(August 29, 2019 at 3:18 am)Belaqua Wrote: As for what is to be taken literally and what isn't, exactly, that's a matter of dispute among Christians.

Like I wrote earlier you must explain the way you can discern truth amid the metaphors. What is allegory and what is real? How do you tell the difference? This is particularly difficult for Christians, because the historical evidence for Jesus - that is, for a real person around whom the myth accreted - is thin. And evidence for Jesus as the son of God is unconvincing, resting solely on the assertions of the Bible and interpretations of people writing decades after the events described in the Gospels.

Some writings are clearly meant to be taken symbolically such as Revelation. But it's not really clear to me that any part of, say, Genesis was originally intended to be symbolic on the whole.

(August 29, 2019 at 3:30 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Like I wrote earlier you must explain the way you can discern truth amid the metaphors.

Some truth is expressed metaphorically. Truth and metaphor are not mutually exclusive.

As to how a person discerns the best way to read any given sentence: by using his brain. 

Who said it was supposed to be easy? 

Quote:This is particularly difficult for Christians, because the historical evidence for Jesus - that is, for a real person around whom the myth accreted - is thin.

Then they had better use their brains a lot. 

Quote: And evidence for Jesus as the son of God is unconvincing

To you it is. Not to a lot of other people.

Quote:resting solely on the assertions of the Bible and interpretations of people writing decades after the events described in the Gospels.

Now you're back to sola scriptura literalism... 

There are a lot of different kinds of Christians. Some of them will be happy to call the events of the Gospels allegorical, although you may declare them not to be Real Christians. It's well known that many tropes in the NT are standard for Greek narratives, and that writers of the time were more interested in the spiritual than the journalistic meaning. 

Hermeneutics is hard. If an omniscient existence "wants" to hand over all the meanings on a platter, it will type it all out in an easy way. If it "wants" people to do it for themselves, it will make hermeneutics hard. I AM NOT SAYING I KNOW WHAT IS TRUE. I am saying that you don't either.

(August 29, 2019 at 3:50 am)Grandizer Wrote: Some writings are clearly meant to be taken symbolically such as Revelation. But it's not really clear to me that any part of, say, Genesis was originally intended to be symbolic on the whole.

When you were a kid, and the teacher read a fable, like the three little pigs, Where you confused as to whether she was reading a historical account or non- historical one? Did she need to preface it with a warning, that it's non-historical.

I dont think it's that hard to recognize that the Genesis accounts aren't literal.

You make two buckets. Take all styles of writing we know are non-historical, and all the styles of writing that are historical, and then ask yourself which bucket the style in which the garden of Eden story, the flood, etc.. written resembles the most?

---

(August 29, 2019 at 2:41 am)Deesse23 Wrote: [

I dont make assumptions about the Genesis accout, and i am not basing any of my beliefs on that. How about you?

What i know is that a literal meaning wuld be objectively wrong, since science has long disproven it.

What a believer (which i am not) had to do now, is to show that it was meant in a non-literal way, in what way it was original meant and tell his findings. Good luck. If there may not way to figure out what Genesis´ background and intention was, then i will happyily keep suspending my belief(s) based on that. How about you?

Why would I start with the default assumption that it was intended literally, then demonstrate that it wasn't? Why not the other way around?

I don't read anything as intended to be read as history, unless I have good reason to think so. Is that unreasonable?

I look at the style of Genesis, and can recognize that it resembles the style of writing of non-historical stories. I can see that the writer gives no indication otherwise. Based on this I read it as non-historical.

---

(August 29, 2019 at 3:30 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(August 29, 2019 at 3:18 am)Belaqua Wrote: As for what is to be taken literally and what isn't, exactly, that's a matter of dispute among Christians.

Like I wrote earlier you must explain the way you can discern truth amid the metaphors. What is allegory and what is real? How do you tell the difference? This is particularly difficult for Christians, because the historical evidence for Jesus - that is, for a real person around whom the myth accreted - is thin. And evidence for Jesus as the son of God is unconvincing, resting solely on the assertions of the Bible and interpretations of people writing decades after the events described in the Gospels.

How do you tell the difference everywhere else, between sarcasm, metaphors, similes, allegories, fables, histories,etc..? Do people constantly need to tell you that they weren't being literal?

Most of us seem fine discerning these things in everyday life. People who really struggle with this, typically have an impaired inferential capacity, like those on the autistic spectrum.

(August 29, 2019 at 3:18 am)Belaqua Wrote: Well not much, apparently, since I'm constantly told on this forum that Real Christianity is sola scriptura literalist, and the Pope doesn't agree. 

Quote:I dont make assumptions about the Genesis account, and i am not basing any of my beliefs on that.

(August 28, 2019 at 3:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Well, the Bible DOES in fact say that God wants some to be saved and not others.  How would you address this contradiction?

I hate to keep hammering on this fact, but if people view God differently that how the Bible describes God, what use is the Bible?  If I were so inclined, I could get as much spiritual guidance from 'The Tempest' or 'Moby Dick'.

The view of God evolves considerably throughout scripture, from the tribal deity of Jews, to the God of all humanity, from a God that's fairly distant, to God the Father, or God as Love. From a God so otherly human, to a God who reveals himself in human flesh.

I'm not an inerrantist, so I have no problem viewing the writers of scripture to be wrong about certain things, just like I might say of the writing of Buddhist, and other religious text.

As a theist, and like pretty much all theist Christian and otherwise, i view God as one, as an eternal, unchanging, non-contingent being, a position held as fundamental. I'm also of the view that the writers of scripture held this view, but if they say things that appear at face value to contradict this fundamental nature, they were either wrong, or expressing a simile, bumping against the limits of their own language in expressing something about an eternal and unchanging god.

It's sort of like the use of design/teleological language when describing evolution, which is difficult to avoid. It's not meant to be taken literally, but as similes. Because it's difficult to describe much of evolution without using the language of design.

(August 29, 2019 at 2:51 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(August 29, 2019 at 2:41 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Considering it is supposed to be inspired by a god, its general level of ambiguousness is lousy even compared to my worst teachers.

Your argument depends on your knowing what an omniscient existence would do. 

It doesnt. I made the assumption (based on omniscience) and voiced my expectaton that its didactics would be better than yours for example. Its the claim of (many) believers like Acrobat that the bible is exactly what an omniscient exisence would do. Your critique should be directed towards a believer, not an unbeliever like myself.

(August 29, 2019 at 6:18 am)Deesse23 Wrote: I dont make assumptions about the Genesis account, and i am not basing any of my beliefs on that.

You operate on an assumption about the Genesis account, when you suggested I need to show that it was written as non-literally.

Either way I pointed how to identify it as non-literal, by my two bucket system, of writing styles that resemble non-literal, non-historical stories, and those that resemble literal, historical accounts. Genesis resembles the style of the non-literal bucket.

(August 29, 2019 at 6:23 am)Deesse23 Wrote: voiced my expectaton that its didactics would be better than yours

Right. But how do you know what kind of didactics would be better? Maybe the fuzzy difficult ambiguous kind is better, in the long run.

---

(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: You make two buckets. Take all styles of writing we know are non-historical, and all the styles of writing that are historical, and then ask yourself which bucket the style in which the garden of Eden story, the flood, etc.. written resembles the most?

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are these real buckets?

(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: [quote='Deesse23' pid='1929475' dateline='1567060885']
I dont make assumptions about the Genesis accout, and i am not basing any of my beliefs on that. How about you?

What i know is that a literal meaning wuld be objectively wrong, since science has long disproven it.

What a believer (which i am not) had to do now, is to show that it was meant in a non-literal way, in what way it was original meant and tell his findings. Good luck. If there may not way to figure out what Genesis´ background and intention was, then i will happyily keep suspending my belief(s) based on that. How about you?

Why would I start with the default assumption that it was intended  literally, then demonstrate that it wasn't? Why not the other way around?[/quote]

Dont ask me with what assumtion one should approch Genesis. I didnt make a claim regading this. I claimed that its literal interpretation is in stark contrast to what we now know about the formation of the universe in general and planet earth in particular.

(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: I don't read anything as intended to be read as history, unless I have good reason to think so. Is that unreasonable?

Absolutely not, unless the source is making the claim to be historic (something along the lines of "I will destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt"). But in absence of conclusive data regarding one or the other metaphoric (or whatever) interpretation, i would tend to withold belief either way. I have no dog in this "book inspired by god" being literal or not race. I am just wondering, why others seem not to suspend belief in absence of evidence...either way.

(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: I look at the style of Genesis, and can recognize that it resembles the style of writing of non-historical stories. I can see that the writer gives no indication otherwise. Based on this I read it as non-historical.

...and you are basing your belief in an outrageous claim that some deity spoke all of reality in existence, wants to be worshipped and is interested in your bedroom activities
on this!? At least partially, of course. Even if i grant you that you may be correct in your interpretation, what may be the impact on the plausibiity of the existence of said deity? Thats the part i just dont get.

(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: How do you tell the difference everywhere else, between sarcasm, metaphors, similes, allegories, fables, histories,etc..? Do people constantly need to tell you that they weren't being literal?

Yes, they better to. Lots of miscommunication in my everyday life is caused exactly by this. If a god intends to teach us, to tell us, to educate, inform and enlighten us and is either unwilling to try to be better than my co-humans are or unable to do so, then he is either an idiot or an ass.

---

(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: [quote='Deesse23' pid='1929475' dateline='1567060885']
I dont make assumptions about the Genesis accout, and i am not basing any of my beliefs on that. How about you?

What i know is that a literal meaning wuld be objectively wrong, since science has long disproven it.

What a believer (which i am not) had to do now, is to show that it was meant in a non-literal way, in what way it was original meant and tell his findings. Good luck. If there may not way to figure out what Genesis´ background and intention was, then i will happyily keep suspending my belief(s) based on that. How about you?

Why would I start with the default assumption that it was intended  literally, then demonstrate that it wasn't? Why not the other way around?

Dont ask me with what assummtion one should approch Genesis. I didnt make a claim regading this. I claimed that its literal interpretation is in stark contrast to what we now know about the formation of the universe in general and planet earth in particular.

(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: I don't read anything as intended to be read as history, unless I have good reason to think so. Is that unreasonable?

Absolutely not, unless the source is making the claim to be historic (something along the lines of "I will destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt"). But in absence of conclusive data regarding one or the other metaphoric (or whatever) interpretation, i would tend to withold belief either way. I have no dog in this "book inspired by god" being literal or not race. I am just wondering, why others seem not to suspend belief in absence of evidence...either way.

(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: I look at the style of Genesis, and can recognize that it resembles the style of writing of non-historical stories. I can see that the writer gives no indication otherwise. Based on this I read it as non-historical.

...and you are basing your belief in an outrageous claim that some deity spoke all of reality in existence, wants to be worshipped and is interested in your bedroom activities
on this!? At least partially, of course. Even if i grant you that you may be correct in your interpretation, what may be the impact on the plausibiity of the existence of said deity? Thats the part i just dont get.

(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: How do you tell the difference everywhere else, between sarcasm, metaphors, similes, allegories, fables, histories,etc..? Do people constantly need to tell you that they weren't being literal?

Yes, they better to. Lots of miscommunication in my everyday life is caused exactly by this. If a god intends to teach us, to tell us, to educate, inform and enlighten us and is either unwilling to try to be better than my co-humans are or unable to do so, then he is either an idiot or an ass.