Cute. The lengths some people will go to sometimes. Now there is no such thing as literal. And I can’t prove chairs exist either. :rolleyes:
Oh, and I’m not one of those primitive hairless apes because I wasn’t alive thousands of years ago. I am a modern hairless ape.
DaLovin’ Dj
I think you’re adding parameters to the question, although I don’t understand why. I don’t care about why a Literalist thinks the Bible is 100% true–it could be because God Himself wrote it, or because highly advanced space aliens bequeathed it unto humanity, because it was the most faithfully transcribed book ever, or what have you.
I originally proposed my question because I saw some examples of what I thought were clear contradictions–e.g., King So-and-So was X years old when he died in one book, but he was Y years old when he died in a different book. So, in short, I asked: if that ain’t a contradiction, what is?
Maybe I can offer up an analogy that removes God altogether. Suppose I hand you a napkin with some writing on it and tell you that the napkin is free from contradiction. On the napkin is written, “My dog is only one color. My dog is yellow. My dog is also green.”
Newton-Meter: “Aha! There’s a contradiction! If your dog is only one color, he can’t be BOTH yellow and green!”
Me: “You’re just rejecting the Napkin. As we all learned from the Zip-Lock commercial, yellow and blue MAKE green. So, if the dog is green, he is also yellow.”
NM: “Um… okay. If you’re going through such hoops to explain away such a contradiction, then what would you accept as a contradiction?”
Me: “Well, if the napkin were to say that my one-colored dog is both yellow and also purple, then that would be a contradiction. But, fortunately, the Napkin does not say that.”
I just want someone to offer up that last bit in reference to the Bible instead of the napkin. (Do the underlined words look familiar, by any chance?)
As far as presuming if there are Literalists reading this page, I refer you to my post at 1:14 AM EDT on April 27 (Page 5 of this thread), as well as JTC’s immediate reply. To me, his reply makes it sound like the question is relevant to him.
Also, as dalovindj mentioned, in addition to my Drivebys are the Lurkers.
Quix
ahh… where could one go to find a fundie who believes in the bible in the literal sense?? well… williamson county texas. or just surf on over to www.capalert.com and read the wonderful literalist fundie musings of thomas carder. you could ask him any question concerning christian theology or the bible at cap@capalert.com. You’ll get a hand typed, godly, and righteous insight into God’s perfect plan and the bible.
It goes to the possibility of biblical contradictions. If one doesn’t agree that they are possible, then it is not possible to provide one.
But I answered that back on page 1: nothing. If you can’t get someone to admit that the two geneologies of Joseph are contradictory (for instance), then a “fancier” contradiction isn’t going to get them either.
How could a contradiction be found written on a napkin which does not contain a contradiction? If the napkin does not contain a contradiction, as you stated, then there are two possibilities. Either you can be sure that there is no possible world where the napkin says “yellow+purple”, or “yellow+purple” in not actually a contradiction.
Cute. So there is a priveleged interpretation of the bible, and it happens to be yours. How terribly convenient.
I’m glad you stuck around long enough to declare yourself the winner, dj.
What is the literal interpretation of this sentence, dj?
Or try this one on for size:
What is the literal reading? How do you know? And you’re sure you can unambiguously read the bible correctly? Better bust out the rolly eyes for yourself, dj.
Well, I suppose we’re in greater agreement than I had supposed, because that’s what I’ve maintained. Indeed, it’s what prompted my question! So I suppose I’ll rephrase and ask, of the Literalists: Do you agree with my (and Newton Meter’s) position, that there are no possible or conceivable contradictions in the Bible? Or can you come up with an example that you would take as a contradiction (but which isn’t present in the Bible)?
Quix
This literaly means that a man was hit by a cane by someone (or something). More of this ridiculous tactic. We can’t prove god but we can’t prove a chair either! There is no literal meaning in the bible because there is no literal meaning in anything! Foolish and pathetic tactic IMO.
I never said this. There is a literal meaning to the words (oh, I forgot there is no such thing as literal :rolleyes: ), it can be read literally, but as best I can tell there is no priveleged interpretation. There are a whole bunch of different interpretations offered by many different people, but they all lack evidence to support them and amount to no more than wishful thinking and superstition.
