Seperating Metaphor from Literal Truth.

busterdog · Mar 27, 2007

The Lady Kate said:
A double standard?

Not at all.

In 1. I refuse to accept any proof of ignorance or acceptance of geocentrism. 2. Is just an interesting point that is really absolutely convincing of nothing.

I apply the same standard to the TE position on heliocentrism. The sun is not the center of the galaxy, but I do not assume that TEs are idiots because they advocate heliocentrism here. As for our culture, I would be surprised if 50% of the population coudl discriminate between teh center of the galaxy and the center of the solar system. BUt, I do not generalize either.

LewisWildermuth · Mar 27, 2007

busterdog said:
In 1. I refuse to accept any proof of ignorance or acceptance of geocentrism.

What is the reason that you refuse to accept evidence?

There must be a reason if your reading is based on rules as you claim. What is the rule that stated evidence must be ignored? Why is this rule in place?

If you ignore this evidence for no reason, then how can I trust that you have not ignored evidence in all other areas? How can I trust that you in anything if you are going to ignore things you don't like?

busterdog · Mar 27, 2007

LewisWildermuth said:
What is the reason that you refuse to accept evidence?

There must be a reason if your reading is based on rules as you claim. What is the rule that stated evidence must be ignored? Why is this rule in place?

If you ignore this evidence for no reason, then how can I trust that you have not ignored evidence in all other areas? How can I trust that you in anything if you are going to ignore things you don't like?

The thread on metaphor goes through the rules in detail.

Face it, the geocentrism argument is supported by at best lousy evidence.

shernren · Mar 27, 2007

busterdog said:
Depends what your purpose is. There are different standards of proof for whether you are 1. determining someone is clueless is about heliocentrism or 2. taking an interest in someone's uncanny statements about the Pleides. There isn't enough for 1. As for 2., I am just saying that it is interesting, but not saying the text is so clear that chance cannot explain it.

I think it's quite clear what the rules are.

If a literal interpretation of a Bible passage makes the Bible look silly next to modern science, then go for the metaphorical.
If a literal interpretation of a Bible passage makes the Bible look like it confirms modern science, then go for the literal.

I have to admit that it's actually not a bad way to do things.

busterdog said:
Not at all.

In 1. I refuse to accept any proof of ignorance or acceptance of geocentrism. 2. Is just an interesting point that is really absolutely convincing of nothing.

I apply the same standard to the TE position on heliocentrism. The sun is not the center of the galaxy, but I do not assume that TEs are idiots because they advocate heliocentrism here. As for our culture, I would be surprised if 50% of the population coudl discriminate between teh center of the galaxy and the center of the solar system. BUt, I do not generalize either.

Did the Earth stop orbiting the sun, and the rotation of the Earth stop causing day and night, just because the Earth-Sun system orbits the galactic center?

The Lady Kate · Mar 27, 2007

shernren said:
I think it's quite clear what the rules are.

If a literal interpretation of a Bible passage makes the Bible look silly next to modern science, then go for the metaphorical.
If a literal interpretation of a Bible passage makes the Bible look like it confirms modern science, then go for the literal.

Then how do we explain Creationism?

shernren · Mar 27, 2007

The Lady Kate said:
Then how do we explain Creationism?

Good question. I suppose one more rule could do it:

If a literal interpretation of the Bible makes it look silly next to modern science, but the science in question can be warped and minced enough to convince most people that it actually doesn't make the Bible look silly, then go for the literal, no matter what else gets distorted in the process.

or in short:

Go for the literal at the expense of all reasonably deniable truth.

vossler · Mar 27, 2007

shernren said:
Go for the literal at the expense of all reasonably deniable truth.

Yeah, that's what I do.

Scotishfury09 · Mar 27, 2007

shernren said:
I think it's quite clear what the rules are.

If a literal interpretation of a Bible passage makes the Bible look silly next to modern science, then go for the metaphorical.
If a literal interpretation of a Bible passage makes the Bible look like it confirms modern science, then go for the literal.

Yay! Let's bow down to the world's views for everything.

If modern science confirms that homosexuality isn't a choice we should go with it, no matter what Romans 1:26-27 says!

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Dannager · Mar 27, 2007

Scotishfury09 said:
Yay! Let's bow down to the world's views for everything.

If modern science confirms that homosexuality isn't a choice we should go with it, no matter what Romans 1:26-27 says!

If the evidence was right in front of your face, completely undeniable, you would reject it for no reason other than it contradicting your views on the Bible?

Scotishfury09 · Mar 27, 2007

When it contradicts completely undeniable text. Yes.

edit: The only contradiction I see to this is evidence of geocentricism which has been brought up here many times. However, that still doesn't mean that we should accept the world over Biblical truth. My point wasn't to create a new set of rules, but to show that there isn't a set of rules that can be defined that simply.

Psalm 118:8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.

Dannager · Mar 27, 2007

Scotishfury09 said:
When it contradicts completely undeniable text. Yes.

You refuse to believe that perhaps you should attempt to reconcile said text with the equally undeniable evidence?

busterdog · Mar 28, 2007

shernren said:
I think it's quite clear what the rules are.

If a literal interpretation of a Bible passage makes the Bible look silly next to modern science, then go for the metaphorical.
If a literal interpretation of a Bible passage makes the Bible look like it confirms modern science, then go for the literal.

I have to admit that it's actually not a bad way to do things.

Did the Earth stop orbiting the sun, and the rotation of the Earth stop causing day and night, just because the Earth-Sun system orbits the galactic center?

I don't think explaining it again is really all that necessary. Different types of arguments require different standards of proof. That is not real hard to understand, but you seem to be unwilling.

You mis-stated my arguments in this post.

As for heliocentrism v. the galactic center, that is again a simple demonstration of how people use language.

The Lady Kate · Mar 28, 2007

Scotishfury09 said:
Yay! Let's bow down to the world's views for everything.

It's not about the world's views, it's about the world's facts. And we should certainly accept the world's facts over our own.

If modern science confirms that homosexuality isn't a choice we should go with it, no matter what Romans 1:26-27 says!

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

So, according to this passage, what causes homosexuality?

busterdog · Mar 28, 2007

Dannager said:
If the evidence was right in front of your face, completely undeniable, you would reject it for no reason other than it contradicting your views on the Bible?

Actually not at all. This is a de-rail.

We dismantled the geocentrism straw man, step by step, with sound literary rules.

Perhaps it might get a little bit complicated at times, but not much.

This post says you don't wish to read the thread.

The first page of the thread has ample and sound analysis. You don't have to re-read the whole thing.

If you want to just throw accusations around, well, that is not all the much fun.

Dannager · Mar 28, 2007

busterdog said:
Actually not at all. This is a de-rail.

We dismantled the geocentrism straw man, step by step, with sound literary rules.

Perhaps it might get a little bit complicated at times, but not much.

This post says you don't wish to read the thread.

The first page of the thread has ample and sound analysis. You don't have to re-read the whole thing.

If you want to just throw accusations around, well, that is not all the much fun.

Back off, busterdog. I asked for a clarification regarding the specific post I was addressing, and that post was not the OP. The poster I posed the question to responded, and the discussion has moved on further. You're barking up the wrong tree.

shernren · Mar 28, 2007

busterdog said:
I don't think explaining it again is really all that necessary. Different types of arguments require different standards of proof. That is not real hard to understand, but you seem to be unwilling.

Yes, it is not hard to understand at all.

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding." (Job 38:4 ESV)

"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion?" (Job 38:31 ESV)

Both verses are written by the same author,
in the same chapter,
have the same style,
form part of the same argument
in the same way (pointing out God's ineffable power),
within the same cultural context.

The only real difference is that
a literal interpretation of the former doesn't make sense with science, while
a literal interpretation of the latter does make sense with science.

Here's a good thought experiment. Suppose that incontrovertible evidence for esoteric cosmological theories is found. As a result, scientists make two groundbreaking discoveries: the earth is actually anchored in 11-dimensional space with tenuous but rock-solid tendrils of fundamental strings; and the Pleiades are actually not a gravitationally-collected cluster of stars, but happen to all be visually in the same corner of the sky, and there is no systematic pattern of motion to them - some are staying still, some are being attracted, and some are flying apart.

Wouldn't you then say that
the Bible indeed literally predicted that the Earth has foundations, and
the Bible only metaphorically spoke of binding the chains of Pleiades?

gluadys · Mar 28, 2007

Scotishfury09 said:
Yay! Let's bow down to the world's views for everything.

If modern science confirms that homosexuality isn't a choice we should go with it, no matter what Romans 1:26-27 says!

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

But, except in the case of rape, sexual intercourse is always a choice. It is only sexual orientation that is not. Both those oriented toward same-sex and opposite-sex attraction have the capacity for both homosexual and heterosexual intercourse and the same freedom to choose or refuse it. Nobody can honestly say that they are compelled to engage in sexual intercourse of any kind unless they are alleging rape.

Just because science has shown that some people have a natural preference for same-sex over opposite-sex intimacy doesn't mean they must engage in sexual intercourse or must do so with someone of the same sex. This is mistaking an "is" (existence of a preference) for an "ought" (must act out that preference).

shernren · Mar 28, 2007

Scotishfury09 said:
Yay! Let's bow down to the world's views for everything.

If modern science confirms that homosexuality isn't a choice we should go with it, no matter what Romans 1:26-27 says!

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

And indeed the Bible says that God gave them over to shameful lusts, does it not? Yet the fact that their lust was a result of God's giving them over to it doesn't make their lust any less shameful.

Scotishfury09 · Mar 28, 2007

gluadys said:
But, except in the case of rape, sexual intercourse is always a choice. It is only sexual orientation that is not. Both those oriented toward same-sex and opposite-sex attraction have the capacity for both homosexual and heterosexual intercourse and the same freedom to choose or refuse it. Nobody can honestly say that they are compelled to engage in sexual intercourse of any kind unless they are alleging rape.

Just because science has shown that some people have a natural preference for same-sex over opposite-sex intimacy doesn't mean they must engage in sexual intercourse or must do so with someone of the same sex. This is mistaking an "is" (existence of a preference) for an "ought" (must act out that preference).

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

I believe that is talking about sexual orientation, is it not?

Deamiter · Mar 28, 2007

Scotishfury09 said:
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

I believe that is talking about sexual orientation, is it not?

Not really, though I think it depends on how you define "sexual orientation."

We're not free from temptation -- some people are attracted to people of the same sex, and that's not sinful. The way it's usually defined, when a person is attracted to people of the same sex, they are considered homosexual almost by definition.

Now the sin is in acting on those tempations. The verse is talking about these people's choice to turn away from God and give into their temptations.

Homosexuality (being attracted to people of the same sex) is not a choice and is not sinful. Similarly, being attracted to people of the same sex whom you're not married to is not sinful. Lusting or acting on your temptations IS the sinful act so no, saying that homosexuality is not a choice is not saying we cannot choose not to sin.

Of course there is a minority of Christians (and many more non-Christians) who think that homosexual acts are not sinful. That's neither what we're saying here, nor is this particularly a good forum to discuss it in.

Seperating Metaphor from Literal Truth.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

The Lady Kate

Guest

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life

Back in Town

G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life

Back in Town

Senior Veteran

The Lady Kate

Guest

Senior Veteran

Back in Town

you are not reading this.

Legend

you are not reading this.

G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life

I just follow Christ.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency