rameumptom Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Here's a great cartoon that deals with literalism and metaphor in the Bible. Biblical+Literalism+cartoon.jpg (image)It definitely puts sola scriptura into a new light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 This could be a great discussion topic. I think most here are literalists, but there are also those who take both a metaphorical and allegorical approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthSeekerToo Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Oh my goodness, that was so cute! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I thought it was awesome that it mentioned talking donkeys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Okay...just to burst the bubble (and it was a funny bubble)...that command was specific to the rich young man. Jesus discerned that he put his trust in his money more than God. Nobody in that story gave all they had to follow Jesus, and no one else was asked to...well Peter did give his life...so, no that was not a universal command, and a literalist can reach that conclusion without falling back on it being metaphorical. But yeah...hilarious cartoon, nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Okay...just to burst the bubble (and it was a funny bubble)...that command was specific to the rich young man. Jesus discerned that he put his trust in his money more than God. Nobody in that story gave all they had to follow Jesus, and no one else was asked to...well Peter did give his life...so, no that was not a universal command, and a literalist can reach that conclusion without falling back on it being metaphorical. Excellent point. I mean, think about how that part about "being your brother's keeper" would affect us all, if not for being limited to the first family. Yikes, people would cite that in trying to justify health care for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Okay...just to burst the bubble (and it was a funny bubble)...that command was specific to the rich young man. Jesus discerned that he put his trust in his money more than God. Nobody in that story gave all they had to follow Jesus, and no one else was asked to...well Peter did give his life...so, no that was not a universal command, and a literalist can reach that conclusion without falling back on it being metaphorical.But yeah...hilarious cartoon, nonetheless.From a Latter-day Saint perspective, I think the commandment the Lord gave the rich young man is indeed universal -- at least, universal to all endowed Saints, in the sense that we are merely stewards of what the Lord owns and will account to him for our actions. A Latter-day Saint ought to be prepared at any moment to give everything s/he owns to the Church (or the poor, or whoever) for the furthering of the work of God. It's one of our covenants.If your bishop called you in this evening and told you to sign over your house, your car(s), and everything you own to the Church, would you do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted November 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Okay...just to burst the bubble (and it was a funny bubble)...that command was specific to the rich young man. Jesus discerned that he put his trust in his money more than God. Nobody in that story gave all they had to follow Jesus, and no one else was asked to...well Peter did give his life...so, no that was not a universal command, and a literalist can reach that conclusion without falling back on it being metaphorical.But yeah...hilarious cartoon, nonetheless.You may be right that the command wasn't intended to be universal. However, talking donkeys weren't meant to be universal either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Excellent point. I mean, think about how that part about "being your brother's keeper" would affect us all, if not for being limited to the first family. Yikes, people would cite that in trying to justify health care for all. Taxes are not charity or love. Reality is people of faith, and conservatives as a group, are well above average in giving and volunteering. You don't have to be a socialist to care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 If your bishop called you in this evening and told you to sign over your house, your car(s), and everything you own to the Church, would you do it? If God, or his emissary told me to do so, I would. So, in that sense, sure. But, in this particular passage, Jesus is dealing directly with one person. So, the general command is to do what Jesus says, no matter what he says...and to that I say amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 You may be right that the command wasn't intended to be universal. However, talking donkeys weren't meant to be universal either. I'm wondering if I've sinned by finding this rather open political pot shot to be rather humorous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 If God, or his emissary told me to do so, I would. So, in that sense, sure. But, in this particular passage, Jesus is dealing directly with one person. So, the general command is to do what Jesus says, no matter what he says...and to that I say amen.Agreed. And my question was not directed toward you, PC, but toward those Latter-day Saints who have covenanted to do, in effect, as Christ directed the rich young man to do. I am curious how seriously Latter-day Saints take that covenant, and how many of them would willingly give up everything they "own" if directed to do so by one properly authorized to give such instruction. I fear the answer is, "Not very many," but I hope I am wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'm wondering if I've sinned by finding this rather open political pot shot to be rather humorous? I find it humorous, but not in a laugh-out-loud way. I know many Christians of various denominations, including Latter-day Saints, who get quite worked up over issues like evolution, and who insist on a level of literalism in reading the Bible that would probably have been dismissed by the ancients themselves as childish -- yet who pinch a nickel until it screams and would likely never consent to dividing their property among the lazy, undeserving nogoodnicks who sit around all day waiting for their government check to arrive.For such people, religion ceases to be a battle for self-improvement and a sanctuary from the fleshy, money-grubbing concerns of the world, and instead becomes a structure for reinforcing their preexistent worldview and prejudices. I personally believe that Christ had exactly such behaviors in mind when he condemned as "hypocrites" those who lived outwardly religious and even pious lives, but who in reality sought to cover their sins, not abandon them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.