[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[EgoDeath]

If I type "define holy" into Google, I get this:

---

holy
/ˈhəʊli/

1. 1.
   dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred.
   "the Holy Bible"
   synonyms:
   sacred, consecrated, hallowed, sanctified, venerated, revered, reverenced, divine, religious, blessed, blest, dedicated
   "it is forbidden to say the name of this holy place aloud"
   

---

That seems fine to me. For clarity's sake, I'd add "dedicated or consecrated to God BY PEOPLE." This is something people decide, whether there really is a God or not.

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.

Well, I like poetry a lot. This is just the way I think and write. You judge it "excessive" but it seems normal to me.

I don't see why everyone should think and write the same way. Variety is good.

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.

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.

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.

Because showing us what that life is, is superior to telling us what that life is. Me being a model for what a good life is to my daughter, is far superior to any instructions I give my daughter on what a good life is. If i want to teach my daughters how to love, being a model of that love, is far superior to any instructions I can give her.

If God wanted us to know what a Good life is, I don’t need instructions, I would want him to come down in the form of a man and show me what a Good life is. By that I can see what no words could ever capture.

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?

[Anomalocaris]

I am saying that they interpret the Bible in a literal way,

Nope, you are quite clear that they are wrong and even calling them stupid.

and that we have good historical reasons to believe that it hasn't always been interpreted literally.

Actually quite the opposite. Start with character of Jesus himself who was literalist believed in the Flood, Jonah, six day creation. Or let's say we take the story of Adam and Eve as only as a metaphor. So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? Seems barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.

I have never said that anyone is or is not a True Christian.

Really? Then explain me how can a group of Christians be true Christians and interpret Bible completely wrong?

If we consider what common denominator might unify all those whom Belaqua might claim to possibly be true Christians, it would appear the only characteristic required to be a true Christian is to be less moved by the risibility and grotesquery of the "Christ" than by the conviction that men could deserve no better, even though it would not be stretching it to say majority of mankind represent far less extreme specimens of megalomania, insanity and immorality than the character Jesus.

[EgoDeath]

If we consider what common denominator might characterize all those whom Belaqua might smarmily claim to possibly be true Christians, it would appear the only characteristic required to be a true Christian is to be less moved by the risibility and grotesquery of the "Christ" than by the conviction that men could deserve no better, even though it would not be stretching it to say majority of mankind represent less despicable specimens of insanity and immorality than the character Jesus.

I suspect that @Belaqua wants this concept to be impossible to pin down. He would rather that no one can define what a Christian is; that way any criticism of specific behaviors, ideas or thoughts is only a criticism of one of MANY interpretations of the Bible and Christianity, and therefore not an actual criticism of Christianity or Christians as a whole. It's a sly variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy... he can (attempt to) discredit any criticism you may have by simply saying, "Well that's just one school of thought and doesn't define Christianity, so what does your criticism matter?"

It's disingenuous at best.

If we take the Bible literally, all the way, through and through, it's a grotesque, violent book portraying an archaic time and people who were using fairytales and myths to understand the world around them.

If we take a more dynamic interpretation of the Bible, it's still pretty much the same thing.

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!

[Acrobat]

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.

[EgoDeath]

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.

So, sometimes careful, exact instructions are needed? And even superior?

And also, does the importance of being a role model as a parent minimize the importance of direct instructions? Or vice versa? Certainly, an ideal parent would utilize both, correct? Granted, in some scenarios, a role model without direct instruction will still suffice. And less so with the opposite, i.e. direct advice without the role model, a la Do As I Say Not As I Do. But still, that doesn't rectify your blanket statement that showing is always better than telling.

Certainly, the superior parent would be a good role model who also gives clear, concise instructions on how to live.

That being said, who exactly is the role model we're supposed to be following in the Bible... Jesus?

[Acrobat]

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.

So, sometimes careful, exact instructions are needed? And even superior?

And also, does the importance of being a role model as a parent minimize the importance of direct instructions? Or vice versa? Certainly, an ideal parent would utilize both, correct? Granted, in some scenarios, a role model without direct instruction will still suffice. And less so with the opposite, i.e. direct advice without the role model, a la Do As I Say Not As I Do. But still, that doesn't rectify your blanket statement that showing is always better than telling.

