Hey, when was Eve named?

[Politesse]

This has been a fascinating discussion, and I have to agree that based on the christians I know and have known all my life, their core beliefs come from literal readings. Agreed, many, if not all of them, do now have the knowledge of how translation and history has affected the presentations of those teachings they take as "gospel."

Jesus was an actual person who died so we could go to heaven because of what Eve did in the Garden of Eden. Our suffering in this world is caused by Eve and Adam disobeying god in that garden. The serpent is the devil. The angels announced Jesus's birth. Jesus ascended into heaven. Jesus performed literal miracles. Heaven is real. Hell is real. I could go on like this for pages and pages and pages. There is no allegorical or metaphorical association with any of these facts of their christian beliefs.

The great majority of those christians would not even know what those words mean, and if they did those words would certainly not apply to these literal facts about their religion. Their beliefs are not academic discussions but factual claims, without which they would have no reason to be christians.

I still don't understand how any of that is "literal".

Being accustomed to accept a certain allegorical reading as opposed to another is not the same thing as "literal".

If there is no verse that says "And the serpent was the Devil", then the phrase "the serpent was the devil" cannot possibly be a literal reading.

From Wikipedia:

Literal usage confers meaning to words, in the sense of the meaning they have by themselves, outside any figure of speech.[2] It maintains a consistent meaning regardless of the context,[3] with the intended meaning corresponding exactly to the meaning of the individual words.

Unless everyone pictures a devil every time the word "serpent" comes up, regardless of context, then "the devil" is not the literal meaning of "the serpent". It would be a metaphor even if it occurred in the text, unless the devil is always a serpent in form. But especially since the text itself doesn't say a blessed word about the devil, how can that possibly be a literal reading of the text?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Poli,

Suffice to say the christians I referred to in that post would not even know what you are talking about. Some might understand a conversation about a "higher power," but that's the end.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I could go on like this for pages and pages and pages.

And don't forget, God helps those who help themselves; cleanliness is next to godliness; hare the sin, not the sinner; and money is the root of all evil.

 

[Politesse]

Poli,

Suffice to say the christians I referred to in that post would not even know what you are talking about. Some might understand a conversation about a "higher power," but that's the end.

Them being dumb doesn't change what the term "literal reading" means; they did not create it and don't own it.

- - - Updated - - -

And don't forget, God helps those who help themselves; cleanliness is next to godliness; hare the sin, not the sinner; and money is the root of all evil.

Ah, the man gets it.

 

[DBT]

The Serpent in the Garden of Eden only became Satan, the Devil, etc, in New Testament times. These being Christian ideas. Judaism has a different belief on the role of Satan.

 

[Politesse]

The Serpent in the Garden of Eden only became Satan, the Devil, etc, in New Testament times. These being Christian ideas. Judaism has a different belief on the role of Satan.

So... not literal. Yes?

 

[DBT]

The Serpent in the Garden of Eden only became Satan, the Devil, etc, in New Testament times. These being Christian ideas. Judaism has a different belief on the role of Satan.

So... not literal. Yes?

What did the Israelite's believe? What did the early Christians believe?

 

[Politesse]

The Serpent in the Garden of Eden only became Satan, the Devil, etc, in New Testament times. These being Christian ideas. Judaism has a different belief on the role of Satan.

So... not literal. Yes?

What did the Israelite's believe? What did the early Christians believe?

What they believed should be irrelevant to a question of literal meaning. Literal meaning is that which is true regardless of context or readership.

It is the case that the ancient Israelites were not much concerned about the not-yet-invented devil; the comparable bogeymen of their religious perspective were competing gods such as Baal and Dagon, and troublesome animist spirits like Lilith and Tiamat.

Early Christians seem to have been strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism, and were talking about a perilous anti-
God from very early onward, a mythical force of evil that eventually merged with the "antichrist" of early Gnostic literature.

 

[DBT]

What did the Israelite's believe? What did the early Christians believe?

What they believed should be irrelevant to a question of literal meaning. Literal meaning is that which is true regardless of context or readership.

Meaning and objective reality may be two different things. Meaning is something that is a constructed by thought, influenced by culture and belief. What is objectively true or objectively real is true and real regardless of perception and belief.

It is the case that the ancient Israelites were not much concerned about the not-yet-invented devil; the comparable bogeymen of their religious perspective were competing gods such as Baal and Dagon, and troublesome animist spirits like Lilith and Tiamat.

Early Christians seem to have been strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism, and were talking about a perilous anti-
God from very early onward, a mythical force of evil that eventually merged with the "antichrist" of early Gnostic literature.

Yes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Them being dumb doesn't change what the term "literal reading" means; they did not create it and don't own it.

Then what do you call it? They say Jesus came back to life and then flew away up into the sky, to heaven. They believe that their god made the Garden of Eden and that Adam and Eve were the first humans. What do you call how they believe if not "literal?"

 

[Politesse]

Them being dumb doesn't change what the term "literal reading" means; they did not create it and don't own it.

Then what do you call it? They say Jesus came back to life and then flew away up into the sky, to heaven. They believe that their god made the Garden of Eden and that Adam and Eve were the first humans. What do you call how they believe if not "literal?"

You mean, when you describe their beliefs as "literal" you don't mean "they read the Bible in a literal fashion", but more something along the lines of "they really believe all the things they say"?

- - - Updated - - -

Meaning and objective reality may be two different things. Meaning is something that is a constructed by thought, influenced by culture and belief. What is objectively true or objectively real is true and real regardless of perception and belief.

Sure. This is only a problem if you insist (foolishly, in my opinion) that all of your beliefs are objectively true and not subject to the influence of your time and culture.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You mean, when you describe their beliefs as "literal" you don't mean "they read the Bible in a literal fashion", but more something along the lines of "they really believe all the things they say"?

Are you perhaps a lawyer or a politician, or perhaps both?

They don't think of themselves as literalists because they don't know the word. They believe Jesus came back to life because that's what happened in their texts, their gospels. This is their religious belief. They don't indulge additional meaning with these stories anymore than they do with eating a hamburger.

 

[Politesse]

You mean, when you describe their beliefs as "literal" you don't mean "they read the Bible in a literal fashion", but more something along the lines of "they really believe all the things they say"?

Are you perhaps a lawyer or a politician, or perhaps both?

They don't think of themselves as literalists because they don't know the word. They believe Jesus came back to life because that's what happened in their texts, their gospels. This is their religious belief. They don't indulge additional meaning with these stories anymore than they do with eating a hamburger.

Well, I'll grant you that. But it's got nothing to do with the book we are supposedly analyzing.

 

[DBT]

You mean, when you describe their beliefs as "literal" you don't mean "they read the Bible in a literal fashion", but more something along the lines of "they really believe all the things they say"?

If they really believed the things they said and wrote, their belief in these things is/was literal, they literally believed in Creation by God, etc. Which does not mean that the things they believed, Creation by God, etc, are themselves literally true.

Sure. This is only a problem if you insist (foolishly, in my opinion) that all of your beliefs are objectively true and not subject to the influence of your time and culture.

You appear to confusing the literal fact of belief - that someone genuinely believes something - with the article of their belief, the existence of a God, special Creation, etc, which may be literally a work of fiction. A genuine belief in a non existent, non literal entity

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You mean, when you describe their beliefs as "literal" you don't mean "they read the Bible in a literal fashion", but more something along the lines of "they really believe all the things they say"?

Both. Woke up this morning with a clearer head!

Their beliefs are very child like when it comes to these religious claims and convictions. They believe in the same way a child believes Santa is real or the Tooth Fairy is real. It's been read to them that Adam and Eve were created by god in a Garden, disobeyed god and were thrown out, and so we all have original sin which Jesus fixed by being born of a human mother, dying for us and then rising back to heaven.

A god actually had his son become a person, be sacrificed for us because that god loves us so much. It's as true as Moses miraculously parting the red sea, just like in the movie, very real, very literal.

 

[Politesse]

You mean, when you describe their beliefs as "literal" you don't mean "they read the Bible in a literal fashion", but more something along the lines of "they really believe all the things they say"?

If they really believed the things they said and wrote, their belief in these things is/was literal, they literally believed in Creation by God, etc. Which does not mean that the things they believed, Creation by God, etc, are themselves literally true.

Sure. This is only a problem if you insist (foolishly, in my opinion) that all of your beliefs are objectively true and not subject to the influence of your time and culture.

You appear to confusing the literal fact of belief - that someone genuinely believes something - with the article of their belief, the existence of a God, special Creation, etc, which may be literally a work of fiction. A genuine belief in a non existent, non literal entity

You appear to confusing the literal fact of belief - that someone genuinely believes something - with the article of their belief, the existence of a God, special Creation, etc, which may be literally a work of fiction. A genuine belief in a non existent, non literal entity

That is not what literalism actually means. We had been talking about the Genesis account, and what a "literal" reading of it in fact implies or does not imply. If you want to insist that "literalism", to these people, has everything to do with emotion and socialization and nothing to do with the book itself, you'll find no disagreement from me.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If they really believed the things they said and wrote, their belief in these things is/was literal, they literally believed in Creation by God, etc. Which does not mean that the things they believed, Creation by God, etc, are themselves literally true.



You appear to confusing the literal fact of belief - that someone genuinely believes something - with the article of their belief, the existence of a God, special Creation, etc, which may be literally a work of fiction. A genuine belief in a non existent, non literal entity

You appear to confusing the literal fact of belief - that someone genuinely believes something - with the article of their belief, the existence of a God, special Creation, etc, which may be literally a work of fiction. A genuine belief in a non existent, non literal entity

That is not what literalism actually means. We had been talking about the Genesis account, and what a "literal" reading of it in fact implies or does not imply. If you want to insist that "literalism", to these people, has everything to do with emotion and socialization and nothing to do with the book itself, you'll find no disagreement from me.

Literalism is to read something and understand it at its most basic. That does not, however, stop literalists from deciding what is and isn't figurative or metaphorical based on what they want the stories to say. If they want a miracle they'll have a miracle, even though miracles are not possible and therefore only literally possible.

Such is the nature of religion.

 

[Lion IRC]

It's quite possible to harmonise a literal and an allegorical understanding of Genesis.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Adam and Eve can literally be the first two actual humans who sinned as well as being a symbolic parable representing wider humanity.

satan could literally possess the body of a snake and communicate with a person who we can either sybolically call Adam or literally call Adam because that's his actual literal name.

 

[Politesse]

It's quite possible to harmonise a literal and an allegorical understanding of Genesis.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Adam and Eve can literally be the first two actual humans who sinned as well as being a symbolic parable representing wider humanity.

satan could literally possess the body of a snake and communicate with a person who we can either sybolically call Adam or literally call Adam because that's his actual literal name.

True! Augustine, whose works and teachings we are indirectly exploring in this thread, strongly believed that every passage of Scripture possessed literal, moral, and allegorical meaning that might be discussed separately but were not ultimately in conflict.

But then, Augustine and I seldom agree on things.

 

[DBT]

If they really believed the things they said and wrote, their belief in these things is/was literal, they literally believed in Creation by God, etc. Which does not mean that the things they believed, Creation by God, etc, are themselves literally true.



You appear to confusing the literal fact of belief - that someone genuinely believes something - with the article of their belief, the existence of a God, special Creation, etc, which may be literally a work of fiction. A genuine belief in a non existent, non literal entity

You appear to confusing the literal fact of belief - that someone genuinely believes something - with the article of their belief, the existence of a God, special Creation, etc, which may be literally a work of fiction. A genuine belief in a non existent, non literal entity

That is not what literalism actually means. We had been talking about the Genesis account, and what a "literal" reading of it in fact implies or does not imply. If you want to insist that "literalism", to these people, has everything to do with emotion and socialization and nothing to do with the book itself, you'll find no disagreement from me.

Something taken literally means that it is taken as described. So if what is written in the book of genesis is taken literally, the reader accepts its description of Creation as being how the World was Created literally, actually or objectively, ie, that this in how the Worldcame about. What the believer takes as being a literal account of Creation, an objective account, the way the World came about, is not necessarily true, not necessarily a literal account of how the World came about. All this being relative, the actual state of the believer (faith, desire, fear) and the actual state of the World, and how it came about.