A question to liberal/modern theists

[JetLeg]

Hi.

You, who believe that there is a god, but are liberal/modern -> why are you not fundamentalists? What are the differences between fundamentalism and your ideology,and the reasons for them?

[Holler Hoojer]

I'm more a Deist than a Theist, but I think my answer might apply anyway since one of the reasons I am a Deist is that I can't stomach fundamentalists. If you begin with the idea of an infinite, eternal, unknowable existence (which is sort of the way many think of God), then you quickly realize that your opinions about God are at best meaningless and arrogant. You find yourself in much the same position as the anti-relativity posters who insist they can refute relativity without using even high school algebra because they don't know any math anyway.

I find great personal value in the teachings of Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad, and so on. I see similar themes and a shared concern for my fellow humans. So, when fundamentalists attack any tradition (and that also includes the traditions of secular humanists), they are, from my point of view, committing the heresy of substituting themselves for God, i.e., worshipping their own desires and opinions. Further, they do great harm to the social fabric when they deny basic rights to women, when they attempt to limit basic freedoms of others, and especially when they fail to share the planet fairly with all other humans.

[slingblade]

Hi.

You, who believe that there is a god, but are liberal/modern -> why are you not fundamentalists? What are the differences between fundamentalism and your ideology,and the reasons for them?

JL...what do you think Fundamentalism is? How are you defining it?

[JetLeg]

JL...what do you think Fundamentalism is? How are you defining it?

I live in Israel, so my impression of fundamentalism is not direct. I understand by fundamentalism

* The belief that the bible is literally true
* The belief that our morals come from the bible
* The belief (not always explicit) that if the bible says something that seems wrong to us/immoral, then it is us who are wrong, and not the authority.
* Very un-progressive social views. Discriminations of blacks, denying women rights, authoritarian family structure.

[JetLeg]

I want to ask another question - very much related -> what is bad in fanaticism? After all, IF it is true that there is a god, and the person believes it, it is more rational for him to act according to it, than to pick and choose like the liberal do, or to do only whatever suits your mind instead of obeying him.

[Holler Hoojer]

I want to ask another question - very much related -> what is bad in fanaticism? After all, IF it is true that there is a god, and the person believes it, it is more rational for him to act according to it, than to pick and choose like the liberal do, or to do only whatever suits your mind instead of obeying him.

What is bad about fanaticism is that fanatics tend to "speak for god" as if they were the designated press secretary. The only way a fundie preacher can say something like, "God hates homosexuality." is if god can be reduced to some petty, narrow-minded bigot. I'm amused by the part in the Tanakh where god tells Moses, "I am" and three thousand years later, a minister says that means we should attack Iraq. Huh?

But anyway, my creator - be that god, random slime DNA, or just Mom - gave me a rational mind. Am I supposed to use that or it that just a vestigal organ left over from a failed evolutionary branch?

[JetLeg]

What is bad about fanaticism is that fanatics tend to "speak for god" as if they were the designated press secretary. The only way a fundie preacher can say something like, "God hates homosexuality." is if god can be reduced to some petty, narrow-minded bigot. I'm amused by the part in the Tanakh where god tells Moses, "I am" and three thousand years later, a minister says that means we should attack Iraq. Huh?

But anyway, my creator - be that god, random slime DNA, or just Mom - gave me a rational mind. Am I supposed to use that or it that just a vestigal organ left over from a failed evolutionary branch?

Actually, there is a part in Tanakh against homosexuality.

I'm not really saying that we should start killing people who don't observe the sabbath, as the tanakh recommends. But it seems reasonable to me, if you believe that god exists, to obey him, and not pick and choose.

Do you think that the fundamentalists also pick and choose? In what?

[Holler Hoojer]

Most (all?) people pick and choose which parts of the Bible they obey. When was the last time you observed a Jubilee year? Do you often kill your disobedient children? Any bald priests in your denomination? And, wassup with this Sunday sabbath? It's Saturday.

So, of course there are choices made. Even to the trivial point that most people read the Bible in a bastardized translation rather than the original Hebrew.

Why make a point of the mote in your neighbor's eye when there is a log in your own?

[slingblade]

I live in Israel, so my impression of fundamentalism is not direct. I understand by fundamentalism

* The belief that the bible is literally true
* The belief that our morals come from the bible
* The belief (not always explicit) that if the bible says something that seems wrong to us/immoral, then it is us who are wrong, and not the authority.
* Very un-progressive social views. Discriminations of blacks, denying women rights, authoritarian family structure.

Ok, that's fair.

At the risk of either of us posing a No True Scotsman, the last two points seem to follow naturally or consequently from the first two.

A fundamentalist Christian accepts the entire bible as literal.
The bible states or implies that morals come from god, creator of all we know.
Thus, if we disagree with any premise in the bible, we are violating #1 and probably #2 as well, and so challenging the authority of the bible and the bible's inspired authorial source. That's the first three. The fourth is bit trickier.

The nature of the bible is such that if literal fundamentalists allowed their beliefs to change with time, they eventually wouldn't be able to take the bible literally anymore (see slavery, rape, stoning, etc.). Yet most modern fundamentalists no longer stone their children to punish them, or hold slaves, or marry daughters to their rapists...except perhaps that Warren Jeffs' cult in the west, maybe they do.

So most Christian fundamentalists aren't really "fundamental." Yes, a lot of them are racist, ultra-conservative, sexist, rigid, all that. But one wonders if it's the religion that made them that way, or that the religion tolerates them and so draws them in, or both, other, whatever.

Point is, that's a lot of what's argued here every day. A few of those who think they're fundamentalists, who believe they get morals from a book that they think was written by a god, and that they accept as the ultimate source of all morality and all authority, come here and tell us we're all going to hell and here's why.

And yet, they don't do a lot of the things that same book says they're supposed to do. They do question the book; they do reject parts of it; they do alter their morals from those the book outlines. So, when they do that, they aren't being true to fundamentalism. They aren't (No True Scotsman!) being "true" fundamentalists.

Fundamentalism is not just a Christian belief system. Any religion with a formal dogma can have fundamentalist adherents.

[JetLeg]

Most (all?) people pick and choose which parts of the Bible they obey. When was the last time you observed a Jubilee year? Do you often kill your disobedient children? Any bald priests in your denomination? And, wassup with this Sunday sabbath? It's Saturday.

So, of course there are choices made. Even to the trivial point that most people read the Bible in a bastardized translation rather than the original Hebrew.

Why make a point of the mote in your neighbor's eye when there is a log in your own?


Hey, I read the bible in Hebrew.
(I mean the OT. I don't read the NT in greek...)


I think your points are much more relevant to Christianity than to fundamentalist Judaism.

[cj.23]

Hi.

You, who believe that there is a god, but are liberal/modern -> why are you not fundamentalists? What are the differences between fundamentalism and your ideology,and the reasons for them?

Fundamentalism arose in the late 19th century, and is best understood as a response to modernism and liberalism I guess. The University of Chicago Fundamentalism Project is a key sourcebook for this - up to volume 5 now i think. So I guess the answer is because theologically I am deeply conservative and (historically) mainstream Christian, hence divorced from the modern cultural form known as fundamentalism which I see as an aberration.

Hope clarifies.

cj x

[JetLeg]

Fundamentalism arose in the late 19th century, and is best understood as a response to modernism and liberalism I guess. The University of Chicago Fundamentalism Project is a key sourcebook for this - up to volume 5 now i think. So I guess the answer is because theologically I am deeply conservative and (historically) mainstream Christian, hence divorced from the modern cultural form known as fundamentalism which I see as an aberration.

Hope clarifies.

cj x

What are some specific issues on which you disagree with fundamentalists, and why?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Hi.

You, who believe that there is a god, but are liberal/modern -> why are you not fundamentalists?


I'm not liberal or modern in my beliefs - and I'm not fundamentalist as you are using the term. I think I'm much more orthodox in many of my beliefs.


What are the differences between fundamentalism and your ideology,and the reasons for them?

My God is neither a Monster nor a Tyrant.

[MG1962]

Hi.

You, who believe that there is a god, but are liberal/modern -> why are you not fundamentalists? What are the differences between fundamentalism and your ideology,and the reasons for them?

I am a liberal thesist so will see if I can give you an inteligent answer

First up the Bible. We agree it is the inspired word of God. However it is ultimately produced by Humans. It is a collection of oral traditions, repeated, retranslated add nausium, with every human puting their own bias into the words during each step of the process.

To address fundamentalism directly, my greatest concern is the lack of humility. They believe they understand God, and know what is best for me. However if God as an entitiy is as powerful as we believe, there is no way anyone can know God's mind, nor have even the vaguist notion of what the ultimate plan is.

In fundamentalism there is refusal to take responsibilty. If I do something wrong, and trust me I have in my life. I did it, it was not the devil or the evils of society. It was me

When we find ourselves in difficult situations, God doesn't want us to get down on our knees and pray for a solution or redemption. He wants us to get off our backside and try and do somthing about the problem. Sure ask God to give you the strength or help you think of a solution, but dont ask him to fix it for you.

[MG1962]

I'm not liberal or modern in my beliefs - and I'm not fundamentalist as you are using the term. I think I'm much more orthodox in many of my beliefs.



My God is neither a Monster nor a Tyrant.

Being Orthodox is not being a fundamentalist. It is simple acknowledging the roots and traditions of your faith. In my mind, two very different breeds

[cj.23]

What are some specific issues on which you disagree with fundamentalists, and why?

Biblical Interpretation for one. If by fundamentalist one means for example "literalist" - and that phrase is loaded with problems - then very few religions have been literalist. Take Second Temple Judaism f'r instance - as Judaism is already under discussion in the thread. In that period I don't think any Jewish sect was literalist. The word of God was interpreted according to oral traditions, which become enshrined in the Talmud and Mishnah. Indeed the Pharisees were repraoched by Jesus for a literal observation of these interpretations of the Law - but I have a lot of time of the Pharisee faction, seem to have been good blokes from that I can make out.

Again from early Christianity onwards the Church constantly looks at Scripture in a non-literal sense - typology is a key form of interpretation where passages conceal meanings that are not explicit in a literal reading. Yet "literalists" accept typology wholeheartedly? Very few literalists would deny that the "Suffering Servant" passages of Isaiah 53 presage Christ - yet to me the literal reading is that they are about Israel's woes. A typological reading allows both. Ditto many Christian readings of Jonah.

Now I'm not going to say that I think the Christian reading of the Tanakh should be preferred, or their use of Jewish Scripture, in any sense. What I'm saying is that like the Jews the reading method employed is NOT literal. If you look at how Augustine addresses Genesis, or Origen generally, you can see that lityeralist-fundamentalism is alien to much of the Early Church.

And so on through history. Look at my discussion elsewhere on this forum of how Evangelicals, arguably the most theologically conservative Christian group in the latter half of the 19th century dealt with Creationism. Even in The Fundamentals, the founding document of Fundamentalism, we find praise for Evolutionary theories - in this case Lamarckian.

Anyway I'm working, so must dash, but hope this clarifies a bit more Jetlag.

cj x

[drkitten]

Biblical Interpretation for one. If by fundamentalist one means for example "literalist" - and that phrase is loaded with problems - then very few religions have been literalist.

Biblical literalism is indeed one of the touchstone beliefs of Christian fundamentalism. From Wikipedia:


The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":

* Inerrancy of the Scriptures [Ed. : "Inerrancy "usually both includes and extends "literalism."]
* The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
* The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
* The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)

[Meadmaker]

I'm not exactly in the target group for the original question. I'm an agnostic* who attends a Reform Jewish temple, and participates in Jewish Ritual. Still, I'll try to address the basic question.

An awful lot of people have looked at their ancient sacred texts and find them inspiring, uplifting, and....false. A liberal/modern view often says that there is something timeless about man's quest for purpose, and that the ancient beliefs systems embody something about that sense of purpose, despite the fact that the details happen to be fictitious.

For example, I can read the Ten Commandments, and I can see at least 8 very good ideas, and two others that were probably a darned good idea at the time, unless you get carried away with them. Religious ritual can help people stay in touch with "the good parts" of a religion, while deemphasizing belief in weird stuff like fish and bread magic, or stoning.

I can participate in a Reform Jewish community, because that branch of Judaism teaches that the stories from the Tanakh, and the laws contained therein, are not accurate historical lessons, or timeless commandments that must be obeyed, but are, instead, a pseudo-historical record that reflects one community's attempt to find meaning in the universe or a quest for their own purpose. As such, it can provide some insight into how people once dealt with the same questions that we grapple with today. However, the religion doesn't dictate that we have to do the exact same thing as a group of goat herders from 3000 years ago.
=====================
*Or maybe an atheist. Or maybe even a pantheist. See one of the many threads that try to classify people into hard or soft atheists, and strong and weak agnostics. One way or another, I don't think there's a God who hangs out in burning bushes, sends himself down to get crucified, or gets very angry at people who eat shrimp. On the other hand, I think there is at least the possibility that there exists a level of consciousness in the universe that is not a consequence strictly of material interaction.

[yy2bggggs]

Minimally, fundamentalists should believe in the "five fundamentals":
The bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God
Jesus was born of a virgin
Jesus's death was an atonement for the sins of mankind
Jesus arose from the dead
Jesus's miracles were historical events
See fundamentalism, fundamentalist-modernist controversy.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Being Orthodox is not being a fundamentalist. It is simple acknowledging the roots and traditions of your faith. In my mind, two very different breeds

I agree.

The OP appears to think Fundamentalist is the norm and only modern / liberal Christianity is a new form. I've found that actually the so-called "modern / liberal" appears to have been the norm more then Fundamentalist which actually seems to be more a modern phenomenon.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Minimally, fundamentalists should believe in the "five fundamentals":
The bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God
Jesus was born of a virgin
Jesus's death was an atonement for the sins of mankind
Jesus arose from the dead
Jesus's miracles were historical events
See fundamentalism, fundamentalist-modernist controversy.

Interesting - I very well maybe a Fundamentalist afterall. Unfortunately, the few that I know wouldn't agree.

[yy2bggggs]

Interesting - I very well maybe a Fundamentalist afterall. Unfortunately, the few that I know wouldn't agree.
Well, the term doesn't have a distinct meaning--it's just historically rooted to these. So, maybe you are, maybe you aren't. Would it matter? :)

Regardless, I think this at least provides a root for a meaningful discussion, but since this is JetLeg's thread (and since I certainly have no stake either way), I'll let him have say. In the mean time, there's a lot of very interesting history behind the fundamentalist movement that's worth at least a glance.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well, the term doesn't have a distinct meaning--it's just historically rooted to these. So, maybe you are, maybe you aren't. Would it matter? :)

Regardless, I think this at least provides a root for a meaningful discussion, but since this is JetLeg's thread (and since I certainly have no stake either way), I'll let him have say. In the mean time, there's a lot of very interesting history behind the fundamentalist movement that's worth at least a glance.

When I think of a modern Fundamentalist I think of someone who might consider themselves a literalist and is probably a Young Earth Creationist / End Times believer, someone who probably believes in the penal substituion theory of the atonement, someone who believes they need to witness to everyone they can to save their souls and thus they become what some might term bible thumpers, or in other words, pushy and loud. :)

[drkitten]

Interesting - I very well maybe a Fundamentalist afterall. Unfortunately, the few that I know wouldn't agree.


Well, you already admitted to not being a literalist. How, then, can you be an inerrantist?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well, you already admitted to not being a literalist. How, then, can you be an inerrantist?

Because those are rather broad Fundamentals in that list and inerrant means without errors. right? Isn't the doctrine of many churches that the bible is without error in regards to salvation? But of course we know that many Christians believe the bible is inerrant in regards to science, etc too.

[drkitten]

Because those are rather broad Fundamentals in that list and inerrant means without errors. right? Isn't the doctrine of many churches that the bible is without error in regards to salvation? But of course we know that many Christians believe the bible is inerrant in regards to science, etc too.

And those Christians who believe that the Bible is inerrant w.r.t science, etc, are the fundamentalists. From the actual wording of the Niagara manifesto:


The Niagara Bible Conference also resulted in the fourteen point creed otherwise known as the "Niagara Creed."

1. We believe "that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," by which we understand the whole of the book called the Bible; nor do we take the statement in the sense in which it is sometimes foolishly said that works of human genius are inspired, but in the sense that the Holy Ghost gave the very words of the sacred writings to holy men of old; and that His Divine inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all parts of these writings, historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical and to the smallest word, and inflection of a word, provided such word is found in the original manuscripts: 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:13; Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Acts 1:16; 2:4.

[MG1962]

I agree.

The OP appears to think Fundamentalist is the norm and only modern / liberal Christianity is a new form. I've found that actually the so-called "modern / liberal" appears to have been the norm more then Fundamentalist which actually seems to be more a modern phenomenon.

I think Fundementalists have a reasonably long history, 300 or so years at least. However Fundementalists today seem to be cut from a very different cloth. In the past they often attempted to cloister themselves away from society and practiced their faith as they saw best. Today there seems to be a huge need to forcefully project their faith on others. Sadly I cant say I agree with this practice.

[drkitten]

I think Fundementalists have a reasonably long history, 300 or so years at least.

Religious historians strongly disagree with you. Fundamentalism is well-dated to the late 19th and early 20th century.

[MG1962]

Religious historians strongly disagree with you. Fundamentalism is well-dated to the late 19th and early 20th century.

Then that begs the question. What were the Quakers and Amish?

[JetLeg]

Anyway I'm working, so must dash, but hope this clarifies a bit more Jetlag.

cj x

Thanks. But its JetLeg

[JetLeg]

Hm...

To me, fundamentalism makes more sense than liberal religion because

1) If we assume god gave us laws, we should obey them
2) If we assume god told us the truth, we shouldn't pick and choose what to obey and what not

3) What is the purpose of not giving a text that should be understood literally? Lets say that I would create a certain specie. If I would reveal myself to them, I could give them a moral code. But why would I reveal myself and talk in parables??? :boggled: The purpose of revelation should be communication, shouldn't it? Why should I reveal myself just to tell a good story?

What do you think?

[MG1962]

Hm...

To me, fundamentalism makes more sense than liberal religion because

1) If we assume god gave us laws, we should obey them
2) If we assume god told us the truth, we shouldn't pick and choose what to obey and what not

3) What is the purpose of not giving a text that should be understood literally? Lets say that I would create a certain specie. If I would reveal myself to them, I could give them a moral code. But why would I reveal myself and talk in parables??? :boggled: The purpose of revelation should be communication, shouldn't it? Why should I reveal myself just to tell a good story?

What do you think?

But that depends on the true nature of God and what our relationship with him is. Why give us inteligence, then not give us a reason to use it. Spoon feeding humans with information, after creating intelligence and adding an insane level of curiosity, seems a complete waste to me.

I think of it as raising children. Rules change over time. What rules a 7 year old need to follow are diferent to a 17 or 27 year old. If we hand a 7 year old a fully formed and explained set of rule for a 27 year old, the kids eyes are going glaze over and he will go back to his X Box.

[Limbo]

Hi.

You, who believe that there is a god, but are liberal/modern -> why are you not fundamentalists? What are the differences between fundamentalism and your ideology,and the reasons for them?


Hm. Not sure if this is applicable to me but I'll answer anyway.

Why am I not a fundamentalist or at least more of a fundamentalist than I am? In a nutshell, because of the fields of comparative mythology, comparative religion, comparative mysticism.

[Meadmaker]

Hm...

To me, fundamentalism makes more sense than liberal religion because

1) If we assume god gave us laws, we should obey them
2) If we assume god told us the truth, we shouldn't pick and choose what to obey and what not

3) What is the purpose of not giving a text that should be understood literally? Lets say that I would create a certain specie. If I would reveal myself to them, I could give them a moral code. But why would I reveal myself and talk in parables??? :boggled: The purpose of revelation should be communication, shouldn't it? Why should I reveal myself just to tell a good story?

What do you think?

The general premise of the liberal/modern branches is that God gave laws to a group of people in ancient times. Furthermore, most of the liberal/modern branches don't believe that God gave the ancients a literal set of words to use.

They might say that the author(s) of Genesis were very holy, devout, men, who were very spiritually aware, and very much in tune with what God wanted, but it is still man's interpretation.

[drkitten]

Then that begs the question. What were the Quakers and Amish?

Anabaptists.

[MG1962]

Anabaptists.

Thats my point, before the modern Fundelmentalist movement came along, these guys were fundelmentalists in their own time.

[drkitten]

Thats my point, before the modern Fundelmentalist movement came along, these guys were fundelmentalists in their own time.

Or they would have been, if anabaptists were fundamentalists.

But since anabaptism isn't a particularly fundamentalist theology (http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/anabaptist_theology.htm)in any recognizable way,... so what?

Fundamentalism is specifically a response to modernism, and modernist Biblical scholarship in particular. Since there was no modernist Biblical scholarship back then, anabaptist thought (http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/247)doesn't really display any of the hallmarks of fundamentalism.

In particular, the anabaptists particularly rejected inerrancy and literalism. The use of allegorisation was one element in the debate about Spirit and Word that characterised the early Reformation period. On a continuum linking spiritualists at one extreme to literalists at the other, many Anabaptists could be located nearer the spiritualists that the Reformers. Accused of both literalism and spiritualism, most Anabaptists were committed both to the normative role of Scripture and to the active involvement of the Holy Spirit in the process of interpretation.

[HansMustermann]

Hi.

You, who believe that there is a god, but are liberal/modern -> why are you not fundamentalists? What are the differences between fundamentalism and your ideology,and the reasons for them?

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but you seem to assume that one would actually need some major reasons there.

While I'm an atheist, so I can't speak for myself there... you have to understand that most people worldwide simply haven't been raised, taught, or expected to take the bible literally. They don't need any bigger reason than that.

And easy example are catholics. From day zero (council of Nicaea), they never took the bible as more than a metaphor. The abrupt rise of protestantism later had a lot to do with the rift that had been growing constantly between what the church interpretation is, and what the Bible actually says (when read literally.) At some point more and more people had read the Bible, and basically went, "WTF, it says nothing about purgatory in here."

The RCC actually had the bible on its index of forbidden books for a while. You were not supposed to read it on your own, because supposedly you're not smart/educated/divinely-inspired enough to understand the _real_ meaning of the stuff in there, and why it's often the opposite of what's actually written there.

God's word? Oh yes, that it is. But god has an infinite mind and speaks in metaphors that aren't easily understood by a finite mortal mind. Or something like that.

So basically one of those would simply need no personal reasons or introspection to not be a fundie. He'd just need to stick to his religion which explicitly rejects a literal interpretation in the first place.

Other various sects and gnostic movements went by their own non-literal interpretation too.

An easy example are Kabbalists or the Bible Code conspiracy-nuts who believe that, yes, the bible is the word of God, every letter of it, but basically that God used steganography: that he hid secret messages for the initiated inside the text that a non-initiated pleb might take literally. Basically that the text might look like "thou shalt not covet..." and might seem like just a plain-text commandment to the unwashed masses, but that's really only/also the carrier for the deeper message.

Etc.

Really, there are dozens of ways in which one could believe simultaneously X="The bible was dictated by God, every word and letter of it" and Y="You're not supposed to take it literally, silly." You don't need to reject or doubt X at all to be perfectly comfortable with Y and viceversa.

[cj.23]

Thanks. But its JetLeg

Apologies Jetleg! I must have made that mistake many times - classic perceptual error of me seeing what I expect to see! Sincere apologies. :(

cj x

[JetLeg]

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but you seem to assume that one would actually need some major reasons there.

While I'm an atheist, so I can't speak for myself there... you have to understand that most people worldwide simply haven't been raised, taught, or expected to take the bible literally. They don't need any bigger reason than that.

And easy example are catholics. From day zero (council of Nicaea), they never took the bible as more than a metaphor. The abrupt rise of protestantism later had a lot to do with the rift that had been growing constantly between what the church interpretation is, and what the Bible actually says (when read literally.) At some point more and more people had read the Bible, and basically went, "WTF, it says nothing about purgatory in here."

The RCC actually had the bible on its index of forbidden books for a while. You were not supposed to read it on your own, because supposedly you're not smart/educated/divinely-inspired enough to understand the _real_ meaning of the stuff in there, and why it's often the opposite of what's actually written there.

God's word? Oh yes, that it is. But god has an infinite mind and speaks in metaphors that aren't easily understood by a finite mortal mind. Or something like that.

So basically one of those would simply need no personal reasons or introspection to not be a fundie. He'd just need to stick to his religion which explicitly rejects a literal interpretation in the first place.

Other various sects and gnostic movements went by their own non-literal interpretation too.

An easy example are Kabbalists or the Bible Code conspiracy-nuts who believe that, yes, the bible is the word of God, every letter of it, but basically that God used steganography: that he hid secret messages for the initiated inside the text that a non-initiated pleb might take literally. Basically that the text might look like "thou shalt not covet..." and might seem like just a plain-text commandment to the unwashed masses, but that's really only/also the carrier for the deeper message.

Etc.

Really, there are dozens of ways in which one could believe simultaneously X="The bible was dictated by God, every word and letter of it" and Y="You're not supposed to take it literally, silly." You don't need to reject or doubt X at all to be perfectly comfortable with Y and viceversa.

What do you think of point #3 in post 31?

[drkitten]

3) What is the purpose of not giving a text that should be understood literally?

Stories are usually better conveyers of moral lessons than dry recitations of fact. There's a reason that Aesop wrote fables that survived for millenia, while the dryasdust little moral lessons of Victorian sermons have languished in less than 200 years.

In fact, we've got a good example in the Bible itself about how a simple imperative, in this case, "love thy neighbor," was not understood by the target audience, but the parable of the Good Samaritan was. I don't think that anyone -- even Biblical literalists -- suggest that the events of the parable really happened (the "literal" truth of the Gospels is that this is a parable that was literally told by the literal Christ to a literal audience).

But this also shows the problem with taking stories out of context; we lack the context for the parable of the Good Samaritan and, for example, don't really recognize that the priest was following the rules in refusing to be contaminated by touching blood. To modern sensibilities, the priest is simply being a dick. Similarly, we don't understand just how icky Samaritans were and the degree to which the Samaritan was violating cultural norms.

So what the Jews of the first century understood the parable to mean is different than what Mrs. O'Malley at Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt understands it to mean today.

[MG1962]

Stories are usually better conveyers of moral lessons than dry recitations of fact. There's a reason that Aesop wrote fables that survived for millenia, while the dryasdust little moral lessons of Victorian sermons have languished in less than 200 years.

In fact, we've got a good example in the Bible itself about how a simple imperative, in this case, "love thy neighbor," was not understood by the target audience, but the parable of the Good Samaritan was. I don't think that anyone -- even Biblical literalists -- suggest that the events of the parable really happened (the "literal" truth of the Gospels is that this is a parable that was literally told by the literal Christ to a literal audience).

But this also shows the problem with taking stories out of context; we lack the context for the parable of the Good Samaritan and, for example, don't really recognize that the priest was following the rules in refusing to be contaminated by touching blood. To modern sensibilities, the priest is simply being a dick. Similarly, we don't understand just how icky Samaritans were and the degree to which the Samaritan was violating cultural norms.

So what the Jews of the first century understood the parable to mean is different than what Mrs. O'Malley at Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt understands it to mean today.

I think overall this is an exceedingly good point. If we strip away all the "Son of God" stuff we are actually left with the Martin Luther of the first century AD

Jesus saw the Jewish faith becoming bloated with process and less about the whole point of following the faith. Hence scenes like trashing the temple etc. Obviously those in power wanted to keep the status quo, and it was inevitable that Jesus would end up suffering the fate he did.

[JetLeg]

Stories are usually better conveyers of moral lessons than dry recitations of fact. There's a reason that Aesop wrote fables that survived for millenia, while the dryasdust little moral lessons of Victorian sermons have languished in less than 200 years.




I am trying to argue why a literal understanding of the bible makes more sense.

3) What is the purpose of not giving a text that should be understood literally? Lets say that I would create a certain specie. If I would reveal myself to them, I could give them a moral code. But why would I reveal myself and talk in parables??? The purpose of revelation should be communication, shouldn't it? Why should I reveal myself just to tell a good story?

Yours is a very good point.

However, from reading the story about the flood for example, it is easy to see that it wasn't meant as a parable. There is nothing that hints that, and there are things that suggest the contrary. (For example, giving lineages, and exact ages of the persons involved. Why would anyone do it with a fable??? )

So, I don't think that the comparison to Aesop holds, and thus people who take the flood story not literally are intellectually dishonest.


In fact, we've got a good example in the Bible itself about how a simple imperative, in this case, "love thy neighbor," was not understood by the target audience, but the parable of the Good Samaritan was. I don't think that anyone -- even Biblical literalists -- suggest that the events of the parable really happened (the "literal" truth of the Gospels is that this is a parable that was literally told by the literal Christ to a literal audience).

But this also shows the problem with taking stories out of context; we lack the context for the parable of the Good Samaritan and, for example, don't really recognize that the priest was following the rules in refusing to be contaminated by touching blood. To modern sensibilities, the priest is simply being a dick. Similarly, we don't understand just how icky Samaritans were and the degree to which the Samaritan was violating cultural norms.

So what the Jews of the first century understood the parable to mean is different than what Mrs. O'Malley at Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt understands it to mean today.

What does she understand it to mean today?

[drkitten]

I am trying to argue why a literal understanding of the bible makes more sense.

Well, I wouldn't, if I were you. The Catholics disposed of this point literally millenia ago. Read Augustine.



However, from reading the story about the flood for example, it is easy to see that it wasn't meant as a parable. There is nothing that hints that, and there are things that suggest the contrary. (For example, giving lineages, and exact ages of the persons involved. Why would anyone do it with a fable??? )

Hmm. So from that, I should assume that "Aragorn, son of Arathorn" is real?

And it's hard for me to read the Genesis story, with the Aesopian talking snake, as anything OTHER than a parable.

So the problem becomes identifying which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and which parts are not, a problem which is literally a classic in the field, one of the dominant problems in textual criticism of the past five hundred years, and NOT something you're going to be able to dispose of in a few lines on an Internet forum.

In the 18th century, almost no one took the Bible literally, precisely because for so much of it, it was "easy to see" that it was NOT meant to be taken literally. Fundamentalism and biblical literalism arose as a direct reaction to this movement, because textual criticism had undermined so much of the Bible, that the apparent alternative to taking it ALL literally was to take none of it as even remotely true.

The flood story, in particular, is "obviously" a retelling of the Gilgamesh flood legend, which in turn is largely copied from the Epic of Atrahasis. We mustn't forget the story of Deucalion (which again includes ages and lineages) from the ancient Greeks.

"Early Christian writers discovered elaborate allegorical meanings for Noah and the Ark. In the First Epistle of Peter those saved by the Ark from the waters of the Flood are said to prefigure the salvation of God's Elect through baptism, and the Anglican rite of baptism still asks God, "who of thy great mercy didst save Noah", to receive into the Church the infant about to be baptised. Early Christian artists frequently depicted Noah standing in a small box on the waves, symbolising God saving the Church as it persevered through turmoil, and St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430), in City of God, demonstrated that the dimensions of the Ark corresponded to the dimensions of the human body, which is the body of Christ, which is the Church.St. Jerome (c. 347–420) called the raven, which was sent forth and did not return, the "foul bird of wickedness" expelled by baptism; more enduringly, the dove and olive branch came to symbolize the Holy Spirit and the hope of salvation and, eventually, peace." (Wikipedia). So I think it's at best questionable whether or not it's "easy to see" that the Flood story is meant to be taken literally -- mainstream Christian scholarship almost uniformly answers "No" to that question.

ETA: Are you serious? Noah's Ark is an explanatory fable about the origin of the rainbow, for crying out loud.....




So, I don't think that the comparison to Aesop holds, and thus people who take the flood story not literally are intellectually dishonest.

What does she understand it to mean today?

Ask her. You seem to have no problem understanding her well enough to infer her dishonesty -- you should have no problem with this.

Seriously. Do you really find it more likely that there was a talking snake than someone decided to use a story about a flood and a great big ship to show how God is the salvation of all mankind?

[JetLeg]

Seriously. Do you really find it more likely that there was a talking snake than someone decided to use a story about a flood and a great big ship to show how God is the salvation of all mankind?

First, the talking snake is from a different story, lets focus on the flood.

I think that it is more likely that the flood story is to be understood literally. Based upon my reading of the text.

However, I do not say that it is true. If it is to be read literally, and it is false... then probably it wasn't written by god, (at least not an honest one). So it is not good to ask the question what is more likely - "literal AND true", or non-literal.

For example, I think that Velikovski's "Worlds in collision" is meant to be understood literally, and not as a fable. It doesn't follow that I think it to be true, like you implied in the quote above. (I know little about astronomy, but from what I know, the book doesn't struck me as reliable).

Now, to your claim

In the 18th century, almost no one took the Bible literally, precisely because for so much of it, it was "easy to see" that it was NOT meant to be taken literally.

Can you substantiate it?

Your wiki quote is taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark#In_Christian_tradition

from the wiki article "On Noah's ark", from the part "In christian tradiction". But it is only the first paragraph out of three!

Notice that the second one exemplifies that one can think a story has _both_ alegorical and literal meanings.

St. Hippolytus of Rome, (d. 235), seeking to demonstrate that "the ark was a symbol of the Christ who was expected", stated that the vessel had its door on the east side - the direction from which Christ would appear at the Second Coming - that the bones of Adam were brought aboard together with gold, frankincense and myrrh - symbols of the Nativity of Christ - and that the Ark floated to and fro in the four directions on the waters, making the sign of the cross, before eventually landing on Mount Kardu "in the east, in the land of the sons of Raban, and the Orientals call it Mount Godash; the Armenians and Persians call it Ararat".[15] On a more practical plane, Hippolytus explained that the ark was built in three stories, the lowest for wild beasts, the middle for birds and domestic animals, and the top level for humans, and that the male animals were separated from the females by sharp stakes so that there would be no cohabitation aboard the vessel.[16]

Augustine and Jerome could have had _both_ a figurative and a literal understanding. I am not a scholar of christianity, but if the literal understanding of the bible is a modern phenomenon, why did the church have a problem with Galileo and Darwin?

And the article continues

From the same period the early Church Father Origen (c. 182–251), responding to a critic who doubted that the Ark could contain all the animals in the world, countered with a learned argument about cubits, holding that Moses, the traditional author of the book of Genesis, had been brought up in Egypt and would therefore have used the larger Egyptian cubit. He also fixed the shape of the Ark as a truncated pyramid, square at its base, and tapering to a square peak one cubit on a side; it was not until the 12th century that it came to be thought of as a rectangular box with a sloping roof.[17]

[drkitten]

Augustine and Jerome could have had _both_ a figurative and a literal understanding. I am not a scholar of christianity, but if the literal understanding of the bible is a modern phenomenon, why did the church have a problem with Galileo and Darwin?

The Church didn't particularly have a problem with Darwin; that, indeed, is one of the causes of the Fundamentallist movement (they were the splinter group that did have a problem with Darwin, and were sufficiently annoyed that the Church as a whole didn't that they essentially split off in the grand old Protestant tradition.)

As for Gallileo, the problem was not with his theories, but his politics, and specifically his misrepresentation of the Papacy.

[HansMustermann]

I am not a scholar of christianity, but if the literal understanding of the bible is a modern phenomenon, why did the church have a problem with Galileo and Darwin?

Actually, Galileo is the most misunderstood and in fact it's not science-vs-religion at all.

Short version: the pope didn't have a problem with heliocentrism there, he had a problem with Galileo personally. And incidentally that incident _created_ the papacy's geocentrism, just so the pope could prosecute Galileo.

Long version:

Some popes did have narrow minds, but Pope Urban VIII was not one of them. He was a pretty open minded guy, and before becoming a pope he had actually defended Galileo and his heliocentric views. (Or at least his right to have them.)

The Urban VIII actually talked to Galileo before he wrote that book, and encouraged him to write it. He was not convinced of heliocentrism, to be sure. But he didn't have a problem with it being published either.

All the pope did ask was that Galileo presents both the old system (which was the accepted science at the time) and his system, and shows what's right and what's wrong about each and why does he need a new system. He also had some personal questions and objections to Galileo's theory, and asked Galileo to please include answers to those.

As a sidenote, that would be the expected thing to do even in modern science. As per Occam's Razor, if there isn't _something_ that your more complicated theory explains and the existing one doesn't, we're not interested in it.

But one more important thing to remember is: at this the pope didn't have a _religious_ reason for geocentrism, but a _scientific_ one. The science at the time was the Aristotelian system, and it put the earth at the centre. For the centre to go anywhere else, their whole science as they had it would come crashing down. The pope's questions and objections were based on that science. Again, same as you'd do today if someone came with an incredible theory that requires all existing science to be wrong.

Galileo however seemed to have been a true nerd, and reacted like any self-respecting nerd would: he flamed the pope in public. He actually distorted the Pope's questions and objections to make them sound idiotic, and put them in the mouth of a character called Simplicio (i.e., pretty much "Stupid"). That character actually acted as such in the book. He had trouble even with elementary logic, and got tripped by his own broken logic all the time.

_That_ was the thing that the pope suddenly had a problem with.

The pope at the time wasn't just the head of a religion, but an absolute monarch in his own right. And Galileo had thoroughly flamed him on his own turf. Other monarchs would have beheaded him for a lot less.

At any rate, the pope was furious. He didn't take the public ridicule lightly.

The pope hastily _created_ a religious problem with heliocentrism, just so he could bring Galileo to trial in his own courts. If it were just a secular problem, then the inquisition would have no jurisdiction over it, and he'd have to hand it over to the secular authorities. So a bogus religious offense had to be invented just so he could try Galileo himself.

But at this point again, it still wasn't really about religion. It was about revenge. The religion was just a pretext.

Even so, the pope was pretty merciful there once the rage wore off. Galileo got only house arrest for his effort. (After a brief time of being "jailed" in the house of a friendly cardinal who treated him as a guest.) Again, other monarchs would have executed him for such an affront without thinking twice.

In effect, Galileo IMHO did more harm than good to science there. He had a receptive pope which was ready to give the new science his blessing and official endorsement, if only Galileo manages to write a compelling case for it. Galileo not just blew that chance, but actually forced the RCC to oppose it. At a wild guess, that act of flaming the pope probably set us back by a century or so.

And for that I propose to have Galileo canonized as patron saint of trolls and flame warriors ;)

[Holler Hoojer]

Part of the argument here is this. If God had written the Bible, there could be a strong argument for literalism. Since many otherwise rational folks think the Bible to have been written by men in order to tell a story about God, and since many of the same people think there were also oral traditions, there seems to be no basis for them to be literalists.

So, the ultimate question is whether God wrote the Bible. And, if so, why an omnipotent being couldn't write any plainer.

[drkitten]

Part of the argument here is this. If God had written the Bible, there could be a strong argument for literalism.

Well, yes, there "could be."

But a lot of otherwise rational people think that the Bible was written by God but should not be taken literally. After all, if Jesus spoke in parables, why not God?

So, the ultimate question is whether God wrote the Bible. And, if so, why an omnipotent being couldn't write any plainer.

Why did Jesus speak in parables, then? Don't confuse lack of desire for incapacity.

[JetLeg]

Well, yes, there "could be."

But a lot of otherwise rational people think that the Bible was written by God but should not be taken literally. After all, if Jesus spoke in parables, why not God?






First, is it your opinion that the bible is a text written not orally by god, or you just defend a plausible position?

Second, what is the purpose of saying this in a parable :



After the flood Noah lived for three hundred and fifty years. 29All the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died

These are the descendants of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; children were born to them after the flood.
2 The descendants of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. 3The descendants of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. 4The descendants of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim.* 5From these the coastland peoples spread. These are the descendants of Japheth* in their lands, with their own language, by their families, in their nations.
6 The descendants of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. 7The descendants of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The descendants of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. 8Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior. 9He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.’ 10The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. 11From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and 12Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. 13Egypt became the father of Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, 14Pathrusim, Casluhim, and Caphtorim, from which the Philistines come.*
15 Canaan became the father of Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, 16and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, 17the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, 18the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterwards the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. 19And the territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon, in the direction of Gerar, as far as Gaza, and in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. 20These are the descendants of Ham, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations.
21 To Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, children were born. 22The descendants of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. 23The descendants of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash. 24Arpachshad became the father of Shelah; and Shelah became the father of Eber. 25To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg,* for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother’s name was Joktan. 26Joktan became the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 27Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 28Obal, Abimael, Sheba, 29Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the descendants of Joktan. 30The territory in which they lived extended from Mesha in the direction of Sephar, the hill country of the east. 31These are the descendants of Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations.

32 These are the families of Noah’s sons, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood.

[HansMustermann]

Just to play the devil's advocate:

What is the purpose of telling you the genealogy of Aragorn in LOTR? It just sets the stage for another part of the plot.

In the case you quoted, for example, it sets the stage for the idea that even descendants of people who were once God's folk can later fall from grace through their actions. I'd say if you were a God, that would be a very important message to give your followers. Lest, you know, they think divine favour is eternal and unconditional and they go doing all sorts of crap you disapprove.

Plus, by creating a very short common genealogy, it can be a way of saying, "all those guys around you and humanity as a whole are basically your cousins."

Why can it be important? Well, because other mythologies had all manner of beastmen and the like to dehumanize their opponents. And heck, as late as the 19'th and 20'th centuries, we had "theories" that certain people and races aren't even really human. And if you thought I'm going to Goodwin it for an example, natch, there are _lots_ of other examples: e.g., the English dedicated much ink and paper to "proving" that the Irish aren't even humans.

Even when they stopped short of saying that they're just animals, they have ways of making the other people sound physically and genetically handicapped. E.g., here's what Aristotle wrote about non-greeks: "Those who live in a cold climate and in Europe are full of spirit, but wanting in intelligence and skill; and therefore they retain comparative freedom, but have no political organization, and are incapable of ruling over others. Whereas the natives of Asia are intelligent and inventive, but they are wanting in spirit, and therefore they are always in a state of subjection and slavery."

And in defense of slavery he wrote:

"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens--that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right. "

The message is very clear: some people (e.g., the barbarians who formed most of the captured slaves) are born inferior in body, soul or both, barely above animals, and like animals just fit for being used for their body strength. And it's just natural to use them as slaves, not just because it's natural for the superior to rule over the inferior, but because they're not even fit for anything better than being beasts of burden.

Not my view, btw, just an example of the racist aberrations some people wrote.

By comparison, the Bible's tracing a common genealogy is a very powerful way of saying, "no, silly, you're all just as much humans."

[Meadmaker]

I think that it is more likely that the flood story is to be understood literally. Based upon my reading of the text.


I suspect that the author who compiled the Genesis narratives into their current form did believe that there was a great flood that covered all of the Earth, and that Noah and his family were saved. However, I doubt that even he believed it "literally" in the sense of the modern fundamentalist. He knew that he was cobbiling together a set of handed down accounts from various sources, probably including written and oral traditions. He knew that his word choice was dictated by his own thoughts, and not by the Lord, specifying exactly and precisely what words to include in the text.

So, when he wrote in one paragraph that Noah took two of every animal, and in another paragraph that he took 14 of some animals, he probably didn't worry too much about the contradiction. He probably thought that the point of the story wasn't to calculate animal populations, but to demonstrate the power of God. He was telling the story of how God let one man escape His wrath, not trying to give an exact account, down to the letter, of how things happened.

A few Jews actually believe that every letter of the Torah is significant, and that you can find secret codes by adding up the numbers that the letters represent. I doubt that that thought ever occurred to the author of Genesis.


why did the church have a problem with Galileo and Darwin?

Galileo has already been covered. If by "the church" you mean the Catholic Church, they didn't have a problem with the theory of evolution.

"....It clarifies what may still be unknown to some, that the theory of evolution is an ancient one in Catholic theological circles. Charles Darwin undoubtedly sparked a new era in anthropology and allied sciences, but Darwinism as such had only minimal impact on Catholic thought, whereas is struck many believers in evangelical Protestantism like a tornado. The issues raised by latter-day evolutionists directly affected the interpretation of the Bible, notably the first three chapters of Genesis. Christians who had only the biblical text as their guide, and no extrabiblical tradition or less still an authoritative Church, were left with only the literal words of Scripture."

"The Catholic Catechism", John A. Hardon. 1975. (The book contains both an imprimatur and a nihil obstat.)

The book goes on to discuss the history of evolutionary thought within the Catholic Church, and what may or may not be believed by Catholics. Summary: 1. Nature formed the body, but God formed the soul. 2. There was one, single, individual who was a common ancestor of all human beings.

[drkitten]

First, is it your opinion that the bible is a text written not orally by god, or you just defend a plausible position?

I'm just defending a plausible position.

More accurately, I'm tearing down your strawman version of Christianity. If you're going to reject any particular version of Christianity, you should at least know what it actually says before you ridicule it.


Second, what is the purpose of saying this in a parable

To inform the hearer that everyone in the world -- the hearer included -- is/was here only because of God's grace and God's mercy?

[Holler Hoojer]

Well, yes, there "could be."

But a lot of otherwise rational people think that the Bible was written by God but should not be taken literally. After all, if Jesus spoke in parables, why not God?



Why did Jesus speak in parables, then? Don't confuse lack of desire for incapacity.

If I want my dog to not go through the gate, I say loudly and firmly, "Stay". I don't say, "A certain canine was walking through the yard when he saw an opening..." Likewise, if God is omnipotent and wants humans to do what God says, why not simply say, "Be good to every other person." Why drag out that strange sheep and goats story from Matthew that almost no Christian understands?

[westprog]

Minimally, fundamentalists should believe in the "five fundamentals":
The bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God
Jesus was born of a virgin
Jesus's death was an atonement for the sins of mankind
Jesus arose from the dead
Jesus's miracles were historical events
See fundamentalism, fundamentalist-modernist controversy.

This of course applies only to Christian fundamentalists. If it really were a matter of interpreting the bible literally, then there would only be one Protestant fundamentalist church, whereas there are an uncountable multitude. In practice nobody interprets the bible literally. Leviticus should be taken as a strict guide, except for the dietary practices which one doesn't like. And so on.

[slingblade]

First, is it your opinion that the bible is a text written not orally by god, or you just defend a plausible position?

"Written not orally by god?"

What is that?

[drkitten]

If I want my dog to not go through the gate, I say loudly and firmly, "Stay".

Well, that's nice.

If you treat your children, friends, or students in this fashion, I'm sure they'll be duly appreciative.


Why drag out that strange sheep and goats story from Matthew that almost no Christian understands?

Because it was well-understood at that time by the intended audience (who mostly kept sheep and goats themselves).

Parables (or as modern educational parlance describes them, "narratives") are crucial for getting humans to understand the material you are presenting. We've got lots and lots of evidence from both psychology and educational theory -- start with Wason's Four Card Task for an example.

[Holler Hoojer]

Well, that's nice.

If you treat your children, friends, or students in this fashion, I'm sure they'll be duly appreciative.




Because it was well-understood at that time by the intended audience (who mostly kept sheep and goats themselves).

Parables (or as modern educational parlance describes them, "narratives") are crucial for getting humans to understand the material you are presenting. We've got lots and lots of evidence from both psychology and educational theory -- start with Wason's Four Card Task for an example.

I should think you and I understand "literal" differently when we talk about the Bible. Christian literalists with whom I am familiar do not think that any of the parables of Jesus are "literally a parable" but that they are literally true, i.e., Jesus really turned water into wine, Jesus really walked on the sea, the Samaritan really bound the wounds of the traveller.

My point in mentioning the Matthew story is that it cannot have any literal meaning to a modern Christian who, not being familiar with transhumant herding, has no way of understanding that part of the parable. Yet, I have heard at least a half dozen sermons from literalist ministers who made much of that point.

And, I don't see the Four Card Task as anything other than a logic exercise. Is there more to it?

[drkitten]

I should think you and I understand "literal" differently when we talk about the Bible. Christian literalists with whom I am familiar do not think that any of the parables of Jesus are "literally a parable" but that they are literally true, i.e., Jesus really turned water into wine, Jesus really walked on the sea, the Samaritan really bound the wounds of the traveller.

I'm not sure you understand what "parables" are.

The parables of Jesus are not the Biblical stories told about Jesus' life and actions. You're right, to a biblical literalist, Jesus walked on water and converted water to wine in the same way that I walk on floorboards and convert bread to toast.

But those aren't his parables. The parables are the stores that the literal text of the Bible has him telling to his flock. For example, (book of Mark, chapter 4, I think)


1 And [Jesus] began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.

2 And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

3 Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:

4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.

5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:

6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.

8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.

9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables.

A Biblical literalist believes that Jesus really told that story; he does not typically believe that that story is anything other than a story/fable/moral lesson. He does not believe in the literacy of the sower, any more than he believes that there were literally twelve wise and foolish virgins, or a Good Samaritan who helped a literal man who was literally injured by robbers.


My point in mentioning the Matthew story is that it cannot have any literal meaning to a modern Christian who, not being familiar with transhumant herding, has no way of understanding that part of the parable.

I assume you mean Matthew 25:31-33?


31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Certainly it has a literal meaning. It has a literal meaning as a story that Jesus told, a story from which the audience were expected to derive a moral lesson. All of Matthew 25 is an extended quotation (it actually starts in Matthew 24:


1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, [....]



And it's precisely because the modern audience may not understand the story to mean the same thing that Jesus expected his audience to understand that the literalist minister will use that and explain the lesson you are supposed to take from that story.


And, I don't see the Four Card Task as anything other than a logic exercise. Is there more to it?

Considerably more. When expressed as a simple exercise in logic, people, even professional logicians are terrible at it. But when the problem is contextualized to something that people understand as part of their daily life, people perform the task to near perfection. To understand the meaning of something requires that you relate it to what you already know.

The classic example is the cop at the all-ages concert You are a cop, you walk into the hall, and want to check and see if anyone is drinking illegally.

Who of this group of four do you need to check out?

* An obviously-underaged person drinking something unidentifiable out of a glass.
* An obviously-legally aged person drinking something unidentifiable out of a glass.
* A person who may or may not be of legal age drinking out of a can of Pepsi.
* A person who may or may not be of legal age drinking out of a bottle of beer.

This is structurally identical to Wason's task (and indeed, was studied by Wason). But where people scored maybe 20% correct on the original task, they get something like 95% correct on this modified version.

What's the difference? Context. We understand the idea of legal and illegal drinking because it's part of our culture.

There's another classic example. Great Britain has (more accurately used to have )two classes of mail, sealed, and unsealed. Sealed mail was more expensive; unsealed was cheaper, but not private and typically used for ads. (Of course, the seal is on the other side than the stamp, so you can't see both at once.)

You are a postal inspector. Which of these envelopes do you need to check more closely to see whether or not they are legitimate?

* An envelope that may or may not be sealed, with a 'sealed' stamp on it.
* An envelope that may or may not be sealed, with an 'unsealed' stamp on it.
* An obviously-unsealed envelope with a hidden stamp.
* An obviously-sealed envelope with a hidden stamp.

Again, identical to the original logic problem. And, again, American students, who were unfamiliar with this custom, did terribly at the problem. But Brits, who had grown up with it, did as well with this as they did with the drinking age puzzle.

So the lesson is that abstract material is best learned through analogy to concrete things with which you are already familiar. But the things that you are familiar with may be different than the things that I am familiar with.

[HansMustermann]

I should think you and I understand "literal" differently when we talk about the Bible. Christian literalists with whom I am familiar do not think that any of the parables of Jesus are "literally a parable" but that they are literally true, i.e., Jesus really turned water into wine, Jesus really walked on the sea, the Samaritan really bound the wounds of the traveller.

I'd say that the last one sounds stupid beyond belief. Jesus obviously meant that as a story to illustrate a point. The point being that yes, even a member of the "enemy" can still count as "your neighbour."

Already the whole idea of loving thy neighbour really tended to mean "your own people" at the time. Caring for humanity as a whole hadn't really come into fashion, and wouldn't for another almost 2000 years. The whole parable is there to hammer on the idea that, yes, the other guys count as your neighbour too.

And the Samaritan is pretty much one of the most extreme examples he can use there.

The Samaritans were not just a neighbour state, but a splinter sect also claiming to be the real spiritual successors to Moses and the gang. You don't get rivalries much more bitter than "you're not the one true religion and chosen folk, we are; you're the heretics who deviated from the One True Way" kinds of rivalries. The two opposed and tried to placate each other at every single step, and each tried to pull any political string it could with the Romans against the others.

Think: a Catholics vs Huguenots scenario.

So basically "those too are your brothers" is a very strong and unequivocal message.

Taking it all as just a literal story about an actual Samaritan who happened to help someone, seems to me like a lot less useful or moralizing than taking it for the parable it is.

[Holler Hoojer]

I'd say that the last one sounds stupid beyond belief. Jesus obviously meant that as a story to illustrate a point. The point being that yes, even a member of the "enemy" can still count as "your neighbour."

Already the whole idea of loving thy neighbour really tended to mean "your own people" at the time. Caring for humanity as a whole hadn't really come into fashion, and wouldn't for another almost 2000 years. The whole parable is there to hammer on the idea that, yes, the other guys count as your neighbour too.

And the Samaritan is pretty much one of the most extreme examples he can use there.

The Samaritans were not just a neighbour state, but a splinter sect also claiming to be the real spiritual successors to Moses and the gang. You don't get rivalries much more bitter than "you're not the one true religion and chosen folk, we are; you're the heretics who deviated from the One True Way" kinds of rivalries. The two opposed and tried to placate each other at every single step, and each tried to pull any political string it could with the Romans against the others.

Think: a Catholics vs Huguenots scenario.

So basically "those too are your brothers" is a very strong and unequivocal message.

Taking it all as just a literal story about an actual Samaritan who happened to help someone, seems to me like a lot less useful or moralizing than taking it for the parable it is.

To both you and drkitten,

I do understand what a parable is. Please understand my point: many (probably most) Biblical literalists do not see the parables as literal parables, but rather as true. I come from a culture (Highlander) that uses parables; we know they are not literally true but their moral point is true. That is not how a literalist Christian typically sees the Bible. He thinks there was a Samaritan who bound the wounds of a traveler and that Jesus is relating that true story to illustrate a point. Yes, drkitten, I used a bit too much hyperbole when talking about walking on water.

I trust you do not mean that I am stupid beyond belief; that would end our discussion. Christian literalists believe every word. They are even able to believe that St. Paul's description of the story of Abraham as an allegory is literally true.

However, it should be noted that the whole notion of these stories being parables, indeed the labels, seem to have possibly been added some centuries afterwards. As for Jesus speaking something new and radical about loving your neighbor, that is exactly the message that many a Pharisee rabbi spoke in those times. See Hillel, for example.

drkitten, I would be interested in continuing the discussion about the four cards (which I do think are quite straightforward - in a sense I am a literalist about such things). Perhaps a different venue?

[HansMustermann]

I trust you do not mean that I am stupid beyond belief; that would end our discussion. Christian literalists believe every word. They are even able to believe that St. Paul's description of the story of Abraham as an allegory is literally true.

Well, I meant that taking something that even the bible calls a parable, as a literal thing that happened that way, is stupid beyond belief. I mean the act or attitude, not a particular person.

[drkitten]

I do understand what a parable is. Please understand my point: many (probably most) Biblical literalists do not see the parables as literal parables, but rather as true.

This statement is simply untrue. You may be misreading elements of a culture that is not yours, or you may simply be uninformed. But without significant exception, "biblical literalists" believe that the parts of the Bible that are specifically labeled as parables do not describe actual events.

From Wikipedia: "Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor)."

Similarly, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, considered by many to be one of the defining features of the literalist movement, states "WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text."

As academica.ru puts it, "People with this belief claim to interpret the Bible literally; by this they do not mean to interpret the Bible in a way which excludes allegory, metaphor, and parable, but accept the teaching of the Bible, as the author intended it (whether literal or figurative) at face value."


Basically, the version of literalist Christian that you describe is at best atypical and at worst simply nonexistent.


drkitten, I would be interested in continuing the discussion about the four cards (which I do think are quite straightforward - in a sense I am a literalist about such things). Perhaps a different venue?

Open a thread in science; I'll be happy to participate.

[Holler Hoojer]

This statement is simply untrue. You may be misreading elements of a culture that is not yours, or you may simply be uninformed. But without significant exception, "biblical literalists" believe that the parts of the Bible that are specifically labeled as parables do not describe actual events.

From Wikipedia: "Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor)."

Similarly, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, considered by many to be one of the defining features of the literalist movement, states "WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text."

As academica.ru puts it, "People with this belief claim to interpret the Bible literally; by this they do not mean to interpret the Bible in a way which excludes allegory, metaphor, and parable, but accept the teaching of the Bible, as the author intended it (whether literal or figurative) at face value."


Basically, the version of literalist Christian that you describe is at best atypical and at worst simply nonexistent.




Open a thread in science; I'll be happy to participate.

I see your point. I have checked a number of conservative theologians and found they almost unanimously agree with you. Yet, "boots on the ground" experience tells me it's not that clearcut. Faced with the ambiguity of my position, I need drop the argument until I can have more data. Thanks for the feedback.

However, the four card question remains in contention. Perhaps we might discuss it later. For the record, I have several police officers in my family as well as several for neighbors. They would check 1, 2, and 4 for the drinking question. Context?

[drkitten]

However, the four card question remains in contention. Perhaps we might discuss it later. For the record, I have several police officers in my family as well as several for neighbors. They would check 1, 2, and 4 for the drinking question. Context?


For context:


Who of this group of four do you need to check out?

* An obviously-underaged person drinking something unidentifiable out of a glass.
* An obviously-legally aged person drinking something unidentifiable out of a glass.
* A person who may or may not be of legal age drinking out of a can of Pepsi.
* A person who may or may not be of legal age drinking out of a bottle of beer.


The "correct" answer is to check what person #1 is drinking, and to check the ID of person #4. Person #2 shouldn't need to be checked, as a person of legal age can drink anything she wants. (I'm rather surprised that your cops would be spending time carding the grey-haired grandmother with her walker.) Similarly, anyone can drink Pepsi, so person #3 is legal/safe.

[Holler Hoojer]

I have done a bit more checking and find that drkitten is correct about literalists generally understanding there to be literal parables. I based my response on a too small experience base and was wrong.

[drkitten]

I have done a bit more checking and find that drkitten is correct about literalists generally understanding there to be literal parables. I based my response on a too small experience base and was wrong.

Well, that was remarkably courteous, especially by JREF argument standards. I'm glad we're all getting a chance to learn stuff here.

[epeeist]

I'm Roman Catholic, relevant to this thread is a significant difference between Catholicism and fundamentalism is that (oversimplifying), to a fundamentalist the Bible is inspired by God and is literally true (except for parts that were clearly not intended to be taken literally) and inerrant (the original Greek was exactly 100% without flaw the word of God). The Catholic view is that the Bible was inspired by God but that the people writing it down were still humans interpreting that inspiration.

To take Genesis as an example, a Catholic may choose to believe in a literal man named Adam and woman named Eve. Not required; it's inspired and true and teaches that humanity through its arrogance distanced itself from God and needed to be reconciled (for which see: New Testament!).

The New Testament is more generally taken literally, but even there, say one Gospel refers to fleeing east and another west. Catholic view is, the Gospels are true and inspired but the Gospel writer may have gotten the direction wrong or written it down wrong or whatever (I am horribly oversimplifying here on stuff I recall learning a while back!). Or if there's a reference to e.g. a round sea being 10 cubits in diameter and 30 in circumference. I and most Catholics have no problem with that, I think I once read a tortured (in my view!) fundamentalist justification about how if there was a border to the see of a certain width then the internal circumference ignoring the border and diameter including the border worked with pi...

Don't get me started on how e.g. I've read serious, lengthy arguments about how Jesus' first public miracle at the wedding at Cana involved grape juice, not wine... the much more reasonable approach was one Baptist (?) I read who wrote something like, hey, look at the original Greek word, it was wine. But nothing in the Bible says we are required to drink wine, and since for health reasons we no longer need to drink wine and beer instead of water given improved purification, there are other reasons to avoid alcohol.

All that aside, I'm not sure I'm liberal/modern. To give one example, I think abortion is morally (and very seriously) wrong. I also agree it's Constitutional and that "stacking" the Supreme Court is wrong. So if ever a candidate comes along who supports Constitutional amendment I may have to give serious thought and prayer as to whether I am obliged to vote for him or her. But that's never happened to me so far (I'm a US citizen but living outside the US, so vote in federal elections only) - everyone who says he or she's against abortion at most passes laws that they know will be struck down (rare exceptions e.g. partial-birth abortion are opposed by many who are also otherwise "pro-choice"). So that leaves me relatively free to vote on other issues like the economy or war or not torturing people or (whatever).

[JetLeg]

To inform the hearer that everyone in the world -- the hearer included -- is/was here only because of God's grace and God's mercy?

The only reason to include a genealogy in a story, and especially a long and detailed one is because one means the story literally to be true.

[HansMustermann]

The only reason to include a genealogy in a story, and especially a long and detailed one is because one means the story literally to be true.

Dude, again, "Aragorn son of Arathorn"? "Gimli son of Gloin"?

For that matter, go here: http://www.tuckborough.net/aragorn.html

... and scroll to the bottom of the page to get a neat representation of the complete line of who begat whom from Elendil to Isildur through a couple of dozen kings to Aragorn.

So are you telling me that Lord Of The Rings was supposed to be taken literally as something that's actually happened. I think Tolkien would spin in his grave.

[drkitten]

The only reason to include a genealogy in a story, and especially a long and detailed one is because one means the story literally to be true.

JetLeg, repeating a false statement won't make it true.
Repeating a stupid statement won't make it sensible.
Repeating an obviously counterfactual statement won't make it empirically supported.

[Holler Hoojer]

The only reason to include a genealogy in a story, and especially a long and detailed one is because one means the story literally to be true.

I think it more useful to think about genealogy in terms of continuity. By way of analogy, if we had a SCOTUS decision which said that there was a Constitutional provision for selection of Senators and then some stuff happened, so now Coleman is the Senator from Minnesota, people would not find that very satisfying or believeable. They would want, at least, precedents.

Likewise, to say that God created Adam and then some stuff happened later and then there was a flood and a fellow named Noah built a boat and Noah might have been related to this Adam, well that's just not a very complete story. Genealogy provides a "backbone" for the story, showing continuous relationship with God and legitimacy for Noah - something like the movie trick of showing a clock spinning several hours for the passage of time in that location.

[MRC_Hans]

I want to ask another question - very much related -> what is bad in fanaticism? After all, IF it is true that there is a god, and the person believes it, it is more rational for him to act according to it, than to pick and choose like the liberal do, or to do only whatever suits your mind instead of obeying him.What is bad is the, patently absurd, notion that some human can know the exact will of God. That an almighty god left us in an enourmously diverse world, with some precise manual of what to do and what not to do. That exactly YOUR interpretation of the gospel is the right one.

Hans

[JetLeg]

Dude, again, "Aragorn son of Arathorn"? "Gimli son of Gloin"?

For that matter, go here: http://www.tuckborough.net/aragorn.html

... and scroll to the bottom of the page to get a neat representation of the complete line of who begat whom from Elendil to Isildur through a couple of dozen kings to Aragorn.

So are you telling me that Lord Of The Rings was supposed to be taken literally as something that's actually happened. I think Tolkien would spin in his grave.


Well...

The alleged death of Gandalf wasn't a parable, right? It was a "literal" part of the story, even though Tolkien didn't mean us to take it as true. Agreed?

But that was not really to the point. To the point : Tolkien published his book in the 20th century. In the 20th century people can tell fact from fiction (most). It wasn't always like this. If lord of the rings would not be a modern text, but would be as ancient as the bible, then yes, I would consider the genealogies as evidence that the text was meant to be true in a literal way, given the historical context in which it was written. Given the historical context, it is pretty obvious to me that the person who wrote the bible, meant it literally to be true and not a fictional work like Lord of the Rings. If he would have published the bible via HarperCollins, and marketed it as fiction I wouldn't take it as evidence that he meant it literally to be true.

[JetLeg]

What is bad is the, patently absurd, notion that some human can know the exact will of God. That an almighty god left us in an enourmously diverse world, with some precise manual of what to do and what not to do. That exactly YOUR interpretation of the gospel is the right one.

Hans

Still, at least trying to understand what is the true will of god it is more intellectually honest than consciously picking and choosing from it, so it would fit to modern values.

[JetLeg]

In page 19 of "From Rapture Ready" thread, Monster Machine says

I would like to give you a quote from a fundamentalist (such as yourself) on a christian message board I used to participate in when I was deluded. This gem came up when discussing Noah and the Flood:

For me, I guess I have to continue with the line of thinking that this isn't an accurate historical event for a moment. OK, people don't accept this as truth. They don't want to accept the Garden Of Eden and the literal six days of Creation, either. So, if you cannot trust God's word, then why accept Jesus as a correct historical event? When you start cherry picking what you want to accept, then the whole book begins to fall apart.

With the Noah's ark story, I tend to have to agree that either miracles were majorly involved to keep everyone alive, or Noah had to shovel a lot of elephant poop.

How tenacious is the belief of the fundie.

Do you agree that the belief expressed above is tenacious? Why?

[HansMustermann]

Well...

The alleged death of Gandalf wasn't a parable, right? It was a "literal" part of the story, even though Tolkien didn't mean us to take it as true. Agreed?

Actually the whole LOTR story is a parable for the evils of industrialization.

But that was not really to the point. To the point : Tolkien published his book in the 20th century. In the 20th century people can tell fact from fiction (most). It wasn't always like this. If lord of the rings would not be a modern text, but would be as ancient as the bible, then yes, I would consider the genealogies as evidence that the text was meant to be true in a literal way, given the historical context in which it was written. Given the historical context, it is pretty obvious to me that the person who wrote the bible, meant it literally to be true and not a fictional work like Lord of the Rings. If he would have published the bible via HarperCollins, and marketed it as fiction I wouldn't take it as evidence that he meant it literally to be true.

Uh, people told stories and fables for as long as we have a recorded history. I should think they were very much able to take a story non-literally.

E.g., Aesop's fables are very old. And no, I don't think that people back then thought that they were literally about talking donkeys, lions, etc.

Plus, the ancient Greeks and then the Romans had some pretty fantastic theatre plays. I don't think most of them were taken by anyone to be accurate, literal enactments of stuff that has actually happened.

In fact, the first author we know of that wrote a historical play -- that is, based at all on a historical event -- was Phrynichus with his "Fall of Miletus" im 493 or 492 BC. But the first playwright we still got anything from is Thespis in 532 BC. So we have at least 40 years of plays which were _not_ historical, and not supposed to be taken as such.

And then came the comedy, which was never supposed to be taken seriously in the first place ;)

Plautus for example is quite honest that he invented his characters or archetypes. E.g., about the "clever slave" archetype he invented, he even says how he came to that idea. There is no pretense that the events in his gags had actually taken place anywhere, and nobody took them for real any more than you'd take Monty Python's sketches for real.

But we can go even farther back in time, and find such stories as The Peasant and the Workman from the IX'th dynasty in Egypt. Which is to say, over 4000 years ago. There is no reason to take it as anything else than a moralizing story that honesty and goodness prevail in the end. (Which probably was a comforting thing to hear in the middle of the chaos and widespread injustice that was the first intermediate period.)

[JetLeg]

Uh, people told stories and fables for as long as we have a recorded history. I should think they were very much able to take a story non-literally.

...

But we can go even farther back in time, and find such stories as The Peasant and the Workman from the IX'th dynasty in Egypt. Which is to say, over 4000 years ago. There is no reason to take it as anything else than a moralizing story that honesty and goodness prevail in the end. (Which probably was a comforting thing to hear in the middle of the chaos and widespread injustice that was the first intermediate period.)

1) What in the text of the story of the flood makes you think one should not understand it literally???
(For example, in Aesop's fables, there is a moral at the end of the story. )

2) In what ancient fiction texts can you find an extremely detailed genealogy?

3) In what ancient fiction texts can you find mythical explanations of natural phenomena, like


"12And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
"


Again, I am not claiming that the text of the bible is meant to be understood literally, and it is true. I don't think that the flood story is true. But from reading the story, there is nothing that hints that the author of the text didn't intend the story to be literally true.

[Pure Argent]

1) What in the text of the story of the flood makes you think one should not understand it literally???
(For example, in Aesop\'s fables, there is a moral at the end of the story. )

Uh... the fact that he a) built an Ark big enough to hold 2 of every species, plus his family, plus 40 days\' and nights\' worth of food and b) the fact that God flooded the entire world, killing everyone off and leaving one family to populate the entire world, presumably through eventual incest and c) that two of every animal in the world were found and brought onto the Ark by Noah, who had no way to reach places like China to grab pandas?

2) In what ancient fiction texts can you find an extremely detailed genealogy?

I haven\'t read that many myself, but I\'m pretty sure stuff like the Odyssey and the Iliad might contain some. Could be wrong, but it\'d be somewhere to look.


3) In what ancient fiction texts can you find mythical explanations of natural phenomena

Greek mythology? Norse mythology? After all, that\'s how the myths originated. Gods like Thor and Zeus were created specifically to explain natural phenomena (specifically lightning and thunder).

[JetLeg]

Uh... the fact that he a) built an Ark big enough to hold 2 of every species, plus his family, plus 40 days\' and nights\' worth of food and b) the fact that God flooded the entire world, killing everyone off and leaving one family to populate the entire world, presumably through eventual incest and c) that two of every animal in the world were found and brought onto the Ark by Noah, who had no way to reach places like China to grab pandas?



Why do you think that a story that is meant to be understood literally cannot be true?

For examples, a person literally believes that he is Napoleon. Does the fact that it is absurd mean that he actually believes in it non-literally?

Liberal readings of the bible are just like this -> like saying that a person who believes he is napoleon is actually inspired by him. If we would discover that DNA doesn't actually contain the genome, liberal reading of the text would say "Well, we just meant it metaphorically! The way the helixes are wrapped against the other symbolizes the bond between one generation to the other! One shouldn't read it literally".

So liberal readings are intellectually dishonest, unlike literalist ones that try to decipher what god really meant.

[JetLeg]

I haven\'t read that many myself, but I\'m pretty sure stuff like the Odyssey and the Iliad might contain some. Could be wrong, but it\'d be somewhere to look.

I am not sure that the Greeks did not take the Odyssey and the Iliad to be literally true.

Greek mythology? Norse mythology? After all, that\'s how the myths originated. Gods like Thor and Zeus were created specifically to explain natural phenomena (specifically lightning and thunder).

My point exactly. Greek mythology and Norse mythology thought that their mythologies really describe the way things are in nature. One didn't need to interpret them as parables. Same with the flood.

[HansMustermann]

1) What in the text of the story of the flood makes you think one should not understand it literally???
(For example, in Aesop's fables, there is a moral at the end of the story. )

There is nothing at the end of that ancient Egyptian story I mentioned to tell you it's just a fable, either. And Plautus doesn't have someone coming and saying, "it was all a joke, folks, I hope you didn't take it seriously" at the end either. Etc.

It's sorta just assumed that you have enough sense to tell it's a story, you know?

Aesop, for all his talent otherwise, was a bit the heavy-handed exception not the rule, when it came to spelling out the moral of the story at the end. Virtually everyone else lets you reach that conclusion yourself. (And indeed it's a lot more persuasive if you connect the dots yourself.)

2) In what ancient fiction texts can you find an extremely detailed genealogy?

1. Maybe not that detailed, but telling you who's the son of whom is actually a pretty standard device. E.g., in virtually any story about a claimant to the throne, if it didn't tell you that that guy is the king's son, there wouldn't be much of a claim to the throne, would it?

2. Just because some plot device isn't used by everyone, or not uniquely that way, doesn't mean it's not fiction. E.g., nobody before Plautus had the "clever slave" archetype, but that doesn't mean you should take his plays more seriously.

3) In what ancient fiction texts can you find mythical explanations of natural phenomena, like

Are you serious? They mixed the gods in almost all the Greek tragedies, for a start, and the Romans inherited that too.

You know where "deus ex machina" comes from? Almost all their tragedies would be solved by a god, instead of having a proper neat ending. When the author ran of inspiration or time, he'd just have a god winched down in the midle of the stage and go "you're right, you're wrong, and you must pay him x gold coins for your trespassing."

Or just read the Iliad and Odyssey. _Everything_ is explain by supernatural and mythological stuff, from why Helen ran off with that bugger, to why they couldn't break the walls, to why they couldn't kill Achiles (more likely just damn good armour), to why Odysseus gets lost on his way back.

I mean, look at a map where the eastern coast of Turkey is and where Greece is. Can you imagine anyone getting lost at sea in that tiny span of sea dotted by islands? Do you genuinely think they literally got tempted by sirens, captured by a cyclops, and what not? There's your mythological explanation for some guys' getting drunk and laid in Phoenicia with their share of the loot, and then having to explain to their wives why they were late and broke :p

[Pure Argent]

My point exactly. Greek mythology and Norse mythology thought that their mythologies really describe the way things are in nature. One didn\'t need to interpret them as parables. Same with the flood.

So you admit that the flood story, like the mythological stories of the Greek and Norse civilizations, is false? Simply made up to explain something, probably the origin of the rainbow?
Or maybe I\'m understanding some part of your argument. Could you explain in more detail between a story that is meant to be taken literally and a story that is true?

[JetLeg]

To Hans :

1) You still didn't answer - what in the text of the story of the flood makes you think one should not understand it literally???


2) What exactly your position is? Are you saying that the biblical story of the flood was written as a parable?

[JetLeg]

So you admit that the flood story, like the mythological stories of the Greek and Norse civilizations, is false? Simply made up to explain something, probably the origin of the rainbow?
Or maybe I\'m understanding some part of your argument. Could you explain in more detail between a story that is meant to be taken literally and a story that is true?


When a kid lies to his father and says he got an A, when he didn't - it is meant to be taken literally. However, it is not true.

Yes, the flood story is false. However, I think that treating the flood story as if it wasn't meant to be taken literally is intellectually dishonest. I ask people what reason is there not to take it literally. The fact that it is false is not a reason.

And because of that I think is that literalists are more intellectually honest than liberal theists.

[HansMustermann]

I am not sure that the Greeks did not take the Odyssey and the Iliad to be literally true.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Greeks were advanced enough to understand the concept of fiction loosely based on a historical event.

Yes, it might be loosely based on one of the many conflicts between the greeks and Troy. (And generally the Hittites in the area at the time.) There was actually more than one conflict there, and at one point the greeks were couping it and installing their own puppet king every couple of years.

But that's it.

It's only _based_ on a historical figure, in as much as Monty Python And The Holy Grail is based on a romano-celtic king that probably actually existed. But the rest is fiction.

And I'm sure that the Greeks who sailed that Ionian Sea back and forth all the time and never saw a siren or a cyclops, could figure out that it's fiction. Well, at least the smart ones, anyway :p

[Beth]

Why do you think that a story that is meant to be understood literally cannot be true?

For examples, a person literally believes that he is Napoleon. Does the fact that it is absurd mean that he actually believes in it non-literally?

Liberal readings of the bible are just like this -> like saying that a person who believes he is napoleon is actually inspired by him. If we would discover that DNA doesn't actually contain the genome, liberal reading of the text would say "Well, we just meant it metaphorically! The way the helixes are wrapped against the other symbolizes the bond between one generation to the other! One shouldn't read it literally".

So liberal readings are intellectually dishonest, unlike literalist ones that try to decipher what god really meant.

Sigh. I think a liberal reading is more like an actor who is playing the part of Napoleon. While he may work hard to achieve the mental state of believing he is Napoleon when he is working, when not working, he easily realizes that he isn't Napoleon, but merely pretending to be. Whereas someone who takes the bible literally is more like the schitzoid mental patient who cannot cease believing that he is Napoleon.

[mikeyx]

The world isn't 6000 years old, and science is not anathema to Religion, nor does it need to be. From a Potestant/Sufi mix such as mine, god is the manifestation of all things in the universe known and unknown, manifest as in the part that some call his creation and transcendant, the part beyond us all.

[Pure Argent]

When a kid lies to his father and says he got an A, when he didn\'t - it is meant to be taken literally. However, it is not true.

Yes, the flood story is false. However, I think that treating the flood story as if it wasn\'t meant to be taken literally is intellectually dishonest. I ask people what reason is there not to take it literally. The fact that it is false is not a reason.

And because of that I think is that literalists are more intellectually honest than liberal theists.

Okay, I get your thing on literal vs. true now. But... something being false isn\'t a reason not to take it literally? Really now?

[JetLeg]

Okay, I get your thing on literal vs. true now. But... something being false isn\'t a reason not to take it literally? Really now?

It is a reason not to take it as "literal and true", but it is not a reason not to take it literally.

If someone lies to you, is this a reason not to take him literally?

[Pure Argent]

If someone lies to you, is this a reason not to take him literally?

Take the example of the boy telling his father he got an A when he really failed. The father knows that the boy lied, so he knows not to take the boy literally. He won\'t take the boy literally, because the boy literally got an F.

[HansMustermann]

To Hans :

1) You still didn't answer - what in the text of the story of the flood makes you think one should not understand it literally???

What in the text of The Beauty And The Beast, or Cinderella, or Snow White tells you that you're not supposed to take it literally? :p

2) What exactly your position is? Are you saying that the biblical story of the flood was written as a parable?

Well, it seems silly to me to lead your life by a fairy tale either way. I just don't see it as any less silly to take it literally.

E.g., there equally are people out there, whether they believe it or not, who lead their life by the teachings from fairy tales like The Beauty And The Beast. No, seriously. A study by a female anthropologist showed that women who grew up on such tales are more likely to end up battered wives. Because they don't know when to divorce the Beast and get a restraining order. They expect him to eventually change like in the story.

Would you think it's smarter or more intellectually honest to take The Beauty And The Beast literally while you're at it? :p

[mikeyx]

I'm more a Deist than a Theist, but I think my answer might apply anyway since one of the reasons I am a Deist is that I can't stomach fundamentalists. If you begin with the idea of an infinite, eternal, unknowable existence (which is sort of the way many think of God), then you quickly realize that your opinions about God are at best meaningless and arrogant. You find yourself in much the same position as the anti-relativity posters who insist they can refute relativity without using even high school algebra because they don't know any math anyway.

I find great personal value in the teachings of Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad, and so on. I see similar themes and a shared concern for my fellow humans. So, when fundamentalists attack any tradition (and that also includes the traditions of secular humanists), they are, from my point of view, committing the heresy of substituting themselves for God, i.e., worshipping their own desires and opinions. Further, they do great harm to the social fabric when they deny basic rights to women, when they attempt to limit basic freedoms of others, and especially when they fail to share the planet fairly with all other humans.

Indeed, the fundies, not my favorite bunch either, be they wahabi, RC or Evangelical, they are intolerant snots. Tolerance for all faiths, as somewhere in the Bible is a reference to having multiple paths to God, as well as an overlap of holy books, the Hebrew Bible making up bits of the Old testament, various Psalms (I think) being attributed in the Koran, Shinto/Zen overlap i places like Japan, Jainists helped to administer Hindu temples in India, there is overlap due to tolerance and similarity in ideas in many places.

[mikeyx]

What is bad about fanaticism is that fanatics tend to "speak for god" as if they were the designated press secretary.

Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain; bam, done.

[JetLeg]

What in the text of The Beauty And The Beast, or Cinderella, or Snow White tells you that you're not supposed to take it literally? :p


Do answer me.

[JetLeg]

Take the example of the boy telling his father he got an A when he really failed. The father knows that the boy lied, so he knows not to take the boy literally. He won\'t take the boy literally, because the boy literally got an F.


Why do you say the father does not take the boy literally? He takes him literally - thats why he knows the boy _lied_. If he wouldn't take him literally, he would for example think that the boy just invented a fiction story about a boy that got an A. Or, that the boy just wanted to say he wants very much to receive an A... The last two are the liberal attitude to religion, and are intellectually dishonest.

[Pure Argent]

Do answer me.

Allow me.

the fact that he a) built an Ark big enough to hold 2 of every species, plus his family, plus 40 days\\\' and nights\\\' worth of food and b) the fact that God flooded the entire world, killing everyone off and leaving one family to populate the entire world, presumably through eventual incest and c) that two of every animal in the world were found and brought onto the Ark by Noah, who had no way to reach places like China to grab pandas?

[HansMustermann]

That _was_ the answer. There's as much hint to not take it literally as there is in Snow White.

[JetLeg]

Allow me.

The example with the kid that lies to his father is a reply for your reply.

[JetLeg]

That _was_ the answer. There's as much hint to not take it literally as there is in Snow White.

So you are making an argument by analogy?

Can you make a direct argument, and not a one by analogy? What in the text makes you think it is not meant to be understood literally?

[Pure Argent]

The example with the kid that lies to his father is a reply for your reply.

Okay. I don\'t understand that. Here\'s what I come up with:

GOD: Hey, I flooded the world and killed everyone but Noah!
ME: ...
GOD: What?
ME: ...
GOD: Don\'t you believe me?
ME: No, I don\'t.
GOD: Well, poop.

...

Perhaps you could explain what you came up with.

[JetLeg]

?? What's the relevance of what you wrote, pure agent?

I think that I have already explained why the fact something is wrong, doesn't mean it wasn't meant literally.

You said you understand; why should I repeat it again?

[HansMustermann]

Well, not everything is as cut and dry as the case of the boy who lied to his father. We know that Aesop's fables are false for example (unless you want me to believe that a cat actually turned into a woman, etc) but we still find value in them as parables. Technically Aesop lied to you, same as every fiction author ever. But we still read them and read them to our children, as parables.

I fail to see why _any_ other text can't serve as a parable, even if it is false.

[Pure Argent]

That is what I am asking you. What exactly do you mean when the Ark story is untrue but meant to be taken literally? I can\'t figure it out, and I\'d honestly like to know.

[JetLeg]

Well, not everything is as cut and dry as the case of the boy who lied to his father. We know that Aesop's fables are false for example (unless you want me to believe that a cat actually turned into a woman, etc) but we still find value in them as parables. Technically Aesop lied to you, same as every fiction author ever. But we still read them and read them to our children, as parables.

I fail to see why _any_ other text can't serve as a parable, even if it is false.

Still, why do you think that the flood story shouldn't be understood literally?

[JetLeg]

That is what I am asking you. What exactly do you mean when the Ark story is untrue but meant to be taken literally? I can\'t figure it out, and I\'d honestly like to know.

Well...

Perhaps it was written by a god that lied to humanity.

Perhaps he thought that that's the way things happened, but he was wrong (his memory is bad).

Perhaps it was a myth people believed in literally and thought it to be true, but in modern times, we have found out that it is wrong. People literally believed once that sacrificing animals can help you. Does the fact we think it false, mean we shouldn't interpret it literally?

[Pure Argent]

Still, why do you think that the flood story shouldn\'t be understood literally?

What exactly do you mean by \"understood literally?\"

[JetLeg]

What exactly do you mean by \"understood literally?\"

Not as a parable, metaphor, a story meant to inspired us, et cetera.

[HansMustermann]

Can you make a direct argument, and not a one by analogy? What in the text makes you think it is not meant to be understood literally?

No, it's not an analogy, it's an "ad absurdum". Look that one up.

You seem to think you're supposed to take a text literally, if it doesn't somehow say right in the text that you shouldn't. After all, that's your position about the bible text, right? Well, if that were so, then Snow White, The Beauty And The Beast, Cinderella, The Emperor's New Clothes, Lord Of The Rings and even Star Wars, are supposed to be taken literally. Because they don't explicitly tell you not to.

Reached a BS conclusion, hence the premise was BS.

That's how an ad absurdum works.

Was this direct enough for you?

[JetLeg]

No, it's not an analogy, it's an "ad absurdum". Look that one up.

You seem to think you're supposed to take a text literally, if it doesn't somehow say right in the text that you shouldn't. After all, that's your position about the bible text, right? Well, if that were so, then Snow White, The Beauty And The Beast, Cinderella, The Emperor's New Clothes, Lord Of The Rings and even Star Wars, are supposed to be taken literally. Because they don't explicitly tell you not to.

Reached a BS conclusion, hence the premise was BS.

That's how an ad absurdum works.

Was this direct enough for you?

Well, you try show why my argument is invalid. Technically it is called a negative argument, I think - an argument that finds fallacies in other arguments.

But do you have any positive argument why should the flood story be taken non-literally?

[Pure Argent]

Not as a parable, metaphor, a story meant to inspired us, et cetera.

Okay. So you say that the flood story should be read as if it were true even though it has been proven to be false?

[HansMustermann]

Well, you try show why my argument is invalid. Technically it is called a negative argument, I think - an argument that finds fallacies in other arguments.

But do you have any positive argument why should the flood story be taken non-literally?

Do you have any non-broken argument why it shouldn't?

[JetLeg]

Okay. So you say that the flood story should be read as if it were true even though it has been proven to be false?

NO.

I am saying it sould be read as if it were literal even though it has been proven to be false.

You know what, I will phrase it in a way you will like it, since it will conform to your own views :

I am saying it sould be read as if it were literally false and not as metaphorically true.


Claims that would be more controversial around JREF are that liberal theists are dishonest intellectually, and that literalists are more honest.

[JetLeg]

Do you have any non-broken argument why it shouldn't?

I think that from the context in which Snow-White was written one can understand it is fiction.

But nevermind that, I don't want to go into that. I prefer to ask you -> do you have any argument why it should be read non-literally? Or are you just having fun poking at my arguments?

[Pure Argent]

NO.

I am saying it sould be read as if it were literal even though it has been proven to be false.


Then I\'m still missing something important in your argument. What is the difference between your above statement and saying \"I am saying it should be read as if it were [true] even though it has been proven to be false.\"?

[JetLeg]

Then I\'m still missing something important in your argument. What is the difference between your above statement and saying \"I am saying it should be read as if it were [true] even though it has been proven to be false.\"?


The father takes the boy literally, agreed? Thats why he knows the boy _lied_.
One cannot lie unless one talks literally.


But he doesn't take the boy's words to be true.

If he wouldn't take him literally, he would for example think that the boy just invented a fiction story about a boy that got an A. Or, that the boy just wanted to say he wants very much to receive an A...

[thaiboxerken]

Then I\'m still missing something important in your argument. What is the difference between your above statement and saying \"I am saying it should be read as if it were [true] even though it has been proven to be false.\"?

Why do you think it should be read metaphorically, since it's been proven to be literally false? Why not just dismiss it as nonsense?

[Pure Argent]

The father takes the boy literally, agreed? Thats why he knows the boy _lied_.
One cannot lie unless one talks literally.


But he doesn\'t take the boy\'s words to be true.

If he wouldn\'t take him literally, he would for example think that the boy just invented a fiction story about a boy that got an A. Or, that the boy just wanted to say he wants very much to receive an A...

Okay. I get that. But what does taking the Noah story literally entail? What does it mean if you take the story of the Ark literally?

[JetLeg]

Okay. I get that. But what does taking the Noah story literally entail? What does it mean if you take the story of the Ark literally?

Not saying that it is a parable.

When a scientific theory is overthrown, nobody says "Well, the sun moves around the earth metaphorically"...

The controversial claim I am making is that literalists are more intellectually honest than liberal theists.

[HansMustermann]

I think that from the context in which Snow-White was written one can understand it is fiction.

But nevermind that, I don't want to go into that. I prefer to ask you -> do you have any argument why it should be read non-literally? Or are you just having fun poking at my arguments?

Much as they _are_ surrealist, this is actually serious.

We take stuff _any_ stuff non-literally just because we can. We take Lord Of The Rings as a metaphor for the evils of industrialization, even though technically it's just a story about fantastic creatures and a made-up world. We take The Beauty And The Beast to be a metaphor for the supposed fact that with love and care you can change a man. (Usually, actually you can't.) Etc.

We use Nero and his fiddle as a metaphor for this and that, even though technically it was just a later libel by his detractors: contemporaries say he wasn't even in town when the fire started, and the fiddle wasn't invented yet anyway. We repeat the story about Catherine The Great and the horse, even though it's known to be false; and if someone wants to take it as a non-literal warning against the sin of excessive lust, who's to stop them? We use Onan's story to tell people not to masturbate, even though that's not what Onan did. We even use it to tell girls to not touch themselves, although literally Onan's story doesn't even apply to them at all. Etc.

That's the default state for anything: if you can find some other point to illustrate with it, it's fair game.

So if you want to tell me that one particular text is off limits for that, I should think it's up to you to make the case why.

It's sorta like walking into a meadow and being told that I can have a picnic everywhere except in one particular spot. I'm going to ask: why?

[Pure Argent]

Not saying that it is a parable.

When a scientific theory is overthrown, nobody says \"Well, the sun moves around the earth metaphorically\"...

The controversial claim I am making is that literalists are more intellectually honest than liberal theists.

Okay. So, not saying that the Ark story is a parable... that means that we can just say that it is false and can be ignored, right? Or are you trying to make a different claim entirely?
I realize that this may seem like I\'m trying to derail the topic, but I\'m actually trying to understand your claim. Before I can commend on that, I have to understand the whole \"taking literally\" thing.

[JetLeg]

Okay. So, not saying that the Ark story is a parable... that means that we can just say that it is false and can be ignored, right?


I am fine with that.

The more controversial claim is that I think literalists to more intellectually honest than liberal theists.

[Beth]

Not saying that it is a parable.

When a scientific theory is overthrown, nobody says "Well, the sun moves around the earth metaphorically"...

The controversial claim I am making is that literalists are more intellectually honest than liberal theists.

The problem with that claim is that there are NO christian sects that take the entire Bible literally. They ALL pick and choose which passages to interpret metaphorically.

[JetLeg]

The problem with that claim is that there are NO christian sects that take the entire Bible literally. They ALL pick and choose which passages to interpret metaphorically.

Prove it.

[HansMustermann]

Not saying that it is a parable.

When a scientific theory is overthrown, nobody says "Well, the sun moves around the earth metaphorically"...

The controversial claim I am making is that literalists are more intellectually honest than liberal theists.

I fail to see any fundamental reason why any scientific theory -- true or false -- can't possibly be used as a non-literal metaphor or analogy for something else.

It's not the easiest stuff to work into casual conversation, but it occasionally does happen.

E.g., in computer science we use the term Heisenbug, a contraction of "Heisenberg bug", for a bug that may or may not act up when you look for it. Doubly so for something that works differently in the debugger. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does _not_ apply to software at all, but it's a very concise metaphor for that kind of bug. If you know what Heisenberg's principle is and what a software bug is, "Heisenbug" tells you exactly what's happening there.

E.g., Schrödinger's cat is mis-used for lots of stuff to which really it wouldn't apply.

Or one German commedian/physicist explained relativistic space contraction as "the faster something goes, the shorter it is" and then called it the "Porsche driver syndrome." Technically it doesn't actually make any difference at the speed a car can do, but it was worth a laugh anyway.

Already discredited theories? Well, the planetary model of the atom is still used in logos and occasionally as a metaphor.

[Beth]

Prove it.

Okay. I'll retract the statement to be EVERY christian sect I have ever known or heard about does so, including the most fundamentalist of the fundamentalist sects. Can you provide an example of a Christian sect that actually takes every word of the Bible literally? I've known a few that claimed they did, but closer examination has always revealed that their actions did not match that claim. Can you supply a counterexample? That would make my previous statement unquestionably false.

[JetLeg]

Okay. I'll retract the statement to be EVERY christian sect I have ever known or heard about does so, including the most fundamentalist of the fundamentalist sects. Can you provide an example of a Christian sect that actually takes every word of the Bible literally? I've known a few that claimed they did, but closer examination has always revealed that their actions did not match that claim. Can you supply a counterexample? That would make my previous statement unquestionably false.


Your request is fair, but if possible, I would ask you to support your claim, for the sects you know.

[JetLeg]

Hans, do you have a positive argument why the flood story should be taken non-literally or no?

[Pure Argent]

JetLeg, do you have a positive argument why the flood story should be taken literally or no?

[Beth]

Prove it.

Your request is fair, but if possible, I would ask you to support your claim, for the sects you know.

What type of evidence are you looking for? If I quote bible versus that are not adhered to by fundamentalist churches would that be sufficient? Such an exercise has been done and posted many places on the internet and I could do a search. Or I could make up my own list. Or do you need some evidence that the fundamentalist churches I am acquainted with does not practice the prescribed behaviors? If so, what evidence would you find convincing in that regard? How many examples would you consider sufficient? And how much effort do you think it reasonable to require of me to compose such a list?

[thaiboxerken]

Is there any good reason why any of the bible should be taken literally, or even seriously, Pure? It's a bunch of bollocks in print and should only be valuable to historians who want to research mythology.

[JetLeg]

What type of evidence are you looking for? If I quote bible versus that are not adhered to by fundamentalist churches would that be sufficient? Such an exercise has been done and posted many places on the internet and I could do a search. Or I could make up my own list. Or do you need some evidence that the fundamentalist churches I am acquainted with does not practice the prescribed behaviors? If so, what evidence would you find convincing in that regard? How many examples would you consider sufficient? And how much effort do you think it reasonable to require of me to compose such a list?

No, it's fine. I have seen enough quotes that show me they do omit some thins god said. But they at least try to interpret it truely, which the liberals don't even try.

[Pure Argent]

Is there any good reason why any of the bible should be taken literally, or even seriously, Pure?

That's what I'm asking JetLeg. So far, I don't think so.

[Beth]

No, it's fine. I have seen enough quotes that show me they do omit some thins god said. But they at least try to interpret it truely, which the liberals don't even try.

Okay. So I gather you're willing to accept that all sects pick and choose which verses are literally true and which are not.

Now, why do you think the fundamentalists are trying to interpret it truely while the liberals are not trying to do so. I've not seen any evidence of that. If anything, my observation is that the liberal christians are trying much harder to understand and practice the spirit of Christ's teachings while the fundamentalists are much more reminiscent of the Pharisee's who would obey the letter of the law without concern about violating the spirit of it.

Should the Pharisee's be considered as more truly trying to interpret God's will than Jesus was?

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it's fine. I have seen enough quotes that show me they do omit some thins god said. But they at least try to interpret it truely, which the liberals don't even try.


I think there might be a more fruitful way of viewing what fundies do. We all know that there are different writing genres. Each genre is interpreted by its own rules and its own commonly used tropes. When we recognize parody, we know not to interpret the literal message, but to invert that message in some way. When we read the sports page we don't think that the bears literally mauled the lions in a freak zoo accident. It's just that Detroit sucks.

Fundies misread. They apply the wrong interpretive framework, much like the typically fatal frameshift mutation discussed in genetics.

Instead of reading scripture as sacred history, which is what it is, they apply the rules of secular history.

Liberal theists understand that sacred history should be read as sacred history, and they take that into account when proposing their interpretation.

[JetLeg]

Okay. So I gather you're willing to accept that all sects pick and choose which verses are literally true and which are not.

Now, why do you think the fundamentalists are trying to interpret it truely while the liberals are not trying to do so. I've not seen any evidence of that. If anything, my observation is that the liberal christians are trying much harder to understand and practice the spirit of Christ's teachings while the fundamentalists are much more reminiscent of the Pharisee's who would obey the letter of the law without concern about violating the spirit of it.

Should the Pharisee's be considered as more truly tring to interpret God's will than Jesus was?


1) Can you give some examples?

2) I think the liberals try to practice their own spirit rather than god's. For example, what is the spirit of the commandment to stone a person that violates the sabbath?? Most literalists would ignore the letter of this as well, for the matter, but I think it is more true to both the letter and the spirit not to ignore it.

[JetLeg]

I think there might be a more fruitful way of viewing what fundies do. We all know that there are different writing genres. Each genre is interpreted by its own rules and its own commonly used tropes. When we recognize parody, we know not to interpret the literal message, but to invert that message in some way. When we read the sports page we don't think that the bears literally mauled the lions in a freak zoo accident. It's just that Detroit sucks.

Fundies misread. They apply the wrong interpretive framework, much like the typically fatal frameshift mutation discussed in genetics.

Instead of reading scripture as sacred history, which is what it is, they apply the rules of secular history.

Liberal theists understand that sacred history should be read as sacred history, and they take that into account when proposing their interpretation.

Can you substantiate your claims that they apply the wrong interpreive framework, and that yours is the right one?

[thaiboxerken]

That's what I'm asking JetLeg. So far, I don't think so.

Well, there is no good reason to take any of the bible seriously. However, Christians do anyway. Those who take it more literally are simply more religious, as most of it was written to be taken literally and not metaphorically, as many "moderates" today do. Of course, one cannot take all of it literally and believe it all 100% because of the contradictions and because they'd be jailed in today's society if they carried out many of the commandments in there.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Can you substantiate your claims that they apply the wrong interpreive framework, and that yours is the right one?

Who said it was mine?

Secular histories are written to provide facts about the world and what literally happened in the past. That is the framework that fundies apply to reading the Bible.

Sacred histories, to most people, are written to relay stories about the gods. They are not literally true, but they carry spiritual messages.

If you want to ask if one is the correct interpretation, then you are asking the wrong question. Interpretitve frameworks are not true or false. One works better than another.

Example -- take the first creation story in Genesis. Reading that creation account as secular history directly contradicts scientific information about the way the universe appears to have developed. Reading Genesis 1 as secular history is countervened by other "objective" information. Consequently there must be a better interpretive framework -- there are many other ways of reading Genesis 1 that do not contradict scientific information.

Other example -- it isn't precisely wrong for me to read Huckleberry Finn as the story of an alien from the Deneb system coming to understand life on earth. That interpretation simply doesn't have any support within the text. It's a dumb way to read that book.

[Beth]

1) Can you give some examples?
[quote]
Sure: Fundamentalist sects that allow women to wear their hair short and/or uncovered which is most of them. There are, of course some sects that don't allow this (the Amish comes to mind), but there are other verses they choose not to interpret literally. I don't think they stone their disobedient children or eschew shellfish for example.
[quote]
2) I think the liberals try to practice their own spirit rather than god's. For example, what is the spirit of the commandment to stone a person that violates the sabbath?? Most literalists would ignore the letter of this as well, for the matter, but I think it is more true to both the letter and the spirit not to ignore it. How does one distinguish between one's own spirit and that of god? The non-literalists at least apply some reason and thought to the matter and are also more willing than the literalist believers to accept that they might be mistaken regarding their interpretation. They are more willing to listen to opposing arguments regarding their interpretation. All in all, I think it is more intellectually honest to admit the possibility of error than to claim an infallible source of knowledge.

[JetLeg]

How does one distinguish between one's own spirit and that of god? (1) The non-literalists at least apply some reason and thought to the matter and are also more willing than the literalist believers to accept that they might be mistaken regarding their interpretation. (2) They are more willing to listen to opposing arguments regarding their interpretation. All in all, I think it is more intellectually honest to admit the possibility of error than to claim an infallible source of knowledge.


Hi Beth, can you give some examples to the two statements I put in bold?

[Beth]

Hi Beth, can you give some examples to the two statements I put in bold?

(1) The non-literalists at least apply some reason and thought to the matter and are also more willing than the literalist believers to accept that they might be mistaken regarding their interpretation. (2) They are more willing to listen to opposing arguments regarding their interpretation

I'd use President Obama and President Bush as high profile examples of the two types. Which one has applied reason and thought to interpreting the Bible? Which one is more willing to listen to opposing arguments? I'd say it was Pres. Obama on both counts. However, I'm not sure if Pres. Bush is a literalist though he has indicated he has doubts about evolution.

I can also recommend some book titles if you like.

[JetLeg]

Yup/

[thaiboxerken]

Non-literals are those who don't take their religions quite as serious. They are less faithful and have watered down their religious beliefs with secular values. I'm happy that most people are like this, although they would be offended by my observation that they are less faithful than their extremist counterparts.

[JetLeg]

JetLeg, do you have a positive argument why the flood story should be taken literally or no?

It,s literary style. I judge by the literary style of Lord of the Rings that the person who wrote it meant it asfiction, and I judge by the literary style of the flood story that the person who wrote it thought it to be literally true.

But I do not wish to go into it. If you do not have a positive argument why the flood story should not be interpreted literally, I shall remain in my ignorance...

[JetLeg]

How does one distinguish between one's own spirit and that of god? The non-literalists at least apply some reason and thought to the matter and are also more willing than the literalist believers to accept that they might be mistaken regarding their interpretation. They are more willing to listen to opposing arguments regarding their interpretation. All in all, I think it is more intellectually honest to admit the possibility of error than to claim an infallible source of knowledge.

Do provide me with book titles, but you got me convinced. Literalists indeed are rarely open that they might be wrong in their interpretation.

Also, they rarely have the ideal of learning greek&hebrew to get the original meaning, which they should... Forget about learning greek&hebrew -> they even do not try to compare various translations of the bible to english!

[HansMustermann]

It,s literary style. I judge by the literary style of Lord of the Rings that the person who wrote it meant it asfiction, and I judge by the literary style of the flood story that the person who wrote it thought it to be literally true.

But I do not wish to go into it. If you do not have a positive argument why the flood story should not be interpreted literally, I shall remain in my ignorance...

So basically all you have is your own opinion, based on no more than a literary impression, that it should be taken literally?

Well, you're of course entitled to your own opinions, but that hardly is enough base to accuse a billion people of intellectual dishonesty if their subjective impression isn't exactly the same as yours.

[thaiboxerken]

So basically all you have is your own opinion, based on no more than a literary impression, that it should be taken literally?

There is also the fact that the first religions to adapt the book into their beliefs took it to be literal truth. At least until science showed how absurd the notion was. How many Christians thought the book was metaphor before Darwin wrote his first book describing evolution?

[HansMustermann]

There is also the fact that the first religions to adapt the book into their beliefs took it to be literal truth. At least until science showed how absurd the notion was. How many Christians thought the book was metaphor before Darwin wrote his first book describing evolution?

Catholicism was _the_ original christian religion and it was never literalist.

If catholicism had taken the bible literally, we wouldn't have had the ever widening gap between what the pope said and what the bible said, which in turn led to protestantism. Look up Jan Hus or Martin Luther. That was essentially their complaint about the papacy: that the pope isn't taking the bible literally.

I trust you'll agree that both were centuries before Darwin.

[thaiboxerken]

Catholicism was _the_ original christian religion and it was never literalist.


I disagree. Did not Galileo get into trouble for publishing his thoughts on heliocentrism?

Sure, the RCC may have been the first Christian denomination to accept evolution and consider the creation story of Genesis to be metaphor. However, they only declared the creation story of Genesis to be metaphor AFTER Darwin wrote his book, and after long debate about his theory. The

[Beth]

Do provide me with book titles, but you got me convinced. Literalists indeed are rarely open that they might be wrong in their interpretation.

I like "Think Again: A Response to Fundamentalism's Claim on Christianity" by Gary Cox as an example of how liberal religious leaders apply reason and thought to their beliefs and listen to opposing opinions. However, I knew the author personally so I'm a bit biased.

I don't have any personal recommendations for examples of strict fundamentalist interpretations because I don't bother reading such books. I suggest perusing creationist literature for examples of refusing to listen to opposing points of view.

[HansMustermann]

I disagree. Did not Galileo get into trouble for publishing his thoughts on heliocentrism?

You do realize that it was the same pope who defended Galileo's heliocentrism before, and encouraged him to write his book in the first place, right? Galileo got in trouble for one single thing: flaming the pope in a public medium. Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism was just a pretext so he can be tried in the pope's courts instead of by the secular ones.

[HansMustermann]

Sure, the RCC may have been the first Christian denomination to accept evolution and consider the creation story of Genesis to be metaphor. However, they only declared the creation story of Genesis to be metaphor AFTER Darwin wrote his book, and after long debate about his theory. The

To also address this: you do know that St Augustine of Hippo, in the 4th century AD, wrote basically that only an idiot would take the Genesis literally, right? It seems to me like that it was, what, about a millenium and a half before Darwin? :p

[thaiboxerken]

To also address this: you do know that St Augustine of Hippo, in the 4th century AD, wrote basically that only an idiot would take the Genesis literally, right? It seems to me like that it was, what, about a millenium and a half before Darwin? :p

So when did an RCC Pope declare Genesis to be metaphor?

[HansMustermann]

Augustine was one of the most influential founding fathers of christianity as we all inherited it. He was one of the guys who got to define what christianity _is_. From the exact concept of original sin to stuff like the distinction between magic and miracle, that stuff christian believe in was _defined_ by Augustine. Plus it influenced later christian thinkers, from Aquinas to Martin Luther.

Plus, see the honour that he still gets from every major christian denomination. So at the very least, no pope thought he was very wrong in his views. You don't get to count a major heretic as a major church founding father, right? :p

Plus, if you think about it, he's not even the only one or even first. St Paul himself in Galatians 4:22-26 argues that a passage in the old testament is just an allegory. So there you have it: it's right from the mouth of an apostle and right in the freaking bible itself, that you should interpret at least some stuff there as a metaphor or allegory.

[thaiboxerken]

Augustine was one of the most influential founding fathers of christianity as we all inherited it.

You mean as Christians inherited it?


He was one of the guys who got to define what christianity _is_.What it is today, perhaps...400 yrs AD leaves quite a few years of christianity before his influence.

So at the very least, no pope thought he was very wrong in his views. When did a Pope agree with Augustine, in writing or declaration, about Genesis not being literal?


Plus, if you think about it, he's not even the only one or even first. St Paul himself in Galatians 4:22-26 argues that a passage in the old testament is just an allegory. So there you have it: it's right from the mouth of an apostle and right in the freaking bible itself, that you should interpret at least some stuff there as a metaphor or allegory.One passage being declared allegory, about Abraham's two sons? That's all you have? You christians sure can torture any meaning out of that book of yours. And how many sons did Abraham really have? That bible is inconsistent about it.

[HansMustermann]

You mean as Christians inherited it?

Bingo.

What it is today, perhaps...400 yrs AD leaves quite a few years of christianity before his influence.

You do know that christianity got defined at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, right? And that that's very much contemporary with Augustine? Or, like with Galileo, you're talking out of the rear end instead of history?

You christians sure can torture any meaning out of that book of yours.

"You christians"? Heh. Well, maybe that's your problem. If you concentrated more on what I'm actually saying and less on trying to offend christians, we might get somewhere faster.

I'm an atheist, btw.

[thaiboxerken]

You do know that christianity got defined at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, right? And that that's very much contemporary with Augustine? Or, like with Galileo, you're talking out of the rear end instead of history?

Was there a guide book written for Catholics that says that Genesis is to be taken only as a metaphorical story? What is the meaning of the metaphor anyway? Don't piss god off, or he'll give you the boot? Either way, the book is nonsense and MANY christians take the creation story to be literal truth to some degree.



"You christians"? Heh. Well, maybe that's your problem. If you concentrated more on what I'm actually saying and less on trying to offend christians, we might get somewhere faster.

I'm an atheist, btw.

Doesn't matter, the one passage you quoted doesn't describe the entire book of Genesis as metaphor, only the assertion that Abraham had two sons as metaphor. This brings me to another question, are the passages that Abraham only had 1 son metaphor as well, or the passage that describe him having many?

It's obvious to me that Genesis is like many other creation myths, a story made up to explain the origins of man, to be taken literally.