No, no. You have to understand it the way Robert163 does: only absolute literalism will do. So in Psalms 18:2 “The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower” it means that God is literally a chunk of metamorphic stone, a castle, courage, a shield. And a horn. And a castle again.
As someone else said in GD about Robert163:
I will refer you to the very first paragraph of the topic I posted on:
In this thread, post 252 the topic about Christian heaven, I made the point in several places about a literal reading of the bible is the only reliable interpretation, due to all the factors and mechanics in a topic so complex as the bible. In other words, if the text says that a talking donkey was talking, I take that to mean exactly what it says, not as metaphor. (Though, there are examples, like when Jesus says to cut off your hand if you are tempted to steal, that seems an obvious metaphor. As I said, the bible is a very complex book).
Thank you for your comments. I am a bit distracted at the moment, tired/sleepy. I think I basically agree with your comments. Maybe I will comment further when I am more well rested.
So - if you take your given -
“the bible is a very complex book”
and add in your
“That seems like a metaphor”
and mix those two together quite liberally - you get your answer - you take certain statements/verses in the bible as “must be X” - someone else says “this appears to be a metaphor” - Others might say that the passage is accurate, but based on cultural norms that have clearly changed, yet others might say its superceded by a later passage, etc and so on.
How do you decide which is the correct interpretation of the given passage or its relevance?
Who are ‘you’ to say that the other person’s decision to call it a metaphor is incorrect?
Who am I to say?
I’m the guy who says you can’t cast demons into pigs… because there are no demons.
I’m the guy who says even if even if Paul was clearly using an analogy when he spoke of spiritual armor… at the bottom of it all are ridiculous, non nonsensical, illogical concepts. Eloquent and verbose metaphors about “spiritual armor” don’t really mean anything when the source material is a fairy tale.
ETA: If I am a bit heated in my response I apologize.
So…because you hate religion, and Christianity, you get to decide what parts of the Bible are to be taken as metaphor and which literally?
That’s so weird.
I’d like to suggest that if you already are starting out with your well being good and thoroughly poisoned you aren’t going to get very far in conservation on the topic at hand.
Not sure it wasn’t obviously a metaphor to some. Too long ago to remember my source, but I remember reading from another who said people were known to be missing certain body parts, after reflecting upon certain biblical passages during that time. Of course, the most famous being Origen, who read Matthew 19:12 and self-castrated himself. I have my doubts he really did this, but others in the church insisted he did. Just find it ironic if true, because Origen was one to warn others of taking the bible too literally, and actually was prolific and the first (I think) to rely on symbolism and allegory heavily where many others hadn’t gone before. Augustine followed suit along similar lines.
a) you can’t use ‘logic’ or ‘reason’ to defeat ‘faith’ - they believe in these things due to ‘faith’ which requires zero evidence. So, simply stating that “demons” or “gods” do not exist is not going to get you very far in that debate. (You can use logic/reason to help point out why faith is bunk or how they are subjective in their use of it, but it won’t defeat the faith based argument - this is why the whole “do you believe in santa clause” question comes up, to help point out the special pleading that goes on).
b) the point I was trying to make was that in this subjective notion - your interpetation of what is metaphor or not is just as valid (or not) as the other persons - you’ve got no more standing then they do when it comes to this decision.
So - while I would agree that the whole narrative is based on myth, that doesn’t mean I can’t discuss it within the confines of that myth and have various interpetations of the books/words, etc - similarly to how we might discuss Tolkien -
Would you run inot a tolkien thread and say “well, Sauron’s not real so this whole discussion is pointless” ?? or would you be able to discuss those elements within the confines of the LOTR narrative?
It does not matter how much I hate Christianity… and I admit I do hate it… it is still impossible to cast demons into pigs… because… Demons do not exist.
Focusing on my bad attitude is indicator of only one factor, in my opinion: it is a lot easier to pull out the “Angry Atheist” label than it is to account for the fact that… you can not… cast demons into pigs.
Really?
Look, the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. We know this now, unequivocally. Well, at least to 99.9% certainty. The used multiple boats and well calibrated sonar and radared the whole lake slowly to make sure there was no monster down there… they went slowly from one end of the lake to the other, spread out side by side, boat by boat by boat, side by side.
They did not find Nessie.
So, if I were to say to you, Nessie does not exist, and you responded by saying I was “poisoning the well”, how logical a response would that be on your part?
In other words, I say, there is no factual proof of any of your religious claims, any that you or anyone else makes, and you respond with the poisoned well tactic… no, you are supposed to provide proof that I am wrong… with facts.
Well, we are taken it for granted that everyone in that discussion takes it at face value that LOTR is a myth…
Your analogy does not fit.
ok, interesting trivia… (honestly) but beyond that I guess I have no opinion/reaction…
Its a perfectly fine analogy for being able to discuss a piece of work based on its own merits - if you’re trying to determine why a person might believe in X, you can research that based on the belief, regardless of the source of it.
ok, please tell me, what is a good reason for thinking you can cast demons into a pig?
Yes, really. Your POV is this is silly, irrational, and ridiculous and this is the only way anyone can really see it - now I want a discussion about this.
No, I’m not. And I won’t.
It is silly and irrational to say that you cannot cast demons into pigs?
Is this thread about literalism vs. metaphor in the Bible, or whether Christianity is factually correct in its claims? Those topics have little to do with one another, but you keep switching from one the other, as you did in the “Christian beliefs about heaven” thread.
Short answer - for the person that takes faith in what the bible says - that believes in both Gods and Demons, and that they may have reason to possess a person, and that the “son of god” would be able to do such a thing.
Its a ‘faith’ based statement - its not based on ‘reason’ - there is nothing ‘reasonable’ about it.
If you want to talk about reasons on the origins of that story and suggest first off that “well, I doubt they really cast out demons, what else might have happened that started this particular nugget” - then we could discuss other things that this person might have done (helped the person thru a siezure, etc) that led to the scripture in question - or we can take it as a metaphor and equate “demons” with “evil thoughts” and “pigs” with “anything that gets it out of me” - and that the person that did the casting was my counselor, etc. - keeping in mind that pIgs are ‘unclean’ animals to the audience of the book at the time.
But you deciding that it must have been a literal event is no more ‘reasonable’ then the person that decides it must be some form of metaphor or even literal based on their ‘belief’ or faith.
I’m glad that you agree the Bible is a myth. But none or almost none of our potential Presidential candidates do. Nor do our legislators
Since everyone agrees LOTR is made up, trying to invalidate it by finding contradictions is dickish. Not so for the Bible. If some clown was proposing spending billions of dollars to arm against Sauron, saying he is not real is quite appropriate.