Question for metaphorical christians

This is a question to those Christians who believe that some stories in the bible are written metaphorically, and are meant to be used as guidelines for how to live a good life.

Could it ALL be metaphorical–God included? Live as if you were being watched? Do as if you were being judged by a judge and executioner more powerful than you?

Or is it all meant to be taken literal? Man is literally created a certain way by an ultimate creator…and god intervenes in the affairs of man what with locust and such…

If it’s a gray area in between these two then how do you make the distinction between what is meant to be taken literally, and what metaphorically? By what standard or what measure do you judge each claim in the bible as having been meant to be taken literal or metaphorical?

Personally, I believe there is no gray area, and it’s all or nothing. Either all of the bible is meant to be taken literally, or none of it is. I don’t believe that the writers of the bible wrote it with an intention that some of it be taken literal and some of it metaphorical, so prove me wrong in this aspect by showing how you, the metaphorical Christians, make this distinction.

Sorry to disappoint you Tristan, but strict literal fundamentalism is a recent (20th century) phenomenon. Wikipedia has an informative article on the allegorical interpretation fo Genesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
Christian luminaries Origen and Augustine did not interpret the creation story literally.

The first chapter of Genesis repeats each of the phrases “God said let there be.” “And it was so,” “and God saw that it was good,” seven times. “There was evening and there was morning” is repeated as a refrain after each day of creation. Thus, it appears that it was orginally meant to be sung as a hymn. The names Adam and Eve were not ordinary Hebrew names. The names mean “dust” and “mother of all living” respectively. The garden of Eden means “garden of delights.” Their names are clues that the whole story was meant to be read as an allegory.

How about this one:

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” [1 Corinthians 15:22]

And this one:

“Thus it is written, ‘the first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” [1 Corinthians 15:45]

So Adam, the first man, must have been an actual historical person, literally the “first man”, otherwise Jesus Christ would not have been literally raised from the dead, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians, correct?

I agree with felix. I think that a correct understanding of the Bible reveals through context which passages are meant to be metaphor, and which are meant to be literal. Keep in mind, too, that you’re really just addressing Protestantism, here. Protestants are the ones with the Bible and the Bible alone, stuck on their own to figure out what it means. The other sections of Christianity have a tradtion that books the Scriptures into a context.

tunis
Well, the passage is saying that we all died in Adam, and al llive again in Christ. Since we all haven’t died, there’s at least some metaphor in the Adam half of the comparison, so there’s room for it in the Christ side as well. I don’t see it as a reference to the Ressurection, I see it as a reference to Christ being the second Adam. It is highly metaphorical, and aspects of it still would be even if Adam was a literal historic figure, which I’m not sure on. Certainly, very long standing tradition says he was, though that interpretation was not universal.

It is literal. He who eats from the Tree of Life will live forever. Some willl die, some will go in the Rapture, and some will just live forver.

“Eating from the tree of life” is a metaphor too. I see why the verses in I Corinthians are giving you a problem. But notice Paul doesn’t say Jesus or Jesus Christ here he is says Christ. Why must your interpretation be literal when Origen’s and Augustine’s were not?

So, by what standard do you judge which is supposed to be taken which way? God for example, couldn’t that be metaphorical? If not, why not?

I tried to illustrate how I look at a text by citing the creation stories in Genesis. I take into consideration what is known about the historical context. I ask myself what the author means.

Most of what can be said positively about God is metaphorical. The word “God” suggests an object to the mind when in fact the reality to which the word points is beyond the subject-object split.

Buddha shunned God talk in order to avoid this confusion. The fundamentalist and the anti-fundamentalist both seem to be mired on the same rock. The bible is like a finger pointing to the moon. Don’t confuse the finger with the moon. The purpose of sacred scriptures is to bring a person into contact with the living God. Nothing more.

Okay, but is this system built into the bible itself? You are clearly smarter than the average bear. You have some background knowledge to put the bible to some context which makes sense to you. But what about those who first thing they do is read the bible…Is it written in such a way that what is literal and what is not is clear once this system is figured out? Or is it all up to the individual to be interpreted, in which case all forms of Christian religions who get their truth from the bible are false. This would mean that every one form of institutionalized Christianity are the individual interpretation of the bible by one asshole who thought his opinion was great.

Yeah it’s built in. It requires the total person including all your knowledge and experience to bring it out. That’s why Martin Luther turned his back on the religious institution of his day and turned radically back to the bible. All forms of christian religion are false to a certain extent. If they don’t understand that they are no more than a finger pointing at the moon, they become idolatrous. I can’t do the work for you, you have to do it for yourself. Some of those who you are calling “assholes” were aware of this predicament. What should they have done just shut up? There’s a whole story in Exodus about how Moses wanted to do exactly that.

I think that the Tree being Metaphysical is what makes some to believe it is metaphorical. It is made by both sides of the coin. They who struggle to understand either the spirit or high modes of logic both do incorrectly interperet the scriptures.

It is my belief that the Tree is a literal Tree, or more likely Trees, that make one to be immortal that will spring from the Earth in the Millenial Reign.

Being metaphoric doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It means it points to something beyond it’s concrete literal meaning. The Tree of Life is Christ. He is also called “Life” and “the Vine.”

Yes I know. I agree even though I disagree, if one would understand that the Tree of Life doesn’t necessarily have to be Jesus, but something only accessible through Jesus.

The only “thing” Christ promised access to is God. The reality of “heaven” is God. If you are looking for anything else you are going to be disappointed. The paycheck at the end of the day is the same for all the laborers.

[-X I daresay the writers were inerrantists ! Just as Christians read Yeshua wrongly into the propheicies of the Tanakh, errantists wrongly attibute only metaphors to the Genesiac account .Yes, one can take their account symbolically if one wants to , but there is no underlying truth. We are not fallen sinners, but beings with propensity for good for most of us .We do not need these accounts as we need no god; that is a "mustabatory " need ,pace Albert Ellis .Oh, mortal ones , grow up to live without any deity! Those who help themselves truly help themselves without any god. All recieve as much goodness as any praying for such .The rain pours on us all equally as the Scriptures say! The god-notion adds no real explanation to any matter and violates Occam’s razor.Oh, mortal ones , reason , not a dead Galilean saves ! =D>

God promises more than merely access to him, and rightly so.

Thanks for sharing your opinions. Please feel free to believe anything you like or nothing at all.

Such as?

Tristan’s question to the “metaphorical Christians” concerning “locust and such…” seems to be asking if they believe in things like miracles, God speaking to Moses through a burning bush and so fourth.

What about the “commandments”? Is Deuteronomy 5:18 a literal commandment or just a figure of speech? How about Romans 1:26-27? To be taken literal or just a metaphor? How about 1 Timothy 6:9-10? To be taken literally or just a metaphor?

What would be the point if someone believed that Exodus 4:2-3 was “literal”, but equivocated about the meaning of Exodus 20:16?

And what of Mark 12:29 where Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:4? Is “YHWH is one” to be taken literally or is that just a figure of speech for 3 persons?

What then is 1 Corinthians 15 in reference to???

Sort of like reading a sentence in an article about President Bush and saying, “notice it doesn’t say George or George Bush. It says Bush.”

Meaning???