Literalism and Autism

[Acrobat]

Pointing to someone who disagrees will not make that minority viewpoint anything more or less than what it is.

I'm pointing to some who disagrees with you that it's minority viewpoint. You'd just claim it's a minority view point, you haven't actually supported this.

I've asked you what rough percentage of Christians at the time if ask the question, the way Origen did, would agree with him? If you only a minority would agree with him, what percentage would you give this minority? If Origen suggest that the majority of people would agree with him, how do I determine whether your conclusion is anymore accurate than his?

As a contemporary believer you may think that Origen provides justification for denying a literal reading of genesis....that Christianity doesn’t depend on it....but that’s your mistake, not atheists, and not Origens...heretic though he was in so many other ways.

Another unsupported claim by you. You claim I'm mistaken in my interpretation of Christianity, the NT, etc.. But you have yet to indicate how or what I'm mistaken about it, and why it's a mistake.

When it reality you're probably more mistaken about what I believe, and what the NT writing indicate, or what the early christians believed, than I am.

[The Grand Nudger]

The fact that his work was decried as heresy might be indicative, lol. Not that it matters, since he still asserted that some portions of genesis were literal.

How do you decide between a demagogue using the rhetorical flourish of “and I think you would agree with me” and facts of history and demographics?

That’s beyond the scope of my ability to help you comprehend if the trouble you have is so fundamental. Lots of people say lots of things. Figure it out.

Moving forward, you are again and predictably mistaken. Your interpretation of Christianity can’t possibly be “wrong”. It’s yours. I’m noting only what has been made a public source of angst for the tradition. That you and others like you don’t realize the theological necessity of portions of genesis to be literally true.

I think it’s great that you interpret magic book as an allegory. Doing so, however, leaves Christ as allegory. This is something that atheists also accept. It’s emphatically not a Christian belief, lol.

You really do have to believe in a literal Christ....which doesn’t begin in new magic book, to be Christian. That’s what the word means.

[Acrobat]

Moving forward, you are again and predictably mistaken.  Your interpretation of Christianity can’t possibly be “wrong”.  It’s yours.  I’m noting only what has been made a public source of angst for the tradition.  That you and others like you don’t realize the theological necessity of portions of genesis to be literally true.

No, I could be mistaken or wrong, and i expect people who accuse me of being mistaken and wrong, to indicate what I'm mistaken about and why, or else I'd take it that they're just blowing smoke out their ass. Which is what you seem to be doing. Making claims about me, and running as far away as possible, when asked to support them.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don’t think that you’re mistaken or wrong in your interpretations. I don’t even think it’s possible for your interpretation to -be- wrong.

I don’t really know what else I can say?

It remains a fact, entirely apart from your being consistently wrong about my opinion of your interpretation or your opinion if atheists criticisms.....that there are theological necessities which must be understood as literal truth.....in the Christian myth, all over both magic books. That’s why the stories were included. Even in genesis, even to you, even to Origen.

Believing in Christ makes one a Christian. Not believing in the allegory of christ. That’s cultural christianity - many atheists are also cultural christians.

Most, in fact.

[Acrobat]

I don’t think that you’re mistaken or wrong in your interpretations.  I don’t even think it’s possible for your interpretation to -be- wrong.

Good, that I'll take it that you have no basis to accuse my reading to be mistaken or anyone else's.

It remains a fact, entirely apart from your being consistently wrong about my opinion of your interpretation or your opinion if atheists criticisms.....that there are theological necessities which must be understood as literal truth.....in the Christian myth, all over both magic books.  That’s why the stories were included.  Even in genesis, even to you, even to Origen.

What's the theological necessity of a literal Genesis? Is this in regards to a particular atonement theology that might be dependent on this? If so, is subscribing to this particular atonement theology a theological necessity as well?

Believing in Christ makes one a Christian.  Not believing in the allegory of christ.  That’s cultural christianity - many atheists are also cultural christians.

Most, in fact.

You should be clear here. What you're trying to refer to is, orthodox christian beliefs, the beliefs of a variety of denominations that fit under that umbrella, including Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Traditions, Mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals.

There are plenty of christians that would fall under heterodox Christian beliefs, including liberal denominations, such christians have existed in some form or the other pretty much from conception. Some don't believe Jesus had a literal body, just gave off the the illusion of it. Some like many liberal tradition reject the resurrection as an actual event. There could be christians who reject a historical Jesus, but they would fall under heterodox.

It should also be said that even in orthodox denominations, like Catholicism, their are codified beliefs in concepts like Anonymous Christians, a category in which even some non-believers, atheists, etc... could full under.

Or to put it clearly, what it means and doesn't mean to be a Christian isn't simple, or even as simple as rejecting a historical Jesus. You could at best make distinctions between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, but thats about as good as it gets.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you aren’t aware of the theological necessity of literalism in Christian myth as it relates to genesis, then there are no end of sources online for you to research. As I keep mentioning, religious leaders and scholars both comment on it and research it exhaustively.

That there is no necessity of literalism in whatever interpretation of magic book novel to you, is just a fact of your beliefs...and therefore cannot be wrong or mistaken. We can repeat this for any individual believer or group.

That’s what you believe, or more accurately what you don’t.

I keep telling you that the idea that your interpretation ( or anyone's...for that matter) can be wrong is yours, not mine.

[LastPoet]

What about those that literally or not, still find it a big steamy pile of bullshit? If that makes me autistic, very well then. I was vaxxed, many more times with heroin than regular vaccines, that I also took. Therefore heroin abuse makes atheists and vaccines. Hell, everything to excuse believing in god. Gotta say it's a cheap drug for the simple minded, unless you tithe.

[Acrobat]

If you aren’t aware of the theological necessity of literalism in Christian myth as it relates to genesis, then there are no end of sources online for you to research.  As I keep mentioning, religious leaders and scholars both comment on it  and research it exhaustively.

I'm well aware that there are some Christians who have a view of Atonement that is dependent on a literal Adam and Eve. 

What you seem unaware of is that even among orthodox believers, there a variety of atonement views that don't dependent on a literal Adam and Eve. Hell not even the Gospel writers made any connection between them. 

I'm rejecting your claim that a literal understanding of Genesis is a necessity of Orthodox Christianity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your rejecting a Christian claim, not my claim.

In the process you expose another commitment to literalism. “The Gospel Writers”. As though they and their stories aren’t allegory? Jesus, superfisherman?

---

I have to wonder which of us is actually having trouble identifying allegory?

Have you ever considered that it might be you? That you have a false sense of confidence by reference to other literalist commitments thought, by you, to be even more absurd than your own are to me?

That you’re not as nutty as -those- nutbars...therefore you don’t have equivalent literalist commitment?

Or...longshot, perhaps you misrepresent yourself and your faith...and therefore it always seems as though people are referring to some other faith or person of faith?

---

Do you or do you not believe in the literal and existent god of the old magic book, who created the world, and who endowed man with a soul, which is in need of redemption, satisfied by the Christ of new magic book, who is of old magic books god?

[Acrobat]

Your rejecting a Christian claim, not my claim.

I’m rejecting a claim made by some Christians, but not rejecting claims representative of Christian orthodoxy as a whole.