{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by dazarobbo:
2/6/2013 5:40:13 AM
31
The Bible
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I oftentimes experience many atheist and irreligious folks criticizing the Bible due to immoral stories of violence and barbarism, and whenever anyone offers any view that is not strictly literal, it is always dismissed as a modern liberal innovation to "explain-it-away." But, in reality, it is actually the other way around. Strict literalism is actually a modern Protestant innovation that didn't exist until after the Reformation. But in the Eastern Orthodox tradition--what I belong to, because it's the oldest Church--we rely on the guidance of the Patristics to interpret the Bible, and many of the patristic authors interpreted it in an allegorical way, especially the tales of violence.
Origen of Alexandria--along with several of the Saints and Church Fathers from the Alexandrian and Ethiopian Orthodox traditions--applied allegorical interpretation to the Old Testament. The belief is essentially that the ultimate purpose of the Old Testament was to prophetically point to Christ and/or teach a lesson related to Him. The stories are history combined with prophetic and allegorical myth to teach a particular lesson, told in the mindframe of the authors at the time.
Origen of Alexandria is perhaps the greatest allegorical interpretor of the Bible in the Orthodox Church and one of the most renowned. One example of his model of interpretation would be that of the infamous Psalm that horrifies many people. That one Psalm which blesses the Jews for bashing in the heads of the Babylonian infants against rocks.
It is an allegorical tale which ultimately means for us to resist ALL of our vices; no matter how small they are, before they become something worse. The Babylonian part represents evilness/vice/sin, the infants part represents sinfulness even in its smallest point, the rock represents Christ, and killing the Babylonian infants by bashing them against the rock means to eliminate our vices and sins through Christ, no matter how small they may appear.
The ONLY portions of the Bible that have to be read literally are the Gospels and the book of Acts, everything else is pretty much history (exaggerated and told through the perspective of an ancient, barbaric people) combined with myth and prophecy to reveal a deeper message that we can now understand in the light of Christ.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka-4898NN2U]Fr. Jacobses[/url] briefly outlines the Orthodox view of the Old Testament, how we don't necessarily assert that all of it is 100% literal and that the ultimate purpose is to reveal truths about Christ.
-
1 ReplyI always thought that the Adam and Eve story was very figurative. Anyone who thinks the Devil manifested itself as a serpent and literally spoke to Adam (or was it Eve, or both? I haven't read the bible in some time) is an idiot. Or at least I don't understand why the Devil was allowed to convince them to sin, but isn't allowed to manifest him self in the world anymore.
-
3 RepliesMy biggest objection to this take on the Bible is that if it's allegorical, it's also arbitrary. I would also think that an omniscient creator would be smart enough to make himself known rather than assign a select few to write cryptic fairy tales that have to be spun drastically to even approach what we consider good ethics and morals today.
-
Thank you! Finally not another "atheists r dum" thread that makes us look like idiots.
-
I don't trust the Bible because it is full of word of mouth stories. Stories that have been passed down and, still to this day, manipulated to suit ones needs or wants. I truly believe that God does not need man to congregate under a roof to listen to someone read from "Holy scripts" in order for humankind to prove they believe in him/her/it.
-
1 ReplyI remember talking to you about this a few days ago, thanks for posting it.
-
3 RepliesAll of the uneducated self proclaimed atheists in this thread need to go take a scripture class or gtfo.
-
2 RepliesSo if some of it's literal and some of it's metaphorical, but it's the word of god... How can we trust any of it? Who defines "literal" and "metaphorical?"
-
1 ReplyAs a Catholic I don't believe in literal translations (old-Testament) and instead look for symbolism and teachings through the bible.
-
1 ReplyBiblical metaphorical/allegorical explanations work for some instances of disagreeable scripture, but I remain wholly unconvinced it justifies all of them. In a lot of cases, I [i]do[/i] think it's just people attempting to verify religious texts by playing the "interpretational card."
