More Wisdom: The Bible or Aesop's Fables?

[sojourner]

Hmmm, perhaps that's the problem. My gut primarily serves to digest food to supply my body with energy. All processing of external stimuli takes place in my brain. Perhaps my physiology is incorrect.

You're being obtuse, for the sake of being obtuse. You know what I mean -- don't pretend you don't.

See your earlier quotation here:

It must be difficult to function in life without the ability to use idiomatic expressions.

You don't get to work both sides of the track.

 

[sojourner]

Oh yes, atheists are definitely the System, and religious folks are the fringe. Welcome to bizzaro world.

That's not what she meant. For the gospel writers, their intended audiences were the poor, the disenfranchised and the marginalized. Remember, at that point, Xy was not widely accepted by the societies in which it was seeded. Parables spoke to them a reversal of the system that kept them marginalized. It has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, but with a new Xy.

 

[lunamoth]

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you posted. Can you please clarify your ambiguous statement, and I can correct mine if necessary?

You seem to be asking about the value of unconventional wisdom found in the Bible.

Aesop's Fables, like Proverbs, give good advice in memorable form about how to go about having a good life. Do these things and life will be better for you; learn these things about human nature and you are well prepared.

Unconventional wisdom is grace. It is unconditional, unmerited love. Not something that is earned by doing things the right way.

Sorry if the other way I said this was too obscure.

 

[lunamoth]

That's not what she meant. For the gospel writers, their intended audiences were the poor, the disenfranchised and the marginalized. Remember, at that point, Xy was not widely accepted by the societies in which it was seeded. Parables spoke to them a reversal of the system that kept them marginalized. It has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, but with a new Xy.

Yeah that. Thank you Soj.

 

[Willamena]

It must be difficult to function in life without the ability to use idiomatic expressions.

Uh-uh; you're the one who left it to me. You had your chance.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's not what she meant. For the gospel writers, their intended audiences were the poor, the disenfranchised and the marginalized. Remember, at that point, Xy was not widely accepted by the societies in which it was seeded. Parables spoke to them a reversal of the system that kept them marginalized. It has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, but with a new Xy.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess the disconnect is that this thread is specifically about people talking about how useful the bible is as a tool for daily life - that it contains wisdom for every situation. I'm comparing the bible to Aesop's Fables based on this metric.

I apologize if I wasn't clear in the OP.

 

[sojourner]

Thanks for the clarification. I guess the disconnect is that this thread is specifically about people talking about how useful the bible is as a tool for daily life - that it contains wisdom for every situation. I'm comparing the bible to Aesop's Fables based on this metric.

I apologize if I wasn't clear in the OP.

A real common misunderstanding is that the Bible is "the owner's manual for life." It isn't. It's the theological record of the believing community's relationship with God.

Fables teach morality. The Bible does not. If your goal is moral teaching, then Aesop would probably be "better." But, if your goal is to turn away from conventional wisdom toward God, then parables are "better."

I don't think this can be discussed in a "general" sense, because the Bible is so task-specific. (The fables are, too, for that matter!)

I think you've fallen into the trap of thinking that the Bible is for everyone in every situation. It isn't. It's a record for a believing community.

 

[sojourner]

With all this talk of the bible containing wisdom-filled parables, it made me start thinking about Aesop's Fables, and which book has more useful parabolic wisdom to offer.

Personally, I've found a clear, useful, identifiable lesson in nearly each of Aesop's several dozen fables. In comparison, the bible's lessons seem abstruse and less applicable to daily life and the human condition.

What does everyone else think? Which book's parables contain more wisdom?

To revisit the OP, I think that when you stress "applicable to daily life and the human condition," you're stressing a really broad spectrum of human experience. The purpose of the parables is theological and specific. if that's the path one is taking to grow and evolve, then the parables are probably more useful, since a person on that particular path would carry those tenets into everyday life. But a person not so inclined (such as yourself) mostly do find them confusing and "less applicable."

 

[Comicaze247]

With all this talk of the bible containing wisdom-filled parables, it made me start thinking about Aesop's Fables, and which book has more useful parabolic wisdom to offer.

Personally, I've found a clear, useful, identifiable lesson in nearly each of Aesop's several dozen fables. In comparison, the bible's lessons seem abstruse and less applicable to daily life and the human condition.

What does everyone else think? Which book's parables contain more wisdom?

I think that, when taken as what they are, which are parables, then the Bible can contain much wisdom. And also if they're understood in context, rather than taking them out of context to bend to one's advantage.

Both have their strong and weak points, as anything does.

 

[themadhair]

A fable is a moral lesson, whose purpose is to introduce the moral lesson to the unschooled. A parable is a theological lesson, whose purpose is to cause the believer to turn toward God.

So one has the intent to instil morality and the other belief? If so then surely the former is a batter source of wisdom by default?

 

[Willamena]

So one has the intent to instil morality and the other belief? If so then surely the former is a batter source of wisdom by default?

Unless you believe in morals.

 

[themadhair]

Unless you believe in morals.

I always thought that having a personal preference over how you like to be treated by others implies a belief in morals, even if the concept of morals is fuzzy and badly defined.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Unless you believe in morals.

You need to think about laying off the semantical claptrap. One of these days we're going to sign on to find you asking what people mean by "the".

 

[themadhair]

You need to think about laying off the semantical claptrap. One of these days we're going to sign on to find you asking what people mean by "the".

I though her comment was making a joke unless I missed something....

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I though her comment was making a joke unless I missed something....

My comment isn't just about that post, but a larger, disturbing pattern of an apparent inability to use a dictionary or understand commonly used phrases.

 

[themadhair]

My comment isn't just about that post, but a larger, disturbing pattern of an apparent inability to use a dictionary or understand commonly used phrases.

Remember your Agnostic Doesn't Fall Between Theist and Atheist (God, Agnosticism, Gnosticism) thread? Sometimes phrases you think are simple and/or well known aren’t. Whether you are correct in your definition or not isn’t the point – the fact that semantics can often be a source of intense frustration in attempting to debate a topic should be a good argument for people who ask these types of questions.

 

[Willamena]

My comment isn't just about that post, but a larger, disturbing pattern of an apparent inability to use a dictionary or understand commonly used phrases.

My dictionary works just fine. My intent in asking for meanings is to understand your dictionary a little better.

:slap:

 

[sojourner]

So one has the intent to instil morality and the other belief? If so then surely the former is a batter source of wisdom by default?

No. You're off-track. The parables are told to those who already believe as a source of wisdom that will help them get closer to God. Morality isn't the issue. The writer assumes that morals are already in place. Belief isn't the issue. The audience are already believers. Wisdom is at issue for the parable.

 

[themadhair]

No. You're off-track. The parables are told to those who already believe as a source of wisdom that will help them get closer to God. Morality isn't the issue. The writer assumes that morals are already in place. Belief isn't the issue. The audience are already believers. Wisdom is at issue for the parable.

I’m not actually off track – I just don’t consider belief to be a form of wisdom. Morality, and the teaching of morals, is something I do consider to be wisdom though.

 

[sojourner]

I’m not actually off track – I just don’t consider belief to be a form of wisdom. Morality, and the teaching of morals, is something I do consider to be wisdom though.

You are off-track, because you're putting the cart before the horse. Belief isn't a form of wisdom. But believers need to be wise -- and not just wise, but wise in the ways of God. That's the purpose of the parables: To make believers wise in the ways of God's kingdom.

Since the thrust of the gospel message is that God's kingdom has come near, that is, is already here, then a whole new paradigm of living together is in play here. Since a new paradigm (that of God's immanent kingdom) is in place, believers need wisdom as to how to live into that paradigm. That's what the parables teach.