Literalism and Autism

[Belacqua]

I don't see where in this text it suggests allegory. The bit about the Sabbath suggests to me otherwise. Which bit suggests allegory?

I guess we'd need some criteria to help us discern allegory or other non-literal readings from literal readings.

There are a few that come to mind right away:

~ historical knowledge of how texts were used in those days

~ the fact that the authors, while lacking in scientific knowledge, weren't idiots. So they knew, for example, that what they were proposing was not empirically grounded. 

~ the fact that according to various theories about when and where these texts were edited together, there may well have been political and ethical motivations that were not about literal explanations of the earth's origins. 

If we begin with the assumption that all texts are literal until proven otherwise, I guess we could make assumptions about them. If we start by not knowing, on the other hand, and use our historical and literary knowledge to make educated guesses, then non-literal readings appear to be just as likely as not. 

Why should the bit about the sabbath seem more literal to you? Isn't it possible that the sabbath is important for spiritual and moral reasons, and that therefore a myth to emphasize those aspects would be desirable at the time?

---

You are both some arrogant fucks

Thank you! This is kind of you to say.

Fucking is really good. I think everybody here probably loves fucking a lot.

So for you to call me a fuck must mean that you think I'm really popular and desirable.

Unless you meant it metaphorically, in which case what you say is incomprehensible to me.