Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

We both know that I consider the whole thing to be fiction. That would rule out my being a literalist. The question, which you are trying to avoid, is whether you believe all this to be literally true.

And for the record the "cure" for literalism is atheism.

What I know is that you made another stupid remark because you took "eating dust" literally. Even provided us with a scientific reason why.

But I'm elated that you have gone on record for us with respect to the cure for literalism. Now we know that you don't really believe all the science fiction by evolutionary scientists that evolution literally occurred. Very Kool.

I'm not avoiding any question. But you are. Do you concede that the "serpent" prior to Adam's fall was not the ground-slithering snake you believe him to have been?

And, no, I do not believe snakes can talk.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

He was saying terrorism as a tenet of the religion does not exist.

Well then...in that case, I agree with him.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Do us all a favor and go talk to a few bipedal snakes. In this country they speak English with a slight lisp.

Which would make them more comprehensible than you.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And, no, I do not believe snakes can talk.

Now we're making progress. Do you believe that donkeys can talk and/or that horses can give birth to rabbits?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Now we're making progress. Do you believe that donkeys can talk and/or that horses can give birth to rabbits?

Dumpty, we're not done with your talking snake, yet. Answer the question in my last post.

And while you're at it...do you concede that the Law of Distrust that is revealed to all mankind by Life itself affirms the biblical teaching that "all men are liars"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Dumpty, we're not done with your talking snake, yet.

My talking snake? I didn't write the damned story.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Answer the question in my last post.

What question is that?

Originally Posted by boxcar

And while you're at it...do you concede that the Law of Distrust that is revealed to all mankind by Life itself affirms the biblical teaching that "all men are liars"?

Irrelevant. I'm not a fan of the franchise.

What about the talking donkey and the birth of the equine rabbit?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Ok, but what is the difference. Literalist vs. literal?

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...erpretation-of

From a cursory examination, the yellow box nails it, while also describing the different camps here pretty accurately: the empirically minded, vs. an allegorical interpreter vs. one who favors a mixture based on the genre (Nehemiah vs Song of Solomon, e.g.)

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...erpretation-of

From a cursory examination, the yellow box nails it, while also describing the different camps here pretty accurately: the empirically minded, vs. an allegorical interpreter vs. one who favors a mixture based on the genre (Nehemiah vs Song of Solomon, e.g.)

Computer displays vary. I am also visually impairted, I am legally blind, so I expand my computer screen.

In any case I see no "yellow box" on this page.

Are you referring to:.

In contrast, both a literalistic and literal interpretation are still chiefly interpretations. The literalistic theoretically does not seek for any additional symbolism beyond the straight meaning of the words themselves—I say "theoretically," because I do not know anyone in his or her right mind who would ever argue, for example, that Christ was literally a door, that is, "a movable, usually solid, barrier for opening and closing an entranceway, cupboard, cabinet, or the like, commonly turning on hinges or sliding in grooves". A literal interpretation more readily allows for other layers of symbolism to a statement, which leads to:.....

Are you saying the literal is a bit more open to an expanded sense of meaning? I read this and what follows and still find it vague.

Take "Christ as a door"
Tell me again the difference between iteralistic and literal interpretation as applied to this figure of speech.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Computer displays vary. I am also visually impairted, I am legally blind, so I expand my computer screen.

In any case I see no "yellow box" on this page.

Are you referring to:.
Are you saying the literal is a bit more open to an expanded sense of meaning? I read this and what follows and still find it vague.

Take "Christ as a door"
Tell me again the difference between iteralistic and literal interpretation as applied to this figure of speech.

Literalistic = Christ IS a physical door.

Literal Interpreation = "door" is very likely a figure of speech.

But maybe you could Doc about the literalistic interpretation of "This is my body; take and eat".

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

My talking snake? I didn't write the damned story.

What question is that?

Irrelevant. I'm not a fan of the franchise.

What about the talking donkey and the birth of the equine rabbit?

Well you called it a talking snake, Dumpty. I didn't. Neither does the "damned story". You own the "talking snake" interpretation.

And last night when I wrote the post to which you've responded, what part of "my last post" didn't you get? Was that too broad of a search area for you?

And why is my question about the Law of Distrust irrelevant? You made the claim that "scripture proves nothing". I have proved, on the other hand, that specific passages in the bible tell us that men, generally, are untrustworthy and that Natural Revelation (reality/life as we all know it) gives affirmation to that truth. I mean look at you...you're not trustworthy. You can't even answer simple questions. Your evasiveness proves your dishonesty.

And prior to that you tried to evade the force of this ironclad proof by telling me that I used circular reasoning, even though two different sources of revelation were used. You might as well have said that when the testimonies of two different witnesses in a crime investigation are consistent with each other, such corroboration is circular in nature.

And I'm not answering your question about donkeys or horses or rabbits. I don't do rabbit holes, remember? This most recent discussion started off about the Special Revelation and the Law of Distrust. The only reason I brought your talking snake into the discussion (which I thought would be funny if it weren't such a pathetic interpretation) was to also prove that you don't read too swell, and that you have no qualms whatsoever in ignoring all-important contextual considerations when you interpret scripture. You're blinded by all your antigod presuppositions.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by bnoxcar

Literalistic = Christ IS a physical door.

Literal Interpreation = "door" is very likely a figure of speech.

It figures the self proclaimed literal interpretation expert who concludes snakes were bipedal and spoke, would add nothing again. From dnlgfnk's link

...it is most important to distinguish literalistic from literal interpretation. The former [literalistic] generates an unlettered, ultimately illiterate reading

So all these years you were an illiterate literal minded poster

Obviously the phrase itself it is a figure of speech. Maybe
I should consult a bipedal snake?

I will wait for dnlgfnk.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

It figures the self proclaimed literal interpretation expert who concludes snakes were bipedal and spoke, would add nothing again. From dnlgfnk's link [/B]So all these years you were an illiterate literal minded poster

Obviously the phrase itself it is a figure of speech. Maybe
I should consult a bipedal snake?

I will wait for dnlgfnk.

Only those who would believe that Jesus meant that he was an actual physical door would be illeterate.

And, Humpty, actual, real science has proved that snakes have four appendages running through their body. Scientists have rightly concluded from this physical, directly-observed evidence that once upon a time snakes had real arms and real legs. Therefore, snakes once upon a time walked upright like Homo sapiens. Very Kool, huh?

Love it, learn it and live it...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Only those who would believe that Jesus meant that he was an actual physical door would be illeterate.

And, Humpty, actual, real science has proved that snakes have four appendages running through their body. Scientists have rightly concluded from this [b]physical, directly-observed evidence that once upon a time snakes had real arms and real legs. Therefore, snakes once upon a time walked upright like Homo sapiens. Very Kool, huh?

Love it, learn it and live it...

OK,

More than 100 million years ago, snakes had visible legs. And even today pythons and boas have tiny leg bones inside their bodies, suggesting they have vestiges of the molecular pathway for building these appendages.

There is no evidence of arms. And of course this was 100 million years ago. Does the Bishop Ussher chronology include that little detail, or was the good Bishop even able to count above 6,000 or so?

Btw, did scientists also find fossilized vocal cords?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

OK,
There is no evidence of arms. And of course this was 100 million years ago. Does the Bishop Ussher chronology include that little detail, or was the good Bishop even able to count above 6,000 or so?

Btw, did scientists also find fossilized vocal cords?

You don't believe in talking snakes, too, do you? Man...you and your bud Actor are both shot. (Actor even thought that I meant snakes literally eat dust! Does that qualify him for your Illiterate Awrad?).

Anyhow...back to arms and legs...

https://www.livescience.com/56573-mu...lose-legs.html

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You don't believe in talking snakes, too, do you? Man...you and your bud Actor are both shot. (Actor even thought that I meant snakes literally eat dust! Does that qualify him for your Illiterate Awrad?).

Anyhow...back to arms and legs...

https://www.livescience.com/56573-mu...lose-legs.html

Arms mentioned in your link were an exaggeration. Yes 4 limbs, but do reptiles like lizards or crocs have 4 legs or 2 legs and 2 arms? How about dogs or cats? You are anthropomorphizing.

But I will grant you surprisingly there are vestiges of 4 limbs in snakes today, but taking Genesis literally requires you to explain many other things. Yo can not