Modern scholars recognize that much of Pauline language *e. g. "in Christ") that is generally treated doctrinally is more accurately treated as expressions of mysticism. But most Christians fear or mistrust mysticism, and mysticism cannot be adequately expressed in words.
What three books have influenced your faith the most?
- Thread starter PilgrimsProgress
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
PilgrimsProgress
Well-Known Member
@Mendalla - No need to be sorry for the derail - I was always one for colouring outside the lines. 
I agree with Progressive Christianity's view on a metaphorical, rather than a literal, interpretation of the Bible. I also like their active stance on social justice issues.
My concern is that they're heading towards secularism, and that the mystery and faith (that can't be explained rationally) are becoming downgraded.
I came to my faith through spiritual experience , so I find this increasing trend disconcerting.
I agree with Progressive Christianity's view on a metaphorical, rather than a literal, interpretation of the Bible. I also like their active stance on social justice issues.
My concern is that they're heading towards secularism, and that the mystery and faith (that can't be explained rationally) are becoming downgraded.
I came to my faith through spiritual experience , so I find this increasing trend disconcerting.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
The problem with a purely metaphorical approach is roughly the same problem as the purely literal approach. It makes mistakes that ought not be made.
First it approaches 66 (for Protestants) different books as if they are the same kind of book and that simply isn't true. It then approaches every genre of writing contained within each book and treats them identically which is laziness.
Does Jesus use hyperbole in the Gospels? Yes. How is hyperbole best understood? Literally or Metaphorically? Why not treat it as hyperbole?
When the Bible, which is a wonderfully nuanced collection of writings is reduced to simple black or white (literal or metaphorical) everyone looses.
First it approaches 66 (for Protestants) different books as if they are the same kind of book and that simply isn't true. It then approaches every genre of writing contained within each book and treats them identically which is laziness.
Does Jesus use hyperbole in the Gospels? Yes. How is hyperbole best understood? Literally or Metaphorically? Why not treat it as hyperbole?
When the Bible, which is a wonderfully nuanced collection of writings is reduced to simple black or white (literal or metaphorical) everyone looses.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Again, quite tallies with my UU experience. The humanist leaning tends to mean spiritual experiences/mysticism are undervalued and underappreciated. As I have commented in the past, Progressive Christianity, esp. the Vosper end of it, is becoming so UU-like as to be almost redundant (though I'm sure they have good arguments as to why they aren't turning into UUs).
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
This is very well put. The Bible is not a novel, it is an anthology of very diverse works. One does not read a Psalm the same way as a passage from a prophet or Genesis the same way as a Pauline letter. While I know there is this burning desire in some quarters (both believers and non-, I will add) to treat it as a monolithic whole, to pretend that it is one text from one author, the fact is that you simply cannot do it without breaking stuff or creating interpretations that simply do not fit the texts.
Neo
Well-Known Member
Surely metaphors must be one of the most powerful tools a spiritual Teacher has to offer. Metaphors can invoke in the student intuition and reveal pattern in nature. It's one the best tools for learning because we can relate the subject of the metaphor to something we already know. See http://literarydevices.net/15-famous-metaphors-in-the-bible/ for some great examples.
With that said I'd have to offer, as one my 3 favourite books, The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell.
I totally agree.
PilgrimsProgress
Well-Known Member
Literal is laziness, metaphorical is hard work, imo.
Metaphorical leads to differing interpretations, and I live with the mystery of that. Also, perhaps there is more than one interpretation -layers of meaning?
Also, I tend to think that faith is undermined by concentrating on literal/metaphorical discourse - myth, as Neo points out, is important, - but it's largely ignored in the literal/metaphor debate.
Metaphorical leads to differing interpretations, and I live with the mystery of that. Also, perhaps there is more than one interpretation -layers of meaning?
Also, I tend to think that faith is undermined by concentrating on literal/metaphorical discourse - myth, as Neo points out, is important, - but it's largely ignored in the literal/metaphor debate.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I think that what @revjohn is suggesting is that there are places in the Bible, eg. Paul's letters, where much of it can be taken as written albeit with recognition of the context rather than symbolically while others, such as the heavily mythologized early books and much of the prophets, that can only be read metaphorically today. He is not suggesting that laziness lies in reading metaphorically, but rather that it lies in treating everything in the Bible as being the same, metaphorical or literal, when it is not that simple. Some can be read literally, some can be read metaphorically, some hits on various middle grounds. I would argue that the general principle is not to read either literally or metaphorically, but to read contextually. Seeing what the book is trying to say in its context and approaching it accordingly. Assuming everything in it is metaphorical is being just as lazy (or willfully blind in some cases) as assuming everything in it is literal.
Examples:
Paul's letters, as I said, are not really metaphorical in the whole. He is giving lessons, advice, encouragement and while he may use some symbolic language, much of what he says can be taken literally but with mindfulness of his historical context. We may not take them literally in our context, but that is because they are written for a different context rather than because they are written metaphorically.
The Psalms, by contrast, are pure poetry which, by definition, means they drip with metaphor. It is why I like them so much even as a non-believer. I love poetry and The Psalms are poetry at its finest.
Ecclesiastes is one of those books that kind of hits a middle ground. It is primarily a philosophical book but uses a lot of poetic/metaphorical language to explore that philosophy. Another favorite of mine, BTW.
I once posted a comment in the original WC in which I researched metaphors for the word metaphor ... there was a pile of eM. They composed a page or more of 3 columns. There was no feedback or commentary as I don't believe many knew the point I was making ... sort of ethereal or ephemeral ... flighty, and fickle as love 'n thoughts in the medium ... a psychic ghost like Shadow? They arrive like ||| or intersecting 3 lines to create * or asti risk at present where passion eliminates consciousness of what isn't known?
Simulate isle or isolated mankind ... from the alternate consciousness ... God's Sole Mind? the search goes on ...
paradox3
Peanuts Fan
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
This would be a great idea for a new thread. . . myth vs. metaphor. How are they alike? How are they different?
I am leaning towards a more mythological understanding of our faith tradition these days. I agree that the literal/ metaphorical discourse is becoming a little stale.
oThe paradox of dogma ... when taken literally you misses something there and the physical interpretation doesn't include the metaphysical Eire, Ayres an yes men in the depth of the darkness of gno mon atoll ... an isolated pseudo-nymph ... blue because she mrs. herman ... a kind of strange haunting of thought and emotions which will not occupy the same space at the same time thus the black spaces and lighter space between the ears to allow for varied resonance on the topical duality ... or simple Pan-Theos -ism? Theo being the main man in Runes as he attempts to escape the Levite lass who would suck him right up ... to the last valued drop of the X-spurt-ism ...
This may all be conceived in the mind ... which some say is dangerous due to psychic avoidance of the excessively passionate that could lean to the runes of any po' boy ... who finds himself in such a vice or squeeze ...
Careful of what you conceive or you could be the san witch ... or a don Eire as you are wrapped in w'ats scent of a woe man ... and then you're done as a myth and now just a scroo'd oubt alla'gory! In Mexico you could be a Burrito ... and Trump probably never saw one of those ! Trump doesn't reflect weel so he can't see the imitation gamas, or that darker image in the silvered class ... shekel eM when his time comes ! Hoo? Hur who Trump doesn't see as a riled Ephraim genre over Latino wastelands generated by blanched spiritual populations ... EU ropian hauntings?
This is portrayed in Vanilla Sky ... an uplander/outlander abstraction of knowledgeable thoughts beyond us? Simile 've a Jungian Dream! Things of the subconscious and put down by pure physics that have no stretch of thoughts ... thus earning the nomenclature of constipation Eire institution of NOSH-ite tue*M ... the vacuous shole or shell of oman that is man*us if un restrained in spirit. Where could creat*Ur of initiation isolate such a spirit for maturation and mellon/mellow'n (if the "w" is silent as omega 'd) ?
And hamadryads were discounted as metaphysical too ... obscure dark criteria that are unseen? Some say crit errs ...
This may all be conceived in the mind ... which some say is dangerous due to psychic avoidance of the excessively passionate that could lean to the runes of any po' boy ... who finds himself in such a vice or squeeze ...
Careful of what you conceive or you could be the san witch ... or a don Eire as you are wrapped in w'ats scent of a woe man ... and then you're done as a myth and now just a scroo'd oubt alla'gory! In Mexico you could be a Burrito ... and Trump probably never saw one of those ! Trump doesn't reflect weel so he can't see the imitation gamas, or that darker image in the silvered class ... shekel eM when his time comes ! Hoo? Hur who Trump doesn't see as a riled Ephraim genre over Latino wastelands generated by blanched spiritual populations ... EU ropian hauntings?
This is portrayed in Vanilla Sky ... an uplander/outlander abstraction of knowledgeable thoughts beyond us? Simile 've a Jungian Dream! Things of the subconscious and put down by pure physics that have no stretch of thoughts ... thus earning the nomenclature of constipation Eire institution of NOSH-ite tue*M ... the vacuous shole or shell of oman that is man*us if un restrained in spirit. Where could creat*Ur of initiation isolate such a spirit for maturation and mellon/mellow'n (if the "w" is silent as omega 'd) ?
And hamadryads were discounted as metaphysical too ... obscure dark criteria that are unseen? Some say crit errs ...
Last edited:
Delightful Life
M&M, Cascadian Lovers
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
@PilgrimsProgress
excellent thread!
i'm still cogitating on this -- digging through the memory banks
excellent thread!
i'm still cogitating on this -- digging through the memory banks
revjohn
Well-Known Member
PilgrimsProgress said:
Loving one's neighbour is hardest at its most literal and easiest at its most metaphorical.
Turning the other cheek is hardest at its most literal and easiest at its most metaphorical.
PilgrimsProgress said:
While true it is what one does with all of that interpretation and meaning. If it simply becomes menu options one may choose or refuse it is most likely that what will be chosen is that which we find most appealing and not that which we find most demanding. Unless Chesterton is completely mistaken.
PilgrimsProgress said:
Faith is undermined by faithlessness.
It will be shaped by what is literal as much as it will be shaped by what is metaphorical or what belongs to any other genre in the sense of what it is that is being communicated.
If, for example I read Genesis 1 & 2 believing them to be a recipe book for how creation comes into being then I am tempted to fight with others who want to mess with the recipe (creationism vs evolutionism). If I read Genesis 1 & 2 as insisting God is responsible for all that is then the recipe matters less than who the baker was. If I read Genesis 1 & 2 as a puzzle to be solved I care not at all for recipes or bakers.
Beyond that is the unescapable fact that writers use different devices to communicate truths. If we insist that all writers only use one device then the only truths we are interested in are the ones we wish to create. Either that or we are content with the alleged truths others have invented.
Such is the nature of the undermine de subtle part as compared to the facetiae ... creates Caduceus ... divinely cheeky to the Gods ... that'd be a brain ... f it doesn't patiently become defeatist of defecated by the gods ... thus the wee chits of fertile thought ... gravid*aye? A divine satyr?
Gives an idea ell sense of the virtue aL vessel ... another a' bote tern?
It is grossly oversimplified to advocate a uniform literal or metaphorical interpretation of Scripture. Put simply, the best question is: whether this miraculous event happened or not, how is its story applicable to my life and values? Take Gospel miracle stories, for example. First, there is the question of what actually happened and what meaning Jesus intended to convey through His miracle. But then there is the separate question of how the story is expressed and how that expression conveys metaphorical meaning for the evangelists. Take the stories of Jesus calming the storm and Peter trying to walk on water. The Psalms establish the transformation of the exodus victory at sea into victory over sea as a symbol of chaos and this symbolism carries over into the intended practical application of these Gospel sea stories.
Even the search for normative values is tricky. Take the Psalms for example. Psalm 88 has been described as a powerful, poetic ancient description of clinical depression. Unlike other psalms of lament or complaint, this psalm offers no hope; nor does the psalmist pledge to keep trusting in God to be with him in his dark valley. So why is it in the Psalter at all? This question becomes even more poignant when it is recognized that psalms were originally independent units for worship and were only later collected into a book.
Psalm 88 gives voice to the despair of clinical depression and, more importantly, acknowledges that mere advice or prayer provides no quick fix for such chronic moods. It gives permission to feel this way and encourages others to be a loving presence as depressed souls struggle with their feelings and, over a long period of time, eventually feel their way to wholeness again. Similarly, the psalms of complaint give permission to express taboo feelings like disappointment, disillusionment, and anger with God. In this way, the Psalter is meant to be therapeutic as much as it is to provide principles of prayer, worship, and faith.
Last edited:
RevLindsG King
Rest In Peace
RevLindsG King
Rest In Peace
PilgrimsProgress
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (NEJM)
Comes this excellent review of Norman Cousins' great book, HEAD FIRST, The Biology of HOPE. I have always said that the real title of this book should be
SPIRIT (PNEUMA) FIRST, The Biology of FAITH, HOPE & LOVE
Reading this book is what influenced me to scrap the word 'hypnotherapy' and replace it with the neo-logism, PNEUMA-therapy.
Here is the link to the review http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199004263221720
Head First: The biology of hope
By Norman Cousins. 368 pp. New York, E.P. Dutton, 1989. $19.95.
Norman Cousins' new book continues the story of the "obsession" he first reported in Anatomy of an Illness (New York: W.W. Norton, 1979): to demonstrate that emotion and mood affect biology directly. Cousins has set out to influence physicians, encouraging them to "put to work all the resources of spirit that can be translated into beneficial biochemical changes." The book interweaves many themes: Cousins' new career as adjunct professor at the UCLA School of Medicine, after 31 years spent as editor of the Saturday Review; his commitment to honoring individual experience while subjecting it to scientific scrutiny; his study of patients with melanoma; an account of the hypnotist, Franz Anton Mesmer; a study of the placebo effect; and Cousins' survey of images of the physician in literature. Perhaps the most suggestive aspect of the book is the scientific grounding it provides for the traditional values of the physician.
Cousins constantly attempts to bridge the cultures of journalism and medicine, aware that medically trained readers, schooled "to shun conclusions based on single experiences and to look for evidence based on numbers of cases," may prefer reasoning that moves "from the general to the particular" to the anecdotal method Cousins employs. "Writers seek out anecdotes as a way of making larger statements," he points out. "They tend to shun statistics, [which] obscure souls. If nothing is real to medical researchers except as it happens to a significant number of people, nothing is real to a writer save as it happens to a single person." This comfortable view begs the question, Can a single outcome define prudent policy for the many? What about the many head-first right-thinkers who go straight on to painful death? Possibly they die happier — but do they? Beware. To answer that question demands numbers — more than a single case.
Last edited by a moderator: