Probably for your purposes, certainly.
“I asked a very simple question. The entity in Genesis 3:14 that tempted Eve to take the fruit, was it a metaphorical serpent or the real animal?
And now you wish to dictate the very simple answer so that you may get on with your point: Either that the Judeo-Christian God is a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent bully as prophesized in the First Book of Dawkins, or that nothing in the Bible is really real so we can all heave a sigh of relief and relax?
In asking you what metaphoric lesson might be taken away from the injunction against covetousness, or the commandment to not steal, I was telling you that nothing in The Bible can be taken entirely metaphorically or, in all likelihood, entirely literally. I understand that my reply will not please you, but I’m not here to please you.
“Do you see everything else as metaphors, as well?”
No. If you had paid heed to my reference to post # 1481(in post #1482), also copied to you, you would know that I do not (“I do accept scripture literally (as in “Thou shalt not steal”). I also accept scripture metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily”).
“The slaying of the Amalekite infants by divine order in 1 Samuel 15:3”
And, we’re back to the misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent bullying motif.
This text (1 Samuel 15:3) is a subject that has occupied Hebrew scholars and ethicists from time immemorial. Some point out that the Hebrew people reacted when they were subjected to an unprovoked surprise attack, extermination being the intent. Others note that since Amalek does not exist today, the commandment cannot be carried out. Most seem to agree that lessons from that time may have application today where over 7.5 million Israelis, including over 1.5 million Arab Israelis are surrounded by 200 million hostile Arabs bent on Israel’s extermination.
If you wish an in-depth discussion on 1 Samuel 15:3, take it up with the Hebrew scholars who have pursued this subject for millennia. As a simple man, I am involved in more humble matters such as working out what is one to do next if one turns the other check and is struck again by his enemy, or how is one to love his neighbor when the so-and-so throws garbage over the back fence. Or, on a larger stage, as a humble voting citizen of a great republic, what to do about a people who declare their intent to murder Americans wholesale and who demonstrate they mean to do it.
But, with respect to investing in man’s humane treatment of his fellow man, we must observe that it is the Judeo-Christian West that has labored for a thousand years to regulate the issues of the meaning of lawful war, the origins of war, the avarice and cruelty of war, the treatment of prisoners, when the right of conquest and the claiming of the spoils of war are just and when they are not, the rights of discovery and the treatment of native peoples, the securing of peace as the prime objective of war, questions of maritime law, redress for injuries, restitution of property and recompense for wrongs done, and the laws of embassy and envoys. Can the same be said of Asian despots? Of Atheistic socialist tyrannies? Not likely, Pilgrim.
What set off this controversy (insofar as it concerns my participation) was my suggestion that it is not “fantastic tales” about talking serpents or talking donkeys that are central to Biblical Instruction, but rather lessons such as to heed the two great commandments, to honor one’s mother and father, to murmur not at the ways of Providence, and all the other familiar biblical injunctions. The scandal has not ceased since.
Although a considerable amount of dust has been subsequently kicked up and many great gaseous discharges emitted, that simple issue has yet to be confronted. Other than the exchange of talking points, little more can be done to have a productive discussion unless common assumptions are established. I’m not buying into the insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption.
To answer your original question about the entity that tempted Eve. The Serpent, said to be a subtle, sly, and treacherous creature, is thought by Hebrew scholars to be representative of Satan, whether literal or metamorphic, being open to conjecture. What is not open to conjecture, so far as I am concerned, is that temptation is real.
Very real.
I’m a bit tied up at work for a while now. I guarantee you a reply as soon as the schedule frees me some time. Both of your comments are extremely conducive to a detailed reply.
Sorry for the long delay in replying; but I've been free from the bondages of work, only since yesterday:
You had said:
"Insofar as reading the Holy Bible beneficially is concerned, tell we what metaphoric message would you read into the injunction to not steal? Or, what metaphoric lesson might we take away from the injunction against covetousness?"
I replied:
You then replied:
"Probably for your purposes, certainly."
No, you didn't answer my question there.
“I asked a very simple question. The entity in Genesis 3:14 that tempted Eve to take the fruit, was it a metaphorical serpent or the real animal?
And now you wish to dictate the very simple answer so that you may get on with your point: Either that the Judeo-Christian God is a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent bully as prophesized in the First Book of Dawkins, or that nothing in the Bible is really real so we can all heave a sigh of relief and relax?
In asking you what metaphoric lesson might be taken away from the injunction against covetousness, or the commandment to not steal, I was telling you that nothing in The Bible can be taken entirely metaphorically or, in all likelihood, entirely literally. I understand that my reply will not please you, but I’m not here to please you.
So, when you read much of the Old Testament, and some of the new, through the lenses of what your own opinion thinks is what they should mean, what are those passages wherein your deity is ordering in plain language, the slaughtering of infants and children, conveying to you? Aren't you forced to ignore them, precisely because of the problem of ethical and moral incompatibility that they present vis-a-vis the Golden Rule (do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you)? You don't have to please me, but ignoring the fact that violence is mandated in your scriptures, and then attempting to contort them to become metaphors that mean the opposite of what they really say, is not going to wash in any rational analysis of the sections.
“Do you see everything else as metaphors, as well?”
No. If you had paid heed to my reference to post # 1481(in post #1482), also copied to you, you would know that I do not (“I do accept scripture literally (as in “Thou shalt not steal”). I also accept scripture metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily”).
This is possible to an extent. When words can't be minced any further, such as when your god orders its protagonists to slaughter infants in 1 Samuel 15:3, it fails so thoroughly, it only serves to leave the believer in such theology forced to accept that the deity in question isn't a moral one, or to ignore them completely like an uncomfortable, unchangeable aspect of the deity - a particularly Islamic-like quality, I must declare.
“The slaying of the Amalekite infants by divine order in 1 Samuel 15:3”
And, we’re back to the misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent bullying motif.
It's not a motif when the words plainly declare themselves the orders of your deity. What other metaphorical lesson can be taken from "Go and kill the infants and children!" - 1 Samuel 15:3?
This text (1 Samuel 15:3) is a subject that has occupied Hebrew scholars and ethicists from time immemorial. Some point out that the Hebrew people reacted when they were subjected to an unprovoked surprise attack, extermination being the intent. Others note that since Amalek does not exist today, the commandment cannot be carried out. Most seem to agree that lessons from that time may have application today where over 7.5 million Israelis, including over 1.5 million Arab Israelis are surrounded by 200 million hostile Arabs bent on Israel’s extermination.
Nonsensical answer. Since when did it suddenly become moral to slaughter the innocent, targetted specifically and deliberately, and not as a casualty of war? Furthermore, even in the New Testament, the moral invalidity of a deity ordering the slaughter of innocents is never discussed. Why? For a "time immemorial" ethical dilemma, Jesus surely would have had to make some clarifications now, wouldn't he?
If you wish an in-depth discussion on 1 Samuel 15:3, take it up with the Hebrew scholars who have pursued this subject for millennia.
The scriptures are yours, as well. You cannot simply shy away from the responsibility of explaining them, both to yourselves and others who've pointed out the moral voids in what you accept as your beliefs. For someone observing this peculiarly selective loss of interest in discussing the elements of, it only appears as a way of trying to "solve" a problem by ignoring it.
As a simple man, I am involved in more humble matters such as working out what is one to do next if one turns the other check and is struck again by his enemy, or how is one to love his neighbor when the so-and-so throws garbage over the back fence. Or, on a larger stage, as a humble voting citizen of a great republic, what to do about a people who declare their intent to murder Americans wholesale and who demonstrate they mean to do it.
The Golden Rule, older than all religions and all scriptures, is enough arrive at the same understanding. Lacking a humble interest in searching for the truth, and moreover, selectively ignoring the uncomfortable aspects of the assumed truth, is certainly no innocent humility. It can also be malevolent, laced with the intent to conceal uncertainties.
But, with respect to investing in man’s humane treatment of his fellow man, we must observe that it is the Judeo-Christian West that has labored for a thousand years to regulate the issues of the meaning of lawful war, the origins of war, the avarice and cruelty of war, the treatment of prisoners, when the right of conquest and the claiming of the spoils of war are just and when they are not, the rights of discovery and the treatment of native peoples, the securing of peace as the prime objective of war, questions of maritime law, redress for injuries, restitution of property and recompense for wrongs done, and the laws of embassy and envoys. Can the same be said of Asian despots? Of Atheistic socialist tyrannies? Not likely, Pilgrim.
Not until the Age of Reason, post-1700s, was there such social movements that ultimately lead to freedom in its truest sense. Not until rationalism and free thinking mauled down the religious orthodoxy of Europe of the time.
Verses upon verses of Hindu texts discuss the aspects of ethical warfare - from such things as stopping warfare post sun-down, to specifically refraining from attacking women and children. Does that make Hindism any truer? Certainly not! When you have your scriptures calling for wholesale genocide and specific targeting of children, where did those post-1700s morality standards disappear? Where did they disappear during the slave trade? During the barbarism inflicted upon the natives - from slaughter to primitive germ warfar - through the usage of infected blankets? Or, as in my case, Australia, where the aboriginals were hunted down because they weren't considered to be human?
What set off this controversy (insofar as it concerns my participation) was my suggestion that it is not “fantastic tales” about talking serpents or talking donkeys that are central to Biblical Instruction, but rather lessons such as to heed the two great commandments, to honor one’s mother and father, to murmur not at the ways of Providence, and all the other familiar biblical injunctions. The scandal has not ceased since.
Although a considerable amount of dust has been subsequently kicked up and many great gaseous discharges emitted, that simple issue has yet to be confronted. Other than the exchange of talking points, little more can be done to have a productive discussion unless common assumptions are established. I’m not buying into the insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption. Plain words to that effect, in the scriptures would have been more effective, and more truthful. When a pattern is seen in your scriptures, of the slow, once-in-a-millennia-updated progression of the deity's change in stance from one that is trigger-happy in ordering genocide, to later complying with the Golden Rule, it shows not the divinity of the deity, but rather, the hallmark qualities of the hand of man, in inventing those words, and those religions - each and every one of them.