[Serious] A Literal Bible. Answering questions

[The Grand Nudger]

You did make those claims, which were and remain false.... as is this new claim, which is also false even in it's own far narrower grounds.

Are you committed to any basis of any fact in any of your comments on any subject?

[Brian37]

Aye, figuring out how to break past the dichotomy and hit the core of the issue. It's difficult to break through multiple entrenched dogmas all at once, and I don't have any practice with Atheists so far lol
I'm not particularly interested in talking to Atheists per se, not because I'm not, but because I had 20 years experience being an atheist, and I already know where the 'veil' of the issue is, and can argue there myself. It generally comes down to an issue where two people look at the same piece of data and one man says he can see God, and another says he cannot.

Back to the issue in this thread though; the interpretation style I am using is Biblical, and can be defended extremely robustly in that context, as well as smashing apart the culturally accepted reading. Of course that doesn't mean anything to an atheist, unless possibly as method of engaging people who engage in the "If it's not in the Bible it's not real" line of thinking. It is a tool through that blockade. 

Individual examples and the arguments around the events they describe are something that comes in someone's own time, but the general spirit of empathy applies from the start. Where did this person come from, and when? What did he understand, and how would he describe the world around him, especially when it comes to things he does not really understand? 


(BTW is it just me or is the post new reply page really laggy?)

Biblical people can defend their position based on the Bible.


Nice circular logic.

The bible is story/anecdote/testimony, not fact.

Agreed.

If a Muslim came up to him and said, "The Koran is fact because the Koran says so", I doubt he'd buy his own logic in that case.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think...ultimately, that the OP believes they had some valuable gift to offer us, some sort of argument against YEC's and strict literalists.

Well..thanks, but no need? I already have an airtight demonstration of the vacuous nature of creationism in any form. Biology. There's no utility in resorting to any set of claims that are false and absurd prima facia..and it's unclear how any such set of claims would be useful or valid in that effort, if I weren't already well supplied.

If I wanted, for example..to explain how completely ridiculous the idea of a woman being turned into a pillar of salt were? I would not argue or suggest that this bit of narrative detail were an impossible account of a nonexistent survivor to a non event in the forgotten past. Mostly, I wouldn't take that route, because it's no more or less silly than literalism was.... in the first place.

[Brian37]

I think...ultimately, that the OP believes they had some valuable gift to offer us, some sort of argument against YEC's and strict literalists.  

Well..thanks, but no need?  I already have an airtight demonstration of the vacuous nature of creationism in any form.  Biology.  There's no utility in resorting to any set of claims that are false and absurd prima facia..and it's unclear how any such set of claims would be useful or valid in that effort, if I weren't already well supplied.

If I wanted, for example..to explain how completely ridiculous the idea of a woman being turned into a pillar of salt were?  I would not argue or suggest that this bit of narrative detail were an impossible account of a nonexistent survivor to a non event in the forgotten past.  Mostly, I wouldn't take that route, because it's no more or less silly than literalism was.... in the first place.

His argument, "I am a theist, but I am not like the others". 

An apology is an apology and a presupposition is a presupposition regardless. It its like arguing the difference between Superman and Batman. Batman being a mere mortal doesn't make the character anymore real.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's every evangelists basic pitch. I'm not a tough audience, though, I don't mind that. I just want whatever it is to work on it's own grounds. The idea that wrongthink, as decribed by a contemporary human being, is a new phenomena is just bananapants.

The idea..however false on it's own grounds... that a thing is questionable or even wrong, implicitly, because it's a new idea - wildly inconvenient to the fact that all of judeo-christian belief was new at some point, to begin with.

[Brian37]

That's every evangelists basic pitch.  I'm not a tough audience, though, I don't mind that.  I just want whatever it is to work on it's own grounds.  The idea that wrongthink, as decribed by a contemporary human being, is a new phenomena is just banapants.  

The idea..however false on it's own grounds... that a thing is questionable or even wrong, implicitly, because it's a new idea -  wildly inconvenient to the fact that all of judeo-christian belief was new at some point, to begin with.

Not really new, the Hebrew faith merely stems from prior polytheism.

[JairCrawford]

From what I’ve observed, even fundamentalists don’t read the entire Bible literally. They will pick the doctrines of a particular denomination and hone in on verses and passages that support said doctrines, and read those parts specifically literally, while other parts of scripture become more figurative or real stretches are made in attempts to harmonize.

[Jehanne]

From what I’ve observed, even fundamentalists don’t read the entire Bible literally. They will pick the doctrines of a particular denomination and hone in on verses and passages that support said doctrines, and read those parts specifically literally, while other parts of scripture become more figurative or real stretches are made in attempts to harmonize.

Fundamentalist Christians are entirely rational; for them, it's fides quaerens intellectum. Few in the Academy think this way, at least publicly. One notable exception is Dr. Francis Collins. Unlike the general public, all of his colleagues know the complete unoriginality of his ideas, which is why he has convinced none of them to embrace his religious faith. Privately, they view him as being a bit of a crank.

[Brian37]

From what I’ve observed, even fundamentalists don’t read the entire Bible literally. They will pick the doctrines of a particular denomination and hone in on verses and passages that support said doctrines, and read those parts specifically literally, while other parts of scripture become more figurative or real stretches are made in attempts to harmonize.

Yes, it is called cherry picking.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know a guy who reads the entire thing (and has read the entire thing..multiple times) and takes it all literally. Get this..he manages to do so without being a complete buffoon about it.

So that part is elective. It's not so much a requirement of a literal faith that a person cherry pick, or even deny that all evidence is aligned against their own literalist beliefs. No need to come up with alternate explanations for passages, or even reconcile them. It's all true. How? Who knows. A genuine belief in the miraculous completely evades any attempt at rational explanation - because there isn't one. The attempts to mold these myths into something rationally explicable is a product of the success of the sciences and secular humanism. Shamans, witchdoctors, and other assorted cosplayers have been yanking the fire alarm about this for a long time. In sum, an attempt to explain god by way of the natural and rational, within the context of human values - rather than the other way around.