How do you know that it was not originally intended ? People who use religious texts as metaphors are welcome to do so, personally I think that there are better texts to mine for such wisdom, but you are welcome if you wish.

However to see them as "originally intended" in any way, supposes an almost psychic understanding of the minds of people long dead, and is an example of the "golden age" fallacy. The one thing that we can say for certain about people in the past is that they were in no way different from us, except perhaps in their lack of education in spheres such as science. Most, if not nearly all, texts written by people today, including those ill educated in science, are not intended as meaningfully metaphorical. Especially not in gutter press red top publications, from the equivalent of which the bible almost certainly obtains most of its content, ( That is not a pychic judgement, the trashy content betrays that.) and which the Koran then plagiarizes. The golden age fallacy is one of the main pillars of literal belief, and by supporting, it even to justify metaphorical interpretations, a great deal of support is given to those who use biblical literalism to promote misunderstanding and the exploitation of others, by lending weight to the stupid idea, almost universal among believers, that old texts are in some way hallowed and therefore better than modern writing.

@Fernapple
You'll notice I placed quotes around the word "intended" to alert the reader that I was using the word in a way other than the most conventional understanding. I'm sure nobody has any way of knowing what was in the conscious minds of the ancient writers, but by observing similarities across sacred texts of different cultures and different times, it becomes pretty clear that the messages were coming, at least in part, from the "collective unconscious". And the unconscious mind, collective or otherwise, speaks in metaphor. So if not "intended" by the individual writer, it does appear to be "intended" by the species, so to speak. People don't always know why they are writing or speaking or singing or painting what they express, but out it comes, and we are left to make sense of it the best way we can.

What makes the most sense to me, considering that certain themes kept emerging from different cultures isolated in time or distance from one another, is that they came from a common source, and the only common source I can see is human DNA. Human DNA doesn't speak in literal English, or Greek, or Aramaic - it speaks in images. Metaphoric images. Symbols. And then people record those subliminal intimations in their local language with local cultural embellishments and prejudices.

From Joseph Campbell:

"For some reason which I have not yet found anywhere explained, the popular, unenlightened practice of prosaic reification of metaphoric imagery has been the fundamental method of the most influential exegetes of the whole Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythic complex. The idea of the virgin birth, for example, is argued as a historical fact, whereas in practically every mythology of the world instances have appeared of this elementary idea. American Indian mythologies abound in virgin births. Therefore, the intended reference of the archetypal image cannot possibly have been to a supposed occurrence in the Near East in the first century B.C. The elementary idea, likewise, of the Promised Land cannot originally have referred to a part of this earth to be conquered by military might, but to a place of spiritual peace in the heart, to be discovered by contemplation. Creation myths, furthermore, which, when read in their mystical sense might bring to mind the idea of a background beyond time out of which the whole temporal world with its colorful populations has been derived, when read, instead, historically, only justify as supernaturally endowed the moral order of some local culture.”
~Joseph Campbell
"The Inner Reaches Of Outer Space"

.

As far as support is concerned, I support whatever appears to me to be true, and worry about where the chips fall later. But I also speak consistently and firmly against religious literalism, not only because I think it is erroneous, nonsensical, and potentially dangerous in itself, but even more because I believe it influences otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people to reject wholesale our authentic common narrative, which appears to me to be the only indelible seed of peace.

@skado Good answer thank you. And yes I too have found such metaphors in writings common to all humanity, and enjoyed the study of some of them. Especially the classical Greek and Roman stories, but the all important distinction is that those come to us from a dead culture, and are usually classified as myths, and it is very important to make that distinction between the two, since it would be impossible to promote any part of a living culture in any way without endorsing that culture. St Augustine took the bible as a deep metaphor in his personal view, and yet his influence on theology was used to justify much literalism, and many of the crimes against humanity committed by the church. While Christianity remains a living religion it is dangerous in the extreme to glorify its mythology, without using the myth word rather than religion. Especially so when there are plenty of other and often better mythologies to mine.

Moreover the fact that a metaphor is part of a collective conciousness does not mean that it is good or leads to good conclusions. In the Oedipus myth for example, Oedipus slays his father and then goes on to commit incest with his mother, fathering children who are destined to great misfortune, the central metaphor of the story being that one crime or sin places a permanent stain on the person which leads to other crimes and can be inherited, and there is no doubt that idea is a fundamental part of the human mindset to which we all instinctively respond. Yet that does not make it a good idea. And when people talk of religion rather than myth, there is a real risk of dignifying such ideas, with a name which many people revere.

Nor is it true to my mind, this is more oppinion than history, that all collective conciousness and common myth comes directly from human DNA, that ignores the fact that culture alone, will and can have a creative impact. The idea of inheritance for example is a common cultural idea, yet except at the most basic level, it could not have existed in precultural species, and therefore the over reverencing of culture even as a whole can and does promote many errors.

@Fernapple
I suppose, at some point, some of these issues just become a matter of personal preference, and must be held or discarded according to what is most meaningful to the individual. I'm not here to say my way is the only right approach. But I do think it can be mutually beneficial to share our reasoning as to how we arrive at the positions we hold. So, in that spirit, I'll add these thoughts.

To start with, I don't think all risk is avoidable. Neither Augustine nor I can control how others use, abuse, or distort our words, so the question then becomes, will I remain silent while the living culture in which I am immersed is raped by ignorance, or will I do my part, however minuscule, to illuminate the facts, even at the risk of being identified by my fellows as being a voice for the very forces I am opposing? A greater risk, in my opinion, would be to allow the opposition to dominate and command the entire social mechanism by which our species inspires itself to higher purpose.

As far as I am concerned, religion and mythology are the same thing essentially. I believe it was also Joseph Campbell who said mythology is just other people's religion. But the word religion has secular utility as well. It's not uncommon to hear phrases like "He plays golf religiously every Saturday." We all know what that means. It suggests devotion. It is simply not reasonable or tolerable to allow the ignorati to despoil useful culture that rightfully belongs to the commons. To support the healthy, innate systems of symbolic communication in no way glorifies its thieves.

Of course not everything that oozes from the subconscious is a good idea to take as a literal directive. And certainly, DNA doesn't spell the specifics of any culture; just that we will generate culture. So... since the existence of culture is a given, but the health of it is not... I see no alternative but to assume that the job of cultural reform must be accepted as a permanent maintenance responsibility. There has never been, and will never likely be, a religion-free human population. Our choice is between allowing religion to continue to fester by non-involvement, or to get our hands dirty with the task of reclaiming and renewing our "spiritual" inheritance. And in order to do that, it is the earnest and well-informed who must own its language; not the con-men and looters.

@Fernapple
That's right. I think we just like and dislike certain words, but our values are not so different. It's good that no two people are exactly alike, or the the culture would surely stagnate then! I tend to use the word culture in a more anthropological way like this description from Wikipedia"

"Culture is considered a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the range of phenomena that are transmitted through social learning in human societies. Cultural universals are found in all human societies; these include expressive forms like art, music, dance, ritual, religion, and technologies like tool usage, cooking, shelter, and clothing. The concept of material culture covers the physical expressions of culture, such as technology, architecture and art, whereas the immaterial aspects of culture such as principles of social organization (including practices of political organization and social institutions), mythology, philosophy, literature (both written and oral), and science comprise the intangible cultural heritage of a society."

"The modern term "culture" is based on a term used by the Ancient Roman orator Cicero in his Tusculanae Disputationes, where he wrote of a cultivation of the soul or "cultura animi," using an agricultural metaphor for the development of a philosophical soul, understood teleologically as the highest possible ideal for human development. Samuel Pufendorf took over this metaphor in a modern context, meaning something similar, but no longer assuming that philosophy was man's natural perfection. His use, and that of many writers after him, "refers to all the ways in which human beings overcome their original barbarism, and through artifice, become fully human."

If we think of the word 'reform' as meaning 'bringing something into some final perfect condition,' then I don't expect that to ever happen. But culture is constantly re-forming... though, like mowing the lawn, it is a job that will never be finished. And human ideas do influence which way the culture will evolve. It is the work of influential thinkers, writers, artists, philosophers, statesmen, merchants, and according to anthropological definitions, scientists, who will forge the next iteration of a given cultural norm. It will never be static for long. Our only options are to "keep mowing" or let it all go to weeds.

@skado Very interesting. Have to go now but will try to reply when I can.

True.

The only hell that exists is the ignorant present company of believers who voted TrumpOLINI turning up the pollution temperature of poison earth

Please don't post spoilers.

Exactly.

Yes.

People invent the fictions and terrors of religion....the entire idea of a creator of something out of nothing is stupid beyond measure

Love that response. I'd have a hard time being kind about that.

@Biblebeltskeptic Yeah, me too sometimes. Building bridges is always harder than burning them.

That's good you're not bothered by it.

Better than being a mindless drone forced to be happy, while loved ones are burning in hell.

The White House or Betsy deVos DEPARTMENT of Education? 2 hells on earth busy burning truth for greedy lies

@GreenAtheist haha. I was thinking more along the lines of other religions, but sure, hell is whatever you believe it to be right?