Was the Bible intended to be metaphorical?

[Norsefire]

Or was it intended to be taken literally? Taking it metaphorically, the Bible seems to be an endless source of philosophical wisdom.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I don't know, but my guess is tht it is a mix of real life events, pure story telling and philosophical insight.


peace.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Intended by who?
The bible is full of cruelty & foolishness with some few scatterings of wisdom.

[Norsefire]

It's fool of cruelty, perhaps, but the cruelty is usually justified, and what foolishness?

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: The bible is a compilation of drama, poetry, philosophy, songs, wisdom, biographies, and codes of behavior. None of it was meant to be taken literally. The bible was copied from earlier texts of the region. What many people don't know about the bible is it's Egyptian influence. The patriarchs and kings were all Egyptian, not Hebrew. After the bible was written, they became part of the Hebrew culture. Abraham, Joseph, David, Solomon and Moses were all Egyptian pharaohs or viziers.

References:

All books by Ahmed Osman (I don't have them with me to list since I'm still a refugee).

[Norsefire]

Abraham was Mesopotamian

[PsychoticEpisode]

No bible was ever intended to be metaphorical. Bibles become metaphorical as science progresses and things are explained or found out to be false. IOW, no bible is literal if the real true meaning detracts from the perceived goodness contained within the pages.

If you believe in something so wholeheartedly that it becomes sacred to you and your beliefs, then you will do what it takes to protect the written word especially if those words come off as being half-cocked.

[SnakeLord]

I don't typically agree with those that espouse the bible as being some great piece of writing - whether taken literally or not. To me at least, it doesn't have any of the grace, beauty, elegance of Beowulf, the Epic of Gilgamesh or even Aesop's for that matter.

Frankly, on my list of 'good reads', the bible comes somewhere down the bottom - right next to Of Pandas and People but below Postman Pat and the Windy Day.

[Medicine*Woman]

Abraham was Mesopotamian
*************
M*W: That depends on the area you are calling Mesopotamia. Abraham (assuming for the moment he existed), and Sarah were half-brother and sister and the children of an Egyptian pharaoh (right now who shall remain nameless, since I don't have my references with me). Anyhoo, it is recorded in the bible that Abraham settled in the Ur (city) of the Chaldees (region) which, I think is in modern Iraq. Abraham was a polytheist as were his ancestors and descendants of that day. Although the bible portrays Abraham as a monotheist, this is the Judeo-Christian interpretation, but it is not correct. The bible also refers to Abraham and Sarah going back to Egypt, their homeland, to visit the pharaoh who took his daughter, Sarah, as his wife. This was quite the culture of the day, and it was not frowned on to have incestuous relationships. So then later, Sarah ends up pregnant with Isaac some 13 years after Sarah had Abraham run off Hagar and Ishmael.

Point being that Abraham was Egyptian by birth during a time when polytheism was the religion of the day in Egypt.

[(Q)]

It's fool of cruelty, perhaps, but the cruelty is usually justified, and what foolishness?

You haven't read the bible.

[Norsefire]

You haven't read the bible.

Where's the immorality you speak of? Show me a single exercept from any religious text that is "immoral"

[SnakeLord]

Where's the immorality you speak of?

god speaking: "I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters".

Making anyone eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters is immoral. If you contend otherwise... :spank:

[(Q)]

Where's the immorality you speak of? Show me a single exercept from any religious text that is "immoral"

Are you serious? Have you any idea just how many there are? Entire websites are devoted in pointing out each and every quote, word for word, showing several biblical versions. One need simply pick up the book itself and begin reading, that is, if you can slog your way through it.

Of course, I also wouldn't expect you to find any of it immoral anyways, considering you call for peoples heads on lances because their ideals conflict with your Islamic indoctrination.

[Norsefire]

Give me a single example.

[S.A.M.]

Immoral? Whats that? Scientifically speaking?

[(Q)]

Give me a single example.

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. " Deuteronomy 13:6-10 (King James Version)

[Norsefire]

That isn't immoral. It's punishment for an act considered wrong, and punishment, no matter how cruel can NEVER be "immoral".

[(Q)]

"Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God any bullock, or sheep, [1] wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the Lord thy God. 2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. 6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you." Deuteronomy 17 (King James Version)

[(Q)]

That isn't immoral.

See? :rolleyes:

[Norsefire]

You don't understand. You're providing exercpts that mention punishment for wrongdoings. How is punishing wrongdoers immoral?:bugeye:

[(Q)]

You don't understand. You're providing exercpts that mention punishment for wrongdoings. How is punishing wrongdoers immoral?:bugeye:

"Let us go and serve other gods... thou shalt surely kill him"

So, you're claiming it's a wrongdoing for one person to entice another person to their religion, and that they should be killed for attempting it?

"If there be found among you, transgressing his covenant... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

And, you also claim that anyone who doesn't share your beliefs should be stoned to death?

[Norsefire]

No. I do not agree that those things are wrong.

However, from that perspective they ARE immoral and therefore, the stoning is a punishment for an immoral deed (from their perspective)

[(Q)]

No. I do not agree that those things are wrong.

However, from that perspective they ARE immoral and therefore, the stoning is a punishment for an immoral deed (from their perspective)

By simply stating they are immoral does not support your argument.

So, I'm going to close this pointless argument by saying that enticing people to different religions and people who do not share your beliefs are common activities. If you were to kill them for these activities, you would probably spend a lifetime in prison, since those activities do not represent immoral behavior, but instead represent freedom of religion.

I understand that freedom of religion is widespread in Islamic states, so long as the religion is Islam, hence one could make a case in your favor, from an Islamic perspective.

[Norsefire]

They are activities which, from specific viewpoints, are immoral. Therefore, a punishment for an immoral act is not immoral in itself. That is why the Bible or any other religious text do not have immoralities, because immorality is subjective.

[spidergoat]

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)


So, a man refuses to strike another innocent person, and God makes a lion eat him.

[Norsefire]

That is, once again, an example of punishment, spidergoat.

[spidergoat]

Punishment for not doing evil (hitting an innocent person).

[Norsefire]

Punishment for not doing evil (hitting an innocent person).

No, punishment for disobeying the "Lord"

[SnakeLord]

That is, once again, an example of punishment, spidergoat

This is really silly. So, as long as something is a punishment it can't be immoral? Therefore if you break the greenhouse and your mother sets you on fire, kills your sister, rapes your brother, and electrocutes your pet cat all as a punishment... then it's not immoral?

Ok Norse, Ok. :bugeye:

[Norsefire]

In your situation, people not related to the crime are being punished.

[spidergoat]

But that's a double-bind situation. If they did hit an innocent person, that would be immoral too. God is commanding them to do something immoral. That makes God immoral. If immorality can apply to us, it can apply to God. Any way you look at it, it's immoral.

[SnakeLord]

In your situation, people not related to the crime are being punished.

So are those made to be eaten in my earlier quote.

Or, failing that - the women that got their wombs closed by god because Abimelech made a mistake and chatted up Abrahams wife - but only because Abraham had said she was his sister.

[Norsefire]

But that's a double-bind situation. If they did hit an innocent person, that would be immoral too. God is commanding them to do something immoral. That makes God immoral. If immorality can apply to us, it can apply to God. Any way you look at it, it's immoral. God is not Human, therefore I'm quite sure hardly anything that applies to us, including the very laws of physics, applies to God, assuming he exists.

So are those made to be eaten in my earlier quote.

Or, failing that - the women that got their wombs closed by god because Abimelech made a mistake and chatted up Abrahams wife - but only because Abraham had said she was his sister.
Nonetheless, "immoral" is in the eye of the beholder, right? Besides, we are forgetting that the Bible was written in an entirely different time period by an entirely different civilization.

Also, you need to understand the difference between the civil law and moral law. For instance, adultery being wrong is the moral law. Stoning for adultery is the civil law.

The civil law can change, the moral law doesn't. Today adultery is still, by and large, considered "wrong" but there is no punishment for it in most places.

[(Q)]

Nonetheless, "immoral" is in the eye of the beholder, right?

The sane beholder vs. the insane beholder. Big difference.

[spidergoat]

God is not Human, therefore I'm quite sure hardly anything that applies to us, including the very laws of physics, applies to God, assuming he exists.


Nonetheless, "immoral" is in the eye of the beholder, right? Besides, we are forgetting that the Bible was written in an entirely different time period by an entirely different civilization.

You asked:
Show me a single exercept from any religious text that is "immoral"
I quoted one that was immoral on every level, from our point of view of course. There is no society that considers assaulting an innocent person for no good reason to be a moral act.

[SnakeLord]

Nonetheless, "immoral" is in the eye of the beholder, right?

Not at all.

Besides, we are forgetting that the Bible was written in an entirely different time period by an entirely different civilization.

What's that got to do with anything? A god making people eat their own family members is immoral - unless of course you think family member cannibalism is a moral act in which case... ok Norse, ok.

[Norsefire]

You asked:

I quoted one that was immoral on every level, from our point of view of course. There is no society that considers assaulting an innocent person for no good reason to be a moral act.
Perhaps, but there are plenty of societies that think disobeying God is immoral.
Not at all. Yes, it is entirely.

What's that got to do with anything? A god making people eat their own family members is immoral - unless of course you think family member cannibalism is a moral act in which case... ok Norse, ok.

Of course I think that is immoral. But THEY did not and it is THEIR opinion that counts.

[spidergoat]

So, if God commands me to do an immoral thing, it's not immoral? You see, that is why people say that religion is a source of evil. People will do evil things thinking God commands it, and they think they will be doing good.

[SnakeLord]

Yes, it is entirely.


No it isn't.

Of course I think that is immoral.

