The Bible is Rediculous!

[_Doctor Scratch]

But, hey---let's do quid pro quo. I want a direct citation from you in which a scholar says that the principles underlying the Intentional Fallacy are "irrelevant" when it comes to "historical" texts. I want a direct quote, with page numbers.

Now now Scratch. No need to panic here. You brought the fallacy in and I simply asked for support of it's applicability. If I had introduced it I'd be glad to provide evidence for it's use. However, it's your baby.

Go ahead and backpedal, The Nehor. I know that you're not going to bring in a quote. You asked for texts supporting my claim, and I gave them. I'll defer to Blixa's expertise here, as well. I guess you using the word "panic" is projection on your part. And, if not, I'll still be waiting patiently for that quote.

Those books do include a lot of historical statements that fall into my dichotomy of true or false. If you take the work as a whole though Foucault is trying to challenge an interpretation of history using historical documents. The documents he quotes fall into the position I think the New Testament falls into. The interpretation and theories do not. Nice try though. Still, I'd think you'd have more luck trying ancient documents. Just a suggestion.

What are you talking about? I'm comparing Foucault's readings of these documents with your reading of the Bible. You once again seem to think that this "TRUE of FALSE" dichotomy automatically dictates a literal reading. Foucault's book sort of renders the dichotomy irrelevant.

Also will you shut the HELL UP with the alien abduction analogy.

Lol. No need to get upset, The Nehor.

I have explained this to you several times but you still drag out this old straw man as if it's brilliant.

I don't think it's "brilliant." I just think it does a good job of illustrating the point, which is that you shouldn't read something as "literal" or "true" just because the author/teller seems to want you to take it that way.

I am not saying that something being a historical account means that it is inherently true. I don't even think this of the Gospels. I agree that the Gospels and alien abduction stories as accounts are either TRUE or FALSE. You keep trying to confuse the issue by trying to make me argue something I am not arguing. Getting desperate?

No.... You weren't ever asked (as far as I know) if the Gospels are "TRUE or FALSE", since that's a pretty dumb question. It's rather transparently obvious that you *do* think they're true. The question all along has evolved from your comment, on pg. 1 of the thread:

I find no meaning in those passages taken metaphorically. I find it more likely they are literal.

The ensuing discussion/argument has been over *why* you think the passages are literal. You have been arguing that they should be literal because they're either "TRUE or FALSE", which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

This is yet another of your endless false analogies. For one thing, neither of these things contain the supernatural elements of the Bible.

So what? Are you arguing that any historical account that contains supernatural elements is exempt from being taken literally on that merit alone?

It certainly ought to give you pause. And, anyways, that's not my point. My point is that it's not really correct to haul in non-supernatural historical texts for comparison.

For another thing, you are not supplying an example of interpretation here. It would be better if you said, "Gibbon, in his diary, notes that Rome was sacked in 201 B.C." You can then say, "Gibbon intends us to read this as literal." Well, maybe so, but if we remember the Intentional Fallacy, then we'll realize that simply because Gibbon "intends" us to read this as literal, there is no reason why we have to accept that. (To underscore this further: Imagine if Gibbon says that Rome was sacked in A.D. 1985... Are you going to believe him and demand that his statement be regarded as "literal" simply because he says so?)

Okay, our friend Gibbon is recounting history. If he says Rome was sacked in 1985 then we could compare his data with other information about the period and would probably determine that he was deceiving us (intentionally or not).

Where, apart from the text itself, can you compare the "data" that Christ was resurrected?

Again: you can say, either Rome was sacked in this date, or another one, but that is a separate issue from taking something as literal. Maybe Gibbon is speaking in code; maybe he made a mistake. Or, to return to your reductive demands: Maybe he is lying or telling the truth about some alternate universe in which Rome really did get sacked in A.D. 1985.

If you want to argue that Gibbon is speaking in code go ahead. I think you're nuts.

Kind of beside the point, since I'm arguing the the text isn't reducible to an "either/or" equation.

I'm arguing no such thing. Foucault can say whatever he wants about the execution records. However, he is dealing with historical texts so all of his interpretations hinge on his decision to take those records literally. If you argue that Foucault's text interpreting historical documents would be equally valid if the records were forged then I think you're nuts. Also, you should accept the Second Watson unconditionally.

