If yes, why sub-real? If not, why not?

Where's the "Huh?" option?
What do you mean by "sub-real"?

I think he is hinting at the language of symbolism. Is it a real language or is it just a mishap of chaotic nonsense. Pseudoscience and not a real language . Mumbo Jumbo Domdo type of information transferring Language . Me I think it is the same as the language of music . The 3rd the 5th and good utilization of the 7th plus knowing when to add the cool sound of the 9th which is just really a 2nd an octave above.
If Beethoven was a live we could ask him for he heard the voice of God in the sound of Music . He was pissed as hell from loosing his hearing so the Creature he conjectured God was on his B-shit list for good part of his life. He loved him in the end and forgave him for taking his hearing

Where's the "Huh?" option?
What do you mean by "sub-real"?
Perhaps you would agree if the definition is that something that is a metaphor is automatically sub-real because of it being a metaphor and therefore subjective, wouldn't you?

This thread is pointless.

Perhaps you would agree if the definition is that something that is a metaphor is automatically sub-real because of it being a metaphor and therefore subjective, wouldn't you?
If the (your) definition of "sub-real" is "metaphor" or vice-versa then your question appears to be tautologous. :shrug:

Maybe you should take a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor) and come back later.

MOM -

Are you trying to establish what is the ontological, epistemological and normative status of understanding the Bible metaphorically?

Maybe you should take a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor) and come back later.
Using your recommended Wikipedia's definition the below is correct:


Because God is so different, he uses accommodated language to help us understand what he is like. This language involves metaphor, because the human language and mind are not able to capture what God is.

The nature of a metaphor is that it speaks of one thing as if it is another and, in so doing, expresses a truth. For example, if I said, "General Longstreet was a lion," I would mean something like "General Longstreet was a fierce and effective commander in battle." I would not mean that he had four feet, claws, and fangs.

A key to understanding metaphorical language is identifying the points of similarity and dissimilarity between the metaphor and what it refers to. This is especially important when God is involved. The Catechism stresses, "God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound, or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God-'the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ung.aspable'-with our human representations" (CCC 42).

Scriptural language about God tends to be anthropomorphic; that is, it speaks of God as if he were human. Failure to g.asp that these statements involve metaphor can lead to theological error and even heresy.

This is the case when Mormons note that God is described in the Bible as having a face (Ps. 27:8), hands (Ps. 8:6), arms (Ex. 15:16), and feet (Is. 66:1) and conclude that he therefore has a physical body-and in fact is simply "an exalted man."

One may point out that Scripture also describes God as having wings (Ps. 91:4)-which Mormons do not hold to be literally true. This means if they're honest they must recognize the presence of metaphor in Scripture when applied to God, depriving the various body-part passages of being serviceable proof-texts.

The best protection against failure to recognize metaphorical statements about God is an understanding of the nature and attributes of God as they have been worked out by Catholic theology. This makes it easier to "unpack" the various metaphors that are used concerning God and his actions-to figure out what they are and aren't saying.

If the (your) definition of "sub-real" is "metaphor" or vice-versa then your question appears to be tautologous. :shrug:

Maybe you should take a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor) and come back later.
Tautologous Nice word , it kind of sound like Taunting ! I wonder Na , Maybe

MOM -

Are you trying to establish what is the ontological, epistemological and normative status of understanding the Bible metaphorically?
From the various posts made by atheists I’ve read here in sciforums the metaphors become real because of faith-based belief. I was trying to establish that the difference between atheism and theism is that theism believes in the metaphor of God. If atheists logic is something that is a metaphor is automatically "sub-real" because of it being a metaphor and therefore subjective, I would say that spiritual subjectivity necessarily operates at the level of metaphor because if it went beyond metaphor, it would become materialism.

I'm glad you admit God is just a metaphor. You are on your way to atheism brother.

I'm glad you admit God is just a metaphor. You are on your way to atheism brother.
No, I am saying that sometimes Jesus spoke in parables, or metaphorically, and sometimes he did not.

From the various posts made by atheists I’ve read here in sciforums the metaphors become real because of faith-based belief. I was trying to establish that the difference between atheism and theism is that theism believes in the metaphor of God. If atheists logic is something that is a metaphor is automatically "sub-real" because of it being a metaphor and therefore subjective, I would say that spiritual subjectivity necessarily operates at the level of metaphor because if it went beyond metaphor, it would become materialism.

I don't get that ? What Materialism has to do with it? My point of view tells Me human communication is transferred in hidden type language of metaphors . Like silos of information . Private type conversions hidden out of plane view . Some will catch on to what is being said and others won't . Like the word in a book you may not know the meaning of and you sluff on by and loose the complete meaning of the writing the author was trying to convey, then you are siloed out by not understanding the symbolism of the word our maybe just the definition of the word coupled with the context in which the word was used .

From the various posts made by atheists I’ve read here in sciforums the metaphors become real because of faith-based belief.

Something like:
"thunder and lightning" (real phenomenon) -> "God is angry with us" (metaphor) ->
"God exists" (metaphor becomes real because of faith-based belief)
-?



I was trying to establish that the difference between atheism and theism is that theism believes in the metaphor of God.

What do you mean? That the world is a metaphor for/of God?



If atheists logic is something that is a metaphor is automatically "sub-real" because of it being a metaphor and therefore subjective, I would say that spiritual subjectivity necessarily operates at the level of metaphor because if it went beyond metaphor, it would become materialism.

I'm not sure I understand that.

I subscribe to scriptural literalism. For example, if it is said that "God created the Universe by His gaze", then I take that literally. It is God who gazed, and surely God's gaze is something quite different than a human's gaze. And if it is said that God has wings, then I take it that He has wings; not necessarily made of feathers or skin as we generally are used to think of wings, but some kind of wings.

No, I am saying that sometimes Jesus spoke in parables, or metaphorically, and sometimes he did not.
Did Jesus die for a metaphor? :bugeye:

I always wondered what I metaphor.

I think he is hinting at the language of symbolism. Is it a real language or is it just a mishap of chaotic nonsense. Pseudoscience and not a real language .
can you point me to a computer language that isn't symbolic?

Something like:
"thunder and lightning" (real phenomenon) -> "God is angry with us" (metaphor) ->
"God exists" (metaphor becomes real because of faith-based belief)
-?


Yes, sort of. As to why Jesus spoke in metaphors and used a lot of parables to get His points across, we have to remember that at this point in time the message of the Gospel was not written down. It was strictly oral. If I gave you a stright up math problem to solve you would probably forget the whole thing in a short time. On the other hand if it were a story problem you would probably be able to recall it for a long time. When my wife and I were involved in Marriage Encounter we soon found out that the couples would forget most of the teaching/preaching within a fairly short time, but almost invariably they could remember the shared stories months later. Jesus was a product of His times when stories which may not have ever really happened carried His message and could be remembered and passed along. The Gospels were certainly not taken down by a scribe whenever he taught.

That being said, I do not think the necessity to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood were metaphors. Many did walk away shocked and disgusted and probably the idea was so vivid that few ever forgot it.




What do you mean? That the world is a metaphor for/of God?

I was simply saying that theist believes in metahor, for example, when jesus said "I will destroy the temple and rebuild it in 3 days"
Why didnt he just say,"if you kill me i will reserect in 3 days"?




I'm not sure I understand that.

I subscribe to scriptural literalism. For example, if it is said that "God created the Universe by His gaze", then I take that literally. It is God who gazed, and surely God's gaze is something quite different than a human's gaze. And if it is said that God has wings, then I take it that He has wings; not necessarily made of feathers or skin as we generally are used to think of wings, but some kind of wings.

As I've said earlier, sometimes Jesus spoke in parables, or metaphorically, and sometimes he did not.

Jesus did explain why he spoke in parables. He wanted those who hear the word to bring a sincere and open attitude, which implies a personal effort to understand what is being conveyed. Those who do not have this attitude will misunderstand, to their own destruction.

This one shows that it is not a metaphor:


"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

That being said, I do not think the necessity to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood were metaphors. Many did walk away shocked and disgusted and probably the idea was so vivid that few ever forgot it.

But it was Jesus, the Son of God talking, not just anyone.
When a divine personality speaks (or one that is considered divine), I automatically presume that what they say may have special meaning that I do not yet understand, so I tend to be reserved also as far as my emotional response goes.
When Jesus speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, it doesn't occur to me to think of it in the same manner I would think of an ordinary person speaking about eating their flesh and drinking their blood (that would be disgusting).



I was simply saying that theist believes in metahor, for example, when jesus said "I will destroy the temple and rebuild it in 3 days"
Why didnt he just say,"if you kill me i will reserect in 3 days"?

I don't see this as an issue of metaphor, but of specific theological understanding.



Jesus did explain why he spoke in parables. He wanted those who hear the word to bring a sincere and open attitude, which implies a personal effort to understand what is being conveyed. Those who do not have this attitude will misunderstand, to their own destruction.

The focus of a parable is didactic. The point of a didactic is to take it to heart. It's about more than just making the effort to understand, it's about deciding to act accordingly.



This one shows that it is not a metaphor:
"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

As far as I understand this, it is about properly expressing gratitude (ie. acknowledging the source of one's nourishment) for the food one is about to partake of, and that it is sin not to express gratitude.

..theism believes in the metaphor of God.

What is God a metaphor of?

No, I am saying that sometimes Jesus spoke in parables, or metaphorically, and sometimes he did not.

How do you establish where he was using metaphors and where he was not?

Did Jesus die for a metaphor? :bugeye:

That was a metaphor as well. He was just having a hard time :D

Speaking of metaphors.. Isn't there someone here that has this theory that the entire bible is based off of sun worship? Where is she?