God's God

[median]

Although this is aside from the OP, I felt like responding to this "literal" vs. non-literal thing.

If we were arguing over an ancient book about Santa Claus (or Gilgamesh, or Allah, or any other mythical creation of man) would it really matter as to how one decides to interpret such fictional claims when those claims haven't been demonstrated? Lots of ancient texts make lots of claims to the supernatural. Now, if one doesn't take those passages "literally" (provided we have agreed upon a definition of that term - mine is generally that such claims actually happened in the physical corporeal world of experience), the said religion loses it's teeth! Are Christians asking us not to take the alleged resurrection of Jesus literally? How about "salvation"? Is that just a figure of speech but not really "literal"? And what about eternal torment in a lake of fire for those who disbelieve and/or reject Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior"?? Is that just metaphor?

Christianity, as far as I see it, loses all of it's power over anyone when you let those things travel down the metaphor ladder. Should we take every single thing in the 66 books of the old and new testaments in exactly the same way? Of course not, and it doesn't really sound like Lord Privy Seal is making that case either. But now let's turn the tables. Should we take everything figuratively then?? It sounds to me like there could be a red herring going on, or at least one is talking past the other. Apologists often pull out the "out of context!" card to rationalize their presupposition regarding the text of the bible. If your claim is that Lord Privy is doing that in the reverse I think you are attacking a strawman. The argument is that without taking these passages as they read (at face value), they are of no consequence and don't effect our lives in any significant way (i.e. - b/c they're fiction and/or metaphor and/or not binding in any significant way). Therefore, we can simply just chuck them out and live our lives b/c they carry no weight (just like all the other religious books in history) and have no authoritative power (Does God literally, or just figuratively, want us all to be "saved"?).

But of course, that is not what religious apologists want us to think. Now, if apologists were only arguing that the bible is only good for academic study but isn't really pertinent to your lives there would be no need in having this debate (b/c again the religion would be expressing no power over anything we experience - Is the afterlife "figurative"?). But doesn't this seem quite a contradiction? "I'm arguing for the truth of the bible but I don't really take the supernatural claims literally." Uh, what? Things don't play out like this in the real world (which is one of the reasons we are having this discussion for so many hundreds of years). Those who often argue vehemently for their theology overwhelmingly do so because they believe their religious views are literally true - that there is a literal invisible deity person named Yahweh, that Jesus literally rose from the dead (only by the divine supernatural agency power of Yahweh), that there is a literal afterlife, that God will literally punish you if you reject his command, etc.

Pulling out the context card doesn't do anything b/c you can makeup just about any context you want to in order to fit what you want the text to say (see the thousands of Christian sects today who do just that and can't agree on anything completely). So then, at BEST, what we ought to be doing is suspending judgment, refraining from enacting laws based upon theological/religious underlying motivation (until their alleged deity demonstrates itself consistently to all), and halting all attempts at defending any supernaturalism within the front and back of that leather bound collection called the bible.

Yet still, I want to know why Christians take ANY of the alleged supernatural claims in the bible as actually (i.e. - literally) true, while rejecting the supernatural claims of other holy books. And THAT, is why we are having these types of discussions (at least for me). So in different senses I agree with both of you. I don't take the bible literally, simply because I don't think it's claims have met their burden of proof, but I do take the texts to mean what they say (especially when an overwhelming amount of Christians state clearly that they believe these things literally). Thus, I don't take it literally in a "truth" sense but in a "claim" sense b/c these are the things Christian apologists are generally trying to state and defend.

god aint jealous. I don't get that out of the bible at all.

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5)

[Ryantology]

...you and your fellow Christians that you believe in very stupid things and you worship a being who,... responsible for more death and destruction and misery than every dictator or warlord in history combined ...

Save your angry atheist claptrap. We've all heard it before and wankers like you add nothing to the conversation.

Translation: I choose to ignore the facts, so stop reminding everyone of them.

The question is very simple: what is the point of the Bible if one can interpret it any way one wants? You can derive no truth from it, or anything else of value. You are just inventing your own truth (as opposed to accepting at face value someone else's invented truth). This is all the sillier when the book itself depicts a god who is exact and demanding and does not tolerate it when people do not do exactly what they are told.

Why is it that we're wrong when we interpret the book as the mad ramblings of stupid and violent men in an ignorant time? What makes that interpretation less valid than anyone else's?

[median]

Save your angry atheist claptrap. We've all heard it before and wankers like you add nothing to the conversation.

Translation: I choose to ignore the facts, so stop reminding everyone of them.

The question is very simple: what is the point of the Bible if one can interpret it any way one wants? You can derive no truth from it, or anything else of value. You are just inventing your own truth (as opposed to accepting at face value someone else's invented truth). This is all the sillier when the book itself depicts a god who is exact and demanding and does not tolerate it when people do not do exactly what they are told.

Why is it that we're wrong when we interpret the book as the mad ramblings of stupid and violent men in an ignorant time? What makes that interpretation less valid than anyone else's?

In one way, this post can bring us back to the OP (possibly). If religionists can just makeup anything about their alleged deity they want to (in this case "eternal" and not needing a cause) then we can makeup another alleged deity that this deity, yet still, doesn't know about (and couldn't), that the global universe needs no cause, or any number of claims that make us feel warm and fuzzy inside. "Oh no, the God I believe in is the one that is eternal by definition" is no different from, "No Timmy, my invisible magic unicorn is bigger than yours." It demonstrates nothing. Is every claim just as good as another? I suppose if apologists can just define their deity into existence, by attempting to give it secondary characteristics, or characteristics which are either extremely vague or indistinguishable from ones that have not been demonstrated to exist, then we can do the same and be equally as valid, right? But what is the point in "making a defense" of theism if you can't actually demonstrate these extraordinary claims? At the very least, this deity should be listed in the museum at the Hubble Space telescope as one of sciences greatest discoveries. But, it's not...

[archangle]

Although this is aside from the OP, I felt like responding to this "literal" vs. non-literal thing.

If we were arguing over an ancient book about Santa Claus (or Gilgamesh, or Allah, or any other mythical creation of man) would it really matter as to how one decides to interpret such fictional claims when those claims haven't been demonstrated? Lots of ancient texts make lots of claims to the supernatural. Now, if one doesn't take those passages "literally" (provided we have agreed upon a definition of that term - mine is generally that such claims actually happened in the physical corporeal world of experience), the said religion loses it's teeth! Are Christians asking us not to take the alleged resurrection of Jesus literally? How about "salvation"? Is that just a figure of speech but not really "literal"? And what about eternal torment in a lake of fire for those who disbelieve and/or reject Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior"?? Is that just metaphor?

Christianity, as far as I see it, loses all of it's power over anyone when you let those things travel down the metaphor ladder. Should we take every single thing in the 66 books of the old and new testaments in exactly the same way? Of course not, and it doesn't really sound like Lord Privy Seal is making that case either. But now let's turn the tables. Should we take everything figuratively then?? It sounds to me like there could be a red herring going on, or at least one is talking past the other. Apologists often pull out the "out of context!" card to rationalize their presupposition regarding the text of the bible. If your claim is that Lord Privy is doing that in the reverse I think you are attacking a strawman. The argument is that without taking these passages as they read (at face value), they are of no consequence and don't effect our lives in any significant way (i.e. - b/c they're fiction and/or metaphor and/or not binding in any significant way). Therefore, we can simply just chuck them out and live our lives b/c they carry no weight (just like all the other religious books in history) and have no authoritative power (Does God literally, or just figuratively, want us all to be "saved"?).

But of course, that is not what religious apologists want us to think. Now, if apologists were only arguing that the bible is only good for academic study but isn't really pertinent to your lives there would be no need in having this debate (b/c again the religion would be expressing no power over anything we experience - Is the afterlife "figurative"?). But doesn't this seem quite a contradiction? "I'm arguing for the truth of the bible but I don't really take the supernatural claims literally." Uh, what? Things don't play out like this in the real world (which is one of the reasons we are having this discussion for so many hundreds of years). Those who often argue vehemently for their theology overwhelmingly do so because they believe their religious views are literally true - that there is a literal invisible deity person named Yahweh, that Jesus literally rose from the dead (only by the divine supernatural agency power of Yahweh), that there is a literal afterlife, that God will literally punish you if you reject his command, etc.

Pulling out the context card doesn't do anything b/c you can makeup just about any context you want to in order to fit what you want the text to say (see the thousands of Christian sects today who do just that and can't agree on anything completely). So then, at BEST, what we ought to be doing is suspending judgment, refraining from enacting laws based upon theological/religious underlying motivation (until their alleged deity demonstrates itself consistently to all), and halting all attempts at defending any supernaturalism within the front and back of that leather bound collection called the bible.

Yet still, I want to know why Christians take ANY of the alleged supernatural claims in the bible as actually (i.e. - literally) true, while rejecting the supernatural claims of other holy books. And THAT, is why we are having these types of discussions (at least for me). So in different senses I agree with both of you. I don't take the bible literally, simply because I don't think it's claims have met their burden of proof, but I do take the texts to mean what they say (especially when an overwhelming amount of Christians state clearly that they believe these things literally). Thus, I don't take it literally in a "truth" sense but in a "claim" sense b/c these are the things Christian apologists are generally trying to state and defend.

god aint jealous. I don't get that out of the bible at all.

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5)

I don't take it literally. You will need to provide some evidence that shows me your "evil god" wrote the book.

yes, religion's power should never be such that it can motivate us kill another human being in the name of 'my god". yes again, to a literal person, thinking out side of the "literal" word makes no sense. Like "that is one bad ride". And we have plenty of these types of atheists and theist. The word means exactly what they see. They see no more.

[median]

I don't take it literally. You will need to provide some evidence that shows me your "evil god" wrote the book.

yes, religion's power should never be such that it can motivate us kill another human being in the name of 'my god". yes again, to a literal person, thinking out side of the "literal" word makes no sense. Like "that is one bad ride". And we have plenty of these types of atheists and theist. The word means exactly what they see. They see no more.

Huh? Where did I ever say an evil god created this book? Indeed, I never did (mainly b/c I do not believe any gods exist).

To your second point, I really did not understand what you're saying. Please revise. The phrase "that is one bad ride" does not, in fact, make any sense until one knows what was meant when person X stated it. Of course, we can imagine a number of scenarios in which this phrase has meaning, yet religious apologists are making the claims as to what they believe these bible passages actually mean (and they are overwhelming pointing toward literalism, by and large, regarding the resurrection, creation, virgin birth, etc). The underlying issue here is that the bible (along with hundreds of other ancient religious texts) makes extraordinary claims of the miraculous and supernatural (if even those terms make any coherent sense) which have not been demonstrated as true. This is of course why religious people fall back on "faith" when challenged. By why do that? Faith isn't a reliable pathway to truth, nor is it a reliable way to separate fact from fiction.

So on both sides the issue still stands. If one takes the bible at face value ("literal" - but we haven't discussed that definition) then we are asking for sound demonstrable evidence. On the other hand, if someone thinks the alleged miraculous events in the bible are just figurative then the religion itself is of no consequence to us and there is no need to continue debating about it because things didn't actually (literally) happen.

Btw, it might help to define what it is you mean when you are using the term "literal" so as to avoid further confusion.

[archangle]

I don't take it literally. You will need to provide some evidence that shows me your "evil god" wrote the book.

yes, religion's power should never be such that it can motivate us kill another human being in the name of 'my god". yes again, to a literal person, thinking out side of the "literal" word makes no sense. Like "that is one bad ride". And we have plenty of these types of atheists and theist. The word means exactly what they see. They see no more.

Huh? Where did I ever say an evil god created this book? Indeed, I never did (mainly b/c I do not believe any gods exist).

To your second point, I really did not understand what you're saying. Please revise. The phrase "that is one bad ride" does not, in fact, make any sense until one knows what was meant when person X stated it. Of course, we can imagine a number of scenarios in which this phrase has meaning, yet religious apologists are making the claims as to what they believe these bible passages actually mean (and they are overwhelming pointing toward literalism, by and large, regarding the resurrection, creation, virgin birth, etc). The underlying issue here is that the bible (along with hundreds of other ancient religious texts) makes extraordinary claims of the miraculous and supernatural (if even those terms make any coherent sense) which have not been demonstrated as true. This is of course why religious people fall back on "faith" when challenged. By why do that? Faith isn't a reliable pathway to truth, nor is it a reliable way to separate fact from fiction.

So on both sides the issue still stands. If one takes the bible at face value ("literal" - but we haven't discussed that definition) then we are asking for sound demonstrable evidence. On the other hand, if someone thinks the alleged miraculous events in the bible are just figurative then the religion itself is of no consequence to us and there is no need to continue debating about it because things didn't actually (literally) happen.

Btw, it might help to define what it is you mean when you are using the term "literal" so as to avoid further confusion.

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?

"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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Why is it that we're wrong when we interpret the book as the mad ramblings of stupid and violent men in an ignorant time? What makes that interpretation less valid than anyone else's?

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...."

[Ryantology]

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...."

If you believe you have the authority to determine that your interpretation is more valid than mine, you are admitting that the Bible is not open for interpretation, which ignores the fact that you cannot demonstrate that your interpretation is, in any way, more valid than mine.

You call it ill-informed only because it doesn't agree with your opinions, though that is also hilarious because my interpretation of the Bible requires zero apologetics or theology, and what reason do I have to give either of those turgid practices the slightest bit of respect? I can say God is a raging maniac and it would be easy to point out straightforward examples. You can say that God is a being of righteous good and love, and you have to resort to all varieties of slapstick verbal prestidigitation in order to make it sound even slightly like you're reading the same book I am. It's like watching a battered wife try to convince people that her husband is a good guy who is misunderstood.

[Lord Privy Seal]

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!"

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?

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.

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?

[median]

Why is it that we're wrong when we interpret the book as the mad ramblings of stupid and violent men in an ignorant time? What makes that interpretation less valid than anyone else's?

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?

---

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.

"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?