Distinguishing biblical metaphor from reality

FionnMatthew · 16-09-2010 08:21PM

J C wrote: »

[sarcasm]I am certainly not being sarcastic when I say that Jesus loves every person ... and wants to save them.[/sarcasm]

.

Dougla2 · 16-09-2010 08:22PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

That might be because that's not the title of the book.

yes it is..isnt it?

J C · 16-09-2010 08:23PM

PDN wrote: »

I'm suggesting that some people know fine rightly that Christians don't take the parables literally, but that it suits them to pretend otherwise in order to present creationists as honest and other Christians as dishonest.

... I wouldn't question the honesty of Old Earth Christians on the Genesis issue ... but I do question the consistency of some of their positions.

You can fudge the 'adam and eve' issue ... but then what was the Fall?

... you can fudge the Flood and Noah ... but then where do you stop fudging?

... some Christians go the whole hog ... and fudge the Virgin Birth ... and even the Divinity/resurrection of Christ.

... and before you know it, all Christianity has become, for some people, is a kind of social club championing the latest pseudo-liberal cause.

J C · 16-09-2010 08:51PM

Lemegeton wrote: »

:D:D lol. you guys crack me up when you spout this horse****. you use this concept to scare people into feeling like they OWE jesus something and its a ****ing guilt trip. lets assume just for arguments sake this jesus person existed. How exactly did his death save us. and none of your "the bible/god said it, so its true" nonsense

A very good question.

Firstly, God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful.
His justice demands perfect punishment for sin ... which is spiritual death and consignment to Hell.
His mercy demands that He forgives all sin and Saves anybody who asks Him to do so (He also cannot force His mercy on us because He has granted us free will).

Anyway, the big question is HOW does God reconcile His justice and his mercy. If He just forgave every sin with a 'wave of his hand' what kind of justice would that be. If He enforced his justice depite you pleading for mercy what kind of mercy would that be.

... so God was in a bit of a bind!!!!

Just think of it as a judge in court where an injured party brings a case against a guilty party which merits EUR 100,000 compensation for the damge that has been done.
Let's say that the guilty party has no ability to pay the fine and begs to be forgiven for the damage they have done ... and the injured party has suffered serious loss.
If the judge fines the person EUR 100,000 ... he then is showing no mercy towards the guilty party
... and if he doesn't fine the person ... he is showing no justice towards the injured party.
However, if the judge convicts the guilty party and pays the fine himself ... then he has delivered justice to the injured party ... and mercy to the guilty party.
That was why Jesus had to become a man and die (to satisfy the requirements of the just punishment for sin ... which is death) ... so that God could then show His mercy to all who ask Him.

sponsoredwalk · 16-09-2010 09:10PM

J C wrote: »

His justice demands perfect punishment for sin ... which is spiritual death and consignment to Hell.

:eek:

This is the meanest, most horrifying thing I've ever read & you think this
is what an all-loving god would do? This sounds like a person who has been
terrified into submission stockholm syndrome style...

J C wrote: »

(He cannot force His mercy on us because He has granted us free will)

But he can certainly impose his "perfect" punishment on us :rolleyes:
So inconsistent...

Ush1 · 16-09-2010 09:14PM

PDN wrote: »

Look, you take things at face value if you want. Mad that a literal Russian bear managed to destroy all those tanks at Stalingrad, isn't it?

Sadly this is where you and I differ. I don't take things at face value and won't do mental gymnastics to justify them. It's ALL bollocks to me.

PDN wrote: »

The older a book is, the more likely it is to be misunderstood, because of our cultural and historical distance from the authors. For example, even in English, compare the writings of Robert Ludlum, a Shakespeare play, and Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Ludlum is easy to understand (Jason Bourne kills all the baddies). Shakespeare is harder because we tend to miss some of the idioms and historical references. Chaucer is harder again.

The Bible is a collection of books recording God's revelation to man over various historical periods. Even if we had no prior knowledge of the Bible or of Hebrew, common sense and logic would lead us to expect that the oldest bits (such as Genesis 1) may take a bit more work to understand.

Hmm, amazing insight you have.

Common sense and logic would tell us it's not true along with all the other fantastic claims it makes. Common sense would tell you it's a work of fiction and it's really sort of facile to keep going with Genesis. What about Jesus rising from the dead? Is that literal? Does that not conflict with science? Walking on water?

sponsoredwalk · 16-09-2010 09:21PM

Ush1 wrote: »

What about Jesus rising from the dead? Is that literal? Does that not conflict with science? Walking on water?

Metaphor :rolleyes:

FionnMatthew · 16-09-2010 09:33PM

Or MythBusters science!

J C · 16-09-2010 09:34PM

PDN wrote: »

This is unbelievable!

It's a METAPHOR. A metaphor is something used to represent something else - an emblem, or a symbol.

So, if I say that the Russian bear smashed Hitler's tanks at Stalingrad, then I am using the phrase "Russian bear" as a METAPHOR.

My metaphorical statement, is consistent with science, even though a bear can't really smash hundreds of tanks, because I'm not using the phrase "Russian bear" literally - it's a METAPHOR.

So, if a Christian interprets Genesis 1 metaphorically (following the example of theologians over centuries and under advisement from the best scholars of Hebrew literature) then they are not saying that the details of Genesis 1 are scientifically correct. Why? Because it's a METAPHOR.

Therefore my interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 is consistent with scientific evidence, because I don't believe Genesis 1 is making any scientific claims at all. Why? Because it's a METAPHOR.

... yes ... but the Russian and German army literally existed and the Battle of Stalingrad was a literal event ... and the tanks were literally smashed. Equally, it is obvious that the 'Russian Bear' is a clear and widely accepted metaphor for Russia.

What has this to do with the clear unambiguous account of Creation in Genesis?

Either it is wrong or it is right ... if it is wrong lets all decently join the A & A ... or some other faith that has a modicum of truth to it ... arguing that genesis means something different to what it clearly says, only prolongs the exodus from Christianity ... but it doesn't stem the flow!!!

FionnMatthew · 16-09-2010 09:37PM

J C wrote: »

Either it is wrong or it is right ... if it is wrong lets all decently join the A & A ... or some other faith that has a modicum of truth to it ... arguing that genesis means something different to what it clearly says, only prolongs the exodus from Christianity ... but it doesn't stem the flow!!!

What would it take to convince you it was wrong? The smoking gun?

J C · 16-09-2010 09:41PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

:eek:

This is the meanest, most horrifying thing I've ever read & you think this
is what an all-loving god would do? This sounds like a person who has been
terrified into submission stockholm syndrome style...

... the meanest, most horrifying thing you have ever read ... you must have had a very protected life so far ... then!!!

If your wife or daughter was brutally raped would you not demand that Perfect justice be meted out to the perpetrator (if it was available)... so what is so horrific about the merited delivery of perfect justice by God?

You have also ignored the fact that God tempers His perfect justice with His perfect mercy ... which demands that He forgives all sin and Saves anybody who asks Him to do so.

sponsoredwalk · 16-09-2010 09:45PM

FionnMatthew wrote: »

What would it take to convince you it was wrong? The smoking gun?

Wait, is that an atheist using a metaphor? :eek:

magicbastarder · 16-09-2010 09:46PM

J C wrote: »

His justice demands perfect punishment for sin ... which is spiritual death and consignment to Hell.

you have sinned. do you believe you've been consigned to hell?

magicbastarder · 16-09-2010 09:47PM

J C wrote: »

He forgives all sin and Save anybody who asks Him to do so.

and secondly, does this mean you can get away with anything as long as you ask for forgiveness?

sponsoredwalk · 16-09-2010 09:48PM

J C wrote: »

If your wife or daughter was brutally raped would you not demand Perfect justice (if it was available)... so what is so horrific about the merited delivery of perfect justice by God?

You have also ignored the fact that God tempers His perfect justice with His perfect mercy ... which demands that He forgives all sin and Save anybody who asks Him to do so.

You don't understand, you're claiming god can't impose belief on us because
we have free will but if we choose to disobey him then he can impose
pain on us. This is just a blatant double standard you've concocted along
with the wider authoritarian fantasy.

god can impose pain, but he can't impose belief, what kind of a god is
this? Queue "all-loving and merciful" :rolleyes:

PDN · 16-09-2010 10:01PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Sadly this is where you and I differ. I don't take things at face value and won't do mental gymnastics to justify them. It's ALL bollocks to me.

Thanks for being honest and dropping the pretence of being reasonable, or interested in debate.

Common sense and logic would tell us it's not true along with all the other fantastic claims it makes. Common sense would tell you it's a work of fiction and it's really sort of facile to keep going with Genesis. What about Jesus rising from the dead? Is that literal? Does that not conflict with science? Walking on water?

No, it doesn't conflict with science.

Science has not been able to come to any convincing conclusions for or against the existence of God. Nor has it produced any evidence to suggest that an omnipotent God would be incapable of performing miracles.

Still, I recognise that you have decided to take a faith-based (if not scientific) stance and, while I think it's a shame you can't articulate it better, I absolutely defend your right to hold and express your beliefs.

magicbastarder · 16-09-2010 10:06PM

PDN wrote: »

Science has not been able to come to any convincing conclusions for or against the existence of God.

science has not been able to come up with any convincing arguments for or against the existence of unicorns, either.

The Mad Hatter · 16-09-2010 10:13PM

Dougla2 wrote: »

yes it is..isnt it?

Specious, not species.

Ush1 · 16-09-2010 10:14PM

PDN wrote: »

Thanks for being honest and dropping the pretence of being reasonable, or interested in debate.

Rather sad retort to be honest.

PDN wrote: »

No, it doesn't conflict with science.

Science has not been able to come to any convincing conclusions for or against the existence of God. Nor has it produced any evidence to suggest that an omnipotent God would be incapable of performing miracles.

Still, I recognise that you have decided to take a faith-based (if not scientific) stance and, while I think it's a shame you can't articulate it better, I absolutely defend your right to hold and express your beliefs.

:pac:
Take evasive maneuvers captain!

So you're not answering my question?

Is Jesus, a man of flesh and blood, rising from the dead or walking on water written of in a literal context in the bible? Furthermore, you don't see these claims as having any inconsistency with modern science?

J C · 16-09-2010 10:20PM

Dougla2 wrote: »

and im just saying god doesn't exist even if he did, **** him he is a malevolent prick

... and you are quite entitled to your opinion!!!

... however, if God doesn't exist ... and you believe in Him ... you have lost nothing.

... if He does exist ... and you don't freely ask for His mercy ... you will then be on the receiving end of His justice when you die ... and not even God can Save you then.

PDN · 16-09-2010 10:22PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Is Jesus, a man of flesh and blood, rising from the dead or walking on water written of in a literal context in the bible? Furthermore, you don't see these claims as having any inconsistency with modern science?

Absolutely. Everything we know of literature of the time tells us that these events were intended to be taken literally. They are totally different from parables etc.

No, I don't see that modern science has addressed these claims at all.

sponsoredwalk · 16-09-2010 10:24PM

PDN wrote: »

No, it doesn't conflict with science.

How can you scold someone for "not being interested in a reasonable debate"
when you yourself continue spouting nonsense about genesis not conflicting
with science even though I've given you more than enough reasons to
show this to be a joke assertion.

When the bible states that the earth was created before the sun,
and that plants were created on this earth before the sun,
this conflicts with the nebular hypothesis of the solar system.

Regardless of whether this is "metaphor" or not, the statement itself is
very specific & conflicts with scientific findings. You can't claim this to
be in accord with science when it says something unsupported by scientific
findings. At the end of the day that is all I'm saying & I'd like you to stop
nudging the bible up to the warmth of science's bosom by claiming there is
no contradiction when the bibles words are shown to be incorrect.

The Russian bear argument of yours is talking about the concept of
metaphor, something I understand btw, and it simply does not apply to
this situation whatsoever, you're confusing ideas to suit your agenda.
The only similarity between what the bible says and what science says is
that the earth & the sun were created, beyond that the details differ
dramatically.

J C · 16-09-2010 10:26PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Where is that mercy when His Justice is doled out on those who "freely"
choose to reject god, as you mentioned earlier?

... if they have freely and consciously refuse His mercy ... then only His justice remains.

... but why would anybody, who thinks about it for 5 minutes refuse His mercy?

... and yet men's hearts are so hard that many do refuse God's mercy.

... strange ... but true.

sponsoredwalk · 16-09-2010 10:26PM

J C wrote: »

... and you are quite entitled to your opinion!!!

... however, if God doesn't exist ... and you believe in Him ... you have lost nothing.

... if He does exist ... and you don't freely ask for His mercy ... you will then be on the receiving end of His justice when you die ... and not even God can Save you then.

Ah Blaise Pascal, I see you're still with us :P

sponsoredwalk · 16-09-2010 10:27PM

J C wrote: »

... if they have freely and consciously refuse His mercy ... then only His justice remains.

... but why would anybody, who thinks about it for 5 minutes refuse His mercy?

... and yet men's hearts are so hard that many do refuse God's mercy.

... strange ... but true.

Because this fantasy you've created doesn't hold up to elementary logic.
It's not mercy when someone gives you free will to choose them & if they
reject you then you're going to receive the ultimate malicious punishment.

J C · 16-09-2010 10:31PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Jesus loves every person ... and wants to save them.

sponsoredwalk
From what?

... from justice ... and eternal perdition.

Turtwig · 16-09-2010 10:32PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

How can you scold someone for "not being interested in a reasonable debate"
when you yourself continue spouting nonsense about genesis not conflicting
with science even though I've given you more than enough reasons to
show this to be a joke assertion.

Because Genesis is a poem, and most, if not the majority, of Christian theologians accept this. We don't take Yeats description of Inisfree as fact do we?

J C · 16-09-2010 10:33PM

Dougla2 wrote: »

go back a couple of pages and you will see evidence from the bible that this statement is bull****

Where?

sponsoredwalk · 16-09-2010 10:39PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Because Genesis is a poem, and most, if not the majority, of Christian theologians accept this. We don't take Yeats description of Inisfree as fact do we?

You're right, but Yeat's didn't say anything like the earth was created before
the sun and then claim there is no conflict with science because of this
statement. If Yeats wrote that he was going to live in the bee-hive and
let the bees live in the cabin we'd surely question whether this statement
was physically, let alone scientifically, possible.
If Yeats said he was going to live in a small bee hive we would know this is
physically impossible & judge his statement to be scientifically inaccurate.

If Yeats scholars started arguing that Yeats poem doesn't really contradict
science when he said something like the above I think we could all agree
that these scholars were erring in their assertions...

I'm not stopping anyone from enjoying Genesis as a poem, just don't go off
claiming it doesn't contradict science because it does...

Zillah · 16-09-2010 10:41PM

I'm going to make a movie about J C. It will be 14 hours long.

Distinguishing biblical metaphor from reality

Comments