3 ms·

Well, by thorough I simply meant not skipping any part. And those horrible parts of scriptures from religions originating from middle east (Judaism, Christianit

by h0mEDw 8y ago

Well, by thorough I simply meant not skipping any part. And those horrible parts of scriptures from religions originating from middle east (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) really cannot be sensibly interpreted in any metaphoric way unless by skipping it. A common way to do it is by saying "this is very specific code that was only relevant in societies back then; we're wise to not follow it now". But that's just skipping with extra steps. Edit: just to make sure it's clear - I'm very happy when such skipping happens. A quote from Captive Mind by Czeslaw Milosz: > When someone is honestly 55% right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever say he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal. > By “an old Jew of Galicia”.

yesenadam 8y ago
I agree that this talk of "non-literal interpretation" doesn't sound sensible. So it's fine for a Christian to break a commandment, say, Do not kill, replying to objections with "Oh don't be no naïve - the literal interpretation of the scriptures is not the only one, and it's certainly not the one that was prevalent historically."?! Uh.. nice work if you can get it. But it seems "non-literal interpretation" is a silly phrase for ignoring something. Like the bits in the Bible about mixed fabrics, shellfish etc that are generally ignored. Though I guess believers have to find dignified-sounding expressions for their current practises, whatever they may be. In about 2001 in Sydney I got a taxi with a Muslim driver who assured me that he was 100% certain that Jews were behind the September 11 attacks - couldn't possibly be any more certain, he said, as if that would impress me. It was quite frightening.

by h0mEDw 8y ago

yesenadam 8y ago

I agree that this talk of "non-literal interpretation" doesn't sound sensible. So it's fine for a Christian to break a commandment, say, Do not kill, replying to objections with "Oh don't be no naïve - the literal interpretation of the scriptures is not the only one, and it's certainly not the one that was prevalent historically."?! Uh.. nice work if you can get it. But it seems "non-literal interpretation" is a silly phrase for ignoring something. Like the bits in the Bible about mixed fabrics, shellfish etc that are generally ignored. Though I guess believers have to find dignified-sounding expressions for their current practises, whatever they may be. In about 2001 in Sydney I got a taxi with a Muslim driver who assured me that he was 100% certain that Jews were behind the September 11 attacks - couldn't possibly be any more certain, he said, as if that would impress me. It was quite frightening.