[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Darwin1245]

No they don't. We are talking about standards used to interpret, not to write.

For example, a normal standard of interpretation is something like: "does a literal interpretation of this sentence accord with the rest of what I hold to be true about Christianity?" That standard wasn't in the mind of the author of the Book of Job. It is a standard used by the reader.

They do. If they did not, we would not know what the authors, who were supposedly inspired by a supernatural being, meant; therefore, we would not be following the same religion.

I wonder if you are using some non-standard meaning of the word "arbitrary."

Just because a standard of interpretation was not in the mind of the author of Genesis, doesn't mean the person using it came up with it for no reason. To be arbitrary, it has to be a standard based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. If the interpreter has more than random choice or personal whim, if he has a reason and a system, it is not arbitrary.

In my previous reply to your post, I did make it clear what I meant by "arbitrary." It should not affect the discussion if you think it was a non-standard meaning of the word.

People who use the standards you disapprove of in fact think that they were "suggested by the Bible." For example, Jesus taught in parables. Parables are not literal. Therefore, much of the teaching of the Bible is not meant to be literal. Therefore, we are justified in reading those sentences which are obviously silly if interpreted literally as parable, allegory, or provocation.

Was this in the mind of the authors of Genesis? Not that formulation, exactly, because he lived before Christ. But he lived long after it was common for myths to express spiritual but not literal truth.

The Bible has a history, and, as I keep saying, the value of the texts may not depend at all on the original authors' intent, if that is even knowable.

When Augustine used the Latin word translated as "literal," he didn't mean literal the way we mean it. By "literal" he meant "according to the original authors' intent -- following exactly what the original authors wanted to say." But he was very specific that in many cases this was unknowable, and in some others less valuable.

"Think" is not enough. We need to know what the authors meant. (Why?)

Again, this is mind-reading. Attributing bad motivations to readers without actually knowing their intentions.
Is it possible? Yes. Can we know they did that? No. Did many of them leave detailed written accounts of their standards of evaluation which didn't include "making it seem plausible"? Yes.

It is not mind-reading; it is likely the truth. 
Why would they admit their actual motivations?  

It could be thought that, if you wanted to do a mind-reading on me and tell me that what I know of myself is wrong.

I'd rather stick with what I know: writers in ancient times were comfortable with many kinds of non-literal expression. It is historical and reasonable to think that many of the Bible's authors were comfortable with these means. It is historically accurate to say that from very early on, important people in the Church interpreted many parts non-literally. Jesus told his disciples not to interpret him literally, by using parables. Rather than go with mind-reading, I'll stick with these demonstrable facts.

I have also said before on this thread that in many cases, there is not one correct meaning of a story or parable. The myth of the fall of Adam and Eve, for example, has been interpreted a thousand different ways, for different reasons, by people who didn't claim to replace or supersede the interpretations that went before. To claim that only one reading is the correct one would be dumbed-down fundamentalism.

I was not "mind-reading." I did use "if" for a reason.

What do I think?

1. Science has easily proved that religions are human-made. Therefore, "holy" books should not be considered any better than ancient literature books.
 
2. If the standards of interpretation were not known to the authors, we can not know what that inspiring supernatural being meant, and, therefore, we would not be following the same religion. (Some are metaphors are obvious, and some are not.) "Dumbed-down fundamentalism?" It may seem like some sort of fundamentalism, but I did explain the reasons for why this should be the case. I do not follow such principles. 
 
3. Non-literal means of interpreting texts can be used with any other book to derive morals and meanings (or anything, if you are crazy enough, which I am;) however, it does not necessarily mean that those meanings were intended by the author.
 
4. Non-literal writing can promote divisions.
 
5. There is no doubt that some morals can be derived from holy texts (or other texts unrelated to religions); nonetheless, it does not mean that "holy" books are actually supernatural in origin because morals are either intuitive, or learned by experience.

6. If 1 is correct, which is the case, there is absolutely no point of this discussion.

If you wanna continue discussing this, start with disproving 1.