Yet more problematic stuff

[Forty Two]

literalists are by definition, taking up the bible literally.
people to take the babble figuratively are, by definition, not literalists.

Indeed, I know that. You know that. But the people who call themselves literalists, in fact, don't take the Bible literally literally - they take the bible figuratively literally.

It's kind of like when someone, in a secular context, says that "he literally dropped a bomb at the party last night..." The person didn't literally drop a bomb -- the person isn't using the word literally literally. what they really mean is that it's "really really" something that happened - it's more of an emphasis.

Biblical literalists don't mean that a person really is made of salt, when he is salt of the Earth. What they mean is that the words in the Bible are really, really true - God breathed words - and there is no way they are not "true." Again, they confuse "literal" and "true."

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Something along these lines maybe?



Almost 1 in 4 is a significant number, even if the trend is hopeful.

My post had nothing to do with whether people who say they believe the bible is "literally" true constitute a majority or a minority or any given portion of the total.

Can you explain why you think your post rebuts mine? This is important - because my post is not unclear - it relates not to the percentage of believers who are literalists. It has to do with what most idiot god botherers who claim to be literalists actually believe. People who say the Bible is cover to cover the "literal" truth, quite simply, CANNOT be using that word properly. One cannot read the Song of Solomon literally - it's fucking poetry. Like - "How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes are doves." -- If someone were really taking that "literally" then the beautiful women would have actual birds for eyes. That would be literal. But it's not literal. It's figurative.

The import of that is that a person who says they think the Bible is LITERALLY true, but reads that and understands that the woman's eyes are not birds, MUST (a) be stupid, and think that the idea of a beatiful woman's eyes being doves is "literal," or (b) must think of "literal truth" as meaning something different.

In my experience, most people will say that, of course the woman's eyes aren't literally doves, but they still take the bible as the literal word of god.

It's one of those things that is unexplainable - where people are emotionally driven to a given side or point of view - it doesn't matter of there are metaphors, and similes, allusions and allegories, parables and and sayings and poems all over the Bible - all those literary devices are somehow "literally true."

I guess with their god, everything is possible.

It's interesting to contemplate, I think. Because they really do have that feature -- like a child who can both believe in Santa Clause, and know he's not really really. He's real, but not really real. That kind of thing. People are fucked up.

[Joe]

literalists are by definition, taking up the bible literally.
people to take the babble figuratively are, by definition, not literalists.

Indeed, I know that. You know that. But the people who call themselves literalists, in fact, don't take the Bible literally literally - they take the bible figuratively literally.

It's kind of like when someone, in a secular context, says that "he literally dropped a bomb at the party last night..." The person didn't literally drop a bomb -- the person isn't using the word literally literally. what they really mean is that it's "really really" something that happened - it's more of an emphasis.

Biblical literalists don't mean that a person really is made of salt, when he is salt of the Earth. What they mean is that the words in the Bible are really, really true - God breathed words - and there is no way they are not "true." Again, they confuse "literal" and "true."

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Something along these lines maybe?



Almost 1 in 4 is a significant number, even if the trend is hopeful.

My post had nothing to do with whether people who say they believe the bible is "literally" true constitute a majority or a minority or any given portion of the total.

Can you explain why you think your post rebuts mine? This is important - because my post is not unclear - it relates not to the percentage of believers who are literalists. It has to do with what most idiot god botherers who claim to be literalists actually believe. People who say the Bible is cover to cover the "literal" truth, quite simply, CANNOT be using that word properly. One cannot read the Song of Solomon literally - it's fucking poetry. Like - "How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes are doves." -- If someone were really taking that "literally" then the beautiful women would have actual birds for eyes. That would be literal. But it's not literal. It's figurative.

The import of that is that a person who says they think the Bible is LITERALLY true, but reads that and understands that the woman's eyes are not birds, MUST (a) be stupid, and think that the idea of a beatiful woman's eyes being doves is "literal," or (b) must think of "literal truth" as meaning something different.

In my experience, most people will say that, of course the woman's eyes aren't literally doves, but they still take the bible as the literal word of god.

It's one of those things that is unexplainable - where people are emotionally driven to a given side or point of view - it doesn't matter of there are metaphors, and similes, allusions and allegories, parables and and sayings and poems all over the Bible - all those literary devices are somehow "literally true."

I guess with their god, everything is possible.

It's interesting to contemplate, I think. Because they really do have that feature -- like a child who can both believe in Santa Clause, and know he's not really really. He's real, but not really real. That kind of thing. People are fucked up.

My post doesn't rebut yours, it illustrates what I'm asking for - evidence to support an assertion. You made a sweeping claim about 24% of the US population - that they "CANNOT" believe the bible is the literal truth - based on what exactly?

Faith?

Because we both know argument from incredulity is fallacious reasoning, right?

[Brian Peacock]

Dang. And there was I hoping we'd find what it actually means for someone to take the Bible 'figuratively literally'. Now we'll never know.

[Seabass]

Dang. And there was I hoping we'd find what it actually means for someone to take the Bible 'figuratively literally'. Now we'll never know.

Maybe it's like "fresh frozen"?

[Joe]

Dang. And there was I hoping we'd find what it actually means for someone to take the Bible 'figuratively literally'. Now we'll never know.

I guess we'll have to seek the answer in prayer...

[JimC]

Whether they take every single sentence as literal does not matter, because they take a significant chunk of fantasy as reality, particularly the whole creation 6000 years ago nonsense...

[laklak]

Even more of 'em buy into the whole savior schtick.

[Sean Hayden]

3:16

[L'Emmerdeur]

We could look at what biblical literalists themselves say, I suppose.

Biblical literalism is the method of interpreting Scripture that holds that, except in places where the text is obviously allegorical, poetic, or figurative, it should be taken literally. Biblical literalism is the position of most evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists. ...

Biblical literalism goes hand-in-hand with regarding the Word of God as inerrant and inspired. If we believe in the doctrine of biblical inspiration—that the books of the Bible were written by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21) to the extent that everything they wrote was exactly what God wanted to say—then a belief in biblical literalism is simply an acknowledgement that God wants to communicate to us via human language. The rules of human language then become the rules of interpreting Scripture. Words have objective meaning, and God has spoken through words.

[Joe]

You mean define the terms we're using?

Blasphemy!

[pErvinalia]

literalists are by definition, taking up the bible literally.
people to take the babble figuratively are, by definition, not literalists.

Indeed, I know that. You know that. But the people who call themselves literalists, in fact, don't take the Bible literally literally - they take the bible figuratively literally.

It's kind of like when someone, in a secular context, says that "he literally dropped a bomb at the party last night..." The person didn't literally drop a bomb -- the person isn't using the word literally literally. what they really mean is that it's "really really" something that happened - it's more of an emphasis.

Biblical literalists don't mean that a person really is made of salt, when he is salt of the Earth. What they mean is that the words in the Bible are really, really true - God breathed words - and there is no way they are not "true." Again, they confuse "literal" and "true."

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Something along these lines maybe?



Almost 1 in 4 is a significant number, even if the trend is hopeful.

My post had nothing to do with whether people who say they believe the bible is "literally" true constitute a majority or a minority or any given portion of the total.

Can you explain why you think your post rebuts mine? This is important - because my post is not unclear - it relates not to the percentage of believers who are literalists. It has to do with what most idiot god botherers who claim to be literalists actually believe.

Ahh the no-true-bible-literalist fallacy..

[rainbow]

I am not conservative or right wing - I'm classical liberal and tend to the libertarian - and I am liberal on most issues.

Drivel. Liberal implies a tolerance of other views and creeds. That includes Islam.

It is really a twatty thing to do to contradict oneself.

Camille Desmoulins, a famous revolutionary, once said "there must be no freedom for the foes of freedom". Islam, especially in its modern, totalitarian forms, will not grant others the tolerance that liberal thinkers normally grant those of diverging opinions, ergo, it must be expunged rather than tolerated.

I've enjoyed a number of meals with Muslim friends where I've enjoyed a glass of good red wine. So far I've not been beheaded for doing so.

maybe muslims are less fanatical where they are not a minority? because in the West, where their cuntcuLture is not an integral part of the local history, they are a lot more severe on sharia and its application, and demanding it be included in the Law of the Land... me, I'd cast the whole lot back to the other side of the Mediterranean, and check every one's situation case by case if they try to come back.

Go to Morocco, majority Muslim and not that fanatical.
They have few extremists.
French influence I suppose?

[pErvinalia]

Indonesian Muslims are the best Muslims (because they were a Dutch colony).

[Svartalf]

Dang. And there was I hoping we'd find what it actually means for someone to take the Bible 'figuratively literally'. Now we'll never know.

I guess we'll have to seek the answer in prayer...

actually, prayer, as a form of meditation, can have its uses... it's calming and I used to do it to help with my asthma fits back when I was not taking an efficient medical treatment.. did not really work on the very worst fits though, but moderated some of them, and that was heaven.

[Scot Dutchy]

Go to Morocco, majority Muslim and not that fanatical.
They have few extremists.
French influence I suppose?

Here the most fanatical are those from the Rift Valley in the North. The rest are very easy going. I had a good drinking mate in Utrecht who was a Moroccan but from the south. They despised the people from the North. Just takers not workers.