Religious scriptures as allegories

[Jim]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not because I want to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

I’m not imagining that this idea is new to anyone. I just want to highlight it. When I see people using religious scriptures as reasons for getting in people’s faces, denouncing their views, or campaigning for or against some actions or policies of governments or other institutions, I don’t think of it as being something wrong with their scriptures. I’m inviting people to think of all religious scriptures, and the stories that religions tell about themselves, as allegories. When people use them as reasons for harmful attitudes and behavior, I don’t see that as a reason to denounce their scriptures. If anything needs to be denounced, it’s the ways that people use their scriptures sometimes.

I invite and will welcome criticism of these thoughts from anyone who wants to criticize them, on all sides of all dividing lines.

 

[wellwisher]

I tend to think much of the scriptures was sound advice based on centuries of self and group observations. However, this advice was being given to an uneducated and unread people, who were stressed out under the struggles of ancient times. They needed a way to make it easier to accept and remember. Stories were created that could be remembered easier and repeated. A long winded logical analysis, would have been boring and quickly forgotten.

As an example, homosexuality was considered a sin and the wage of sin was death. In ancient times, they did not have modern medicine and science. Even in modern times, this behavior has a higher mortality rate compared to other behavior. Back in ancient times STD's were devastating due to the insanitary nature of the behavior and the lack of personal hygiene.

If the leaders said the wage of sin was death, it was not a value judgment, but an observation and warning to be aware of a well established correlation based on cause and affect. Marriage between one man and one woman had the best health parameters, in spartan times, compared to other forms of sexual behavior that were also occurring.

As science and technology improved and the natural cause and affect results were altered by medicine, the common sense warning no longer seemed quite as valid. It became more of a commandment to force behavior to an ancient standard, since logic no longer seemed fully on the side of the commandment.

Currently we have all types of medicines for STD's, so the wage of that sin is not longer always death. There is forgiveness of sin via treatments. Again there is still a warning, but with less urgency due to the improvements in science and medicine. Jesus sensed the times would change.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In a lot of ways, interpretating a story as non-literal means it has to clear a much higher bar.

If a story is meant to recount a literal event, then not every detail has to serve the overall meaning and theme of the story. The question "why is this detail in there?" can always be answered with "because it actually happened that way." A literal interpretation allows for meaningless coincidences.

OTOH, if the story is an allegory, then this explanation for various details no longer works. If every detail of the story is a deliberate choice of the author, then every detail must presumably be meaningful in the context of the story. This means that anyone interpretating an allegory who just glosses over or dismisses even small details isn't interpreting the allegory in good faith.

 

[Jim]

In a lot of ways, interpretating a story as non-literal means it has to clear a much higher bar.

If a story is meant to recount a literal event, then not every detail has to serve the overall meaning and theme of the story. The question "why is this detail in there?" can always be answered with "because it actually happened that way." A literal interpretation allows for meaningless coincidences.

OTOH, if the story is an allegory, then this explanation for various details no longer works. If every detail of the story is a deliberate choice of the author, then every detail must presumably be meaningful in the context of the story. This means that anyone interpretating an allegory who just glosses over or dismisses even small details isn't interpreting the allegory in good faith.

Thank you. That fits very well with what I’ve been learning in another discussion.

 

[crossfire]

If god can't be described or understood, then what are you left with but allegories?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If god can't be described or understood, then what are you left with but allegories?

If God can't be understood, how can you have allegories for God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m inviting people to think of all religious scriptures, and the stories that religions tell about themselves, as allegories.

Why would you do this?

It seems to me that this is no less closed-minded than the Biblical literalist assuming that scripture is all literally true.

Hermeneutics is a thing; maybe look into it a bit. Trying to deduce the author's intended meaning of a passage is way too complex and nuanced to just paint it with a broad brush of "it's all allegory." It's often not intended as allegory.

 

[BSM1]

Isn't life just an allegory for living?

 

[Windwalker]

If god can't be described or understood, then what are you left with but allegories?

I like the term metaphors better, but yes, I agree. "When a metaphor becomes a descriptor, it becomes a dead metaphor," ~Hilary Lawson.

Here's a short video of him about this in a related context of how ultimately everything we believe reflects the actuality of reality is itself still metaphor.

 

[Windwalker]

If God can't be understood, how can you have allegories for God?

Metaphors point to the undefinable, as "as if" statements, as opposed to descriptors. While one cannot comprehend God, one certainly can apprehend or experience God. And what is left is simply trying to find "as if" statements to try to talk about what is beyond all languaging in its reality.

This applies to the sciences as well. That too is all metaphors. I'll share the short 4 minute video I just posted for Crossfire which explains how this is so:

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why would you do this?

It seems to me that this is no less closed-minded than the Biblical literalist assuming that scripture is all literally true.

