Hacker News Reader

Comment by janlin1999 | Hacker News Reader

janlin1999

> To be clear, I'm Christian now, as of August. I take the Bible seriously now. But to be extra clear, I believe it's all metaphor.

Isn't that an odd position to take when parts of the Bible insist that it is not metaphorical? (e.g. Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15 about why he believes in Jesus' bodily resurrection and his conclusion that "If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.") I can understand those who believe the Bible to be true (mixed in with some metaphor) and I can understand those who do not believe it to be true. It seems odd, though, to believe that it is entirely metaphorical and decide to take it seriously, given some of what it says.

In Romans 7, Paul makes the argument that he cannot set himself free from sin and he needs God. If you believe the Bible is entirely metaphorical but take it seriously, do you believe you are setting yourself free?

View on HN

I realized I may not have directly addressed your comment, and I definitely didn't address your last question. In reverse order,

I do believe God is the one setting me free. God, in my view, is at least (and maybe more) a cultural spirit we have inherited. Much of the condition I've been born and raised into was not my choice, God included. I believe I am recognizing and embracing that which is a part of me, and a part of the Christian West in general, at least. Something I've ignored or resisted for most of my life.

With respect to the specific claims of the reality of the legends and metaphors, I try act as if God is real and Christ was resurrected, sure. But I'm not burdened by the question of the nature of the god of Job, for example. It's clear to me that that story is about dealing with tragedy, when it feels like God and Satan are conspiring against you.

Thanks for your comments. It would certainly be hard for me to share as openly as you have here.

I understand from your comments that you have turned to some concept of God (cultural inheritance) in order to find meaning in your life. Different people find meaning in different ideas, people, projects, etc. I don't mean to belabor the point, but I think you have invested meaning in a set of writings that explicitly say that they are meaningless (or worse than harmless) unless certain key parts are historically true, and you explicitly deny the historicity of those parts.

As I have understood your situation, it's a little like a cancer patient being presented with several different options, all with varying probabilities of success and none with any guarantee. After much research and deliberation, the patient knowingly chooses the placebo option. There are obviously some benefits to the placebo option; it just seems that most people in that situation wouldn't choose that option. If you're interested in talking more synchronously, I can be reached via contact information in my profile.

I do believe it is extraordinarily likely that the Bible describes a legendary account about real events or people (and their beliefs) from time to time.

With respect to resurrection there is no end of depth to be extracted from the theme. As a general summary, Christianity introduced the notion to the world that one could even be redeemed at all. When someone returns from the pit of nihilism and jealousy and transforms themselves into a person that faces the world forthrightly, you bet your ass I believe in Resurrection of the Dead. Not the least of which because aforementioned nihilism is a key source of suicide and violent crime. But even metaphorically, there is no life in the pit of nihilism, of hell. When people describe hell as maximal distance from God, what they are saying is true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com