Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Of course. Because to interpret it in any way other than metaphor is to witness it fail immediately. And people don't want it to fail. So they make up excuses to get around it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.
- Thread starter infrabenji
- Start date
Of course. Because to interpret it in any way other than metaphor is to witness it fail immediately. And people don't want it to fail. So they make up excuses to get around it.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
And we all know Christians that take similar verses literally. Like did Jesus walk on water? Did he raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he cast out demons from some guy and sent them into a herd of pigs? Believers will be able to pick up serpents and not be harmed? Jesus stopped a storm from sinking the boat he was on? How many things are religious people going to explain away by saying they are "metaphorical"? That is one of the problems I have with Baha'is, they can make all those things metaphorical if they want to. The main one being the resurrection of Jesus. Baha'is make it metaphorical, but I think the gospels writers intended it to be believed as true... along with most all of the things that Jesus supposed said and did. If they're all true and really happened, fine. But, if they didn't happen, and the writers tell it like it did happen, I don't see it as being metaphorical... I see it as a made up bunch of lies to make Jesus the God that he became.
Because Baha'is need Jesus to be real, they can't say that. So whatever doesn't make sense, whatever goes against science, they explain away by calling those verses metaphorical.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
"“Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them” (Mark 11:23)."
I can't speculate on what others believe, but that seems pretty specific to me.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Baha'is don't need Jesus to be real, we only need God and Baha'u'llah to be real....
Whatever doesn't make sense, whatever goes against science, most Christians also consider metaphorical.
“In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events.”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Without Jesus and the other "manifestations" there would be no "progressive" revelation. I would think the Baha'i Faith is built on the foundation of all the other major religions being true.
Most?
So in this thing you quoted from it says "almost all"? Believed what? That these things literally happened? I think that is what was meant. Because...
Now it says "most"? Not "most" Christians, but "most" liberal Christians. I can believe that. But it doesn't say they take the stories "metaphorically", but as "other than real events." Which could be metaphor or BS or myth...
But back to your, "Whatever doesn't make sense, whatever goes against science"... Why oh why believe in the virgin birth. And why do you believe it? Other than your religion tells you to. But, if you think Baha'is don't need Jesus, why should any Baha'i believe in the virgin birth story? Make it a metaphor or something, anything, but why take it literally? Or, if you want to make things metaphorical, why not make Jesus a metaphor. A virgin born, miracle worker that rose from the dead and ascended into the clouds? Perfect metaphor.
And about moving mountains... Do you really think it was a metaphor? Why not hyperbole or something? Here's something I found...
In order to correctly interpret a passage such as Matthew 17:20, we first look at the overall context of the passage. Jesus, along with Peter, James and John, had just come down from the “mount of transfiguration,” and they encounter a man with a demon-possessed child. The man tells Jesus that he brought his son to Jesus’ disciples, but they couldn’t cast the demon out (recall that Jesus earlier, in Matthew 10:1, gave His disciples the authority to cast out evil spirits). Jesus then chastises them for their lack of faith and then casts the demon out of the boy. When His disciples inquire as to why the demon didn’t obey their command, Jesus replies with the statement in Matthew 17:20. Their faith, He says, is small and weak. If it were the size of even the smallest of the seeds, the mustard bush, they would be able to “move mountains.”
So they're coming from the "transfiguration".
Matthew 17:1 ...Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.
3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus... 5 a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
Did that literally happen or was it a metaphor? Then Jesus casts out a demon.2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.
3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus... 5 a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
14... a man approached Jesus and knelt before him.
15 “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water.
16 I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”
17.. “Bring the boy here to me.”
18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed at that moment.
19 Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”
20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
So what do you think? Any of it true? If not, all of it metaphor? Or, like I think is more likely, that it's just a bunch of made up embellished stories? But still, I believe the transfiguration and the healing were meant to be taken literally. The moving mountains? I think just him exaggerating to make his disciples feel stupid. 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water.
16 I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”
17.. “Bring the boy here to me.”
18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed at that moment.
19 Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”
20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It's true that the other religions have to be true for the Baha'i theology to be true but the foundation of the Baha'i Faith is Baha'u'llah.
I would say most liberal Christians and many other Christians but without actual statistics how can we know? Surely, as many posters here who are not Americans have said, American Christians are not like Christians in other parts of the world, many are more fundamentalists.
If they are not literally true they might be based on myths or written with the intention of being metaphorical such as what Jesus said about faith moving mountains.
What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death
Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1
What other reason would there be.? It is not like I can make up religious truth to suit my fancy. The Messengers of God are the only ones who have any direct communication from God so they are the only ones who really knew who Jesus was and how He was born.
I think faith moving mountains was a metaphor, a way to convey a spiritual truth, that if our faith is strong enough we can do what would not otherwise be humanly possible..
A parable is like a metaphor in that it uses concrete, perceptible phenomena to illustrate abstract ideas. It may be said that a parable is a metaphor that has been extended to form a brief, coherent narrative.
Parable - Wikipedia
Are parables the same as metaphors?
Both parables and metaphors have hidden meanings. A parable uses a story to convey a deeper message. Metaphors refer to one subject, while the actual subject is something else entirely.Jun 19, 2017
What Is the Difference Between a Parable and a Metaphor?
I don't believe Jesus casting out demons really happened since I do not believe in demons so maybe it was a metaphor. I don't think Jesus believed in demons but maybe that was a way to teach the disciples. I agree that the transfiguration and stuff about demons was probably intended to be understood literally because that was necessary 2000 years ago, but it is no longer necessary and most people know better now since this is the age of reason. However, it is possible that something miraculous happened to Jesus during the transfiguration because something similar happened to the Bab. Bahai's believe that miracles are possible, they just are not given much importance.
How about Evidentiary Faith? You begin with an intriguing oxymoron, since for many people, as soon as you have evidence for your belief, it becomes justified belief and is no longer believed by faith (unjustified belief). The title becomes Justified Unjustified Belief.
That doesn't sound like advice for a child? Who talks to adults like that? People are much more complex than that.
Furthermore, the child already knows to be attracted to good fruit, but might not know how to apply that to life. Which is the good fruit when it's not a literal piece of fruit?
I'm reminded of the comment from gun people who want everybody armed, that the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Why not just put black and white hats on them to be certain to be able to tell which is which, since they don't produce literal fruit. It's equally simplistic thinking. I'm reminded of these lyrics from Pink Floyd: "So, so you think you can tell heaven from hell, blue skies from pain?"
You see the writings of the messengers as good fruit. Excellent fruit, in fact, so excellent, you recognize a God in it. I see it as tasteless. Does that count as evil? Should I take the advice of Jesus and hew down that tree, since it didn't "bringeth forth good fruit" for me?
You're making a distinction that doesn't exist. You're saying that something is not a claim if you add "I believe" to it. What else can it mean to say "I believe it but I don't claim it"? Yet what you're not seeing is that "I believe" is implied when you assert that something is correct. You believe it is correct. By your reckoning, nothing is ever claimed, because everything stated as fact is only believed whether the would-be claimant uses those words or not.
Then there is nothing to know unless you already believe in a God. When you say that the proof of God for you is in the writings of Baha'u'llah, I assumed that you meant that the words convinced you that these were not the just thoughts of a human being, but one channeling God. I look at the same words and see yet another person who claims he experiences a God, and assume as I do with all such people who tell me that they experience God directly that they are experiencing their own mind and misinterpreting it as experiencing something out there, classic projection, as when a liar sees others as liars and thinks he is sensing something real out there in those people, but it actually only projecting himself onto them, that is, misinterpreting his own mind.
Isn't that what we see when somebody is experiencing imperatives from his animal brain (limbic) and his higher self (reasoning and moral faculties in the cortex), and sees it as an angel on one shoulder doing battle with a demon on the other and arguing through the ear holes? That's not your mind, you're told. It's Satan fighting to steal your soul.
Today, this is considered metaphor by many, but it is taught as literally true in some churches including several that I went to. It's the Devil sowing seeds of doubt. They mean it literally, because that's how they understand this internal dialog and the cognitive dissonance it generates for them.