Have you even read the Foucault? His reading have virtually nothing to do with the "literalness" of the records. Honestly, I think he'd say that they very well *could* be complete forgeries, provided that they'd caused the same kinds of power structures to emerge.

As for your Watson Letter example, I'm not sure what you're getting at. What does this have to do with interpretation, and taking it "literally"? The debate over the Watson letter has always been whether or not it actually existed. Whether or not to take what it says at face value is kind of beside the point. Since I've never raised the possibility of the Bible not existing, I don't really see what you're getting at here.

But, according to you, he's an "idiot," since he doesn't sit there insisting upon a "literal" reading of those texts.

He probably assumes the records are correct so he's reading them literally. If he thought it was equally valid to read them as fiction or symbolic of the death of the human soul his book's arguments and theories would be nutso.

You haven't read it, have you?

1. You haven't established that all of the events in the Bible are "historical."

The author said they were. The one person who would know claims the events are real and you toss this aside.

Again: this is the Intentional Fallacy. And I hate to do this to you, but I'm going to have to haul in the "brilliant" analogy of the alien abductee. This, too, would be the "one person who would know" if the events are "real." You going to believe him?

4. You're conflating issues. The question: did the events in the Bible happen? naturally leads in to the epistemological question: How do we determine this one way or the other? You keep hopping back and forth between these two questions. I've tried to stick to the second question, but whenever you get tripped up, you always retreat back to the safety of the more superficial inquiry. I don't think anyone in this thread was asking you whether or not the Bible *is* factual. Instead, *I*, at least, have been on your case about why you think this is so.

I have not hopped back and forth at all. Nowhere in this thread have I argued that just because the text should be read as a historical account have I stated that this makes it true. Nowhere have we even opened the argument about how to tell whether the text is accurate or some kind of deception.

Sure we have, The Nehor. That's basically what the Intentional Fallacy is dealing with (interpretation, determination of meaning), so we have at least been talking about this since I first mentioned the Intentional Fallacy.

If you'd like to open that discussion I'd be happy to do so in another thread. What you call the superficial inquiry has been what I've been trying to explain to you and you keep fighting me on it. All I've stated repeatedly is that the question of whether the events actually happened is before us and has a yes or no answer. If you agree with me on this (the only argument I've asserted) why have you been arguing with me?

I don't agree with you, and I think you are thinking about all of this in a simplistic way.

Hold on, this is confusing. One moment you call the first question superficial then you restate it as your final question asking me why my opinion is this way on the superficial question.

Yup.

By the way: I'll stand by for the quote where a scholar tells us that the principles underlying the Intentional Fallacy don't extend to non-literary texts.

As I said, your baby. If you want to argue that a fallacy can be applied to a historical account then feel free to provide me with evidence that it is applied in this manner.

I did. I gave you several texts. I'll also defer to Blixa's post above. (I notice that you completely ignored it.)

Any use of the fallacy on such a text or someone arguing convincingly that it should.

Do you have a grammar check at home, The Nehor? And again: see Blixa's post above. Another thing: it sounds very strange to say "any use of the fallacy." Why would a knowledgeable scholar be deliberately applying a fallacy? That doesn't make any sense. An example of the fallacy in action w/ a historical text is right here in this thread: i.e., it's you saying that the Bible must be taken as literal because the authors intended it that way.

On the other hand, if you're asking for scholars who are mindful of the Intentional Fallacy, and who avoid falling into the interpretive traps it hints at---well, then, I've already given you plenty of examples. I don't know why, beyond what your teacher apparently told you, that you'd think that the implications of this fallacy are limited only to "literary" texts.

If you can't provide it then you may want to delete all your posts in this thread. Your entire argument hinges on bringing this in.

I've held up my end of the bargain. I'll be waiting for that quote.

[_The Nehor]

Wonderful dodging and nice appeal to Blixa. However, if you'd read her post she did not talk about authorial intent or the Intentional Fallacy. As you continue to drag it out, I'll patiently await some suggestion that applying it to a historical account is a valid method of interpretation.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wonderful dodging and nice appeal to Blixa. However, if you'd read her post she did not talk about authorial intent or the Intentional Fallacy. As you continue to drag it out, I'll patiently await some suggestion that applying it to a historical account is a valid method of interpretation.

The Nehor---

You were an English major, right? You need to watch your verbs, then, sonny. No scholar is going to "apply" a fallacy. You don't "apply" the Intentional Fallacy to *any* text. To do so is to read the text fallaciously. When you're engaged in interpretation, you want to avoid the fallacy.... And that was my point. You said (oddly) early on that the Intentional Fallacy "does not apply" to historical texts.... I always understood you to mean that one should just ignore what the Fallacy says when reading history. Is that not what you meant?

So: avoiding the fallacy when reading history is a *good* idea, as it is with *any* text. You shouldn't depend solely on authorial intent when you're evaluating a historical text. It's perfectly valid to say, "Hey, I have some doubts about No Man Knows My History. Yes, Brodie seems to say this is true, and she appears to intend that we read this as historically accurate and true, but I don't have to trust her. The texts validity and meaning don't depend on Brodie's intentions."

Or, do you give her a free pass because the Intentional Fallacy "doesn't apply" to historical texts?

[_The Nehor]

Wonderful dodging and nice appeal to Blixa. However, if you'd read her post she did not talk about authorial intent or the Intentional Fallacy. As you continue to drag it out, I'll patiently await some suggestion that applying it to a historical account is a valid method of interpretation.

The Nehor---

You were an English major, right? You need to watch your verbs, then, sonny. No scholar is going to "apply" a fallacy. You don't "apply" the Intentional Fallacy to *any* text. To do so is to read the text fallaciously. When you're engaged in interpretation, you want to avoid the fallacy.... And that was my point. You said (oddly) early on that the Intentional Fallacy "does not apply" to historical texts.... I always understood you to mean that one should just ignore what the Fallacy says when reading history. Is that not what you meant?

So: avoiding the fallacy when reading history is a *good* idea, as it is with *any* text. You shouldn't depend solely on authorial intent when you're evaluating a historical text. It's perfectly valid to say, "Hey, I have some doubts about No Man Knows My History. Yes, Brodie seems to say this is true, and she appears to intend that we read this as historically accurate and true, but I don't have to trust her. The texts validity and meaning don't depend on Brodie's intentions."

Or, do you give her a free pass because the Intentional Fallacy "doesn't apply" to historical texts?

I don't think "No Man Knows My History" falls into the category I have defined where you SHOULD NOT use the Intentional fallacy. I'm limiting it to a recounting of historical events. Brodie's book has a little of this but most of it is attempted mind-reading and analysis of Joseph's psychology. It's not a recounting of events so much as an interpretation.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't think "No Man Knows My History" falls into the category I have defined where you SHOULD NOT use the Intentional fallacy. I'm limiting it to a recounting of historical events. Brodie's book has a little of this but most of it is attempted mind-reading and analysis of Joseph's psychology. It's not a recounting of events so much as an interpretation.

You really need to get it straight---you don't "use" the Intentional Fallacy. You try to avoid it. We've already been over your silly "category." It's completely arbitrary and based on what Blixa above calls "codes of reading." Unless you can explain why you "SHOULD NOT" bear in mind the Fallacy when reading an account from an alien abductee, or a Loch Ness monster hunter, or a psychic, or whatever else, then your argument goes sailing out the window.

The only reason you're playing this "category" card is because you need to carve out a special, protected place for texts like the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

[_The Nehor]

I don't think "No Man Knows My History" falls into the category I have defined where you SHOULD NOT use the Intentional fallacy. I'm limiting it to a recounting of historical events. Brodie's book has a little of this but most of it is attempted mind-reading and analysis of Joseph's psychology. It's not a recounting of events so much as an interpretation.

You really need to get it straight---you don't "use" the Intentional Fallacy. You try to avoid it. We've already been over your silly "category." It's completely arbitrary and based on what Blixa above calls "codes of reading." Unless you can explain why you "SHOULD NOT" bear in mind the Fallacy when reading an account from an alien abductee, or a Loch Ness monster hunter, or a psychic, or whatever else, then your argument goes sailing out the window.

The only reason you're playing this "category" card is because you need to carve out a special, protected place for texts like the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

No, no I don't. However, reason needs to call out a place where things can and should only be taken literally. When I say, "I ate Kashi for breakfast" there are only two possibilities. I am either lying or communicating a literal fact. If you see no need to discern fact from fiction and that in some cases this is the only way to look at it then I think there's little point in continuing this conversation or taking any factual statement you make seriously ever again as they're subject to interpretation.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The only reason you're playing this "category" card is because you need to carve out a special, protected place for texts like the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

No, no I don't. However, reason needs to call out a place where things can and should only be taken literally.

There is a time and a place for treating things as literal---sure. But don't try and claim that this is somehow *not* an act of reading, an act of interpretation. Furthermore, it is very silly to claim that a text as complicated and strange as the Bible should be treated as literal fact because it is somehow "reasonable" to do so.

When I say, "I ate Kashi for breakfast" there are only two possibilities. I am either lying or communicating a literal fact.

No; that's not correct---at least not from the perspective of interpretation, reading, or discerning meaning. There are scarcely ever---if at all---"only two possibilities" when it comes to interpretation.

If you see no need to discern fact from fiction and that in some cases this is the only way to look at it then I think there's little point in continuing this conversation or taking any factual statement you make seriously ever again as they're subject to interpretation.

Factual statements are always subject to interpretation. That's sort of a no-brainer. And, I get that you're rather desperately looking for an escape hatch here. Go ahead and bail out, The Nehor. You got pwned on this thread ages ago. In the midst of all of this you've suffered several breakdowns, erupting in emotional outbursts where you dispense of bunch of personal insults, or say, "Shut the hell up!" or engage in flaming, etc. Is that the behavior of someone with a serious and persuasive argument? Oh, and let's not forget that you added a second quote from me into your sig line during all this discussion. Please. You don't have a real argument; you just have a vendetta.

So, I'll expect that you'll either abandon the thread, or else you'll haul in something that's totally unrelated to the thread's primary topic because you feel like lashing out again. Or, you could surprise me and produce that quote I've asked you multiple times to produce.

[_The Nehor]

When I say, "I ate Kashi for breakfast" there are only two possibilities. I am either lying or communicating a literal fact.

No; that's not correct---at least not from the perspective of interpretation, reading, or discerning meaning. There are scarcely ever---if at all---"only two possibilities" when it comes to interpretation.

Okay, give me another one for that very statement.

Factual statements are always subject to interpretation. That's sort of a no-brainer. And, I get that you're rather desperately looking for an escape hatch here. Go ahead and bail out, The Nehor. You got pwned on this thread ages ago. In the midst of all of this you've suffered several breakdowns, erupting in emotional outbursts where you dispense of bunch of personal insults, or say, "Shut the hell up!" or engage in flaming, etc. Is that the behavior of someone with a serious and persuasive argument? Oh, and let's not forget that you added a second quote from me into your sig line during all this discussion. Please. You don't have a real argument; you just have a vendetta.

So, I'll expect that you'll either abandon the thread, or else you'll haul in something that's totally unrelated to the thread's primary topic because you feel like lashing out again. Or, you could surprise me and produce that quote I've asked you multiple times to produce.

Ah, the standard Scratch declaration of victory. Factual statements are subject to interpretation. However, they are also TRUE or FALSE. This is all I've said. Either Jesus was born or he wasn't. Either he died on the cross or he didn't. Either he was resurrected or he wasn't. You call this simplistic. Unless you're willing to confront such questions you're not really thinking at all.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No; that's not correct---at least not from the perspective of interpretation, reading, or discerning meaning. There are scarcely ever---if at all---"only two possibilities" when it comes to interpretation.

Okay, give me another one for that very statement.

You could be describing a dream or a hallucination; you could be speaking in code; you could be playing a fantasy game. Etc., etc. Maybe you wrote a poem and this is part of it.

You keep trying to throw out these context-free statements, and this does your argument no credit whatsoever.

Factual statements are always subject to interpretation. That's sort of a no-brainer. And, I get that you're rather desperately looking for an escape hatch here. Go ahead and bail out, The Nehor. You got pwned on this thread ages ago. In the midst of all of this you've suffered several breakdowns, erupting in emotional outbursts where you dispense of bunch of personal insults, or say, "Shut the hell up!" or engage in flaming, etc. Is that the behavior of someone with a serious and persuasive argument? Oh, and let's not forget that you added a second quote from me into your sig line during all this discussion. Please. You don't have a real argument; you just have a vendetta.

So, I'll expect that you'll either abandon the thread, or else you'll haul in something that's totally unrelated to the thread's primary topic because you feel like lashing out again. Or, you could surprise me and produce that quote I've asked you multiple times to produce.

Ah, the standard Scratch declaration of victory. Factual statements are subject to interpretation. However, they are also TRUE or FALSE.

What does that even mean, The Nehor? Again: this is why your thinking on the issue is so fundamentally simplistic. You cannot simultaneously say that something is "subject to interpretation" and that is must also be "TRUE or FALSE" (whatever that means). You want to take statements that you naïvely/simplistically think are "statements of fact" and to just let it go at that, ignoring issues of subjectivity and epistemology the whole way. "The Book of Mormon is true" is a statement of fact, no? But what does that mean? How about this: "Joseph Smith was killed at Carthage." Is this "TRUE or FALSE"? In your simplified, black-and-white worldview I guess it would be. For the rest of us, this is debatable: some TBMs would insist that he was martyred at Carthage. Some Church critics would say that he "died in a gunfight." Which of these statements---all of which can and have been applied to the same incident---is "TRUE or FALSE"?

That's why your treatment of this whole issue is simplistic. You have been trying to sweep aside basic issues of language and meaning.

This is all I've said. Either Jesus was born or he wasn't.

You are over-simplifying again. (And these one-liners just won't do.) "Jesus was born": what does this mean? That he came into existence---in both body and spirit? That he was sired by God and birthed by Mary? That he was a God-human hybrid? That the Messiah entered the world?

You want to treat meaning and "facts" as these easily reducible things.

Either he died on the cross or he didn't. Either he was resurrected or he wasn't. You call this simplistic.

It is simplistic.

Unless you're willing to confront such questions you're not really thinking at all.

Hey: I'm not the one who said that the Bible has to be read as literal because the authors intended it that way. To repeat: pwned.

[_The Nehor]

Okay, give me another one for that very statement.

You could be describing a dream or a hallucination; you could be speaking in code; you could be playing a fantasy game. Etc., etc. Maybe you wrote a poem and this is part of it.

Okay, suppose the sentence was preceded with: "This really happened." with no other context similar to the Book of Luke.

Ah, the standard Scratch declaration of victory. Factual statements are subject to interpretation. However, they are also TRUE or FALSE.

What does that even mean, The Nehor? Again: this is why your thinking on the issue is so fundamentally simplistic. You cannot simultaneously say that something is "subject to interpretation" and that is must also be "TRUE or FALSE" (whatever that means). You want to take statements that you naïvely/simplistically think are "statements of fact" and to just let it go at that, ignoring issues of subjectivity and epistemology the whole way. "The Book of Mormon is true" is a statement of fact, no? But what does that mean? How about this: "Joseph Smith was killed at Carthage." Is this "TRUE or FALSE"? In your simplified, black-and-white worldview I guess it would be. For the rest of us, this is debatable: some TBMs would insist that he was martyred at Carthage. Some Church critics would say that he "died in a gunfight." Which of these statements---all of which can and have been applied to the same incident---is "TRUE or FALSE"?

The Book of Mormon is true means that it's an accurate depiction of events and theology.

Joseph Smith was killed at Carthage. True.
Joseph Smith was martyred at Carthage. True.
Joseph Smith died in a gunfight. True.

You are over-simplifying again. (And these one-liners just won't do.) "Jesus was born": what does this mean? That he came into existence---in both body and spirit? That he was sired by God and birthed by Mary? That he was a God-human hybrid? That the Messiah entered the world?

Born. That a physical body came out of the womb of his mother. That's the usual understanding.

Either he died on the cross or he didn't. Either he was resurrected or he wasn't. You call this simplistic.

It is simplistic.

It also HAS to be one or the other.

Unless you're willing to confront such questions you're not really thinking at all.

Hey: I'm not the one who said that the Bible has to be read as literal because the authors intended it that way. To repeat: pwned.

I am. I knew a retarded kid who would say pwned at the end of any nonsensical string of words he put together and then he would smile smugly as if he'd just shown you up. I think I'll now hear his voice every time you declare victory.