Yet more problematic stuff

[Forty Two]

I once had faith, whose fault is it that I lost it?

The Moslems?

[Svartalf]

no, god never was with me, if there is a god, it is the root of all my misery. it never answered my prayers and showered me with bad stuff instead.

>It is Evil and unworthy of worship, period

[Joe]

Forty Two, your insistence on using your own definition of biblical literalist, when L'Emmerdeur pointed out the commonly accepted one, smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

That's almost exactly the kind of mindset I was mocking. They call themselves biblical literalists, which means we take things literally when the literature suggests that it's literal, but when things read figuratively, we don't take them literally. So we're literalists and the bible is literally true.

Moreover, since you can't provide evidence to support your sweeping generalizations about a large group of Americans, you're asking us to simply take your word that your description is accurate.

I haven't generalized - I've simply mocked the thought process behind defining that which is not "literal" as still being properly called "literal."

What's amazing is how Forty-Two-Derangement-Syndrome has apparently made it possible for the Ratz friendly rabid atheists to come to the defense of biblical literalists from my, I guess unusual or extreme and hard to accept, argument that when they say they believe the Bible is literally true, front to back, that they really don't actually believe that - or they pretend to - they're either stupid/uneducated or dishonest about it.

Time was that was a fairly mainstream atheist view. I guess not. Now I'm mischaracterizing them, or advancing a position without evidence. I guess that means the Biblical literalists make perfect sense, because, heck ,they define "taking the Bible literally" as "taking the literal parts literally, but not taking the non-literal parts literally." Ya got me!

"Forty-Two-Derangement-Syndrome"

I see you're resorting to ad hominems now. Pointing out flaws in your arguments and asking for evidence to back your assertions, as you do regularly, is now derangement and coming "to the defense of biblical literalists" it seems.

I wasn't trying to "get" you Forty Two, but if treating your claims like you treat the Steele dossier talk gets you, I accept your concession and thank you for the laugh.

[Forty Two]

That's one of the troubles with religion. It suggests an individual is important enough to god that there is an expectation that he will respond favorably to one's pleas. As it happens, god behaves generally as if he isn't there, so....

If you haven't seen it, check out the movie Tree of Life. View it at a time when you can sit through a complex and slow movie - maybe with your favorite mind-altering substance.

[JimC]

Opening our Federal and State parliaments with prayer is a historical hang-over. There is currently a push to remove it.

[Brian Peacock]

De Debel.

[Animavore]

White people problems.

[trdsf]

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.

Of course, what they don't provide -- and what doesn't exist -- is a reliable mechanism for deciding between the bits that are literal, and the bits that are allegorical, that all readers can agree on. Without that, as soon as one decides that any part of it is allegorical or figurative, there's no reason not to call any or even all of it allegorical or figurative.

It'd be hard enough to even get broad consensus on the "obviously" allegorical parts just among different literalists, much less all believers. I mean, I've encountered some that insisted that pi really did used to be exactly 3 rather than admit that their bible might have not been completely literal.

[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.

Of course, what they don't provide -- and what doesn't exist -- is a reliable mechanism for deciding between the bits that are literal, and the bits that are allegorical, that all readers can agree on. Without that, as soon as one decides that any part of it is allegorical or figurative, there's no reason not to call any or even all of it allegorical or figurative.

It'd be hard enough to even get broad consensus on the "obviously" allegorical parts just among different literalists, much less all believers. I mean, I've encountered some that insisted that pi really did used to be exactly 3 rather than admit that their bible might have not been completely literal.

Certainly there are disagreements over what is allegory, poetry, or figurative, but there are few if any biblical literalists who would claim that there is no allegory etc. in the Bible at all. I expect they do exist; humans are capable of accommodating a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance. However, it seems a foolish to claim that they aren't really biblical literalists if they make distinctions between the purported historical narrative in the Bible and the allegorical, poetic and figurative passages.

The passage from which an inaccurate result for pi can be derived appears to be neither allegorical, poetic, nor figurative though, which is indeed a problem with which biblical literalists have to contend.

[trdsf]

Certainly there are disagreements over what is allegory, poetry, or figurative, but there are few if any biblical literalists who would claim that there is no allegory etc. in the Bible at all. I expect they do exist; humans are capable of accommodating a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance. However, it seems a foolish to claim that they aren't really biblical literalists if they make distinctions between the purported historical narrative in the Bible and the allegorical, poetic and figurative passages.

The passage from which an inaccurate result for pi can be derived appears to be neither allegorical, poetic, nor figurative though, which is indeed a problem with which biblical literalists have to contend.

That's exactly the problem with any form of literalism short of absolute literalism, though -- no one can provide an incontrovertible and incontestible way to tell the literal from the allegorical. The absolute literalists are in a weird way more intellectually honest about their book than their interpretationist brothers and sisters.

I think there are really only two consistent positions a believer can take on the bible -- that it is literal and inerrant, or that it is allegorical with some historical bits that archaeologists can confirm. Anything else is almost by definition making the bible say what one wants it to.

[Seabass]

I'm sure there's nothing shady going on here. The Republicans would never manipulate the vote. But if they did cheat, I'm sure the Democrat party does it too, so who cares?

15 percent of young Parkland voters' ballots rejected, study shows
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/polit ... story.html

About 1 in 7 mail-in ballots submitted by college-age voters in Parkland was rejected or failed to arrive in time to be counted, according to a new analysis. The findings are adding to questions about the reliability and fairness of the Florida electoral system, including its ballot signature requirement that became a flash point in the November recount between U.S. Sen Rick Scott, R, and the Democrat he ousted from office, Bill Nelson.

[Brian Peacock]

Certainly there are disagreements over what is allegory, poetry, or figurative, but there are few if any biblical literalists who would claim that there is no allegory etc. in the Bible at all. I expect they do exist; humans are capable of accommodating a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance. However, it seems a foolish to claim that they aren't really biblical literalists if they make distinctions between the purported historical narrative in the Bible and the allegorical, poetic and figurative passages.

The passage from which an inaccurate result for pi can be derived appears to be neither allegorical, poetic, nor figurative though, which is indeed a problem with which biblical literalists have to contend.

That's exactly the problem with any form of literalism short of absolute literalism, though -- no one can provide an incontrovertible and incontestible way to tell the literal from the allegorical. The absolute literalists are in a weird way more intellectually honest about their book than their interpretationist brothers and sisters.

I think there are really only two consistent positions a believer can take on the bible -- that it is literal and inerrant, or that it is allegorical with some historical bits that archaeologists can confirm. Anything else is almost by definition making the bible say what one wants it to.

Again, I think we're getting bogged down in the irrelevant. It matters naught if the Bible is or is not literally true, or to what extent some people interpret some of it that way, or not, or whether the term 'literalist' is essentially descriptive or a marker of an identity etc. What matters is that fundamentalist Christians justify their ethics and actions by declaring the Bible literally true and inerrant - when it suits them - and as an appeal to authority that's pretty hard to counter because it self-authorises whatever crazy bit of flotsam drifts across the forebrain of the ardent believer: "Jesus teaches us to love thy neighbour as thyself - but we should also kill all fags and sodomites in order to save ourselves and to please the Lord!"

[Forty Two]

"Forty-Two-Derangement-Syndrome"

Yeah, it's a little weird when I can present an argument against Christian Creationists and the religious right - an argument that has been commonly advanced against the so-called "literalists" by the "New Atheists" for the last 15 or so years - and suddenly, it's something they feel the need to try to twist so they can oppose me. It's really amazing.

I see you're resorting to ad hominems now. Pointing out flaws in your arguments and asking for evidence to back your assertions, as you do regularly, is now derangement and coming "to the defense of biblical literalists" it seems.

No - telling me I argued something I did not argue, and then asking for proof of what I didn't argue - that's what they're doing.

My argument was, in short, that people who SAY they take the Bible "literally" don't -- in actual fact -- take the Bible literally, even if they sincerely think they do. I need no statistics for that, nor does it matter what percentage of religious people claim to be Biblical literalists. The point is made that there is no way to take the entire Bible as the "literal" truth. That's impossible, because so much of it is clearly not to be taken literally.

I wasn't trying to "get" you Forty Two, but if treating your claims like you treat the Steele dossier talk gets you, I accept your concession and thank you for the laugh.

At least get my "claims" right - instead, for some reason the issue of how big a percentage of the total number of Christians is actually claiming to be Biblical literalists. Not sure how that's an argument against mine.

Literalism - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/literalism?s=t adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense, as in translation or interpretation: eg to interpret the law with uncompromising literalism. Where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical" - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/literal?s=t

If someone wants to come to the defense of evangelical Christians and say that their so-called hermeneutical approach where they call themselves literalists, but that that doesn't mean they literally take everything literally, then fine. Because, that is the circle the Christian fundamentalists move around in, they SAY they take the Bible literally, but then they say that taking the Bible literally doesn't literally mean they take the Bible literally.

See how that works?

I'll agree that there is a strain of Christian fundamentalism that views "Biblical literalism" in the manner advanced by L'Emmerdeur - and that's the very problem I'm illustrating. They're saying that interpreting the Bible in its entirety "literally" doesn't mean that you don't recognize parable, poetry, metaphor, allusion, illusion, allegory, simile, and other figurative devices as meaning something other than their literal words.

The Christian fundamentalists use this as a means of cherrypicking the parts of the Bible that they want people to take literally. You'll find that they say, oh, yes, of course the Song of Solomon is mostly poetry and figurative language -- sure - we don't take theSong of Solomon "literally" in the sense of "literally," we take it literally in the sense of recognizing its figurative language. But, of course, the Book of Genesis, that we can plainly see was written as a literally literal account of what happened exactly as it happened. It can't possibly be an allegory or man's imperfect attempt to describe what he saw 3000 years ago, based on imperfect knowledge, and set forth as a mythical story used to provide an explanation for the then unknowable....

[Forty Two]

Certainly there are disagreements over what is allegory, poetry, or figurative, but there are few if any biblical literalists who would claim that there is no allegory etc. in the Bible at all. I expect they do exist; humans are capable of accommodating a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance. However, it seems a foolish to claim that they aren't really biblical literalists if they make distinctions between the purported historical narrative in the Bible and the allegorical, poetic and figurative passages.

The passage from which an inaccurate result for pi can be derived appears to be neither allegorical, poetic, nor figurative though, which is indeed a problem with which biblical literalists have to contend.

That's exactly the problem with any form of literalism short of absolute literalism, though -- no one can provide an incontrovertible and incontestible way to tell the literal from the allegorical. The absolute literalists are in a weird way more intellectually honest about their book than their interpretationist brothers and sisters.

I think there are really only two consistent positions a believer can take on the bible -- that it is literal and inerrant, or that it is allegorical with some historical bits that archaeologists can confirm. Anything else is almost by definition making the bible say what one wants it to.

Again, I think we're getting bogged down in the irrelevant. It matters naught if the Bible is or s not literally true, or to what extent some people interpret some of it that way, or not, or whether the term 'literalist' is essentially descriptive or a marker of an identity etc. What matters is that fundamentalist Christians justify their ethics and actions by declaring the Bible literally true and inerrant - when it suits them - and as an appeal to authority that's pretty hard to counter because it self-authorises whatever crazy bit of flotsam drifts across the forebrain of the ardent believer: "Jesus teaches us to love thy neighbour as thyself - but we should also kill all fags and sodomites in order to save ourselves and to please the Lord!"

Exactly. They don't "literally" love their enemies, do they? Or, do they? Hard to tell.

Ah, whatever happened to the heady days of the in depth discussions of religion, atheism, agnosticism, and the like. Somehow, every forum turned into AtheismPlus, even as atheism plus died Christ-like on the cross. Not literally, of course.

[Seabass]

Ah, whatever happened to the heady days of the in depth discussions of religion, atheism, agnosticism, and the like.

People get bored, I guess.

Somehow, every forum turned into AtheismPlus

Nah, that's just how things appear to people who identify with the alt-right/manosphere/MRA/Incel movement.