Fill in the blank

[Cartoonist]

The Bible story of ______ shouldn't be taken literally.

Even the most sincere Catholic here actually said this about the story of Noah. Are there any other stories that shouldn't be taken literally? If so, then why should any part of the Bible be taken literally?

[whatthehey]

1. Come now - there's an easy algorithm for this...

[trotsky]

4. That sums it up pretty well. n/t

[stone space]

23. The right half of that chart is interesting.

Should we say that something is metaphorical simply because we don't want to do it ourselves?

Beating swords into Plowshares can result in decades long prison sentences, which can provide a strong incentives for folks not to do it.

By the logic of the right half of that chart, that would mean that prophesies regarding the beating of swords into plowshares found in Isaiah 2:4 were not meant to be literally carried out in real life.

Are all those folks who take it literally and who actually go out and beat swords into plowshares getting it wrong?

That's what the right half of that chart suggests to me.

And if so, this invalidates 50% of that chart, IMNSHO.

[trotsky]

28. What's the rule?

You seem to be saying that the rule is "If I like what it says, it should be taken literally." Is that the rule?

[stone space]

34. Huh? What rule? I merely observed that the right half of that chart was invalid.

Last edited Mon Oct 10, 2016, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you really need rules to notice that?

Seriously???

[trotsky]

40. Answer the question.

No games. No smileys. Answer the question.

Refusal to do so will be understood as an admission of defeat.

[stone space]

42. I don't know anything about your rules, except that you appear obsessed with them.

Answer the question.

No games. No smileys. Answer the question.

Refusal to do so will be understood as an admission of defeat.

Is this some kind of weird diversion?

[trotsky]

43. Thanks for the admission.

Have a great day.

[stone space]

44. What "admission"?

Thanks for the admission.

I don't see any admission.

Are you ok?

[opiate69]

53. Out of curiousity,

why would beating swords into plowshares "result in decades long prison sentences"?

[rug]

54. The state protects its monopoly on violence.

https://transformnowplowshares.wordpress.com//?s=prison+sentences

[Brettongarcia]

18. Great diagram. Got a link?

[stone space]

2. Isaiah 2:4 should be taken literally.

If so, then why should any part of the Bible be taken literally?

[trotsky]

5. Someone's going to judge between nations?

Who?

[struggle4progress]

10. Quelle horreur!

Whatever would become of us, if we beat our swords into plowshares and studied war no more?

[Goblinmonger]

12. That's not the point of the discussion.

There are warring parts of the Bible, too. Why should we ignore those?

[struggle4progress]

15. The discussion may have no point, other than to spin in well-worn circles

But I wouldn't object to meeting Isaiah, despite his odd expectations

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together. And a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

[Brettongarcia]

19. So is religion the wolf?

[stone space]

22. The question was asked in the religion forum on a Democratic board.

That's not the point of the discussion.

There are warring parts of the Bible, too. Why should we ignore those?

To the extent that pro-war Democrats decide to weigh in on this discussion, those other verses you refer to will be addressed, I'm sure.

But as a Pacifist atheist, I don't consider it my job to do defend Bible verses cherry picked by pro-war Democrats, any more than I would consider it my job to defend the gundamentalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

I'm quite capable of picking out some good cherries on my own, thank you.

[Goblinmonger]

27. Seems that the point of the OP is lost on you

It's about the realization that people do, in fact, cherry pick what they like and ignore the rest. Which puts a great deal of tension on using the Bible as a source of any authority.

Is the plowshares line cool? (aside: the M:TG card for it was used quite a bit by me) Yes. Of course. But realizing it comes from the same book that gleefully talks about genocide and cutting of the foreskins of your enemies makes it have less of an impact. I mean, I'm sure Charles Manson said some cool stuff along the way.

[stone space]

39. Huh? Did the OP have a point? I just answered a question.

Seems that the point of the OP is lost on you

I took the OP as asking questions in good faith and did my best to answer one of them.

I'm sorry if my answer proved embarrassing to whatever point was being made. That wasn't my intention.

If one doesn't want answers, then one might be better advised not to ask questions.

[Goblinmonger]

11. So your argument would be, then, that warring parts of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally.

Why? What makes your choice a literal part and the "go kill the bastards" part not literal?

[stone space]

20. If I tell you that I believe in the 1st Amendment's guarentee of Freedom of Religion, will you...

...immediately change the subject to how I feel about the 2nd Amendment?

So your argument would be, then, that warring parts of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally.

Why? What makes your choice a literal part and the "go kill the bastards" part not literal?

You can put me down as "opposed", but I'm not sure that I understand your point in asking.

Is there a rule of logic somewhere requiring that I not cherry pick my favorite constitutional amendments and bible verses?

[trotsky]

29. What does it mean to "guarantee" the freedom of religion?

Does it mean corporations and other employers can refuse to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage to their employees?

Does it mean people can refuse to provide access to their services based on customers' sexual orientation or marital status?

Why or why not?

[Wednesdays]

3. Fallacy.

Wingnuts lambasted Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" because it had a few false points. In other words, dump the entire film because it's only 98% true.

Same thing here. It could very well be each book of the Bible could not be taken literally, but because certain books cannot be taken literally is not proof that the rest of the Bible should be treated as such.

Edit: I'd also argue the flip side: if one part of the Bible is to be taken literally, does not mean that the entire Bible is to be taken literally.

[whatthehey]

6. So tell us how to tell the difference, with examples please

I already know the answer, but your version could be interesting especially if you really think that 98% true bit is the "same here"...

[stone space]

24. I gave an example in post #2.

I'd have difficult finding any document of any significant length that I agree with 98% of the time, however...lol

[trotsky]

7. No, the challenge here is to explain why certain parts SHOULD be taken literally...

and other parts shouldn't. What's the rule?

[stone space]

21. What "rule" is required to believe that swords should be beaten into plowshares?

No, the challenge here is to explain why certain parts SHOULD be taken literally...

and other parts shouldn't. What's the rule?

Do you want folks to point to the 5th Commandment or something?

Why does one need a rule to make such judgments?

[trotsky]

30. See post #28. n/t

[stone space]

37. Why? Post #28 has nothing to do with this post.

See post #28. n/t

And oddly enough, it has nothing to do with the post that it was in reply to, either.

This is weird. I'm not sure what to make of it.

[NeoGreen]

8. Who has ever claimed that...

... Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" is the unerring word of an omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent being that should be followed as the best moral guide for human behavior?

[struggle4progress]

9. What a dull discussion topic for a progressive board!

Biblical literalists and fans of "Biblical inerrancy" are in quite short supply here: what can be found, instead, are some people who might find the old Hebrew and Christian texts deserving of some serious examination, from various perspectives and for various reasons

Of course, those -- who are interested only in recirculating some rather predictable pre-packaged snark -- can always attempt to squeeze any conversation into a given mold (rather as Procrustes, in the myth, always adjusted the length of his guest to fit the length of the available bed), but that approach is uninformative, unimaginative, and uninteresting -- partly because the snark is often so obvious that it was already available a thousand years ago or more

[Brettongarcia]

13. You've said 100 times religion doesn't cause violence

That people just do what they were going to do anyway.

But if religion doesn't effect our behavior, then it doesn't help them do good things either.

[struggle4progress]

14. I do sometimes wonder if trolls have a special tendency to put words in the mouths of others

[Brettongarcia]

17. Feel free to clarify what you said earlier, 100 times

[cleanhippie]

16. This makes believers heads explode.

[stone space]

25. Actually, I haven't seen any evidence of that here.

[Iggo]

26. "...anything..."

[rug]

31. Do you think this should be taken literally?

We are now in the 21st century: all books, including the Koran, should be fair game for flushing down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal.

-Sam Harris (10 October 2005). "Bombing Our Illusions". The Huffington Post

Do you support flushing books down the toilet that you don't like (not that it's likely you would ever advocate burning them.)

I am bemused by people who exhibit such difficulty in reading, in determining when something is literal and when something is not. It's as if some great griphold on a world view is at risk if someone can easily tell the difference when reading words.

[Brettongarcia]

32. So thou, Rug, can easily differentiate?

[rug]

33. Yes, along with most of the world.

[Brettongarcia]

35. Test: literal or metaphorical?

1)Created the universe in six days

2) will beat swords into ploughshares

3) Jesus resurrected

4) Walked on water

5) God saves our lives

6) the host is the body of Jesus

7) Give to Caesar what is his

[rug]

36. 1) M

2) M

3) L

4) Unclear

5) Inept statement

6) L

Here's the real test, for you. Can you determine why those are the answers?

[Brettongarcia]

38. The Church told us? But the other churches say different

For some the six day creation is literal, for instance.

And the host is only symbolically the body of Jesus.

[rug]

41. Not quite.

In determining whether to accept an unprovable claim, it must first be determined whether or not the particular claim is essential or not.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#SubEss

If it is not essential, whether it is literal truth is mildly interesting but unnecessary.

The second test is whether the particular claim is consistent with other essential claims.

http://logic.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/tutorial1/tut1-01.htm

So, pointing fingers at talking snakes really does not to debunk whether there are such things as good or evil, knowledge or ignorance.

As to what other religions claim, the same intellectual tests should apply, even if they have starkly different beliefs. This is all abot the reasonableness of faith(s), not about the proof of faith(s).

[Brettongarcia]

45. Churches define what's metaphorical

Often. Or what's essential. And the problem there is they differ on both subjects.

Some of the decisions are pretty tough. For example: did Jesus and God promise to help us with physical things, at times? Like literal, physical, "bread"? Or just with spiritual "bread"; say the nourishment of our spirit, with the conceptual "bread" of their allegedly saving ethical precepts.

When the churches come up with different answers for each, that is a problem. Since now we have very different, contradictory versions of what is most important in Christianity.

[rug]

46. I fear that view will leave you confused about anything outside the periodic table.

[Brettongarcia]

47. So Christianity is radically uncertain.

Like most of life.

[rug]

48. Without a doubt.

"we walk by faith not by sight."

[Brettongarcia]

49. Except the Periodic Table

[rug]

50. .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#Open_questions_and_controversies

[Brettongarcia]

51. All things are questionable. But?

Some things are very, very highly questionable. Religion especially.

[rug]

52. I put religion squarely in the middle of what is questionable.

[uriel1972]

55. so honesty is not important...

or consistency either. Hmmm

[rug]

56. They are quite important. Irrational inferences, however, are not.

[uriel1972]

57. I quote...

If it is not essential, whether it is literal truth is mildly interesting but unnecessary.

So, honesty is not important?

[rug]

58. It says nothing about either deception or honesty. That is the irrational inference.

You are are not alone in seeing allegory or metaphor is an act of deception.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/02/17/richard-dawkins-speaks-about-the-problem-with-metaphors/

I quote...

This is all about the reasonableness of faith(s), not about the proof of faith(s).