not to nitpick each other. And I'm afraid if we continue, that is the only option left to us.

What I find REMARKABLE to no small degree, is that I agree with your synopsis. You said:
Yes, the only difference between our positions is that you accept that the original stories are of God and about God. My position leaves God completely out.

Normally, in discussions with people who have vastly different premises, the differences become greater as the logical inferences are added to the respective premises.
This was a surprise to me as well. I assumed that the posts would grow out of control. But that hasn't happened. We were able to keep a focus on the conversation. That by itself is a miracle.
De Maria wrote: I'd like to exit this discussion on a high note. So, in conclusion, I'd like to touch upon what I said in the introduction which I am now glad that you asked me to provide.
I am disappointed, of course, but I will sum up...
De Maria wrote: As I mentioned, I didn't come to faith in God from studying the Scriptures. I came to faith in God when my wife announced that our first child was conceived. It was at that point that I began to search for the best, "analogy", that is to say, the best explanation of the purpose of our lives. I felt that if I found that, it would lead me to discover the True God amongst all the "analogies" in this world.

You called it a miracle story, and I agree, it was a miracle. Part of that miracle was my ability suddenly to see that right reason proved the existence of God. What I saw then is probably best explained in short analogy set out in a book which was written many years later by a pair of Protestant apologists. The book is entitled, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".
http://www.crossway.org/books/i-dont-ha ... heist-tpb/

it goes something like this. If I were walking on the beach and I came across a message scribbled in the sand, "John loves Suzy", would I assume that the action of the waves upon the sand created this message? Or that little creatures had come out of the sand and written this message?

No, the only creatures which we have seen write messages are human beings. Therefore I would assume another person had come down this same beach and stuck his finger in the sand to write the message.

Science has found that every creature, from the most complex to the most simple,
That in a nutshell, sums up why I believe in God. Only a power of the greatest magnitude could have created the miracle of life which came to existence in my wife's womb.


Your book is fine with me. I can see why perfectly sound and intelligent people might hold the positions found in that book. My 'coming back to faith' book was 'The Quest of the Historical Jesus' by Albert Schweitzer, written in 1906. For the purpose of this thread, I have no reason to nitpick your choice or my choice. I am, however, interested in what about your background and experiences that caused you to choose that book and what about my background and experiences that caused me to choose this book. Not interested in the books at all. Just interested in who we each are as human beings to be so completely different in our choices of 'proof texts'


De Maria wrote: Anyway, thanks for setting up this discussion and for such a friendly and interesting give and take. May your faithfulness to the analogy continue to bring blessings to your life. I will, of course, await your summation. I'm sure it will be as interesting as the rest of your explanations have been, but this is my final message.


The only place that I discuss religion is on this forum. I assume from comments made here that it can get kinda nasty out there. From my experience, it can get kinda nasty in here as well. I expect that it has colored your choice to exit at this point.

This forum is like playing on the athesists home field with their ball, their nets and their referees. There is a certain assumed unfairness. If we have to play with their proofs and their evidence, the whole world of spirituality and personal walk with God is disregarded as nonsense when most of the world knows that there is more than tangible facts and hard numbers to create a life worth living. I know how little science played a role in my transformation---none, ziltch, nada, zero.

Had we continued this conversation I might have asked:

What was the persuasive element in your proof text. I guess that you said it. (It just made sense)

You could have asked what was the persuasive element in my proof text. I would have replied (it just made sense)

None of that is very specific or clear. It would have been nice to spent a little more time on that.

I would have asked about your three answers that brought you back to the Catholic Church. Those answers seemed general enough to encompass all of Christianity (save one word) What made those answers specific to you?

I would have asked about heaven and hell. Your interpretation of the Bible sends you to heaven. My interpretation of the Bible sends me to hell. I assume that this is no little part of your faith and it is of zero consequence to mine. I don't want to argue right or wrong here, but what is in the background of the two of us to chart such different courses?

There never was a time that I wanted to argue theology, I just wanted to get into our heads a little bit to see what was behind the curtain---what spun the wheels for each of us. Because one of our wheels is spinning one way and the other is spinning the opposite way. What in heaven's name gets those wheels to spinning anyway?

It has been great. I have appreciated the conversation. It has given me some things to think over. Perhaps we will see each other out in the forum. If so, I suppose that we will need to be more bare-fisted. Don't take it personally and neither will I.

God Bless

Post Reply