To Believers. Metaphor or factual God or Buddha?

[ndf8th]

Some Christians accept that God can be a kind of symbol
or metaphor for something else. They can read texts in Bible
and translate the text to be a story that say something true
but not literally what it actually say.

Similar with Buddhists. Take Jodo Shinshu Buddhists
and their take on Amida Buddha. Some of them take
the stories very metaphoric. The story tell about a person
that lived billion of years ago. They realize it is a myth
but they trust that the myth tells about something that is true.

So they see that as a metaphoric translation of the story.

Christians I've read also has what some name a Midrash
interpretation the words should not be read literally as true.

Now these may be a minority. I get the notion that the majority
of Christians take the words about God rather literally as true.

And some Buddhists take their texts about Buddha as literally true too.

so is this something we can share our views upon?

What is your personal view on metaphor and actual true text.

I see much merit in metaphoric texts and interpretations of text
in a way that goes beyond the actual literal meaning.

I can find truth in the metaphor. Not a literal truth but something
that do refers to something that actually exist but not as the word say.

[Nilloc James]

Some of the metaphorical and textual readings of sacred texts are more interesting and beautiful than any literalistic/fundamentalist readings.

[ndf8th]

I prefer metaphoric interpretations myself personally
but I've heard that a lot of believers only can have faith
if they trust it is for real as it says. Not sure why that is so.

Apart from the obvious if one take things very literally
then a real Friend is very different from somebody that
pretend to be friend for some motive they keep secret.

To be cheated on is not something one want to experience.