Hey, when was Eve named?

[Politesse]

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.

Sure. All this stuff about devils shaped like serpents, substitutionary atonement, and Jesus are not in the Genesis account, however, and certainly cannot be considered a literal reading of it. These things are allegories no matter how "literally" you try to read them.

 

[DBT]

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.

Sure. All this stuff about devils shaped like serpents, substitutionary atonement, and Jesus are not in the Genesis account, however, and certainly cannot be considered a literal reading of it. These things are allegories no matter how "literally" you try to read them.

The literal or objective existence of the things themselves - the article, Special Creation, Garden of Eden, etc, being distinguishable from what the writers believed about these things, a question of whether the writers intended a literal account of Creation, or whether readers over the centuries believed it to be a literal account of Creation - is not determined by either the writers or the readers or what they happen to believe.

 

[Politesse]

Sure. All this stuff about devils shaped like serpents, substitutionary atonement, and Jesus are not in the Genesis account, however, and certainly cannot be considered a literal reading of it. These things are allegories no matter how "literally" you try to read them.

The literal or objective existence of the things themselves - the article, Special Creation, Garden of Eden, etc, being distinguishable from what the writers believed about these things, a question of whether the writers intended a literal account of Creation, or whether readers over the centuries believed it to be a literal account of Creation - is not determined by either the writers or the readers or what they happen to believe.

Who would think it was ?

 

[DBT]

Sure. All this stuff about devils shaped like serpents, substitutionary atonement, and Jesus are not in the Genesis account, however, and certainly cannot be considered a literal reading of it. These things are allegories no matter how "literally" you try to read them.

The literal or objective existence of the things themselves - the article, Special Creation, Garden of Eden, etc, being distinguishable from what the writers believed about these things, a question of whether the writers intended a literal account of Creation, or whether readers over the centuries believed it to be a literal account of Creation - is not determined by either the writers or the readers or what they happen to believe.

Who would think it was ?

Believers do. Believers take the articles of their belief to be literal, a literal creation, literal garden of Eden, literal Angels, literal Satan, a literal God....things that they believe actually happened or exist, objective reality, like Stars and Planets.

 

[Politesse]

Who would think it was ?

Believers do. Believers take the articles of their belief to be literal, a literal creation, literal garden of Eden, literal Angels, literal Satan, a literal God....things that they believe actually happened or exist, objective reality, like Stars and Planets.

You are making a mishmash of unrelated claims. They don't believe those things because of literary context or authorial intent.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Who would think it was ?

Believers do. Believers take the articles of their belief to be literal, a literal creation, literal garden of Eden, literal Angels, literal Satan, a literal God....things that they believe actually happened or exist, objective reality, like Stars and Planets.

You are making a mishmash of unrelated claims. They don't believe those things because of literary context or authorial intent.

I personally know tens of dozens, which I safely assume are representative of the larger population. To them the Garden of Eden is as real as the moon in the sky. Making Eve from Adam's rib is as real as their kitchens. They certainly believe these things.

These things are literal truth like the moon and the chairs in their kitchens. It hardly matters the reasons they believe these things, or the unimportant things to them like literary intent. The Garden of Eden is a literal truth to them because they read it in their holy book.

If you would like to engage them in an academic discussion you won't get far. They understand and believe on the simplest terms, which is precisely what literal belief is.

 

[skepticalbip]

Who would think it was ?

Believers do. Believers take the articles of their belief to be literal, a literal creation, literal garden of Eden, literal Angels, literal Satan, a literal God....things that they believe actually happened or exist, objective reality, like Stars and Planets.

You are making a mishmash of unrelated claims. They don't believe those things because of literary context or authorial intent.

Arguments in this thread seems to be lost in the fallacy of composition. One Christian or group of Christians can not be taken to represent all Christians. There are people who are Christian who are involved in all aspects of the sciences and then there are some Christians who reject any science that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. 'Answers in Genesis' is a website by and for the later group. https://answersingenesis.org/

Then, of course, there are Christians spread throughout the wide chasm between these two extremes.

 

[Politesse]

When did "literal" come to mean, "believes really hard" rather than any correct definition of that term. Emotional commitment has nothing to do with literal vs. allegorical readings of a text. Obviously, given how stubbornly most atheists cling to literalism despite theoretically not having a dog in the ontological fight connected to that misguided hermeneutic. I don't oppose literalism because of what I do or don't believe about Jesus. I oppose it because it is a stupid way to read a book. Any book.

I don't have to "really truly believe" that Willm Shakespeare had sex with flowers in order to argue that his description of his love as a red rose was meant to be taken literally. I just have to be an idiot.

 

[skepticalbip]

When did "literal" come to mean, "believes really hard" rather than any correct definition of that term. Emotional commitment has nothing to do with literal vs. allegorical readings of a text. Obviously, given how stubbornly most atheists cling to literalism despite theoretically not having a dog in the ontological fight connected to that misguided hermeneutic. I don't oppose literalism because of what I do or don't believe about Jesus. I oppose it because it is a stupid way to read a book. Any book.

I don't have to "really truly believe" that Willm Shakespeare had sex with flowers in order to argue that his description of his love as a red rose was meant to be taken literally. I just have to be an idiot.

Literal means literal. There are some Christians who read the Bible literally. They read and accept that god made Adam from dust and Eve from one of Adam's ribs exactly as written. They read and accept that there was a worldwide flood and that Noah made an ark and gathered animals to repopulate the Earth after the flood subsided exactly as written. They read and accept that Noah lived to the age of 950 years old exactly as written etc. etc. They read the Bible as literal truth, exactly as written.

 

[Politesse]

When did "literal" come to mean, "believes really hard" rather than any correct definition of that term. Emotional commitment has nothing to do with literal vs. allegorical readings of a text. Obviously, given how stubbornly most atheists cling to literalism despite theoretically not having a dog in the ontological fight connected to that misguided hermeneutic. I don't oppose literalism because of what I do or don't believe about Jesus. I oppose it because it is a stupid way to read a book. Any book.

I don't have to "really truly believe" that Willm Shakespeare had sex with flowers in order to argue that his description of his love as a red rose was meant to be taken literally. I just have to be an idiot.

Literal means literal. There are some Christians who read the Bible literally. They read and accept that god made Adam from dust and Eve from one of Adam's ribs exactly as written. They read and accept that there was a worldwide flood and that Noah made an ark and gathered animals to repopulate the Earth after the flood subsided exactly as written. They read and accept that Noah lived to the age of 950 years old exactly as written etc. etc. They read the Bible as literal truth, exactly as written.

Yes. But several theologies that have been advanced as "literal" in this conversation, not because they are literally present in the text, but because people, apparently, believe them a whole lot.

 

[bilby]

When did "literal" come to mean, "believes really hard" rather than any correct definition of that term. Emotional commitment has nothing to do with literal vs. allegorical readings of a text. Obviously, given how stubbornly most atheists cling to literalism despite theoretically not having a dog in the ontological fight connected to that misguided hermeneutic. I don't oppose literalism because of what I do or don't believe about Jesus. I oppose it because it is a stupid way to read a book. Any book.

I don't have to "really truly believe" that Willm Shakespeare had sex with flowers in order to argue that his description of his love as a red rose was meant to be taken literally. I just have to be an idiot.

Literal means literal. There are some Christians who read the Bible literally. They read and accept that god made Adam from dust and Eve from one of Adam's ribs exactly as written. They read and accept that there was a worldwide flood and that Noah made an ark and gathered animals to repopulate the Earth after the flood subsided exactly as written. They read and accept that Noah lived to the age of 950 years old exactly as written etc. etc. They read the Bible as literal truth, exactly as written.

Yes. But several theologies that have been advanced as "literal" in this conversation, not because they are literally present in the text, but because people, apparently, believe them a whole lot.

A lot of people are believers in the literal truth of what some guy says is in the Bible. Not so much biblical literalism as hearsay literalism.

 

[DBT]

Who would think it was ?

Believers do. Believers take the articles of their belief to be literal, a literal creation, literal garden of Eden, literal Angels, literal Satan, a literal God....things that they believe actually happened or exist, objective reality, like Stars and Planets.

You are making a mishmash of unrelated claims. They don't believe those things because of literary context or authorial intent.

No, I am not. There are in fact people who take the bible literally, a literal creation, a literal God, etc. This is not my claim. I simply point to the fact that some people take these things literally. Taking the Flood story literally means the believer is convinced that an actual World flood happened as described in the Bible, Noah, the Ark, etc, believed to be actual, literal, objective History.

It is not something I claim, you can find examples quite readily, AiG, Creation.com, etc. Nor is this purely a modern trend.

 

[DBT]

When did "literal" come to mean, "believes really hard" rather than any correct definition of that term. Emotional commitment has nothing to do with literal vs. allegorical readings of a text. Obviously, given how stubbornly most atheists cling to literalism despite theoretically not having a dog in the ontological fight connected to that misguided hermeneutic. I don't oppose literalism because of what I do or don't believe about Jesus. I oppose it because it is a stupid way to read a book. Any book.

I don't have to "really truly believe" that Willm Shakespeare had sex with flowers in order to argue that his description of his love as a red rose was meant to be taken literally. I just have to be an idiot.

Literal means literal. There are some Christians who read the Bible literally. They read and accept that god made Adam from dust and Eve from one of Adam's ribs exactly as written. They read and accept that there was a worldwide flood and that Noah made an ark and gathered animals to repopulate the Earth after the flood subsided exactly as written. They read and accept that Noah lived to the age of 950 years old exactly as written etc. etc. They read the Bible as literal truth, exactly as written.

Yes. But several theologies that have been advanced as "literal" in this conversation, not because they are literally present in the text, but because people, apparently, believe them a whole lot.

What makes you think that the ancient writers of Genesis and the rest did not intend their account of Creation and the will of God to be literal? To be clear, this is not to say that there is no allegory or metaphor in the bible.

Did they not believe in the existence of a God? A Creator? Where they just like modern skeptics, simply writing allegories for the sake of identity and social cohesion? The Royal Lie?

What was the point?

 

[Politesse]

Yes. But several theologies that have been advanced as "literal" in this conversation, not because they are literally present in the text, but because people, apparently, believe them a whole lot.

What makes you think that the ancient writers of Genesis and the rest did not intend their account of Creation and the will of God to be literal? To be clear, this is not to say that there is no allegory or metaphor in the bible.

Did they not believe in the existence of a God? A Creator? Where they just like modern skeptics, simply writing allegories for the sake of identity and social cohesion? The Royal Lie?

What was the point?

If they did, then substitutionary atonement is bullshit. Serpents that are also devils, also bullshit. Figurative adams and eves standing in for all of their descendants are bullshit. Hell is bullshit. Because none of those things are in the literal text. If you're going to be a literalist, at least do it consistently, don't tell me that some metaphors and allegorical interpretations are okay due to age and the passion with which they are believed, while others are heresies because they fell on the wrong side of politics seventeen centuries ago.

Mind you, I don't think "literal" and "non-literal" were words that would have meant anything in particular to the composers of the original oral traditions that eventually became the Hebrew Scriptures. Some of the authors, especially the priestly class that did the last re-write, probably had literalist intentions, the better for ruling an empire with. But they controlled interpretation of those seemingly authoritative texts, just as Christian orthodoxists seek to do now.

I am, though, talking about actual literalism, not this thing you keep talking about where, I guess "literal" means real and "metaphor" means fake? That isn't what those words mean, but it seems to be your implication. There is no reason whatsoever why someone couldn't believe that God is real and nevertheless understand "walking in the garden" as a metaphor for His continuing (real) presence in the world, for instance. Not only can a metaphor have a real thing as its target, a metaphor almost always has a real thing as its target.

I would really appreciate it, in fact, if you did a bit of reading first and figured out what an allegory is before continuing to press this point. I don't appreciate having to pick up the slack from your secondary schoolteachers.

 

[DBT]

Yes. But several theologies that have been advanced as "literal" in this conversation, not because they are literally present in the text, but because people, apparently, believe them a whole lot.

What makes you think that the ancient writers of Genesis and the rest did not intend their account of Creation and the will of God to be literal? To be clear, this is not to say that there is no allegory or metaphor in the bible.

Did they not believe in the existence of a God? A Creator? Where they just like modern skeptics, simply writing allegories for the sake of identity and social cohesion? The Royal Lie?

What was the point?

If they did, then substitutionary atonement is bullshit. Serpents that are also devils, also bullshit. Figurative adams and eves standing in for all of their descendants are bullshit. Hell is bullshit. Because none of those things are in the literal text. If you're going to be a literalist, at least do it consistently, don't tell me that some metaphors and allegorical interpretations are okay due to age and the passion with which they are believed, while others are heresies because they fell on the wrong side of politics seventeen centuries ago.

Nobody is saying that these are rational beliefs, that they actually make sense. Only that that they, the ancients, believed in the existence and reality of
these things.

The evidence strongly suggests that they did. Just as there are people in this day and age who believe in an actual fall, an actual redeemer in Jesus, etc.

Mind you, I don't think "literal" and "non-literal" were words that would have meant anything in particular to the composers of the original oral traditions that eventually became the Hebrew Scriptures.

They probably didn't think in terms of literal or non literal, they simply believed that this is how the World is and How the World is governed.

Some of the authors, especially the priestly class that did the last re-write, probably had literalist intentions, the better for ruling an empire with. But they controlled interpretation of those seemingly authoritative texts, just as Christian orthodoxists seek to do now.

No doubt. There may have even been a few closet Atheists in their midst.

 

[atrib]

When did "literal" come to mean, "believes really hard" rather than any correct definition of that term. Emotional commitment has nothing to do with literal vs. allegorical readings of a text. Obviously, given how stubbornly most atheists cling to literalism despite theoretically not having a dog in the ontological fight connected to that misguided hermeneutic. I don't oppose literalism because of what I do or don't believe about Jesus. I oppose it because it is a stupid way to read a book. Any book.

I don't have to "really truly believe" that Willm Shakespeare had sex with flowers in order to argue that his description of his love as a red rose was meant to be taken literally. I just have to be an idiot.

Many people I know read the accounts is the Bible as being factually accurate accounts of reality, things that actually happened, places that actually existed, exactly as they are written in the Bible. This is not uncommon among evangelical Christians in the southeastern United States. They believe Genesis is a factually accurate description of how the world was created, with animals and the first humans. They believe that the entire planet was flooded by a deluge of God's creation, which sterilized all life on the planet except for the inhabitants of Noah's boat, just as the story is told in the Bible. I don't understand why you are arguing that other people are incapable of reading and interpreting the Bible in ways different from how you read and interpret the Bible.

And no, I am not using the word "literal" to mean "believe really hard".

 

[Politesse]

When did "literal" come to mean, "believes really hard" rather than any correct definition of that term. Emotional commitment has nothing to do with literal vs. allegorical readings of a text. Obviously, given how stubbornly most atheists cling to literalism despite theoretically not having a dog in the ontological fight connected to that misguided hermeneutic. I don't oppose literalism because of what I do or don't believe about Jesus. I oppose it because it is a stupid way to read a book. Any book.

I don't have to "really truly believe" that Willm Shakespeare had sex with flowers in order to argue that his description of his love as a red rose was meant to be taken literally. I just have to be an idiot.

Many people I know read the accounts is the Bible as being factually accurate accounts of reality, things that actually happened, places that actually existed, exactly as they are written in the Bible. This is not uncommon among evangelical Christians in the southeastern United States. They believe Genesis is a factually accurate description of how the world was created, with animals and the first humans. They believe that the entire planet was flooded by a deluge of God's creation, which sterilized all life on the planet except for the inhabitants of Noah's boat, just as the story is told in the Bible. I don't understand why you are arguing that other people are incapable of reading and interpreting the Bible in ways different from how you read and interpret the Bible.

And no, I am not using the word "literal" to mean "believe really hard".

Yes, I know that literalists exist. I'm even fine with that, though I certainly do not agree with them. But even the most ardent literalist is not a literalist all the time for all things. They can't be. The books themselves use allegory extensively, and literalists throw in a lot more material that comes from their own theologies and narrative history. So the argument made against my point, that it was cherry-picking and therefore somehow inferior to literalism, is invalid. The allegory of Adam=Jesus is so fundamental to modern Christianity that I do not think Protestantism can be understood without grasping it. But it is an allegory all the same. Adam and Jesus were literally different people, even if we accept Paul/Augustine's argument that one was a symbolic figure of the other. Someone standing in for someone else despite not being literally identical is the very definition of a symbol.

I don't get why everyone keeps trying to convince me that conservatives are real. I know they are real. And numerous. And passionate. And completely irrelevant to my point.

 

[Kharakov]

Ya, it seems like a weird disclaimer. I don't do that when talking about Star Wars characters, so why would I do it when talking about Biblical characters?

Because Star Wars is real. Ohh shit, I mean Star Trek. It's news from the future, acted out by contemporary actors so we don't feel trapped in a timeline.

 

[Kharakov]

A lot of people are believers in the literal truth of what some guy says is in the Bible. Not so much biblical literalism as hearsay literalism.

A lot of people are believers of what people claim to believe about the bible in attempts to get people to analyze and think about social issues in a roundabout way.

Push someone towards understanding of ethics, and they'll think you're trying to turn them into a slave. Trick them, and they know you are when you're a lazy corrupt asshole in a nice house who can afford it because you "rent" property to others and do other "sure" things to stay ahead.