[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Belacqua]

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. 

You seem to be imposing an arbitrary standard: that the only worthwhile reading is the one that was meant by the original author. As I've said, I don't see that as true.

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

You need to maybe. I don't. I'm interested in all the things that have been said about it since. That's what gives the text meaning to me. 

Or does Blake's reading of Job somehow stop being beautiful if it doesn't line up with the original author[s]?

It is not mind-reading; it is likely the truth.  

If you say so. I have no way of knowing their secret internal motivations. 

Why would they admit their actual motivations? 

Um, because they were honest, trying to do a good job, wanting to help people, wanting to add something to an already long and fascinating tradition... ? 

But if you've deemed thousands of people, now long dead, to be dishonest, I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

1. Science has easily proved that religions are human-made. Therefore, "holy" books should not be considered any better than ancient literature books.

How and when did science prove this? 

I happen to believe that all religions are human-made, but I didn't know that there was a repeatable empirical test that could be conducted to prove that religions were human-made. What journal was it published in? 

Yes, holy books are much like other ancient literature. As I have said, what makes them more interesting overall than, say, Apuleius's Golden Ass (which is a very interesting book) is not the intentions of the original authors, but the richness of the following commentary. 

  
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. 

Wait... do you think the Bible was inspired by a supernatural being? Really? I don't believe that....

As for the "same religion"... Christianity is a loose term for a big baggy set of more or less related beliefs and practices. More like one of those Wittgenstein words with no real definition. I think I was arguing that earlier on this thread: we can't determine what is a True Scotsman or a True Christian.

3. Non-literal means of interpreting texts can be used with any other book to derive morals and meanings 

Yes, of course. 

4. Non-literal writing can promote divisions.

Yes, of course.

  
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.

I never said that any book is supernatural in origin.

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

Unless it turns out that the writings and practices of the religions that were invented by people have played an important part in our civilization. That if we want to understand the history of our own culture we have to understand its main religions. 

And especially, if you choose to say things about religion in public, it is good to make some effort to know what you're talking about. 

If you're not interested, and choose to talk only about other topics, that would be fine too.