While it is often the works themselves that are celebrated – paintings, literature, music or any other medium of art that one can imagine – it is the messages contained within those works that transcend the works’ form and can potentially become a testament to some greater underlying human condition or characteristic. These universally applicable messages masked in a seemingly unrelated context are known as metaphors, and they can be quite powerful when used effectively.

The Bible is the most popular book of all time. This has both admirable and grave implications. Religious texts, art, etc., are not meant to be interpreted literally. Instead, these works are laden with metaphors that connect us to some broader widespread human attribute or state.

It is clear that there are common concepts that all humans share and can relate to. Among these are oneness with self, nature, the moment and a curious underlying compassion that appears to be rooted into even our most primal of instincts. Many religious works, for example the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci, seem to be in one way or another alluding to this.

Famed mythologist Joseph Campbell describes religion as a popular misunderstanding of mythology. He is not undermining its value, but rather clarifying that religious works are myths rather than accurate accounts of history. That is to say, Noah never built an arc nor did Mary actually have a virgin birth, much in the same way that Jack did not actually climb a beanstalk to the sky and Humpty Dumpty didn’t actually fall off a wall.  Instead these myths are vehicles by which profound messages are delivered. Religious works themselves shouldn’t be the focus of interpretation, but instead the messages contained within those works.

Once it has been established that religious works are myths, they can be interpreted for their strengths, rather than misinterpreted by their weaknesses. It’s apparent that there are common motifs, which seem to capture something inherently unique about the human species. These broad themes can be difficult to properly capture in the context of a literary analysis, hence why they’re often alluded to in myth form. Humans are able to appreciate the inherent beauty of seemingly ordinary things, even at the least beautiful of times. You are as much of a part of everything around you as any other thing is, i.e., being in a building does not entail being removed from nature. Everything is a part of everything. This perception appears to be rooted in some universal link between humans rather than as a result of a social construct.

The metaphors within myths influence people’s moral guidelines and shape the way they conduct their lives. Accordingly, blind and literal devotion to religious texts like the Bible can have disastrous consequences. To me, religious works like the Bible are analogous to Aesop’s Fables. Both are filled with metaphors and parables, many of them quite uplifting and inspiring, though some are more serious.

A discrepancy exists however. You’d be checked into a mental hospital for burning someone’s house down if you tried to defend it by saying that the Big Bad Wolf did so in the Three Little Pigs, yet it’s culturally acceptable for religious people to defend their opinions – particularly their opinions on social issues – using a literal interpretation of the Bible. For example, take protests at the funerals of gay American soldiers – granted, they’re taboo but these protests are still held regularly.

It’s comical how similar religious works like the Bible are to cartoons. The Simpsons is intended to make you laugh, but not to try to convince you that Homer and the rest of the characters are actually real people. The Bible is meant to impart tidbits of wisdom, a way to make sense of the things that underlie us all; it’s not meant to be interpreted as an accurate recount of history nor as a strict code of conduct. Such a literal mindset, coupled with a lack of regard for contextual accuracy, is fundamentally dangerous and more often than not used to mislead the masses.

When interpreted literally, a dated book like the Bible is inherently flawed in terms of its modern relevancy and practicality. For example, take a concept like slavery, which was acceptable at the time the Bible was written. Slavery was acceptable when America’s Bill of Rights was written too, but we’ve since recognized it to be obviously wrong and therefore, amended it. A literal interpretation of the Bible – given its static form – doesn’t account for these types of societal realizations. What was acceptable hundreds of years ago is still presented as accurate today in the Bible, if interpreted literally. That being said, I do not mean to suggest that religious people are akin to nor tacitly accept slave owners, but instead to point out that literal interpretation of the Bible is inherently flawed, and that the degree to which you literally believe it is irrelevant, if you do at all.

I’m not saying the Bible should be updated, but I don’t think any other work of fiction should be either. If you accept the Bible to be literal, however, you must also accept that it needs to be amended like the Bill of Rights. The idea of a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is not one religious people flock to. After all, condemning the literalness of the Bible would discredit their most popular “proof” of god’s existence.  But of course, to not agree that the Bible must be amended is to endorse its infractions. To pick and choose what you take literally or not is hypocritical. To claim to know which parts are true and which are not is arrogant. To believe the Bible can’t be changed because it’s the word of god (that coincidentally verifies his existence) is circular logic. To view the Bible as just another set of fairy tales – no better and no worse – is wise.

The message of a TV show is the same regardless of which TV you watch it on. The show and the TV are separate entities though not mutually exclusive. This is analogous to the message in a work of art or literature being separated from the form of the work itself. The meaning contained within a metaphor is meant to override the details of the vehicle in which it is delivered. Similarly, humans have an intrinsic ability to connect and relate with each other on some primal level regardless of the similarities and differences in their respective pasts or their present appearances. This is accomplished by utilizing some indefinable human condition, that when one attempts to label or name, seems to reassemble back into the original face value version of itself, thus assuaging ambiguity but dissolving the prospect of the uniquely universal wonderment for which the work was originally created. If we all realized and embraced this, there’d be no need for religion anymore.

Ryan Walsh is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].