Question for non-literalists

[DailyBlessings]

Say goodbye to the doctrine of original sin. Another casualty of compromise.

I won't miss it.

 

[Calminian]

"My dad is a real-life Romeo" doesn't make Romeo a historical figure or my dad a mythical figure. Comparisons alone cannot be used to determine the historicity or mythicity of a figure.

And, just where does it say Jesus was a real-life Adam? And what's to prevent someone from using this same logic to propose Jesus was a myth? Perhaps Bishop Spong is a real-life Jesus. Why not? You’ve created an "anything goes" hermeneutic.

 

[Calminian]

I won't miss it.

I hate being right.

 

[random_guy]

Say goodbye to the doctrine of original sin. Another casualty of compromise.

Might as well say good bye to flat Earthism, racial separation, geocentrism while you're at it. All of these are casualties of comprimise with a literal interpretation (according to different Fundamentalist sects).

 

[Jadis40]

Might as well say good bye to flat Earthism, racial separation, geocentrism while you're at it. All of these are casualties of comprimise with a literal interpretation (according to different Fundamentalist sects).

Not to mention that the Bible has passages related to the relationship between a slave and his/her master. So guess you could say the Bible advocates slavery. The US had to fight a bloody civil war before we as a nation realized that the idea that one human being had the right to own another human being was contrary to the whole idea of freedom. Sure, there were other issues, but they're secondary to the point I'm trying to make.

 

[shernren]

And, just where does it say Jesus was a real-life Adam? And what's to prevent someone from using this same logic to propose Jesus was a myth? Perhaps Bishop Spong is a real-life Jesus. Why not? You’ve created an "anything goes" hermeneutic.

We assess each character on its own. When I say "my dad is a real-life Romeo" (which is a comparison on the same level as "Jesus was a second Adam", hence the comparison) one cannot conclude from there alone whether or not my dad is historical or figurative or whether or not Romeo was historical or figurative. One looks at Shakespeare, finds that Romeo was a fictional character in one of his plays, and then concludes that Romeo is a figurative figure. Then one looks at my dad (who is very much real, thank God) and concludes that my dad is a historical (heh, heh) figure.

And then one goes back to the analogy and sees that a historical figure is being compared to a figurative figure.

Ditto the case of "Jesus is the second Adam". One looks at Adam on his own (and I have no problem with there having been a historical Adam), and then one looks at Jesus on His own, and then we go back to the metaphor and see what is being compared with what. The metaphor does not tell us any information about the nature of the people described, but that does not mean that information about them cannot be gained from elsewhere.

 

[Calminian]

Might as well say good bye to flat Earthism, racial separation, geocentrism while you're at it. All of these are casualties of comprimise with a literal interpretation (according to different Fundamentalist sects).

And there you have it. A TE admits he thinks the Bible teaches a flat earth and geocentrism. No wonder he has to reject it.

 

[Adammi]

To the OP

God created man. Man rejected God. God came to rescue man.

If it was literally 7 days (which I doubt it was) who cares?
The literalness is not what is important.

 

[shernren]

Not to mention that the Bible has passages related to the relationship between a slave and his/her master. So guess you could say the Bible advocates slavery. The US had to fight a bloody civil war before we as a nation realized that the idea that one human being had the right to own another human being was contrary to the whole idea of freedom. Sure, there were other issues, but they're secondary to the point I'm trying to make.

To be fair, American slavery was pretty different from Hebrew / Roman slavery. (I don't think anybody bothered with an awl through the earlobe to make their slaves indentured for life, for example.) Having said that, Scriptures were clearly used to support slavery, and it was said that the plain sense of those Scriptures did support slavery.

 

[shernren]

And there you have it. A TE admits he thinks the Bible teaches a flat earth and geocentrism. No wonder he has to reject it.

Random_guy, you've been quotemined! Congratulations! Normally only leading evolutionary scientists get their statements taken out of context, so if you get yours too, you must be up there with them!

Might as well say good bye to flat Earthism, racial separation, geocentrism while you're at it. All of these are casualties of comprimise with a literal interpretation (according to different Fundamentalist sects).

