(September 9, 2019 at 9:46 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 9, 2019 at 9:39 pm)Succubus Wrote: Of course the first one is true, its nice. The second one is obviously not true  because...

That's the beginning of a hermeneutic method: to say that the nice ones are literal and the not-nice ones aren't. Personally, I don't find that method persuasive.

I think the passage from Matthew may well be literal, and I can be clear about the reasons.

It seems to me likely that the real Jesus was one of those holy men who radically give up the world and live in opposition to its traditions. There are still such men in India, and Greece had the example of Diogenes the Cynic and his followers. To recommend such extreme disconnection from the status quo would obviously cause a rift with one's family, if the rest of the family didn't go along. 

Later Christians watered this down, and now we're to the point where many American Christians advocate more or less the opposite of this. 

I understand that my interpretation can never be proven with certainty. But given what I know of the time and the rest of the NT, I think it is a plausible reading.

I think the best way to make sense of the real Jesus (if there ever was one) is as an apocalypticist, based on hints and indicators in the synoptic Gospels.

(September 9, 2019 at 10:51 pm)Belaqua Wrote: I'm not very aware of what the majority believe. As I say, that's not what interests me. 

If they are sola scriptura literalists, I think they are overly simple.

And would that be the incorrect view?

Going back to the OP, as someone who's on the autism spectrum (got the official diagnosis for ASD not too long ago actually, for future potential employment purposes), I think it's important to clarify a little what exactly is the problem with some people on the spectrum with regards to taking things very literally.

It's not about reading a passage in some ancient book and not being sure whether it's supposed to be taken literally or not (when a large portion of the world take this literally anyway). It's not about even being sure this passage is to be taken literally just because one is of the thinking that, unless context/evidence suggests otherwise, people should be taken at their word.

It's about hearing a phrase such as "raining cats and dogs" and despite the context of that phrase being clear it was meant to be taken metaphorically, the person with ASD may fail to grasp this and actually think the person saying the phrase is insane (because clearly there aren't cats and dogs falling from the sky).

It's about being told to pick up the rubbish and not worry about emptying the bins for the day, and taking that very literally to the point that even if there happened to be a bin that is full to the top and the rubbish in it is about to fall out, you ignore it because you were told not to worry about it anyway. It's about being told to pick up all the rubbish you see on the ground around you and then ending up not just picking up all the rubbish in the area you're designated to clean but also outside of that. This is from personal experience, lol.

So yes, OP, this is a struggle that some people on the spectrum may have, and some of them will improve on this over time as they intellectually make the effort to avoid instinctively taking things very literally. But not all people on the spectrum may have this kind of struggle. And many people on the spectrum are Christians and all about allegorical interpretations anyway (you can encounter some of them on one famous forum where Aspies meet actually). And many people who aren't on the spectrum take these passages in Genesis and elsewhere literally. So when it comes to the Bible, literal vs. non-literal isn't about autism or neurotypical.

I also want to note that having autism should not be seen as a curse, and in a lot of cases has been quite a strength for many when it comes to intellectual thinking. See Einstein or Newton for prime examples of famous thinkers who many (including experts) strongly suspect were on the spectrum based on their life histories.

(September 10, 2019 at 4:13 am)Grandizer Wrote: It's about hearing a phrase such as "raining cats and dogs" and despite the context of that phrase being clear it was meant to be taken metaphorically, the person with ASD may fail to grasp this and actually think the person saying the phrase is insane (because clearly there aren't cats and dogs falling from the sky).

It's about being told to pick up the rubbish and not worry about emptying the bins for the day, and taking that very literally to the point that even if there happened to be a bin that is full to the top and the rubbish in it is about to fall out, you ignore it because you were told not to worry about it anyway. It's about being told to pick up all the rubbish you see on the ground around you and then ending up not just picking up all the rubbish in the area you're designated to clean but also outside of that. 

Thank you for clarifying these things for us. I have no experience with people on the spectrum (that I know of) so I don't know at all how it works. 

I'm curious about how this might work in regard to literature that isn't meant to be holy scripture. Here I don't want to quiz you on your own private tastes or experiences, because of course these are personal and none of my business, but just if you have information in general. 

For example, would someone with ASD have access to the pleasure in the non-literal reading of, say, Proust or Dostoevsky? This is not a matter of decoding metaphor so much as of applying very subtle fictional nuances to one's own experience. Unreliable narrators like Proust's, for example, demand that we look beyond his words to figure out what's really going on -- even though, since it's fiction, nothing is really going on. 

Likewise in poetry, which may or may not use non-literal tropes but certainly demands sympathetic readings of vaguely hinted information. 

I've been trying to remember if I ever encountered anyone who was both strongly anti-religion and also aesthetically enthralled by good fiction. Not stuff that makes you say "COOL!" like, say, good science fiction, but the classic novels where the act of reading them is a wonderful personal experience. Stendhal, Nerval, Flaubert, George Eliot, Henry James, etc. etc. 

My experience has been that people who are deeply into the arts (and again, not popular media but the stuff that snobs like) tend not to have animosity toward religion. Atheists like Umberto Eco or Harold Bloom, for example, who are fantastically knowledgable about literature, tend not to avoid religious themes in their favorite books or in what they write. Bloom was raised strongly Jewish and became an atheist, but says "make Dante your textbook."

(September 10, 2019 at 5:23 am)Belaqua Wrote: For example, would someone with ASD have access to the pleasure in the non-literal reading of, say, Proust or Dostoevsky? This is not a matter of decoding metaphor so much as of applying very subtle fictional nuances to one's own experience. Unreliable narrators like Proust's, for example, demand that we look beyond his words to figure out what's really going on -- even though, since it's fiction, nothing is really going on.

Not me personally. I don't know about others on the spectrum though.

Quote:Likewise in poetry, which may or may not use non-literal tropes but certainly demands sympathetic readings of vaguely hinted information.

Again, not me personally. I for one find poetry really boring to get into, generally speaking. Psalms are like the worst part of the Bible for me. But even with poetry in general, I've never been able to get into them the way I'd get into a a fantasy story in prose form. There are exceptions of course (like Homer's Iliad and Odyssey).

Quote:I've been trying to remember if I ever encountered anyone who was both strongly anti-religion and also aesthetically enthralled by good fiction. Not stuff that makes you say "COOL!" like, say, good science fiction, but the classic novels where the act of reading them is a wonderful personal experience. Stendhal, Nerval, Flaubert, George Eliot, Henry James, etc. etc.

Does enjoying the stories in Genesis and the Greek and Norse myths count? I guess I need to know what you mean by "anti-religion".

Quote:My experience has been that people who are deeply into the arts (and again, not popular media but the stuff that snobs like) tend not to have animosity toward religion. Atheists like Umberto Eco or Harold Bloom, for example, who are fantastically knowledgable about literature, tend not to avoid religious themes in their favorite books or in what they write. Bloom was raised strongly Jewish and became an atheist, but says "make Dante your textbook."

Well, if it helps, I've written a portion of a story that I've never completed that had a bit of religious/spiritual imagery in it, but I'm not one who is deeply into the arts. I like some arts but am not crazy about them.

(September 10, 2019 at 8:07 am)Grandizer Wrote: I like some arts but am not crazy about them.

This is the connection that I'm interested in. 

I'm trying to think of people who are crazy about the arts who are also anti-religion. (For the definition of "anti-religion," there are obvious examples on this forum.) 

I have long suspected that, deep down, most religion is a kind of aesthetic phenomenon. That religion and the arts appeal to the same people, and that the connection goes deeper than the mere fact that religions tended to commission art. 

Obviously there will be local cases and variations... Music, for example, can be entirely abstract and mathematical, with no "subject matter" other than itself. So this might well appeal to the kind of person who finds math beautiful, but not paintings. 

But rather than suggest a similarity between autism and literal reading, I might wonder about a link between the richness of art and the appeal of religion -- which encourages non-literal reading.

(September 9, 2019 at 11:42 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:

(September 9, 2019 at 11:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Unless I have good reasons to think human beings in the past behaved differently when exposed to similar stimuli, than humans beings in the present, then I expect them to follow the same predictable patterns. In fact plenty of people in the past wrote of having visions, etc, including in the Bible. So it does seem that this tendency was present then as it is now.

Not necessarily. You're just assuming they'd behave the same because that's what you want to believe. The truth is, you don't know, and you can't stand to admit that.

Like I said deductive reasoning.

If all monkeys we’ve observed when exposed to certain stimuli, behave in similar predictable patterns, it’s safe to assume that other monkeys would behave similarly as well.

I expect humans when exposed to stimuli like a vision, to behave in ways consistent with the observations of how other humans who experienced them.

I expect when human beings use the phrase “it’s raining cats and dogs”, to mean it’s raining hard outside and not literally. Now maybe some person had a hallucination, of it’s literally raining cats and dogs, but unless the person told me that, I’d take the phrase it’s raining cats and dogs, non-literally.

Quote:You're arguing that the creation story isn't literal because it wasn't announced at the beginning of genesis that it was literal. But by this logic, the creation of Adam and Eve isn't literal either, right?

When the style of the writing resembles the style use in allegorical stories, when nothing contained in the writing indicates literalism, such as no particular historical setting etc..., when the meaning of the story as a contained passage, isnt impacted by non-literalism, etc... I assume it was written non-literally.

Unless I have a reason to assume the author/s wanted me to take it literally, as a historical event, than I don’t.

And yes I take the Adam and Eve story allegorically as well. Adam is not even a proper name, but rather a term for mankind, not to mention forbidden trees “with fruit of knowledge of good and evil”, placed in the middle of a garden.

The story itself appears to be about how the knowledge/consciousness of good and evil, is the basis of doing evil/bad, choose it over good, feel shame, guilt etc...

Quote:Also, we can then assume that the vast majority of the Bible isn't literal too, right?

If the meaning of the vastly majority of the Bible, isn’t impacted by assuming their non-literal, if it isn’t causing you to ponder questions outside the context of the text themselves, than there isn’t any real reason to assume these writing are literal.

For the most part you can leave the question of literal or not to the side, because it would probably just be a distraction, and try to work out the meaning of the passage. After that you can if you want try and work out if it was describing a literal historical event or not. Just don’t let that question confuse or obscure what meaning the authors were attempting to convey. This is a question many atheists get stuck on, but not religious literalist themselves.

Quote:All you're doing in this argument with me is proving that, in your view, with your reasoning, you know what is literal and what isn't. To you. You haven't proved anything outside of that. And you certainly haven't proven that any sort of interpretation of the Bible is more valid than another.

I’m not in the business of proofs, because proofs appear to be about absolutes. I’m only in the buisness of presenting what’s likely.

I provided the reasoning and logic, and basis for the conclusions I’ve drawn, and unless you can point to some flaw in them, then I’ll continue to draw the conclusions I do, about everything, not just religious writings.

Now if you’re the type of person who likes to sit on the fence until absolute certainty comes along, then you’ll be sitting there a long time.

You seem to be confused, Acro....atheists don’t have -any- trouble recognizing these stories as stories. That’s what’s being pointed out to you. It takes a believer to believe in a literal Adam and Eve....and this literal belief has been in the majority for all of christendoms history.

Some contemporary believers don’t realize the necessity of special creation to Christ...but that’s an internal problem between themselves and their religion. Each schisms authoritative body has complained about a loss of faith and knowledge in their own communities. Discussions like these with Christians such as yourself tend to reenforce the basic thrust of that trend.

Ultimately, though, it’s great that you recognize the story for its artistic flair, but unlikely that you have its message right. Your Christian lens compels you to interpret the intent of the authors in a specific way.

Where you see good and evil requiring the eventual intervention of Christ, the authors were conveying mans birth, childhood, puberty, and adulthood as a prelude to an imagined family history. The Jews have been telling you guys you got genesis wrong since forever.

It’s an ethnocentric establishment myth, Adam and Eve are only the First People....not the first people. It tells The People that they are god’s children, prelude to chosen, tracing the interim through kinship.

(September 10, 2019 at 9:02 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: you seem to be confused, Acro....atheists don’t have -any- trouble recognizing these stories as stories.

They don’t? It sure looks like it. if we all recognize it as stories, perhaps they should be discussed as stories, as they were intended.

Quote:That’s what’s being pointed out to you. It takes a believer to believe in a literal Adam and Eve....and this literal belief has been in the majority for all of christendoms history.

Origen: “ Who would be so childish as to suppose that God after the manner of a human gardener planted a garden in Eden towards the east, and made therein a tree, visible and sensible, so that one could get the power of living by the bodily eating of its fruit with the teeth; or again, could partake of good and evil by feeding on what came from that other tree? If God is said to walk at eventide in the garden, and Adam to hide himself under the tree, I fancy that no one will question that these statements are figurative, declaring mysterious truths by the means of a seeming history, not one that took place in a bodily form.”

Clearly Origen disagrees, that if pressed no would question that the Garden of Eden story is figurative.

If we took a survey of all Christians at the time of Origen, and asked them the way Origen asked it, would they agree with him it was figurative? What percentage do you think would agree with him? Disagree?

Quote:Some contemporary believers don’t realize the necessity of special creation to Christ...but that’s an internal problem between themselves and their religion.

Why don’t you tell us about this necessity? Since you seem to be under the false impression that there’s only a single atonement view among the orthodox body of believers. Since you apparently know something I don’t realize, let’s hear it.

Apparently you seem oblivious to the fact that none of NT writings, including the Gospels, outside of Paul Even mentions Adam and Eves actions, in relationships to Christ.

Quote: Ultimately, though, it’s great that you recognize the story for its artistic flair, but unlikely that you have its message right. Your Christian lens compels you to interpret the intent of the authors in a specific way.

Where you see good and evil requiring the eventual intervention of Christ, the authors were conveying mans birth, childhood, puberty, and adulthood as a prelude to an imagined family history. The Jews have been telling you guys you got genesis wrong since forever.

Since you seem to know what I believe to suggest that it’s unlikely I have it right, then please tell me what you think I have wrong?

Also how do I see good and evil and the necessity of Christ? Clearly you seem to have some knowledge about my beliefs, that are foreign to me, lol, so let’s hear it?

Pointing to someone who disagrees will not make that minority viewpoint anything more or less than what it is.

Origen wasn’t credulous enough to believe in the magic garden.....and that’s to his credit.

He did believe that god literally created the material world and in special creation, that fallen souls were inserted into existing human bodies ( hello L. Ron!)...and that decidedly isn’t.

As a contemporary believer you may think that Origen provides justification for denying a literal reading of genesis....that Christianity doesn’t depend on it....but that’s your mistake, not atheists, and not Origens...heretic though he was in so many other ways.