Religion

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

93. It's an unresolved issue based on a question you've never answered.

Fri Dec 14, 2018, 08:39 AM

Dec 2018

How much of a holy text must one take literally in order to be called a literalist? Is 25% enough? How about 50%? Does it have to be 100%? Because if it's 100%, then NO ONE is a literalist and the term is meaningless.

Answer that question, and I'll know if you're a literalist or not.

But I bet you can't - or won't. So I'm left with the conclusion that you are a literalist.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

108 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What constitutes a "valid" interpretation of the Bible? [View all] guillaumeb Dec 2018 OP

Basically TlalocW Dec 2018 #1

And that happens. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #2

We may argue about intent, but nobody argues that the parts we don't like are metaphorical marylandblue Dec 2018 #97

Yes, they actually do argue just that. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #99

Prefatory is not the same as metaphorical marylandblue Dec 2018 #100

The intent is the same. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #101

So you are admitting that the intent of a metaphorical reading marylandblue Dec 2018 #102

"When it agrees with whatever you think. " mitch96 Dec 2018 #35

So, it means exactly what one thinks it means MineralMan Dec 2018 #3

And you feel differently? guillaumeb Dec 2018 #7

You were raised in a literalist tradition. trotsky Dec 2018 #17

You know nothing of how I was raised. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #26

You yourself said you were raised in the RCC. trotsky Dec 2018 #34

OK. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #41

It's a statement YOU made in the post starting this thread, g. trotsky Dec 2018 #61

Again: guillaumeb Dec 2018 #74

I've read them. trotsky Dec 2018 #86

You obviously created your own definition, and your own argument. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #87

I think he is using your implied definition marylandblue Dec 2018 #88

But he states that I am a literalist in spite of my many posts, guillaumeb Dec 2018 #89

You've often accused atheists of being literalists, despite their protestations marylandblue Dec 2018 #90

I have accused SOME. Not all. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #91

His point is the same whether it is some or all marylandblue Dec 2018 #92

But you are. You take much of the Christian bible literally. trotsky Dec 2018 #94

I understand your position. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #95

Then offer up an argument as to why I'm wrong. trotsky Dec 2018 #96

It is useless to do so. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #98

Why? trotsky Dec 2018 #104

Not at all. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #105

Then offer up an argument as to why I'm wrong. trotsky Dec 2018 #106

Your reply validates my earlier response. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #107

Still no response, because you can't provide one. trotsky Dec 2018 #108

It's an unresolved issue based on a question you've never answered. trotsky Dec 2018 #93

He didn't mean that literally. Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #56

... trotsky Dec 2018 #60

I feel differently, yes. MineralMan Dec 2018 #20

One can read the Bible as literal story. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #27

I don't know of any atheists who read the Bible MineralMan Dec 2018 #31

I understand. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #32

Oh, I recognize your objective here... MineralMan Dec 2018 #37

And I yours. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #43

A dissertation would not be appropriate for DU marylandblue Dec 2018 #44

Believe me, nobody wants a dissertation. MineralMan Dec 2018 #64

It would go such a long way toward ACTUAL dialog in this forum... trotsky Dec 2018 #65

I asked him once, but he punted. MineralMan Dec 2018 #67

He's playing a game that believers who fancy themselves quite intelligent often do. trotsky Dec 2018 #68

I see it a little differently. MineralMan Dec 2018 #69

I think you are right marylandblue Dec 2018 #72

There's a logical progression. Some go through the steps quickly MineralMan Dec 2018 #73

Nah. It's just random splatter from rns. Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #84

For some, that kind of random sampling MineralMan Dec 2018 #85

Define "valid". Act_of_Reparation Dec 2018 #4

It means that the person in question agrees with it. MineralMan Dec 2018 #5

What I wrote: guillaumeb Dec 2018 #9

I am not asking you to repeat yourself. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2018 #14

Allow me. trotsky Dec 2018 #16

I intertepret "valid" differently marylandblue Dec 2018 #19

Acceptable at the moment, I think. MineralMan Dec 2018 #38

Meaningful discussion requires both sides to answer relevant questions Major Nikon Dec 2018 #22

The term was defined in the sentences. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #25

Perhaps your sentences didn't do an adequate job defining the term. trotsky Dec 2018 #36

Perhaps not. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #42

Or perhaps I did and they aren't the be-all, end-all "silence everyone who disagrees with me"... trotsky Dec 2018 #59

I am too stupid to decipher meaning from your prose. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2018 #52

The RCC may not have an authoritative interpretation for each verse, but marylandblue Dec 2018 #6

The Pope speaks on certain things. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #8

So what happens if you tell your priest his holy orders are worthless, marylandblue Dec 2018 #10

I would suggest that you ask a priest that question. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #24

The Pope is allowed to use Latin because he is the Pope marylandblue Dec 2018 #45

I use Latin, and I am not the Pope. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #46

Jesus spoke Aramaic and so you should too marylandblue Dec 2018 #48

If I were Jesus, guillaumeb Dec 2018 #49

Why is God edhopper Dec 2018 #11

Maybe that's just it. God isn't perfect. gtar100 Dec 2018 #13

As Epicurus said edhopper Dec 2018 #21

But we cannot know what the Creator is wiling to do. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #47

Then he is a proper wanker edhopper Dec 2018 #51

Sounds suspiciously like you made that all up. Complete fabrication. trotsky Dec 2018 #62

Well, not so, really. Here's what the French version of the MineralMan Dec 2018 #70

Your little dissertation has nothing to do guillaumeb Dec 2018 #75

No? Well, you see, I'm not constrained by your expectations. MineralMan Dec 2018 #77

No perfect being could possibly screw up as much Mariana Dec 2018 #50

Perhaps our human intelligence is not capable of discerning guillaumeb Dec 2018 #28

So it's up to us? edhopper Dec 2018 #33

I cannot answer for the Creator. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #40

So if a teacher cannot clearly explain concepts Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #57

An interesting theory. You certainly do like to think of your fellow human beings as stupid. trotsky Dec 2018 #63

Or, perhaps there is no such Creator, eh, which means MineralMan Dec 2018 #71

If a creator requires its creations to follow its instructions, but does not give them the capacity LongtimeAZDem Dec 2018 #76

There is another possibility, where there is no creator, but only MineralMan Dec 2018 #78

Which is why I expressed it as a conditional accepting the premise, so as not to leave open the LongtimeAZDem Dec 2018 #80

Good point. MineralMan Dec 2018 #81

That is interesting as I had not really heard what the RCC says about biblical interpretation. gtar100 Dec 2018 #12

Thank you for your answer. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #29

Every interpretation is valid. trotsky Dec 2018 #15

which is also to say every interpretation is invalid as well.... nt uriel1972 Dec 2018 #39

You got it! n/t trotsky Dec 2018 #58

Multiple meanings Cartoonist Dec 2018 #18

#s 1 and 2 of your response are contradictory. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #30

They aren't Lordquinton Dec 2018 #54

You mean like theism and deism? Major Nikon Dec 2018 #55

LOL. Classic gil. trotsky Dec 2018 #66

The modern church needs excuses on why it's no longer a good idea to murder disobedient children Major Nikon Dec 2018 #23

What makes it valid? Choose the interpretation that reads the way you want it to. There are many ver keithbvadu2 Dec 2018 #53

Just had this conversation with daughter woodsprite Dec 2018 #79

Greek. Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #83

Laughter? Ferrets are Cool Dec 2018 #82

If it comes from the Church of the Third Revelation... Buckeye_Democrat Dec 2018 #103