[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[EgoDeath]

Yeah, I don't care about the definition, as long as we know what we're talking about. 

Since atheists don't believe in God, we'd have to say either that nothing is holy, or that holiness is decided by people, right? 

However, these people believing this book is divine is certainly different than them just believing it's a good book, no?

Yeah, I think that poetry works in some places and not in others. On a forum like this, accuracy is best. It may be that in the interests of accuracy -- for example, to head off misunderstanding -- I type more than some people would. 

If you don't like the way I write you could ignore my posts and it wouldn't offend me.

It's not that; I simply have to wonder, when you beat around the bush and make these lengthy diatribes, how interested are you in actually answering the question.

Good, we agree on something.

Well, I never said it did either. I have to wonder if it provoked any commentary worth listening to. Is someone in today's world better off for understanding the Bible and the context it was written in and the conversation around it? It seems to me that you could go your entire life without ever hearing about this book and, if anything, you'd be better off not having to worry yourself with the silly ideas that the Christian religion proposes.

No, this is untrue. 

The only thing that atheists have in common is that they don't believe a certain thing. Some atheists have a deep understanding of the tropes used in literary expression, and some don't. 

Some Christians understand that stuff, and some don't. As I have said a few times now, I think that many modern Christians don't understand those tropes very well, and it would be better if they did

You say, "this is untrue," and yet you come off like a Christian trying to make a good case for why should all take the Bible quite seriously. Nah.

Once again, you try to paint these early Christians as people who had this literary, fluid understanding of the Bible as a piece of literature. That they were just oh so comfortable with literary tropes and allegory that we, in today's age, just don't get it... but there's no real evidence to back that up. Evidence tells us that early Christians had a dynamic understanding of the scripture; however, dynamic understanding included taking many parts quite literally and even treating some parts of the Bible as historical record and direct commands from god.

A metaphor, would be like when Jesus said, "Think not I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword." Of course, Jesus did not literally send a sword to earth. I think even the most hardcore Biblical literalist would tell you they understand that this isn't literal.

[Belacqua]

However, these people believing this book is divine is certainly different than them just believing it's a good book, no?

That's certainly true. 

Proust's novel is an extremely good book, but not holy. 

The Bible is holy to many many people because they -- and their tradition -- have made it holy. 

It's not that; I simply have to wonder, when you beat around the bush and make these lengthy diatribes, how interested are you in actually answering the question.

It's your judgment that I'm "beating around the bush." I think I'm answering the questions, though I guess not in the way you'd like.

I have to wonder if it provoked any commentary worth listening to. 

Well, sure. But that's a separate question.

The Bible provoked a long commentary for lots of people. Is it worth your while to learn this commentary? That's up to you. If you're not interested, my personal advice would be to ignore it as much as possible. 

Is someone in today's world better off for understanding the Bible and the context it was written in and the conversation around it? It seems to me that you could go your entire life without ever hearing about this book and, if anything, you'd be better off not having to worry yourself with the silly ideas that the Christian religion proposes.

It depends on what you want to do.

If you want to discuss that tradition in an intelligent way, then it makes sense to understand the tradition. If you don't want to think about it, or debate it, or fight about it, then sure -- read something else. 

Once again, you try to paint these early Christians as people who had this literary, fluid understanding of the Bible as a piece of literature. That they were just oh so comfortable with literary tropes and allegory that we, in today's age, just don't get it... but there's no real evidence to back that up. 

There is a written record that educated Christians in the past were comfortable with a variety of types of expression. As were those non-Christians who interpreted Greek myths, etc. 

I don't say that "we, in today's age, just don't get it." That would be too broad. I think that many people don't get it, and it makes sense to point out to people who read too simply that the tradition includes non-literal interpretation. 

Evidence tells us that early Christians had a dynamic understanding of the scripture and that dynamic understanding included taking many parts quite literally and even treating some parts of the Bible as historical record and direct commands from god.

Yes, thank you, I think this is right. I've said this before. 

Some parts were read literally, and other parts not. The Bible is an anthology by many authors with different goals and different methods.  Working out which is which requires using one's brain, and some knowledge of hermeneutics. That is all.

[EgoDeath]

That's certainly true. 

Proust's novel is an extremely good book, but not holy. 

