[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Acrobat]

Err?
Was this for some other thread?

I posted it in reference to the argument Bela and I had earlier in the thread.

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?

[Silver]

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.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[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?

[Silver]

I honestly believe the devil gets a bad rep from a tyrant who's love is as unconditional as shampoo for those with dandruff issues.

I mean, here's an "evil" guy being punished to punish evil-doers? It makes zero sense.

Talk about god's pride getting in the way, am I right? What an egomaniac.

[The Grand Nudger]

I see we’ve tried the scorched earth theory. If we can’t read Ivanhoe literally, then what’s the point, even?

The faithful have a simplistic view of the value of literature. It does them no credit.

[EgoDeath]

Atheists accuse every Christian of cherry picking.

Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because most, if not all, Christians do it. After being accused of something time and time again, by multitudes of people, you might start wondering if you're guilty.

Atheists have no definition of what it would mean to read the Bible in a way that doesn’t cherry pick.

So I take it when atheists accuse theists of cherry picking that they do so thoughtlessly.

Not true at all. Having one, unanimous interpretation of a text and following the rules of said text would mean you are not cherry-picking. But when you, personally, decide which parts of a text to follow and which to ignore, you are cherry-picking.

And no, I'm not going to play your game where you list rules and I have to choose which ones you broke. You're being insanely disingenuous, as per usual, Acrobat. Mental gymnastics and such.

The funny part is, you probably really believe you're making a good point here. That's how disconnected from reality you seem to be.

[The Grand Nudger]

Saying that atheists accuse every Christian of cherry picking is saying nothing at all. Perhaps every Christian -does- cherry pick. In that case atheists are just saying “Christians are predictably Christian.”

Well.....no shit.

[Deesse23]

Great, so Genesis, was (most) definitely not meant literal, it was more of a "story", an allegory, something else the authors (we dont know either) wanted to convey. We have no clue (yet) what the story was intended to mean, although theologians and believers argue for over 2ky about it.

Suggestion: You folks keep trying to figure this out. In the meantme i keep my belief (in what we dont know jack shit of) suspended. If you find something in the next approx 30y, give me a call, so i may be able to repent on my death bed just in time.

Here's my suggestion leave the question of whether it's literal or not to the side. Just like when you heard the story of the three little pigs, we could leave the question aside. 

Then ask yourself what is the meaning of a story, about what is the meaning of the story, what is the other trying to convey?

It's a story about men acquiring knowledge of good and evil, and the impact of such knowledge. How it relates to concepts like shame, guilt, etc...

The meaning here is not dependent on the the account being historical.

I never was or am interested in reading the boring bible story book. I am not interested in reading many other books as well (like the three little pigs), because my day has only 24hrs. Thats why i am not interested in the bibles stories and what the authors may or may not want to convey.

Its people like you who are constantly asserting that some "knowledge" of "truth" results from reading and correctly understanding it. Its people like you who want to codify your beliefs based on this and interfere with other peoples´ lifes and human rights. Its people like you who are constantly asserting there is a big brother-like guy looking down on us, judging us, even after we die. All based on your assertion that you have understood something correct which was, according to Belaqua, certainly not meant to be interpreted in a literal way.
I am certainly not asking myself anything about bible stories. I will certainly not make your homework and figure out what the unknown author(s) of the bible wanted to convey.

If you want to spark any interest of mine, start demonstrating that your interpretations are most likely correct, any of them, not just assert it (see above). If you want to spark any interest on my side, start demonstrating that the big guy behind all of this really does exist....in more than some non literal way.

[Acrobat]

Not true at all. Having one, unanimous interpretation of a text and following the rules of said text would mean you are not cherry-picking. But when you, personally, decide which parts of a text to follow and which to ignore, you are cherry-picking.

What do you mean by unanimous interpretation? I would think that how to avoid cherry-picking is by having a consistent methodology, that you don't read the Bible differently, than you would any other religious text, or work of literature, or writings, simply because the words holy, and religious are attached to it.

Secondly interpreting the text, and following whatever the text dictates are not the same thing. I can acknowledge that Hitler wanted the Germans to literally kill Jews, without having to follow his demands. The OP, is about interpretation, not the following of the rules being interpreted.

And no, I'm not going to play your game where you list rules and I have to choose which ones you broke. You're being insanely disingenuous, as per usual, Acrobat. Mental gymnastics and such.

You're being disingenuous. You accuse me of cherry picking when it comes to interpretation of the Bible, but have failed to support this accusation. I listed the rules I use when interpreting the biblical text, you failed to show any flaws in such rules, or why if applied consistently would result in cherry picking? All you've tried to do is shift the goal post from interpretation of the meaning of the texts, to following the text.

The funny part is, you probably really believe you're making a good point here. That's how disconnected from reality you seem to be.

You're right, one of the annoying features of being on forums like this, is how easy it is to believe what you do, without any real challenges to it. You get a cheap sense of comfort regarding the veracity of your views. But I'm not proud of this. Part of the reason I even participate in atheists forum, it's perhaps the few places where people strongly disagree with your views, and you would think this would foster meaningful criticism, and challenges to think through. But instead you just get insults and barely thought through nonsense. I don't find this satisfying but disappointing.