Certainly, the superior parent would be a good role model who also gives clear, concise instructions on how to live.

That being said, who exactly is the role model we're supposed to be following in the Bible... Jesus?

It depends on the goal, surely some task like teaching my daughter math, or how to walk the street, how to warm a bottle, is better served by instructions, but somethings are not though, like being a good person, living a meaningful life, being kind, or loving others, being honest, etc...

If I think of a hierarchy of importance, for things I want of my daughter, nothing is closely superior to my desire for her to be a good person, kind hearted, loving, etc... There's no set of instructions I have for this, just like there's no set of instructions my mother gave me for this. But rather it's shown through the demonstration of life. And there is a sort of rare profound beautiful life, that not contingent on any professional success, income, suffering or fortune, A life nothing can take away. Maybe you know of no such life, but I do, and thats what I want her to know as well. 

And yes Christ possessed such a life, but so has  my mother, so do some of my friends etc... a reflection of that very life. No instructions I can convey would ever show this to my daughter, but if I live as a reflection of it, raise her in a community of people who do, she can see it and seek it too. Just like I've seen it, and seek it too. 


If there is a God, I wouldn't look for any financial advice, or politic advise, or history or science, or how to cross the street. I want to know, when looking out on the possible lives of men, is there a profound life worth pursuing? If so, show it to us. 

If there isn't, God can keep whatever he has to say, and let us all go on with our lives as if he doesn't exist in the first place.

[EgoDeath]

It depends on the goal, surely some task like teaching my daughter math, or how to walk the street, how to warm a bottle, is better served by instructions, but somethings are not though, like being a good person, living a meaningful life, being kind, or loving others, being honest, etc...

If I think of a hierarchy of importance, for things I want of my daughter, nothing is closely superior to my desire for her to be a good person, kind hearted, loving, etc... There's no set of instructions I have for this, just like there's no set of instructions my mother gave me for this. But rather it's shown through the demonstration of life. And there is a sort of rare profound beautiful life, that not contingent on any professional success, income, suffering or fortune, A life nothing can take away. Maybe you know of no such life, but I do, and thats what I want her to know as well. 

And yes Christ possessed such a life, but so has  my mother, so do some of my friends etc... a reflection of that very life. No instructions I can convey would ever show this to my daughter, but if I live as a reflection of it, raise her in a community of people who do, she can see it and seek it too. Just like I've seen it, and seek it too. 


If there is a God, I wouldn't look for any financial advice, or politic advise, or history or science, or how to cross the street. I want to know, when looking out on the possible lives of men,  is there a profound life worth pursuing? If so, show it to us. 

If there isn't, God can keep whatever he has to say, and let us all go on with our lives as if he doesn't exist in the first place.

So your mother never taught you to say please and thank you? Or wash your hands after using the bathroom? Or to tell people "Happy Birthday" when it's their birthday?

Are these not instructions on how to be polite, thoughtful and caring human beings?

Certainly some behaviors are learned "subconsciously," through watching how our role models behave. But specific instruction is damn near just as, if not just as, important.

You're trying to downplay the importance of concise, specific instruction and it's simply not working. That you're trying to frame the unspoken as superior to the spoken is not working.

And why WOULDN'T god give us financial advice? Surely he wouldn't known how important that'd be in 2019? If anything, that makes me care for the Bible even less.

And even in "showing" us a "profound life worth pursuing," some clear instructions would be nice along with having a good role model.

That being said, I'm not so convinced that Jesus is a good role model. But hey, live your best (profound) life.

[LastPoet]

If there isn't, God can keep whatever he has to say, and let us all go on with our lives as if he doesn't exist in the first place.

It is my honour to leave you to whatever the fuck you believe. However you will never have solid ground to tell others what to do, simple fact: you prize your imagination more than others. DK effect.

I believe your god, sad one at that, is flailing and in a rout. so why are you here?

[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.

[Acrobat]

If there isn't, God can keep whatever he has to say, and let us all go on with our lives as if he doesn't exist in the first place.

It is my honour to leave you to whatever the fuck you believe. However you will never have solid ground to tell others what to do, simple fact: you prize your imagination more than others. DK effect.

I believe your god, sad one at that, is flailing and in a rout. so why are you here?

Yet we all have solid ground to say you ought to live right, even to those who live wrong. And that ground is neither you nor me nor society, nor law.