Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 139 of 139

Thread: Hey, when was Eve named?

  1. Top | #131
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,560
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,037
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    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.
    A lot of people are believers in the literal truth of what some guy says is in the Bible. Not so much biblical literalism as hearsay literalism.

  2. Top | #132
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,787
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,693
    Rep Power
    70
    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.
    No, I am not. There are in fact people who take the bible literally, a literal creation, a literal God, etc. This is not my claim. I simply point to the fact that some people take these things literally. Taking the Flood story literally means the believer is convinced that an actual World flood happened as described in the Bible, Noah, the Ark, etc, believed to be actual, literal, objective History.

    It is not something I claim, you can find examples quite readily, AiG, Creation.com, etc. Nor is this purely a modern trend.

  3. Top | #133
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,787
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,693
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    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.
    What makes you think that the ancient writers of Genesis and the rest did not intend their account of Creation and the will of God to be literal? To be clear, this is not to say that there is no allegory or metaphor in the bible.

    Did they not believe in the existence of a God? A Creator? Where they just like modern skeptics, simply writing allegories for the sake of identity and social cohesion? The Royal Lie?

    What was the point?

  4. Top | #134
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,350
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    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.
    What makes you think that the ancient writers of Genesis and the rest did not intend their account of Creation and the will of God to be literal? To be clear, this is not to say that there is no allegory or metaphor in the bible.

    Did they not believe in the existence of a God? A Creator? Where they just like modern skeptics, simply writing allegories for the sake of identity and social cohesion? The Royal Lie?

    What was the point?
    If they did, then substitutionary atonement is bullshit. Serpents that are also devils, also bullshit. Figurative adams and eves standing in for all of their descendants are bullshit. Hell is bullshit. Because none of those things are in the literal text. If you're going to be a literalist, at least do it consistently, don't tell me that some metaphors and allegorical interpretations are okay due to age and the passion with which they are believed, while others are heresies because they fell on the wrong side of politics seventeen centuries ago.

    Mind you, I don't think "literal" and "non-literal" were words that would have meant anything in particular to the composers of the original oral traditions that eventually became the Hebrew Scriptures. Some of the authors, especially the priestly class that did the last re-write, probably had literalist intentions, the better for ruling an empire with. But they controlled interpretation of those seemingly authoritative texts, just as Christian orthodoxists seek to do now.

    I am, though, talking about actual literalism, not this thing you keep talking about where, I guess "literal" means real and "metaphor" means fake? That isn't what those words mean, but it seems to be your implication. There is no reason whatsoever why someone couldn't believe that God is real and nevertheless understand "walking in the garden" as a metaphor for His continuing (real) presence in the world, for instance. Not only can a metaphor have a real thing as its target, a metaphor almost always has a real thing as its target.

    I would really appreciate it, in fact, if you did a bit of reading first and figured out what an allegory is before continuing to press this point. I don't appreciate having to pick up the slack from your secondary schoolteachers.

  5. Top | #135
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,787
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,693
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    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.
    What makes you think that the ancient writers of Genesis and the rest did not intend their account of Creation and the will of God to be literal? To be clear, this is not to say that there is no allegory or metaphor in the bible.

    Did they not believe in the existence of a God? A Creator? Where they just like modern skeptics, simply writing allegories for the sake of identity and social cohesion? The Royal Lie?

    What was the point?
    If they did, then substitutionary atonement is bullshit. Serpents that are also devils, also bullshit. Figurative adams and eves standing in for all of their descendants are bullshit. Hell is bullshit. Because none of those things are in the literal text. If you're going to be a literalist, at least do it consistently, don't tell me that some metaphors and allegorical interpretations are okay due to age and the passion with which they are believed, while others are heresies because they fell on the wrong side of politics seventeen centuries ago.
    Nobody is saying that these are rational beliefs, that they actually make sense. Only that that they, the ancients, believed in the existence and reality of
    these things.

    The evidence strongly suggests that they did. Just as there are people in this day and age who believe in an actual fall, an actual redeemer in Jesus, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Mind you, I don't think "literal" and "non-literal" were words that would have meant anything in particular to the composers of the original oral traditions that eventually became the Hebrew Scriptures.
    They probably didn't think in terms of literal or non literal, they simply believed that this is how the World is and How the World is governed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Some of the authors, especially the priestly class that did the last re-write, probably had literalist intentions, the better for ruling an empire with. But they controlled interpretation of those seemingly authoritative texts, just as Christian orthodoxists seek to do now.
    No doubt. There may have even been a few closet Atheists in their midst.

  6. Top | #136
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    919
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,718
    Rep Power
    51
    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.
    Many people I know read the accounts is the Bible as being factually accurate accounts of reality, things that actually happened, places that actually existed, exactly as they are written in the Bible. This is not uncommon among evangelical Christians in the southeastern United States. They believe Genesis is a factually accurate description of how the world was created, with animals and the first humans. They believe that the entire planet was flooded by a deluge of God's creation, which sterilized all life on the planet except for the inhabitants of Noah's boat, just as the story is told in the Bible. I don't understand why you are arguing that other people are incapable of reading and interpreting the Bible in ways different from how you read and interpret the Bible.

    And no, I am not using the word "literal" to mean "believe really hard".

  7. Top | #137
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,350
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib 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.
    Many people I know read the accounts is the Bible as being factually accurate accounts of reality, things that actually happened, places that actually existed, exactly as they are written in the Bible. This is not uncommon among evangelical Christians in the southeastern United States. They believe Genesis is a factually accurate description of how the world was created, with animals and the first humans. They believe that the entire planet was flooded by a deluge of God's creation, which sterilized all life on the planet except for the inhabitants of Noah's boat, just as the story is told in the Bible. I don't understand why you are arguing that other people are incapable of reading and interpreting the Bible in ways different from how you read and interpret the Bible.

    And no, I am not using the word "literal" to mean "believe really hard".
    Yes, I know that literalists exist. I'm even fine with that, though I certainly do not agree with them. But even the most ardent literalist is not a literalist all the time for all things. They can't be. The books themselves use allegory extensively, and literalists throw in a lot more material that comes from their own theologies and narrative history. So the argument made against my point, that it was cherry-picking and therefore somehow inferior to literalism, is invalid. The allegory of Adam=Jesus is so fundamental to modern Christianity that I do not think Protestantism can be understood without grasping it. But it is an allegory all the same. Adam and Jesus were literally different people, even if we accept Paul/Augustine's argument that one was a symbolic figure of the other. Someone standing in for someone else despite not being literally identical is the very definition of a symbol.

    I don't get why everyone keeps trying to convince me that conservatives are real. I know they are real. And numerous. And passionate. And completely irrelevant to my point.

  8. Top | #138
    Quantum Hot Dog Kharakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    OCCaUSA
    Posts
    4,344
    Archived
    3,383
    Total Posts
    7,727
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
    Ya, it seems like a weird disclaimer. I don't do that when talking about Star Wars characters, so why would I do it when talking about Biblical characters?
    Because Star Wars is real. Ohh shit, I mean Star Trek. It's news from the future, acted out by contemporary actors so we don't feel trapped in a timeline.

  9. Top | #139
    Quantum Hot Dog Kharakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    OCCaUSA
    Posts
    4,344
    Archived
    3,383
    Total Posts
    7,727
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    A lot of people are believers in the literal truth of what some guy says is in the Bible. Not so much biblical literalism as hearsay literalism.
    A lot of people are believers of what people claim to believe about the bible in attempts to get people to analyze and think about social issues in a roundabout way.

    Push someone towards understanding of ethics, and they'll think you're trying to turn them into a slave. Trick them, and they know you are when you're a lazy corrupt asshole in a nice house who can afford it because you "rent" property to others and do other "sure" things to stay ahead.

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
  •