The Bible is Rediculous!

[_The Nehor]

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.

Yes, but virtually all are predominantly one or the other.

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.

So the argument that a text should either be taken literally or be taken as a lie means that it is in fact literal. I present two options. You keep trying to reduce it to one. Mostly because you're an idiot and you intentionally misread.

Again, I do not know how I can make this any clearer but you still offer up a strawman.

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?

This is actually what I've been saying the whole damn time jackass.

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.

No, not it isn't.

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.

Pure Scratchian logic. I present an argument. Scratch misunderstands either deliberately or out of stupidity. I explain from a different point of view or explain a different facet of the argument so that even someone as dimwitted as Scratch can understand. Scratch then accuses you of shifting your argument and proceeds to misunderstand the new one as well. Scratch is as close as humanity has come to non-sentient life.

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.

?????

Is the example too complex for you?

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.

I haven't discovered the meaning of the text. However I can triumphantly announce that a metaphorical or non-literal meaning is inane. I will repeat this if it will help.

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..

I presented an analogy above to help you. You didn't understand it. The concept is obviously too far above you.

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?

Nope, wrong again. I said I prefer a certain kind of text, not a certain kind of interpretation. Perhaps when you read the "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" you allow for a literal, one-dimensional interpretation by choice. I stated that when I read fiction that I prefer texts that require the reader to be involved in the interpretation/understanding. No matter how hard I try I will not be able to read Josephus or The Penguin History of the World and interpret the text non-literally and still maintain my sanity.

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.

Again, you make up a new argument and ascribe it to me.

Okay, I will do likewise:

So, Scratch, you are suggesting that you should be allowed to sexually molest penguins while chanting haikus at the city zoo. I disagree flatly with this and believe it violates several laws.

[Guest]

So the argument that a text should either be taken literally or be taken as a lie means that it is in fact literal. I present two options. You keep trying to reduce it to one.

What are you talking about? *You* are the one who is arguing that the Bible should be taken "literally." Where have I ever said---one way or the other---that it should or should not? My point all along has been that your rationale(s) have been faulty. You can *choose* to read it as literal; but to *insist* that it must, based on some phantom elements "in the text itself," is a zealot's fallacy.

Mostly because you're an idiot and you intentionally misread.

Lol. Well, there goes the false mask of seriousness and civility. It really is unfortunate, The Nehor, that you're apparently incapable of arguing a serious point without stooping to insults and personal attack.

Again, I do not know how I can make this any clearer but you still offer up a strawman.

What "strawman", The Nehor? You have been arguing that the Bible should be taken "literally," no? Your rationale(s) for this position is/are: (A) that the authors intended that it be taken literally, and (B) that its genre demands that we take it literally. Both of these are problematic and illogical arguments.

How is that a "strawman"?

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

This is actually what I've been saying the whole damn time jackass.

More juvenile insults. How persuasive and intellectual!

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

No, not it isn't.

???? Calm down and try to write clearly, The Nehor.

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.

Pure Scratchian logic. I present an argument. Scratch misunderstands either deliberately or out of stupidity. I explain from a different point of view or explain a different facet of the argument so that even someone as dimwitted as Scratch can understand. Scratch then accuses you of shifting your argument and proceeds to misunderstand the new one as well. Scratch is as close as humanity has come to non-sentient life.

More ad hominem attack and personal insults. Is that really the best you've got, The Nehor? It would be better if you just conceded that your arguments are pretty poor, and that the Bible---just like any other text---allows for multiple interpretations.

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.

?????

Is the example too complex for you?[/quote]

Not at all.... It just doesn't make any sense. Nor does it seem in the least like Biblical writing. If the dog in your example began reciting Psalms and then Jane raised Joe from the dead.... Well, mightn't that be closer to what you're getting at? Also, don't you think you should have tried harder to mimic the style and rhythms of Biblical prose?