Hermeneutics is a thing; maybe look into it a bit. Trying to deduce the author's intended meaning of a passage is way too complex and nuanced to just paint it with a broad brush of "it's all allegory." It's often not intended as allegory.

If the book has one author, then the author’s intent has one meaning...so if one passage is ambiguous, then comparing it with other passages may clear it up.

 

[leov]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not because I want to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

I’m not imagining that this idea is new to anyone. I just want to highlight it. When I see people using religious scriptures as reasons for getting in people’s faces, denouncing their views, or campaigning for or against some actions or policies of governments or other institutions, I don’t think of it as being something wrong with their scriptures. I’m inviting people to think of all religious scriptures, and the stories that religions tell about themselves, as allegories. When people use them as reasons for harmful attitudes and behavior, I don’t see that as a reason to denounce their scriptures. If anything needs to be denounced, it’s the ways that people use their scriptures sometimes.

I invite and will welcome criticism of these thoughts from anyone who wants to criticize them, on all sides of all dividing lines.

Yes. Theological teachings for multiple levels of spirituality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the book has one author, then the author’s intent has one meaning...so if one passage is ambiguous, then comparing it with other passages may clear it up.

I'm not sure how to interpret this.

I think that assuming that the entire Bible has a single author is quite the "if," but that aside, I'm not sure how it's relevant.

One author can express different ideas; I don't see why they should all necessarily agree.

People's minds can change; even that aside, circumstances can change.

For instance, say you read advice from a father to their 30-year-old child; would advice the father gave the child at 5 years old really help you understand what their later advice meant?

Or the same author could write a love poem and a software user manual. While they probably wouldn't contradict each other, trying to read them together as part of one unified whole would probably be... unproductive.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I’m inviting people to think of all religious scriptures, and the stories that religions tell about themselves, as allegories.

Which scriptures fit the definition of allegory?

An allegory is a story in which characters or events stand in for historical characters or events. The author has something specific in mind for which fictional elements are substituted one-for-one for historical ones known to the author of the allegory.

Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, meaning that its author, Swift, realized that he was writing fiction intended to make a political statement about contemporary England in which each element of the allegory represents something from history known to Swift and his politically savvy contemporaries to whom he wished to make a statement..

"One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to others in this respect.

"This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically its significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted." Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels

That's allegory. The Genesis creation story and the flood story, for example, are neither allegories nor metaphors, which require that their authors understand what the elements in the story actually stand for. The biblical myths are not that. What part of the creation myth represents symmetry breaking or the inflationary epoch? None.

These stories are simply primitive and erroneous attempts to account for the world and how it got to be the way it is. The faithful simply won't call them wrong, but the rest of us are free to do so.

What is the flood story an allegory for? What really happened? Nobody knew back then. I've got a private interpretation of why that story - one which depicts its god as imperfect, unfair, and not too smart (that god used the same breeding stock to repair its engineering mistake with humanity). Why would such a story be preserved? What purpose does it fulfill?

I think it begins with finding sea shells and marine fossils on mountaintops. Explain that if you're an ancient.

Today, we understand that these are former sea floors uplifted by plate tectonics to form mountains. But in ancient times, that was unthinkable. To them, the seas rose to cover all the land. For whatever his reason, God drowned the earth. Being a good god, it must have been deserved. These must have been wicked people indeed. And there's your flood story, and why this flood is global when all floods witnessed by man were much less.

The rest was just added to account for why a good and loving god would do that to the earth, not allegory.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For instance, say you read advice from a father to their 30-year-old child; would advice the father gave the child at 5 years old really help you understand what their later advice meant?

This would apply to any book, by any author

My reference was about the author, not those reading the author’s words.

But really, the father’s feelings toward that son should be obvious.

Or the same author could write a love poem and a software user manual. While they probably wouldn't contradict each other, trying to read them together as part of one unified whole would probably be... unproductive.

Yes, they wouldn’t contradict...which is the point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This would apply to any book, by any author

You don't think that authors ever change their minds?

My reference was about the author, not those reading the author’s words.

So was mine.

But really, the father’s feelings toward that son should be obvious.

I wasn't trying to make a point about feelings; I was trying to point out that a consistent, non-contradictory approach can change over time. The fact that a father told his five-year-old not to cross the road by himself and not to try to use the stove is no indication that he'd necessarily want the same child at 30 to follow these same instructions.

Yes, they wouldn’t contradict...which is the point.

The phone book and the periodic table don't contradict each other either, but that doesn't mean that either one provides any insight into the meaning of the other.... which is my point.

 

[Jim]

What I’m saying in this post is for people who think that all Bible stories are true. I’m thinking that even if that’s true, it’s possible sometimes for a person to receive the gift of faith and follow Jesus, without believing that.

I invite, and would welcome, comments on this from people who think of all Bible stories as being literally true. If you don’t want to post here, I would be glad for you to PM me.