[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Fake Messiah]

This whole topic is nothing more than Belaqua's No True Scotsman fallacy.

No it isn't. 
[...]
In fact I've been clear that in my opinion we can't give a definition of what a True Christian is. There are many types, and it's not for me to say which kind is true. 

Except you do say from the 1st post that Bible literalists are not true Christians like 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. , and not just that but you said "modern dumb Americans" so cut the crap already.

[Acrobat]

No it isn't. 
[...]
In fact I've been clear that in my opinion we can't give a definition of what a True Christian is. There are many types, and it's not for me to say which kind is true. 

Except you do say from the 1st post that Bible literalists are not true Christians like 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. , and not just that but you said "modern dumb Americans" so cut the crap already.

That doesn’t follow. Calling someone a dumb American doesn’t equate to saying they’re not a real American.

Calling some christians poorly educated, poor readers of the Bible, doesn’t equate to saying they’re not real Christians.

[Fake Messiah]

Except you do say from the 1st post that Bible literalists are not true Christians like 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. , and not just that but you said "modern dumb Americans" so cut the crap already.

That doesn’t follow. Calling someone a dumb American doesn’t equate to saying they’re not a real American.

Calling some christians poorly educated, poor readers of the Bible, doesn’t equate to saying they’re not real Christians.

Yeah it's called Full of Shit, because you are saying that he is saying that they are (true) Christians except they wrongfully interpret the Bible.

[Belacqua]

No it isn't. 
[...]
In fact I've been clear that in my opinion we can't give a definition of what a True Christian is. There are many types, and it's not for me to say which kind is true. 

Except you do say from the 1st post that Bible literalists are not true Christians like 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. , and not just that but you said "modern dumb Americans" so cut the crap already.

Nowhere in that quote do I say that anyone is not a true Christian. 

Modern dumb Christians may well be true Christians. Modern smart Christians may well be true Christians. It's not for me to say. 

Literalists may well be true Christians. Non-literalists may well be true Christians. It's not for me to say.

[Fake Messiah]

Literalists may well be true Christians. Non-literalists may well be true Christians. It's not for me to say.

Yeah they might be true Christians except they don't know how to interpret the Bible. Cut the crap.

[Belacqua]

That doesn’t follow. Calling someone a dumb American doesn’t equate to saying they’re not a real American.

Calling some christians poorly educated, poor readers of the Bible, doesn’t equate to saying they’re not real Christians.

Yeah it's called Full of Shit, because you are saying that he is saying that they are (true) Christians except they wrongfully interpret the Bible.

I am saying that they interpret the Bible in a literal way, and that we have good historical reasons to believe that it hasn't always been interpreted literally. There are also good arguments to indicate that the original authors didn't mean many things literally. 

I have never said that anyone is or is not a True Christian.

---

Here's an example we could ponder.

There is a minority tradition of Christianity which held that Jesus was not a literal flesh-and-blood human. Or rather, if it turned out that he was a myth, and never lived as a person, this wouldn't have affected their theology.

Probably the last notable believer in this vein was William Blake, who was never threatened with burning at the stake. He took the main lines of his argument from Lutheran mystic Jacob Boehme, who published in German and had to keep out of the headlights of the Lutheran authorities, but was supported by a network of rich educated men. Translations of his works were available in England, where they were never threatened with censorship. Boehme's career as a mystic began with a vision, but continued as he learned, again with the help of an educated elite, about the hermetic and philosophia perennis traditions.

No doubt some people will say that Blake, Boehme, et.al, were not true Christians. But I have never said that. I think they are among the most interesting Christians, and I won't judge whether they were Real Christians or not. Their next-door neighbors probably believed in a literal flesh-and-blood Christ and, guess what, I can't say whether they were Real or not either. Real is not my concern.

[Acrobat]

That doesn’t follow. Calling someone a dumb American doesn’t equate to saying they’re not a real American.

Calling some christians poorly educated, poor readers of the Bible, doesn’t equate to saying they’re not real Christians.

Yeah it's called Full of Shit, because you are saying that he is saying that they are (true) Christians except they wrongfully interpret the Bible.

He doesn’t exclude them from being Christians just because they interpret the Bible wrongly, differently, whatever, whether they’re decent people, or terrible ones, etc....

A simple point he seems repeating, but you refuse to accept.

[Fake Messiah]

I am saying that they interpret the Bible in a literal way,

Nope, you are quite clear that they are wrong and even calling them stupid.

and that we have good historical reasons to believe that it hasn't always been interpreted literally.

Actually quite the opposite. Start with character of Jesus himself who was literalist believed in the Flood, Jonah, six day creation. Or let's say we take the story of Adam and Eve as only as a metaphor. So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? Seems barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.

I have never said that anyone is or is not a True Christian.

Really? Then explain me how can a group of Christians be true Christians and interpret Bible completely wrong?

[Acrobat]

Actually quite the opposite. Start with character of Jesus himself who was literalist believed in the Flood, Jonah, six day creation. Or let's say we take the story of Adam and Eve as only as a metaphor. So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? Seems barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.

Why do you believe Jesus took these things literally? He took these stories very seriously that's for sure, but what basis do you assume he took them literally? He never explicitly stated they were historical, so what's the basis for this assumption? When Jesus refers to Jonah, he condemns those looking for a sign, saying no sign will be given, but the sign of Jonah. Clearly he didn't mean they were going to be literally swallowed by a whale, so he seems to be using Jonah to illustrate something metaphorical, so why assume his understanding was historical?

Also, Jesus, nor any of the Gospel writers connected his death to Adam. So whatever reason they saw as the basis for his death, it wasn't to correct something committed by a historical Adam in a literal garden, who ate a fruit.

[Belacqua]

Nope, you are quite clear that they are wrong and even calling them stupid.

In my opinion they are wrong to interpret many parts of the Bible literally. In my opinion it is not smart to do that. 

Does this mean that they aren't True Christians? Why? 

What constitutes a True Christian? I don't know. 

Actually quite the opposite. 

The Song of Solomon 4:1 includes the line: "Your eyes are doves behind your veil." 

Does this line refer to a bizarre human-animal hybrid? Or is it a metaphor? 

If it is normal to read it as a metaphor, then we can show that at least one sentence in the Bible is not meant literally. After that we have the task of working out all the rest of them. 

Start with character of Jesus himself who was literalist believed in the Flood, Jonah, six day creation. 

I don't know what Jesus himself believed, if he even existed. It may be that the guy who wrote the gospel described him as believing literally in those things. Is this literal? 

Or let's say we take the story of Adam and Eve as only as a metaphor. So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? Seems barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.

If we begin with the commitment that all Christians are barking mad, then it's easy for us to accept that they believed what you say literally. 

On the other hand, when we see a number of people recounting a story that is obviously ridiculous if taken literally, we could consider the possibility that they are using it in a non-literal way. 

I expect that any number of Christians have believed the story literally. Others didn't. Which are True Christians? I don't know -- maybe both, or maybe we need some other standard by which to measure their Trueness. That doesn't really matter to me. 

Then explain me how can a group of Christians be true Christians and interpret Bible completely wrong?

Are you saying that if a group of Christians interprets the Bible wrongly they are not True Christians? I wouldn't make that judgment. 

I can explain how they interpret it in a way which it hasn't been interpreted, historically. Or I can explain how a literal interpretation will result in believing stupid things, like Noah's flood. 

I am not the one talking about who is a True Christian so I don't know to make this standard of judgment.

---

It seems to me that it is OK to say "no true X does Y" if it is really a definitional thing.

So for example, "no true bachelor is married" is fine. That's not a fallacy, because it's the definition of "bachelor."

As I recall, the story behind the Scotsman thing is like:

A: A Scotsman would never eat eggs for breakfast.
B: But MacTavish in Glasgow eats eggs for breakfast.
A: Yeah, but no TRUE Scotsman eats eggs for breakfast.

That's a fallacy because it's silly.

If you can show that there is some definitional thing that all Christians must have to be True Christians, then you could tell me who is a True Christian and who isn't. But I don't think such a thing exists. I think that Christianity is a big baggy category with a zillion variations, and for any given characteristic you can find someone who calls himself a Christian who doesn't have that characteristic.

So if somebody says that you have to interpret a certain chapter literally to be a True Christian, I'll just find you a minister somewhere who doesn't interpret it literally, and you'll be left in the position of saying MacTavish isn't a Scotsman.

But seriously, if you have some single characteristic that's definitional for Christianity, please let us know.