The Bible is holy to many many people because they -- and their tradition -- have made it holy.

But certainly, people cannot make a book divine, right?

Well, sure. But that's a separate question.

The Bible provoked a long commentary for lots of people. Is it worth your while to learn this commentary? That's up to you. If you're not interested, my personal advice would be to ignore it as much as possible.

Well, saying it provoked "serious commentary" sort of implies that this is serious business, something worth listening to. I'm not sure if that's the case.

It depends on what you want to do.

If you want to discuss that tradition in an intelligent way, then it makes sense to understand the tradition. If you don't want to think about it, or debate it, or fight about it, then sure -- read something else.

What makes tradition anything worth listening to? Ever read The Lottery by Shirley Jackson?

There is a written record that educated Christians in the past were comfortable with a variety of types of expression. As were those non-Christians who interpreted Greek myths, etc. 

I don't say that "we, in today's age, just don't get it." That would be too broad. I think that many people don't get it, and it makes sense to point out to people who read too simply that the tradition includes non-literal interpretation.

And what I'm saying is that even dynamic interpretations of the Bible surely contain plenty of literalism. What parts do you think are taken literally?

Yes, thank you, I think this is right. I've said this before. 

Some parts were read literally, and other parts not. The Bible is an anthology by many authors with different goals and different methods.  Working out which is which requires using one's brain, and some knowledge of hermeneutics. That is all.

But, in suggesting this, you insinuate that there is one ultimate interpretation to be discovered, so long as you just "use [your] brain."

[Darwin1245]

What makes you so sure that people today would interpret those non-literal statements the same way as was intended 2+ thousand years ago? Understanding non-literal expressions is likely affected by knowledge and other factors. Trying to interpret is the same as trying to find a meaning that makes sense. What makes sense to us did not necessarily make sense to the authors thousands of years ago. It seems more like a human mistake to not consider this by not making the book clear enough for the religion to last forever. “Holy” texts seem very much like other ancient literature.

[Belacqua]

But certainly, people cannot make a book divine, right? 

If you mean by "divine" that it really comes from God, then no, people can't make it divine. It actually comes from God or it doesn't. 

I thought it was useful to have a separate term -- "holy" -- to mean that people hold something to be spiritually important, whether it comes from God or not. 

So for example, I can refer to a Hindu holy site as holy, even though I don't think the Hindu gods really exist. It's a holy site because people say it's holy. 

Well, saying it provoked "serious commentary" sort of implies that this is serious business, something worth listening to. I'm not sure if that's the case.

It was certainly serious to the people doing the commentary. It was serious business to them. I can understand that you don't find it worth listening to, but that's your judgment call. 

It depends on what you want to do.

If you want to discuss that tradition in an intelligent way, then it makes sense to understand the tradition. If you don't want to think about it, or debate it, or fight about it, then sure -- read something else.

What makes tradition anything worth listening to? Ever read The Lottery by Shirley Jackson?

Before I address your new question here, I'd like to reiterate the point I made above:

If you are talking about the religious tradition, it is good to know about the religious tradition. Because it's good to know what you're talking about. 

So suppose there's a modern Christian somewhere who says that the talking snake in Genesis has to be interpreted literally. I think that, since he's addressing a part of the Christian tradition, it would be good for him to know that for many important people in his tradition, the snake was not interpreted literally. 

Likewise, if an anti-religion person declared that all Christians are idiots because they believe in talking snakes, it would be good for him to know that many important people in that tradition didn't believe in talking snakes. 

When discussing the subject, it's good to know the subject.

As for your new question, what makes a tradition worth listening to -- there are better traditions and worse traditions. But we all depend on some traditions. Life would be too difficult if we had to invent everything new in every generation. I suppose we judge good and bad traditions according to the same standards we judge other things -- do I think it is best for people.

Of course the Jackson story is about a bad tradition, and that tradition should be stopped. But it doesn't mean that all traditions are bad. What do you think? 

And what I'm saying is that even dynamic interpretations of the Bible surely contain plenty of literalism. What parts do you think are taken literally?

Yes, as I've said several times, parts are read literally and parts aren't. I'm pretty sure that the Mosaic laws were intended by the original authors to be followed literally. As for the rest -- it's a big book, and going through it line by line would take time. As I said, it's not easy.

