[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Acrobat]

Why is this only applicable to holy texts, and not text in general? I mean we seem to have the same problems with philosophical works, novels, etc.., even the writings of the scientifically minded, like Darwin, or even Sam Harris, in fact such issues plague pretty much ever interpretation of posts between two people who strongly disagree with each other here.  

Secondly in regards to the ambiguity of the  NT, Jesus gave a huge middle finger to those seeking less ambiguity. He uses parables, riddles, and sayings that his own disciples had trouble understanding.

I’d say that’s because the understanding the meaning that’s trying be conveyed requires something far more fundamental than just reading words on pages, truths that are less understood by hearing, but more so by seeing.

I’d put it this way, there’s nothing wrong with the NT or the Bible being open to multiple interpretations, only in what motivates those interpretations.

And often times that motivation isn’t to discern the truth of meaning.

The chief difference being that Darwin and Harris aren't trying to lead people to salvation.  The stakes of a scientific theory (Darwin) and anti-theist polemics (Harris) are monumentally different than those of eternal salvation. 

Yes, the stakes are high. But you mistake the condition, as one that could be resolved by clarity in writing, less ambiguity in what’s said, when it can’t be. It’s not about you hearing or reading it clearly but seeing it clearly.

[Anomalocaris]

When I see that phrase “The Bible is not a textbook of science.”, I automatically translate it as, “The Bible is not entirely true,” for that is what it means. The “nontextbook” claim, of course, is a rationale for believers to pick and choose what they consider really true in scripture—or, for liberal Muslims like Reza Aslan, in the Quran.

I think what this shows is that you’re a product of a particular cultural phenomenon, in which you see  truth as reducible to a series of scientific and historical facts, a component and artifact of the scientific age, even further eroded by disintegration of communities, and relationships in people’s lives.

Scientific and historical truths are superficial. If all the questions of science were answered all the questions of human life would remain untouched, as Wittgenstein would put it.

If I think of all the  really important things I want my children to know, it wouldn’t include some peer reviewed scientific study, or any set of historical facts.

These important truths might fall into a category we call “moral truths”, how to be and live in the fractured world in front of them. The sort of the truths that are important to communities, friends, families, to the nature of human life, but less important than the truths one derive in pristine laboratories, or an archeological dig.

Where are as you might say such truths, aren’t real truths, unlike scientific and historical truths, I say the opposite. That these are the things truly worthy of being called truth.

Its why Einstein would praise Dostoevsky, as giving him “more than any scientist, more than Gauss”.

It’s the nature of this more  important thing being given, that’s neither science or history, that remains elusive to your type.

If your standard of what is true is what fires the neurons in the reptilian parts of your brain, then perhaps you should go back to being a reptile.

[Acrobat]

Why is this only applicable to holy texts, and not text in general? I mean we seem to have the same problems with philosophical works, novels, etc.., even the writings of the scientifically minded, like Darwin, or even Sam Harris, in fact such issues plague pretty much ever interpretation of posts between two people who strongly disagree with each other here.  

Secondly in regards to the ambiguity of the  NT, Jesus gave a huge middle finger to those seeking less ambiguity. He uses parables, riddles, and sayings that his own disciples had trouble understanding.

I’d say that’s because the understanding the meaning that’s trying be conveyed requires something far more fundamental than just reading words on pages, truths that are less understood by hearing, but more so by seeing.

I’d put it this way, there’s nothing wrong with the NT or the Bible being open to multiple interpretations, only in what motivates those interpretations.

And often times that motivation isn’t to discern the truth of meaning.

It is totally applicable to every other text.   But texts of value present themselves truthfully as the work of men, where as “holy” text pretends otherwise.   So the application shows which is the fraud, and which are not in this regard.

Few things here, I’m more than happy to concede that the Bible is a work of men, inspired by God, are the works of the communities and people around the various scriptures. The Bible doesn’t deny this.

But secondly even if we were to say that Bible was penned by God himself, the idea that God would be less ambiguous in his communication is false. Perhaps if all God wanted to share with us is some series of scientific and historic facts, about his engineering skills, and magical performances, so we can be astonished by his technical feats, that criticism might make sense.

If god came down, and put on a supernatural magical show, all we can do is clap, and then get on with our lives as we normally do. This seems to be the sort of God, many atheists appear to be on the look out for, a sky wizard so to say.

---

I think what this shows is that you’re a product of a particular cultural phenomenon, in which you see  truth as reducible to a series of scientific and historical facts, a component and artifact of the scientific age, even further eroded by disintegration of communities, and relationships in people’s lives.

Scientific and historical truths are superficial. If all the questions of science were answered all the questions of human life would remain untouched, as Wittgenstein would put it.

If I think of all the  really important things I want my children to know, it wouldn’t include some peer reviewed scientific study, or any set of historical facts.

These important truths might fall into a category we call “moral truths”, how to be and live in the fractured world in front of them. The sort of the truths that are important to communities, friends, families, to the nature of human life, but less important than the truths one derive in pristine laboratories, or an archeological dig.

Where are as you might say such truths, aren’t real truths, unlike scientific and historical truths, I say the opposite. That these are the things truly worthy of being called truth.

Its why Einstein would praise Dostoevsky, as giving him “more than any scientist, more than Gauss”.

It’s the nature of this more  important thing being given, that’s neither science or history, that remains elusive to your type.

If your standard of what is true is what fires the neurons in the reptilian parts of your brain, then perhaps you should go back to being a reptile.

The hierarchy of truth, is ordered by importance, and the highest of all truths are moral ones. And these are not reducible to scientific or historical truths about reality.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The chief difference being that Darwin and Harris aren't trying to lead people to salvation.  The stakes of a scientific theory (Darwin) and anti-theist polemics (Harris) are monumentally different than those of eternal salvation. 

Yes, the stakes are high. But you mistake the condition, as one that could be resolved by clarity in writing, less ambiguity in what’s said, when it can’t be. It’s not  about you hearing or reading it clearly but seeing it clearly.

Then there's no point in reading the so-called 'holy' texts, is there?

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

It is totally applicable to every other text.   But texts of value present themselves truthfully as the work of men, where as “holy” text pretends otherwise.   So the application shows which is the fraud, and which are not in this regard.

Few things here, I’m more than happy to concede that the Bible is a work of men, inspired by God, are the works of the communities and people around the various scriptures. The Bible doesn’t deny this.

But secondly even if we were to say that Bible was penned by God himself, the idea that God would be less ambiguous in his communication is false. Perhaps if all God wanted to share with us is some series of scientific and historic facts, about his engineering skills, and magical performances, so we can be astonished by his technical feats, that criticism might make sense.

If god came down, and put on a supernatural magical show, all we can do is clap, and then get on with our lives as we normally do. This seems to be the sort of God, many atheists appear to be on the look out for, a sky wizard so to say.

This is the only sort of god consistent with attributes ascribed to god to entice the gullible. You can’t have it both ways.

---

It is totally applicable to every other text.   But texts of value present themselves truthfully as the work of men, where as “holy” text pretends otherwise.   So the application shows which is the fraud, and which are not in this regard.

Few things here, I’m more than happy to concede that the Bible is a work of men, inspired by God, are the works of the communities and people around the various scriptures. The Bible doesn’t deny this.

But secondly even if we were to say that Bible was penned by God himself, the idea that God would be less ambiguous in his communication is false. Perhaps if all God wanted to share with us is some series of scientific and historic facts, about his engineering skills, and magical performances, so we can be astonished by his technical feats, that criticism might make sense.

If god came down, and put on a supernatural magical show, all we can do is clap, and then get on with our lives as we normally do. This seems to be the sort of God, many atheists appear to be on the look out for, a sky wizard so to say.

---

If your standard of what is true is what fires the neurons in the reptilian parts of your brain, then perhaps you should go back to being a reptile.

The hierarchy of truth, is ordered by importance, and the highest of all truths are moral ones. And these are not reducible to scientific or historical truths about reality.

It could hardly be truth of any altitude if it is no truth at all, but mere fantasies concocted to justify a set of ad hoc heuristics which  were implemented to achieve varied ends, some to sooth reptilian needs, some to enable more calculating ends only a portion of which can be passed off, not necessarily honestly, as honorable.

[The Grand Nudger]

You’re hedging your bets, claiming it to be “inspired by god”.

You’re not ready to make the commitment required of your appeal to hypocrisy, and in this you leave the notion in an even more indefensible position. Gods ability to inspire is either insufficient, or it thinks the same myopic things that those inspired authors wrote in.

[Acrobat]

Yes, the stakes are high. But you mistake the condition, as one that could be resolved by clarity in writing, less ambiguity in what’s said, when it can’t be. It’s not  about you hearing or reading it clearly but seeing it clearly.

Then there's no point in reading the so-called 'holy' texts, is there?

Boru

If someone asked what is red, I can say it's the color of rubies, of blood, and strawberries, and he can understand what red means. But this understanding isn't transferable to a blind man, whose never seen rubies, or blood, or strawberries, or colors. 

The ancient Hebrews saw a single thing, that defies any attempt at definition, like the dwellers of Plato's cave, seeing a hint of light from the sun. And that perception grows throughout their history, until it's fully realized in the person of Christ. Like the slow peeling of a blindfold, over thousands of years. There's a kernel that grows from one end to the next. But one has to see this seed in order to recognize it. No words, no matter how clearly said to you, can do that. Just like the redness of rubies can't be conveyed to the blind.

[Anomalocaris]

Oh, please. Omnipotent god can’t imprint the neurological pattern of full understanding with a “let there be understanding” just as how he allegedly called light into existence?

[Deesse23]

A purely literal reading of the Bible is the compliment that poorly-educated believers pay to science. They think that the only way to get important meaning from a book is to read it like a science text, so they read it that way. In this they ignore the history of their own religion and unknowingly agree that scientific statements -- ideally unambiguous, requiring no interpretation, and either true or false -- are the only good kind of statements. 

One could also conclude the exact opposite, that insisting a literal reading of a book, whose claims are demonstrably scientifically wrong in many instances, is not a compliment but disrespect to the achievements of science. One could conclude that an (re-)interpretation in accordance with scientific findings is actually a compliment being paid to science.

No one can read like a first century Palestinian anymore -- we all read through the lens of our own time, which includes a history. It's doubtful that the authors of the Genesis creation story meant it literally, but even if they did it's of no interest to us, because things have moved on.

I disagree
A proper reading of ancient texts always includes one informing himslef of the background of the time the stuff was written in, the person who wrote it and the possible audience. When i took latin classes and we translated classic roman literaure, 50% of the time was devoted to this background, in orde to be able to understand the text from the persepctive of the times it was written in.

Secondly in regards to the ambiguity of the  NT, Jesus gave a huge middle finger to those seeking less ambiguity. He uses parables, riddles, and sayings that his own disciples had trouble understanding.

A teacher who intentionally keeps his disciples confused is an ass imho. Particularly when he is the reincarnation of a god. Whats the purpose of an (omni)benevolent deity being an ass?

But secondly even if we were to say that Bible was penned by God himself, the idea that God would be less ambiguous in his communication is false. Perhaps if all God wanted to share with us is some series of scientific and historic facts, about his engineering skills, and magical performances, so we can be astonished by his technical feats, that criticism might make sense. If god came down, and put on a supernatural magical show, all we can do is clap, and then get on with our lives as we normally do. This seems to be the sort of God, many atheists appear to be on the look out for, a sky wizard so to say.

How do you know what your god wants? How do you know what kind of god your god is?
Its one thing to not explain your magic to the mere mortals at all. After all you are the boss of this show. But giving highly ambiguous information and keeping humans intentionally confused just makes him an ass. Life is not a stage show. Its more serious than that. I am actually shocked you are comparing the struggle of all humans in our history, particularly all the hardships and suffering to a magic show. But otoh its a cornerstone of your religion to have contempt for fellow human beings and pretend it to be compassion. Thats the part where religion has poisoned your mind.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then, if things are as you say Acro, Boru’s statement was dead on target.

The holy books are useless. One must see, not read. For whatever reason, god inspired a useless addendum full of human detritus.