The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[SeekingAllTruth]

IMO:

Below is an example that totally makes sense, no inconsistency at all IF you are able to switch your POV (duality to non-duality)


Man here means = NOT Self Realized


Moses here means Self Realized



Man here means = NOT Self Realized

So, these 3 do make sense. No problem at all. These 3 just teach the difference between Self Realized or NOT Self Realized

To BE or NOT to BE
@stvdvRF

Self-Realization wasn't a concept known to the early Hebrews. But in this modern age the self realization fellowship is a sect of some kind of Indian mystical religion founded in 1920 by Paramahansa Yogananda to teach scientific methods of meditation and principles of spiritual living. The Hebrews wouldn't have the vaguest idea what this meant. But this thread is about literal vs figurative. Fundamentalists teach that every word of the Bible is LITERALLY true, hence the glaring contradiction: Man can see God. NO! Man cannot see God. Which do we believe? And you haven't even begun to address the other 3,997 glaring errors and contradictions in the Bible. This is NOT God's holy word. The Bible is filled with stuff invented by man because it bears the horrific imprint of gross imperfection.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

IMO:

Below is an example that totally makes sense, no inconsistency at all IF you are able to switch your POV (duality to non-duality)


I read this as a normal man who is NOT Self Realized


I read this as a man who is Self Realized


Again, I read this as a normal man who is not Self Realized

So, these 3 do make sense. No problem at all. These 3 just teach the difference between Self Realized or NOT Self Realized

To BE or NOT to BE
@stvdvRF

See my post No 61

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

That can even be seen with the certain stories in the Bible. I would have to look up the sources, but very old scripture of the David and Goliath story have Goliath at about 7'6". A possible height . Later versions have him taller at 9'9", a height that would have made him to be almost certainly an invalid. The square cube law is very real.

That's a really big fish. I wonder if he's nailed to someone's wall.

 

[stvdv]

Self-Realization wasn't a concept known to the early Hebrews. But in this modern age the self realization fellowship is a sect of some kind of Indian mystical religion founded in 1920 by Paramahansa Yogananda to teach scientific methods of meditation and principles of spiritual living. The Hebrews wouldn't have the vaguest idea what this meant. But this thread is about literal vs figurative. Fundamentalists teach that every word of the Bible is LITERALLY true, hence the glaring contradiction: Man can see God. NO! Man cannot see God. Which do we believe?

Obvious your Google-search of 1 minute did not catch the truth

And you haven't even begun to address the other 3,997 glaring errors and contradictions in the Bible

I gave proof twice. No need to give more, if you don't get the ones I already provided

 

[stvdv]

See my post No 61

See post #64

 

[alypius]

if one interprets it literally

What is meant by literal interpretation (is it different to literalistic interpretation)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is meant by literal interpretation (is it different to literalistic interpretation)?

I would qualify as believing that the myths of Genesis and Exodus actually happened. For example we know that there never was a worldwide flood ala Noah.

 

[Clara Tea]

I was going to limit this to Abrahamic religions, but the problem almost certainly exists for other religions as well. At least when it comes to the Abrahamic religions reading the Old Testament, Torah, or whatever name it goes by in Muslim sects literally can only refute those particular beliefs. For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally. Other examples are welcome or an explanations of why the refute those books are welcome. Also questions about how the books are refuted is welcome too.

There is an out, at least for Christianity, and probably one for Judaism and for others religions as well. Many Christians misinterpret the following verse:

"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Please note, it does not say that the Bible is literally true. It does not even imply that it is . It merely states that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. If one treats the stories of Genesis, Exodus, and other parts of the Bible as being instructional and not factual they still "work". It is so odd that so many Christians do not understand this.

Okay, have at it. Bring up any stories myths etc. from your various holy books and tell us how they cannot be taken literally

Bible not literal? Blasphemy. God will smite anyone who says he's not loving. Mohammad Ali (Former heavyweight champion of the world) said that the Muslim religion was peaceful....and don't rile him by saying otherwise.



Sir Salman Rushdie (knighted June 2007) wrote Satanic Verses, now there is a fatwa against him, and in 1989 there was an assassination attempt.



It is easy to check if the bible is literal....just ask God. Writhing on the floor, speaking in tongues, kjoljkijlkjslkfsl. There you have it, confirmation, directly from God.



If the bible is divinely inspired, it is the word of God. If the bible is wrong, then all we know from the bible is likely wrong, including belief in God.

 

[Thief]

Why would there be any need of the event? As told God is an immoral monster that kills guilty and innocent. It would be better to focus on the faith of Noah as the lesson.

Please note. This is not an anti-religion thread. It is an anti-literalism thread, regardless of religion.

so God is a monster?......killing many
and while sparing the man Noah

it looks like God was paving the way.....
for someone better

 

[Subduction Zone]

so God is a monster?......killing many
and while sparing the man Noah

it looks like God was paving the way.....
for someone better

Only if the myths of the Bible are true. I am not the one making that claim, those that try to justify genocide are. Though Noah may have been a good man, but even he got his drunk on after the flood, that does not excuse killing other innocents. Remember the myths say that God is omnipotent. No need for him to kill innocents.

 

[Thief]

Only if the myths of the Bible are true. I am not the one making that claim, those that try to justify genocide are. Though Noah may have been a good man, but even he got his drunk on after the flood, that does not excuse killing other innocents. Remember the myths say that God is omnipotent. No need for him to kill innocents.

are you sure? ......about innocence

 

[Subduction Zone]

are you sure? ......about innocence

Yep, pretty hard for a baby to be guilty of anything serious.

 

[Thief]

Yep, pretty hard for a baby to be guilty of anything serious.

if the parents are corrupt
has the child any hope?

how about?......float him in a basket
down river
let someone else find him

 

[Subduction Zone]

if the parents are corrupt
has the child any hope?

how about?......float him in a basket
down river
let someone else find him

All the parents are corrupt? What was God doing? Sleeping?

The good news is that we know that there was no Flood of Noah anyway so it is a moot point.

 

[Thief]

What was God doing? Sleeping?

Prime Directive

God gave Man dominion

and apparently God is willing to stand back
until the only solution is .......

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prime Directive

God gave Man dominion

and apparently God is willing to stand back
until the only solution is .......

You forgot the Garden of Eden myth. God screwed up and then punished man for his errors. He is still at fault.

But once again this is luckily for Christians a moot point.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Can you try again in English please.

Go to hell, God can hate you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go to hell, God can hate you.

Don't get mad at me. You were not able to write legible post. You should not hate me and why would God hate me? Are you another Christian that believes in an immoral God?

 

[JerryMyers]

It is how you define death.

OK, let me put it in another way .. so, if you are taking this, as you said, very literally, then, what is your definition of 'death' and your own understanding of that phrase ‘saved from that death’ in the context of your own comment - ‘The preaching of the cross is, I know, nonsense to those who are involved in this dying world, but to us who are being saved from that death it is nothing less than the power of God’ ??

 

[Augustus]

Then why deny the obvious. One does not get charged with heresy for a different interpretation of science.

Galileo didn't get charged with heresy for 'a different interpretation of science'.

the Galileo affair is often presented as a simple ideological conflict: scientific rationalism versus religious authority. But as we have seen, it had an enormous human and political dimension as well...

There were old scores to settle, egos to stroke, and careers to be made. Dominican-Jesuit politics clearly figured in the drama.53 Galileo’s friendship with members of the pro-Spanish faction at the papal court may also have played a role, as did his alienation of the Jesuits and his apparent betrayal of the pope. Galileo’s personality was a consistent and important factor; indeed, it seems clear that had he played his cards differently, with more attention to diplomacy, Galileo might well have carried out a significant campaign on behalf of heliocentrism without condemnation...

the outcome of the Galileo affair was powerfully influenced by local circumstances. The Galileo affair was not merely about universal or global aspects of science and religion, or universal beliefs of scientists and religious leaders, but also (as we have seen) about the local circumstances impinging on individual historical actors—fears, rivalries, ambi- tions, personalities, political context, and socioeconomic circumstance. Historical events are situated in time and space; they are contingent and local, and our analysis must respond to this reality.

But the complexity does not end here. Among the clergy, differences of opinion regarding principles of biblical interpretation were tolerated; and some clergy, adopting Galileo’s exegetical principles, counted themselves among his vocal supporters. Meanwhile, among people with special expertise in astronomy and cosmology, heliocentrism (viewed as an account of cosmological reality) re- mained a minority opinion. It follows that conflict was located as much within the church (between opposing theories of biblical interpretation) and within science (between alternative cosmologies) as between science and the church.

The early seventeenth century was a time of growing absolutism in Europe, in both the religious and political realms...The idea that a stable society could be built on general principles of free speech was defended by nobody at the time; and police and judicial constraints were therefore inevitable realities...

examined in seventeenth-century terms, the outcome of the Galileo affair was a product not of dogmatism or intolerance beyond the norm, but of a combination of more or less standard (for the seventeenth century) bureaucratic procedure, plausible (if ultimately flawed) political judgment, and a familiar array of human foibles and failings.

D Lindberg - Galileo, the Church and the cosmos

That does not excuse the Church's charge of heresy.

It's not about 'excusing', but explaining historical events as accurately as possible.

While literalist exegesis was increasingly favoured post Reformation and Council of Trent, the church did not have to stick to a literal interpretation. There was no theological problem with revising interpretation of scripture were it clearly demonstrated to be wrong, a fact acknowledged at the time. Many powerful figures within the Church supported Galileo's position. He could have taught it as a hypothesis had he been more tactful and less arrogant.

17th C Europe was not a haven of free speech that encouraged people to reject the authority of established institutions while mocking the powerful though.

The past is the past though, so better to treat it how it was than moralise about how people then should have responded based on anachronistic modern principles. Galileo didn't 'play the game' according to the rules of his day.

Copernicus knew that what he proposed was heresy to many. That was why he tried to dedicate his work to the Pope. As I said it did not work.

Copernicus' patron and mentor was the Bishop of Kulm and many within the Church, including the previous Pope Clement VII were interested in his ideas.