Translating figurative Christian language

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Does anyone ever notice that Christians use a bunch of figurative language? They’ll say things like “it’s all in the hands of God”, “the Lord has touched my heart”, “I have a personal relationship with Jesus” or “God is on your side”. Phrases such as these must have a meaning that the secular world could understand.

If Christians want so much to spread their faith, then why use language that is so figurative when there must be an acceptable translation for the secular world. If I wanted to spread my belief in something, I most certainly wouldn’t attempt to do it using figurative language. I’d translate everything I said into words that the lay person would understand.

Maybe someone knows of a Christianity to English translation website.

2

These aren’t really figurative terms.
They are idioms.
All cultures use idioms; it’s not something unique to any religion; and yes, all religions have idoms as well.

There isn’t a translation that you want.
These are only statements that make sense inside of the culture that they come from.

“Freeze!” only makes sense in our culture and those very similar to it.
Outside of this, it makes little sense as the figurative meaning of the word is absolutely lost.

Other idioms:
“Forget about it”
“Que Sera, Sera”
“It is what it is”
“Tomorrow’s another day”
“Let the past lie”
“Chip on your shoulder”
“Blessing in disguise”
“A leopard can’t change his spots”
“A picture paints a thousand words”

Now…if you just want an idiom translation for Christianity:
I don’t think there is such a thing, but I can translate the one’s you’ve listed.

It’s in the hands of God (close to, “Que Sera, Sera”)

  1. This is beyond anyone’s control; it is only God that has power over this now.
  2. The events of things are ultimately up to God; whatever God decides fairly, is what will be.

The Lord has touched my heart (close to, “Melt your heart”)

  1. The religious experience of God/Jesus has affected the person emotionally and they cannot control the feeling.
  2. A religious experience has occurred, typically attributed to God intervening, that has changed how one generally perceives the world and their attitude towards the world and life; commonly for the the better.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus (close to, “Scotch is man’s best friend” and “Mama [or other close relative] watches from above”)
Religious: A person has a personal amount of investment in trusting and loving in Jesus, and Jesus is close to their presence all of the time.
Secular translation: The individual thinks of their divine savior as walking spiritually with them at all times, and that they have a personal investment in honoring their savior by behaving well and being good to all mankind; additionally, their personal savior has a personal investment in caring over the believer and watching over them, and has emotional ranges of reactions and interactions with the believer as one would think of a very close relative does. Typically, one can think of this as giving one’s conscience an identity.

God is on your side (close to, “An innocent man has truth on his side”)

  1. God is always looks to do what is truly best for you; your best interests eternally are on God’s mind.
  2. God is on the side of righteousness; if you are righteous, then God is on your side.
  3. Do not worry about things that are threatening to your belief in a troubling way; God is with you; have comfort in his plans, power, and wisdom (Que Sera, Sera).
3

Fear and security, I’d say…

4

I’ve asked a lot of Christians what they mean when they use idioms such as the ones listed above and have never received an adequate translation. If Christians either aren’t willing or aren’t capable of translating Christian idioms and figurative speech into simple English, then all I can do is resort to the context of how various terms are used to gain an understanding of what is really meant.

Why do most Christians not translate their idioms and figurative speech upon a polite request? Is it because:
a) they don’t know the translations
b) they do know the translations, but choose to not share it with others

If it’s ‘a’, then Christians don’t know what they are talking about
If it’s ‘b’, then why are they so protective of their secretive language?

One of those must be true.

5

Mutcer

What’s your aversion to me?
I’ve replied in many of your threads and yet you completely pass over my fairly reasonable and level responses as if they simply do not exist and focus on posts that give you ample content to continue in the direction of floundering for an explanation though I often times attempt to give you exactly that.

Do you just have an ambition to make Christians look silly and disregard anything that you think may not help to that end?
Because if that’s what you are after…let me just tell you, they don’t need any help in looking silly.

6

I wouldn’t be offended, Stumps. I don’t think he understands what he’s asking and doesn’t have the patience to see one topic through. Case in point: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=169689&start=0

Anyone who has such a high percentage of new threads to posts is floundering like you say.

7

Well…I’m not offended.
It is, however, tiring.

It’s not effortless putting together respectful and thoughtful posts to folks, and so when they are completely overlooked like I’m on an ignore list so consistently, it begs me to find out so I know whether to bother in the future or not, considering that I try to be actively helpful with people that have curious minds regarding religion since I have a mass amount of background in the subject matter, generally enjoy helping people, and don’t really have a problem addressing religion in an objective manner (meaning, without interest in persuading one to a given religious conclusion in line with any given religion for the purposes of convincing a person of that persuasion).

And yes, that is yet another thread where the same OP overlooked my response in exchange for responding to another person’s response to my post.

8

Your translations of the four idioms contain idioms themselves!

“it is only God that has power over this now” = ???
“whatever God decides fairly” = ???

“the religious experience of God/Jesus” = ???
“God intervening” = ???

“A person has a personal amount of investment in trusting and loving in Jesus” = ???
“Jesus is close to their presence all of the time” = ???
“The individual thinks of their divine savior as walking spiritually with them at all times” = ???
" a personal investment in honoring their savior" = ???

“God is always looks to do what is truly best for you” = ???
“your best interests eternally are on God’s mind.” = ???
“God is on the side of righteousness” = ???
“if you are righteous, then God is on your side” = ???
“God is with you; have comfort in his plans, power, and wisdom” = ???

As you can see, it is very common for Christians to use circular reasoning in answering questions posed upon them. Do they do this without being aware of it? Or do they do this to piss off or frustrate those they wish to educate and/or convert?

9

The being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe is the only being left capable of exercising authority or dominating influence over the outcome of circumstances.

Much like saying, “It’s in the Jury’s hands.”

…anything the being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe select from a number of possible alternatives as the influence or determined outcome of according to the interest of that same being; conceived as doing so with legitimate reason.

…the event or a series of events participated in or lived through showing the mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a divine concept, typically with reverence; in this context, the divine is that which adheres to the Christian families wide range of perceptions of the Abrahamic God and Jewish advocate, Jesus.

…the being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe is perceived to have involve itself in a situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development of a set of circumstances.

A person has a holding on an exchange made in trust of a return, wagering a personally owned volume of emotion, in showing affection towards the believed icon of humanities salvation over adversity and icon of compassion, in this instance identified and personified as the character, “Jesus”.

The icon of humanities salvation over adversity and icon of compassion is marked in the individual by a current existence of observably more emotion toward the icon rather than less as a common occurrence of their general personality and subjective perception of the world they experience.

Same as the above.
Save to say, that one could sum this up as thinking of it literally and it would accomplish the same description subjectively.

Same as before with an addition…
A person has a holding on an exchange made in trust of a return, wagering a personally owned volume of emotion, in showing affection towards the believed icon of humanities salvation over adversity and icon of compassion, in this instance identified and personified as the character, “Jesus”, and feels compelled by this to show their high level of respect for this trust agreement between them and their icon and chooses to act in manners thought by their perspectives to be appreciated by the defined icon of humanities salvation over adversity and icon of compassion.

The being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe eternally turns it’s attention and pursues options in a situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development of a set of circumstances that are sincerely held by the being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe as the most satisfactory, suitable, or useful options.

The being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe eternally considers the last paragraph.

The being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe is in agreement with that which the being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe chooses as having sufficient grounds to be agreed with by the being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe concerning the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character as according to the being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

If you fit the above paragraph description of a person (and good luck determining that), then the being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe agree with you.

The being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe eternally turns it’s attention and pursues options in a situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development of a set of circumstances that are sincerely held by the being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe as the most satisfactory, suitable, or useful options; therefore be at peace and do not stress about life, but instead have trust in the being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe as simply being the being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

I am not a Christian answering your questions, so it would be bad for you to take any answer I give you as an experience of a Christian answering your questions.

What I am doing, however, is telling you what these things mean.

No…you just seem to want something to fight.
If it wasn’t Christians, it would be some other group, surely.

As you can see, the above is no longer circular at all, but ridiculously defined to levels that most people don’t need to have extrapolated like a computer version of the world.

If you really need the world broken down to this level of stale detail, then I would venture to guess that Christianity is the least of the world that will probably confuse you.
Art would seem to be something very complex and baffling to you if this is how detailed the world needs to be explained for your mind to accept it.

I’m not ridiculing you on that; I am simply pointing out that I think you are overly critical of structures in more complex manners than they need to be, and not working any of this out on your own well enough but instead choosing to jump straight to conclusions of disregard since these concepts don’t fit into your desired organized pattern and detailed structure of expressionless descriptions of human subjective experience.

Also, note that I am not stating that the above perceptions of the world, or any perception of the Christian views, are right by defining the above.
I am simply translating what these statements mean.

10

I’m pretty sure it’s not just Christians that use terms like ‘heart’ in a figurative sense, and if you don’t comprehend it, I’m pretty sure it’s not the obligation of Christians to teach you how.

11

Mutcer

According to contemporary linguistics, metaphor is a basic mechanism of the mind. Metaphors allow us to use what we know about our physical and social experience to provide understanding of other subjects. Metaphors structure our most basic understandings of our experience. They can shape our perceptions and actions without our even noticing them. So by using metaphors, Christians aren’t doing anything with language that other people aren’t doing. A relevant book to this point is “Metaphors We Live By” by Lakoff and Johnson.

12

Mutcer
“…must have a meaning…”? No. Language in general, but specially metaphorical language does not possess any necessity to be relatable. It sounds ironic but the way that language is able to work is that it creates coins that are used in transactions but the value, the actual values, if there is ever one and not several, is lost, dropped and what remains is the word that stands like a statute of a person. It looks as if we are relaying actual experiences, but these are words with definitions that are public while our experiences, each and every single one, is a private occasion that does not repeat itself except to our opinion.
Christians do want to spread the word but Paul was not one very optimistic about the ability of reason, and that means “language” to convert, to relate, to relay what could only be a gift from God. That gift from God is the experience that may exist behind those words you hear them say but which is looked away in their private consciousness. they may try again and again to unlock their cofers and to give away this treasure they have received, but they can only signal, point to the water hole. It is still and always up to the horse to drink and we cannot, with a million words, make a horse thirsty.

13

Yes. Isn’t it difficult to describe something literally when it isn’t tangible and doesn’t physically exist? Personally, I believe it’s difficult, which is why none of this figurative language is generally explained and most people respond with something such as: “You know what it means!!”

In this type of response, I suppose the respondent is:

A.) Angry, because he/she cannot actually explain what the phrases’ definitions are.
B.) Assuming that something intangible, such as a spirit, should be universally comprehended.
[size=150]OR, most likely,[/size]
C.) Trying to attribute some sort of special meaning to your questioning of their definitions.

For one reason or another, people generally fail to provide responses other than ‘Ad Hominem’ constructs or mind-reading condescensions. To suppose that you are patronizing a religion on the flimsy grounds that you are asking for definitions of strongly metaphorical/figurative/idiomatic language is very delusional. So, since most people on this board have fantasized some sort of “special motive” that you have in asking these questions, I’m going to voluntarily end that cycle and respond in a civilized demeanor. (Most of the condescensions weren’t in this particular thread, but nevertheless, over-analyzing and inventing “special motives” for asking questions is detrimental to philosophical/logical discussions, so… there’s no point for inventing fantastic motives, ILP users; just answer the questions and leave the asker be.)

This is just people fantasizing God’s existence/presence in hopes of achieving something or maintaining their security in death. Here are my attempted translations:

[b]#1: “It’s all in the hands of God.”
T1: This is implying that “God”, the fantasized being, has influenced over a situation/event/outcome.

#2: “The Lord has touched my heart.”
T2: No idea.

#3: “I have a personal relationship with Jesus.”
T3: The person who says this is fantasizing Jesus’s presence and, of course, fantasizing Jesus’s ability to “hear” his/her words after going into “prayer mode”, I suppose.

#4: “God is on your side.”
T4: Obviously, this suggests that “God”, the fantasized being, is assisting and/or protecting you in some sort of endeavor that you are making.[/b]

But figurative language becomes more powerful when spooky-witchcraft (he has healed the blind!), horny-boogermen (L.U.C.I.F.E.R.), and pseudo-voodoo (10 plagues of Exodus; gotta love it; modern horror makes better fiction, though) is involved. Before comprehending why they use figuratively/metaphorical/idiomatic language, you have to look at how credible their tools are:

1: A fictional series containing many seasons and 2 sagas
2: A faith-based belief system (e.g. for spreading by mouth) <— It should be noted that this is a normative component of deity-based religions.
3: Role models communicating “in tongues”, typically making creepy grunt sounds in between sentences (e.g. preachers)
[size=150]AND[/size]
4: Hear-Say testimonies which have no physical/tangible evidence

Allow me to proceed…

None of it is literal and God isn’t tangible.

Christianity is based on fantasy, because they are fantasizing God’s presence while praying, fantasizing God’s “love” and/or “justice”, and most crucial of all, they’re fantasizing God’s existence.

It’s equivalent to watching a movie. So, if there’s any possibility of you relating and comprehending religion at all, it would be through the following:

Think of how it feels to watch an emotionally compelling, but fictional, movie. While doing so, your brain must temporarily assume that the events occurring on-screen are truly happening. In doing this, your mind is fantasizing the existence of the characters, their personal scenarios, the events, and the plot. If you are capable of relating to religion, then that’s the only way that I know how to explain it to you.

Kind Regards,
~~Moral Jeff

EDIT:: There was something that I failed to mention… and something that I failed to put into quotations… a simple edit; nothing was removed.

14

With due respect for everything else you wrote, and having no real interest in the other content you wrote one way or the other, I found this one phrase odd.

“A faith-based belief system”

I was stumped by this because I can’t fathom an skeptic-based belief system existing as a religion.
Wouldn’t that be agnostic?

15

You make a critical point. Well then, I’ll go on to say that faith is a component of all religions in which followers worship a deity.

~Jeff

16

I suppose my point would be, isn’t it a tautology to say “faith-based belief system”.

I mean…if you hold something as your belief system, you are holding something like a religion, world view, philosophy, or ideology.
None of which have any sort of empirical grounds to stand on.

They are all faith-based, whether critical logic in root or not.

So when you wrote faith-based belief system, I read, “Belief that does not rest on logical proof as a system of that does not rest on logical proof.”

Does that make more sense?

17

Beliefs can be based on logical proof. For example:

1: All living humans are alive.
2: Because of that, all living humans are experiencing life.
3: All living humans will eventually die.
C: All living humans are equal.

My above example is not, of course, 100% logical, but it is based on facts.

By faith-based belief system, I meant a belief system based on faith alone and having nothing to do with facts.

18

Faith doesn’t mean without any facts.
It means that the key component is finding soundness of the truth of the validity through faith and not empirical evidence.

For instance, I can say.

My wife she loves me.
I love my wife.
Because I love my wife and she says she loves me, I believe we are in love.

I can’t prove that she loves me empirically; it’s not possible.
I have to trust that she does.

But The argument above is perfectly logical and valid…but to make it sound, I must have trust; faith.

The same is true for belief systems.

Just because they are logically ordered and valid arguments doesn’t mean that they lack trust and faith without resting on empirical evidence purely.

So it’s awkward to say Trust-based systems that trust something is true…which is the same thing as faith-based belief system.

I mean…don’t let me hang you up on this though…this is purely semantics; I do get what you mean. :wink:

19

Actually it is… but you’d have to stick some needles in her head… :wink:

20

However, by this definition that you’ve just presented, Christianity wouldn’t be based on faith.

True; it is purely semantics. I almost wanted to argue with you on the “trust” part, because, by my own definition trust is based on past facts. For example, equally exchanging things of benefit to one another over a long period of time (or, the code “Eye for an Eye”) is my idea of building trust. This way, trust is proven and not just assumed.

But anyway, this would definitely have the potential to become an all-out semantics war!! <— Let’s try to avoid that; shall we?

~~Moral Jeff