RE: Literal and Not Literal
August 29, 2019 at 2:51 am
(This post was last modified: August 29, 2019 at 2:58 am by Belacqua.)
(August 29, 2019 at 2:41 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Considering it is supposed to be inspired by a god, its general level of ambiguousness is lousy even compared to my worst teachers.
Your argument depends on your knowing what an omniscient existence would do.
Not being an omniscient existence myself, I have to consider that it might proceed differently than human teachers do. As I said before, it might be important for human beings to figure things out for themselves.
(August 29, 2019 at 2:05 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:(August 28, 2019 at 7:13 pm)Belaqua Wrote: Ah, here again, we have the unproven assumption that holy books start out as literal and then get re-interpreted as non-literal. Do you have some documentary evidence to show this?
Ah, yes, but you ignored it as usual. Go figure.
Both Origen of Alexandria (c.184 – c. 253) and Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430) said clearly that much of the Bible is not to be read literally.
The claim that the earlier a Christian is the more likely he is to be a literalist is false.