And, in either case, you are once again trying out a new argument here. How, if I may ask, does your above example have anything to do with either genre or authorial intent?

I haven't discovered the meaning of the text. However I can triumphantly announce that a metaphorical or non-literal meaning is inane. I will repeat this if it will help.

You don't know what the text means, but you know for sure it is "literal"? Uh, okay. Shall we examine your reasons for this? Yes, why don't we! You are arguing this on the basis of genre and authorial intent, both of which are highly problematic.

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..

I presented an analogy above to help you. You didn't understand it. The concept is obviously too far above you.

Your analogy has little if nothing to do with genre, The Nehor. (And again with the insults! Gee whiz---you'd think that someone with a solid argument wouldn't need to do that....) I asked you long ago to define the generic features of the Bible and you didn't do it. Instead, you tried to dodge the issue by claiming that it was "obvious" or that one needed only to read Greek and Norse mythology. Now, with your little Jane and Joe analogy, you are once again (apparently) trying to make some point about genre, but is this really in the same genre as the Bible? Well, no---it is patently not, since it contains no element of the supernatural (among other things).

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?

Nope, wrong again. I said I prefer a certain kind of text, not a certain kind of interpretation. Perhaps when you read the "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" you allow for a literal, one-dimensional interpretation by choice. I stated that when I read fiction that I prefer texts that require the reader to be involved in the interpretation/understanding.

*All* texts "require the reader to be involved in the interpretation/understanding," The Nehor. Texts do not interpret themselves, unless you are a dogmatic fundamentalist.

No matter how hard I try I will not be able to read Josephus or The Penguin History of the World and interpret the text non-literally and still maintain my sanity.

That's fine. But don't try to claim that this is due to anything other than your own choice and socialization. It's funny how you pick and choose when to apply theoretical principals. For whatever reason, it seems that lit. theory notions just don't apply to the Bible for you. One has to wonder why it, as a text, is exempt in your mind.

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.

Again, you make up a new argument and ascribe it to me.

You haven't delineated any textual features that would require a dogmatically literal reading. The authorial intent argument has already been demolished. And your genre argument is easily dismantled by way of example. Feel free to list off genres, or generic features, and I'm sure we can easily spot them in other texts that are patently fictitious. E.g., above you are trying to compare literalist readings by hauling in the Penguin History of the World. Does this text contain the same kind of mystical and supernatural material as the Bible, though? Your argument just doesn't hold up.

But, by all means, feel free to continue clinging to your fundamentalist views.

[_silentkid]

Pwnage.

[_The Nehor]

Okay Scratchie, your insanity has gotten so convoluted that I think I'll start over with the SAME argument and explain it in terms maybe even you can understand.

Okay, we'll start with two basic kinds of communications.

Type A:

Written in a letter: I saw the Dodgers game on TV yesterday.
Spoken: I talked to George last night and we talked about reality TV.

Type B:

Written: Puff the Magic dragon lives by the sea.
Spoken around a campfire: (Insert ghost story)

Now, can we at least agree that Type A is either literal or false. There is no non-literal interpretation. Either the person communicating is sharing information or they are lying.

Type B is not meant to be taken literally.

My argument is that the New Testament belongs in category A. This has always been my argument.

Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Dr. Scratch,

Mr. Nehor simply wants you to to open up your mind, and play with "thought". He wants you to "break free" from a common sense approach to thinking, and restructure it to make the Bible sound plausible. He wants you to try and forget the things the world has taught; the consistent patterns you've witnessed in people, situations, and nature, and instead wrap your mind around those things that sound completely nonsensical. In other words, good Doctor, pretend it's all true and then say, "Now what?".

This is a very unfortunate side effect magical thinking has on a population. I commend you for engaging Mr. Nehor in dialogue. He serves as an excellent example of someone who is completely self-hypnotized with magical thinking.

Mr. Nehor, the Bible is a fabrication. Please consider this fact.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Nevo]

My argument is that the New Testament belongs in category A. This has always been my argument.

Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

I think the New Testament obviously contains both literal and non-literal elements. Jesus' crucifixion is literal. Having God's law written on our hearts is metaphor.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Okay, we'll start with two basic kinds of communications.

Type A:

Written in a letter: I saw the Dodgers game on TV yesterday.
Spoken: I talked to George last night and we talked about reality TV.

Type B:

Written: Puff the Magic dragon lives by the sea.
Spoken around a campfire: (Insert ghost story)

Now, can we at least agree that Type A is either literal or false.

No, we can't. For one thing, there is no context. Suppose we supply a little. Let's say that the "I" speaker in the "spoken" version is a mobster, or a CIA agent in deep cover. Let's say that "Reality TV" is a code word for nuclear technology. Is it therefore right to label this comment as "literal", sans any context whatsoever? No, not really. We would have to treat it as code for something else. Here's a different context: suppose the speakers are involved in a cult that worships microwaves and gamma rays. ESPN, in this cult, has a very special status. Thus, "saw the Dodgers game" could mean essentially the same thing as, "I went to church." The problem with your examples (for starters anyhow) is that you're not supplying any context here. You seem to have some very naïve, or fundamentalist, notions about how language works. You seem almost to think that it exists in a vacuum.

What's different about your approach this time around is that you are offering *zero* rationale.

There is no non-literal interpretation. Either the person communicating is sharing information or they are lying.

Well, obviously not, as I've explained. There are usually more interpretations than just two.

Type B is not meant to be taken literally.

Well, that depends. Is the first speaker a schizophrenic? If so, don't you think s/he "meant" for it to "be taken literally"? Is the second speaker someone who believes in ghosts? Think of it this way: do you think that alien abductees intend for their stories to be taken "literally"? And *should* you take them literally simply because they want you to? Further, one could argue that the story of the Resurrection *is* a kind of "ghost story" on a very grand and magnificent scale. Why take one literally and not the other? Due to the "campfire" context? If that's the case, then you will have to account for *your* Biblical interpretive context, which is that you are a believing LDS and you identify with a faith community that treats the New Testament as "literal."

My argument is that the New Testament belongs in category A. This has always been my argument.

Yes, I know that's your argument, The Nehor. My problem has always been with your rationale (authorial intent and genre). These are not good reasons for treating the New Testament as "literal," especially given the supernatural elements.

[_The Nehor]

Okay, we'll start with two basic kinds of communications.

Type A:

Written in a letter: I saw the Dodgers game on TV yesterday.
Spoken: I talked to George last night and we talked about reality TV.

Type B:

Written: Puff the Magic dragon lives by the sea.
Spoken around a campfire: (Insert ghost story)

Now, can we at least agree that Type A is either literal or false.

No, we can't. For one thing, there is no context. Suppose we supply a little. Let's say that the "I" speaker in the "spoken" version is a mobster, or a CIA agent in deep cover. Let's say that "Reality TV" is a code word for nuclear technology. Is it therefore right to label this comment as "literal", sans any context whatsoever? No, not really. We would have to treat it as code for something else. Here's a different context: suppose the speakers are involved in a cult that worships microwaves and gamma rays. ESPN, in this cult, has a very special status. Thus, "saw the Dodgers game" could mean essentially the same thing as, "I went to church." The problem with your examples (for starters anyhow) is that you're not supplying any context here. You seem to have some very naïve, or fundamentalist, notions about how language works. You seem almost to think that it exists in a vacuum.

What's different about your approach this time around is that you are offering *zero* rationale. [/quote]

Ah-ha, so basically you're saying that context matters and that what the speaker meant matters...i.e. authorial intent.

There is no non-literal interpretation. Either the person communicating is sharing information or they are lying.

Well, obviously not, as I've explained. There are usually more interpretations than just two.

If you wish to insist on this I'll allow it but in this case there is only one CORRECT interpretation in these situations. If someone says they went to the Dodgers game meaning they went to church then presumably the listener knows what this means and will understand. If the listener insists on thinking the person went to a sports event against their understanding they are probably insane. If the listener doesn't know the code then the speaker is deceiving the listener.

Type B is not meant to be taken literally.

Well, that depends. Is the first speaker a schizophrenic? If so, don't you think s/he "meant" for it to "be taken literally"? Is the second speaker someone who believes in ghosts? Think of it this way: do you think that alien abductees intend for their stories to be taken "literally"? And *should* you take them literally simply because they want you to? Further, one could argue that the story of the Resurrection *is* a kind of "ghost story" on a very grand and magnificent scale. Why take one literally and not the other? Due to the "campfire" context? If that's the case, then you will have to account for *your* Biblical interpretive context, which is that you are a believing LDS and you identify with a faith community that treats the New Testament as "literal."

Then we actually agree. When one person is stating something as a fact and not in a literary sense they mean to be taken literally. The alien abductee wants you to take his account literally. You have to decide based on the merits of the case whether to do so or not. It's the same with the New Testament. It makes a claim to be a factual account. Whether you accept that account is another question entirely. However say you listen to the abductee and insist on a non-literal interpretation and insist that he is using a non-literal metaphor to suggest that mankind must become free of this earthly sphere. Both the UFO believer and the UFO skeptic will look at you like you are nuts and rightly so.

If you were to tell an atheist and Jesus that the account of his life was non-literal but still 'meant something' you're doing the same thing as the insane man in the UFO example. They'd both think you were nuts.

My argument is that the New Testament belongs in category A. This has always been my argument.

Yes, I know that's your argument, The Nehor. My problem has always been with your rationale (authorial intent and genre). These are not good reasons for treating the New Testament as "literal," especially given the supernatural elements.

[/quote]

If you disbelieve in the supernatural and the supernatural elements in the New Testament then I would encourage you to toss the book to the side. I would say that insisting on giving it non-literal meaning when the account it fradulent is pretty loony.

[_The Nehor]

My argument is that the New Testament belongs in category A. This has always been my argument.

Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

I think the New Testament obviously contains both literal and non-literal elements. Jesus' crucifixion is literal. Having God's law written on our hearts is metaphor.

True, however the divide is obvious. When Jesus tells his people to be like doves you know he doesn't mean for them to lay eggs. However, trying to give a non-literal understanding of Caesar Augustus calling for all the world to be taxed is ridiculous. Obviously there is metaphor but the actual historical elements in the Gospels (birth of Jesus, miracles, travels, preaching, death, resurrection) either happened as they said or they didn't.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No, we can't. For one thing, there is no context. Suppose we supply a little. Let's say that the "I" speaker in the "spoken" version is a mobster, or a CIA agent in deep cover. Let's say that "Reality TV" is a code word for nuclear technology. Is it therefore right to label this comment as "literal", sans any context whatsoever? No, not really. We would have to treat it as code for something else. Here's a different context: suppose the speakers are involved in a cult that worships microwaves and gamma rays. ESPN, in this cult, has a very special status. Thus, "saw the Dodgers game" could mean essentially the same thing as, "I went to church." The problem with your examples (for starters anyhow) is that you're not supplying any context here. You seem to have some very naïve, or fundamentalist, notions about how language works. You seem almost to think that it exists in a vacuum.

What's different about your approach this time around is that you are offering *zero* rationale.

Ah-ha, so basically you're saying that context matters and that what the speaker meant matters...i.e. authorial intent.[/quote]

No....not quite. And besides: my comments re: authorial intent were simply that it's wrong to assume "literal-ness" purely on the basis of authorial intent. And context and authorial intent are not necessarily the same thing.

In your above examples, you're (apparently) trying to argue that there is something intrinsic to language that will or will not demand a literal interpretation, and that's just not the case.

