Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 139

Thread: Hey, when was Eve named?

  1. Top | #121
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,333
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    That is not what literalism actually means. We had been talking about the Genesis account, and what a "literal" reading of it in fact implies or does not imply. If you want to insist that "literalism", to these people, has everything to do with emotion and socialization and nothing to do with the book itself, you'll find no disagreement from me.

    Something taken literally means that it is taken as described. So if what is written in the book of genesis is taken literally, the reader accepts its description of Creation as being how the World was Created literally, actually or objectively, ie, that this in how the Worldcame about. What the believer takes as being a literal account of Creation, an objective account, the way the World came about, is not necessarily true, not necessarily a literal account of how the World came about. All this being relative, the actual state of the believer (faith, desire, fear) and the actual state of the World, and how it came about.
    Sure. All this stuff about devils shaped like serpents, substitutionary atonement, and Jesus are not in the Genesis account, however, and certainly cannot be considered a literal reading of it. These things are allegories no matter how "literally" you try to read them.

  2. Top | #122
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,767
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,673
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    That is not what literalism actually means. We had been talking about the Genesis account, and what a "literal" reading of it in fact implies or does not imply. If you want to insist that "literalism", to these people, has everything to do with emotion and socialization and nothing to do with the book itself, you'll find no disagreement from me.

    Something taken literally means that it is taken as described. So if what is written in the book of genesis is taken literally, the reader accepts its description of Creation as being how the World was Created literally, actually or objectively, ie, that this in how the Worldcame about. What the believer takes as being a literal account of Creation, an objective account, the way the World came about, is not necessarily true, not necessarily a literal account of how the World came about. All this being relative, the actual state of the believer (faith, desire, fear) and the actual state of the World, and how it came about.
    Sure. All this stuff about devils shaped like serpents, substitutionary atonement, and Jesus are not in the Genesis account, however, and certainly cannot be considered a literal reading of it. These things are allegories no matter how "literally" you try to read them.
    The literal or objective existence of the things themselves - the article, Special Creation, Garden of Eden, etc, being distinguishable from what the writers believed about these things, a question of whether the writers intended a literal account of Creation, or whether readers over the centuries believed it to be a literal account of Creation - is not determined by either the writers or the readers or what they happen to believe.

  3. Top | #123
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,333
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Sure. All this stuff about devils shaped like serpents, substitutionary atonement, and Jesus are not in the Genesis account, however, and certainly cannot be considered a literal reading of it. These things are allegories no matter how "literally" you try to read them.
    The literal or objective existence of the things themselves - the article, Special Creation, Garden of Eden, etc, being distinguishable from what the writers believed about these things, a question of whether the writers intended a literal account of Creation, or whether readers over the centuries believed it to be a literal account of Creation - is not determined by either the writers or the readers or what they happen to believe.
    Who would think it was ?

  4. Top | #124
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,767
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,673
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Sure. All this stuff about devils shaped like serpents, substitutionary atonement, and Jesus are not in the Genesis account, however, and certainly cannot be considered a literal reading of it. These things are allegories no matter how "literally" you try to read them.
    The literal or objective existence of the things themselves - the article, Special Creation, Garden of Eden, etc, being distinguishable from what the writers believed about these things, a question of whether the writers intended a literal account of Creation, or whether readers over the centuries believed it to be a literal account of Creation - is not determined by either the writers or the readers or what they happen to believe.
    Who would think it was ?
    Believers do. Believers take the articles of their belief to be literal, a literal creation, literal garden of Eden, literal Angels, literal Satan, a literal God....things that they believe actually happened or exist, objective reality, like Stars and Planets.

  5. Top | #125
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,333
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Who would think it was ?
    Believers do. Believers take the articles of their belief to be literal, a literal creation, literal garden of Eden, literal Angels, literal Satan, a literal God....things that they believe actually happened or exist, objective reality, like Stars and Planets.
    You are making a mishmash of unrelated claims. They don't believe those things because of literary context or authorial intent.

  6. Top | #126
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,078
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,117
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Who would think it was ?
    Believers do. Believers take the articles of their belief to be literal, a literal creation, literal garden of Eden, literal Angels, literal Satan, a literal God....things that they believe actually happened or exist, objective reality, like Stars and Planets.
    You are making a mishmash of unrelated claims. They don't believe those things because of literary context or authorial intent.
    I personally know tens of dozens, which I safely assume are representative of the larger population. To them the Garden of Eden is as real as the moon in the sky. Making Eve from Adam's rib is as real as their kitchens. They certainly believe these things.

    These things are literal truth like the moon and the chairs in their kitchens. It hardly matters the reasons they believe these things, or the unimportant things to them like literary intent. The Garden of Eden is a literal truth to them because they read it in their holy book.

    If you would like to engage them in an academic discussion you won't get far. They understand and believe on the simplest terms, which is precisely what literal belief is.

  7. Top | #127
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,925
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,901
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    Who would think it was ?
    Believers do. Believers take the articles of their belief to be literal, a literal creation, literal garden of Eden, literal Angels, literal Satan, a literal God....things that they believe actually happened or exist, objective reality, like Stars and Planets.
    You are making a mishmash of unrelated claims. They don't believe those things because of literary context or authorial intent.
    Arguments in this thread seems to be lost in the fallacy of composition. One Christian or group of Christians can not be taken to represent all Christians. There are people who are Christian who are involved in all aspects of the sciences and then there are some Christians who reject any science that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. 'Answers in Genesis' is a website by and for the later group. https://answersingenesis.org/

    Then, of course, there are Christians spread throughout the wide chasm between these two extremes.

  8. Top | #128
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,333
    Rep Power
    9
    When did "literal" come to mean, "believes really hard" rather than any correct definition of that term. Emotional commitment has nothing to do with literal vs. allegorical readings of a text. Obviously, given how stubbornly most atheists cling to literalism despite theoretically not having a dog in the ontological fight connected to that misguided hermeneutic. I don't oppose literalism because of what I do or don't believe about Jesus. I oppose it because it is a stupid way to read a book. Any book.

    I don't have to "really truly believe" that Willm Shakespeare had sex with flowers in order to argue that his description of his love as a red rose was meant to be taken literally. I just have to be an idiot.

  9. Top | #129
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,925
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,901
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    When did "literal" come to mean, "believes really hard" rather than any correct definition of that term. Emotional commitment has nothing to do with literal vs. allegorical readings of a text. Obviously, given how stubbornly most atheists cling to literalism despite theoretically not having a dog in the ontological fight connected to that misguided hermeneutic. I don't oppose literalism because of what I do or don't believe about Jesus. I oppose it because it is a stupid way to read a book. Any book.

    I don't have to "really truly believe" that Willm Shakespeare had sex with flowers in order to argue that his description of his love as a red rose was meant to be taken literally. I just have to be an idiot.
    Literal means literal. There are some Christians who read the Bible literally. They read and accept that god made Adam from dust and Eve from one of Adam's ribs exactly as written. They read and accept that there was a worldwide flood and that Noah made an ark and gathered animals to repopulate the Earth after the flood subsided exactly as written. They read and accept that Noah lived to the age of 950 years old exactly as written etc. etc. They read the Bible as literal truth, exactly as written.

  10. Top | #130
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,333
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    When did "literal" come to mean, "believes really hard" rather than any correct definition of that term. Emotional commitment has nothing to do with literal vs. allegorical readings of a text. Obviously, given how stubbornly most atheists cling to literalism despite theoretically not having a dog in the ontological fight connected to that misguided hermeneutic. I don't oppose literalism because of what I do or don't believe about Jesus. I oppose it because it is a stupid way to read a book. Any book.

    I don't have to "really truly believe" that Willm Shakespeare had sex with flowers in order to argue that his description of his love as a red rose was meant to be taken literally. I just have to be an idiot.
    Literal means literal. There are some Christians who read the Bible literally. They read and accept that god made Adam from dust and Eve from one of Adam's ribs exactly as written. They read and accept that there was a worldwide flood and that Noah made an ark and gathered animals to repopulate the Earth after the flood subsided exactly as written. They read and accept that Noah lived to the age of 950 years old exactly as written etc. etc. They read the Bible as literal truth, exactly as written.
    Yes. But several theologies that have been advanced as "literal" in this conversation, not because they are literally present in the text, but because people, apparently, believe them a whole lot.

Similar Threads

  1. Indystar Reports Pence to be Named VP to Trump
    By Jimmy Higgins in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-14-2016, 11:16 PM
  2. School of Engineering at Harvard named after John Paulson.
    By NobleSavage in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-08-2015, 07:00 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-29-2015, 10:44 PM
  4. Religions of the Book - re-named
    By Rhea in forum General Religion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-08-2014, 11:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •