nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Distinguishing biblical metaphor from reality

Ush1

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Quoting from The God Delusion:

Yeah, sort of horrible really.

At least he was honest with the conflict between science and the bible. Not tip toeing around and cherry picking saying which parts literal and which are parable.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-L6rEm0rnY

link

Miaow!!!!!:)

J C

stevejazzx wrote: »

Why is it that nobody can articulate the nonsense of Genesis being metaphorical?
It's easy. Here goes; why would an all powerful god, all knowing God risk, for even one minute, the possibility of future peoples misrepresenting or misunderstanding his essentially sacred and incredibly all important words?

"How shall I word this this? Literally or metaphorically? Which is more watertight...I know half and half! A good old parable it is then...now no one will know what the hell it is I was really saying and they'll fight over the meaning...oh I am cruel creator it must be said...get the popcorn this is going to be good!":)

Response:
No Steve, the Masha was a popular form of story expression at the time therefore the creator decided to communicate his message through that medium so it actually makes perfect sense. The fact that you don't understand this is really due to your inadequacy in ancient Hebrew.
Also I might add, that it is only through the deciphering of the parable that the true lesson of Gods words are understood and therefore more readily assimilated into human understanding. This may be confusing at first but if you have faith and go with it, it really makes sense.

Call:
But why not just a simple non contentious documentation of his will; why the need to embrace primitive story forms when these words were going to be all he had for the rest of eternity? I mean surely you can see that the potential for misunderstanding and misinterpretation is immense?

Response:
Look, God works in mysterious ways right. He Can do what he wants. Certainly some poorly educated sod like you is not going to hit upon some flaw that the Almighty might possess. Also I already answered this; it is only by looking past the words and extracting the meaning do we really learn the lesson that the Almighty was setting out.

Call:
But who is responsible for the ultimate definitions then, I mean who do I listen to. The new theologians or old? The literealists or the metaphor hunters? I'm so confused; there are so many potential messages?

Repeat until either a hardened atheist or brain numbed believer.

... a plain reading of the text is all that is required ... God says what He means and means what he says!!!

J C

FionnMatthew wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. Answer the question.

I did ... just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I didn't answer your question.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

You would have a very good point ... if Genesis did have demonstrably false information ... but it doesn't!!!

So the earth was created before the sun? :pac:
Not only is it evolution you have a problem with it's theoretical physics too!

/grabs_popcorn...

vibe666

J C wrote: »

... sin wasn't force upon Mankind by God ... it was freely chosen by one Man and one Woman on the 'advice' of Satan ... that God didn't mean what He said.

Like I have said ... God didn't Create us sinful ... we did that ourselves!!!
... and now He has to save us from ourselves ... while maintaining His perfect love, mercy and justice ... truly we have one awesome God here!!!!

well maybe you're a LOT older than I am, but I don't remember me personally being around for that particular event, so I have no intention of taking the blame for something that (allegedly) happened 6000 years ago. why on earth would you choose to accept the blame for something that happened so long ago when it was nothing to do with you? i didn't choose to be a sinner but according to you, i don't have a choice in the matter and i will be a sinner for my whole life, no matter what i do. where is the free will in that?

J C wrote: »

... if you think that free will is awesome ... you should meet God !!!

he doesn't sound particularly awesome to me so far, i think he might need a PR guru like Max Clifford to clean up his image a bit because so far, he sounds like a bit of a cvnt. :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

... unfortunately, when you die you will have entered the spirit realm ... and your fate will be sealed ... that is why Satan and his demons are already condemned to an eternity in Hell.
Mankind sinned while in the flesh ... and each of us must un-do our sin while still in the flesh!!!

well isn't that convenient. i suppose that the church has had plenty of time to make sure all the loopholes are sealed up tight so you can't get out of it, so it's not surprising.

J C wrote: »

... there are many Un-saved people within the churches with a similar attitude ... but the mistake they are making is that no Man can Save him/herself through good works ... only God and Saved Christians have the power to forgive sin ... and, even then, only when the person being forgiven is repententent and asks for forgiveness and believes of Jesus Christ.

ah right, that explains it then. there we go with all those loopholes getting covered again. :rolleyes:

so given that the pope has been hiding kiddy fiddlers in his ranks, he must be pretty fuct then for that, but as long as he repents he's good in the eyes of the lord. lucky for him i guess. it doesn't matter what you do in life as long as you repent and ask for forgiveness and take jesus as your personal trainer saviour. :rolleyes:

it's funny tho, because i just heard a quote on the radio this morning that he compared atheists to the nazi's, which was nice of him. jebus, talk about people in glass houses. :rolleyes:

i think i'll just keep my fingers crossed that i get a little bit of notice before i cark it and be prepared for the day and do all my repenting then and maybe join all the other religions too, just to be on the safe side. after all, there's so many, one of them MUST be right. :rolleyes:

J C

sensibleken wrote: »

does anyone else think hell sounds awesome? I mean lets face it, everything fun is a sin, Im sure its been unionised since the bible was written so id imagine working conditions have improved at the lake of fire, and no christians.

Hell ... is ... how do you say it ... HELL !!!
... and there is no fun in sin ... just misery, pain and death!!

vibe666

J C wrote: »

I did ... just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I didn't answer.

okay so. in response to that i'd like to say badger, radiator, jam, flapjack.

just trying to prove the point that typing words on the screen doesn't mean anything if it doesn't make any sense.

i think if we put it to a vote of whether you answered the question or not, you'd have trouble getting any more than yourself and PDN to vote on your side.

vibe666

J C wrote: »

Hell ... is ... how do you say it ... HELL !!!
... and there is no fun in sin ... just misery, pain and death!!

there's plenty of fun in sin and as long as you repent before you cark it, you're golden in the eyes of the lord so what does it matter?

sensibleken

J C wrote: »

Hell ... is ... how do you say it ... HELL !!!
... and there is no fun in sin ... just misery, pain and death!!

sorry HELL!!! (shakes both fists)

Someone has never gotten laid.

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

Because, as has been pointed to you ad nauseam, the details in a parable are not materialistic statements.

The fact that you choose to ignore that and keep banging on with this nonsense is specious and evidence of a closed mind. Why should I waste my time indulging you?

But why even bother with the parable excuse for genesis when in the next breathe you say Jesus walking on water was literal?

Jesus walking on water and man being made from dust are both equally scientifically proposterous and totally conflict with modern science theories.

[Deleted User]

Ush1 wrote: »

But why even bother with the parable excuse for genesis when in the next breathe you say Jesus walking on water was literal?

Jesus walking on water and man being made from dust are both equally scientifically proposterous and totally conflict with modern science theories.

Maybe he had stilts

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

But why even bother with the parable excuse for genesis when in the next breathe you say Jesus walking on water was literal?

Jesus walking on water and man being made from dust are both equally scientifically proposterous and totally conflict with modern science theories.

Why is it that when something is explained to you repeatedly, you still display a stunning inability to grasp straightforward points?

Because, and this brings us full circle to where I rebutted your claim of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance, the parable thing is not an 'excuse'. It is the interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to be the most consistent with what we know of Hebrew literature.

So there is no intellectual dishonesty or ignorance on the behalf of non-creationist Christians. There are no 'excuses'. No cherry picking etc. There is simply a rigorous attempt to use established academic criteria to interpret a text in the best way we can.

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

Why is it that when something is explained to you repeatedly, you still display a stunning inability to grasp straightforward points?

Because, and this brings us full circle to where I rebutted your claim of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance, the parable thing is not an 'excuse'. It is the interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to be the most consistent with what we know of Hebrew literature.

So there is no intellectual dishonesty or ignorance on the behalf of non-creationist Christians. There are no 'excuses'. No cherry picking etc. There is simply a rigorous attempt to use established academic criteria to interpret a text in the best way we can.

No no, why bother with the excuse if it's to in keep with modern science when the rest of the book clearly doesn't anyway?

To go back to my original point, the man that cut up that bible was intellectually honest as if you think Jesus walked on water you may aswell forget massive chunks of physics. It's really quite laughable.

Ush1

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe he had stilts

:pac:
I'd be happy with that, unfortunately they need "miracles".

vibe666

PDN wrote: »

Why is it that when something is explained to you repeatedly, you still display a stunning inability to grasp straightforward points?

sponsoredwalk

PDN wrote: »

Why is it that when something is explained to you repeatedly, you still display a stunning inability to grasp straightforward points?

Because, and this brings us full circle to where I rebutted your claim of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance, the parable thing is not an 'excuse'. It is the interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to be the most consistent with what we know of Hebrew literature.

So there is no intellectual dishonesty or ignorance on the behalf of non-creationist Christians. There are no 'excuses'. No cherry picking etc. There is simply a rigorous attempt to use established academic criteria to interpret a text in the best way we can.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Why aren't the details in the parable supposed to be materialistic
statements? This is a parable about the creation of life, why would they
give us incorrect statements in the parable? Why wouldn't they give us
the correct details instead of a made up parable? As I've said this isn't a
trivial document like a legal statement, this is the bible ffs...

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

One claim of religion is the emptiness of a materialistic outlook of the world.
It would seem religion actually knows very little of what a materialistic
outlook is like seeing as it's main book can't even provide the correct details
on how material came into being in the main book...

PDN wrote: »

Why is it that when something is explained to you repeatedly, you still display a stunning inability to grasp straightforward points?

Because, and this brings us full circle to where I rebutted your claim of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance, the parable thing is not an 'excuse'. It is the interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to be the most consistent with what we know of Hebrew literature.

So there is no intellectual dishonesty or ignorance on the behalf of non-creationist Christians. There are no 'excuses'. No cherry picking etc. There is simply a rigorous attempt to use established academic criteria to interpret a text in the best way we can.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Why aren't the details in the parable supposed to be materialistic
statements? This is a parable about the creation of life, why would they
give us incorrect statements in the parable? Why wouldn't they give us
the correct details instead of a made up parable? As I've said this isn't a
trivial document like a legal statement, this is the bible ffs...

PDN wrote: »

Why is it that when something is explained to you repeatedly, you still display a stunning inability to grasp straightforward points?

This about sums up the procedure for duplicating this thread in the
labratory...

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

No no, why bother with the excuse if it's to in keep with modern science when the rest of the book clearly doesn't anyway?.

vibe666

it all goes back to the "baloney detection kit" video that was posted earlier in the thread.

you just can't perform a reasoned scientific analysis on something when you have such a vested interest in a particular outcome.

this is the very reason why ALL religions think they are right and everyone else is wrong and also why the scientific community at large dismisses them all equally.

every religion NEEDS for their *scientific* studies of their own particular brand of crazy to come to the same conclusions that they started with or the whole house of cards will fall in on itself.

BUT you just can't be scientific in studying something when you are only looking for a specific answer, that's not how it works.

Ush1

More evasive tactics and nitpicking whilst ignoring the main issue. The nub of which you revealed here:

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.

So you do claim a man walking on water or turning water into wine is consistent with modern science? Can you please explain to me how you can come to this rather stunning conclusion?

sponsoredwalk

PDN wrote: »

I wrote "consistent" because I meant "consistent". The views of those who interpret Genesis Chapter 1 metaphorically are consistent with scientific evidence

Ush1 wrote: »

No no, why bother with the excuse if it's to in keep with modern science when the rest of the book clearly doesn't anyway?

To go back to my original point, the man that cut up that bible was intellectually honest as if you think Jesus walked on water you may aswell forget massive chunks of physics. It's really quite laughable.

