Someone will be along shortly to explain that “original sin” had nothing to do with Adam and/or Eve, and never did(We’ve done a thread or two on this subject). It was never church doctrine, and wasn’t taught in Sunday School.
And we have always been at war with Eurasia.
The more metaphorical the Scripture gets the more likely it is that Jesus should turn into a deus otiosus, which will allow him to be replaced by a more dynamic figure from the same cult or from a competing one. Such shifts are never velvet transitions but violent events the kind of which may be looming nearer than we imagine.
Indeed. My point was that while the moderates can keep shoving the nonsense into the allegorical category, where it doesn’t have to be defended, you can only go so far.
As the last few posts suggest, the Fall is another case where it can’t be too allegorical. I know the Roman Catholic Church has retreated from a real Garden into it happening to some primitive humans (not sure which species) but the concept makes even less sense then.
My point is, yet again, that Biblical literalism is a fairly recent practice, and it’s not a very wide-spread one either. For centuries, the scholars have argued over what various parts of the Bible are about, the meaning behind them, etc. It’s not simply black and white as some here like to pretend. It’s not one big book, but a collection of different books. And there are god knows how many freaking versions of it out there.
I’m not saying you have to respect the moderately religious, or anything else for that matter. (As long as you don’t act like a dick towards individuals) But if you’re making that choice, at least educate yourself first.
So it’s your contention that the majority of christians in say AD 849 or AD 1231 thought that the Noah’s Ark story was a made up falsehood?
You are, not for the first time, expressing a false dichotomy, as if anyone not a literalist does not have to defend even one paragraph of the Bible as being true. We are discussing the moderately religious here, not literalists.
You might say the Jesus walking on water story is an allegory. That’s fine, it is not of fundamental importance. National Lampoon’s “Not the Bible” even gave a schematic of how the trick could be done. But walking on water is far more believable than coming back from the dead.
So, is the resurrection an allegory, or something you believe actually happened?
I’m educated fine, thanks. I know full well that moderates don’t accept the entire Bible as literal truth. My question is not whether they do, but how they decide.
And you can not evade the question, which was fairly simple.
Unless you are saying that only literalists believe in the resurrection, which would be an interesting claim to say the least.
Okay, fine, you’re not talking about literalists. What then, is your definition, of a “moderate”? How each one decides, I personally can’t speak for them. I myself am not a Biblical scholar, not by a long shot.
There are only two possibilities for any given claim:
1- It is true
2- It is false
If you call yourself a “moderate” it simply means you know the bible is FALSE but you want to keep pretending like it has value
I understand the resurrection as a symbol and nothing more. It is saying that whilst you have faith you never truly die. I have never seen it is a literal fact. A lot like making the blind to see, the symbology is so obvious.
Moderate Christians are in the most part fairly agnostic when it comes to questions of faith and God. The only reason that most of us moderates or liberal Christians say we are Christian comes from 2,000 years of cultural history.
The Bible is not true or false, it is a bunch of stories that can be used to teach lessons that is where its value lays. Some of it is complete nonsense when looked through the black and white lens of fundamentals or atheists.
You can stop there. Anything else beyond that point is a rationalization. It is not logical to call yourself a christian.
True or false are the only options available. If it is a “story” then it is FALSE.
Something doesn’t have to have no value just because it is FALSE. I’ve read plenty of books that I’ve gleaned value from that were entirely and explicitly fictional.
So you’re admitting the bible is fiction???
I personally do consider the Bible to be in at least large parts fiction, but that is not a reasonable inference from my post.
All I pointed out was that it’s entirely possible to glean value from explicitly and admittedly entirely fictional books; something not being “true” is no bar to value. For example, there is no literal bar blocking the way to value in a book, but the metaphor allows for communication of an idea.
partly fiction? please tell us which parts are not fiction!!!
Of course it is, who are you to say what I am or not? I see no conflict.
Just because it doesn’t fit your world view doesn’t mean you are correct.
Are you under the impression that it is entirely fiction? There are people referenced in the Bible who are generally accepted to be real historical persons.
Well to be fair it’s very very old and has been rewritten many many times by people with agendas so to say it is accurate is a falsehood.
Philosophic tomes like the bible operate in a grey area between fiction and non-fiction. But yes it is a work of fiction as it uses metaphors, symbolism to illustrate points.
Robert163 it is not and no one has ever claimed it to be a Science Book, no story survives the retelling.
Who am I? Someone who values consistency. I guess your worldview has no need for it.