RE: Literal and Not Literal
August 29, 2019 at 6:44 am
(This post was last modified: August 29, 2019 at 6:49 am by Deesse23.)
(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: [quote='Deesse23' pid='1929475' dateline='1567060885']
I dont make assumptions about the Genesis accout, and i am not basing any of my beliefs on that. How about you?
What i know is that a literal meaning wuld be objectively wrong, since science has long disproven it.
What a believer (which i am not) had to do now, is to show that it was meant in a non-literal way, in what way it was original meant and tell his findings. Good luck. If there may not way to figure out what Genesis´ background and intention was, then i will happyily keep suspending my belief(s) based on that. How about you?
Why would I start with the default assumption that it was intended literally, then demonstrate that it wasn't? Why not the other way around?[/quote]
Dont ask me with what assumtion one should approch Genesis. I didnt make a claim regading this. I claimed that its literal interpretation is in stark contrast to what we now know about the formation of the universe in general and planet earth in particular.
(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: I don't read anything as intended to be read as history, unless I have good reason to think so. Is that unreasonable?Absolutely not, unless the source is making the claim to be historic (something along the lines of "I will destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt"). But in absence of conclusive data regarding one or the other metaphoric (or whatever) interpretation, i would tend to withold belief either way. I have no dog in this "book inspired by god" being literal or not race. I am just wondering, why others seem not to suspend belief in absence of evidence...either way.
(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: I look at the style of Genesis, and can recognize that it resembles the style of writing of non-historical stories. I can see that the writer gives no indication otherwise. Based on this I read it as non-historical....and you are basing your belief in an outrageous claim that some deity spoke all of reality in existence, wants to be worshipped and is interested in your bedroom activities
on this!? At least partially, of course. Even if i grant you that you may be correct in your interpretation, what may be the impact on the plausibiity of the existence of said deity? Thats the part i just dont get.
(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: How do you tell the difference everywhere else, between sarcasm, metaphors, similes, allegories, fables, histories,etc..? Do people constantly need to tell you that they weren't being literal?Yes, they better to. Lots of miscommunication in my everyday life is caused exactly by this. If a god intends to teach us, to tell us, to educate, inform and enlighten us and is either unwilling to try to be better than my co-humans are or unable to do so, then he is either an idiot or an ass.
(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: [quote='Deesse23' pid='1929475' dateline='1567060885']
I dont make assumptions about the Genesis accout, and i am not basing any of my beliefs on that. How about you?
What i know is that a literal meaning wuld be objectively wrong, since science has long disproven it.
What a believer (which i am not) had to do now, is to show that it was meant in a non-literal way, in what way it was original meant and tell his findings. Good luck. If there may not way to figure out what Genesis´ background and intention was, then i will happyily keep suspending my belief(s) based on that. How about you?
Why would I start with the default assumption that it was intended literally, then demonstrate that it wasn't? Why not the other way around?
Dont ask me with what assummtion one should approch Genesis. I didnt make a claim regading this. I claimed that its literal interpretation is in stark contrast to what we now know about the formation of the universe in general and planet earth in particular.
(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: I don't read anything as intended to be read as history, unless I have good reason to think so. Is that unreasonable?Absolutely not, unless the source is making the claim to be historic (something along the lines of "I will destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt"). But in absence of conclusive data regarding one or the other metaphoric (or whatever) interpretation, i would tend to withold belief either way. I have no dog in this "book inspired by god" being literal or not race. I am just wondering, why others seem not to suspend belief in absence of evidence...either way.
(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: I look at the style of Genesis, and can recognize that it resembles the style of writing of non-historical stories. I can see that the writer gives no indication otherwise. Based on this I read it as non-historical....and you are basing your belief in an outrageous claim that some deity spoke all of reality in existence, wants to be worshipped and is interested in your bedroom activities
on this!? At least partially, of course. Even if i grant you that you may be correct in your interpretation, what may be the impact on the plausibiity of the existence of said deity? Thats the part i just dont get.
(August 29, 2019 at 5:37 am)Acrobat Wrote: How do you tell the difference everywhere else, between sarcasm, metaphors, similes, allegories, fables, histories,etc..? Do people constantly need to tell you that they weren't being literal?Yes, they better to. Lots of miscommunication in my everyday life is caused exactly by this. If a god intends to teach us, to tell us, to educate, inform and enlighten us and is either unwilling to try to be better than my co-humans are or unable to do so, then he is either an idiot or an ass.
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse
