n/m.
Ah, so you don’t know what others are saying, thinking, and meaning but pretend to know such and consider yourself to be, dare I say it, omnipotent. This mystical ability of yours extends from the oldest Biblical texts to posts in this thread. Truly amazing!
Note: the second quote was Robert’s – I forgot to attribute it. And the editing time expired. :smack:
You’re right, mentioning the KKK was a bit too much. Did you see the post that led to that? The first post was my real point and did not include the KKK. It was the post about “how to be a southern gentleman” the majority of the content being immoral and repugnant. I really mean this as a one time, isolated example and didn’t intend for it to extend further than a hypotheitcal example.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18309595&postcount=805
This is clearly a false statement from you.
And, once again, how do you know for a fact that the person or persons who created the story of the Flood and the Ark did not, in fact, mean it to be metaphorical or allegorical?
There’s also a theory that the flood myth may have come from stories of actual floods that happened in the past. (Much like people thought comets were omens of disasters, etc). Stories that grow over time, like most tall tales do.
It’s whoever, by the way. Anyway, have you never heard of the concept of “telling a story, a story with moral value”?
Big whoop. They very well could have known it was fiction. After all, a work of fiction is pretty much a great big lie. The key thing to note is that good fiction has literary merit. In other words, it has value, a moral, if you will.
Another by the way for you: Here is another definition or two for you.
No, it is possible, of course, that the statement was meant to be allegorical. But the issue really only becomes an issue when it violates the rules of science/reality. Here is the verse:
Jonah chapter 1 verse 17: Now the Lord provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
You - could - say that really means “The Lord found a way” but if it has said instead, “Jonah was 100 miles from town and stranded in the desert. The Lord provided a donkey to carry Jonah to town.” You would probably assume it meant exactly what it said. The Lord provided a donkey. It is only when “unscientific” claims enter the picture that people start to talk about analogy and metaphor. The problem with that is the whole Christian platform is built on unscientific claims. If the living in the belly of a whale is brought into contention then so is walking on water and turning water into wine and the resurrection and healing the blind and the lepers. So there should be some type of consistency applied otherwise nothing has any relative value.
Because it goes to credibility.
Okay. There’s no way you’re not doing this on purpose and as an act. No, it does not go to credibility. As told to you quite a few times already in this thread alone, works of fiction–works that are known to not be true–have value.
Just because you think the Fundamentalists of your youth are the very definition of Christianity does not make your opinion fact.
Nope. That does not follow. You are again making up stories yourself here.
Dude, it’s like hitting yourself over the head with a brick. It feels better when you stop.
You know, it very well may not have been meant as a story. Quite possibly so, I’d eve say it is highly probable and a reasonable assumption to assume that it was. The problem with that is that when the bible is reduced to being a bunch of stories (which is what it is) it loses it’s Moral Authority. It becomes an outdated group of books that we should of left in the past, a long long time ago.
See this is what the Christian opposition to the Atheist resistance. You can’t prove that any of your spiritual/religious claims are actually true, so you pick apart, with semantics and tangents, people who simply want a claim to be demonstrated to be true before it is accepted as true. That is all I am after. Prove that the religious claims you make are actually true.
So if I said to you “Fred provided me with a car to drive to town” would you assume that Fred had actually provided me with a car to drive to town, or, would you assume I was being allegorical in my statements?
Once again, I’m not a Christian, at least not a practicing one. And I’m not the one claiming that the Bible has to be taken literally. YOU are. That was never taught to me, in the years I went to Catholic school. I don’t know why you can’t get it through your head that fundamentalism and Biblical literalism is a recent school of thought. If the only “true” Christians in your view can be the fundies you were around growing up, then that’s your problem, not mine. That’s been pointed out to you, over and over and over, ad nauseum.
I don’t know what “religious claims” I’ve made, other than the ones I above. If that’s not good enough for you, then tough shit.
No, the church loses its moral authority and I as a modern christian I am very comfortable with this outcome.
And how do you know that a literal interpretation is “only recent”, I keep mentioning this medieval french peasant and what he would of thought of the story of Noah’s Ark. What do you really think he was thinking when he heard that story. What do you really think Friar John Brown meant when he told the story?
So what parts of the bible do you consider to be 100% true?
Why would you assume that? Again: the Fundamentalists of your youth are not the be all and end all of who Christians are and what Christianity is.
What’s wrong with a valuable lesson learned from any source? The value of the lesson itself is what can drive the authority of the source.
And yet another by the way for you: it’s is not a possessive pronoun; it’s a contraction of a nominative pronoun and a verb. Seriously, if you’re going to go on and on about literalism, perhaps you should display a bit more literacy.
Depends on what else is in the story.