Why Tell Fiction Stories to Teach Real Lessons?

[humblehumility]

(this thread is for apologists)

For example:

Most apologists will say the Great Flood wasn't really a worldwide flood like they'll say there was never a talking snake that deceived a guy named 'Adam'. Apparently these are just literary "stories" to teach us critical lessons about our lives and psyche. (But once we get to the New Testament, the stories that break the laws of physics suddenly become non-fiction).

...Why not just teach us directly with real, factual knowledge? Why the need to translate these things into childish stories that people with child-like minds believe? God created us to be intellectual, does he not respect us enough to speak to us on intellectual terms?

The main answer I see coming is "Because the stories accentuate and greatly emphasize the message that's being sent." To me, logically, the best way to get a point across is simply by saying it. God NEVER says the stories in the Bible are fictional, so why think so? What leap must be made?

Another response I feel coming is "Look at the context/era the Bible was written in, and to the people it was written to." So...the Bible was only written for early, undeveloped homo sapiens? What about us here and now? We have science, technology, and superior intellect (in comparison to our ancestors). Is there anything for us? Why do humans thousands of years ago deserve direct evidence of God (incarnation, miracles, Noah/Moses, tons of people like that) but we don't?

 

[oi_antz]

(this thread is for apologists)

For example:

Most apologists will say the Great Flood wasn't really a worldwide flood like they'll say there was never a talking snake that deceived a guy named 'Adam'. Apparently these are just literary "stories" to teach us critical lessons about our lives and psyche. (But once we get to the New Testament, the stories that break the laws of physics suddenly become non-fiction).

...Why not just teach us directly with real, factual knowledge? Why the need to translate these things into childish stories that people with child-like minds believe? God created us to be intellectual, does he not respect us enough to speak to us on intellectual terms?

The main answer I see coming is "Because the stories accentuate and greatly emphasize the message that's being sent." To me, logically, the best way to get a point across is simply by saying it. God NEVER says the stories in the Bible are fictional, so why think so? What leap must be made?

Another response I feel coming is "Look at the context/era the Bible was written in, and to the people it was written to." So...the Bible was only written for early, undeveloped homo sapiens? What about us here and now? We have science, technology, and superior intellect (in comparison to our ancestors). Is there anything for us? Why do humans thousands of years ago deserve direct evidence of God (incarnation, miracles, Noah/Moses, tons of people like that) but we don't?

The book is meant to give us faith in God. If you don't believe what it says then you are rejecting the offer. Simple as that. Either you believe it or you don't. Allegory and hyperbole are a cop-out excuse for those who aren't brave enough to read the text seriously (not to say that such interpretations aren't valuable). Sometimes these people resort to manipulation to net believers (remember, the church is a commercial institution). I believe Moses was an honest man. I believe Luke was an honest man. I believe Paul was an honest man. I believe we are all capable of being honest, but I believe that not everyone who claims to speak the truth is being honest in what they think is true. Jesus did, that is why He went to the cross, He would not lie about what He thought was right (He thought He was the messiah and that He had to die to be raised again, thereby conquering death). Do you think Jesus took the bible seriously or do you think He believed it was fictional? Do you think we should take our example from Jesus or some apologist who doesn't even believe the bible?

 

[ebia]

(this thread is for apologists)

But this forum is not for apologetics

For example:

Most apologists will say the Great Flood wasn't really a worldwide flood like they'll say there was never a talking snake that deceived a guy named 'Adam'. Apparently these are just literary "stories" to teach us critical lessons about our lives and psyche.

...Why not just teach us directly with real, factual knowledge? Why the need to translate these things into childish stories that people with child-like minds believe? God created us to be intellectual, does he not respect us enough to speak to us on intellectual terms?

Most cultures have rightly realized that stories are an incredibly powerful pedagogical tool - probably The most powerful. Stories challenge and change the way people think. Telling people facts is a very weak pedagogical method. We happen to live in a world that knows the second (at least educators do) but has still largely forgotten the first. I use stories to teach; I wish I were a better storyteller because it would make me a better teacher. Some sorts of teaching like that which forms identity, character, culture and values are much better explored through story. Want to think about the nature of war - read the Iliad, Joshua, some 1st World War poetry...

Additionally, in a pre-literate society stories can preserve teaching and pass it on in a way that is otherwise very difficult without written records.

In summary: storytelling is sound pedagogy that has stood the test of time better than any other.

(But once we get to the New Testament, the stories that break the laws of physics suddenly become non-fiction).

