Literalism and Autism

[Belacqua]

This is a very ignorant OP.

The issue with some (not all) people with autism is that they take phrases hyper-literally, not literally. What you're trying to address has little, if any, to do with hyper-literalness.

It is an impression Acrobat and I get when people ignore the obvious: all literature -- in fact all language -- relies on non-literal expression. 

To pretend somehow that any good text would be entirely literal, or that any text at all can operate without non-literal expression, is just obtuse. Reading is interpreting.

https://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live...oks&sr=1-1

[GrandizerII]

This is a very ignorant OP.

The issue with some (not all) people with autism is that they take phrases hyper-literally, not literally. What you're trying to address has little, if any, to do with hyper-literalness.

It is an impression Acrobat and I get when people ignore the obvious: all literature -- in fact all language -- relies on non-literal expression. 

To pretend somehow that any good text would be entirely literal, or that any text at all can operate without non-literal expression, is just obtuse. Reading is interpreting.

https://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live...oks&sr=1-1

It depends on context. Nothing about Genesis suggests it was meant to be an allegory. In fact, it suggests at the end of Genesis 1 that it was meant to be taken literally. If people later on want to treat it as allegory, be my guest.

[EgoDeath]

This is a very ignorant OP.

The issue with some (not all) people with autism is that they take phrases hyper-literally, not literally. What you're trying to address has little, if any, to do with hyper-literalness.

It is an impression Acrobat and I get when people ignore the obvious: all literature -- in fact all language -- relies on non-literal expression. 

To pretend somehow that any good text would be entirely literal, or that any text at all can operate without non-literal expression, is just obtuse. Reading is interpreting.

https://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live...oks&sr=1-1

Wait a minute, who is suggesting that the Bible is to be interpreted 100% literally? None of us here have said that, so where exactly are you getting the idea that anyone is suggesting that?

Furthermore, where exactly do you get off suggesting that people must be autistic for not agreeing with your interpretation of the Bible?

You are both some arrogant fucks, you know that?

You are aware that some people on the board here are actually on the spectrum, right? This really comes off like you guys are just trying to get under people's skins; I honestly doubt this is a real concern of yours and this thinly veiled shit you're pulling is fucking gross. You just cannot accept the fact that the people here at AF don't agree with your nonsense version of christianity. Fuck off dude.

[Belacqua]

Nothing about Genesis suggests it was meant to be an allegory. 

What about Genesis indicates to you that it was not supposed to be allegory?

[GrandizerII]

Nothing about Genesis suggests it was meant to be an allegory. 

What about Genesis indicates to you that it was not supposed to be allegory?

That's not what I said. Keyword is suggests. And please don't shift the burden of proof.

Regarding my previous post, I meant start of Genesis 2, not end of Genesis 1.

[Belacqua]

What about Genesis indicates to you that it was not supposed to be allegory?

That's not what I said. Keyword is suggests. And please don't shift the burden of proof.

Regarding my previous post, I meant start of Genesis 2, not end of Genesis 1.

Below is the text of Genesis 2.  

I don't see what suggests to you that this must be read literally. In fact it looks to me that anyone the least bit familiar with mythical, non-literal writing would be comfortable reading this in the same way.

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame

[GrandizerII]

I don't see where in this text it suggests allegory. The bit about the Sabbath suggests to me otherwise. Which bit suggests allegory?

[brewer]

This is a very ignorant OP.

The issue with some (not all) people with autism is that they take phrases hyper-literally, not literally. What you're trying to address has little, if any, to do with hyper-literalness.

It is an impression Acrobat and I get when people ignore the obvious: all literature -- in fact all language -- relies on non-literal expression. 

To pretend somehow that any good text would be entirely literal, or that any text at all can operate without non-literal expression, is just obtuse. Reading is interpreting.

https://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live...oks&sr=1-1

We'd at least like this one source for a religion to be non-fictional. 

But then, all sources for religions/gods are fictional.

[Belacqua]

I don't see where in this text it suggests allegory. The bit about the Sabbath suggests to me otherwise. Which bit suggests allegory?

I guess we'd need some criteria to help us discern allegory or other non-literal readings from literal readings.

There are a few that come to mind right away:

~ historical knowledge of how texts were used in those days

~ the fact that the authors, while lacking in scientific knowledge, weren't idiots. So they knew, for example, that what they were proposing was not empirically grounded. 

~ the fact that according to various theories about when and where these texts were edited together, there may well have been political and ethical motivations that were not about literal explanations of the earth's origins. 

If we begin with the assumption that all texts are literal until proven otherwise, I guess we could make assumptions about them. If we start by not knowing, on the other hand, and use our historical and literary knowledge to make educated guesses, then non-literal readings appear to be just as likely as not. 

Why should the bit about the sabbath seem more literal to you? Isn't it possible that the sabbath is important for spiritual and moral reasons, and that therefore a myth to emphasize those aspects would be desirable at the time?

---

You are both some arrogant fucks

Thank you! This is kind of you to say.

Fucking is really good. I think everybody here probably loves fucking a lot.

So for you to call me a fuck must mean that you think I'm really popular and desirable.

Unless you meant it metaphorically, in which case what you say is incomprehensible to me.

[EgoDeath]

Thank you! This is kind of you to say.

Fucking is really good. I think everybody here probably loves fucking a lot.

So for you to call me a fuck must mean that you think I'm really popular and desirable.

Unless you meant it metaphorically, in which case what you say is incomprehensible to me.

More evidence that this thread is just about you and Mr. Mental Gymnastics trying to get under everyone's skin.

What a loser. Being an expert on every subject on the internet must get tiring, no?

What's your degree in again? The study of always being right? Where's that uni at?