Why literal creationists are abusing scripture

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Rubbish. It is the most shallow and bigoted deprecation of a people's effort to understand and define themselves and their environment in relationship to their God.

i see no "bigoted deprecation of a peoples effort to understand" something when someome sees a book as worthless that the other sees as worthy.

Perhaps you think that someone who is religious deserves respect just because he is religious. If so it would be interesting to see how you come to this idea.

 

[Quagmire]

I like to point this out to literalists;

Gallations 4:22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

 

[Quagmire]

In Exodus 19 (as well as other places) God Himself uses symbolism;

19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

4Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. 5Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice.

So in other words, according to the Christian Bible (and the King James at that) God sometimes spoke metophorically, and Paul read the scriptures allegorically.

So what's the problem?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As parables and allegories is the only light in which the book has any redeemable value.

What arrogant rubbish!

I don't think that this is arrogance. Objectively seen it is a valid and reasonable assumption.

Rubbish. It is the most shallow and bigoted deprecation of a people's effort to understand and define themselves and their environment in relationship to their God.

i see no "bigoted deprecation of a peoples effort to understand" something when someome sees a book as worthless that the other sees as worthy.

That's apparent.

Perhaps you think that someone who is religious deserves respect just because he is religious.

Or, perhaps you're confused.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... reading the prickly passages of Genesis as if they were intended as metaphor is wishful thinking at best.

The phenomenon is almost touching: as our scientific understanding expands more and more of the Torah is gratefully 'discovered' to be metaphorical. But how is this reverse engineering not fundamentally disrespectful of the efforts of a people to understand their God, their universe, and their place and purpose? Must we really be so ashamed of their worldview?

The question stands ...

 

[Evolution_Not]

I am sorry, i still do not understand it.
I do see what you write but i don't see your position.
Is it to be taken literally in the sense that it was 7 days or not ?

Literally 7 days. I can show you other versus which are symbolic and prophecy
with explanation if you desire.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else,for I am God there is none like me, Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning.............................

 

[gnostic]

This is what got Galileo in trouble. He was right about science, but wrong about condemning certain theological propositions.

And what "theological propositions" were they?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

That's apparent.
Or, perhaps you're confused.

Might be.
Enlighten me.

 

[Evolution_Not]

So in other words, according to the Christian Bible (and the King James at that) God sometimes spoke metophorically, and Paul read the scriptures allegorically.

So what's the problem?

No problem here. The Bible should be read literally unless there is an indication to do
otherwise. Its a lot of common sense. Problem is the ignorant would like you to believe nothing is literal in which case you can place any meaning you want to on
any part you want. It takes a great deal of study.

 

[Quagmire]

No problem here. The Bible should be read literally unless there is an indication to do
otherwise.

Indications such as?

Its a lot of common sense.

Most people think thier subjective opinions = common sense.

Problem is the ignorant would like you to believe nothing is literal in which case you can place any meaning you want to on
any part you want.

Yes, I got a memo to that effect and it was signed "We the ignorant".

It takes a great deal of study.

What does?

 

[UnTheist]

If the Bible is suppose to be literal, then that means it's even more wrong than a Bible with some figurative text.

 

[Evolution_Not]

Indications such as?



Most people think thier subjective opinions = common sense.



Yes, I got a memo to that effect and it was signed "We the ignorant".



What does?

If you want to be sarcastic and immature perhaps a childrens thread
would be more to your liking.

 

[Evolution_Not]

If the Bible is suppose to be literal, then that means it's even more wrong than a Bible with some figurative text.

Have you read it or studied it or is this just your opinion? Be honest

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the Bible is suppose to be literal, then that means it's even more wrong than a Bible with some figurative text.

To view the Tanakh as monotonic is laughably dumb ...

 

[mohe3439]

I really think that considering the available data Genesis 1 could somewhat be comprehended as evolution. Firstly the order in which god creates animals is very similar to how evolution flows, all you would need to do is switch the birds and beasts of the land. And also many Rabbis believe that the days in which the world was created weren't necessarily 24 hour days so really people can very well believe both, and should if they want.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Literally 7 days.

which contradicts science of course.

 

[Quagmire]

If you want to be sarcastic and immature perhaps a childrens thread
would be more to your liking.

I was asking legitimite questions. I think that's what threw you off.

I was asking you to clarify your responses. Apparently you can't.

As far as the rest of your prissy little remarks; first you catagorize anyone who doesn't hold your view as ignorant, then you go on to demonstrate that your view isn't actually based on anything (nothing you can demonstrate or defend anyway).

Lets see if you can deal with an actual comparison of views without having to resort to lame avoidance attempts like this post you just made, shall we?

 

[Quagmire]

Ok, lets try again;

No problem here. The Bible should be read literally unless there is an indication to do
otherwise.

And what, in your opinion, qualifies as an indication that we're suppose to read any given passage literaly, and any other given passage figuratively? (and here's a hint; "Because my pastor told me to" isn't going to cut it)

It takes a great deal of study.

Again; what takes a lot of study? To be able to read the texts literaly? that's ridiculous. A literal reading of anything is the shallowest, least commited method imaginable.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

And what, in your opinion, qualifies as an indication that we're suppose to read any given passage literaly, and any other given passage figuratively? (and here's a hint; "Because my pastor told me to" isn't going to cut it)

Although not asked to me i think the response to that question would be:
As long as literal reading doesn't contradict reality it is preferred. When it contradicts reality it must be interpreted and was obviously always intended to be interpreted.
At least that's the answer history gives us about religions.

 

[Evolution_Not]

which contradicts science of course.

Or the other way around?