Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet you go out of your way to argue that in a thread which is about how the Bible was interpreted. The title of this thread is "Biblical Literalism: a modern heresy/fallacy". So you do all this and reply this much on a thread on a topic you claim not to care about...and you conveniently only state that you don't care after you have been backed into a corner. Okay...
That you have to superfacepalm to try to drive home a flimsy argument proves me right. Never mind the grubby attempt to hi -jack the argument.. the old 'atheism = murdering marxists...I got tired of pointing out the mucky lies.
The fact is that the 'Bible metaphor argument is an old red herring long since debunked. We can see a metaphor like using Edom as a washpot. That other events are clearly not metaphorical is also pretty clear. There are those like Job or Jonah.Parables are to be taken as fact? I'd say illustrative parables, but other argue they really happened. That is Literalism. The same applies to Eden, The Flood and indeed Exodus now. Where there is good reason Not to take the literal, they become Myth or at least Metaphor.
Those who insist they really happened are Bile Literalists. Do you get it now? If not, I suggest you go and bang your palm on your forehead until you do. I am at least am above suggesting that you need simple word in order to understand what I posted.
There are a lot of other posts to others, exhibiting your habitual evasiveness, combined with hubris. It an amazingly common combination in Theist apologetics. I'll pass over the rather obvious exhibition of impatience at the supposed Obtuseness of those who dare to question you assertions. But really dd you expect your argument about the fact that 'Bible" appears nowhere in the Bible to be seen as anything but the most dreadful and irrelevant strawman?
And that Jesus blood sacrifice means nothing to you ir irrelevant in discussing a religion where it has become a basic tenet of the religion. It is a practical fact for Christians. Is it relevant that Catholics believe in Transubstantiation, or indeed that some may regard is as metaphor. The orthodoxy supposedly take it as literal. So we argue on the claims and if any say they don't believe that, fine, we will look at what they do believe. You may not believe in Jesus. A lot of sortagod -theist don't. Then we have nothing to argue about. But by Random Factors, a lot of them sure do argue a lot about it, and as rudely and dishonestly as you do. I suspect because it is really all you have.
Well, maybe I'll leave you to Raffs, maybe he felt he needed a drink. I do.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-14-2016 at 07:52 AM..
That you have to superfacepalm to try to drive home a flimsy argument proves me right. Never mind the grubby attempt to hi -jack the argument.. the old 'atheism = murdering marxists...I got tired of pointing out the mucky lies.
Okay, Arq, religions were and can be organized sources of evils in the name of God, but don't let that make you a defender of evils by organized atheist regimes by pretending that atheism was not part of the motivating animus.
Okay, Arq, religions were and can be organized sources of evils in the name of God, but don't let that make you a defender of evils by organized atheist regimes by pretending that atheism was not part of the motivating animus.
flat out wrong myst. we are right and they are wrong so get back in line, err wait a min, I mean back in ... forget it.
Okay, Arq, religions were and can be organized sources of evils in the name of God, but don't let that make you a defender of evils by organized atheist regimes by pretending that atheism was not part of the motivating animus.
Your faith really does mess with that Phd head of yours. I don't like to get involved in the atrocity debate because it is what men do and nothing to do with with truth (or not) of either side. It is true that adherence to dogma can lead to Inquisitions, persecutions, Marxist regimes and Naziism. I'm not defending anything when I say that it is false and merely grubby polemics to play the atrocity card.
You are being dishonest (thanks to your faith -based thinking) in taking the atheist element of Marxism and pretending that was the reason for the evils that happened, never mind the double dishonesty of apparently supporting his grubbiness VP in using to smear the present atheist movement.
lmao. this is exactly what I said to you. And you do it all the time.
they are smearing just another false claim by some literal people. I personally smear your version (sect) of atheism because it is based on revenge. you and the other fundy-mental atheist are seeking revenge.
My sect of atheism is just a lack of belief in Omni dude. we stand against people that would force intolerance of other people. Of course your literal thinking means "acceptance without limits". I am against any literalist removing limits. removing religion's, gov polices, national pride, sports, NRA's, or whatever groups limits is a bad thing. It makes life dangerous for the rest of us.
Before biblical literalism, it was papal literalism or church council literalism.
Christianity has always been based on blind appeals to authority. Like almost every religion.
That doesn't test out when you read St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Catherine of Genoa, Mme Jeanne Guyon, Fr. Thomas Keating, The Cloud of Unknowing, Henry Suso, Julian of Norwich, Martin Luther, and Francois de Sales.
The monastic tradition of 400 years ago and more is anything but literal. Literalism came about specifically because of a Catholic Church ban on "contemplation" which took root 400-500 years ago. At that point the church looked for an alternative to teach the people and it decided an intellectual study of the bible was the answer. More and more the practice involved studying a little Hebrew and a little Greek, cross-word studies, study of tenses, comparison of passages in different NT books and comparison with OT passages, and lectures on views, understandings, etc. All intellectual. The spiritual practice, goal, and content was lost.
For example, some of the "greats" of earlier Christianity that I listed taught that Genesis was not to be taken literally, but was an attempt to explain how we got into this predicament of sinning even when we know better and how we got here on earth in the first place. But it was not said to be a story given by God to Moses or anyone else. Therefore it should be taken as symbolism, allegory, with metaphors because that is what it is.
Today a huge number of people think it was a factual report of what actually happened.
That doesn't test out when you read St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Catherine of Genoa, Mme Jeanne Guyon, Fr. Thomas Keating, The Cloud of Unknowing, Henry Suso, Julian of Norwich, Martin Luther, and Francois de Sales.
...
Today a huge number of people think [the creation narrative] was a factual report of what actually happened.
Your point is well-taken but so is Freak's. He is simply agreeing with your last sentence. Whatever religion once was, it has become much more literalist / inerrantist, much more concerned with correct belief than with correct actions, etc. That thread has always been around (example: The Inquisition). But it seems more influential than it used to be.
Yes there are still liberal theists abroad in the world, and sometimes we get so caught up with the fundamentalist / evangelical / literalist types here that we tend to forget that. But people who hold their faith loosely are not really very much part of what we unbelievers see as the problem with the world. They are "live and let live" types who don't consider their private insights and personal subjective experiences to be binding on others. We have no quarrel with them, nor for the most part, they with us.
Exactly. Of course we atheists see belief in any kind of god illogical and the Bible as no better a guide for living than Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. But we don't mind those who do believe and do that, so long as they do not try to oblige the rest of society to believe one and do the other (and you can bet that the ones who try to do this the most will be Bible literalists, not Bible metaphoralists). That is why we are active, and putting in the effort to roll Christianity and it has to be said all religion, back where it belongs- into the individual homes and places of worship, and we are fine with those theists who are with us on that or who don't actively oppose us.
The monastic tradition of 400 years ago and more is anything but literal.
Literalism is still present. The practices change and the definitions change. Someone you view as taking the biblical texts literally can tell you that you're applying the literal definitions from you're own practice and you should view it as metaphorical.
Quote:
More and more the practice involved studying a little Hebrew and a little Greek, cross-word studies, study of tenses, comparison of passages in different NT books and comparison with OT passages, and lectures on views, understandings, etc.
None of those things in and of themselves are anti-spiritual as they can each be done for a spiritual purpose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
forget it.
