(April 17, 2013 at 1:16 am)median Wrote:

(April 16, 2013 at 4:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: It is less valid because it is ill informed. It's just like a creationist arguing that the fossil record can be 'interpreted' to support a young earth. Some interpretations are more internally consistent and reflective of their cultural origins, etc. Literal minded readers of the bible sound like those annoying schoolboys that whine at the teachers saying, "But you said! You said...."

Why would you want to interpret the bible such as to make it sound "internally consistent"? Seems like you have an awful case of confirmation bias there. Would you do that with the Koran, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Book of Mormon, or any other ancient religious text which makes claims to the supernatural?

Why exactly do you accept these ancient textual accounts of the miraculous in the bible and reject the other competitors?

---

(April 16, 2013 at 4:27 pm)archangle Wrote: yes, there is no point in discussing past a "literal body rising". But the bible teaching you that it isn't always about "you" is of no-consequence? How so?

What "isn't always about" me are you talking about? Do words have meaning to you? That's a rhetorical question. But my answer to your question is yes. Any book can say anything about anything. If the biblical claims to the supernatural are just "non-literal" metaphor then the book is of no consequence. I have no more inclination to take it's claims seriously than any other ancient book of fictional nonsense.

(April 16, 2013 at 4:27 pm)archangle Wrote: "faith" is not a reliable way to the truth? How so? That is crazy talk. I think what you really mean is that people telling you to believe foolish things in the name of blind faith is not the way to truth. I agree to that. Jesus taught that exact thing too.

You think faith is reliable for separating fact from fiction? Please demonstrate this b/c now (no offense but) you certainly don't sound like a rational, critical thinking, atheist. Jesus did NOT teach "that". He said his followers needed to accept him on faith (like that of a child). Didn't you know children are gullible?

You reek of "I got punked and now I am pissed off". Try just letting it go and realizing that some people need it. Why would you want to stomp those people? There are many "logistical" reason to use the bible today as a central theme in a religion.

I am with you against fundamentalism and basing a conclusions on things we don't know. But dude, you pissed off and don't care about anything but getting even.

(April 17, 2013 at 12:52 am)Lord Privy Seal Wrote:

(April 16, 2013 at 7:57 am)archangle Wrote: You have too or your belief falls apart. You say the exact same thing as literal bible thumpers always say. "We have to take it literally or my belief falls apart". Stating one has to take the bible literally is a look into how we form beliefs and Make sense of the world around us.

I don't have a problem with the whole Bible being some kind of mystic allegory/fable/myth/whatever, if you can provide some kind of system of hermeneutics, textual criticism, etc. that shows that your particular mystical interpretation is more accurate than other people's mystical interpretations or literal interpretations. At least, if you want me to accept your interpretation as the best one. So far the only "argument" you've offered is "I want to substitute 'hold accountable' for 'jealous,' and if you don't agree, you're a fundamentalist Bible thumper, so neener, neener!" In Chad's case, he wants to interpret those passages as saying that Yahweh is just extra-protective over his special Chosen People, never mind that he is portrayed threatening to exterminate them in one of the passages in question. Neither of you have provided any reason to accept either of your interpretations, other than that you're nice, ethical modern people coming to an ancient Iron Age text and forcing it to fit with your modern sensibilities because if you don't...your beliefs fall apart.

I can give arguments for my interpretation of the passages I cited. They were written into texts that are a combination of law (lists of commandments, rules of ritual practice, description of the Tabernacle and its furnishings, etc.) and putatively historical narration that explains the claimed divine origin and sanction of the commandments and rules. In other words, the genre implies a literal interpretation. Secondly, the claim that Yahweh is jealous (to the point of saying that his name is "Jealous"), is stated in the plainest possible language, repeatedly. Third, the nature of his jealousy--that he will become ferociously angry and punish 'his special people' for worshiping the 'wrong' deities--is also stated quite plainly. This interpretation is supported by the narrative parts of the same texts, where Moses is shown brutally enforcing the rules as if his god is in fact viciously jealous, on a number of occasions (e.g. killing 3,000 people when he found them worshiping the golden calf, exterminating the Midianites for causing some Israelite men to defect to their religion and marry Midianite women, etc.).

Can you provide any reason to accept your "non-literal" interpretation other than "LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU!"

(April 16, 2013 at 7:57 am)archangle Wrote: Stating we must take it literally is a logical fallacy. We don't have to take it literally. In fact, I see absolutely no proof that is even should be.

So can I take it that you would not profess something so pedestrian and fundamentalist as the notion that Jesus once walked the wilderness of Galilee accompanied by twelve disciples, that he was crucified by Roman soldiers under the authority of Pontius Pilate, and resurrected himself three days later? After all, only fundamentalist Bible thumpers ever take a passage literally, right?

(April 16, 2013 at 7:57 am)archangle Wrote: You will first have to give me more than "we must take it literally or my thinking falls apart". I need some proof of this evil god of yours wrote the book to be taken literally.

Hahaha, now you're interpreting us "non-literally," eh? Heck, I guess if you can pull "holding accountable" out of your posterior when reading Exodus and Deuteronomy, you can pull an "evil god" out of the same location when reading our posts. Nobody other than you has suggested that "an evil god wrote the book." My theory is that the texts in question were written by Iron Age barbarians who worshiped a god they projected in their own image (SPAG), just as you, a much nicer, more modern person, a child of the Enlightenment, worship a (much nicer) god projected in your image. As you read Biblical texts, you mentally edit them to say things that you think they ought to say.

(April 16, 2013 at 7:57 am)archangle Wrote: The problem you guys have with non-literal, is that when you remove "your" take's limits, the bible then becomes a tool that may help people through this shit hole of a life. And you want no parts of that for any reason. I would look at that first.

So now it's a self-help book? We don't need the Bible for that. We have people like Zig Ziglar, Napoleon Hill, and Dr. Phil nowadays. Their books offer the benefit of not having to engage in a whole lot of spaghetti hermeneutics and intricate theological loop-o-planes, with their associated heavy burden of cognitive dissonance, before we can get to the self-help stuff. Also: if you have a "shit hole of a life," your Bible apparently isn't helping you very much. Maybe you should give Og Mandino a try?

I shoo did pull the notion that "we are held accountable for our actions" out of my butt. It is not rational to claim that this theme cannot be taken from the bible. It is seen in almost every "self help" type books.

Yes, your distain for over bearing thunder chucker's is valid. But to support that with the crap you are spouting about the bible is quite foolish. I can prove the bible is a book with far more reason than they can prove it is the only word of the god. But this 'evil god" angle is flat out stupid.

This " ... so anything goes then ..." slant is just amazing to me. Why in your-no-god's name would any reasonable person think this? I mean past your average high schooled drunk or college professor it makes no sense. Can you show me why " ... anything goes ..." because we don't agree on one interpretation and that any interpretation must then be valid?

Yep, reading your post I don't see any of that there loop-de-loop bs in your take alright.

(April 17, 2013 at 8:51 am)archangle Wrote: This " ... so anything goes then ..." slant is just amazing to me. Why in your-no-god's name would any reasonable person think this? I mean past your average high schooled drunk or college professor it makes no sense. Can you show me why " ... anything goes ..." because we don't agree on one interpretation and that any interpretation must then be valid?

Yep, reading your post I don't see any of that there loop-de-loop bs in your take alright.

And where exactly was this "anything goes" stated by any of us? It seems to me you are missing the point entirely. If no deity wrote or "inspired" this collection of alleged holy books then there is no more reason to accept it's claims 'on authority' than any other claimed holy book. We have NOT said that this means "any interpretation must then be valid" - quite the reverse actually. Any interpretation (specifically regarding "this is how you need to live your life") is subjective and carries no ultimate weight on anyone (i.e. - we don't need the book for anything). Sure, some people still might decide to pick n choose from particular passages (as they do now) but, if that's the case, fine. The book still isn't authoritative or coercive in any meaningful way. At that point it is simply reduced to an ordinary subjectivity of opinion (and NOT the authority of a divine dictator in which you MUST get it right, or burn).

Again, the minute it's all just subjective is the minute it loses it's power to sting people. And apologists (which we now can't tell if you are) are NOT arguing that it's not a divine authority. They are arguing (by and large) that IT IS, and that their interpretation of the resurrection, etc must be taken literally in some form. For those who are not arguing that, and don't believe you have to 'believe in Jesus' to 'be saved' I don't care.

(April 17, 2013 at 8:51 am)archangle Wrote: I shoo did pull the notion that "we are held accountable for our actions" out of my butt. It is not rational to claim that this theme cannot be taken from the bible. It is seen in almost every "self help" type books.

Yes, your distain for over bearing thunder chucker's is valid. But to support that with the crap you are spouting about the bible is quite foolish. I can prove the bible is a book with far more reason than they can prove it is the only word of the god. But this 'evil god" angle is flat out stupid.

This " ... so anything goes then ..." slant is just amazing to me. Why in your-no-god's name would any reasonable person think this? I mean past your average high schooled drunk or college professor it makes no sense. Can you show me why " ... anything goes ..." because we don't agree on one interpretation and that any interpretation must then be valid?

Yep, reading your post I don't see any of that there loop-de-loop bs in your take alright.

Okay. Take a nice, deeeeep breath. Count to ten. Wipe the spittle off your monitor. Then actually respond to the points I made.

(April 17, 2013 at 11:33 am)Lord Privy Seal Wrote:

(April 17, 2013 at 8:51 am)archangle Wrote: I shoo did pull the notion that "we are held accountable for our actions" out of my butt. It is not rational to claim that this theme cannot be taken from the bible. It is seen in almost every "self help" type books.

Yes, your distain for over bearing thunder chucker's is valid. But to support that with the crap you are spouting about the bible is quite foolish. I can prove the bible is a book with far more reason than they can prove it is the only word of the god. But this 'evil god" angle is flat out stupid.

This " ... so anything goes then ..." slant is just amazing to me. Why in your-no-god's name would any reasonable person think this? I mean past your average high schooled drunk or college professor it makes no sense. Can you show me why " ... anything goes ..." because we don't agree on one interpretation and that any interpretation must then be valid?

Yep, reading your post I don't see any of that there loop-de-loop bs in your take alright.

Okay. Take a nice, deeeeep breath. Count to ten. Wipe the spittle off your monitor. Then actually respond to the points I made.

Lmao ... done:

Stay on topic

1) I reject your literal bible. You will have to provide more reasonable proof. You have some convoluted logic that leads you to have to take the bible literally. I don't. Most Jews don't use the torah literally (the old T). And the early church only assembled the bible from a group of writings back then. Your line of logic for a literal bible just doesn't have merit.

2) I reject your notion that if we can use it metaphorically that we then can make up anything we want and it be considered "rational". Like your 'evil god" slant. You think that I am wrong stating that "... you are held accountable ..." can be taken out of the bible. You said something like I pulled it out of my butt. Your take on a literal bible is bull sit. So all your claims using a literal bible are bull sit. They are logical fallacies.

now, if you just want to jump around insulting and degrading theist. That's is on you. But don't push you take on the bible as anything more than that.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: 1) I reject your literal bible. You will have to provide more reasonable proof. You have some convoluted logic that leads you to have to take the bible literally. I don't. Most Jews don't use the torah literally (the old T). And the early church only assembled the bible from a group of writings back then. Your line of logic for a literal bible just doesn't have merit.

This claim is 100% false. Most Jews take many things in the Torah and Tenach quite actually. I have MANY clients who are strong practicing religious Jews and have spoken with many others over the past 20 years who confirm your claim to be false. They absolutely take the bible literally on MANY fronts (examples are: that Yahweh is real, that he impacts our lives, that his law is true and should be obeyed, that Moses was real and interacted with Yahweh, that Moses' pophesies are true and that he was the greatest prophet, that God knows the thoughts of men and will reward the good and punish the wicked, and on it goes).

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: 2) I reject your notion that if we can use it metaphorically that we then can make up anything we want and it be considered "rational". Like your 'evil god" slant. You think that I am wrong stating that "... you are held accountable ..." can be taken out of the bible. You said something like I pulled it out of my butt. Your take on a literal bible is bull sit. So all your claims using a literal bible are bull sit. They are logical fallacies.

now, if you just want to jump around insulting and degrading theist. That's is on you. But don't push you take on the bible as anything more than that.

This is a strawman on at least two fronts. Where exactly was it stated that "if we can use it metaphorically that we can make up anything we want and it be considered 'rational'"? No one has said this. You are just making things up to knock them down instead of asking for a clarification for what is meant by what is stated (i.e. - clarification of terms).

Now, merely claiming that something is "bullshit" is quite different from demonstrating it. If anything YOU are the one throwing around logical fallacies (i.e. - claiming someone said "evil god", when nothing was stated of the sort - strawman again), but even if it was that would prove nothing. The burden of proof still rests squarely upon the apologists who are claiming these supernatural claims are factual and authoritative. Again, just CLAIMING a specific "take" is bullshit does nothing. You need to demonstrate it.

If you don't take the bible "literally" (whatever that word means to you), fine. But apologists quite overwhelmingly do. And that is (at least in part) what this debate is about.

Let's return to the OP now, thx.

1) Most Jews look at a story and try to see if a lesson can be learnt from it in the torah (OT bible). The Christians assembled the bible from many books that churches used. Literal bible has no merit.

2) To think that all interpretations carry the same weight when reading a metaphor is total bull sit. It is this line of thinking that forced this bible belt shit storm on us in the first place. people bought into it and "poof ... creation story is fact nonsense" because they were told any interpretation is valid, so they have none now. . "evil god" is even more stupid.

3) Now for the final strike. The notion that people can't change a belief system when they learn something new irrational. To think that a society can't pick and choose laws and traditions that met the needs of that society is insane. To think that just because the old society ways are not useful anymore that every idea they had is bad is immature. For example "a person will be held accountable for their actions". Yep, that notion is bad alright. The thinking that we can't change lets these Mormons push their BS off on people.

Asking people to follow this line of logic is insane.

(April 19, 2013 at 7:59 am)archangle Wrote: For example "a person will be held accountable for their actions". Yep, that notion is bad alright.

It's positively fucking horrible in the context of an immensely powerful cosmic adjudicator who is, itself, not accountable to anyone....yes........

Whether or not we give the folks who thought this up a pass is up to us individually, but why the notion itself should get a pass (or why you felt compelled to defend it - only by omission of the particulars-in this case- mind you) is a mystery.

(April 19, 2013 at 7:59 am)archangle Wrote: 3) Now for the final strike. The notion that people can't change a belief system when they learn something new irrational. To think that a society can't pick and choose laws and traditions that met the needs of that society is insane. To think that just because the old society ways are not useful anymore that every idea they had is bad is immature. For example "a person will be held accountable for their actions". Yep, that notion is bad alright. The thinking that we can't change lets these Mormons push their BS off on people.

Asking people to follow this line of logic is insane.

This is an extremely gross misrepresentation of what has been presented. Shame on you for attempting such strawmen. Absolutely none of us has argued that "every idea they had is bad and immature". Have you not been actually attempting to understand what is being written or stated here? If all you're arguing is that "they can change", GREAT! We are arguing that too. They can give up the superstition and move on.

But guess what?! "That ain't happenin." So we are back to square one. The apologists are making claims which do not meet their burden of proof. It is THOSE claims that are being dealt with. Please catchup.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: 1) I reject your literal bible.

Please provide a quote from a post of mine in this thread where I advocated "my literal Bible." I have advocated interpreting parts of the Bible literally where their genre and context indicates this is the author's intent. In the case of Exodus and Deuteronomy, the genre of these texts is law and (putative) history. There are lists of laws, explanations of the sacrificial system, its practices, rituals, and equipment (the Tabernacle, the Table of Showbread, the Menorah, the Ark of the Covenant, altars, ceremonial vessels and utensils, etc.). Then there are narrative "historical" passages that portray the laws being enforced literally. You have provided not one bit of argumentation or evidence in favor of interpreting them metaphorically, much less demonstrated what metaphor was intended.

I have also stated that non-literal passages should be interpreted non-literally, in accordance with their genre. For example, the Proverbs should not be interpreted as if they are meant to be principles of physics. They're proverbs, which means, statements of "general wisdom" that are thought to be generally applicable. So, a proverb which teaches that hard work leads to prosperity should not be interpreted as meaning literally that every single person who works hard will inevitably become rich. Another example which I provided in my previous posts: the Book of Revelation is clearly a mystic allegory. It should not be interpreted as a literal prediction that multi-headed godzilla monsters will crawl out of the earth and sea at the end of time.

Since you seem to be claiming that exactly zero percent of the Bible should be interpreted literally, I would like to see your justification for that claim.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: You will have to provide more reasonable proof.

Hahaha. Since you reject any possibility of data (in this case, any coherent hermeneutic for interpreting Biblical texts), you've rigged the game to make that impossible. "I want you to provide more reasonable proof for biological evolution--but you can't use any science or fossils!"

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: You have some convoluted logic that leads you to have to take the bible literally. I don't.

Once again, I interpret some parts of the Bible literally, based on the genre and historical context of the texts themselves. In this discussion, we've been talking about only two texts: Exodus, and Deuteronomy. You have provided not one bit of evidence from the texts to indicate that they were written metaphorically, that the people they were written for interpreted them metaphorically, or that succeeding generations interpreted them metaphorically.

Even in Christian times, the understanding of Torah law was that it was meant literally. Read your New Testament. When Paul is arguing against the "Judaizers" in Galatians, he says he wishes that those who demand circumcision would go the whole way and castrate themselves. He doesn't say, "I think those fellows who say that circumcision is a metaphor for cutting off our bad habits are incorrect; it's a metaphor for the circumcision of the heart, the inner transformation that takes place when we are baptized into Christ." Or look at the arguments between Jesus and the Pharisees portrayed in the Gospels. They make no sense at all if the Pharisees interpreted the Torah metaphorically. The reason that Christians developed a doctrine that the Torah law had been "fulfilled" by the sacrifice of Christ (so that Christians did not have to obey the laws) was because they interpreted it as law, not as metaphor.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: Most Jews don't use the torah literally (the old T).

I would love to see a citation for your claim that Jews don't keep kosher or celebrate the Biblical religious festivals (Tabernacles, Passover, the Day of Atonement, etc.), or circumcise their male children on the eighth day after their birth, or keep the Sabbath, or wear tallits (a prayer shawl that has tassels fashioned in accordance with Torah law) when worshiping. Bonus points if you can show that no Jews ever obeyed the Torah law because they knew it was written metaphorically in the first place.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: 2) I reject your notion that if we can use it metaphorically that we then can make up anything we want and it be considered "rational".

I am indifferent to what you "reject." The question is, can you demonstrate that Exodus and Deuteronomy were written metaphorically? If yes, can you demonstrate the validity of a specific metaphorical interpretation? If you can't, then you could have one metaphorical interpretation, Bishop Shelby Spong another metaphorical interpretation, the Gnostics another, and so on, and none of you will be able to show that yours is the correct one. Which, for all practical intents and purposes means "we then can make up anything we want." Unless you can demonstrate that your particular metaphorical interpretation is the correct one. Can you?

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: Like your 'evil god" slant.

I just provided specific examples, from Biblical texts, showing that they portrayed their god as jealous and brutal. You kicked and screamed and said "I reject! I reject!" So what? Who the hell are you?! Did you provide any actual reason to adopt your interpretation? Did you even try? No.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: You think that I am wrong stating that "... you are held accountable ..." can be taken out of the bible.

I think you are wrong in stating that "you are held accountable" (in some broad based ethical sense) is the meaning of the specific texts I quoted. You have provided zero evidence in favor of your interpretation. So far you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to read and understand what I am writing to you. This gives me no confidence in your ability to correctly interpret ancient texts written by and for people in a very different cultural milieu than ours.

Serious question, not meant in any way as an attack: is English not your native language?

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: You said something like I pulled it out of my butt. Your take on a literal bible is bull sit. So all your claims using a literal bible are bull sit. They are logical fallacies.

Because you say so? Really? Please, tell me you're the Pope or something, so at least you'll have an excuse for thinking that you're infallible when you speak ex cathedra.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:21 am)archangle Wrote: now, if you just want to jump around insulting and degrading theist.

Speaking of theists, are you one? You identify yourself as an atheist in your profile. If you are an atheist, then aren't you just trolling this thread?