(emphasis added)

 

[Calminian]

We assess each character on its own. When I say "my dad is a real-life Romeo" (which is a comparison on the same level as "Jesus was a second Adam", hence the comparison) one cannot conclude from there alone whether or not my dad is historical or figurative or whether or not Romeo was historical or figurative. One looks at Shakespeare, finds that Romeo was a fictional character in one of his plays, and then concludes that Romeo is a figurative figure. Then one looks at my dad (who is very much real, thank God) and concludes that my dad is a historical (heh, heh) figure.

And then one goes back to the analogy and sees that a historical figure is being compared to a figurative figure.

Ditto the case of "Jesus is the second Adam". One looks at Adam on his own (and I have no problem with there having been a historical Adam), and then one looks at Jesus on His own, and then we go back to the metaphor and see what is being compared with what. The metaphor does not tell us any information about the nature of the people described, but that does not mean that information about them cannot be gained from elsewhere.

So....... if your dad claimed a genealogy going all the way back to Romeo, that wouldn't phase you either? Or would that soundly put your dad in the myth category?

 

[Adammi]

So....... if your dad claimed a genealogy going all the way back to Romeo, that wouldn't phase you either? Or would that soundly put your dad in the myth category?

No, I would assume that his father was a hopeless romantic.

 

[Calminian]

To the OP

God created man. Man rejected God. God came to rescue man.

If it was literally 7 days (which I doubt it was) who cares?
The literalness is not what is important.

And as Bishop Spong were to say, if Christ's resurrection was literal or not, who cares. It's still true. Please tell me how you would refute him.

 

[Adammi]

And as Bishop Spong were to say, if Christ's resurrection was literal or not, who cares. It's still true. Please tell me how you would refute him.

I wouldn't.

 

[Adammi]

Come on guys, hear me out for a minute.

To the non-literalists, convincining the literalist otherwise serves no purpose really. They can say what they want to say, it's ok.

To the literalists, does it really matter if we view it differently? Do we all have to agree?

To both, what can we learn from the other side?

 

[Calminian]

Random_guy, you've been quotemined! Congratulations! Normally only leading evolutionary scientists get their statements taken out of context, so if you get yours too, you must be up there with them!

Of course shernren uses the same strawmen. Skeptics love when their christian allies do this.

 

[Calminian]

And as Bishop Spong were to say, if Christ's resurrection was literal or not, who cares. It's still true. Please tell me how you would refute him.

I wouldn't.

I think I can rest my case. Once you compromise on Genesis, the rest of scripture becomes fair game.

 

[Adammi]

I think I can rest my case. Once you compromise on Genesis, the rest of scripture becomes fair game.

I do agree with you on that, but the basis of a non-literalist biblical approach is NOT to disprove seemingly mythical stories, but rather to live by the moral of the story.
What is the moral of the creation story? We have a Creator. What is the moral of the resurrection story. Our Creator did conquer death.
I don't know, I guess you just have to look at the audience, author, and what the author was trying to say.
I think that the 4 evangelists were trying to give an allegorical and accurately literal account and that the writer/s of much OT literature were simply writing complex allegory.

 

[Calminian]

Come on guys, hear me out for a minute.

To the non-literalists, convincining the literalist otherwise serves no purpose really. They can say what they want to say, it's ok.

To the literalists, does it really matter if we view it differently? Do we all have to agree?

To both, what can we learn from the other side?

Well, taking the stance you have, this is true. You have no right to correct someone who's doing the same thing you are. All you can do is sit by and hope they somehow come to the truth. You can never have the attitude of Paul.

2Cor. 5:11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.

 

[Calminian]

I do agree with you on that, but the basis of a non-literalist biblical approach is NOT to disprove seemingly mythical stories, but rather to live by the moral of the story.
What is the moral of the creation story? We have a Creator. What is the moral of the resurrection story. Our Creator did conquer death.
I don't know, I guess you just have to look at the audience, author, and what the author was trying to say.
I think that the 4 evangelists were trying to give an allegorical and accurately literal account and that the writer/s of much OT literature were simply writing complex allegory.

Okay, but what do you base this on? Is it just a blind belief?