One thing I was wondering was when you are interested in reading a religious text, what could be possible non literal ways to interpret a text other than metaphorically?
I often feel that, at least in America in modern times - and since I do not have experience in other nations I am very much interested in knowing if this is the case in any other nations around the world - that the phenomenon of literal interpretations of religious texts is one of the most problematic things to happen in terms of damaging the appeal of religion of any kind. To my knowledge, biblical literalism became a major phenomenon in the 18th century as the scientific revolution of that time was under way and due to multiple factors basically caught on like wildfire in the United States.
Today, biblical literalism and literal reading of other religious texts seems, to me at least, to be one of the most alienating aspects of religion in modern times, especially to younger generations of believers; surveys done since 2010 show a higher percentage of our youth doubting the existence of God than they have in decades. I have heard it said that the best way to turn someone off of Judaism or Christianity is to have them read the Torah or the Bible cover to cover while interpreting each story in a literal fashion. And it seems possible that this is the case for the Bagavad Gita, Book of Buddha and other religious texts.
So for those who believe in a certain religion or for atheists or agnostics, what could be more productive ways to read and interpret these texts other than metaphorically? I feel that, for example, with the Bible this has become a fundamental challenge ever since we discovered that the earth is millions of years old and that millions of life forms existed before humans did. I am aware of reading the texts of the Bible and viewing them as metaphors and imagery.
However, the challenge seems to deciphering which sections of the Bible and other religious texts were originally designed to be metaphors and images, which were designed to be relevant only to those who wrote the actual texts and which should be considered a sort of moral instruction manual for modern times. This seems like a relevant question for all students of comparative religion [regardless of their own religious background or lack thereof], particularly when they want to write about religion in their own works and for modern day believers trying to make light of the Bible in a post Enlightenment climate.
I often feel that, at least in America in modern times - and since I do not have experience in other nations I am very much interested in knowing if this is the case in any other nations around the world - that the phenomenon of literal interpretations of religious texts is one of the most problematic things to happen in terms of damaging the appeal of religion of any kind. To my knowledge, biblical literalism became a major phenomenon in the 18th century as the scientific revolution of that time was under way and due to multiple factors basically caught on like wildfire in the United States.
Today, biblical literalism and literal reading of other religious texts seems, to me at least, to be one of the most alienating aspects of religion in modern times, especially to younger generations of believers; surveys done since 2010 show a higher percentage of our youth doubting the existence of God than they have in decades. I have heard it said that the best way to turn someone off of Judaism or Christianity is to have them read the Torah or the Bible cover to cover while interpreting each story in a literal fashion. And it seems possible that this is the case for the Bagavad Gita, Book of Buddha and other religious texts.
So for those who believe in a certain religion or for atheists or agnostics, what could be more productive ways to read and interpret these texts other than metaphorically? I feel that, for example, with the Bible this has become a fundamental challenge ever since we discovered that the earth is millions of years old and that millions of life forms existed before humans did. I am aware of reading the texts of the Bible and viewing them as metaphors and imagery.
However, the challenge seems to deciphering which sections of the Bible and other religious texts were originally designed to be metaphors and images, which were designed to be relevant only to those who wrote the actual texts and which should be considered a sort of moral instruction manual for modern times. This seems like a relevant question for all students of comparative religion [regardless of their own religious background or lack thereof], particularly when they want to write about religion in their own works and for modern day believers trying to make light of the Bible in a post Enlightenment climate.
