[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Deesse23]

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.

I wouldn't even know what suspending belief here would look like, unless i avoided reading it all together. If I'm reading genesis, how do I suspend belief on whether it's symbolic/metaphorical, or intended as literal history? What does a suspended reading look like?

Its easy: "i.dont.know if its meant to be literal or allegoric".

Yes, they better to. Lots of miscommunication in my everyday life is caused exactly by this.

Yes, in the meantime let’s suspend all attempts to understand each other, until we preface all our communication with a disclaimer as to whether we’re speaking literally, non-literally, sarcastically, using similes, metaphors, etc....

Sorry I forgot the disclaimer: sarcasm

You are trying to derail because you have run out of arguments, thats all.
You are also free to suggest that god the great teacher in his unfathomable wisdom chose to intentionally be ambiguous because......his mysterious and ambiguous ways. But like Belaqua this wont make you look a jota less disingenuous.

If i was god, and if i had to share wisdom with all of humanity, i would try to be as clear as possible as i possibly could in my divine wisdom, but alas i am a mere human, and probably being ambiguous is better than being clear, and probably the world is flat instead of a speroid. In any case its not me who is coming across like an evasive jerk by now.