Yet more problematic stuff

[Svartalf]

Rift valley and Morocco? man, you're talking about opposite ends of Africa, does not compute, please correct.

[Scot Dutchy]

Sorry a 't' to much. The Rif. Part of the Atlas mountains.

[Svartalf]

ah, the Rif area, yeah, I get you better... and kif culture still is the biggest source of revenu for Morocco, before tourism.

[Rum]

Meandered around that area in my hippie days. Exceedingly good dope and back then very friendly locals, with a few exceptions.

[Seabass]

There is no systemic racism in America.

[Forty Two]

Ahh the no-true-bible-literalist fallacy..

I'm not defending the Biblical literalists - if I was, I would accept that they do, indeed, take the Bible literally. However, they don't. They SAY they take the Bible literally, but the first metaphor you point them to, like saying the woman's eyes were doves, they will admit that the woman's eyes were not actual, live doves. They will admit that it's a reference to her beauty and her eyes with long lashes fluttering -- it's poetry. So, they in actual fact DON'T take the Bible literally, even when they say they do.

That's a testament to how (a) stupid some of them are and/or uneducated, or (b) how people in general have the capacity to be Jedi mind tricked into believing shit that just ain't so, just because they are convinced they need to believe it.

I'm criticizing them for that, not defending them.

[JimC]

Ahh the no-true-bible-literalist fallacy..

I'm not defending the Biblical literalists - if I was, I would accept that they do, indeed, take the Bible literally. However, they don't. They SAY they take the Bible literally, but the first metaphor you point them to, like saying the woman's eyes were doves, they will admit that the woman's eyes were not actual, live doves. They will admit that it's a reference to her beauty and her eyes with long lashes fluttering -- it's poetry. So, they in actual fact DON'T take the Bible literally, even when they say they do.

That's a testament to how (a) stupid some of them are and/or uneducated, or (b) how people in general have the capacity to be Jedi mind tricked into believing shit that just ain't so, just because they are convinced they need to believe it.

I'm criticizing them for that, not defending them.

They certainly cherry pick, and they ignore poetic allusions (which is only sensible), but they certainly take some stuff like the creation of Earth 6000 years ago as literally as you like...

[Brian Peacock]

Ah, but the point which you've failed to recognise Jim is that as long as they don't take the whole tome literally, even if its just one silly little thing, then they're not technically proper Bible literalists - even if that's what they say they are and act as if they are. As we've heard many many times before, so many people are technically so wrong about who they say and think they are. This is a lesson we constantly fail to learn it seems, but it is nonetheless one which we must be made to learn - and so I for one am thankful that there's someone out there who is willing to teach us.

[JimC]

[Forty Two]

Ahh the no-true-bible-literalist fallacy..

I'm not defending the Biblical literalists - if I was, I would accept that they do, indeed, take the Bible literally. However, they don't. They SAY they take the Bible literally, but the first metaphor you point them to, like saying the woman's eyes were doves, they will admit that the woman's eyes were not actual, live doves. They will admit that it's a reference to her beauty and her eyes with long lashes fluttering -- it's poetry. So, they in actual fact DON'T take the Bible literally, even when they say they do.

That's a testament to how (a) stupid some of them are and/or uneducated, or (b) how people in general have the capacity to be Jedi mind tricked into believing shit that just ain't so, just because they are convinced they need to believe it.

I'm criticizing them for that, not defending them.

They certainly cherry pick, and they ignore poetic allusions (which is only sensible), but they certainly take some stuff like the creation of Earth 6000 years ago as literally as you like...

In many ways, the Bibllical literalists don't even take the Bible literally that way. Sure, the few that say each day was a literal 24-hour day in the creation story, and everything happened exactly as set out -- but many of them think silly things like "the Bible says that a day is like 1,000 years to God" and therefore the one "day" in Genesis is not a 24 hour day, but 1,000 year day -- or other such twists. They'll then say they take the Bible literally, even though they just made the entire creation story a simile.

[Forty Two]

Ah, but the point which you've failed to recognise Jim is that as long as they don't take the whole tome literally, even if its just one silly little thing, then they're not technically proper Bible literalists - even if that's what they say they are and act as if they are. As we've heard many many times before, so many people are technically so wrong about who they say and think they are. This is a lesson we constantly fail to learn it seems, but it is nonetheless one which we must be made to learn - and so I for one am thankful that there's someone out there who is willing to teach us.

Brian, you are trying to create a controversy here where there is none, and you can't do so more smugly.

Biblical literalists surely "say" and even believe that they are are proper Biblical literalists. However, if they are willing to take parts of the Bible figuratively, then they should be willing to say that they don't take it literally, at least not all of it. The fact that many of them take the Bible figuratively, but still insist that they are taking it literally, is odd, isn't it?

If someone says "I believe the Bible is the word of God, and is literally true, cover to cover," then that same person would be nuts, I think, to be puzzling out the "symbolism" in the Book of Revelation, for example - how many times have you heard folks telling us that the end times are near because the "Beast" or the antichrist is among us already, and the characters in Revelation "represent" that real life person? HOw many times have you heard that the horns of the beast represent countries

In Isaiah 55:12, the Bible says “the trees will clap their hands.” Trees don’t have hands and don’t clap. Personification is figurative. Anyone who says that they take the Bible literally, but will acknowledge that personification is a figure of speech, has some splainin' to do, don't they?

It's not as if the Bible has a few of these things sprinkled throughout. It's riddled with them.

Proverbs 10:20, “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver.”
Matthew 6:21, “for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
Mark 16:15 (KJV), “Preach the gospel to every creature.”
Philippians 3:19, “Their god is their stomach…
Genesis 15:15, “You, however, will go to your fathers in peace…”
John 11:11, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep …”
Psalm 17:8, “Keep me as the apple of your eye.”
Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church…”
Psalm 23, “The Lord is my shepherd…”
Job 12:2, “Doubtless you are the people and wisdom will die with you.”
Leviticus 18:25, “The land vomited out its inhabitants.”
1 Corinthians 12:15 and 16, “If the foot shall say, “Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body…And if the ear shall say, “Because I am not the eye…”

Anyone who takes these things "literally" either can't know what "literally" means, or is somehow saying one thing about themselves and being another. Because those things just are not literal.

So, if you meet a Biblical literalist online or in person and he commits to believing that the Bible is literal, cover to cover, then he is in a bind. One can trot out verse after verse and ask if "apple of your eye" is literal? If the land really did "vomit" out inhabitants? Or if the tongue of the righteous really is literally made of metal.

The best they can come up with is that they don't take the word literally to literally mean that there aren't any figurative uses of language. And, that's a massive contradiction in terms. The reality is that they don't take the Bible literally from cover to cover, unless they redefine what the word "literally" means, or simply fail to understand what it does mean.

[Brian Peacock]

You can be excused for confusing two different matters here as there is a very long tradition of religious smoke and mirrors. The thing with Bible literalists is that they take the Bible to be literally true, whereas we know it's demonstrably false - the mustard seed is not the smallest thing in God's creation. It doesn't matter if Bible literalist are demonstrably mistaken, or demonstrably deluded for that matter, they are called and refer to themselves as Bible literalist for one simple, obvious reason.



It seems to me that the only way one can say that Tim Keller is taking the Bible as figuratively rather than literally true is to ignore what's coming out of his mouth and say that he is technically wrong about who and what he is, says, does, and thinks - hence my comment above. Again, the actual-factual accuracy of the Bible is a different matter to the one about whether Bible literalist say, do, and think the Bible is actually and factually true.

Now, if believing something which is demonstrably false is actually-factually true is what we call a delusion -- which seems a pretty good definition of the word to me -- then why should we tolerate, and in so doing indulge, the deluded in their bizarre fantasies? Because that particular brand of madness is called 'religion'? Does it harm society to allow the deluded to restrict the rights or activities of others; to donate to anti-LGBT causes as you suggested, or to insist that schools teach their delusions as established fact, or to ensure that the pregnant rape victim goes to term, or to stockpile weapons for the coming apocalypse while waiting for the Devil to come walking up the drive, or to place their faith (and often their cash) in prayer as a cure for the cancer of their children, or even to put their faith in an elected official who exhibits all the symptoms of their particular mania? Why should we tolerate that - and why do you chide others for not doing so?

[Scot Dutchy]

What I always ask is how about the rest of the universe. Nothing in the bible about that.

[Joe]

Ah, but the point which you've failed to recognise Jim is that as long as they don't take the whole tome literally, even if its just one silly little thing, then they're not technically proper Bible literalists - even if that's what they say they are and act as if they are. As we've heard many many times before, so many people are technically so wrong about who they say and think they are. This is a lesson we constantly fail to learn it seems, but it is nonetheless one which we must be made to learn - and so I for one am thankful that there's someone out there who is willing to teach us.

Brian, you are trying to create a controversy here where there is none, and you can't do so more smugly.

Biblical literalists surely "say" and even believe that they are are proper Biblical literalists. However, if they are willing to take parts of the Bible figuratively, then they should be willing to say that they don't take it literally, at least not all of it. The fact that many of them take the Bible figuratively, but still insist that they are taking it literally, is odd, isn't it?

If someone says "I believe the Bible is the word of God, and is literally true, cover to cover," then that same person would be nuts, I think, to be puzzling out the "symbolism" in the Book of Revelation, for example - how many times have you heard folks telling us that the end times are near because the "Beast" or the antichrist is among us already, and the characters in Revelation "represent" that real life person? HOw many times have you heard that the horns of the beast represent countries

In Isaiah 55:12, the Bible says “the trees will clap their hands.” Trees don’t have hands and don’t clap. Personification is figurative. Anyone who says that they take the Bible literally, but will acknowledge that personification is a figure of speech, has some splainin' to do, don't they?

It's not as if the Bible has a few of these things sprinkled throughout. It's riddled with them.

Proverbs 10:20, “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver.”
Matthew 6:21, “for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
Mark 16:15 (KJV), “Preach the gospel to every creature.”
Philippians 3:19, “Their god is their stomach…
Genesis 15:15, “You, however, will go to your fathers in peace…”
John 11:11, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep …”
Psalm 17:8, “Keep me as the apple of your eye.”
Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church…”
Psalm 23, “The Lord is my shepherd…”
Job 12:2, “Doubtless you are the people and wisdom will die with you.”
Leviticus 18:25, “The land vomited out its inhabitants.”
1 Corinthians 12:15 and 16, “If the foot shall say, “Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body…And if the ear shall say, “Because I am not the eye…”

Anyone who takes these things "literally" either can't know what "literally" means, or is somehow saying one thing about themselves and being another. Because those things just are not literal.

So, if you meet a Biblical literalist online or in person and he commits to believing that the Bible is literal, cover to cover, then he is in a bind. One can trot out verse after verse and ask if "apple of your eye" is literal? If the land really did "vomit" out inhabitants? Or if the tongue of the righteous really is literally made of metal.

The best they can come up with is that they don't take the word literally to literally mean that there aren't any figurative uses of language. And, that's a massive contradiction in terms. The reality is that they don't take the Bible literally from cover to cover, unless they redefine what the word "literally" means, or simply fail to understand what it does mean.

Forty Two, your insistence on using your own definition of biblical literalist, when L'Emmerdeur pointed out the commonly accepted one, smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

Moreover, since you can't provide evidence to support your sweeping generalizations about a large group of Americans, you're asking us to simply take your word that your description is accurate.

I hope you'll forgive my insufficiency of faith, and remember that "a prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

You may take that literally or figuratively.

[Forty Two]

Indonesian Muslims are the best Muslims (because they were a Dutch colony).