Life isn't that simple. All stories - whether founded in real events or not - are told for a purpose and the telling is shaped by that purpose. Luke's Gospel, say, is about events that really happened but the way that Luke tells it is finely crafted theological narrative not a neutral chronology of facts. Read 1 Samuel 12; Nathan's parable is a telling of real events (David's appalling treatment of Uriah), but told in a parabolic way. The parable of the two brothers and welcoming father is describing the event that is happening then and there - hence the open ending about the elder brother's response.

The main answer I see coming is "Because the stories accentuate and greatly emphasize the message that's being sent." To me, logically, the best way to get a point across is simply by saying it. God NEVER says the stories in the Bible are fictional, so why think so? What leap must be made?

factual is not a default mode of speaking, even in our culture which way more obsessed with facts over anything else than any other.

Another response I feel coming is "Look at the context/era the Bible was written in, and to the people it was written to." So...the Bible was only written for early, undeveloped homo sapiens?

any text needs you to think about the original audience. What were their questions that needed answering? What were their literary conventions? What was their assumed prior knowledge? And so forth.

What about us here and now? We have science, technology, and superior intellect (in comparison to our ancestors).

our intellect is much the same. We've done more to develop it in certain ways - at the expense of others.

Is there anything for us? Why do humans thousands of years ago deserve direct evidence of God (incarnation, miracles, Noah/Moses, tons of people like that) but we don't?

most people have not have that even within the biblical history

 

[Paul.]

Most apologists will say the Great Flood wasn't really a worldwide flood

Since most of the apologetics textbooks I have come across do not fit into this mould that you mention, I am not convinced your premise is correct. Would you mind providing some examples?

Why do humans thousands of years ago deserve direct evidence of God (incarnation, miracles, Noah/Moses, tons of people like that) but we don't?

Do you say we don't get direct evidence of God with the miraculous because you believe the God of the Bible has said He will no longer do it or because you don't know of anyone whose word you would find creditable, that has experienced it? I could tell you things from my own family, friends and church but I don't think that you would consider my claims of experience to be creditable evidence.

 

[Mr Dave]

Why Tell Fiction Stories to Teach Real Lessons?

Because that's how the ancient Hebrews did things. Because people like stories and much information can be conveyed through them. Because in a mostly illiterate society, information is passed orally so a story is easier to remember to tell and easier to hear than an extended theological essay. Because stories unite communities, people would come to listen to people stories, telling them would be an event where the community came together to hear the story teller.

 

[ebia]

And, of course, because stories are fun.

 

[drich0150]

(this thread is for apologists)

For example:

Most apologists will say the Great Flood wasn't really a worldwide flood like they'll say there was never a talking snake that deceived a guy named 'Adam'. Apparently these are just literary "stories" to teach us critical lessons about our lives and psyche. (But once we get to the New Testament, the stories that break the laws of physics suddenly become non-fiction).

I believe that you assessment is incorrect. It is been my experience that Most Christian apologists, believe in the creation account and the great flood as a non fiction. It is those who do not believe in a All mighty God that have to reconcile these accounts with popular belief.

...Why not just teach us directly with real, factual knowledge?

Do you have an example where factual knowledge is not used?

Why the need to translate these things into childish stories that people with child-like minds believe?

Just because we teach these "stories" to our children does not make them childish.

God created us to be intellectual, does he not respect us enough to speak to us on intellectual terms?

This statement seems indicate that you over value your own intellect. Which is exactly why "these stories" are written in the way they were. To understand God we must humble ourselves to His words, His Expressed will, and deed. We must come to Him on His terms. It is not the other way around. For those who tend to over value themselves, God has hidden Himself, and His wisdom in the things that such a person would dismiss. Why because God hates a proud heart, and will nt coincide with one.

The main answer I see coming is "Because the stories accentuate and greatly emphasize the message that's being sent." To me, logically, the best way to get a point across is simply by saying it. God NEVER says the stories in the Bible are fictional, so why think so? What leap must be made?

Another response I feel coming is "Look at the context/era the Bible was written in, and to the people it was written to." So...the Bible was only written for early, undeveloped homo sapiens? What about us here and now? We have science, technology, and superior intellect (in comparison to our ancestors). Is there anything for us? Why do humans thousands of years ago deserve direct evidence of God (incarnation, miracles, Noah/Moses, tons of people like that) but we don't?

Again no, We are to goto God on his terms. His terms are simply written, because no matter what our proud hearts would fool us into believing, we are the simple minded beings that need simple stories/accounts to even have a chance of understanding them. Look at your own questions about creation and the flood. From what I remember you had a fairly difficult time understanding what was truly being communicated.

God has chosen simple and foolish things to confound the wisdom/wise of this world. In an effort to show them the humble/humility they need to find Him.

 

[solarwave]

Most apologists will say the Great Flood wasn't really a worldwide flood like they'll say there was never a talking snake that deceived a guy named 'Adam'. Apparently these are just literary "stories" to teach us critical lessons about our lives and psyche. (But once we get to the New Testament, the stories that break the laws of physics suddenly become non-fiction).

I might not be such a sudden jump from non-literal to literal history, but you say it as if such a change would be weird. do you really find it that unbelievable for such a change to happen in a book that is made up of many other books?

...Why not just teach us directly with real, factual knowledge? Why the need to translate these things into childish stories that people with child-like minds believe? God created us to be intellectual, does he not respect us enough to speak to us on intellectual terms?

Is it your belief then that non-religious people never use stories to get a message across? It would seem to me that this is not the case. Nietzsche would seem like a good example.

The main answer I see coming is "Because the stories accentuate and greatly emphasize the message that's being sent." To me, logically, the best way to get a point across is simply by saying it. God NEVER says the stories in the Bible are fictional, so why think so? What leap must be made?

But stories can help us get outside of our normal experience to think about the world in a different way. Fictions are used in ethics essays to help us better understand why we say one thing is good but another which is only slightly different is wrong, for example.

Another response I feel coming is "Look at the context/era the Bible was written in, and to the people it was written to." So...the Bible was only written for early, undeveloped homo sapiens? What about us here and now? We have science, technology, and superior intellect (in comparison to our ancestors). Is there anything for us? Why do humans thousands of years ago deserve direct evidence of God (incarnation, miracles, Noah/Moses, tons of people like that) but we don't?

Well the writers of the Bible were writing for their age, yes. I think the issue is more complicated or subtle than how you see it.

 

[razeontherock]

In answer to the question in the title - if you can think of a better way to do it, go right ahead. Any attempt you can make will have to influence the whole world over the next 2000 years, so any claims of success you might make will take a while to come in. You might contemplate the greatness of the Man that is the central figure of the Gospels, sometime ...

 

[golgotha61]

(this thread is for apologists)

For example:

Most apologists will say the Great Flood wasn't really a worldwide flood like they'll say there was never a talking snake that deceived a guy named 'Adam'. Apparently these are just literary "stories" to teach us critical lessons about our lives and psyche. (But once we get to the New Testament, the stories that break the laws of physics suddenly become non-fiction).

I am going to call this first statement totally unfounded. Most apologists? You are going to have to qualify "most" and list those apologists since in my studies, that is an erroneous statement.

...Why not just teach us directly with real, factual knowledge? Why the need to translate these things into childish stories that people with child-like minds believe? God created us to be intellectual, does he not respect us enough to speak to us on intellectual terms?

The literature of the Bible is partially comprised of narrative, historicity, law, poetry, and prophecy. Each genre is used for a specific purpose and requires study to interpret along with the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit. God created us to worship and glorify Him and to enjoy Him for eternity. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where we as the sinful creation deserve respect from The Holy God. What He has given us is a Savior and we do not deserve Him.

The main answer I see coming is "Because the stories accentuate and greatly emphasize the message that's being sent." To me, logically, the best way to get a point across is simply by saying it. God NEVER says the stories in the Bible are fictional, so why think so? What leap must be made?

Only a portion of the Bible narratives are allegories, similes, proverbs, or metaphors. The rest is pretty straight forward and simply put. IE "John 14:6 (MSG) 6 Jesus said, "I am the Road, also the Truth, also the Life. No one gets to the Father apart from me." In order to interpret the Bible correctly, you need to employ proper hermeneutics and read the Bible inductively.






Another response I feel coming is "Look at the context/era the Bible was written in, and to the people it was written to." So...the Bible was only written for early, undeveloped homo sapiens? What about us here and now? We have science, technology, and superior intellect (in comparison to our ancestors). Is there anything for us? Why do humans thousands of years ago deserve direct evidence of God (incarnation, miracles, Noah/Moses, tons of people like that) but we don't?

We have the direct evidence of Christ's resurrection give to us in the gospel accounts, two of which are eyewitness accounts. As far as demanding miraculous evidences on top what God has already given, let me give another straight forward Bible verse:
Matthew 12:39a (MSG) 39 Jesus said, "You're looking for proof, but you're looking for the wrong kind. All you want is something to titillate your curiosity, satisfy your lust for miracles."

 

[ebia]

We have the direct evidence of Christ's resurrection give to us in the gospel accounts, two of which are eyewitness accounts. As far as demanding miraculous evidences on top what God has already given, let me give another straight forward Bible verse:
Matthew 12:39a (MSG) 39 Jesus said, "You're looking for proof, but you're looking for the wrong kind. All you want is something to titillate your curiosity, satisfy your lust for miracles."

Not often you see The Message quoted around here.