|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 22, 2018 12:57:35 GMT
tpfkar Yeah, but it's not like we have easy access to historic polling data on the matter. If non-literal wouldn't be "sorta the truth" for the faithful, then I just don't know what meaning of "truth" they'd be using. If a story isn't literal, it's fiction; if it's fiction it's not true. Seems like inescapable logic to me. I don't need such access to know that the vast majority of the faithful have treated it as both coherent and inviolate. And I don't know what you don't know, and can't say what's inescapable to you, but I do know that the faithful generally think that they're worshiping the truth, whether it is communicated literally or allegorically. No WowAll I can say is I don't have your confidence on the matter. The sample size I've encountered is incredibly small (especially if we're considering all of history), and it's not like I was asking every one what they thought on the coherency/inviolate matter. I mean, reasoning would say that if you've encountered (at least) two on this relatively small board, they can't be all that rare a breed. An allegory isn't all-true by definition. Its themes may be true, but its story won't be. So a non-literalist would have to believe in the "it's sorta the truth" if they're not trying to redefine what truth means.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 13:07:50 GMT
tpfkar I don't need such access to know that the vast majority of the faithful have treated it as both coherent and inviolate. And I don't know what you don't know, and can't say what's inescapable to you, but I do know that the faithful generally think that they're worshiping the truth, whether it is communicated literally or allegorically. No WowAll I can say is I don't have your confidence on the matter. The sample size I've encountered is incredibly small (especially if we're considering all of history), and it's not like I was asking every one what they thought on the coherency/inviolate matter. I mean, reasoning would say that if you've encountered (at least) two on this relatively small board, they can't be all that rare a breed. An allegory isn't all-true by definition. Its themes may be true, but its story won't be. So a non-literalist would have to believe in the "it's sorta the truth" if they're not trying to redefine what truth means. Good to know. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of actual faithful would positively bristle at "sorta the truth", non-literalists included. And this board is primarily a collection of odd duckies and very near the bottom of the list of sources of likely anything, regardless of any particular idea of what "reasoning would say". Last Day of Magic
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 22, 2018 13:17:21 GMT
tpfkar All I can say is I don't have your confidence on the matter. The sample size I've encountered is incredibly small (especially if we're considering all of history), and it's not like I was asking every one what they thought on the coherency/inviolate matter. I mean, reasoning would say that if you've encountered (at least) two on this relatively small board, they can't be all that rare a breed. An allegory isn't all-true by definition. Its themes may be true, but its story won't be. So a non-literalist would have to believe in the "it's sorta the truth" if they're not trying to redefine what truth means. Good to know. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of actual faithful would positively bristle at "sorta the truth", non-literalists included. And this board is primarily a collection of odd duckies and very near the bottom of the list of sources of likely anything, regardless of any particular idea of what "reasoning would say". Last Day of MagicI just don't know why a non-literalist would bristle at the idea of saying an allegory isn't true... since it isn't... by the very definition of what an allegory is. OK, you can go with the "this board has an unusually high amount of non-coherent-ists" and I'll stick with "I don't know." ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 13:26:21 GMT
tpfkar Good to know. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of actual faithful would positively bristle at "sorta the truth", non-literalists included. And this board is primarily a collection of odd duckies and very near the bottom of the list of sources of likely anything, regardless of any particular idea of what "reasoning would say". Last Day of MagicI just don't know why a non-literalist would bristle at the idea of saying an allegory isn't true... since it isn't... by the very definition of what an allegory is. OK, you can go with the "this board has an unusually high amount of non-coherent-ists" and I'll stick with "I don't know." ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Can't help you any more than pointing out the fact that an allegory can obviously be true to those who believe what they think it conveys non-literally. Happy for you on "I don't know" repetitions, but you should probably work on reading comprehension with the "non-coherent-ists". And I'll stick with the "pretty obvious". put your hands up and do your dipsy and dropsy
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 22, 2018 13:43:35 GMT
tpfkar I just don't know why a non-literalist would bristle at the idea of saying an allegory isn't true... since it isn't... by the very definition of what an allegory is. OK, you can go with the "this board has an unusually high amount of non-coherent-ists" and I'll stick with "I don't know." ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Can't help you any more than pointing out the fact that an allegory can obviously be true to those who believe what they think it conveys non-literally. Right, the THEMES it conveys can be true, but not the allegory ITSELF. Any non-literalists is essentially saying the story-aspect is not true (not literal), while still believing the themes are true.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 13:45:50 GMT
tpfkar Can't help you any more than pointing out the fact that an allegory can obviously be true to those who believe what they think it conveys non-literally. Right, the THEMES it conveys can be true, but not the allegory ITSELF. Any non-literalists is essentially saying the story-aspect is not true (not literal), while still believing the themes are true. That's covered in the "non-literal". put your hands up and do your dipsy and dropsy
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 18:17:28 GMT
tpfkar I don't agree at all, I challenge you to find me someone that interprets psalms, genesis and matthew in the same way. I don't know what "interprets the same way" is supposed to mean. Most faithful peeps believe it is all God's Word™ and thus absolutely true and as a whole it's coherent and that it doesn't contradict itself. And anybody who says otherwise just ain't squinting right. Certainly not just "fundamentalists" that hold, nor "militant atheists" that note this widespread standard line of the faithful. All this is before even broaching the gross immorality of large swathes of it. For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.Yup assert all you like, but the fact is that the books of the bible are treated differently to each other. They must be interpreted differently to make sense.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 18:21:53 GMT
Fair observation, certainly that is the case in the majority of the history of the church, I like to think the religion did not start out that way, and that we are moving back towards a better understanding by the masses. I still find it hard to think that people ever treated all the books of the bible in the same way, but I suppose most people (even church goers) have a limited exposure to the bible, reading only genesis and the gospels for example. Having said that this conversation is really more inclined to actual thought as opposed to what the masses have accepted, at least that is my interpretation. I can certainly see how it gets treated as one book. For one thing, most people are lazy; it's easier to just take it as one book than to try to consider each book separately in its historical context and genre. With the laziness also comes ignorance; we've all seen those studies that show how poorly most Christians know The Bible to start with. Too many just feel that basic need to believe in something, and since Christianity is the dominant religion here, it's the easiest choice; and just having the basic belief (God is real, Jesus is real, what both taught is moral and it's all in The Bible) is enough for many, even if they don't bother to actually read the whole book or do any real study of it. When it comes to various denominations, I think most started out trying to make some coherent sense out of such a diverse collection, so they inevitably developed different ways of interpreting it; and of course the early Church played a big part in deciding what books got included/excluded. It's a messy and complex history; no wonder most try to simplify it for themselves since most don't have the patience (or time) of scholars. First off I totally accept laziness, and yes it is really awful. I personally belief that any salvation doctrine requires effort and wish the leaders of churches would hammer this into their flock. But as I suggested to cupcakes, I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that you can find anyone who interprets Genesis in the same way they interpret Psalms, the two are so different that they have to be treated differently even in cursory glance. I also accept that the church has picked and chosen, which is why I tend to refer to the Judeo-Christian stream as opposed to the bible, it also means I get to accept though from after the writing of the bible ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 18:26:06 GMT
tpfkar I don't know what "interprets the same way" is supposed to mean. Most faithful peeps believe it is all God's Word™ and thus absolutely true and as a whole it's coherent and that it doesn't contradict itself. And anybody who says otherwise just ain't squinting right. Certainly not just "fundamentalists" that hold, nor "militant atheists" that note this widespread standard line of the faithful. All this is before even broaching the gross immorality of large swathes of it. For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.Yup assert all you like, but the fact is that the books of the bible are treated differently to each other. They must be interpreted differently to make sense. "Treated differently to each other" doesn't say anything and is not debated. And I know they have to be put through a whole lot of hoops to try cobble some sense sense out of them. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 18:29:04 GMT
tpfkar Yup assert all you like, but the fact is that the books of the bible are treated differently to each other. They must be interpreted differently to make sense. "Treated differently to each other" doesn't say anything and is not debated. And I know they have to be put through a whole lot of hoops to try cobble some sense sense out of them. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.Treated differently, interpreted what ever, they are so different as to be different books, just because they are bound together does not make them the same. But then I see you have stopped arguing that and now are just saying you think belief is cognitive dissonance. I sometimes agree with that, which is why I test my belief.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 18:50:27 GMT
tpfkar "Treated differently to each other" doesn't say anything and is not debated. And I know they have to be put through a whole lot of hoops to try cobble some sense sense out of them. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.Treated differently, interpreted what ever, they are so different as to be different books, just because they are bound together does not make them the same. But then I see you have stopped arguing that and now are just saying you think belief is cognitive dissonance. I sometimes agree with that, which is why I test my belief. I certainly never suggested they were "treated", "interpreted" the same, and don't care, as it wouldn't necessarily say anything meaningful if they were or were not. It is, however presented as a consonant, coherent work representing The Word™ of God by most faithful, and not by just fundamentalists, nor is the noting that the faithful by and large do this in any way constrained to "militant atheists". As for cognitive dissonance, if you want to delve into whether it makes sense or not, then any related qualities and characteristics apply. Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 18:53:14 GMT
tpfkar Treated differently, interpreted what ever, they are so different as to be different books, just because they are bound together does not make them the same. But then I see you have stopped arguing that and now are just saying you think belief is cognitive dissonance. I sometimes agree with that, which is why I test my belief. I certainly never suggested they were "treated", "interpreted" the same, and don't care, as it wouldn't necessarily say anything meaningful if they were or were not. It is, however presented as a consonant, coherent work representing The Word™ of God by most faithful, and not by just fundamentalists, nor is the noting that the faithful by and large do this in any way constrained to "militant atheists". As for cognitive dissonance, if you want to delve into whether it makes sense or not, then any related qualities and characteristics apply. Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.You and I will have to agree to disagree, most Christians I know recognise it as a collection of related works.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 18:58:22 GMT
tpfkar I certainly never suggested they were "treated", "interpreted" the same, and don't care, as it wouldn't necessarily say anything meaningful if they were or were not. It is, however presented as a consonant, coherent work representing The Word™ of God by most faithful, and not by just fundamentalists, nor is the noting that the faithful by and large do this in any way constrained to "militant atheists". As for cognitive dissonance, if you want to delve into whether it makes sense or not, then any related qualities and characteristics apply. Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.You and I will have to agree to disagree, most Christians I know recognise it as a collection of related works. A "collection of related works" does not mean inconsonant or not coherent or not the inviolate Word of a deity. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 19:01:21 GMT
tpfkar You and I will have to agree to disagree, most Christians I know recognise it as a collection of related works. A "collection of related works" does not mean inconsonant or not coherent or not the inviolate Word of a deity. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.OH MY GOD! Most Christians I know accept that the bible is different books collected together, which was my assertion, exactly what the fuck are you trying to argue with me about?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 19:07:52 GMT
tpfkar A "collection of related works" does not mean inconsonant or not coherent or not the inviolate Word of a deity. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.OH MY GOD! Most Christians I know accept that the bible is different books collected together, which was my assertion, exactly what the fuck are you trying to argue with me about? You replied to me, "Bull shit" valley girl. I don't give Jesus's mangled left titty who accepts "it's different books collected together", it's still a bestial, self-contradictory, grossly immoral mess that's presented as the coherent inviolate Word of God by the vast majority of the faithful. No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 20:05:14 GMT
tpfkar OH MY GOD! Most Christians I know accept that the bible is different books collected together, which was my assertion, exactly what the fuck are you trying to argue with me about? You replied to me, "Bull shit" valley girl. I don't give Jesus's mangled left titty who accepts "it's different books collected together", it's still a bestial, self-contradictory, grossly immoral mess that's presented as the coherent inviolate Word of God by the vast majority of the faithful. No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.I can sympathize with your dislike for the Bible - Although I like the spirit of equality that I see in much of the New Testament, the collection was largely appropriated by the elites as soon as they realized the power the texts had over “common” people – From that day to the present it has been edited, “translated,” and used to obscure or excuse countless atrocities against those whom elites ruled or wished to rule.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 22, 2018 20:40:17 GMT
tpfkar You replied to me, "Bull shit" valley girl. I don't give Jesus's mangled left titty who accepts "it's different books collected together", it's still a bestial, self-contradictory, grossly immoral mess that's presented as the coherent inviolate Word of God by the vast majority of the faithful. No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.I can sympathize with your dislike for the Bible - Although I like the spirit of equality that I see in much of the New Testament, the collection was largely appropriated by the elites as soon as they realized the power the texts had over “common” people – From that day to the present it has been edited, “translated,” and used to obscure or excuse countless atrocities against those whom elites ruled or wished to rule. I wouldn't really call it "dislike", so much as a sober disinterested take. It is what it is and a lot of very reasonable people have tempered it as a whole into something that mostly helps them to be good people. A whole lot other haven't as well, I suppose. I do respond to claims, etc., though. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) Borrowed Time
|
|