posted
I have a question for all of you out there who consider some sort of holy scripture as a personal guide.
How important is the literal truth of stories within your scripture to spiritual view of the world.
Imagine for a moment that you learned through some certain means (perhaps divine revelation) that nothing in your scriptures was literally true. The book still contained priceless truth and expounded true principles but the stories contained in the book were all fiction, parables, or allagories.
How would this change your spiritual outlook? Are there stories that are equally meaningful to you whether they are literal or symbolic? Are there stories where the literal truth is absolutely essential to your understanding of God? Are there stories where a symbolic view is more meaningful to you than the literal interpretation?
Please, don't simply argue whether or not cetain stories are literally true. That is beside the point. I simply want to know which stories you feel need to be literally true.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's important to my belief that the events of the Four Canonical Gospels and probably the Book of Acts are literally true.
Everything else could be legend.
While I consider all of it Mythic-- stories which convey truth whether or not they are actually true-- I don't think I could consider myself a Christian knowing that the Incarnation (and thereby, central meaning of the whole religion) was false.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly it wouldn't matter to me at all. I know it's the truth, in the sense that the spiritual truths conveyed are real. I also know that I'm not advanced enough yet to really understand the fullness of the truth. That's why we learn line by line and precept by precept. I know that lots that has been revealed to prophets of old is stuff they were told not to write yet for everyone to read. I also know that eternal progression means there's a long way yet for me to go, a lot left for me to learn.
I have great faith that the scriptures contain essential truths for my spirit to learn at this stage in my progress. Whether or not the stories in them are literally true seems beside the point to me. I would not be upset any more than I would if i found out the parables of Christ were not literally true. They work on a different level than that.
Maybe somewhat but not entirely analogous to the same way in which it doesn't really matter about great novels that they aren't literally true, their literal truth is beside the point. They are real, we know that much. What's important is the ideas, feelings, thoughts, everything, be real and completely true to life. Scriptures to me are stories in that sense, and then they're more.
I believe they are literally true but have to be told to us at the level of our understanding at the time. So elements of the story that are beyond our understanding have to be told in a way that what's important about them comes through, without trying to make scriptures into science textbooks or something, which they aren't.
It is not their purpose to explain genetics to us, nor speciation, nor cosmology, geology, paleontology, how the solar system was formed, or whether there's life on Mars. Instead we're told that we are God's children and that God made the world. All that other stuff, the details if you like, are for us to discover for ourselves.
quote:It's important to my belief that the events of the Four Canonical Gospels and probably the Book of Acts are literally true.
All of them? For example is Jesus only fed 300 people instead of 3000 -- would it make a difference to you. If the temptations in the wilderness are an allegory rather than a literal report of the events would that invalidate them? If the Sermon on the Mount is a complilation of a dozen different sermons given on different occasions would that invalidate it. Which details of the stories must be literal and which can be figurative?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think if some details are off or mistranslated, that wouldn't be a big deal...it sounds silly but your example could be put down to a "typo" and that wouldn't really be a big deal to me. But if there were a consistent misreporting in the Gospels, what reason would there be to trust in the most difficult to believe and simultaneously most important part of the story? If it turns out that the evangelists were lying about the smaller claims, why on earth would I trust them in the unbelieveable assertion that God became a Man and died?
I don't mean that my faith isn't real and present to me... I get a particular spiritual boost from meditation before the sacrament in a chapel... but it *is* entirely possible that Christianity is just another human attempt to allow for the fact that there is *something* out there "bigger" than us... heck, it's even possible the staunch Atheists are right and that the spiritual ecstasy is "all in my head."
So it's not so much a matter of there being particular stories that are important and not (though again, I'd have to say at a minimum, the birth and passion of Jesus would have to be literally true or there would be no Christ for Christians to believe in) but a matter of whether the witnesses we have to the events being reliable or deceitful.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figure the stories are true from at least the writer's point of view.
Since you did go ahead and bring up a specific story, I'll bring up another. Some people are really shaken that there are 4 versions of the First Vision. And that was just one person telling the same story to different audiences.
And of course the 4 gospels have differing accounts of something as important as the Atonement and crucifixion. And don't Samuel and Kings cover a lot of the same territory? Heck* even the creation is told in two versions.
Anyway, I'm pretty open minded about the use of symbolism in scripture, especially where it comes to numbers. Though I tend to think most scripture has a literal meaning and a figurative, or spiritual interpretation.
But I'd also be concerned about anyone whose "divine" revelation is telling them strange things about the scriptures. Satan uses the same methods as the spirit, and can do a fairly good imitation. Joseph Smith taught that few things are as damaging as a man who thinks he is under the influence of the holy spirit but is under the influence of a false spirit. (I'm working on the assumption that you are LDS, Rabbit. Forgive me if I'm remembering wrong.)
P.S. Okay getting back to the question at the end of your statement, I'll say the 4 events encompassed by the Atonement: The creation/fall (spiritual death) The condescention of God (Jesus is born. The particular means of how this happened are not something that is clearly outlined anyway) The suffering for our sins. Resurrection.
And I'd tack on to this that Nephi was really told by the holy spirit to kill Laban. If that doesn't turn out to be true, I'll be pretty ticked.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if it’s ok to believe in a story then Jedi can really be a religion. To me the literal truth is very important.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Jay, "Jedi" is not a religion. We're not saying you should believe any old story. I believe there is truth within stories in scripture, but some of it has been changed or mistranslated over the years. But heck, there's a lot of metaphorical stories that Jesus told, why not have some of the ones before be metaphor? Or even some of the ones about him? That's how religion works.
posted
Stories about Jesus' death and ressurection need to be literally true, along with Joseph Smith's vision and the origin of the Book of Mormon. Everything else could turn out to be figurative and it would okay...maybe, but those need to be literally true or else it's all based on a lie.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many of Jesus' lessons were in parable form, because what is important is the story core. Most people do not realize it but we as men are locked into just a handful of core stories, once you know them you can choose who you want to be in them. I would be much happier to find out it was all fiction, but too much of it rings all too true.
So no it matters not at all to me if scripture is true or not, as long as it does not make a false claim of truth. That is if it is scincere in the effort to serve the truth rather then some other function.
quote: those need to be literally true or else it's all based on a lie.
Would it be so bad if it were based on a lie? None of the reasons I've ever seen someone here give for believing in a religion -- personal revelation, a sense of purpose, self-satisfaction, community -- have involved an investment in Truth.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would it be so bad if it were based on a lie? None of the reasons I've ever seen someone here give for believing in a religion -- personal revelation, a sense of purpose, self-satisfaction, community -- have involved an investment in Truth.
It would be bad for me. Before I was as invested in it as I am now (before the whole community thing mattered), my only reasoning for following it was that I wanted to live my life according to something real and true and lasting. If the gospel was true, then it was more real than anything and was worth everything. I believe it is True because of personal revelation, but I follow it because I believe it is True.
This is still the base reason, although other reasons have since been added to it. There are many things of great worth, but the gospel being True makes it of the most worth.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But personal revelation depends on Truth."
But that can't be true, because you know for a fact that other people claim personal revelations about other, incompatible religions. At most, personal revelation can only depend on a belief that your revelation is more accurate than someone else's, which is something completely different than Truth; it's a faith in one's own gut feelings.
quote: Before I was as invested in it as I am now (before the whole community thing mattered), my only reasoning for following it was that I wanted to live my life according to something real and true and lasting.
But you started out Mormon, didn't you? And the vast majority of people remain in the faith into which they're born. And I'd wager that almost all of them will say that they want to live their lives according to something real and true and lasting.
It seems to me -- speaking as an outsider, here -- that there are elements of any religion which are real and true and lasting, but which have almost nothing to do with the truth of the religion itself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I joined the Church because of a revelation of its truth. Sure, there comes a point where you have to believe that your personal revelation is right where others' may be wrong. But that's the whole point of this church, anyway. All the real differences in our church come, we believe, through the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, but staying wasn't inevitable. My mother's family aren't members, and my brother left the church long ago and my dad is fine with it. I was in a field that seemed incompatible with the gospel at the time, going to church but only sacrament meeting, and I was crazy about and seriously dating a non-member. All the things that were pulling me away were very good things, so it wasn't Mormon or Nothing.
I guess everyone wants to live their life according to something good, but if the gospel is true, it's worth everything, even the sacrifice of other Very Good things.
If it turned out to not be true, then it wasn't/isn't worth the sacrifice. I would be Not Happy.
posted
Lets take two people, kq and dag, for example.
Both believe they have received revelation regarding their church being the true church (and have related such on hatrack, why I chose them).
At least one must be wrong. That is, the belief of at least one must not depend on the truth of that (believed) revelation, but only on their belief in the truth.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew it would be a matter of time before someone who believes neither came swashbuckling into the thread.
But the point that Jesus taught many religious principles through works of fiction is a good one.
I really like the story of Jericho. I'll be sad if it really was an earthquake or the soundwaves or something. It speaks to me of the idea that if you do what God asks, his grace will help you with things you couldn't do yourself.
Ditto on manna and the Red Sea. They can turn out to be figurative and I'll just be sad.
The partridges, though... that had to be real.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess everyone wants to live their life according to something good, but if the gospel is true, it's worth everything, even the sacrifice of other Very Good things.
If it turned out to not be true, then it wasn't/isn't worth the sacrifice. I would be Not Happy.
Ah. You just described why I have not joined a religion just for kicks.
I don't personally want to waste my life obeying the rules and regulations and compulsions of a religion that isn't based on anything more than sociology and conjecture. If I were going to do that, I have sufficient faith in my own understanding of sociology to come up with my own perfectly good code of ethics.
I suppose the difference boils down to the presence of that "gut feeling." You start from the assumption -- through revelation -- that it is true, and because you believe it wouldn't be worth doing if it weren't True, your belief is reinforced. I have no such starting assumption, and so do not do it until I have a reason.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a member of my religion because I believe it is factually true. If I thought it were just useful and helpful, but not actually true, I would have left it a long time ago.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but I believe I have directly recieved information from God. That is revelation, and I will not call it "information".
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it changes your overall point, fugu, but the word "revelation" has very different meanings for Mormons and Catholics, and I don't want confusion to exist on this point. "Information" is acceptable, especially given the context of this discussion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You just described why I have not joined a religion just for kicks.
That's great. And I'd like to say a completely unnecessary from me Thank You.
quote:I don't personally want to waste my life obeying the rules and regulations and compulsions of a religion that isn't based on anything more than sociology and conjecture.
Ditto. Have you read Remains of the Day? That was seriously the book that started my personal spiritual crisis. The butler spends his whole life dedicated to a nice idea that turned out to not be true. I do NOT want to do that.
quote:I suppose the difference boils down to the presence of that "gut feeling." You start from the assumption -- through revelation -- that it is true, and because you believe it wouldn't be worth doing if it weren't True, your belief is reinforced. I have no such starting assumption, and so do not do it until I have a reason.
*nods* Maybe. I did start with that assumption, but I don't agree with the conclusion that I twisted myself into believing it. I did have a choice, and from a certain perspective, both were pretty great options. I picked what I did because...actually, because of a few very strong spiritual experiences, most of which centered around the Book of Mormon. Whenever I thought about what to do, I kept bumping up against personal revelation I got while reading the Book of Mormon.
quote:I have no such starting assumption, and so do not do it until I have a reason.
Does that mean that if you did have such an experience, you would have a reason?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, fugu, but I separate information from God directly from information about the world obtained or theorised by mankind.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does that mean that if you did have such an experience, you would have a reason?
Well, then the alternatives become "I'm deluding myself" or "I'm hearing from God." The people here who speak of revelation do so in a way that suggests that it's self-evidently the second possibility, that God communicates with them in a way they could not mistake for wishful thinking. If God communicated with me in the same way, I'd have pretty much no reason to disbelieve.
-------
KQ, as I understand it, Dag believes he received a vision from something other than mankind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that some of the most valuable parts of scripture, at least the scripture that I accept, is the direct teaching that is not couched in story or parable, and is not metaphorical.
I have long believed that the story of Job is a story designed to illustrate truth. Whether or not Job really existed is secondary. It's the truths that are set forth that are important.
Still, some accounts in the scriptures are integral to my faith and I wouldn't accept them as mere metaphor. Principally the account of Christ in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you'll find that Dagonee holds the information he believes himself to have received in a similar respect
And no offense, but that defense sounds like this argument:
Man: "Women are inferior, therefore women's arguments are weaker, and should be called women-arguments."
Woman: *gives examples of solid arguments by women*
Man: "Ah, we might think those are good arguments, but as has already been shown, women-arguments are inferior, therefore those can't be"
That is, your information being from God and of that special sort depends on it being (in at least a certain sense) correct; if your information is not correct in that sense, then its not of that special sort of information, and instead "human-information".
And this is true of both your experiences, and mutually exclusively so.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:KQ, as I understand it, Dag believes he received a vision from something other than mankind.
Ack!. Can anyone find the thread I originally posted this in? I can't find it. I was originally reluctant to post about it for this reason - none of these words ("vision" or "revelation") are really accurate. I don't think I used either, although I might have used "vision." If I did, I think the way I used it was almost unique.