-
1 ReplyEdited by HurtfulTurkey: 2/6/2013 7:09:15 AMCan we have, like, a "casual Friday" sort of thing where everyone takes the sticks out of their ass and actually has fun on this forum? No offense to you, OP (although I do disagree with the idea that only the Gospels and Acts are to be interpreted literally). This is to everyone that floods this forum with religious and political stuff, usually the same topics, day after day. We need another porch day.
-
Why in the name of Jimmy Rustles was his post hidden?
-
14 RepliesI'm a Christian, but some of the stuff in the Bible was written because they had no scientific explanation for it. Like Adam and Eve, not sure if that's true. I believe in evolution and God. Just my thoughts.
-
I'm still not convinced that the Bible wasn't written literally and all these metaphors and what have you came later, like in my senior English class where we had to 'deconstruct' a text so thoroughly you ended up having to just make shit up in order to have something to say.
-
15 RepliesInteresting. My most fervent objection to the Bible is the literal stories that can be empirically shown false, such as young earth creation, the biblical flood, heliocentricism, etc. Religions have switched stances on those to later call them allegory in the face of overwhelming evidence, which I think is a cop out. But I still remain swayed by Carl Sagan's point, If we can be convinced one God is false, why not all? None of them left any shred of evidence behind, they are all nearly identical in role. The Bible steals a lot of things from earlier Mediterranean deities no one believes in any more. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ea_%28Babylonian_god%29]Notice any strange similarities?[/url] Virgin Birth to son of God, creation story, great flood brought by God, triad of Gods. Christianity is an amalgamation of earlier religions in the area. If we all agree that those religions are false, why would I accept the recombination of them in any fashion? If I know the stories can't be taken literally, I know he origin of those stories is rejected by modern day believers, I know there are hundreds of competing interpretations that claim to be the only truth to save my immortal soul, and none left any solid evidence behind to verify their claims, what possible basis do I have to choose a religion? Might as well throw a dart at spinning wheel to determine which one is true.
-
4 RepliesExplain Genesis. People saying its metaphorical are just trying to cop out in the face of overwhelming evidence.
-
3 RepliesWhy take any of it literally? Why take the dashing of babies on rocks metaphorically but God literally? How do you decide what is to be literal and what is metaphorical?
-
Strange... When I read the Bible it talks about different things... The story of the Great Flood sent by deities to destroy civilizations exists in many prehistoric cultures. The Book of Revelations describe a future apocalyptic battle between good and evil that will destroy our world. Are these ancient texts proof that aliens are hostile and planning a violent return? Or might they be our saviors, ensuring our survival as a species during times of devastation?
-
1 Reply[quote]Origen of Alexandria is perhaps the greatest allegorical interpretor of the Bible in the Orthodox Church and one of the most renowned. One example of his model of interpretation would be that of the infamous Psalm that horrifies many people. That one Psalm which blesses the Jews for bashing in the heads of the Babylonian infants against rocks. It is an allegorical tale which ultimately means for us to resist ALL of our vices; no matter how small they are, before they become something worse. The Babylonian part represents evilness/vice/sin, the infants part represents sinfulness even in its smallest point, the rock represents Christ, and killing the Babylonian infants by bashing them against the rock means to eliminate our vices and sins through Christ, no matter how small they may appear.[/quote] Or it's just us trying to justify the acts done in the book with roundabout logic and the Jews were praised for bashing the heads of Babylonian children on rocks because they were their enemies and that's the shit you did back in the day.
-
These threads are dumb.
-
He only metaphorically wiped out all life on the planet because he was angry with humanity He only metaphorically sent two bears to massacre a bunch of kids for making fun of a bald man Yeah I'm now buying it.
-
Exactly. He [i]allegorically[/i] mauled all of those children with bears.
-
We could talk about religion? o.0
-
4 RepliesTell a story and when the story finally circles back to you, you will hear a different story. Also the gospels are witness testimonies, the weakest form of evidence, even if the person speaks truthfully, they may have been wrong or forgot details.
-
6 RepliesAnd here we, go.
-
Are we serious with this?
