(March 2, 2009 at 7:29 pm)padraic Wrote: I was referring to "literalists". These are people who claim the Bible is the literal word of god.That means the bible means exactly what it says.To ignore the unpleasant or hard bits is cherry picking,which destroys the argument of literalism.

All religionists take some aspect of their scriptures literally IMO and none of them take ALL Of their scriptures literally so every believer differs from every other only by degree. That therefore leaves them open to a specific criticism which is why believe one particular bit of their scriptures (literally) whilst not another (allegorically).

That's why I said what I said about theists having to be cherry-pickers because if they didn't theyd have to concede that genocide and the near destruction of entire worlds was AOK. It is, of course, no surprise that Frodo avoided that one

Kyu

(March 3, 2009 at 5:37 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(March 2, 2009 at 7:29 pm)padraic Wrote: I was referring to "literalists". These are people who claim the Bible is the literal word of god.That means the bible means exactly what it says.To ignore the unpleasant or hard bits is cherry picking,which destroys the argument of literalism.

All religionists take some aspect of their scriptures literally IMO and none of them take ALL Of their scriptures literally so every believer differs from every other only by degree. That therefore leaves them open to a specific criticism which is why believe one particular bit of their scriptures (literally) whilst not another (allegorically).

That's why I said what I said about theists having to be cherry-pickers because if they didn't they'd have to concede that genocide and the near destruction of entire worlds was AOK. It is, of course, no surprise that Frodo avoided that one

Kyu

QFT

(March 3, 2009 at 3:44 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So apply it to another subject and prove it wrong. Or is your dismissal groundless??

Dismissal groundless?

How come he has to prove you wrong before you've proved yourself to be right (or at least given some evidence)?

Reminds me of the Christopher Hitchens quotation from Purple Rabbit (from this forum)'s sig: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" (): A groundless assertion means that it's dismissal doesn't need ground. It can be dismissed groundlessly as the assertion was groundless

(March 3, 2009 at 6:42 am)padraic Wrote: QFT

Wha???

Kyu

(March 3, 2009 at 8:03 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(March 3, 2009 at 6:42 am)padraic Wrote: QFT

Wha???

Kyu

Quoted For Truth. Silly acronyms.

I made my point EvF, which padraic challenged without grounds. I simply asked padraic to prove his logic, which he has failed to do. I am not avoiding the issue. He is.

@Kyu: You're obviously a literalist. I am not. What can I say? *shrugs*

(March 3, 2009 at 5:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I made my point EvF, which padraic challenged without grounds. I simply asked padraic to prove his logic, which he has failed to do. I am not avoiding the issue. He is.

@Kyu: You're obviously a literalist. I am not. What can I say? *shrugs*

What part of "I don't suffer fools" didn't you understand ? I'm not avoiding the issue,I'm avoiding you.

Drongo.

(March 3, 2009 at 5:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @Kyu: You're obviously a literalist. I am not. What can I say? *shrugs*

Yet I am am an atheist, I don't believe a word your stupid bible says so, quite evidently, I am not.

The point I am making is that if you reject some parts of scripture as non literal yet do not do the same with others reason dictates you must know why you do it so, in essence, I am asking what method you apply to determine which parts of your bible are literally true and which are not?

Kyu

(March 3, 2009 at 5:59 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I don't believe a word your stupid bible says so, quite evidently, I am not.

(March 3, 2009 at 5:59 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: what method you apply to determine which parts of your bible are literally true and which are not?

Kyu

None of it needs to be literally true for me. If you want to know how to read it, there are very many serious scholars that have dedicated lifetimes to working it out. I'd suggest starting there

(March 3, 2009 at 6:24 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: None of it needs to be literally true for me. If you want to know how to read it, there are very many serious scholars that have dedicated lifetimes to working it out. I'd suggest starting there

You'd suggest I start ... cough, splutter ... you really think I am interested in the insane logic of theist apologists? Get real man!

Now ... are you saying the bible is real (as in true) or not? If it is then you'd be a literalist, if it it isn't (allegory) then one is forced to wonder why you believe any of it, why you are a Christian? Or is it, despite your philosophical ducking and diving, just a case of you believing the bits you want to and rejecting (or declaring as allegory) those bits you don't like? If it (and I strongly suspect it is) you are, by definition, cherry-picking!

Kyu