The Bible: Symbolic or Literal?

[Gukkor]

I'm not sure I follow you. A statment is truth if it is true: the two terms are synonymous. To call the Bible 'truth' is to call it 'true'.

This assumes there is only one kind of truth, that something can only be true if it is accurate in a concrete, factual sense. More and more, Christians (and people in general, for that matter) are coming to see things differently. That something can be a fiction from a historical standpoint, but truth from a philisophical or moral standpoint, for instance.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But i explained these "contradictory" items.

Nevertheless, they still appear contradictory. Indeed, you said:
The bible is meant to be taken as a whole. You can't pull out one or two versus and think they will mean something by themselves. It takes the spirit to truly translate the versus anyway.
I am asking for this 'true translation'.

I could kill someone, does that mean I must?

Perhaps it is more clear to say faith can move mountains. That no Christian seems able to do such a thing is rather an anticlimax, wouldn't you say?

You seem to think that everest has some importence in morality. Like people wouln't be saved because it is there.

Not at all. The ability to move mountains with the power of faith is an arbitrary skill to grant Christians. Nevertheless, literalists must believe that Christians have this skill. Which leads to my ultimate point: literalism is a demonstratably false stance.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This assumes there is only one kind of truth, that something can only be true if it is accurate in a concrete, factual sense. More and more, Christians (and people in general, for that matter) are coming to see things differently. That something can be a fiction from a historical standpoint, but truth from a philisophical or moral standpoint, for instance.

We are talking literalism. To call a piece of text 'truth' is to call it 'non-fiction'. While there may be a philosophical and/or moral message in the text, literalism requires the belief that the text itself be considered wholly and completely non-fictional.

 

[artybloke]

Your opinion is, apparently, that he doesn't exist, but even if he didn't the first really wouldn't fit.

God does not exist as an object in the world, verifiable by scientific method. Any God that "exists" as an object is an idol. That's 1.

2: You're correct.

We speak of God in personal terms, but that doesn't make God personal. God is nothing like us (via negativa.) That's 5.

Not sure about 4.

God is fairly abstract, I would say.

 

[artybloke]

To call a piece of text 'truth' is to call it 'non-fiction'.

Seems to me that you're the literalist. I feel sorry for people who can't find truth in art.

 

[KCDAD]

We are talking literalism. To call a piece of text 'truth' is to call it 'non-fiction'. While there may be a philosophical and/or moral message in the text, literalism requires the belief that the text itself be considered wholly and completely non-fictional.

Truth and non-fiction are not synonyms... fact and non-fiction are.
Truth is found in both fact and fiction.
I already explained your "move mountains" idiom, get over it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Good job. You saw exactly what you wanted to see, didn't you?

Morality is concrete.. there is an absolute, universal, abstract morality.

I'll have 3 litres of morality then please.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Truth and non-fiction are not synonyms... fact and non-fiction are.
Truth is found in both fact and fiction.
I already explained your "move mountains" idiom, get over it.

there are many non fiction books that are not about "fact" take any philosophy book for starters

 

[KCDAD]

I'll have 3 litres of morality then please.

Sorry, can't give you 3 liters of bricks, either, because neither is measured in liters. In case you din't know, litre is a liquid measure.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Sorry, can't give you 3 liters of bricks, either, because neither is measured in liters. In case you din't know, litre is a liquid measure.

bricks are a concrete concept though... morality is not.

Otherwise you would be able to tell me the correct measurement for measuring morality?

 

[KCDAD]

bricks are a concrete concept though... morality is not.

Otherwise you would be able to tell me the correct measurement for measuring morality?

Lives touched. You measure a person's morality by the lives they touch. Is that a bit too esoteric for you?

Concrete concept... bah... bad pun.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Lives touched. You measure a person's morality by the lives they touch. Is that a bit too esoteric for you?

Concrete concept... bah... bad pun.

And how do you measure the amount of change in those lives? by what units?

If a concept is not measurable in any way, then it is an ABSTRACTION... morality is one such.

That doesn't make any morality any less important, but it is in no way a real world concept.

Why do some people feel the desperate need to reduce everyhting even tangentially related to the Bible to terms of "real"? Abstraction is perfectly valid for discussion about this stuff... are people afraid that by admiting things like morality and God are abstractions, then they are somehow less important?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Truth and non-fiction are not synonyms... fact and non-fiction are.
Truth is found in both fact and fiction.

Remember that I am talking from the literalists stance. There can be no metaphor, no implicit analogy, not when taken literally.
Fiction can only have truth in metaphor, in analogy, in implicit and indirect connotation. Taken literally, such things cease to be.

I already explained your "move mountains" idiom, get over it.

We are discussing whether metaphor can exist in texts held to be literally true. I do not believe so, for the reasons given above. If I am right, then to hold the Bible as literally true requires one to believe that faith can move mountains. Which is my secondary point. My primary point is that the literalists stance is demonstratably false.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Seems to me that you're the literalist.

As indeed I should: my argument is one under the assumption of literalism. I am attempting to show that metaphor cannot exist in literal text.

I feel sorry for people who can't find truth in art.

Agreed.

 

[KCDAD]

And how do you measure the amount of change in those lives? by what units?

Units? Why units? Measurement can be qualitative as well as quantitative.

If a concept is not measurable in any way, then it is an ABSTRACTION... morality is one such.

I always asserted it can measured. Therefor it must not be an abstraction (which means something different then it is abstract).

That doesn't make any morality any less important, but it is in no way a real world concept.

Why do some people feel the desperate need to reduce everyhting even tangentially related to the Bible to terms of "real"? Abstraction is perfectly valid for discussion about this stuff... are people afraid that by admiting things like morality and God are abstractions, then they are somehow less important?

Perhaps it is the improper use of language to try and communicate ideas that wrankles some people.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Perhaps it is the improper use of language to try and communicate ideas that wrankles some people.

I'm not sure what you mean... are you saying its wrong to tell people when they correct your mistakes?

 

[KCDAD]

I'm not sure what you mean... are you saying its wrong to tell people when they correct your mistakes?

No... it is wrong to use "abstraction" when you really mean "abstract". They are two different things and impart different meaning.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No... it is wrong to use "abstraction" when you really mean "abstract". They are two different things and impart different meaning.

well thats fine... doesn't change the fact that morality is an abstract concept

 

[KCDAD]

well thats fine... doesn't change the fact that morality is an abstract concept

Ok. I got no problem with that observation. Morality is an abstract concept.

 

[david_x]

Nevertheless, they still appear contradictory. Indeed, you said:
The bible is meant to be taken as a whole. You can't pull out one or two versus and think they will mean something by themselves. It takes the spirit to truly translate the versus anyway.
I am asking for this 'true translation'.

Love God and Love your neighbor. Under this lies all of the prophets and the laws.

Perhaps it is more clear to say faith can move mountains. That no Christian seems able to do such a thing is rather an anticlimax, wouldn't you say?

I'm afraid that is your problem. If you need to be able to see it to believe it that is.

Not at all. The ability to move mountains with the power of faith is an arbitrary skill to grant Christians. Nevertheless, literalists must believe that Christians have this skill. Which leads to my ultimate point: literalism is a demonstratably false stance.

We could move a mountain but that would be a waste of time.