Why should we believe those guys? What is the definition BTW?
As Czarcasm pointed out earlier, the idea with allegory is that the author intended the symbolism. Most of my Presbyterian friends would laugh at loud at my being accused of bibliolatry, as I consider large portions to be allegory, myth or, in the case of the book of Revelation, beyond one set of interpretations.
OK, that sounds like a nice way of saying it’s made up. You are good at that. Do you think God Himself had anything to do with it’s authorship?
Why gods and not aliens?
My doctor comment wasn’t a dig, BTW. I’m explaining how cognitive dissonance would lead two people with the same experience to draw different conclusions. I feel your certainty that the Christian God singled you out is an attempt to discount the religious epiphanies of “lesser” peoples of differing religious beliefs if it doesn’t also imply a tremendous amount of wishful thinking that medicine and science can easily explain away. Would you claim Joseph Smith suffered megalomania? If yes, how would your geographically convenient experience differ?
OK, but I’m missing the part where a MIRACLE happened to you.
If I’m not mistaken, you said the message was unintelligible to you.
So Aesop believed in a literal talking fox? Doubtful. I’m quite sure he intended for the fox to symbolize a bitterly disappointed man. I can’t say with full certainty that Biblical authors intended for a talking shrub to symbolize the internalized voice of God. Or reason. Too many fundamentalists believe that God has the power to throw his voice into a flaming bush, so why is your designation of allegory superior to a literal interpretation?
I’ll tell you why. Because it makes your belief system more palatable to you.
What?
Given the experience that God reveals himself to humanity, it seems reasonable to explore how he has previously revealed himself. In a Christian society, Christianity is the obvious starting place. There may indeed be many paths to spiritual truth, and I’ve studied a number of them, but I can do the most good for society working within the strictures of the Christian church. It’s the path I’m on, and I’m familiar with most of its ruts and windings, its limitations and misuses. As far as accepting the Bible within that framework, it does show a progressive revelation of the nature of God throughout history, and I cannot (given my own experience) dismiss the pivotal idea of Christ’s sacrifice for the redemption of mankind offhand. Without that experience, it would be a completely different matter for me.
Great, keep at it. As I’ve said repeatedly, without my experience I wouldn’t believe in God either. I have no way to disprove your POV, and no reason why it happened to me.
What is the nature of God? “Love me, bow to me or I’ll kill/torture you?”
This is a little clearer, thank you.
If you mean that our interpretation of the Bible has evolved as society has progressed, I’ll give you that.
This assumes God controls our every thought and action. I disagree.
So, it isn’t just modern liberalism.
Only if you agree with Calvin. His ideas were innovative, useful, but did not ultimately satisfy.
It is what the Bible says in some parts, and not in others. Studying the totality of the scriptures and the history of its interpretation does not necessarily lead one to this conclusion.
Again, the predestination in these verses refers to the special call of the apostles, and not to the world in general.
And what’s your take on it?
Why should we believe those guys? How about, this isn’t the first time these ideas have been expressed, and these people have taken a lot of time and effort to, as rationally as possible, discuss the issues and come to conclusions that, if you are at all fair, must be considered if you are seriously interested in them. Overlooking centuries of academic scholarship is turning a blind eye to any opinion but your own.
What’s the definition? You tell me, you mentioned it first.
Prof. Pepperwinkle, can you see how inconsistent the interpretation and application of Biblical principle is to the outside observer?
How would you classify the burning bush incident? Was that a divine revelation like your own? Or was it a halluncination brought about by extreme thirst, a mustard bush full of volatile oils and the spark from a flinty rock?
The authorship of the Book of Revelation? I’m very dubious about its claims to authenticity, and I’m not alone: it nearly wasn’t included in the canon.
The scholarly examination of a written work by critics from differing geographical backgrounds and cultural influences is called Literature. We do it all the time without attributing magic to the hero or authors. Why have you picked the Bible to focus on? Why not Blake, Melville, Faust, Shakespeare, Marquez, or Li Bai? Those authors have inspired legions of poets, authors, students, and readers.
I didn’t take it as a dig, but, thank you. Ah, no, I cannot disregard the epiphanies of others, but I am highly skeptical of them. For every genuine mystical experience, I’d imagine there are hundreds of shams. I haven’t studied the Book of Mormon and Smith as much as I have others, so I wouldn’t make such claims of megalomania, except, perhaps, on historical grounds. What I do know of the Book of Mormon’s claims to the identity of Christ are not compatible with anything in the NT.
When you say “claims to authenticity” do you mean directly inspired by God? Because otherwise it seems as if you just moved the goalposts.