Not that any of you would know that - my inability to articulate was the cause of my original reluctance. I don't want to try to reformulate it again, but I'll try to clarify what I meant if anyone can find the post.
I tried, and I can't find it.
Dagonee P.S., My "Ack!" does not indicate any ill-feeling of any kind to either fugu or Tom. Both their characterizations are certainly understandable, and I take full blame for any misintepretation. That being said, I really don't want to leave those impressions uncorrected.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I don't understand the source of your discomfort, here. I recognize why, for doctrinal reasons, you're reluctant to believe that you have directly communicated with God, but I recall that you said this "vision" -- for want of a better word -- helped confirm you on your religious path and that you did indeed believe that it was divinely inspired.
Have I misunderstood what you were saying? Did you not believe that this "vision" was of supernatural origin?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I realize I haven't clarified what the actual source of my discomfort is. Let me ponder some.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is also the possibility of something being true, but the relating of it being simplified or otherwise only partially understood.
For example - since Einstein, we know that Newton's physics aren't "true" in that they don't accurately explain what is really going on; however, they are still true in a preschool kind of way - they are applicable learning tools and describe a simplification of the way the physical world really works. Is there not the possibility that scripture may work similarly? Perhaps the crossing of the Red Sea is true in a way that is close enough to the simplified telling of it to still be functionally the same, but the underlying reality of it is far more complex than we would have thought.
To me, it's entirely possible for the wall of Jericho to have fallen down due to an earthquake but still be the work of God. Earthquakes are miraculous things; even if the tectonic plates were set in motion thousands of years earlier, that doesn't put it outside of the realm of God's jurisdiction.
I am also OK with evolution being totally compatible with the scriptures. Genesis says that God created the fish of the sea, and then the creeping things of the earth, and then the beasts of the field, and then the fowls of the air, and then man. I don't see how either of those worldviews excludes the other.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be terribly disappointed if the sun turned out to be a metaphor and not an actual star we were orbiting around. It would devalue for me many of the canonical scientific works on the subject. I would lose a lot of faith in science.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Also, regarding Catholics and Mormons believing they are the one true church.. obviously one must be wrong... but it's not exactly the belief that they are right which is the point.
Rabbit's question was, "when does Literal Truth become important to your belief?" Now, following Annie's example, let's take two competing but unproven scientific theories... say Steady State vs. Big Bang Cosmology (I'm aware that this is largely not an issue anymore) each side *believes* that they are true, but the sides are chosen precisely because the actual, literal truth is the important thing. Both are making their best guesses based on the information availible.
The best reason for not being a fundamentalist is that being a fundamentalist means insisting that God, who can forgive the most egregious crimes, cannot forgive doing the best job you can with the information availible. If Annie and I both die and then both go standing before God and find out we are both wrong, I expect we would both have the humility to have a good laugh about it and that God would be loving enough to pat us on the back and say with a wry smile "Heaven's this way... hope you aren't too disappointed!" and I'm certain both of us would be interested enough in the truth to go with the Reality presented us rather than cling to our belief in "the One True Church."
Fugu and Tom, do you realize that you seem to be calling for the very religious intolerance that you often criticize?
posted
I have nothing to add to this conversation, but just wanted to say that I'm enjoying it immensely.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and as for the value of personal revelation...
I believe New York is real, but have never seen it. I have seen Katharina in person.
I *know* she is real at a level that I do not know about New York... even though for the purpose of argument, I can give more evidence for the existence of New York than I can for Kat.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm discussing the side point of what is necessary for a religious belief, which has nothing to do with religious intolerance; in fact, an understanding that many other peoples' religious beliefs are based on exactly the same sort of experiences despite their different beliefs would seem to be an argument for religious tolerance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for that, Jim-Me. I would like to add that I am firmly into the "degrees of truth" thing; while I believe I have access to the full truth, there is much light in other paths. My aunt and her husband are very firmly and devoutly Catholic, and yet we are closer in our religious beliefs than most of the rest of my family and I, mainly because most of the rest of my family isn't very religious. At least my aunt lives her religion, and treats others accordingly, and I try to do the same. I find that, and even Tom's stance against joining a religion, much better than hypocrisy.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
What I mean was, you seem to be saying "these two people, by personal revelation, believe their church to be the One True Church. They cannot both be right, therefore personal revelation is not useful in deciding what is truth."
With which I couldn't disagree more. What I do agree with is that it isn't of use in arguing or convincing what is truth. But interms of finding out for yourself what is true, it's invaluable... even if it is vague enough to be taken in different ways or confirming different things.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
