[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Acrobat]

If you're trying to derive a consistent meaning from a text that is ambiguous and contradictory, cherry picking is unavoidable. Which cherries you choose to pick says a lot about the person doing the picking.

It isn't a [problem with I do it, because I am doing it consciously, from the point of view of someone who doesn't think the source is infallible. I can like the things that Jesus is supposed to have said that make sense to me and reject the rest; because I don't believe Jesus was connected to any supernatural being, had any supernatural powers, and I don't much care whether he was a real person or not. The words stand or fall on their own merit.

But if I presuppose it's all necessarily literally true (except for the metaphors), then I have to become a mental contortionist to get a consistent message out of it. If I reject the idea that the text itself is somehow holy, I can pick and choose as I see fit, honestly.

Atheists are quick to point out cherry pick, but fail to provide a criteria for not-cherry picking. I provided a set of rules for not cherry picking earlier. Wondering if your disagree with them? 


Secondly I agree, infallibility inerrancy of scripture, tends to foster cherry picking, particularly when the Bible is viewed as a single work dictated by God, rather than a work of different men, and their communities, spanning hundred of years, dealing with their own particular historical contexts, and subject to the limitations of their age. 

Also understanding scripture, or passage in the Bible, doesn't require acceptance. You can agree that Jesus meant turn the other cheek literally, without accepting it as something you should follow.  Just like we can agree the Hitler literally wanted to kill Jews, without believing we should. 

Since we're discussing literalism in terms of meaning, rather than in regards to what should be followed, this part doesn't seem all that relevant.

---

Okay, by why do you seem to avoid the discussion about god being evil, and the devil being good, in the garden of Eden story?

I figured it was obvious how correct I am.  

Sure, but I just want you to tell me if I understand the "obvious meaning" of good and evil as being applied here by you:

Because the acquisition of knowledge of good and evil, is a good thing? That god trying to keep it from us, is a bad thing?

That the serpent wanting us to acquire it, was a good thing?

Is the what should be taken as what you obviously meant?

If you were offered the same choice, you probably would have took it too? Right? Since acquisition of such knowledge is a good thing.

Why do you seem reluctant, or scared to engage these questions? How do you explain the obvious avoidance on your part?