Regarding messengers and prophets, I've never seen anything from any of them that seemed like they had special knowledge. They don't write anything that isn't human appearing, which is why I say that scripture is not a reliable source of divine instruction.
And if you are correct that there is no other way to know about anything about God or spirits, and I think you are, then if scripture doesn't serve as evidence of the existence of the divine, nothing does, and thus nothing can be known about whether gods exist or what they're like if they do.
Therefore, search for gods over. Conclusion: agnosticism. Worldview: godless. Lifestyle: irreligious, atheist.
Whether taken literally or metaphorically, again, I see childlike advice: If you believe hard enough, it will come true. Of course, we see this advice fail routinely. And when it does, we hear, "God answers prayer, but sometimes the answer is no." Nothing is impossible with faith? Well, whatever one is praying for that got the no answer is impossible if the supplicant can't make it happen himself.
So then everybody gets to decide what is meant literally and what isn't? That's kind of the problem with writing in vague, poetic language, and why important documents are written in unambiguous language. A will is a message from the grave from somebody no longer able to clarify what he wants. Shouldn't a God have that standard as well, since as you say, there is nothing else to judge that God and it's will by.
Well, I've taken them up on that, and decided it's all metaphor. When Jesus or Baha'u'llah speak of God, that stands for the better part of themselves, the part of them that they consider good and noble (Freud's superego). They just don't know it.
In Christian theology, the crucifixion represents the death of Middle Age and The Age of Reason, and the resurrection is represents the rebirth of reason (look at the etymology of renaissance) and the advent of Enlightenment values. And the apocalypse represents human self-destruction, as man eventually removes himself from the Drake equation, disappointing alien civilizations everywhere just reaching the technological state of 20th century man, and who wonder where we and one another are (Fermi paradox).
The book of Job represents the absurdity of life, where bad things happen to good people. The Exodus represents our journey in life when lost, and the promised land is finding the answers (that's me before and after leaving religion and faith). Moses is reason, guiding us to that promised land. The tablets on Sinai represent the moral compass (conscience).
As long as I can make these all into parables and metaphors, none can be wrong. And who can say I'm wrong, that this scripture or that one needs to be taken literally? If anybody objects, I'll just say what you did - anybody can see not to take (any of) that literally.
Really? I do. Bible literalists (fundamentalists), like the people who take the part about handling snakes literally. How many people in history do you think have cut off a hand or plucked out an eye based on other words of Jesus?
I took the part about moving mountains literally when I was early in my Christian walk. Nobody ever said, "Not really." You just discover that it doesn't work, and then either leave the religion for its failure to keep its promises, or just say what you're saying - "I guess that they didn't mean it literally." I'm sure that there are people who still do, somehow reconciling the lack of moving mountains in the world with some apologetics slight of hand such as, "They are moving as the earth turns, or they're moving by plate tectonics. Or by erosion - the Appalachians and Ozarks used to be much bigger. Or seafloor uplifting - "Everest and the Himalayas are still rising." Or my fave - "Your faith just wasn't good enough."
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
For many people, though you may not be familiar, faith is a phrase used as a replacement for "religion" or "theology". In some countries their government forms have "Faith" as a slot to fill. Thus, when someone makes a statements like "My faith is based on evidence", you should understand what they are referring to. It is not an oxymoron. The problem seems to be you have certain ideas about other peoples usage of words but they dont seem to be based on understanding them, but maybe your own understanding. Maybe even dictionary based.
When someone makes the statement "I have faith in you" that is different to "My faith is Hinduism". That is why, your sentence "evidentiary faith" is not an oxymoron. Hope you understand.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Only in your mind.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Okay, who wrote the NT stories? Not the manifestation, but two of his followers. And they tell the story different. Matthew has Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem then going to Egypt until King Herod dies. Luke has them going from Nazareth to Bethlehem because of a census, then going to Jerusalem to dedicate Jesus at the Temple, then going back to Nazareth.
Then, here's something from Sura 19 in the Quran. But, since it is a translation, I don't know how accurate it is.
So she conceived him, and withdrew with him to a distant place. And the birthpangs surprised her by the trunk of the palm-tree. She said, 'Would I had died ere this, and become a thing forgotten!' But the one that was below her called to her, 'Nay, do not sorrow; see, thy Lord has set below thee a rivulet.
19:25 Shake also to thee the palm-trunk, and there shall come tumbling upon thee dates fresh and ripe. Eat therefore, and drink, and be comforted; and if thou shouldst see any mortal, say, "I have vowed to the All-merciful a fast, and today I will not speak to any man. Then she brought the child to her folk carrying him; and they said, 'Mary, thou hast surely committed a monstrous thing! Sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother a woman unchaste.'
19:30 Mary pointed to the child then; but they said, 'How shall we speak to one who is still in the cradle, a little child?' He said, 'Lo, I am God's servant; God has given me the Book, and made me a Prophet. Blessed He has made me, wherever I may be; and He has enjoined me to pray, and to give the alms, so long as I live, and likewise to cherish my mother; He has not made me arrogant, unprosperous.
Peace be upon me, the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised up alive!'
So three different versions? Way too easily made up.19:25 Shake also to thee the palm-trunk, and there shall come tumbling upon thee dates fresh and ripe. Eat therefore, and drink, and be comforted; and if thou shouldst see any mortal, say, "I have vowed to the All-merciful a fast, and today I will not speak to any man. Then she brought the child to her folk carrying him; and they said, 'Mary, thou hast surely committed a monstrous thing! Sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother a woman unchaste.'
19:30 Mary pointed to the child then; but they said, 'How shall we speak to one who is still in the cradle, a little child?' He said, 'Lo, I am God's servant; God has given me the Book, and made me a Prophet. Blessed He has made me, wherever I may be; and He has enjoined me to pray, and to give the alms, so long as I live, and likewise to cherish my mother; He has not made me arrogant, unprosperous.
Peace be upon me, the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised up alive!'
Sure, I can believe they borrowed myths and legends from other religions. But, along with dying and rising God/men, there was also virgin born God men. So, if you were not a Baha'i, would you find believing Jesus was born of a virgin a necessary and reasonable thing to believe as being literally true?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Are you for real?
Are you actually saying that interpreting that passage in some way OTHER than metaphorical can still have the claim be valid?
REALLY?
I'm starting to think you're just automatically disagreeing with whatever I say.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I am saying the exact opposite.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
So I said that any non-metaphorical interpretation of the passage would result in the test being failed. You have repeatedly agreed with me and stated that the passage was only ever meant to be metaphorical.
And now when I say it, you say that it's only in my mind that the passage is required to be metaphorical in order to avoid the test failing?
Either you didn't understand what I was saying, or your position is again flip-flopping all over the place.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You said: Are you actually saying that interpreting that passage in some way OTHER than metaphorical can still have the claim be valid?
I said: No, I am saying the exact opposite.
In other words, I am saying that interpreting that passage in some way OTHER than metaphorical is invalid.
Workman
UNIQUE
As I already said to @Tiberius it is a parable, not intended to be taken literally.
You want to hear my parable in this?
"“Truly I tell you,….
-Which ever truths you are in..,you are for to be (IN) it,
if anyone says to this mountain,…
-With then you being of it…makes mountains(likes/beliefs) higher then ground(dislikes/disbelief.),
‘Go,
-You..should then take yourself(with the truth your be coming of),
throw yourself into the sea,’
-go then see your heading(the waves) will lead you as(in what you’re becoming of your-truths by it)’,
and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen,
-????(this part here I’ll leave in figuring out.(of their own free-will..ones OWN free will to seek!).
it will be done for them” (Mark 11:23)."
You are off..what you *WILL* do.
That is the interpretation my father taught me of the language(THE WORD)…spiritually.
May God bless who so ever have THE ears to hear.
Last edited:
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
So why is it that when I said that interpreting the passage in any way other than metaphorical leads to the conclusion that Christianity is invalid, you replied, "Only in your mind."?
David Weaver
Member
I have to agree with SkepticThinker on this. This is a self refuting statement, much like scientism stating that science is the only way we can know any truth, even though there is no scientific evidence to support the claim.