Show Me Why You Are Right and Everyone Else is Wrong

[Alzael]

Again, only portions of what was written would fall under the catagory of being metaphorical. Much is literal, what of those parts?

But how do you know that they are metaphorical? In a world where there is an all-powerful being how do you know which parts were actually metaphors?

You keep missing the relevant question TOT. Which is "How do you know?"

When we had the discussion about hell, and I pointed out all of the ways in which the interpretation from the site you gave could easily be wrong, all you could do was assert that I was wrong. However you could not give any valid justification for it. The same occurred when we went over what "Son of God" really meant. You could not justify your interpretation with anything other than what you thought it meant. I pointed out valid ways in which it could have meant a divine Jesus. So how do you know that yours is right?

Reading the text does not make you right, ToT. Evidence makes you right, which is what you have none of. All you have are ancient writings that you think say something meaningful.

Why would something literal need to be explaned?

Literal does not mean easily understood. More to the point, you have yet to address how you determine what is meant literally and what is meant figuratively. And, more to the point, how that differentiates you from everyone else who claims different.

[The Wannabe]

Why would something literal need to be explaned? What is it you seek from me as proof of my declaration that only parts of the writings are figurative? Should I quote an entire narrative? Should I be a smart ass and cut and paste the text that says Jesus wept? There are numerous texts that speak literally and there are other texts that use symbolism, I fail to see how that idea can be argued against.

So, then how should we delineate between text that speak literally and text that use symbolism.  My question to you TOT, is should we take the "Jonah and the Fish" text literally?  What about Genesis 1-3?  Where's the line here?

[fungusdrool]

Not that I have much cred on this forum, TOT, but I think you have something there. 
A model is a model.  If you say: "This version of this bible says X."  That can be a self-consistent statement.

The only issue comes in when there is an implied extrapolation to reality.

[jetson]

TOT,

I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong on my statement, and it does seem very broad-brushed.  However, what have you done to bring any evidence that I am wrong?  What makes you make your statement?  Is it the fact that you don't think humans would just make it all up?  That may be true in the case of some of the discovered writings.  But which ones?  And as others have asked, how do you know?

Unless you have a method for making the distinction, I can easily stand behind my claim.  I would also change my mind if such a method were peer reviewed and generally accepted.  Of you read authors like Bart Ehrman, you will find that critical historical analysis of texts is a very difficult science.  And given the bizarre stories throughout the Bible, it gets even more difficult to truly understand the origins of many of the stories.

[Benny]

Much is literal, what of those parts?

Can you explain, where any parts of the bible are literal please, thank you.

Why would something literal need to be explaned? What is it you seek from me as proof of my declaration that only parts of the writings are figurative? Should I quote an entire narrative? Should I be a smart ass and cut and paste the text that says Jesus wept? There are numerous texts that speak literally and there are other texts that use symbolism, I fail to see how that idea can be argued against.

The million dollar question is, TOT, how do we know what parts of the bible are literal and what parts are symbolic?  Am I missing something?

[Truth OT]

Why would something literal need to be explaned? What is it you seek from me as proof of my declaration that only parts of the writings are figurative? Should I quote an entire narrative? Should I be a smart ass and cut and paste the text that says Jesus wept? There are numerous texts that speak literally and there are other texts that use symbolism, I fail to see how that idea can be argued against.

So, then how should we delineate between text that speak literally and text that use symbolism.  My question to you TOT, is should we take the "Jonah and the Fish" text literally?  What about Genesis 1-3?  Where's the line here?

That is a tough question in a sense. Some would say that everything is to be taken literally unless there is a textual device or contextual application that would indicate otherwise.
A problem I recognize is that those in the inerrancy camp will wish to deliteralize that which appears unbelievable in order to hold up the idea of complete, total, and unaltered divine inspiration of all canonized texts.
As far as Genesis' creation account(s) go, it seems to be written as a narrative and within the text itself, there is nothing included that would appear to make it allegorical. Thus it appears to be a literal narrative recant about the creation of the world. Does the text being written literally automaticlly make it true? Nope.

[Hatter23]

Why would something literal need to be explaned? What is it you seek from me as proof of my declaration that only parts of the writings are figurative? Should I quote an entire narrative? Should I be a smart ass and cut and paste the text that says Jesus wept? There are numerous texts that speak literally and there are other texts that use symbolism, I fail to see how that idea can be argued against.

So, then how should we delineate between text that speak literally and text that use symbolism.  My question to you TOT, is should we take the "Jonah and the Fish" text literally?  What about Genesis 1-3?  Where's the line here?

That is a tough question in a sense. Some would say that everything is to be taken literally unless there is a textual device or contextual application that would indicate otherwise.
A problem I recognize is that those in the inerrancy camp will wish to deliteralize that which appears unbelievable in order to hold up the idea of complete, total, and unaltered divine inspiration of all canonized texts.
As far as Genesis' creation account(s) go, it seems to be written as a narrative and within the text itself, there is nothing included that would appear to make it allegorical. Thus it appears to be a literal narrative recant about the creation of the world. Does the text being written literally automaticlly make it true? Nope.

Which brings us right back to this is your subjective standard. There is no objective standard.

[velkyn]

As far as Genesis' creation account(s) go, it seems to be written as a narrative and within the text itself, there is nothing included that would appear to make it allegorical. Thus it appears to be a literal narrative recant about the creation of the world. Does the text being written literally automaticlly make it true? Nope.

the same could be said for the story of Jesus.

[Alzael]

The problem that I see here ToT, is that you want to say that you are analyzing the text of the bible, but you have no idea how such a thing is actually done. There is no objective meaning in a literary text, it simply does not exist. You are trying to take an endeavor that is entirely subjective by it's very nature and futilely trying to attach objectivity to it. It does not work that way.

This is why you keep getting the same question over and over again from everyone here. How do you know? How is your interpretation any different from every other christian who says differently. Also notice how you always fail to answer that question. That should tell you a lot about the things that you are trying to say. If you could honestly differentiate between the two, I imagine you would have answered it by now. Honestly stop and think about why you have to keep avoiding the issue.

You are the one who keeps making us come back to this point, ToT. It is ground that has been covered frequently over the course of your stay here and we're retreading on it constantly because you continually shy away from giving a real response. If you can't actually produce an answer man-up and admit it, then do the adult thing and revise your opinions on the subject.

[Truth OT]

The problem that I see here ToT, is that you want to say that you are analyzing the text of the bible, but you have no idea how such a thing is actually done. There is no objective meaning in a literary text, it simply does not exist. You are trying to take an endeavor that is entirely subjective by it's very nature and futilely trying to attach objectivity to it. It does not work that way.

So basically my analytical techniques demonstrate that I do not know how to properly analyze literary texts. I can man up and concede that that is in fact possible.

When you say "There is no objective meaning in a literary text, it simply does not exist," are you saying no specific information is actually being given, that no underlying message is necessarily being present, or that we should not read anything into (give greater meaning to) the info in the narrative in order to glean a "deeper meaning?"?

[Truth OT]

As far as Genesis' creation account(s) go, it seems to be written as a narrative and within the text itself, there is nothing included that would appear to make it allegorical. Thus it appears to be a literal narrative recant about the creation of the world. Does the text being written literally automaticlly make it true? Nope.

the same could be said for the story of Jesus.

I won't argue with that...................

[Dante]

When you say "There is no objective meaning in a literary text, it simply does not exist," are you saying no specific information is actually being given, that no underlying message is necessarily being present, or that we should not read anything into (give greater meaning to) the info in the narrative in order to glean a "deeper meaning?"?

Bold mine.

That's the SUBJECTIVE part. Someone has to GIVE. Were it objective, one wouldn't have to GIVE anything.

[Truth OT]

When you say "There is no objective meaning in a literary text, it simply does not exist," are you saying no specific information is actually being given, that no underlying message is necessarily being present, or that we should not read anything into (give greater meaning to) the info in the narrative in order to glean a "deeper meaning?"?

Bold mine.

That's the SUBJECTIVE part. Someone has to GIVE. Were it objective, one wouldn't have to GIVE anything.

I would agree with you 100% here. The point of contention I believe many have though is related to whether or not the entirety of the texts requires that meaning be given to it. Obviously many parts do, however that does not appear to be the case for many other parts. In other words it is my argument that much of the Bible does NOT require the use of a magic "decoder ring", while other seem to imply that all of the writings require one and since there's no way to objectively prove which decoder is best, then there's no way any of it can be properly understood.

[Hatter23]

When you say "There is no objective meaning in a literary text, it simply does not exist," are you saying no specific information is actually being given, that no underlying message is necessarily being present, or that we should not read anything into (give greater meaning to) the info in the narrative in order to glean a "deeper meaning?"?

Bold mine.

That's the SUBJECTIVE part. Someone has to GIVE. Were it objective, one wouldn't have to GIVE anything.

I would agree with you 100% here. The point of contention I believe many have though is related to whether or not the entirety of the texts requires that meaning be given to it. Obviously many parts do, however that does not appear to be the case for many other parts. In other words it is my argument that much of the Bible does NOT require the use of a magic "decoder ring", while other seem to imply that all of the writings require one and since there's no way to objectively prove which decoder is best, then there's no way any of it  can be properly understood.

change of bold mine.

Properly??? Still subjective.

[Benny]

When you say "There is no objective meaning in a literary text, it simply does not exist," are you saying no specific information is actually being given, that no underlying message is necessarily being present, or that we should not read anything into (give greater meaning to) the info in the narrative in order to glean a "deeper meaning?"?

Bold mine.

That's the SUBJECTIVE part. Someone has to GIVE. Were it objective, one wouldn't have to GIVE anything.

I would agree with you 100% here. The point of contention I believe many have though is related to whether or not the entirety of the texts requires that meaning be given to it. Obviously many parts do, however that does not appear to be the case for many other parts. In other words it is my argument that much of the Bible does NOT require the use of a magic "decoder ring", while other seem to imply that all of the writings require one and since there's no way to objectively prove which decoder is best, then there's no way any of it  can be properly understood.

change of bold mine.

Properly??? Still subjective.

What is or isn't subjective isn't even the main problem here, although it is a valid point.  Let me re-quote part of this conversation...

In other words it is my argument that much of the Bible does NOT require the use of a magic "decoder ring", while other seem to imply that all of the writings require one and since there's no way to objectively prove which decoder is best, then there's no way any of it can be properly understood.

The bold words there.  Read them again.  If it can't be understood, then why put a major world religion on the book?  In essence, you have just made Christianity less plausible than Scientology.  And, if the Bible needs no magic decoder ring, as you say, then it should be clear and easy to understand, which, according to the bold words, is not true.  You have made a fool of your religion and your deity.  May your moronic and all-hating God have mercy on your soul.

[Alzael]

I notice that you didn't follow my advice and actually take some time to think.

So basically my analytical techniques demonstrate that I do not know how to properly analyze literary texts. I can man up and concede that that is in fact possible.

No, your analytical techniques are not analytical techniques at all. You don't know how to analyze a text, it's that simple.

And you're still avoiding the issue that keeps coming up. You were supposed to either respond to the question for once and justify your stance, or man up and admit that you can't and that what everyone is saying is true.

Once again, you've simply tried to shift the subject. It's a very simple thing, ToT. Can you either answer what everyone has been asking and actually give any credence to your position, or can you admit that you are wrong? Because this is about the fourth time we've all gone down this road with you, and I don't know about the others but I'm finding it very tiresome that you keep backing out when you start it.

When you say "There is no objective meaning in a literary text, it simply does not exist," are you saying no specific information is actually being given, that no underlying message is necessarily being present, or that we should not read anything into (give greater meaning to) the info in the narrative in order to glean a "deeper meaning?"?

That there is no such thing as a right or wrong interpretation for a text. Everyone gets their own meaning from what they read. When you try to claim that others are misusing the bible, you are wrong because they are just as right as you are.

Again, you and I went over this previously (before you backed out yet again). You are simply cowering away from the subject. The question still remains, asked by just about everyone by this point.

[velkyn]

I would agree with you 100% here. The point of contention I believe many have though is related to whether or not the entirety of the texts requires that meaning be given to it. Obviously many parts do, however that does not appear to be the case for many other parts. In other words it is my argument that much of the Bible does NOT require the use of a magic "decoder ring", while other seem to imply that all of the writings require one and since there's no way to objectively prove which decoder is best, then there's no way any of it can be properly understood.

in reference to my saying that the "passion" story could be literally told and untrue, it could also be a story told to be allegory and but in a literal way.  I was reminded on this site about the book Jonathan Livingston Seagull, which I see as a Christ allegory. It tells a story about seagulls.  Seagulls exist, seaguls attack each other, so why not think that there is a "messiah" of seagulls?  We also have myths about other sacrificing gods, Prometheus so humans could have fire, etc.  Is there a reason to accept that the story of Jesus is anything more than an allegory told using a story?  It certainly seems like fact but so do the others and they are fantastical as much as the story of JC. 

The problem is, TOT, is that you have said that the bible can be "properly" understood.  Can it or can't it?

[Truth OT]

The problem is, TOT, is that you have said that the bible can be "properly" understood.  Can it or can't it?

Such a claim must be retracted as making that claim is saying way more than can be backed up objectively. The writings can only be understood to a point and beyond that point, one is then forced to hypothesize, make educated guesses, and fill in holes. See, I can admit when I was wrong.

[Alzael]

The problem is, TOT, is that you have said that the bible can be "properly" understood.  Can it or can't it?

Such a claim must be retracted as making that claim is saying way more than can be backed up objectively. The writings can only be understood to a point and beyond that point, one is then forced to hypothesize, make educated guesses, and fill in holes. See, I can admit when I was wrong.

Then you agree that everything that you have said and think about Scripture is subjective? Otherwise you have admitted nothing and you're still just dancing around the issue that everyone is raising like a typical Christian coward.

Which is it?

[Truth OT]

That there is no such thing as a right or wrong interpretation for a text. Everyone gets their own meaning from what they read. When you try to claim that others are misusing the bible, you are wrong because they are just as right as you are.

Again, you and I went over this previously (before you backed out yet again). You are simply cowering away from the subject. The question still remains, asked by just about everyone by this point.

Again I ask you; Why is it that you assert, by what you have written, that all of the texts require interpretation? One reads a passage that says:
"Jesus went into the city of Jerusalem on the day before the feast of unleavened bread and there he began proclaiming the nearness of the Kingdom of God."
How does such a passage require interpretation?
Is it not rather plain in the message that it is communicating?
Would not a person be able to call BS on a person that says they believe the Bible, but teaches that Jesus never went to Jerusalem to proclaim the nearness of the kingdom?

Quotation of, and insisting that one must not misquote scripture does not require interpretation! Interpretation does not even come into play until ones begins the process of attempting to clarify unclear messages or attempting to make application of the messages communicated to an audience that one is not a part of relevant to one's self and one's contemporaries.

[Alzael]

That there is no such thing as a right or wrong interpretation for a text. Everyone gets their own meaning from what they read. When you try to claim that others are misusing the bible, you are wrong because they are just as right as you are.

Again, you and I went over this previously (before you backed out yet again). You are simply cowering away from the subject. The question still remains, asked by just about everyone by this point.

Again I ask you; Why is it that you assert, by what you have written, that all of the texts require interpretation? One reads a passage that says:
"Jesus went into the city of Jerusalem on the day before the feast of unleavened bread and there he began proclaiming the nearness of the Kingdom of God."
How does such a passage require interpretation?
Is it not rather plain in the message that it is communicating?
Would not a person be able to call BS on a person that says they believe the Bible, but teaches that Jesus never went to Jerusalem to proclaim the nearness of the kingdom?

Quotation of, and insisting that one must not misquote scripture does not require interpretation! Interpretation does not even come into play until ones begins the process of attempting to clarify unclear messages or attempting to make application of the messages communicated to an audience that one is not a part of relevant to one's self and one's contemporaries.

Stop trying to evade and stonewall and address the main question that everyone has asked repeatedly.

[Omen]

such as myself would start off by asserting that the Bible's message on a specific and particular subject is 'A'.

You would have to actually logically explain how you came to this conclusion in a way that follows.

refuted with the Strawman of "why do you think you're right and everyone else is wrong"

I don't think you know what a strawman is and intellectually speaking you are totally disconnected from your original claim.  If your original claim cannot be argued for using logic and reason, plus your original claim is delivered upon nothing but your own credulous arbitrary pleading then you effectively have no argument worth considering.  The arrogant and condescending part is that you make no effort to actually convey an argument for your belief, while at the same time pretending as if you either have or you don't have too.

as opposed to scripture that stands opposed to what has been declared by the theist.

This is irrelevant.  Person A claims the text means X, Person B claims the text means Y, neither person A or B explain why they would ever come to this conclusion and offer nothing more than arguments from authority.

[Omen]

All I am doing is exposing the fact of their special pleading.

Why can't the person be refuted by addressing the issue and using the evidence available to either confirm or deny the person's claim?

Since the original claim qualifies itself through pleading, any contradiction can be equally pleaded away with the repetition of the same fallacy.  IE, What you make up on a whim, you can change on a whim, or rationalize it to however you feel.. rather than anything that reasonably or logically follows into a conclusion.

That's the dishonest part about religious apologetic and precisely the reason that apologia is so devoid of any intellectual credibility.

Let's say I was to make the claim that angels do not have wings according to the Bible. You could use the Bible to contradict me or in support of what I claimed, but instead it appears that the preferred method is to employ the tactic I mentioned in the OP of saying, "Why You Are Right and Everyone Else Wrong",

Your claims are rarely this straight forward, they are instead grossly more ambiguous, arbitrarily suspending even comprehension to insert bizarre rationalizations into text that often never actually say what it literally says.  Notice that you're not actually citing examples of ACTUAL discussions, all your analogies are to subject material that has never occurred.  If your subject material were so clear and coherent, then why not use some of that as an example instead?