DaLovin’ Dj
What’s to make you think that we can’t describe god directly. I think you’re just making things up, unless of course there’s a passage in the bible where God himself states “I am only describing myself in analogies.” If there isn’t, then it is illogical to assume he is. Note: if you do find a passage like this, then I will ask you “how do you know what he meant by ‘analogies.’”
NO. I’m insisting that based on context, and definition, words have specific meanings. Unless context dictates otherwise, we should take every word at its face value. If this rule doesn’t hold, then the bible is completely useless, since it’s basically blank.
If god is omnipotent, he cannot be incapable of anything. (Which of course leads to the famous, “Can god make a boulder so massive that even he can’t move it.”)
Let me ask you this: do you believe that it is possible that the bible could contain a contradiction?
Bzzzt. It means that the man who was walking with a cane was hit by someone. I should know, I wrote the sentence.
You’re the one in the position of trying to claim that there is no ambiguity in natural language. Better be careful about slinging “ridiculous”, “foolish” and “pathetic” around.
The same criticism can be leveled at the U.S. Constitution and the rules of Major League Baseball. Are those documents worthless as well?
You are one of the least self-aware posters I’ve seen, dj. You rail against solipsism yet insist on extreme skepticism, as if you didn’t know those two philosophies were only separated by a hair.
Just come out and say it, you hate religion because… you hate religion. No need to go through all these logical contortions to try to prove that hating religion is correct. I’ll even give you more ammunition:
Your approach–make stuff up about your opponent and hope someone buys it–is at least 2000 years old.
Lord have mercy on us. I guess that’s what happens when you give your opponent a pound of respect and a foot of wriggle room. I’ll offer to buy the first round next time you get up my way.
But why bother asking the question :)? The tone of the debate to get a literalist to admit to a contradiction seems exactly the same as trying to get an atheist to admit that there is a God. There’s even the same insulting assumption that if they just thought about it a little more they would see the light.
I suppose the goal should be that both sides in the debate think about the question. When that has been adequately demonstrated and there’s still no agreement, what’re you gonna do? I think the position espoused by JThunder and JubilationTCornpone should be shown quite a bit of respect. Not necessarily as the correct position, but as their position. Especially if you want them to be willing to freely participate in the next Young Earth Creationist debate.
The failure of every attempt so far? Philosophical musings on the nature of God? What makes you think we can?
The following informal argument should suffice. Presume that God can be correctly, completely, and unambiguously described by a list of natural language statements. Also, presume that there is a decision procedure that allows us to determine if a given list of statements is a correct description.
Since there is a decision procedure for God, we can fully know God’s nature by generating every possible list of statements and checking them. If we use some useful heuristics and all our computation power, we might even hit on it in the next few thousand years. And since God contains knowledge of everything that ever happened in all of time (including future time), then we would know everything.
There is a possibility that we would have correctly ascertained the complete nature of God. But one of my axioms is that God is not completely knowable by man. His nature exceeds our capacity. Thus a contradiction.
Therefore, there is either no literal description of God or no possible way for us to recognize a correct one.
And you’re assuming that there is a single literal reading of the bible (namely the one that produces the contradiction). Where does it say that in the bible? Why is it logical to assume it? None of your assumptions are found in the bible either. The whole argument boils down to your insistence that everyone must share your assumptions. There is no reason that we should.
Of course, and if you found a passage that said there was a single literal interpretation of the bible, I would ask “how do you know what that ‘literal’ interpretation is?”.
Doesn’t this criticism hold for everything that was ever written or said? Unless you read only legal documents, you ought to understand that language is ambiguous and still carries meaning. Even legal documents are ambiguous, luckily for the lawyers’ continued employment.
I’ll go you one better. I believe that the bible does contain contradictions. That is, (according to Brouwer’s system) I believe that the possibility of contradiction is necessary. I’ve already said as much N different times in this thread.
That is where context comes in. Fortunately the bible provides us with a ton of context. But you are correct, that sentence can have two literal meanings. If you were trying to give me a perfect description, you failed. It could not have any other literal meaning. It could also mean that you’re ready to take the secret briefcase at the drop-off point if I have the proper context. Either way, your points here only strengthen the case against the book being taken literaly.
ME:
If you take it literaly it’s evil - You shouldn’t take it literally.
YOU:
But you can’t take anything literaly! You shouldn’t take it literaly!
So we are saying the same thing. Now we are faced with the dillemma of “What mechanism to use to determine what, if any of it, is based in any kind of fact whatsoever?”. Prayer? Tried it. Nothing much happened. You know if you sit there long enough and tell yourself something over and over again maybe you can convince yourself you felt anything. Let’s look for something that would confirm any of this heresay.
Neither is perfect, and I don’t think many would claim they are. The opposite is true of the literal followers of the book in question.
Flattery will get you nothing mister . . .
This is quite a comparison. A pretty steep accusation. Cite of a comparable statements on my part, or a retraction of the implication that I would make up such lies. Please.
DaLovin’ Dj
If we are allowed to assume that the Bible is not literally true from cover to cover, and that some of the tales told are merely fables created to teach us a lesson, and that a codex does not exist that definitely tells us which parts are truth and which are fable, and that we are decide for ourselves to the best of our ability which are which, I have a solution.
I have decided that the part of the Bible that claims that there is a God is fable.
Any problems with my interpretation?
You have repeatedly claimed that Christians (and Jews) can only be evil or stupid, and that they worship evil and an evil God.
The following are quotes of yours from only this thread. In most cases I have copied entire paragraphs to make sure I got the context right. These are the beliefs you insist your opponents hold, whether they agree or not. The implication is clear, “Christians and Jews who practice their religion correctly worship evil and are evil”.
I don’t have any problems with it. It nicely resolves all the contradictions, too.
kg m²/s²
[sub]PS: Could I impose on you to fix my coding above? There’s a closing bold tag in the very first quote that should either be removed or opened somewhere.[/sub]
But you can convince an atheist that there is a God! I seem to recall learning in one class or another that someone once asked Bertrand Russell, the Granddaddy of Modern Atheism/Agnosticism, what it would take for him to believe in God. Instead of saying that such a transformation was impossible, he merely replied that God would just have to prove Himself in a way that only God could. I think the specific example Russell gave would be that God would have to tell Russell, with great specificity, all that would happen for a day before it happened.
I’ve always looked at it this way–if God loves me, and He wants me, then He should know (what with His omniscience and whatnot) what it’d take to get me to accept Him. Because Lord knows I’ve tried the “normal” way, and it simply didn’t take. I understand the oft-cited stipulation that God wants us to accept Him despite our doubts… but I couldn’t play that game, despite years of trying. Doesn’t He have a backup plan for the doubters who have made an honest effort? Or does He send me right to Hell because of a questioning nature that He Himself instilled in me?
Bah, I’m off on a tangent. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.
Indubitably. But it’s been my experience that most atheists don’t appreciate the attempt.
Newton Meter:
Your entire case (as far as our argument is concerned at least) is that we can’t know what god is saying. If that’s the case, then he might as well not be saying anything. Insisting on this point only means that the quotes you’ve made in defense of infanticide, etc. come from within you, and that you’ve deliberatly interpreted the bible so that your own beliefs don’t sound so monsterous.
Fortunatly I don’t think that the bible is completely blank. I think that unless it says or implies otherwise, we should take it at face value. Please explain to me what is wrong with this? Why should it be read any differently than any other literature? If I write “I love cookies” you can know that I do love cookies unless there is context that would indicate otherwise. This is the way language works.
I think your mixing up describing god with “sensing” god. We may not be abled to see god, or smell him, or feel him, but if we were to assume that he does exist, then there are adjectives that can describe him. In fact, he uses them to describe himself all the time, such as “jealous.”
Think of energy or electromagnetic waves. You can’t sense them in themself, but one can still descibe and quantify them. Likewise, unless you can provide a proof from the bible itself that we cannot describe god in words, then my lack-of-assumption stands.
Nothing. You are a Fundamentalist. Bully for you.
You accept the same assumptions regarding the Bible as the Fundamentalists, but disagree with their conclusions. I disagree with their assumptions in the first place.