[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Belacqua]

So why are you choosing that particular definition? And why would you add to this definition? I've always known "holy" to mean divine or having divine qualities. Now, we can certainly debate about which definition to use, but I'd rather not get into a semantics debate. 

Yeah, I don't care about the definition, as long as we know what we're talking about. 

Since atheists don't believe in God, we'd have to say either that nothing is holy, or that holiness is decided by people, right? 

If you like poetry, go read some Dickinson or Hughes or Neruda. Oh wait, let me guess! Now you're thinking of saying you actually prefer Wilde or Silverstein, or some other poet I didn't name.

If you like those writers that's great. Why in the world would I tell you not to like them. I don't understand. 

I think honest discussion is best served by accurate, efficient language. Not waxing poetic because you want everyone on the internet to see how wordy you can make your arguments. 

Yeah, I think that poetry works in some places and not in others. On a forum like this, accuracy is best. It may be that in the interests of accuracy -- for example, to head off misunderstanding -- I type more than some people would. 

If you don't like the way I write you could ignore my posts and it wouldn't offend me.

I'd be interested to see your argument for how the Bible hasn't provoked 2000 years of commentary.

I never said it didn't. 

Good, we agree on something.

---

But Bel wants to paint Christians as people who just understand metaphor and nuance and allegory and other literary tropes so much more than us silly atheists!

No, this is untrue. 

The only thing that atheists have in common is that they don't believe a certain thing. Some atheists have a deep understanding of the tropes used in literary expression, and some don't. 

Some Christians understand that stuff, and some don't. As I have said a few times now, I think that many modern Christians don't understand those tropes very well, and it would be better if they did.

---

So, do you expect your daughter to know to look when crossing the street simply because she'll see you perform such a task, or would you rather specifically instruct her to look before crossing?

If it was about crossing the street, I probably would instruct her to look both ways before doing so.

If it's about love, or being Good, or living a meaningful life, than models seem best.

I have an analogy about being good, that I sometimes use in discussions like this.

When your daughter is young and has just begun walking back and forth to kindergarten, it doesn't make sense to say to her, "be careful." That's too abstract for such a young person. So you say things like, "don't take candy from strangers," or "don't get in anyone's car." Specifics. 

When she's 25, though, and able to think for herself, you can say, "be careful" to express your concern for her, and to remind her that you hope she's safe. At that point, she can judge things case by case -- for example, whether it's OK to get in someone's car -- rather than following detailed rules. 

Likewise "be good" is abstract, so we could say things like "share your cookies." Later on, when life is more complicated, the idea of goodness makes more sense.