God's God

[Lord Privy Seal]

1) I reject your literal bible.

Please provide a quote from a post of mine in this thread where I advocated "my literal Bible." I have advocated interpreting parts of the Bible literally where their genre and context indicates this is the author's intent. In the case of Exodus and Deuteronomy, the genre of these texts is law and (putative) history. There are lists of laws, explanations of the sacrificial system, its practices, rituals, and equipment (the Tabernacle, the Table of Showbread, the Menorah, the Ark of the Covenant, altars, ceremonial vessels and utensils, etc.). Then there are narrative "historical" passages that portray the laws being enforced literally. You have provided not one bit of argumentation or evidence in favor of interpreting them metaphorically, much less demonstrated what metaphor was intended.

I have also stated that non-literal passages should be interpreted non-literally, in accordance with their genre. For example, the Proverbs should not be interpreted as if they are meant to be principles of physics. They're proverbs, which means, statements of "general wisdom" that are thought to be generally applicable. So, a proverb which teaches that hard work leads to prosperity should not be interpreted as meaning literally that every single person who works hard will inevitably become rich. Another example which I provided in my previous posts: the Book of Revelation is clearly a mystic allegory. It should not be interpreted as a literal prediction that multi-headed godzilla monsters will crawl out of the earth and sea at the end of time.

Since you seem to be claiming that exactly zero percent of the Bible should be interpreted literally, I would like to see your justification for that claim.

You will have to provide more reasonable proof.

Hahaha. Since you reject any possibility of data (in this case, any coherent hermeneutic for interpreting Biblical texts), you've rigged the game to make that impossible. "I want you to provide more reasonable proof for biological evolution--but you can't use any science or fossils!"

You have some convoluted logic that leads you to have to take the bible literally. I don't.

Once again, I interpret some parts of the Bible literally, based on the genre and historical context of the texts themselves. In this discussion, we've been talking about only two texts: Exodus, and Deuteronomy. You have provided not one bit of evidence from the texts to indicate that they were written metaphorically, that the people they were written for interpreted them metaphorically, or that succeeding generations interpreted them metaphorically.

Even in Christian times, the understanding of Torah law was that it was meant literally. Read your New Testament. When Paul is arguing against the "Judaizers" in Galatians, he says he wishes that those who demand circumcision would go the whole way and castrate themselves. He doesn't say, "I think those fellows who say that circumcision is a metaphor for cutting off our bad habits are incorrect; it's a metaphor for the circumcision of the heart, the inner transformation that takes place when we are baptized into Christ." Or look at the arguments between Jesus and the Pharisees portrayed in the Gospels. They make no sense at all if the Pharisees interpreted the Torah metaphorically. The reason that Christians developed a doctrine that the Torah law had been "fulfilled" by the sacrifice of Christ (so that Christians did not have to obey the laws) was because they interpreted it as law, not as metaphor.

Most Jews don't use the torah literally (the old T).

I would love to see a citation for your claim that Jews don't keep kosher or celebrate the Biblical religious festivals (Tabernacles, Passover, the Day of Atonement, etc.), or circumcise their male children on the eighth day after their birth, or keep the Sabbath, or wear tallits (a prayer shawl that has tassels fashioned in accordance with Torah law) when worshiping. Bonus points if you can show that no Jews ever obeyed the Torah law because they knew it was written metaphorically in the first place.

2) I reject your notion that if we can use it metaphorically that we then can make up anything we want and it be considered "rational".

I am indifferent to what you "reject." The question is, can you demonstrate that Exodus and Deuteronomy were written metaphorically? If yes, can you demonstrate the validity of a specific metaphorical interpretation? If you can't, then you could have one metaphorical interpretation, Bishop Shelby Spong another metaphorical interpretation, the Gnostics another, and so on, and none of you will be able to show that yours is the correct one. Which, for all practical intents and purposes means "we then can make up anything we want." Unless you can demonstrate that your particular metaphorical interpretation is the correct one. Can you?

Like your 'evil god" slant.

I just provided specific examples, from Biblical texts, showing that they portrayed their god as jealous and brutal. You kicked and screamed and said "I reject! I reject!" So what? Who the hell are you?! Did you provide any actual reason to adopt your interpretation? Did you even try? No.

You think that I am wrong stating that "... you are held accountable ..." can be taken out of the bible.

I think you are wrong in stating that "you are held accountable" (in some broad based ethical sense) is the meaning of the specific texts I quoted. You have provided zero evidence in favor of your interpretation. So far you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to read and understand what I am writing to you. This gives me no confidence in your ability to correctly interpret ancient texts written by and for people in a very different cultural milieu than ours.

Serious question, not meant in any way as an attack: is English not your native language?

You said something like I pulled it out of my butt. Your take on a literal bible is bull sit. So all your claims using a literal bible are bull sit. They are logical fallacies.

Because you say so? Really? Please, tell me you're the Pope or something, so at least you'll have an excuse for thinking that you're infallible when you speak ex cathedra.

now, if you just want to jump around insulting and degrading theist.

Speaking of theists, are you one? You identify yourself as an atheist in your profile. If you are an atheist, then aren't you just trolling this thread?