Which religions admit to being fiction? Pastafarianism? — Pinprick

This just doesn’t feel like a good faith question. Are you asking to be educated, being rhetorical, or being dismissive? The statement was

But what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion?
— stoicHoneyBadger

Then religions should admit it instead of clinging to the irrationality of their beliefs by making a virtue of faith. — Pinprick

I’ve mentioned allegory and religious myth already. I’ve also pointed out that literalism is probably ahistorical as to the actual people initially telling and retelling the inherited allegories. Literalism is a late comer to understanding, not just because there wasn’t codification of particular writings (with concomitant illiteracy among the “believers”) until after new faith communities developed, but because there was diversity of religious myth in a time before unification of those ideas (and even after those ideas).

Ignoring Christian interpretation of the Bible for a moment, what factual claims of religions are you referring to? Islam? What religions do you have in mind when you state so unequivocally that they are all making “factual” claims that they refuse to admit are re-told for purposes of wisdom rather than as an “accurate” account of some event?

Do you even know what a fact is supposed to be in this context? Or history? Have you considered truth outside of correspondence theory or its relation to “states-of-affairs”?

It is just lazy to suppose that people pass on sacred stories because they are “facts.” Narrative is editorial. Why do certain stories pass on instead of others? And why suppose that people who repeat such narratives don’t understand the purpose of repeating it?

based upon the Israelite conception of God — Michael Zwingli

I just don’t understand stuff like this. Christianity is not Islam, Judaism, or the Israelite understanding of God. The beardy head in the sky as creator of all IS NOT the Israelite understanding of god. The Israelites weren’t even monotheistic.

A cursory search of the internet will reveal stuff like this: How the Jews Invented God, and Made Him Great. It really is not so hard to get a religious education if you want to talk about religion. Not an education as a member of the religion, but a secular education where you learn about religions as a subject matter - their origin, their development, their evolution. Hand waving and treating a 3,500 year old story as if it can be summed up in a single sentence isn’t intellectualism or critical thinking.

P.S. The Greeks screwed it up for everyone.

Because the intolerance of the Jews was limited, and primarily local (to Israel). Rome for the most part tolerated the Jewish religion because their weird, peculiar, god usually was just that--their (the Jews) weird, peculiar god. The Jews weren't inclined to compel everyone to become Jews (unlike Christians, who wanted all to be Christian). — Ciceronianus

Quite right. Nor do the Jews proselytize to this day. Judaism is not a religion which seeks converts to it, and proselyzation is universally considered by Jews to be contrary to Halakha. As a matter of fact, there is a tradition which some Orthodox Jewish Rabbis maintain even today: to thrice reject someone expressing an interest in converting to Judaism before finally accepting him or her as a candidate for conversion. The reason for this is quite simple, Jews (especially Orthodox Jews) consider their religion and their Tribe to be one and the same, and they understandably don't want anybody joining their Tribe of people halfheartedly. Among Jews, Torah (God's instruction) is only meant by God for members of "the Tribe", the Tribe of Judah. Jews consider that anyone who converts to Judaism is joining their Tribe. Despite the diaspora and despite living in the statist, democratic and scientific western world for centuries, Jews comprise one of the few remaining tribal societies in the world today. I know from personal experience, that when an Orthodox Jew wants to query as to whether you might be interested in converting to Judaism, he will not ask, "hey, Mike, I was wondering if you might be thinking of making a conversion to Judaism?" No, no...he instead will ask, "hey, Mike, I was wondering whether you might be considering joining the Tribe?" Jews are not opposed to someone joining their Tribe, they are simply opposed to someone joining their Tribe in a half-hearted or whimsical manner, who is not utterly serious about so doing, who is not "all in", said "all in" in this case meaning "having the proper philosophical orientation, and that in an absolute manner".

Quite right. Nor do the Jews proselytize to this day. Judaism is not a religion which seeks converts to it, and proselyzation is universally considered by Jews to be contrary to Halakha. As a matter of fact, there is a tradition which some Orthodox Jewish Rabbis maintain even today: to thrice reject someone expressing an interest in converting to Judaism before finally accepting him or her as a candidate for conversion — Michael Zwingli

True.

Not sure about Chabbad though:

https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/584023/jewish/FAQ-Converts-Conversion.htm

Christianity is not Islam, Judaism, or the Israelite understanding of God. — Ennui Elucidator

The very concept of a solitary, omnipresent, omnipotent and onmiscient God developed first among the Israelites of old. Christianity, largely thanks to the fact of the first Christians being Jewish Christians, as well as the influence among the Greeks of Saul of Tarsus, took that conception of God directly from the Jews. Later, Muhammad created Islam and recited the Qur'an based solely upon what he knew of Jewish history, theology, and mythos, having learned it all from Jewish traders in the Hijaz. Islam is largely an imitative religion, tailored to reflect the values and sensibility of a seventh century Arab man. That is what I meant.

P.S. The Greeks screwed it up for everyone. — Ennui Elucidator

Yes, there was a certain corrupting influence from that quarter. A lot of said corruption, though, was first fed to the Greeks by Saul/Paul and his fellow missionaries, who had some extremely un-Jewish as well as...ummm..."religiously innovative" ideas. Make no mistake about it, Christianity as we know it today is far more the brain child of Saul of Tarsus than it is of Ye'shua/Jesus of Nazareth. This Saul is, with the exception of Prince Siddhartha over in India, probably the greatest religious innovator to ever have lived.

This just doesn’t feel like a good faith question. Are you asking to be educated, being rhetorical, or being dismissive? The statement was — Ennui Elucidator

Just asking for clarification.

Perhaps we’re misunderstanding one another. You seem to be claiming that religions, at least some religions, admit that they are simply retelling a fictional tale filled with truths about life and how to live. And I’m using the term “truths” here very loosely. I’m just asking for evidence, because to the best of my knowledge, no religions make such claims. The founders of the Abrahamic religions made no such claim that I’m aware of, nor did the Eastern religious founders. Also, the vast majority of the followers of these religions make no such claim.

So why are you seemingly convinced that they were never intended to make factual claims? And by “factual claims” I mean claims about the origin of the universe, life, claims of the existence of supernatural deities, etc. In short, empirical claims. Do any of these religions explicitly say, or even imply, that these claims are meant to be metaphorical, allegorical, or fictional? I understand it’s possible to interpret these texts/claims metaphorically, but that isn’t evidence that that was the founders intentions.

Wrote a long thing about conversion, but then deleted it because no one cares.

The very concept of a solitary, omnipresent, omnipotent and onmiscient God developed first among the Israelites of old. — Michael Zwingli

The Omni god is a GREEK invention largely attributable to Plato/Aristotle and imposed on the Jews by/during their Helenization after being conquered by the Greeks and Romans and then the Muslims.

What source do you have that Omni god was developed by the Israelites of old?

do you suggest that the God of the Yahwist, who wrote well before Hellenization among the Jews, which God created the world (the universe?) in "six (assumedly metaphorical) days", appears to be otherwise? Seems fairly Omni to me...

Besides that, the traditional Greek conception of the gods of their pantheon was as discrete beings, and decidedly not "omni" anything. I assume that in ascribing a Platonist/Aristotelian etiology to the concept of the Omni God, you are referencing a belief that the "monist" idea, as well as Plato's idea of the "demiurge", was applied to the God of the Jews. But, was not the God of the Yahwist the "Omni" God to begin with? Did this conception of God not gain in influence as those like Baal, Chemosh, and Ishtar dropped away with the passage of time?

I understand it’s possible to interpret these texts/claims metaphorically, but that isn’t evidence that that was the founders intentions. — Pinprick

This is the part that is most disingenuous. What evidence do you have about the “founders” intentions from 3,500 years ago? Tell me the basis/evidence upon which you conclude they must have meant it factually. So far as I know, there is no “evidence” either way and the most we have is some writings from about 1,000 years later. Here is Wiki on the topic:

The oldest manuscripts discovered yet, including those of the Dead Sea Scrolls, date to about the 2nd century BCE. While Jewish tradition holds that the Pentateuch was written between the 16th century and the 12th century BCE, secular scholars are virtually unanimous in rejecting these early datings, and agree that there was a final redaction some time between 900–450 BCE.[15][16] — “Wiki”

It would be good if we could at least discuss people that you have some evidence about rather than compare unsupported theories about what the founders may have intended.

Here is a description of a guy in Judaism from not so long ago:

As a sacred document, the Bible is a source of truth. While the truths contained in the Bible may not always be apparent, we know in principle that they are there if one wishes to dig deeply enough. It follows that if one’s interpretation ascribes to the Bible a doctrine that is demonstrably false, such as the claim that God is corporeal, the interpretation is incorrect no matter how simple or straightforward it may seem. Should human knowledge advance and come up with demonstrations it previously lacked, we would have no choice but to return to the Bible and alter our interpretation to take account of them (GP 2.24). Anything else would be intellectually dishonest. — “Not a literalist”

He only said that about 900 years ago. Is the argument that he is lying? Or that Jews don’t know who he is? That they disavowed him? That somehow every Jewish intellect that followed after him and acknowledge the non-literal nature of the Bible was just making it up?

Look around for evidence of what actual religious people besides fundamentalist Christians think and you may discover a rich history of religious thought where religious myth is happily understood not as historical fact.

What sort of evidence would you like? Do you want to read a few chapters later how god learns things? Or how god makes mistakes? Or god creates evil? Or god kills people for sport? Maybe we can read about the embodied god that walks or the disembodied god that needs to be carried from place to place. The descriptions of “God” in the Bible are inconsistent and evolving. The descriptions of “God” from Jews in later periods similarly move. Being omnipotent doesn’t make the Israelite god all knowing or all good. It doesn’t make that god all present.

The Israelite god isn’t even that good at being omnipotent.

What sort of evidence would you like? Do you want to read a few chapters laters how god learns things? Or how god makes mistakes? Or god creates evil? Or god kills people for sport? Maybe we can read about the embodied god that walks or the disembodied god that needs to be carried from place to place. The descriptions of “God” in the Bible are inconsistent and evolving... — Ennui Elucidator

As somebody noted above, the "Bible", a collection of diverse writings, contains many diverging conceptions of God. Even the pentateuch, which is redacted from several source literary traditions, contains conceptions of God which conflict. The God of the Yahwist is not the same God as the God of the Elohist, is not the same God as that of P1, is not the same God.... Even so, this changes not the fact that the idea that there is a "God of the universe" which is the "Omni" God, arose, along with other conceptions of the nature of God, amongst the Israelites, as can be discerned within the Biblical texts. It is this conception of God that has come down to, and is embraced by the Jews of today.

It is this conception of God that has come down to, and is embraced by the Jews of today. — Michael Zwingli

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#:~:text=Rabbinic%20Judaism%20considers%20seven%20names,%5Bof%5D%20Hosts%22).

What evidence do you have about the “founders” intentions from 3,500 years ago? — Ennui Elucidator

Well, there’s plenty of testimonial evidence. The Bibles I’ve seen have Christ’s words printed in red ink. What is the proper assumption here? That those quotes are inaccurate or correct?

So far as I know, there is no “evidence” either way and the most we have is some writings from about 1,000 years later. — Ennui Elucidator

Ok, I’m fine with agreeing with that. So then the question is one of the accuracy of the writings of disciples. To me, if there was ever any indication that Abraham, for example, didn’t literally believe Yahweh created the world in 7 days it would have been mentioned. IOW’s, I take whatever religious text you want to use at face value. Trying to twist or interpret scriptural empirical claims as metaphor seems like a post-hoc attempt at justifying believing the claims when they stand in contradiction to agreed upon scientific facts. Maybe it isn’t, but that’s how it appears.

Is the argument that he is lying? Or that Jews don’t know who he is? That they disavowed him? That somehow every Jewish intellect that followed after him and acknowledge the non-literal nature of the Bible was just making it up? — Ennui Elucidator

No, the argument is that a handful of people interpreting a text a certain way doesn’t mean their interpretation is correct. This also obviously applies to literalist interpretations as well. So, the question is which interpretation is better justified? So, what actually is the justification for a non-literal interpretation? That it doesn’t jive with established scientific facts?

It is this conception of God that has come down to, and is embraced by the Jews of today. — Michael Zwingli

. According to whom? Sources. Pick any ya reference you want and trace it through time or refer to someone that has. I’ve already referred to Maimonides. Go read the 13 principles of faith (which were heretical in his time) and see which of those harkens to Ya. Do modern Jews accept his interpretation? Which Jews?

As the OP is about religion generally, not simply Biblical faiths, it might be worth considering the Buddhist ‘doctrine of two levels of truth’, absolute and relative.

The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths differentiates between two levels of satya (meaning ‘truth’, ‘reality’, ‘that which is’) in the teaching of the Buddha: the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.

The exact meaning varies between the various Buddhist schools and traditions. The best known interpretation is from the Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism, whose founder was Nāgārjuna. For Nāgārjuna, the two truths are epistemological in nature (what can be known). The phenomenal world is accorded a provisional existence. The character of the phenomenal world is declared to be neither real nor unreal, but logically indeterminable. Ultimately, phenomena are empty (sunya) of an inherent self or essence, but exist depending on other phenomena (Pratītyasamutpāda).[1]

In Chinese Buddhism, the Madhyamaka position is accepted and the two truths refer to two ontological truths (what is real). Reality exists of two levels, relative and absolute. …

The śūnyatā doctrine is an attempt to show that it is neither proper nor strictly justifiable to regard any metaphysical system as absolutely valid. It avoids nihilism (nothing is real) by striking a middle course between naivete and scepticism. — Adapted from Wikipedia

1. This has been referenced by physicist Carlo Rovelli in his latest book in support of the ‘relational interpretation’ of quantum physics.

Which Jews? — Ennui Elucidator

That's a very important question!

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-jewish-denominations/

So, what actually is the justification for a non-literal interpretation? — Pinprick

Everything for you is an argument. Who is justifying what to whom? Actual members of the religious community don’t have to justify to you. And internally, they may not justify to one another - they simply receive what has come before. The question is not WHY they believe what they do, but whether religious people accept that their sacred myths are allegorical and not historical. You made the claim that no religious group admits that their stories are not making factual claims. When shown evidence to the contrary, you want to argue about why they admit it and whether their admission qualifies according to your as-of-yet undisclosed standard.

Even your red ink in a book that I am not talking about is highlighted in red precisely because the editors of that volume wanted you to understand the book in a particular way that was not necessitated by the standards of those that came before. Read about Christian literalism and whether anyone cared about the “facts” of creation before a few hundred years ago.

P.S. Did you ever question why Luther translating the Bible into the vernacular was such a major deal? Random quote.

Other translations of Scripture besides the Latin Vulgate were available, but Luther’s Bible was arguably the best. His opponents however, prophesied that a vernacular translation of Scripture, which allowed anyone to read and interpret the Bible for him or herself, would mean the end of Christian unity: the church would split and there would be as many interpretations of Scripture as there are interpreters. In the wake of the Enlightenment and Romanticism, the ascent of human reason and emotion, Luther’s opponents were eerily accurate. Protestantism, as well as Lutheranism, is clearly fractured. Instead of the pope or the church councils lording over the Scriptures, now our own fancy has taken their place. Has access to the Scriptures really set us free? Or have we fled from one tyrant to another? Has the tyranny of the pope been replaced by the tyranny of our own reason, will, and emotion? — “Random Website”

That's a very important question! — Wheatley

I don’t think he cares, but maybe he will read about Jewish pluralism in the modern world. Much easier to simply treat “Jews” as a monolith. The synagogue he read that someone else doesn’t belong to is the Orthodox one (probably Chabad).

Funny because I was brought up ultra-orthodox. :grin:

There's also Yeshiva

https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Orthodox_Judaism

That too ^^

I’m glad you were amused. It is crazy how the religiously ignorant non-orthodox world has bought the orthodox sales pitch hook line and sinker. Just wait till you tell him about Midrash.

You tell him!

I can go through all of Judaism if you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

More stuff: link

One time I was answering some questions on halakha from non-Jews online and some people started yelling at me and asking me to disavow Jesus. It was so weird.

Can't help you with that. lol

If only. But maybe he will listen to you if you try to explain the non-literal parts of “Judaism” and the long history of reading the opposite of what the words say.