(September 9, 2019 at 8:41 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:(September 9, 2019 at 8:33 pm)Acrobat Wrote: But how do you determine whats literal from non-literal?
Well, like you said, it's quite easy, isn't it? Or is it difficult? Which statement are you sticking with in this particular moment? You've claimed both.
yes, i indicated it comes as easy to me as it does every day language. I indicated a variety of reasons for this, even wrote out a list of rules i use. And even tried to dig down further for you, answering questions about specific examples.
I don't know if it's easy for you. Nor do I know how you distinguish them. Nor do i know why you don't want to answer the question.
Quote:
Not worked up, simply holding you to what you're saying. Don't attempt to be dismissive by, in so many words, telling me to calm down. It's childish and arrogant. Thought that's your MO, isn't it?
Telling me you'd slap me, sounds pretty worked up.
Quote:So what you're saying is that because people may interpret the Bible literally, and because people who are autistic tend to interpret texts literally, people who interpret the Bible literally may be autistic?
Nothing of the sort.
Quote:Once again, I'll ask, when did anyone on this forum ever suggest a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible?
No one has. They just seem puzzled by theist who openly admit to understanding some parts of the Bible as literal and other parts as not, as to how the make those distinctions.
Every answer and criteria, I've given seem to be unsatifilatory to them, and I'm not sure how to make sense of that? My inclination is to think is that they're prone to systemizing ways of thinking. This phenomena is observed among people on the spectrum, but need not be exclusive to those on the spectrum, but I'm just exploring the question, not arguing for a position.
At the same time folks like yourself, seem to suggest that you do recognize some parts of the Bible are not literal. Yet, you don't want to answer as to how you distinguish the literal from non-literal parts? Perhaps you take passages where Jesus refers to himself as a lamb, to be non-literal? If so why do you take that to be non-literal, but not passages about a tree, with a fruit of "knowledge of good and evil"?
