Scriptural Interpretation: Where Do You Draw the Line?

Survey-style question for believers; hopefully we'll find some interesting differences to result in interesting discussions.

I'd like to know about people's personal interpretations of their religion's scripture, whether it be the Bible, Torah, Qur'an, etc. How much do you take literally and how much metaphorically? How and where do you apply scriptural doctrine to how you live your life -- which teachings do you subscribe to word-for-word and which do you take as guidelines? And how do you make these decisions? To what extent do you admit reason/science to your understanding of scripture? How do you resolve contradictions that may arise between the word of the text and the logic of the observable world? (eg Noah's ark.)

I realise that's a lot to be going on with, but they're basically just sub-questions of the one big one.

[Hexadecimal]

What of the pantheist and deist, whose scripture is existence itself? Are we to tell you our methodologies of arriving at our individual perceptions of reality?

Most of us try to apply 'critical thinking skills' to reality to keep our subjective viewing of it as reasonable as can be. Some of us also include articles of faith and trust into our subjective perceptions...though those are unstructured and entirely difficult to describe in language.

[among_the_living]

No one can live by the book as it were.

If you did you would be in prison becuse you wouldve killed a LOT of people.

But!

They counter this by saying "oohhh THAT part was metaphorical!"

People pick and choose the parts that they like and call them litteral then the parts they cant quite fulfill they call metaphorical.

Originally Posted by Hexadecimal

What of the pantheist and deist, whose scripture is existence itself? Are we to tell you our methodologies of arriving at our individual perceptions of reality?

If you like, I'd be fascinated (I don't know much about pantheism or deism beyond the dictionary definitions). Especially since taking something as vast as existence itself as the basis for foundation and interpretation of belief gives such staggeringly huge scope for variation and, as you said, ends up as quite a personal / introspective arrangement.

I probably should have been more careful; I seem to have implied that I was only asking about the Abrahamic scriptures. To clarify, that isn't true; I'm interested in any and all constructions of faith.

[AngryFemme]

Originally Posted by among_the_living

People pick and choose the parts that they like and call them litteral then the parts they cant quite fulfill they call metaphorical.

If I had a nickel for every time that has been done in this forum alone ... I could retire tomorrow.

Originally Posted by among_the_living

People pick and choose the parts that they like and call them litteral then the parts they cant quite fulfill they call metaphorical.

[I'm perhaps getting a little off topic here, but meh...]
People who do this often don't seem to recognise the significance of the interpretations they make, i.e. that they're using non-scriptural bases and frameworks of morality, practicality etc., and that therefore they are not totally dependent on or devoted to their scripture. Not only that, but following from that logic, there's no single correct way to apply doctrine to one's life, and: (to explicitly thrash the point to death) scripture, even for the devout, can be at best a guide, not a lawbook.
[Definitely getting carried away here ... better try and bring it back.]

What I'm interested in learning is how people choose to utilise and include that guidance, which if followed to the letter would be unavoidably impractical in contemporary society.

[Hexadecimal]

Well, I'm a pantheist in the sense that I believe all events to be ordered rather than random. A lot of folk mistake this for belief in a father-type God - I don't believe any god is still guiding the progression of existence.

My belief is that some entity or force well beyond human comprehension was able (and this is the only reason I ascribe the label 'god' to it) to set existence into motion. Rather vague, eh?

From there, it's all critical thinking skills; finding the evidence and piecing together conclusions from it. With evidence, we can figure out the how, where, when, what, who...but we can never get a 'why?' through critical thinking. There is no evidence as to the purpose of existence, so I shall admit, I commit the logical fallacy of saying, "It was a god."

I don't pretend to know the motivations of such a being, or whether there are absolutes in the realm of morality and behavior, but I find it incredible to marvel at the magnificence of any force or entity that embodies parádoxos, yet is the source of all that is.