• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not [W:775]

So anyways, biblical literalism is hogwash

If someone says they literally jumped off a building and lived, people expect some proof. Videos, images, accounts of first responders.

When a Christian "literally believes" that a man walked on water, or turned water to wine, or was "the son" of an entity which gave us they expect the lowest standard of 'evidence' to be accepted. That is books written 1700 years ago, hearsay and others agreeing with them.

Nowhere on this planet would such a low bar for such extraordinary claims be accepted when discussing another religious group. Yet, here we are, with various people continually refusing to accept that the evidence they have is meaningless, and proves nothing other than, people agree with them, and people before agreed with them. Do they realize that every other religious group out there claims the same because other people past and present agreed with them? None have so far proven the existence of Vishnu anymore than they have Rah, or Zeus or Yahweh.

It is a bit sad to say the least.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Hatuey said:
So anyways, biblical literalism is hogwash

If someone says they literally jumped off a building and lived, people expect some proof. Videos, images, accounts of first responders.

When a Christian "literally believes" that a man walked on water, or turned water to wine, or was "the son" of an entity which gave us they expect the lowest standard of 'evidence' to be accepted. That is books written 1700 years ago, hearsay and others agreeing with them.

Nowhere on this planet would such a low bar for such extraordinary claims be accepted when discussing another religious group. Yet, here we are, with various people continually refusing to accept that the evidence they have is meaningless, and proves nothing other than, people agree with them, and people before agreed with them. Do they realize that every other religious group out there claims the same because other people past and present agreed with them? None have so far proven the existence of Vishnu anymore than they have Rah, or Zeus or Yahweh.

It is a bit sad to say the least.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

Not mention the ridiculous stories about Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, burning bushes, women being turned into pillars of salt and similar babble. How anyone can believe they are true is a mystery.
 
zyzygy said:
Not mention the ridiculous stories about Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, burning bushes, women being turned into pillars of salt and similar babble. How anyone can believe they are true is a mystery.
Click to expand...
You mean "literally true," don't you? A reader of your caliber must surely recognize the figurative truth of all stories.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
That is a very cute post.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Hatuey said:
However the claim isn't whether other people exist. We know they do.
Click to expand...
You're responding to a straw man. I didn't say "people", I said "minds". So, how do you know this? What argument/evidence can you provide to prove that minds other than your own exist?

Hatuey said:
We have interactions with them, exchange ideas and all of this can be repeated over and over again in neutral environments from labs to organic representations of the same.
Click to expand...
We have interactions with computers and robots also (Google Home, Google Assistant, Alexa, etc. etc.)... so you haven't proven anything there...

Hatuey said:
You've gone down an absurdly ridiculous path - that makes your post sound like a cheap Morpheus from The Matrix knockoff - all so you won't have to explain any of your claims concerning the natural world.
Click to expand...
Nothing is absurd about what I have asked of you. You are appealing to absurdity because you believe in all those things, yet you have no argument/evidence to prove those things to be true, which counters the position you took in post #764.
You wouldn't believe in the things that I listed to you if you actually lived according to the position that you took in post #764. So, which is it?

Hatuey said:
You've made the claims about the existence of the supernatural. Nobody else will work to prove them for you.
Click to expand...
And did I ask anyone else to work to prove them for me?
 
HowardBThiname said:
If you consider the Bible to be the literal word of God -- you're in declining company.

For the past 50 years, Americans have been slowly but decidedly choosing to view the Bible as not the literal word of God. I knew about the correlation between education and religious belief, but I wasn't aware of the racial correlation. Where are you in this picture?


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201705/bible-belief-in-decline
Click to expand...



Every now and then I drop in to see what's changed in the Excited States.

Saw this and said "Nope, not a ****ing thing". Everything is measured against skin color or gender.

Gone again bye.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Every now and then I drop in to see what's changed in the Excited States.

Saw this and said "Nope, not a ****ing thing". Everything is measured against skin color or gender.

Gone again bye.
Click to expand...

Did you recently have a stroke? Because, this thread has nothing to do with either skin color or gender. This is about cults. And, the thread is nearly 2 months old.
 
Angel said:
You mean "literally true," don't you? A reader of your caliber must surely recognize the figurative truth of all stories.
Click to expand...

No, all stories don't necessarily have figurative truth, whatever that means.
 
devildavid said:
No, all stories don't necessarily have figurative truth, whatever that means.
Click to expand...

Either there was an Ark or there wasn't. There wasn't. Figuratively true? A porky pie in other words.
 
devildavid said:
No, all stories don't necessarily have figurative truth, whatever that means.
Click to expand...
You don't know what it means, but you have an opinion on it?
zyzygy said:
Either there was an Ark or there wasn't. There wasn't. Figuratively true? A porky pie in other words.
Click to expand...
You don't know what "figurative truth" means either. Surprising in light of your boasts about a broad acquaintance with literature.

All stories are figuratively true. Think of Coleridge's famous dictum.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
Whether 1 or 100,000,000 believe in something is irrelevant. Your massive argumentum ad populum fools nobody and you should be ashamed of it.

The funniest part is that you harp about people who do not accept evolution in the US as being too extreme (Logicman and Elvira, and Angel being perfect examples) - a majority - and then say - well a majority also believe in a deity - how dare you say they're wrong!

Easily. They've provided absolutely no evidence. Only apologetics like yours.
Click to expand...


Because one is proven and one cannot be. I'm not ashamed of anything altho it's clear you wish you could embarrass the religious. That's sad and as I pointed out...a complete dismissal of the 1A. Hypocrisy at its best. There's nothing 'wrong' with being a person of faith, no matter how you try to denigrate it. That you do so to a great majority of Americans has nothing to do with our numbers but reflects on your myopic and limited judgments. As if your opinion matters any more than ours?

And what would I apologize for? Not writing in simple enough language? It's perfectly clear that you did not. In my first post, 681, I concurred with your post. :roll:

You were completely wrong about my posts and are now spinning your wheels trying to save face....that ship has sailed.
 
Last edited:
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
That's kind of the point. She makes baseless claims about the natural world and then refuses to substantiate them with anything but versions of 'becaue I read/heard/felt/believe so'.

Keep up.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

??? God is not part of the 'natural world.' My background is in biology...I have a very good understanding of the natural world.

Once more, you fail. Your rigid pre-conceived personal dogma make you look foolish again. You are unable to see something that does not adhere to your bias.

You dont even understand the definition of the word 'faith.' Otherwise you may have saved yourself some embarrassment.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Lursa said:
??? God is not part of the 'natural world.' My background is in biology...I have a very good understanding of the natural world.

Once more, you fail. Your rigid pre-conceived personal dogma make you look foolish again. You are unable to see something that does not adhere to your bias.

You dont even understand the definition of the word 'faith.' Otherwise you may have saved yourself some embarrassment.
Click to expand...
Is free will part of the natural world?

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Angel said:
You don't know what it means, but you have an opinion on it?

You don't know what "figurative truth" means either. Surprising in light of your boasts about a broad acquaintance with literature.

All stories are figuratively true. Think of Coleridge's famous dictum.
Click to expand...

What does it mean? Name dropping does not answer it. How many kinds of truth are there and what makes it truth? Are you a physical human being or a figurative one? Do you even know what figurative means?
 
devildavid said:
What does it mean? Name dropping does not answer it. How many kinds of truth are there and what makes it truth? Are you a physical human being or a figurative one? Do you even know what figurative means?
Click to expand...

A person who says figuratively true whem it comes to discussing literal interpretations can't possibly comprehend the meaning of either word.

For example, if I say 'I was swallowed up by a fish and survived'. That's not a "figuratively true" statement because figuratively would imply it is not literal, and true would imply there is some truth to the claim that I was swallowed by a fish. So which is the conclusion we can arrive at the end of the story? That you were sort of swallowed up by a fish? Lol. Or that you sort of called all of the animals you couldn't have come into contact with to an ark?

What is worse is that not only is Angel's post contrary to how the overwhelming majority of Christians have viewed these stories throughout history, it's down right embarrassing that we've gotten to this point where all that matters is verbosity and not content.

Talk about getting lost in his own double speak to continue justifying selectively picked literal interpretations. Words lose all meaning in Christian apologetics.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
No, all stories don't necessarily have figurative truth, whatever that means.
Click to expand...

Jesus believed they were real people...

"Certainly you are witnesses of the deeds of your forefathers, and yet you approve of them, for they killed the prophets but you are building their tombs. That is why the wisdom of God also said: ‘I will send prophets and apostles to them, and they will kill and persecute some of them, so that the blood of all the prophets spilled from the founding of the world may be charged against* this generation, from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house.’" Luke 11:48-51
 
Elvira said:
Jesus believed they were real people...

"Certainly you are witnesses of the deeds of your forefathers, and yet you approve of them, for they killed the prophets but you are building their tombs. That is why the wisdom of God also said: ‘I will send prophets and apostles to them, and they will kill and persecute some of them, so that the blood of all the prophets spilled from the founding of the world may be charged against* this generation, from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house.’" Luke 11:48-51
Click to expand...
Imagine that, a religious zealot believing people from their religion existed. What's next? Buddhists believe the Buddha existed?

Amazing.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be good evidence for the crucifixion account and resurrection being literally true (as there are multiple accounts which seem to agree about those events literally happening in history). There seems to be good reason to believe that the bible accounts are not completely fictitious.
 
Elvira said:
Jesus believed they were real people...

"Certainly you are witnesses of the deeds of your forefathers, and yet you approve of them, for they killed the prophets but you are building their tombs. That is why the wisdom of God also said: ‘I will send prophets and apostles to them, and they will kill and persecute some of them, so that the blood of all the prophets spilled from the founding of the world may be charged against* this generation, from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house.’" Luke 11:48-51
Click to expand...

All that this shows is that Jesus had read old testament stories, just like many other Jews at that time.
 
gfm7175 said:
There seems to be good evidence for the crucifixion account and resurrection being literally true (as there are multiple accounts which seem to agree about those events literally happening in history). There seems to be good reason to believe that the bible accounts are not completely fictitious.
Click to expand...

There is zero evidence of anyone ever rising from the dead. Saying there "seems" to be evidence is not the same as presenting actual evidence.
 
devildavid said:
What does it mean? Name dropping does not answer it. How many kinds of truth are there and what makes it truth? Are you a physical human being or a figurative one? Do you even know what figurative means?
Click to expand...
Ask nicely.
 
devildavid said:
There is zero evidence of anyone ever rising from the dead. Saying there "seems" to be evidence is not the same as presenting actual evidence.
Click to expand...

There seems to be evidence of Krishna flying through the air while playing a flute.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
Is free will part of the natural world?

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

Yes. Do you see God stopping non-religious/other religious people from worshipping him?

He tells us that we have a choice to do so as well.
 
zyzygy said:
Either there was an Ark or there wasn't. There wasn't. Figuratively true? A porky pie in other words.
Click to expand...

That story may have its foundation in a real event.If there was an ark, which there may have been, it certainly didnt hold every species on earth. That story may have its foundation in a real event.

And yet, I have seen crazy delusional blueprints of arks that could fit even the dinosaurs and nutso explanations of how they rounded up ALL the species on Earth.
 
Lursa said:
That story may have its foundation in a real event.If there was an ark, which there may have been, it certainly didnt hold every species on earth. That story may have its foundation in a real event.

And yet, I have seen crazy delusional blueprints of arks that could fit even the dinosaurs and nutso explanations of how they rounded up ALL the species on Earth.
Click to expand...

That's a big may. The story of Noah is a retelling of the older myth of Gilgamesh.
 
Lursa said:
Yes. Do you see God stopping non-religious/other religious people from worshipping him?

He tells us that we have a choice to do so as well.
Click to expand...

The concept of free will is about more than worshipping a god or gods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom