ST Alpha - "Here's the problem I have with that, if those are not to be taken as literal events, why should we take any of it as literal events? -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 163

In response to "LIR: Jax. See B2. Adam and Eve/Genesis/etc as literal events, no, but they do serve to describe some important ideas of Christianity such as " by oblique

Here's the problem I have with that, if those are not to be taken as literal events, why should we take any of it as literal events? -- nm

Posted by Jim (aka Jim) Dec 9 '09, 08:58

(No message)

Responses:

The Bible is a collection of books. Some historical, some not. It's not all one big work by one dude. -- nm - con_carne Dec 9, 09:01 2
- (unless God is your dude) -- nm - con_carne Dec 9, 09:01 1
  - heh -- nm - JaxSean Dec 9, 09:12
Why is it an all or nothing proposition? -- nm - oblique Dec 9, 09:00 19
- because then it saves people the trouble of figuring out which is which... :) -- nm - znufrii Dec 9, 09:01
- Well, kinda, it does, IMO. If you're telling me "these parts of the book...they're not to be taken as literal events...but THESE are" it calls into - Jim Dec 9, 09:01 17
  - do the events need to be "valid" to have meaning? -- nm - znufrii Dec 9, 09:04
  - Are you even differentiating between the Old and New Testament here? There's only about a thousand years' difference between them... -- nm - con_carne Dec 9, 09:04 6
    - Why should it matter though. Did God change his mind in those thousand years? As I understand it, they're both supposed to be The Word Of God. - musubi Dec 9, 09:06 5
      - Frankly, I think TV evangelists have confused us a lot on how we should take the Bible. "Believe this entire book" is simply not a majority view. -- nm - con_carne Dec 9, 09:09 3
        
        What with differing adherence to church doctrine, I don't doubt it. My question is with regards to church doctrine though. - musubi Dec 9, 09:16 2
        
        For my denomination, they have had this to say: - oblique Dec 9, 09:21 1
        
        "In fact, to deny the possibility that evolutionary processes were used is seen by some as an attempt to limit God's power." - TFox Dec 9, 09:35
      - The OT God was all piss and vinegar. The NT God is all sweetness and light. - TWuG Dec 9, 09:09
  - It's not like it's one giant story. It's many different writings collected in one cover -- nm - oblique Dec 9, 09:03 8
    - But, if we're to accept it as The Word Of God, as most religions tell use, it's not *really* different tomes under one cover, right? (nm) - musubi Dec 9, 09:04 7
      - again, you're taking the literalist view. I don't subscribe to the idea that every word of the bible was straight from God's mouth to someone's hand - oblique Dec 9, 09:06 1
        
        I don't believe I'm being literalist, but I do appreciate that you are engaging those who question The Book. - musubi Dec 9, 09:11
      - Here's how it seems to me: It is when it's convenient to say it is. It's not when it's convenient to say it's not. -- nm - mara Dec 9, 09:05 4
        
        And when I asked, if this is the word of God, why were parts excised and others added? - Will Hunting Dec 9, 09:06 3
        
        Islam had it right. They won't even let translations be referred to as the Koran. -- nm - znufrii Dec 9, 09:09 2
        
        Nah, imo, Islam has it wrong too, but at least they have a logical consistancy to their Book. (nm) - musubi Dec 9, 09:13 1
        
        that's more what I meant. -- nm - znufrii Dec 9, 09:22
does it matter, really? -- nm - znufrii Dec 9, 08:59 1
- Of course not. This way they can pick and choose what they tell people is right. -- nm - Spawn Dec 9, 09:06

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.