Literalism and Autism

[Acrobat]

I'll ask again, what does autism have to do with to do with this subject?

Uhm, because one aspect of people on the spectrum is that they’re prone to systemizing, which leads them to have trouble interpreting non-literal expressions.

It seems that something similar to such systemized way of thinking are fairly common here as well, though perhaps independent of being on the spectrum.

I’m trying to figure out why that is. One possibility is that I’m from the East, and there and noted differences in how westerners and easterners think, the later tend to take a more holistic approach to thinking, while the former tends to take a more rule based on approach.

[EgoDeath]

Yes, I completely agree with you that the Internet insulates us, and makes us less conscious of the reality of the people we're talking to. We should be careful about what we say, and do our best to avoid causing personal insult.

Everybody here has a personal life off line. We don't know what's going on with that, or what they are going through.

So I want to avoid any statements that might inadvertently cause pain, and stick to the historical questions as much as possible. I am genuinely sorry if anything I've said ended up looking like a personal insult against you.

Beautiful. Now you're trying to back out of this. Amazing, Bel. Bravo, really. Thanks for showing us who you are.

Uhm, because one aspect of people on the spectrum is that they’re prone to systemizing, which leads them to have trouble interpreting non-literal expressions.

It seems that something similar to such systemized way of thinking are fairly common here as well, though perhaps independent of being on the spectrum.

I’m trying to figure out why that is. One possibility is that I’m from the East, and there and noted differences in how westerners and easterners think, the later tend to take a more holistic approach to thinking, while the former tends to take a more rule based on approach.

So your idea is that Biblical literalism might stem from people being autistic? What's your hypothesis here? What's this thread really about?

[Acrobat]

Certainly not a hundred percent.

How about you?

But how do you determine whats literal from non-literal?

Do you do research for a university? I mean what's going on here, what is this thread?

I don't even know anyone personally that's autistic and this comes off as offensive to me. I'd slap that fuck outta you if you said some shit like this in real life to somebody. You are one arrogant fuck.

The only thing I said about people on the spectrum, is that they tend to have trouble with non-literal language, something that been observed in a variety of scientific literature. Please tell me how this is offensive to people on the spectrum?

You seem to be getting worked up over nothing.

[EgoDeath]

But how do you determine whats literal from non-literal?

Well, like you said, it's quite easy, isn't it? Or is it difficult? Which statement are you sticking with in this particular moment? You've claimed both.

The only thing I said about people on the spectrum, is that they tend to have trouble with non-literal language, something that been observed in a variety of scientific literature. Please tell me how this is offensive to people on the spectrum?

You seem to be getting worked up over nothing.

Not worked up, simply holding you to what you're saying. Don't attempt to be dismissive by, in so many words, telling me to calm down. It's childish and arrogant. Thought that's your MO, isn't it?

So what you're saying is that because people may interpret the Bible literally, and because people who are autistic tend to interpret texts literally, people who interpret the Bible literally may be autistic? What are you talking about? Are you attempting to diagnose people here on AF? Is this to help us, or you? I'm not quite getting it. What exactly is the point of this thread here?

Once again, I'll ask, when did anyone on this forum ever suggest a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible?

[Succubus]

The fact that billions of people have undergone the holy sacrament of baptism suggest they do indeed take Genesis very seriously.

If Genesis is allegory then why do we need redemption, why do we need a redeemer?

Yes, that's certainly so.

In your view, does "take seriously" always mean "read literally"? 

I'm not persuaded that it does. Even if we can't know the intentions of the original authors, later Christians were willing to take it both non-literally and seriously.

So now it's both non-literally and seriously? Are you in training for next mental acrobatics contest?

[Belacqua]

Yes, that's certainly so.

In your view, does "take seriously" always mean "read literally"? 

I'm not persuaded that it does. Even if we can't know the intentions of the original authors, later Christians were willing to take it both non-literally and seriously.

So now it's both non-literally and seriously? Are you in training for next mental acrobatics contest?

History shows that many people take stories both non-literally and seriously. 

You can point to the myths used by Plato in the Phaedrus, for example. 

Is it wrong for me to bring this up, or to acknowledge the fact that it happens?

[EgoDeath]

Yes, that's certainly so.

In your view, does "take seriously" always mean "read literally"? 

I'm not persuaded that it does. Even if we can't know the intentions of the original authors, later Christians were willing to take it both non-literally and seriously.

So now it's both non-literally and seriously? Are you in training for next mental acrobatics contest?

Like I said, get ready for a couple dozen pages of spin.

Also, I love Sam Harris' view on this.

“Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.” ― Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

[Succubus]

About what percentage of the Bible do you interpret non-literally?...

No you don't!


What percentage of the Bible was written to be interpreted non-literally?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Forget metaphor, allegory and symbolism. Did this happen?

[Acrobat]

But how do you determine whats literal from non-literal?

Well, like you said, it's quite easy, isn't it? Or is it difficult? Which statement are you sticking with in this particular moment? You've claimed both.

yes, i indicated it comes as easy to me as it does every day language. I indicated a variety of reasons for this, even wrote out a list of rules i use. And even tried to dig down further for you, answering questions about specific examples.

I don't know if it's easy for you. Nor do I know how you distinguish them. Nor do i know why you don't want to answer the question.

Not worked up, simply holding you to what you're saying. Don't attempt to be dismissive by, in so many words, telling me to calm down. It's childish and arrogant. Thought that's your MO, isn't it?

Telling me you'd slap me, sounds pretty worked up.

So what you're saying is that because people may interpret the Bible literally, and because people who are autistic tend to interpret texts literally, people who interpret the Bible literally may be autistic?

Nothing of the sort.

Once again, I'll ask, when did anyone on this forum ever suggest a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible?

No one has. They just seem puzzled by theist who openly admit to understanding some parts of the Bible as literal and other parts as not, as to how the make those distinctions.

Every answer and criteria, I've given seem to be unsatifilatory to them, and I'm not sure how to make sense of that? My inclination is to think is that they're prone to systemizing ways of thinking. This phenomena is observed among people on the spectrum, but need not be exclusive to those on the spectrum, but I'm just exploring the question, not arguing for a position.

At the same time folks like yourself, seem to suggest that you do recognize some parts of the Bible are not literal. Yet, you don't want to answer as to how you distinguish the literal from non-literal parts? Perhaps you take passages where Jesus refers to himself as a lamb, to be non-literal? If so why do you take that to be non-literal, but not passages about a tree, with a fruit of "knowledge of good and evil"?

[EgoDeath]

yes, i indicated it comes as easy to me as it does every day language. I indicated a variety of reasons for this, even wrote out a list of rules i use. And even tried to dig down further for you, answering questions about specific examples.

I don't know if it's easy for you. Nor do I know how you distinguish them. Nor do i know why you don't want to answer the question.

But, wait a minute, I thought you claimed in another thread that interpreting the Bible was supposed to be hard? That god wanted you to work to understand how to be a Christian? Which one is it?

Don't go make me find the post.
 

Nothing of the sort.

So, why create this thread? Once again, what does autism have to do with scriptural literalism? And why did you make a thread about it? Are you not suggesting there's a connection, what exactly are you doing?

No one has. They just seem puzzled by theist who openly admit to understanding some parts of the Bible as literal and other parts as not, as to how the make those distinctions.

I don't think anyone's puzzled, we're simply trying to understand your point of view, specifically.

Every answer and criteria, I've given seem to be unsatifilatory to them, and I'm not sure how to make sense of that? My inclination is to think is that they're prone to systemizing ways of thinking. This phenomena is observed among people on the spectrum, but need not be exclusive to those on the spectrum, but I'm just exploring the question, not arguing for a position.

So you are making a connection between Biblical literalism and people on the spectrum? Though I thought you said just above you were doing nothing of the sort?

At the same time folks like yourself, seem to suggest that you do recognize some parts of the Bible are not literal. Yet, you don't want to answer as to how you distinguish the literal from non-literal parts? Perhaps you take passages where Jesus refers to himself as a lamb, to be non-literal? If so why do you take that to be non-literal, but not passages about a tree, with a fruit of "knowledge of good and evil"?

This thread isn't about how I interpret the Bible, is it? I'm asking you about autism and Biblical literalism. You made the thread. Answer the questions.

You're contradicting yourself so much. You seem like a confused person.