Well, obviously not, as I've explained. There are usually more interpretations than just two.

If you wish to insist on this I'll allow it but in this case there is only one CORRECT interpretation in these situations. If someone says they went to the Dodgers game meaning they went to church then presumably the listener knows what this means and will understand. If the listener insists on thinking the person went to a sports event against their understanding they are probably insane. If the listener doesn't know the code then the speaker is deceiving the listener.

How do you figure? And, again, what makes you so sure that you "understand the code," as it were, in the case of the Bible? As I said earlier: you've now removed all rationale from your argument.

Well, that depends. Is the first speaker a schizophrenic? If so, don't you think s/he "meant" for it to "be taken literally"? Is the second speaker someone who believes in ghosts? Think of it this way: do you think that alien abductees intend for their stories to be taken "literally"? And *should* you take them literally simply because they want you to? Further, one could argue that the story of the Resurrection *is* a kind of "ghost story" on a very grand and magnificent scale. Why take one literally and not the other? Due to the "campfire" context? If that's the case, then you will have to account for *your* Biblical interpretive context, which is that you are a believing LDS and you identify with a faith community that treats the New Testament as "literal."

Then we actually agree. When one person is stating something as a fact and not in a literary sense they mean to be taken literally. The alien abductee wants you to take his account literally. You have to decide based on the merits of the case whether to do so or not.

That's really only part of the equation.

It's the same with the New Testament. It makes a claim to be a factual account.

Where? You have never pointed to this, despite being asked to do so multiple times.

Whether you accept that account is another question entirely. However say you listen to the abductee and insist on a non-literal interpretation and insist that he is using a non-literal metaphor to suggest that mankind must become free of this earthly sphere. Both the UFO believer and the UFO skeptic will look at you like you are nuts and rightly so.

What if that's the interpretation that the UFO believer intended? That's my point, The Nehor: you cannot know this based solely on "the text."

If you were to tell an atheist and Jesus that the account of his life was non-literal but still 'meant something' you're doing the same thing as the insane man in the UFO example. They'd both think you were nuts.

Huh? There are plenty of scholars who see meaning in the life of Jesus, and in the story of the Resurrection, without necessarily believing that the Resurrection literally happened. This is sort of a separate issue anyways (i.e., the issue of whether or not one can extract meaning from a story that is non-literal. Obviously, one *can,* which is one of the reasons why we read canonical works of fiction.)

The issue here all along has been: Why should we assume that the New Testament is meant to be taken absolutely literally? (And let's face it: this is really quite a fundamentalist position.) You have argued from the outset there there is something intrinsic in the text that demands a literal interpretation. And my response again and again has been: What is that "something"? At first you said it was authorial intent; then you said "genre." Now you've backed away entirely from naming a rationale, or a "something." You keep reverting to the false dichotomy: "Either it's literal or it's a lie!" Well, not necessarily. Are the parables of Jesus either "literal or a lie"? You're treating the whole issue in a very simplistic and reductive way. There is no reason why the New Testament has to be read only in one of those two ways.

If you disbelieve in the supernatural and the supernatural elements in the New Testament then I would encourage you to toss the book to the side. I would say that insisting on giving it non-literal meaning when the account it fradulent is pretty loony.

Your position is the stance of the zealot and the fundamentalist. Is One Hundred Years of Solitude "fraudulent" because it tells of magical happenings?

True, however the divide is obvious. When Jesus tells his people to be like doves you know he doesn't mean for them to lay eggs. However, trying to give a non-literal understanding of Caesar Augustus calling for all the world to be taxed is ridiculous.

Gee, did you not take macro-economics?

Obviously there is metaphor but the actual historical elements in the Gospels (birth of Jesus, miracles, travels, preaching, death, resurrection) either happened as they said or they didn't.

Or, they happened in the minds, hearts, and souls of the authors. Once again, your rigidly dogmatic approach to the issue is standing in the way of plain common sense, The Nehor.