Fur-damentalists?

[Thoughtful Monk]

Apparently there are at least a few fundamentalists who maintain that every story Jesus told is literal history (the position is fairly common at least in the case of the Rich Man and Lazarus, with the argument that the usage of a real name makes it real). I wonder what such people make of Judges 9:8-15.

It is interesting that is the only parable where Jesus gave a participant a name. I have wondered if it is somehow related to the Lazarus who Jesus raised from the dead.

[KingsGambit]

It is interesting that is the only parable where Jesus gave a participant a name. I have wondered if it is somehow related to the Lazarus who Jesus raised from the dead.

Yes, and since my wording wasn't clear, I don't think that believing that this particular parable was a real event (for the reason you stated, as well as Abraham being a character) is unreasonable or a "fundamentalist" position. I don't personally think it was one as it doesn't seem all that compatible with other biblical data of the afterlife and there does seem to be some evidence it may have been a folk tale of the day, but it's perfectly plausible to think it was.

My strong disagreement is more with the idea that everything recorded in the Bible, regardless of genre, has to be taken as straightforward history.

[Sparko]

Apparently there are at least a few fundamentalists who maintain that every story Jesus told is literal history (the position is fairly common at least in the case of the Rich Man and Lazarus, with the argument that the usage of a real name makes it real). I wonder what such people make of Judges 9:8-15.

Jesus wasn't born in Judges. He didn't tell that story.

[KingsGambit]

Jesus wasn't born in Judges. He didn't tell that story.

Sorry, what I meant to say is that what I've heard was that everything recorded in the Bible literally happened, including the parables. But I didn't type it right.

[Cerebrum123]

Apparently there are at least a few fundamentalists who maintain that every story Jesus told is literal history (the position is fairly common at least in the case of the Rich Man and Lazarus, with the argument that the usage of a real name makes it real). I wonder what such people make of Judges 9:8-15.

I tend to think the Rich Man and Lazarus could be real history, but I think it is untenable to say all of the parables of Jesus were historical.

[KingsGambit]

I think it's a pretty bad line of reasoning to claim acting is equivalent to lying. It's like saying fiction/parables are wrong because none of it happened in reality. It's really just the same arguments that got recycled against film, TV, and video games. Every time a new medium for art is widely adopted it becomes a social boogeyman. Plays and actors apparently weren't exempt. Sure, some actors become degenerate, but so do people in other professions, especially if they become celebrities.

I'm not exactly a fan of Augustine, outside of a few insights here and there I find many of his arguments to be poorly thought out. The whole thing about "false emotions" is a really weak argument too. How can you claim someone else's emotions are "false"? Are emotions a result of acting? Could it not be that acting is allowing people to express their true emotions more accurately for others? Those are rhetorical, but I'm going to give my answers.

You can't claim someone else's emotions are "false" unless you have evidence they are lying. If you don't have that then saying the emotions aren't there or are "false" is at best ignorance, and is very close to, if not gaslighting.

A good actor can cause emotions, yes. And yes, an actor can portray false emotions. This does not mean an actor can cause false emotions in others. Causing emotions in others is true of any medium of art. A good painter can get you to feel emotions looking at their art, a good poet can get you to feel emotions reading their poems, and a good writer will get you to feel real emotions and attachments to the characters, even if they and their situation is not real. Stories like that have allowed me to learn about other people and myself. Without storytelling and acting none of that would have been possible for me to reach the level of understanding I have now.

Yes, learning to act can help you express your real emotions. I'm autistic, and in my case I have a hard time showing my emotions and have a rather flat affect. In order for people to understand my emotions I have to "act" in a way that other people understand to be in line with said emotions. My default state is perceived as something different to what I feel internally. I've been told I look sad/mad/upset etc. when I'm not even feeling anything at all. I don't have any training in acting, but it's not needed for it to count as "acting".

As a counter to the positives of acting that I mention acting can also be harmful, and I know that all too well. I've been hiding a lot of my autistic traits, and a lot of my emotions partly as a defense, and partly out of a fear of rejection. In fact I've been masking so long that I have a hard differentiating what is due to masking, and what isn't. So, acting can hide real emotions, or show ones that aren't really there. I'm working on not doing that any more. Not only can it be considered dishonest*, but it's exhausting physically, emotionally, and mentally. The real problem here is in how acting is used, but not that it exists.



Sports is just one more medium of entertainment, and while I don't like sports I'm not going to hold it against a person who does like them. Well, as long as they aren't being hypocritical and will realize that disliking sports is valid. The more reasonable fans are going to have fun going to a game whether their team wins or loses, face paint or no face paint, in the stadium or watching on TV. Sure, if your team loses it's understandable to be a bit disappointed. I don't think it should go much beyond that so long as there was no foul play involved. If foul play is involved I think anger is a pretty natural response. Even that should be kept to a minimum.

*Even in though the case I mention is autistic masking, everyone does this to some degree. You can't be 100% honest with every little detail at all times. Figuring out which details are harmful to omit/hide and which are harmful to tell isn't easy, but is necessary to be able to have any kind of lasting relationship. The issue is not as black and white as I once believed.

I think in this case, he had detected that he had been poorly spiritually impacted from his past theater attendance pre-conversion, and did correctly note that there were some problems there, but maybe went too far to extrapolate that it was wrong for everyone. You might see that today from a new convert who had been watching trashy movies and tehn went out and declared that all movies were wrong for everyone. (I've been looking for our copy of the Confessions and can't find it, but I will admit that I'm not a big fan of Augustine either.)

I agree with your analysis that at its best, drama can help us more fully appreciate the human experience, just like good literature can, and the existence of inappropriate books doesn't erase that. Your example of your personal life is a good one, but even beyond that, it's easy to see how we can get benefits from watching plays and learning (Shakespeare's Julius Caesar has excellent insights on how power corrupts and how good intentions do not justify bad actions), but there's also a sense of teamwork from the act of making a play. (The same could be said for a possible benefit of participating in team sports.)

[Cerebrum123]

I think in this case, he had detected that he had been poorly spiritually impacted from his past theater attendance pre-conversion, and did correctly note that there were some problems there, but maybe went too far to extrapolate that it was wrong for everyone. You might see that today from a new convert who had been watching trashy movies and tehn went out and declared that all movies were wrong for everyone. (I've been looking for our copy of the Confessions and can't find it, but I will admit that I'm not a big fan of Augustine either.)

That sounds rather plausible. Augustine also seems like the kind to do that kind of thing based on what I've read of his works. I think more people need to learn "I don't like X" or "X was bad for me" doesn't mean it should be banned. There was a person over in the UK who campaigned against the "video nasties", which with her definition ruled out nearly all movies. She admitted that she didn't even watch any of the movies or shows she complained about. She wanted to stop shows like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Dr. Who. Both of which are pretty benign.

I agree with your analysis that at its best, drama can help us more fully appreciate the human experience, just like good literature can, and the existence of inappropriate books doesn't erase that. Your example of your personal life is a good one, but even beyond that, it's easy to see how we can get benefits from watching plays and learning (Shakespeare's Julius Caesar has excellent insights on how power corrupts and how good intentions do not justify bad actions), but there's also a sense of teamwork from the act of making a play. (The same could be said for a possible benefit of participating in team sports.)

I gave the personal examples because it is more concrete than something as basic as "people can learn from X" which is true of literally everything. Even if it is just what not to do. I think these benefits can be gained from every artistic medium to some degree. Some are better than others for certain things. Books and literature often work better for learning on your own, plays, sports, and video games can help you learn to work as a team. All of them have valuable lessons that can be taught, even if not all of the individual works are good. Paintings, sculptures, and other similar works have their own merits too.