So therefore you have been lying all this time. Defending immorality in this instance under the basis that it's a "punishment" and therefore not a moral issue. But, having been put straight, you now recognise that it is - the action of making someone eat their own family members is an immoral act. Hence the god of the bible is an immoral entity or..


Any act that [the Christian god] commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible. (by definition)
The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that [the Christian god] commits, causes, commands, or condones.
It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone acts that violate our moral principles. (by definition)
The Bible tells us that [the Christian god] does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone acts that violate our moral principles. (as we have seen)
The Christian god does not exist. (from 1, 2, 3 and 4)

[Norsefire]

So, if God commands me to do an immoral thing, it's not immoral? You see, that is why people say that religion is a source of evil. People will do evil things thinking God commands it, and they think they will be doing good.
The lesser of the two evils; is it more immoral to disobey "God" or to hurt an innocent person?
No it isn't. Yes, it is. I can decide entirely for myself what I think is right and wrong. I could think rape is right, and you can't say I'm wrong.

So therefore you have been lying all this time. Defending immorality in this instance under the basis that it's a "punishment" and therefore not a moral issue. But, having been put straight, you now recognise that it is - the action of making someone eat their own family members is an immoral act. Hence the god of the bible is an immoral entity or..


Any act that [the Christian god] commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible. (by definition)
The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that [the Christian god] commits, causes, commands, or condones.
It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone acts that violate our moral principles. (by definition)
The Bible tells us that [the Christian god] does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone acts that violate our moral principles. (as we have seen)
The Christian god does not exist. (from 1, 2, 3 and 4)

No, I haven't. I said that there are no immoralities in the bible, and that's true, mostly because morality is subjective. I can still find things wrong but they aren't wrong IN THE BIBLE.

[SnakeLord]

Yes, it is. I can decide entirely for myself what I think is right and wrong. I could think rape is right, and you can't say I'm wrong.

Of course I can - and can show why it is 'wrong' as well. I wrote about it a while ago here so I shall go have a look through my old posts later and see if I can dig it up.

[Norsefire]

Of course I can - and can show why it is 'wrong' as well. I wrote about it a while ago here so I shall go have a look through my old posts later and see if I can dig it up.

Morality is PURELY subjective. How can you argue otherwise? I can think rape is righteous and moral and there is NO WAY to prove me "wrong", because it's opinion

[spidergoat]

If God commands immoral things, then he isn't Omnibenevolent and is not worthy of being obeyed.

[Norsefire]

If God commands immoral things, then he isn't Omnibenevolent and is not worthy of being obeyed.

God decides what is moral or immoral. Just like we Humans will decide for our own AI creations what is moral or immoral.

[SnakeLord]

Morality is PURELY subjective. How can you argue otherwise? I can think rape is righteous and moral and there is NO WAY to prove me "wrong", because it's opinion

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1989949&postcount=87

[spidergoat]

God decides what is moral or immoral. Just like we Humans will decide for our own AI creations what is moral or immoral.

So, contrary to what religious people often say, there is no objective morality, only what God says, which can be anything.

[Norsefire]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1989949&postcount=87

That isn't a very good example because it is subjective. Death is bad....is subjective. Therefore morality becomes subjective.

[Norsefire]

So, contrary to what religious people often say, there is no objective morality, only what God says, which can be anything.

I have never, ever claimed that morality was objective.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

If God commands immoral things, then he isn't Omnibenevolent and is not worthy of being obeyed.

And what god hasn't commanded immoral things?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

God decides what is moral or immoral. Just like we Humans will decide for our own AI creations what is moral or immoral.

Whoever created the gods decide what is moral for them.

[Roman]

Or was it intended to be taken literally? Taking it metaphorically, the Bible seems to be an endless source of philosophical wisdom.

Yes and no.
Some parts are clearly meant to be metaphor, other parts seem to be histories. The problem is figuring out which is which.

[shaman_]

It's fool of cruelty, perhaps, but the cruelty is usually justified, and what foolishness?
I have a website for you Norsefire

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[CheskiChips]

Learn to read Hebrew and find out for yourself.

[nova900]

God decides what is moral or immoral. Just like we Humans will decide for our own AI creations what is moral or immoral.

In the case of man written scriptures however,Gods' will tends to reflect the moral outlook of the people who relate to others "his will".With so many varied and conflicting versions of "his will" and with much of it considered highly immoral and evil by large segments of the population but not by it's followers,the human races epithet in the future could very well be written on a plaque on a burnt out cinder of a destroyed world (ours).."It was Gods will"

[Medicine*Woman]

Learn to read Hebrew and find out for yourself.
*************
M*W: Many years ago I attempted to do just that, but I didn't get very far due to time constraints and returning to the States. I'm sure if we could read, write and speak Hebrew, the bible would be more authentic or at least more understandable than it has been through christian interpretation. Perhaps you could interpret some of the misunderstood passages for us.