But, in suggesting this, you insinuate that there is one ultimate interpretation to be discovered, so long as you just "use [your] brain."

I'd be grateful if you stick with what I say, and not what you think I am insinuating. 

I don't think there is only one ultimate interpretation to be discovered. In fact I am arguing the opposite, and I have said so. A story like the Book of Job has many interpretations. The combination and history of these interpretations is largely what makes the Book of Job into a fascinating myth and a prompt for thinking. 

Using your brain in such a case would mean that you can hold the various interpretations in mind, comparing and contrasting and gaining from the process, without insisting that you are right. Non-literal poetry often (not always) works this way.

---

Hi Darwin,

Was this post intended for me? I seem to be the noisiest person on the thread, so I'll guess that it was. 

[Just for future reference: in the lower right of each post there's a button marked "reply." If you click that and then type in the box that appears, it will be clear to whom you're speaking.] 

What makes you so sure that people today would interpret those non-literal statements the same way as was intended 2+ thousand years ago? 

I'm quite sure that many people today wouldn't interpret those statements the way the authors intended them. 

Earlier in the thread, I think, I questioned whether this was important. My opinion is that whatever the authors intended, it's the centuries of interpretation which make the statements meaningful to us now. I don't know and don't much care whether the author of Genesis really believed that Moses could hit a rock and get water. I know for a fact that some later writers interpreted this literally and others didn't, and this is what we work on.

Understanding non-literal expressions is likely affected by knowledge and other factors. Trying to interpret is the same as trying to find a meaning that makes sense. What makes sense to us did not necessarily make sense to the authors thousands of years ago.

Yes, very much so. The interpretation of non-literary expressions is different for different people. In some cases, this seems to me intentional and wise. 

It seems more like a human mistake to not consider this by not making the book clear enough for the religion to last forever. 

Or it may be that the religion lasts forever (well, a long time) exactly because the non-literal expressions sustain ever-renewing interpretations. 

Jesus didn't address a single word to how we drive our cars. But that doesn't mean that the lessons he supposedly taught are irrelevant when we drive. The fact that he taught in parables, open to interpretation in different circumstances, means that we draw lessons from them that are not specific to the details of the parable. 

“Holy” texts seem very much like other ancient literature.

Yes, certainly. 

That's why it's good to know about the expressions, methods, and tropes used in other ancient literature. It's why I am confident that the early interpreters were comfortable with non-literal readings, in many cases.

[Darwin1245]

Any text could be understood non-literally, and still seem right. You are basically finding ways to understand a statement in a way that you think makes sense, which does not necessarily mean that it makes sense to others, but only to you. More importantly, in the future, there would be other valid interpretations, and encouraging people to interpret texts this way will likely cause more division among people believing in the same religion. The original religion, which Jesus, supposedly, believed in, would not be the same as what people believe in, because everyone would come up with his/her own interpretations, and, therefore, it should not be called Christianity any more.
You said you do agree that interpretations are arbitrary, and that they depend on the person's personality and other factors. It is not acceptable that a psychopath interprets the texts in his own way that probably involves violence.

Jesus didn't address a single word to how we drive our cars. But that doesn't mean that the lessons he supposedly taught are irrelevant when we drive. The fact that he taught in parables, open to interpretation in different circumstances, means that we draw lessons from them that are not specific to the details of the parable.

Well, he was surely specific about other things that they did have in the age he lived in; therefore, he likely did not intend that people interpret texts non-literally. Believers interpret his lessons in ways that are only relevant to their own minds in this age. The relevant lessons are more likely to be moral, which is one thing that did not change much from when he existed.
It is obvious that people prefer to believe in myths because they are consoling, and because they provide explanations for things like death that are relevant to us. Most will, therefore, hold their beliefs tight by finding plausible interpretations of texts that were actually meant to be literal. Any text could be interpreted non-literally; if the reader feels the need to find plausible meanings, he would try very hard. This happens in many fields other than Religion.
No, it is not wise to make the Bible non-literal (which he did not,), or at least not something that makes Jesus/God wiser than poets; you are right that it probably lengthens lifespan of religions, but it also promotes more division, which is not wise at all.

It would have been wiser to make the "holy" texts literal so that they can be interpreted the same way by everyone no matter how different their personalities are and what age they live in. The religion would have been abandoned years ago if this had been the case, unless Jesus with his "SUPERNATURAL" powers came up with a literal text that somehow makes sense in ALL circumstances, which he supposedly had. Unfortunately, for some reason, he did not use his magical power.

However, if religions are to continue to exist, I would prefer that people believe in them non-literally, and interpret them in accordance with today's culture, which, both, allows them to keep believing in some selected, consoling myths, and be peaceful and following the law. I believe that is what people already do (excluding extremists), and this is probably why you keep arguing for this. Nevertheless, people should realize that this is not Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc; it is an arbitrary religion, and, since religions claim that all the statements in their "holy" books are flawless, it proves that each respective religion is not right, and that there is no evidence that supernatural beings exist.

[Belacqua]

You said you do agree that interpretations are arbitrary, and that they depend on the person's personality and other factors. It is not acceptable that a psychopath interprets the texts in his own way that probably involves violence.

I did not say I agree that interpretations are arbitrary. Please don't add things to my position that I didn't say. 

[definition of arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.]

Just because something is open to interpretation doesn't mean that it can be interpreted any damn way. Just because something is non-literal doesn't mean that any damn meaning can be assigned to it. 

The words of Baudelaire, where he says that nature is a living temple whose columns emit confused words, are not literal. But if I interpret this arbitrarily, to say the words refer to next year's football season, it would be laughable. 

In the saying attributed to Jesus, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone," the meaning is non-literal. (In the context of the story, people are holding stones, but the meaning is supposed to be applicable to non-stone-holding situations.) Does this mean that I can interpret it to mean that it is good for me to do violence? A psychopath certainly could reach that conclusion, or an arbitrary computer bot. Could a reasonable person? 

Several times on this thread I have said that hermeneutics is difficult. How we interpret a non-literal sentence is a challenge, not something we can just do however we want. 

The value of the history of interpretations is that they are NOT arbitrary. Each new reading of the Book of Job, for example -- fatalistic, or Kabbalistic, or Christian, etc. -- is offered with a commentary and REASONS for how the interpretation can be useful. If someone were to offer an arbitrary interpretation (e.g. the whirlwind represents silverware) it would be dismissed and forgotten. 

Moreover, many people who offer new interpretations of a famous story do so without claiming that their reading is the one and only, true forever best reading. Have you read Zizek's interpretation of the Clytemnestra story? He gets a fascinating lesson out of it, without in any way claiming to replace or supersede previous readings.

Well, he was surely specific about other things that they did have in the age he lived in; therefore, he likely did not intend that people interpret texts non-literally.

Is the parable of the sower agricultural advice? I hold that it was meant non-literally. Most Christians do, also, since it is labeled as a parable. 

The relevant lessons are more likely to be moral, which is one thing that did not change much from when he existed. 

Right. A statement about farming is non-literal, intended then and now to be moral/spiritual.

It is obvious that people prefer to believe in myths because they are consoling, and because they provide explanations for things like death that are relevant to us.

Maybe so. I don't want to speak about other people's minds, and why they believe things. No doubt there are good thinkers and bad thinkers in the world. 

Aside from the motivations people have, though, there are myths that are interpreted non-literally as tools to think about things. Neither Aristophanes nor Socrates, for example, believed the myths they recounted in the Symposium. If we keep in mind that such usage of myths was well known in ancient times, I see no reason to think that the Christian use of myths won't be informed by such practices. (You said, and I agree with you, that ancient holy books resemble ancient non-holy books. At least in some ways.)

I don't believe in any myths, I hope. I do find the discussion of myths to be relevant to moral and human issues, just as fiction like Proust is informative about moral and human issues. I don't have to believe in the literal existence of Job or of Charlus to find these stories helpful. 

It would have been wiser to make the "holy" texts literal so that they can be interpreted the same way by everyone no matter how different their personalities are and what age they live in.

Well, I guess it's too bad that they didn't ask you how to do it. Rather than dream about a counterfactual ideal past, I think we should learn to deal with myth, religion, literature, and human issues in the way that history gives them to us, without dumbing down the wisdom and beauty they sometimes contain. 

I still maintain that the wisdom of literature comes largely in its varied applicability independent of the specifics of the text.

[Darwin1245]

I did not say I agree that interpretations are arbitrary. Please don't add things to my position that I didn't say.

[definition of arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.]

Just because something is open to interpretation doesn't mean that it can be interpreted any damn way. Just because something is non-literal doesn't mean that any damn meaning can be assigned to it.

By this definition, any statement can be understood arbitrarily since there is no standard—that is, there are no obvious meanings. Hermeneutics? If Biblical Hermeneutics had been invented and, more importantly, was being in writing books before or during the Bible was being written, and if people only use those basics without coming up with new ones or altering them, they won't be considered arbitrary interpretations. 
I need to look up the history of Biblical Hermeneutics regarding when exactly it was first used, where it was being used and its evolution. 

In the saying attributed to Jesus, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone," the meaning is non-literal. (In the context of the story, people are holding stones, but the meaning is supposed to be applicable to non-stone-holding situations.) Does this mean that I can interpret it to mean that it is good for me to do violence? A psychopath certainly could reach that conclusion, or an arbitrary computer bot. Could a reasonable person?

Most people would understand this according to the context, but some verses are not that clear. I did not say that it applies to all verses.
I can't speak for all psychopaths or other people with atypical processing of information, but, yes, some could. A psychopath is reasonable in his/her own way, just as normal people are reasonable in their own way. A God who presumably created people, including psychopaths, should have considered this by making the unclear statements clear enough for everyone to get them right. It is typical of humans to ignore the minority. That's another human feature that we regularly find in holy books. 

Several times on this thread I have said that hermeneutics is difficult. How we interpret a non-literal sentence is a challenge, not something we can just do however we want.

As long as the basics of Biblical interpretations do not change over time to suit our evolving culture and knowledge, and had all been invented/used before or during the Bible was being written, it should be fine. If the basics used in interpreting the Bible are new, they are arbitrary, because, any interpretation that is based on what we think is reasonable describes us, and not what the religion calls for. 

Moreover, many people who offer new interpretations of a famous story do so without claiming that their reading is the one and only, true forever best reading. Have you read Zizek's interpretation of the Clytemnestra story? He gets a fascinating lesson out of it, without in any way claiming to replace or supersede previous readings.

Balequa, I never said we can't take some morals from arbitrary interpretations of stories or even holy texts. It still does not prove that supernatural beings exist. Mostly, we don't need to be told how to behave appropriately, because it is intuitive, and we learn by experience. 

Is the parable of the sower agricultural advice? I hold that it was meant non-literally. Most Christians do, also, since it is labeled as a parable.

No, that was not what I meant. I was speaking generally. Depending on when exactly the basics of Biblical Hermeneutics used to interpret each statement were invented, we can determine whether it was actually meant to be literal or non-literal, and if non-literal, what was the intended meaning. What you and other Christians think does not matter in this case because, again, people try to interpret them according to what makes sense to them. Some statements are obvious, but others are not. Again, I am not speaking specifically about the example you mentioned; I am speaking generally.

Maybe so. I don't want to speak about other people's minds, and why they believe things. No doubt there are good thinkers and bad thinkers in the world.

Aside from the motivations people have, though, there are myths that are interpreted non-literally as tools to think about things. Neither Aristophanes nor Socrates, for example, believed the myths they recounted in the Symposium. If we keep in mind that such usage of myths was well known in ancient times, I see no reason to think that their use of myths won't be informed by such practices.

I don't believe in any myths, I hope. I do find the discussion of myths to be relevant to moral and human issues, just as fiction like Proust is informative about moral and human issues. I don't have to believe in the literal existence of Job or of Charlus to find these stories helpful.

Yes, they can be motivational.
This way of interpreting myths is the one most people today use, but, in the past, people certainly believed in most/all of them. There is no evidence that all of those myths were meant to be demonstrative "stories" that were not believed to have actually been true. 
You seem to be focusing on the morals that can be derived from the Bible, and not on the truth about the origin of the Bible itself. Sure, you can always get morals from any "holy" book. I do that myself. 

Well, I guess it's too bad that they didn't ask you how to do it. Rather than dream about a counterfactual ideal past, I think we should learn to deal with myth, religion, literature, and human issues in the way that history gives them to us, without dumbing down the wisdom and beauty they sometimes contain.

It should have been ideal because that is how supernatural beings are described in religions. Those silly flaws I explained are human flaws, and should not have been evident in "holy" books that are supposedly peculiar. If I were one of the authors of any ancient holy book, I probably would have made some of those mistakes because some of them could not have been avoided unless the authors were being helped by someone who knew about the 21st century's Science and morals.
 Accepting the truth that is based on logic that the holy texts are not actually holy does not mean we should abandon all the wisdom and morals in them. They are a good source for history.

I still maintain that the wisdom of literature comes largely in its varied applicability independent of the specifics of the text.

Yes, but when texts are interpreted differently than was intended, it is not the author's wisdom, it is the interpreter's. But wisdom can still be found, literally and non-literally, in ancient literature in general; however, again, this does not prove that a god exists.

[Fake Messiah]

I suspect that @Belaqua wants this concept to be impossible to pin down. He would rather that no one can define what a Christian is; that way any criticism of specific behaviors, ideas or thoughts is only a criticism of one of MANY interpretations of the Bible and Christianity, and therefore not an actual criticism of Christianity or Christians as a whole. It's a sly variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy... he can (attempt to) discredit any criticism you may have by simply saying, "Well that's just one school of thought and doesn't define Christianity, so what does your criticism matter?"

It's disingenuous at best.

If we take the Bible literally, all the way, through and through, it's a grotesque, violent book portraying an archaic time and people who were using fairytales and myths to understand the world around them.

If we take a more dynamic interpretation of the Bible, it's still pretty much the same thing.

But Bel wants to paint Christians as people who just understand metaphor and nuance and allegory and other literary tropes so much more than us silly atheists!

Exactly. He claims that literalists are wrong in interpreting the Bible and then claims how he himself doesn't know how to interpret the Bible along with everyone else. Then he's obsessed with early Christians who thought that Jesus didn't exist.

So what? There were many christianities 2000 years ago, including gnostics, but then after years of fighting, the Roman Christianity prevailed. Richard Carrier made a career how Jesus was considered a hallucination.

And now everyone else, according to him, who doesn't take Jesus as non existing entity is wrong except when you confront him with that because then he says how he didn't mean that and this goes back and forth.

So good luck going to the bottom of this discussion where even the OP doesn't know what the topic is.

[Acrobat]

So your mother never taught you to say please and thank you? Or wash your hands after using the bathroom? Or to tell people "Happy Birthday" when it's their birthday?

Are these not instructions on how to be polite, thoughtful and caring human beings?

Certainly some behaviors are learned "subconsciously," through watching how our role models behave. But specific instruction is damn near just as, if not just as, important.

You're trying to downplay the importance of concise, specific instruction and it's simply not working. That you're trying to frame the unspoken as superior to thespoken is not working.

To be honest she gave us very little instructions, she’s was a poor, simple immigrant woman with a lot on her plate, trying to learn the language and custom of this country. So no, she never instructed us to say thank you, happy birthday. We seemed to have picked that up from watching other people saying it, rather than telling us to say it too.

My daughter is less than 2, and she’s learned the words “thank you”, but she says it when she gives people something and when they give her something.

Thank you is just an empty set of words, use as an abstract signal pointing to gratitude. Looking at my daughters expression when she says thank you, it seems she grateful as much when giving as she is when receiving. She’s grateful to give dad a piece of her soggy toast, and she is when I give her a bit of my meal.

So I think she understands the thing thank you is pointing to more so than many of us who use that term so frequently. That it’s not just pointing to a momentary sense of gratitude, but gratitude as a state of being.

And I don’t know many people who represent what that looks like than my mother, whose grateful when she has little and when she plentiful, she’s grateful to life, even in suffering and tragedy. She may have never instructed us to say thank you, but she bore the very meaning of it. And that seems to be a lesson many of us appear amiss to.

If you don’t know what I mean by gratitude as a state of being, no words will carry the weight of its meaning, but showing you what that looks would.

You see the sparkles of it in my daughter, an image of the sweetness of her grandmother, there’s nothing more I want her to keep for an eternity than that.