The Bible is Rediculous!

[_The Nehor]

Oooo! Your argument just gets better and better!

Thank you, unfortunately the feeling is not mutual.

Now we've got guesses about what other posters think,

I could be wrong about this; I'm more interested in seeing if there is any response.

a misuse of the word "then,"

I'm so ashamed.

more misunderstanding of the Intentional Fallacy (feel free to clarify what you meant when you said it should only be applied to certain "texts";

I already did. I'm still awaiting for you to admit that your ramblings mean that it can be applied universally to all written work. If this is so, I'm going to have a field day with almost every post you make. If not, then I would like to know on what written works you think the fallacy does not apply to.

use of the old Mopologetic "you're deliberately misunderstanding me!" mind-reading game,

Funny how that happens to you so often. What's the common element in all those cases? You maybe?

and, finally, a desperate plea for help from other posters.

Interest in their thoughts yes. If I desperately needed help I doubt I'd turn to a group mostly made up of apostates. Still, enjoy your perverse fantasy.

Note: If the fallacy applies to all written work you just used perceived intent to interpret my work nullifying your whole point.

You really got in over your head here, The Nehor.

Ahh, the Scratchite declaration of victory! I've found it mostly arrives when you're over your head and is usually followed by you leaving the thread. Here's hoping that is the case this time.

You may as well stick to drive-by posts, crappy jokes, and faux campaigns for MADmoderatorship.

Beats gossipmongering and character assassination, which is all you do.

I probably should go ahead and place a wager on whether or not you'll be needing a break from the board anytime soon.

Please do.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Oooo! Your argument just gets better and better!

Thank you, unfortunately the feeling is not mutual.

Well, it's nice to see that you are at least self-aware enough to realize what a specious argument you've been making. Bravo, The Nehor.

more misunderstanding of the Intentional Fallacy (feel free to clarify what you meant when you said it should only be applied to certain "texts";

I already did.[/quote]

Yes, and that's where you betrayed your fundamental naïvété about this issue:

It is not applicable while dealing with seriously stated historical accounts like the Gospels or Josephus or dozens of others.

Huh? Feel free to cite from the Wimsatt and Beardsley piece where they say that this notion is permanently off-limits for "seriously stated historical accounts." Have you even bothered to ever read the original essay? They limit their discussion to "literary" or "poetic" works, but there's nothing in there that says that their ideas are limited strictly to works of that kind. Or, for that matter, have you reader further elaborations of and arguments on this basic ideas, e.g., Barthes's "The Death of the Author"? Or H.L. Hix's Morte' D'Author? Or Derrida's stuff, or Foucault's?

I'm still awaiting for you to admit that your ramblings mean that it can be applied universally to all written work.

Provide the verbatim quote were I said this and I will.

use of the old Mopologetic "you're deliberately misunderstanding me!" mind-reading game,

Funny how that happens to you so often. What's the common element in all those cases? You maybe?

No: just that Mopologists are the only ones who seem ever to say it. And it doesn't happen very often. Only when apologists find themselves in a tough spot.

Note: If the fallacy applies to all written work you just used perceived intent to interpret my work nullifying your whole point.

Unfortunately, you've backed yourself into a corner here. You're either going to have to cite verbatim text where this was said, or you're going to have to apologize for making a false accusation. (Cue The Nehor's predictable response: "Wha? No, you do this all the time! See what it's like? Take that!") Lol. "Substantive" poster indeed.

You may as well stick to drive-by posts, crappy jokes, and faux campaigns for MADmoderatorship.

Beats gossipmongering and character assassination, which is all you do.

Does it beat gross death threats, misogyny, and selfish declarations that plane passengers should die so that you will spend 15 minutes less in line? Or are you claiming it's "character assassination" to reference your own words?

[_The Nehor]

Beats gossipmongering and character assassination, which is all you do.

Does it beat gross death threats, misogyny, and selfish declarations that plane passengers should die so that you will spend 15 minutes less in line? Or are you claiming it's "character assassination" to reference your own words?

No, but I think you're using the Intentional Fallacy while interpreting my works. Those threats, all that misogyny (?), and my wish that people should die is obviously colored by your perception of me and what you think I was trying to do. Surely these things can be given a spiritual, non-literal interpretation. It's no abuse of the text to do so.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Does it beat gross death threats, misogyny, and selfish declarations that plane passengers should die so that you will spend 15 minutes less in line? Or are you claiming it's "character assassination" to reference your own words?

No, but I think you're using the Intentional Fallacy while interpreting my works. Those threats, all that misogyny (?), and my wish that people should die is obviously colored by your perception of me and what you think I was trying to do. Surely these things can be given a spiritual, non-literal interpretation. It's no abuse of the text to do so.

Where did I ever claim to be addressing or interpreting your intentions? As I said: you don't understand the fallacy.

[_The Nehor]

Where did I ever claim to be addressing or interpreting your intentions? As I said: you don't understand the fallacy.

How is this not an interpretation of what I said?

Does it beat gross death threats, misogyny, and selfish declarations that plane passengers should die so that you will spend 15 minutes less in line? Or are you claiming it's "character assassination" to reference your own words?

Quite obviously, you missed the deep symbolic meaning of these words because you were imputing motives and intent to me.

Open your mind Scratch!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Where did I ever claim to be addressing or interpreting your intentions? As I said: you don't understand the fallacy.

How is this not an interpretation of what I said?

There's a difference between interpreting "what you said" vs. basing that interpretation on assumptions pertaining to your motives.

Does it beat gross death threats, misogyny, and selfish declarations that plane passengers should die so that you will spend 15 minutes less in line? Or are you claiming it's "character assassination" to reference your own words?

Quite obviously, you missed the deep symbolic meaning of these words because you were imputing motives and intent to me.

Open your mind Scratch!

Incidentally, I noticed that you didn't respond when I asked if you'd read the relevant scholarship on authorship and the Intentional Fallacy. I'll just assume that you haven't read any of it, and that your knowledge of this issue is based entirely on one class discussion you had as an undergraduate.

[_The Nehor]

Incidentally, I noticed that you didn't respond when I asked if you'd read the relevant scholarship on authorship and the Intentional Fallacy. I'll just assume that you haven't read any of it, and that your knowledge of this issue is based entirely on one class discussion you had as an undergraduate.

Incidentally, I have read the relevant literature. That's why I think I have a good idea of when it should be applied as I know where they applied it. If you would like to cite a passage where they discuss authorial intent being irrelevant regarding a historical document I would be glad to discuss it with you.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Incidentally, I noticed that you didn't respond when I asked if you'd read the relevant scholarship on authorship and the Intentional Fallacy. I'll just assume that you haven't read any of it, and that your knowledge of this issue is based entirely on one class discussion you had as an undergraduate.

Incidentally, I have read the relevant literature.

Oh? And what did you think of Barthes's comments concerning readerly "birth"?

That's why I think I have a good idea of when it should be applied as I know where they applied it. If you would like to cite a passage where they discuss authorial intent being irrelevant regarding a historical document I would be glad to discuss it with you.

Lol. I might do that if that's what I was arguing. But, my argument all along was that you should not claim that the Bible is literal based solely on authorial intent, which is what you were doing. (At least at first; later you altered your argument in order to assert that it was actually a matter of genre. Then, after that, you tried that claim that all of this was part of some larger "ur-argument." It's one thing to change your argument to fit the facts; it's quite another to alter it after-the-fact.) It's not wrong to take authorial intent into account. It *is* wrong to claim that authorial intent dictates a text's final meaning.

[_The Nehor]

Oh? And what did you think of Barthes's comments concerning readerly "birth"?

By this I assume you mean the shift from 'writerly' texts to 'readerly' texts. Barthes suggests that the 'writerly' texts are inferior because they are stripped of multiple meanings and the reader is allowed no say in what the text means. The 'readerly' texts are to him the superior ones because the writer is almost a non-entity. No meaning is affixed to them and the reader participates in the creation of the meaning of the text as they read.

He dislikes writerly texts and wants them to be much more limited. The Gospels are a writerly text.

Lol. I might do that if that's what I was arguing. But, my argument all along was that you should not claim that the Bible is literal based solely on authorial intent, which is what you were doing. (At least at first; later you altered your argument in order to assert that it was actually a matter of genre. Then, after that, you tried that claim that all of this was part of some larger "ur-argument." It's one thing to change your argument to fit the facts; it's quite another to alter it after-the-fact.) It's not wrong to take authorial intent into account. It *is* wrong to claim that authorial intent dictates a text's final meaning.

I never claimed the Bible was literal based on authorial intent. I claimed that the Gospels are either literal or a lie based on the way the text was written, the text itself. Yes, I used authorial intent because the genre of the work requires this. It is not wrong to claim that authorial intent dictates a text's meaning in the case of a historical account. If you are unable to handle an argument based on multiple points then you should perhaps not attempt to argue. You most certainly should not attempt to say the person is changing their argument.

Suppose Jane is writing in her journal and writes: "The dog ate twice as much as usual today and Joe was upset that he didn't get the job he was hoping for." You could try to metaphorically argue that the dog eating twice as much is a symbol of Jane's deep desire to consume more of what life has to offer and Joe's search for employment mirrors Jane's search for meaning but you would be an idiot.

Suppose you want to find out whether Jane was telling the truth or not about Joe's job and the dog. That's an entirely different sort of question that CAN be applied to the New Testament. If the evidence suggests it's a fraud then that's great. If not, then not. You cannot take a record of events that is intended to be non-fiction, ascribe a non-literal meaning to them, and then triumphantly announce that you've discovered the meaning of the text. Poetry and fiction are in another realm entirely and in those I prefer the readerly text.

Can you refute this?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Oh? And what did you think of Barthes's comments concerning readerly "birth"?

By this I assume you mean the shift from 'writerly' texts to 'readerly' texts. Barthes suggests that the 'writerly' texts are inferior because they are stripped of multiple meanings and the reader is allowed no say in what the text means. The 'readerly' texts are to him the superior ones because the writer is almost a non-entity. No meaning is affixed to them and the reader participates in the creation of the meaning of the text as they read.

He dislikes writerly texts and wants them to be much more limited. The Gospels are a writerly text.

That's just it, The Nehor---*no* text is purely a "writerly" text (or a readerly text, for that matter). This is why it seems like you don't have a solid grasp of the concepts and theory.

Lol. I might do that if that's what I was arguing. But, my argument all along was that you should not claim that the Bible is literal based solely on authorial intent, which is what you were doing. (At least at first; later you altered your argument in order to assert that it was actually a matter of genre. Then, after that, you tried that claim that all of this was part of some larger "ur-argument." It's one thing to change your argument to fit the facts; it's quite another to alter it after-the-fact.) It's not wrong to take authorial intent into account. It *is* wrong to claim that authorial intent dictates a text's final meaning.

I never claimed the Bible was literal based on authorial intent.

ROFL! Yes, you did:

No, what I'm saying is that it wasn't written as myth or legend which is why I don't see the need to read it as metaphorical or symbolic and I don't believe that it was written with that intent.

And:

You can call the whole account a lie if you want but thinking that the writers intended it to be metaphorical is a colossal joke.

(emphasis added for both quotes)

Both of these quotation feature you offering up intent as a chief rationale for your interpretation of the text as literal.

I claimed that the Gospels are either literal or a lie based on the way the text was written, the text itself. Yes, I used authorial intent because the genre of the work requires this.

There you go. See how nice it is to admit when you're wrong?

It is not wrong to claim that authorial intent dictates a text's meaning in the case of a historical account.

It is if that's your sole basis for interpretation.

You most certainly should not attempt to say the person is changing their argument.

You did change your argument. The two above cited quotes of yours are from early on in the thread. Later, you shift course and argue that it is "genre" that dictates a literal reading. Again: nothing wrong with having multiple points, nor is there anything wrong with adjusting your argument. Trying to claim that you never did that, though? Well, that's borderline dishonest.

Suppose Jane is writing in her journal and writes: "The dog ate twice as much as usual today and Joe was upset that he didn't get the job he was hoping for." You could try to metaphorically argue that the dog eating twice as much is a symbol of Jane's deep desire to consume more of what life has to offer and Joe's search for employment mirrors Jane's search for meaning but you would be an idiot.

?????

Suppose you want to find out whether Jane was telling the truth or not about Joe's job and the dog. That's an entirely different sort of question that CAN be applied to the New Testament. If the evidence suggests it's a fraud then that's great. If not, then not. You cannot take a record of events that is intended to be non-fiction, ascribe a non-literal meaning to them, and then triumphantly announce that you've discovered the meaning of the text.

What are you talking about, The Nehor? Who (aside from you, and perhaps Roger), has "triumphantly announce[d] that [he's] discovered the meaning of the text"? *You* are the one who has been insisting rather dogmatically that the New Testament *must* be taken as literal. I certainly haven't: I've just been pointing out that your insistence on dead-certainty here is extremely misguided, and based on false premises, and on your own fundamentalist reading of the text.

And: you still have provided no evidence, beyond your inchoate and awfully lame comments concerning "genre," that the New Testament needs to be taken literally, or that anything in "the text itself" (and what does that mean, exactly?) demands such a reading..

Poetry and fiction are in another realm entirely and in those I prefer the readerly text.

And here you admit that you are making a choice. Do poetry and fiction somehow "demand" that you read them as "readerly" texts? Does "the text itself" require a non-literal reading?

Can you refute this?

Refute what? That you read the Bible literally due to choice and socialization rather than something in "the text itself"? I don't need to.