You two are funny, kinda like politicians who never answer the questions asked but stick to the message they want to deliver even if it makes no sense or only tangential sens in the scope of the question.

My post was about how to effectively communicate, really, the crux of it had nothing to do with religion but communication.

I was also talking about forum culture in general, not about this particular forum. I was talking about why people post in internet forums and why the questions "why do you care" was inappropriate in this context (where it would not be, for example, if machine just approached you in the street and started grilling you in the same way). I'm sure both of you understood this.

I don't think either of you are stupid, so you must be spinning. You love to exhort your God when the going is good, but whenever anyone brings up something contrary to that you shut down or resort to spin-phrases. You don't have to accept that it turns people off from perhaps legitimate arguments you have, but it does. That may not bother you and you can confidently feel superior and godly that you have delivered the message but the heathens just wouldn't listen. Your choice. But if you want to get through to an atheist you have to engage him or her in a manner that they will respond to. Doing otherwise really is wasting your time if your goal was to convince people of your point of view.

I like the politician analogy although I think Splendour is a bit more haphazard. Steering the conversation is one thing, but she's pretty much a walking non-sequitur. You could program bots that are better able to stick to a topic. What is rich is that they like to accuse others of having an agenda. Very good!

I'm going to try and clarify what themachine said. I actually thought he did a great job of articulating himself but it is abundantly obvious that Praxising didn't get it (naturally, Splendour didn't come close to addressing the question, so we don't know what she thinks). The question is "How can any mere mortal presume to know what parts of the scripture God intended to be viewed literally, and what parts of the scripture God intended to be viewed allegorically?" I hope you see why advice to study The Bible and listen to what other people have to say goes absolutely nowhere towards answering the question.

very well put SOA.

thats exactly my purpose. a simple question that i want to know why you can choose what is real and what is figurative. and it doesnt matter what i might think of you given your response (as a theist because i already believe theists are deluded when it comes to religion but that has no bearing on who i think you are as a person)

the question is why are you able to do this. its a very simple clear cut answer. you can respond with whatever you would like. what makes you look worse then an illogical theist is basically coming to a thread, admitting you have an opinion/answer and refuse to share it because of what i will think.

my point isnt to start a thread titled look at prax and splendour how silly they are.

GIVE ME A ****ING ANSWER

and a little love here for Arouet too. Thanks for your input as well. NJ

prax im going to try one more thing

my question: why can people pick and choose what is literal and figurative in the bible

your response: the bible is a collection of stories that are old and not all are meant to be taken literally

well no **** i think we've established that. so this is in the simplest of laymens terms, we do not deny some of the stories are figurative. why do people choose which are and which are not. /

Before I do something so foolish as to try and answer this at all, are you asking "why?" or do you mean "how?" Are you referring to the average Joe or Scripture scholars? If you want me out of the thread permanently just imply in any way that I'm trying to avoid the question rather than figure out what you want to know. Surprisingly, I care about what you want to know.

But, I'm not sure you understand that your question about Scripture is like a Creationist saying, "Well, how do you know elephants didn't come from gazelles?" You know what the answer is? Go to freakin' college and study for years like I did, Buddy. I mean, do you spend months trying to educate the guy? This Scripture thing is a HUGE topic, okay?

Now I'm about to address, tomorrow, the whole idea of literal and figurative in a thread I started. You could read that. Or you can be specific here and tell me what your issue is and what you really want to know and I'll try to give you some sort of answer.

no the question is not how, i feel i have a good understanding of how they do it. it is based on what fits into their lives and nothing more.

my question is why a theist believes this is ok to do when any holy scripture does not say that this is the case. and furthermore, what makes ones interpretation correct and ones incorrect. i know you do realize that there are people in the world who 100% believe they are direct descendants of adam and eve, (not sure if you believe that or not) or that the arc was 100% literal. the entire book to them is literal and they would consider you a non believer. so why is it ok to pick and choose between literal and figurative.

thanks

You apparently have no idea whatsoever from this. When you decide to become educated and give up bigotry and prejudice, let me know in PM and I'll start reading your posts again.

GL and buh-bye for now.



(Oh yeah - and you've just forfeited your right to ever ever criticize a Creationist.)

I have a specific question. Based on this comment:

I am led to believe that *you* believe that the genealogies in Genesis 4, 5, and 11, are not literal or historical. So my questions are:

1. Why do you believe that this is the case, and how did you reach that conclusion, and how confident are you in your interpretation, and why should I trust you vs say, Pletho.

2. If it is figurative/mythological, why is it written in such a specific and historical way? Why do we consider *other* genealogies to be historically accurate, but not this one when they are written in such similar viens?

3. Since you believe Abraham to be the first "historical" person in the bible, do you believe that most of what is written about him to be historically accurate? For example, that he lived to be 175 years old, had a child at the age of 100, etc, etc?

his statement is a gross generalization, but you would be wrong to assume that a large majority of Christians don't base their interpretations on the following:

1. What someone told/taught them
2. What makes the most sense to them
3. What they feel most comfortable believing

letting a comment like that cause such a huge reaction from you is ... interesting to say the least.

dk i don't really think im making a gross generalization. there are plenty of people who believe every word in the bible as the literal truth, there are also many who believe some is figurative and some is literal. how can a person pick what is literal and what is truth based on something that says it is all the truth (since god himself wrote the bible)

if im missing something here please tell me what im missing

and prax, if you ever decide to unblock me you can read the above and comment, and i also find it funny that people use the ignore function, so as to imply, hahaha youre so ignorant, I BLOCK YOU I WIN, LOOK WHOS LAUGHING NOW, MUWAHAHAHAHA.

ive been here for almost 5 years and do not have a single person on ignore. because i on the one hand when discussing something say what i believe or show someone why their reasoning is illogical. on the other hand we have people like prax who say, you are too ignorant so therefore i block them and i win. QED

for when you 'unignore' me

if someone asked me a question i wouldn't answer with go to college like i did and learn. your comment here is some righteous and self centered, wtf is your purpose on a web forum if not to discuss. any question you are ever asked you could tell someone to go learn it somewhere else. that makes you an imbecile for believing you can do this.

and if i knew the exact reasoning, other then they are different species incapable of creating one or the other but likely they share a distant relation, i would tell the person. and it wouldn't take me months to explain as you seem to think it would take me months to understand an answer to my question

I think the challenge here is framework. If I'm reading correctly when you ask the question "who can know when its literal or allegorical..." the REAL question beneath it all is this: "If we can't figure out what verse X says, then why should I follow it?" It's also possible that a person could say (as I have in the past), "I don't really want to do what God/Religion/Etc. tells me to do so I'm going to look for loopholes. Claiming an inability to determine literal from allegory is an excellent loophole that allows me to not have to change my life."

I don't think the challenge to determine literal form allegory is all that hard TBH. First, I think one should consider what is ultimately being communicated in this verse(s). Sometimes only the literal meaning makes sense, sometimes only the allegorical, and sometimes its not germane to the theme (as in the case of the Tree of knowledge). If one is still confused, one can look at what other verses have to say on the matter for either confirmation or not as to literal or not.

For example, Jesus says, "Cut off your hand if it causes you to sin." Now is this literal or figurative? Well, what do the surrounding verses indicate? Is Jesus telling a story in the surrounding versus, using hyperbole to make a point (clearly yes)? Also, what do other verses indicate. Does Jesus give other similar commands in other parts of scripture (clearly no)? What does common sense say? Etc.

SUMMARY: If you want to pluck one verse or concept, you cannot know literal form allegory. If you read things within the context of what is the theme, what does other scripture say, I think differentiating between literal and allegory is not too difficult.

Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. It may seem reasonable to you to assume that certain verses are figurative, and so you naturally do not feel the need to follow them literally; instead you look for the implied meaning, and try to adhere to it generally.

But it seems reasonable to me to go one step further and suggest that then entire collection of writing was written by ordinary people, and so if any of it - fanciful and miraculous or not - seems to contradict what seems otherwise sensible, it should not be adhered to.

I agree you're on the right track about trying to figure out why exactly people care about what portions (if any) are true, and what portions (if any) were intended to be taken as allegory. Kind of a side note, but the repeated claim here has been that for centuries, the entire text was taken for granted to be allegorical, and that biblical literalism is a relatively new phenomenon; but I'm not qualified to weigh in on that argument.

My point is, the only reason that I would ever enter into the conversation in the first place about what parts are "literally true" is if I'm discussing some issue dominated by theists, and need to reason with them on their own terms about it.

If religion consisted of being nice to people, giving 10% of your wealth to the poor, and praying every once in a while, it would be a totally uninteresting non-issue as to whether this or that part of the bible is meant to be literal or if it was added centuries later, or its meaning altered, etc.

Despite the fact that many religious people are wonderful, kind, caring, intelligent, and great to have as neighbors, the conversation isn't being generated by them. It is being generated by people who want to convert others, people who think god wants them and their friends to rule the world with impunity, or to subjugate others, to force prayer into schools, and religious ideas into textbooks, and to make sure little girls all grow up wanting to be barefoot and pregnant and never wear a pants suit; and they want religious icons - from their faith only, thank you - on public lands, and stamped on the money. And people who want to hijack airplanes, and blow up embassies, and beat up people, and exclude people, and hurt children.

Because there are people of that type who take refuge, rightly or wrongly, in religions, it is necessary to challenge them, and sometimes indeed to poke and pry and point out illogical trains of thought, or inconsistency, hypocrisy, or in this case, shenanigans with regards to the historicity, the truthfulness, the interpretation, the literalness, the usefulness, the relevance, etc., of the bible.