Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1 of 64 (249993)
10-08-2005 6:26 AM


What is the real definition of Biblical Literalism?
Can the Bible be true in an absolute sense while still remaining symbolic and allegorical?
Internet source writes:
A literalist imagination--or lack of imagination--pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science--and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics--is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mindset. One may observe this feature in almost any college classroom, not only in religious studies, but within the humanities in general. Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves symbolically.
I DO believe that Jesus is alive today and that He is more than a historical construct. I DON't believe in a 6000 year old earth, a global flood, or a literal Methuselah who lived 969 years. (Well, Methuselah may have been a literal person but he did not live 969 years.)
This message has been edited by Phat, 10-08-2005 01:47 PM

A youth is a person who is going to carry on what you have started. He will assume control of your cities, states, and nations. He is going to take over your churches, schools, and corporations. You may adopt all the policies you please, but how they are carried out depends on him. So it might be well to pay him some attention.
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death, In years that bring the philosophic mind.--- Wordsworth

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 10-08-2005 4:27 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 5 by purpledawn, posted 10-09-2005 8:22 AM Phat has replied
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-21-2005 4:22 PM Phat has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 6 of 64 (250241)
10-09-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by purpledawn
10-09-2005 8:22 AM


Re: What is the real definition of Biblical Literalism?
purpledawn writes:
What do you mean by true in an absolute sense?
I'll get back to you on this one....it may take me awhile to define the definition myself!
For now, though I'll ask this question: Which came first? The One whom made us? Who created us? Who defined our parameters?
Or did we come first and invent the stories...the myths...the fables....and the parables?
Were we chosen and created? (Think outside of the book for these answers...do not let the book limit its own philosophy through legalistic trickery.)
This message has been edited by Phat, 10-09-2005 07:25 AM

A youth is a person who is going to carry on what you have started. He will assume control of your cities, states, and nations. He is going to take over your churches, schools, and corporations. You may adopt all the policies you please, but how they are carried out depends on him. So it might be well to pay him some attention.
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death, In years that bring the philosophic mind.--- Wordsworth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by purpledawn, posted 10-09-2005 8:22 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Yaro, posted 10-09-2005 9:56 AM Phat has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 8 of 64 (250243)
10-09-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Yaro
10-09-2005 9:56 AM


Re: What is the real definition of Biblical Literalism?
Assuming that there was not a Creator, Life=soup=simmer=millions of years=evolution=you and me here and now. Where do we go from here?
My input:
Biblical Literalism can be limiting to human understanding.
anonymous internet blurb writes:
But the problem is even more deep-rooted. A literalist imagination--or lack of imagination--pervades contemporary culture. One of the more dubious successes of modern science--and of its attendant spirits technology, historiography and mathematics--is the suffusion of intellectual life with a prosaic and pedantic mindset. One may observe this feature in almost any college classroom, not only in religious studies, but within the humanities in general. Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves symbolically.
Now...philosophically, this gets back to Origins.
Assuming God DOES exist,(which I do! )
does this mean that the Bible should be taken literally(in a symbolic sense), or do we just junk the Bible and approach God through prayer, meditation, and communion in His name with other people?
Websters writes:
literalism-- 1 : adherence to the explicit substance (as of an idea) 2 : fidelity to observable fact literalist
symbol--1 : something that stands for something else; esp : something concrete that represents or suggests another thing that cannot in itself be pictured 2 : a letter, character, or sign used in writing or printing to represent operations, quantities, elements, sounds, or other ideas symbolic also symbolical or symbolically- adv
In other words, Parables are a symbol of Gods interaction with humanity.
Literal means real. That the idea really happened. That the story you are about to read is true. The events and the names were changed to protect the innocent.
Contrast with the definition of Fable vs Parable.
Websters writes:
fable -n 1 : a legendary story of supernatural happenings 2 : a narration intended to teach a lesson; esp : one in which animals speak and act like people 3 : falsehood
parable \par-e-bel\ n : a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth.
Lets ask ourselves another question:
Is truth by definition always a human construct?
The alternative belief would assert that truth is alive, personal, and independant of human wisdom and imagination.
Biblical Symbolism would be a better way to define the direction of this thread.
This message has been edited by Phat, 10-09-2005 08:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Yaro, posted 10-09-2005 9:56 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Yaro, posted 10-09-2005 10:15 AM Phat has replied
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 10-09-2005 10:25 AM Phat has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 10 of 64 (250245)
10-09-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Yaro
10-09-2005 10:15 AM


Re: What is the real definition of Biblical Literalism?
Good points! I can't argue with you there!
The only way that we can ever hope to understand God is for God to inform us of what is versus what we think is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Yaro, posted 10-09-2005 10:15 AM Yaro has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 13 of 64 (258806)
11-11-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Yaro
10-09-2005 9:56 AM


Re: What is the real definition of Biblical Literalism?
Yaro, does this mean that you have a preference towards believing in Deism?
Websters writes:
deism \de-i-zem\ n, often cap : a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human morality and reason rather than divine revelation deist \de-ist\ n, often cap deistic \de-is-tik\ adj
I would assert that God came first, assuming again that He created the Universe and the planets and the elements necessary to allow for the existance of the primordial "soup".
Of course, a Deist can "kick back" and discuss God philosophically...musing about how He is a result of human wisdom and understanding. Its all symbolic of the evolutionary advance in human comprehension, right?
(

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Yaro, posted 10-09-2005 9:56 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 11-11-2005 10:15 AM Phat has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 15 of 64 (258810)
11-11-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Yaro
11-11-2005 10:15 AM


Symbolic Spirituality
Hi, Yaro! Its a bit early in the day for me, so at this point all I can do is to google you a link or two.
Based on your response, this link from the University of Pheonix seems to open up the concept of Pantheism a bit. It is easy for me to discuss monotheism with "believers" because we all think and assume fairly much alike. This link explains a bit how we may think, although I dunno if any link can describe my own personal weirdness!
This message has been edited by Phat, 11-11-2005 08:25 AM

A youth is a person who is going to carry on what you have started. He will assume control of your cities, states, and nations. He is going to take over your churches, schools, and corporations. You may adopt all the policies you please, but how they are carried out depends on him. So it might be well to pay him some attention.
A road is a flattened-out wheel, rolled up in the belly of an airplane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 11-11-2005 10:15 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-11-2005 12:13 PM Phat has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 18 of 64 (259021)
11-12-2005 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by ConsequentAtheist
11-11-2005 12:13 PM


Re: Symbolic Spirituality
CA writes:
Can it be true yet symbolic", the question impresses me as sophomoric and, to the extent that it counterposes "true" and "symbolic", cognitively meaningless.
Only if your definition of truth is derived entirely from human wisdom.
Before humans were so much as a thought, concepts and situations (and words themselves) had meaning. We are not the originators of all definitions!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-11-2005 12:13 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 11-12-2005 10:45 AM Phat has replied
 Message 22 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-12-2005 6:18 PM Phat has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 20 of 64 (259098)
11-12-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
11-12-2005 10:45 AM


Re: Symbolic Spirituality
Ringo writes:
If wisdom could be imparted by some external source - say "God" - then that wisdom should be more or less consistent between different "receivers". That does not seem to be the case.
But theology asserts that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God...and also that humans prefer their vain imaginations to obedience....thus the conundrum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 11-12-2005 10:45 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 11-12-2005 1:36 PM Phat has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 24 of 64 (262078)
11-21-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object
11-21-2005 4:22 PM


Re: What is the real definition of Biblical Literalism?
Ray---I cannot blithly accept that many notable scientists and intellectuals are simply "blinded" and that any backwoods fundie who believes "the whole Bible" is on to the absolute truth and mystery of the universe!
we see things differently, you and I.
I have seen the supernatural manifested before and around me. I know that there are many mysteries....and I know the words sttributed to Jesus. I also believe that I KNOW Jesus, and I know that God need not stoop to parlor tricks to prove His omnipotance, nor need He insist on a word for word literalism.
A thought for thought parable oriented symbolic literalism (of Spirit and intent) is another matter, altogether....I believe in THAT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-21-2005 4:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-22-2005 7:33 PM Phat has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 26 of 64 (262263)
11-22-2005 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by ConsequentAtheist
11-11-2005 12:13 PM


Re: Symbolic Spirituality
ConsequentAtheist writes:
What the hell does that mean? I know of no definition of Pantheism that renders it anything other than superfluous.
As to the topic, i.e., "Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic", the question impresses me as sophomoric and, to the extent that it counterposes "true" and "symbolic", cognitively meaningless. It's a bit like asking: "Can Thursday be heavier yet less salty?"
You seem to have no problem with the concept of "Thursday" which is a manmade concept. Every word ever invented has a definition!
Websters writes:
superfluous \su-per-fle-wes\ adj : exceeding what is sufficient or necessary : surplus syn extra, spare, supernumerary superfluity \su-per-flu-e-te\ n
And thus you in your own legendary mind have deemed any theistic concept (except your ego) to be superfluous! And yet...if I deemed Monday to be superfluous, many would laugh and agree yet Monday remains an agreed upon human concept.
Thank God that He does, as well...although I would assert that He deems our puny egos to be quite superfluous as well. In fact, as a result of this logic, I rename myself Consequent Believer!
Purely symbolic! Spirituality is only superfluous until you are dead!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-11-2005 12:13 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-22-2005 8:37 AM Phat has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 27 of 64 (262265)
11-22-2005 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by ringo
11-12-2005 1:36 PM


Re: Symbolic Spirituality
Ringo writes:
The assertions of theology are the "vain imaginations" of humans. Else, why is there not one monolithic theology of all mankind?
Hmmmm...I can speculate on this one.
1) There is no agreed upon theology because humans by nature seek to save their lives (and egos...and the right to free thought) rather than willingly lose their preconceptions and trust any doctorine or precept.
2) Common sense and traditional theology do not mix. My argument is that common sense...a survival trait...also allows the fallen nature within us to survive....by denying any supreme Divinity.
3) We agree that humans have vain imaginations. The only way to find truth within that reality is to test the vibes from each person whom you encounter throughout the day....and then even if you DO encounter a potential mystic in touch with the Spirit of God, you still must choose whether or not to believe or deny that innate vibe!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 11-12-2005 1:36 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 11-22-2005 11:00 AM Phat has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 41 of 64 (262623)
11-23-2005 4:08 AM


Lets nail down the concept of literalism
What is the concept of literalism? Does literalism mean what many creeds and belief statements say?
Examples: here,
here,(random example) and here. Note that in each of these examples, the Bible is deemed inerrent.
The Websters definition of literalism presupposes observable fact, ghowever.
Websters writes:
literalism \-re-li-zem\ n 1 : adherence to the explicit substance (as of an idea) 2 : fidelity to observable fact literalist \-list\ n literalistic \li-te-re-lis-tik\ adj
For the sake of this topic, truth is defined in the character, nature, and mission of Jesus Christ. Anything other than that is truly relative to an individual---and by inference to human wisdom;thus debateable.
And what of symbolism?
Websters writes:
symbolism \sim-be-li-zem\ n : representation of abstract or intangible things by means of symbols
So now which way do we want this topic to go? Is symbolism literal in the sense of truth and morality? If the flood never literally happened, does that make Gods message any less important through the symbolism of the fable?
This message has been edited by Phat, 11-23-2005 07:16 AM

Nature is an infinite sphere of which the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.
Pensées (1670)
We arrive at truth, not by reason only, but also by the heart.
Pensées (1670)
Heb 4:12-13-- For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Holy Spirit--speaking through the Apostle Paul

Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 64 of 64 (264090)
11-29-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Ben!
11-23-2005 9:15 PM


Re: How about a Phat clarification?
I've really been napping on this one! And my own topic, as well! *Sheesh!*
Im gonna shut this one down for a bit. It has gone off the deep end into udder outer space!
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Ben!, posted 11-23-2005 9:15 PM Ben! has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024