[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Belacqua]

@Belaqua

You blew a lot of hot air without saying a whole lot.

If we are taking "holy" to mean "divine" or "having divine qualities"...

1. Someone, or a even a lot of people, saying something is divine, does not make it so.

2. A book being woven into the history and/or culture of a place or people does not make it divine.

3. You still have not differentiated how a book, if it isn't directly from god, is any more worth following than another book.

Right, I was saying why people find book to be holy. Whether that means it's also divine or not is another question. 

If you want to take a stand that only things that provably come from god can be holy, then we're using the word in different ways. That's OK. 

I have in fact addressed why a book that doesn't come directly from God can be more worth following than another book. First, because it's a good book, and second, because lots of people have enriched the reading of the book by interpreting and responding to it. 

Sometimes people say that since the Bible is fiction, they might as well follow Harry Potter. Leaving aside the literary qualities of Harry Potter books, I agree with this -- provided that Harry Potter books provoke 2000 years of serious commentary which we also have access to.