At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2014, 07:14 PM
At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
Ooooo! Lookit what I found in the sandbox. Well, I guess that settles that. So, moving on to a promised "coherent" definition of "god" ... or continued giddy throwing up handfuls of sand ...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
19-06-2014, 07:21 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 07:14 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Ooooo! Lookit what I found in the sandbox. Well, I guess that settles that. So, moving on to a promised "coherent" definition of "god" ... or continued giddy throwing up handfuls of sand ...

Ummm... That's not a sandbox, it's a litter box. You might want to wash your hands.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 07:49 PM
At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
See what I mean, Stevil? Snark, just as I predicted. A snide insult at the calibre of our intellect to discern fact from fancy. From one who apparently believes an actual resurrection took place, among other fanciful folk tales obviously impossible in most of their particulars.

It is not the atheist who needs instruction discerning what's fiction in the bible. What matters is by what basis does the believer distinguish between literalism and metaphor? See the title of this thread.

Across the full landscape of so-called christianity there is no consistency of distinction. As all these squabbling "christians" work overtime to impose themselves and their beliefs into society at large, society at large can justifiably ask: WHAT are you basing your beliefs ON? They can't be based on the bible because you're in disagreement on that document. OTHER sources of knowledge are being brought to bear. WHAT are they?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Airportkid's post
19-06-2014, 09:01 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 06:59 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  No one here actually thinks that Jesus intended for His followers to gouge their eyes out or to take a saw and saw off their hands if the aforementioned caused them to sin.
The vast majority of people here either don't think that Jesus actually existed or don't know Jesus well enough to say whether he would or wouldn't tell people to gouge their eyes out.

But you think Jesus is god and you think god is Jesus

So my question to you. Why do you think the god was literal when it told Abraham to to kill his son but only hyperbole when he told his followers to gouge eyes out?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 09:06 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 07:49 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  It is not the atheist who needs instruction discerning what's fiction in the bible. What matters is by what basis does the believer distinguish between literalism and metaphor? See the title of this thread.
I think the basis of the believer (the ones that attend church) is what they are instructed to believe by their church leader. It's a "Whatever he said" type scenario.

For those that don't attend church it probably harks back to the time that they did, or else it is what their mum and dad taught them, or what their love partner taught them.
It always boils down to some authority figure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 09:09 PM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 09:56 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 07:21 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 07:14 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Ooooo! Lookit what I found in the sandbox. Well, I guess that settles that. So, moving on to a promised "coherent" definition of "god" ... or continued giddy throwing up handfuls of sand ...

Ummm... That's not a sandbox, it's a litter box. You might want to wash your hands.

Those are indeed interesting, (thanks for the link ... I didn't know it had been written about so extensively), but those are not my objections at all. I don't actually disagree with them, but my objections are threefold (at least .. although I don't even think about it anymore), :

a. All descriptors are temporally related (and/or invoke Special Pleading), and are meaningless without spacetime, and no one has ever gotten around this.

b. (Except for American Fundamentalism, which is WAY outside the "norm" of European Liberal Christianity, even though they have no clue what that even means), the greats such as Pierre Teillard de Chardin, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and even Paul Tillich, (American) agree with Bernard of Clairvaux and John of the Cross, (ie Christian contemplative mysticism, "dark night of the soul" etc.), (and hoc, and Girly Tongue ) , and the unknown writer of "The Cloud of Unknowing", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing , and Eastern Tao Mysticism, that they all end up in the same place, as a practical matter, as agnostic atheism, so what's the big deal ?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer : "Christian apologetics has taken the most varying forms of opposition to this self-assurance. Efforts are made to prove to a world thus come of age that it cannot live without the tutelage of "God." Even though there has been surrender on all secular problems, there still remain the so-called ultimate questions --death, guilt -- on which only "God" can furnish an answer, and which are the reason why God and the Church and the pastor are needed." (they serve a purpose, not they "are true"), and his "religionless Christianity" ("the god who is with us is the god who forsakes us" ... "Letters and Papers From Prison" ... I think he ended up a "practical atheist", as did Barth). Germey has told us it "serves a purpose" for him.

c. every attempt as a description is limiting, which in itself is self-refuting. The only exception to this would be if a deity would be labeled "Reality", and that is not in any way helpful. Anything less than that implies a structure in Reality to which is (necessarily) is subject.

d. I know too much about the ancient Near East EVER to take those religions seriously, (but that's pretty much incidental at this point).

So there. Drinking Beverage

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-06-2014, 09:47 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 09:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 07:21 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  Ummm... That's not a sandbox, it's a litter box. You might want to wash your hands.

Those are indeed interesting, (thanks for the link ... I didn't know it had been written about so extensively), but those are not my objections at all. I don't actually disagree with them, but my objections are threefold (at least .. although I don't even think about it anymore), :

a. All descriptors are temporally related (and/or invoke Special Pleading), and are meaningless without spacetime, and no one has ever gotten around this.

b. (Except for American Fundamentalism, which is WAY outside the "norm" of European Liberal Christianity, even though they have no clue what that even means), the greats such as Pierre Teillard de Chardin, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and even Paul Tillich agree with Bernard of Clairvaux and John of the Cross, (ie Christian contemplative mysticism, "dark night of the soul" etc.), (and hoc, and Girly Tongue ) , and the unknown writer of "The Cloud of Unknowing", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing , and Eastern Tao Mysticism, that they all end up in the same place, as a practical matter, as agnostic atheism, so what's the big deal ?

c. every attempt as a description is limiting, which in itself is self-refuting. The only exception to this would be if a deity would be labeled "Reality", and that is not in any way helpful. Anything less than that implies a structure in Reality to which is (necessarily) is subject.

d. I know too much about the ancient Near East EVER to take those religions seriously, (but that's pretty much incidental at this point).

So there. Drinking Beverage

I love how Jermy strawmans everyone with claims that we hold to vague and obscure positions that we don't hold. Not the first time he's pulled this shit by a long shot.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: