Nostr Web Client

Personally, I think what you say at the end is correct. When a text presents itself as perplexing and an effort is made toward positioning oneself so as to allow it to disclose its meaning, the success of that process should result, I think, in further, deeper, more insightful questions. If such a development were to terminate, the desire and motivation for something spiritual and meaningful would go with it.

Something I find interesting about what you have to say, and about biblical passages more generally, is the anthropomorphic verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc., used to speak about God. I think they will always fail to disclose insight when taken literally. Their meaning has to lie in suggestion and metaphor. When attributing wrath to God, its an error to then begin picturing some infinite being who is literally angry, who feels a wrath on account of the ways human beings have been conducting themselves, and who will inflict punishment to rectify the situation for the sake of some eternal justice. Rather, the more appropriate interpretive strategy, I believe, is to locate this notion of wrath in the ways human beings live. It’s suggesting something about how there’s a true way such creatures should comport themselves that corresponds to an inner nature and reality that is being obstructed, frustrated, and subverted by other capacities that are bent toward injustice, inequality, unfairness, self-absorption, heartlessness, and so forth. I see the Divine as having more to do with the way of things, their process and nature, where the task is to align oneself with it through virtue, than as something relating to literal stories about characters in a drama who play specific roles that are dictated by some higher, anthropomorphic being.

Unfiltered Faith 1y ago

I can see where you're coming from, and appreciate the metaphorical viewpoint. At the same time, since we are human and these texts were written for human understanding, I think there's also value in considering the literal aspects of some stories. It can serve as a way to express deeper truths in a way we can grasp. Maybe its a balance somewhere between the two?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

TC95 1y ago

Absolutely, that’s fair.

But I’m curious about what the term literally amounts to (or means) in this context. My thought is that I don’t take metaphor to mean that the Bible can, must, or should be reduced to or simplified in terms of something else. For example, I don’t think religion can be wholly explained in naturalistic terms, as if it were merely the product of an adaptation or biological mechanism (if you’ve ever read William James’ The Varities of Religious Experience, that’s how I tend to think about religion).

I believe a metaphorical approach to the Bible is to take the religious symbols as manifestations and encapsulations of underlying phenomena that could be conceptual, existential, etc. (This is a way, I think, of articulating what Jordan Peterson does in biblical interpretation, although not perfectly expressed, nor is Jordan’s position something I totally agree with. I think he tends to stretch biblical meaning too far - like into scientific knowledge). Anyway, an example may be where a possible discussion about Abraham would be to locate him as enacting a heroic journey, a human archetype or universal pattern regarding flourishing, happiness, or salvation, and where the content, the specificities of their beliefs and desires, aren’t absolutely essential. What’s crucial is the narrative one lives out, the kinds of problems he or she faces and the ways they’re overcome. The virtue of this is that the stories have to transform overtime as people’s understanding shifts and (hopefully) progresses. We no longer believe the same things as the hebrews did or the early Christians. Our knowledge and self understanding has changed, and so our interpretations and readings of an ancient text should as well. But the way toward the good, righteous, or holy should remain stable across human nature and it’s varied historical epochs.

I’m not personally religious in the sense of being devout to a particular doctrine, so I understand the disagreement still. But, philosophically, I have difficulty with seeing a literal methodology as the best tool for understanding old religious texts.