PDN wrote: »

Facepalming doesn't work when you're the one in the wrong, that's when
you realise a meme has lost all of it's impact :pac:

vibe666

Ush1 wrote: »

So you do claim a man walking on water or turning water into wine is consistent with modern science? Can you please explain to me how you can come to this rather stunning conclusion?

yeah, but jebus was magic so it doesn't count.

the idea that 2000 years ago people understood a lot less about the world and were a lot easier to fool is much less likely than magic. :rolleyes:

its also just a coincidence that god was everywhere you looked until science came along and started explaining things and has been doing less and less on the miracle front as time goes on and people find that there are more rational explanations for things that happen.

its no different to UFO's and fairies and ghosts and everything else. people who WANT to believe in these things will see them and no rational explanations will convince them otherwise. everyone else just has to make do with reality.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

More evasive tactics and nitpicking whilst ignoring the main issue. The nub of which you revealed here:

Bloody hell! You accuse me of evasion? When it's pointed out to you repeatedly that no-one is making any excuse, yet you keep repeating it anyway?

So you do claim a man walking on water or turning water into wine is consistent with modern science? Can you please explain to me how you can come to this rather stunning conclusion?

Modern science has not addressed the issue of whether an omnipotent God, incarnate as a human being, could work miracles or not.

So the miracles of the New Testament are neither consistent nor inconsistent with modern science. They certainly don't conflict with it.

However, I appreciate that you, although lacking any scientific evidence on what a God can or cannot do, have made a faith-based decision to reject the possibility of miracles. I defend your right to do so, as I defend the rights of all minority groups to hold and express their opinions.

vibe666

PDN wrote: »

Bloody hell! You accuse me of evasion? When it's pointed out to you repeatedly that no-one is making any excuse, yet you keep repeating it anyway?

just repeating the same flawed argument over and over doesn't make it fact.

[Deleted User]

vibe666 wrote: »

the idea that 2000 years ago people understood a lot less about the world and were a lot easier to fool is much less likely than magic.

.

:eek:

PDN

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Facepalming doesn't work when you're the one in the wrong, that's when
you realise a meme has lost all of it's impact :pac:

There's a huge difference between:

a) Saying that a certain view, reached on linguistic grounds, is consistent with scientific evidence.
b) Saying that view was reached as an excuse to keep in with modern science.

At this point I'm assuming that you and Ush1 are wums, because I refuse to believe that either of you are really so dim as to be incapable of grasping simple logical concepts.

Have fun guys, I've had enough of your coat trailing for one thread. Don't hurt yourself too much while you're slapping each other's backs and thanking each other.

ravendude

PDN wrote: »

Modern science has not addressed the issue of whether an omnipotent God, incarnate as a human being, could work miracles or not.

By the same token, modern science has not addressed the issue of whether a Banshee, incarnate as a human being, could work miracles or not. Do you see something wrong here?

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

Modern science has not addressed the issue of whether an omnipotent God, incarnate as a human being, could work miracles or not.

So the miracles of the New Testament are neither consistent nor inconsistent with modern science. They certainly don't conflict with it.

However, I appreciate that you, although lacking any scientific evidence on what a God can or cannot do, have made a faith-based decision to reject the possibility of miracles. I defend your right to do so, as I defend the rights of all minority groups to hold and express their opinions.

:pac:
Is that like your disclaimer or something??

As I said modern sciences take on a miracles is that they would defy the laws of science.

I don't know what more you want to illustrate how incompatable they are?

Do you think breaking the laws of modern science(physics, biology, etc..) is being consistent with science?

vibe666

bluewolf wrote: »

:eek:

i think i might have forgotten to add a :rolleyes: at the end of that statement, but i still thought my intentions were pretty obvious.

vibe666

Ush1 wrote: »

:pac:
Is that like your disclaimer or something??

As I said modern sciences take on a miracles is that they would defy the laws of science.

I don't know what more you want to illustrate how incompatable they are?

Do you think breaking the laws of modern science(physics, biology, etc..) is being consistent with science?

that's the bit they keep missing. trying to use *science* to explain things that don't confirm to the basic laws of the physical world is a non-starter.

Ghost Buster

Any minute now you'll get PDNs usual pompous and self important parting shot along the lines of "Im really really clever at this theology stuff and have a much much bigger brain than you so if I prepared to believe this then who the hell are you not to?"
I suppose if Klingon can be regarded as a university course theology can be as well.