I conclude that you don't use it precisely because you know how vague it actually is.

[Omen]

Because something that can be interpreted as anything you want means nothing.

Who's to say that this something (the vast majority of Bible writings), fits into this charactorization?

The fact that is contradictory, to both itself and reality.

However, I don't need to make this argument to begin with, I only need to admit that I have no idea what it means and then ask you to explain yourself using logic and reason.

The issue here OT is that you can't and in place of using logic/reason, you just randomly pick few things dependent entirely upon your own credulity then claim it as authoritative.  It is not our fault that as an exercise theology is so far removed from any intellectual discourse.  You are effectively lashing out at us for not believing what is inherently subjective and dependent upon vast amounts of exaggeration.

[Omen]

What makes it really patently stupid is that we can literally pick up anything we wish and practice the same specious fallacies.  We could construct on a whim any meaning drawn at random from any text, without explanation and dependent upon nothing more than our arbitrary pleading that that is the intention.  We could then dismiss contradictions and explain them way, by making up new rationalizations or inserting new qualifications ( again per special pleading ), to the point where you could not find a contradiction that we would agree too.  Having presupposed it as true to begin with, then any rationalization we make is an inherent tautology.  We've already assumed it to be true, a contradiction can't make it false since we've assumed it as absolutely true, so the contradiction must be a different explanation rather then the disproof of the claim.

This is the standard M.O. of EVERY single religion on the planet.

[Alzael]

Again I ask you; Why is it that you assert, by what you have written, that all of the texts require interpretation?

Everytime you read something you are interpreting what is being written. What is being questioned is why you claim that people who don't come to the same interpretations as you are misusing or misunderstanding the text.

We went over this before in our little "Son of God" conversation. The one which you once again backed out of when questioned as to how you knew. There are many different ways in which that line could be interpreted. You however said that it was not a claim to Jesus' divinity. I pointed out how it could easily be interpreted like that and asked you to demonstrate how you could actually show me wrong while also differentiating your argument from what could be said by anyone else with any other interpretation. You couldn't, or rather you failed to even put in an effort.

Quotation of, and insisting that one must not misquote scripture does not require interpretation!

 This is not what you have done, however. You have said repeatedly that others are using wrong interpretations. This is what you are being questioned on. Just as you were before in the talk we had about hell, just like when we talked about Jesus and you made your claims. You are being questioned on your interpretations, and you repeatedly fail to even have the decency to answer when asked. Instead you simply re-ask questions already dealt with and dodge and evade and top if off with Strawmens like what this implies.

It's getting very sad.

[pingnak]

There are thousands of religions and sects of religions.

For every belief, there are thousands of other beliefs that state it, or some subset of it, is wrong.

Since none of these statements or beliefs can be objectively measured, the signal to noise ratio is effectively zero.

All I see is thousands of belief systems pointing at each other saying "they're all wrong."

So I'll agree with all of them.  They're all wrong.

Or I'll disagree with all of them.  They're all wrong.

Either way, they're all wrong.

[Truth OT]

Quotation of, and insisting that one must not misquote scripture does not require interpretation!

 This is not what you have done, however. You have said repeatedly that others are using wrong interpretations. This is what you are being questioned on. Just as you were before in the talk we had about hell, just like when we talked about Jesus and you made your claims. You are being questioned on your interpretations, and you repeatedly fail to even have the decency to answer when asked. Instead you simply re-ask questions already dealt with and dodge and evade and top if off with Strawmens like what this implies.

It's getting very sad.

I stand accused and find myself having to plead guilty. I have often looked at the beliefs and religious practices out there and asserted that many if not most have no biblical foundation to stand on. When I am asked what SHOULD be practiced, all I am able to do is give my OPINION based on my understanding.
As far as what religious practices should be employed, there exists no clear or definitive instruction on the matter. As far as hell and the trinity concepts are concerned, all that can be done is an analysis of the 'evidence' provided to help determine if the conclusion drawn makes sense.

[velkyn]

The problem is, TOT, is that you have said that the bible can be "properly" understood.  Can it or can't it?

Such a claim must be retracted as making that claim is saying way more than can be backed up objectively. The writings can only be understood to a point and beyond that point, one is then forced to hypothesize, make educated guesses, and fill in holes. See, I can admit when I was wrong.

Good for you.  However, I have some reason to doubt you are being sincere when reading your responses to others, still attempting to use your magic decoder ring to decide what is literal and what is metaphor.  Hopefully I am mistaken.