Originally posted by MindshipThe other thing to keep in mind is that the Bible was written/interpreted/translated by many people with many different agendas over a long, long period of time. It is the last place one should look, IMO, for historical accuracy. It is best seen as metaphor, and metaphors change when different points are trying to be made.
It very confusing and dangerous to suggest the bible as a 'metaphor' ....One must question its validity, if its an interpretation, one asks the question what is True and what is False ? .... What parts are strict commandment, and what parts are no more than a rough 'guide line' ?
Originally posted by debbiejo
True the Jews see god more as a spirit that would descend upon them like in the Holy of holies on the Ark of the Covenant and also when leading the Children of Israel through the desert was a pillar of fire at night and a cloud during the day....Though there was that verse about Moses seeing god face to face I don't think it was really a face, because later it was said to look upon god would kill you.
That's why I suggest metaphor as perhaps best interpretation, though Yahman makes a point too
Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
It very confusing and dangerous to suggest the bible as a 'metaphor' ....One must question its validity, if its an interpretation, one asks the question what is True and what is False ? .... What parts are strict commandment, and what parts are no more than a rough 'guide line' ?
Agreed, that's why I suggested metaphor as perhaps the best single way of looking at the Bible. Indeed, the Bible is such a multitextured text that no single lens would actually suffice. My point, mainly, was to say that--as opposed to a historical interpretation--metaphor might leave less room for error.
Since becoming a meditator and "amateur mystic," I have found the Bible much more interesting to interpret from a psychological and "mystical metaphor" point of view (where applicable), as opposed to what I was taught as a child. Hell, I find everything we humans do more fascinating from the Big Picture perspective.
Originally posted by MindshipI've heard many stories put in a metaphorical stance..It's just amazing how much knowledge you can gain from it when looked at as not literal. More fascinating from the Big Picture perspective for sure.
Agreed, that's why I suggested metaphor as perhaps the best single way of looking at the Bible. Indeed, the Bible is such a multitextured text that no single lens would actually suffice. My point, mainly, was to say that--as opposed to a historical interpretation--metaphor might leave less room for error.Since becoming a meditator and "amateur mystic," I have found the Bible much more interesting to interpret from a psychological and "mystical metaphor" point of view (where applicable), as opposed to what I was taught as a child. Hell, I find everything we humans do more fascinating from the Big Picture perspective.
Originally posted by Mindship
Agreed, that's why I suggested metaphor as perhaps the best single way of looking at the Bible. Indeed, the Bible is such a multitextured text that no single lens would actually suffice. My point, mainly, was to say that--as opposed to a historical interpretation--metaphor might leave less room for error.Since becoming a meditator and "amateur mystic," I have found the Bible much more interesting to interpret from a psychological and "mystical metaphor" point of view (where applicable), as opposed to what I was taught as a child. Hell, I find everything we humans do more fascinating from the Big Picture perspective.
The bible should be read with the knowledge of the people and times that it was written. In my opinion, people go wrong in interpreting the bible if they think it is a history book. The bible is book of faith, not a book of fact.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Many stories can be taken as metaphorical:
Jonah and the whale
Sara and Abraham
Garden of Eden
Noah
Moses
I just read one last night about Jesus and why he chose his parables the way he did. All metaphors.
As another example: though I couldn't begin to quote where (perhaps someone more versed in the NT can help out), there is some text where Jesus says something to the effect of "watch, do not sleep." Taken literally, it means one thing. Taken metaphorically/mystically...it can refer to the fact that we humans tend to "sleepwalk" our way through life, and as such are that much further from the Spirit within, around and beyond us. To "watch" is to be mindful or metaconscious, the first step toward narrowing that gap, which is itself maya.
But we're getting off-topic. I sometimes wonder if God did "show up," how would "He" prove it (alright, so this still aint exactly on topic)? George Burns convinced John Denver by making it rain in the car. Big deal. Bring back to life a dead relative? But even this ultimately wouldnt do it. How would I know I wasnt being visited by something like Trek's Q? Or Someone with advanced technology (Clarke's Law)?
The irony: those who are desparate to believe will do so with the merest parlor trick. Those who are skeptics wouldnt know God if He (or She--yum--or It--eww) bit them on the arse.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible should be read with the knowledge of the people and times that it was written. In my opinion, people go wrong in interpreting the bible if they think it is a history book. The bible is book of faith, not a book of fact.
The problem is which bits are metaphors and which bits are facts ??????????
🙂
Originally posted by Mindship
As another example: though I couldn't begin to quote where (perhaps someone more versed in the NT can help out), there is some text where Jesus says something to the effect of "watch, do not sleep." Taken literally, it means one thing. Taken metaphorically/mystically...it can refer to the fact that we humans tend to "sleepwalk" our way through life, and as such are that much further from the Spirit within, around and beyond us. To "watch" is to be mindful or metaconscious, the first step toward narrowing that gap, which is itself maya.But we're getting off-topic. I sometimes wonder if God did "show up," how would "He" prove it (alright, so this still aint exactly on topic)? George Burns convinced John Denver by making it rain in the car. Big deal. Bring back to life a dead relative? But even this ultimately wouldnt do it. How would I know I wasnt being visited by something like Trek's Q? Or Someone with advanced technology (Clarke's Law)?
The irony: those who are desparate to believe will do so with the merest parlor trick. Those who are skeptics wouldnt know God if He (or She--yum--or It--eww) bit them on the arse.
I think you would just know !!!!!!! ....For example, I think Bishop interviewed Jean Grey over the death of Emma Fros,t once .... It was just b4 Endsong and all that G.S. jazz. He interviews her, and she just looks at him .... next page Bishop says that he knows that she didn't do it all, although he doesn't know how he knows ....
being in the presence of god would have huge effects on your soul, IMO
'technology (Clarke's Law)?'
Whats technology.... Clarke's Law ?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Facts do not matter, what matters is how this book make you a better person. If it does that, then it is a good book.
Many would disagree .... the point of the New testament is to bring you the knowledge that Christ died on the Cross for ones salvation !!!!!!!!! It makes it quite clear that if you do not believe this you will not go to heaven !!!!!!!!
But how do we interpret this, if the rest is metaphorical ?
Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
Many would disagree .... the point of the New testament is to bring you the knowledge that Christ died on the Cross for ones salvation !!!!!!!!! It makes it quite clear that if you do not believe this you will not go to heaven !!!!!!!!But how do we interpret this, if the rest is metaphorical ?
Well, I don't believe in this heaven and sin thing. I am a Buddhist and not a Christian and the book I use is the Lotus sutra. The Lotus sutra is all metaphoric, so I don't have the problem you do. I suggest that you learn as much as passable about religion. Yes that means reading other books other than the bible. I would suggest "The Power of Myth" as a good starting point.
Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
I think you would just know !!!!!!! ....
I would tend to agree. In the "melding" of science and mysticism, proof is defined as the direct experiencing of the phenomenon (be it sensory, mental or spiritual; spiritual being as different from mental as mental is from sensory). However, it may be difficult to tease out confounding variables (eg, wish fulfillment), just as it is in "regular" scientific experiments. This, IMO, would be especially difficult given we live in a society which treats God, as best I sometimes think, as a comforting intellectualization.
Yes, the soul would know something, but perhaps not know how it's knowing or correctly interpret what it's knowing. In our culture, we train the eye of flesh and the eye of reason, but not the eye of contemplation.
Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
'technology (Clarke's Law)?'
Whats technology.... Clarke's Law ?
Clarke's Law (named after Arthur C. Clarke, scifi author extraordinaire):
"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."
People don't need a bible to tell them what is right and what is not...You just know what is......We all do. To place a belief in anything doesn't make you more knowledgeable then another...There are many people who are christian who do awful things.....
We have that voice, that little voice that talks to us. That is what is real.
Originally posted by Storm
The inspiration of the Bible rests upon the fact that century after century, generation after generation, people have found wisdom and inspiration upon its pages.
No .... it survived for so long , because people where persecuted and burnt to the stake, if they didn't believe in it ....