YOU must have a fun time with history books because I never see those say "thou shall take this history literally in all cases" anywhere in any of them either. Sorry but thats just ridiculous reasoning.
Actually the flaw in the reasoning comes from your attempt to compare a religious text to a history textbook that has no religious intent to start with.
Its akin to saying unless a history author says "okay here I am being really serious and you should not distort what I write with your own spin elsewhere I mght be just joking" that you can metaphorize anything he writes and not be dishonestly changing the text . no pure nonsense.
It's a tad ironic from my perspective that you're basically ignoring the fact that Jesus himself used metaphors in his own teachings. Sometimes even the text that comes from Christ himself *has* be interpreted metaphorically to make any sense of it.
http://literarydevices.net/15-famous-metaphors-in-the-bible/
http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermon...used-metaphors-paul-fritz-sermon-on-18735.asp
You make context determine whether you are reading poetry or a vision and the Bible is pretty good at letting us know. I am going to bet you don;t do that junk with any other book no history book, no biography, no book on politics just the Bible
I simply don't share your viewpoint that every word in the Bible must be interpreted literally. I don't mind if you want to try to use the Bible as a reference, but I'm not personally obligated to limit myself to that single document when it comes to physics and science.
Sorry but that a pretty tired not thought out line of reasoning and again I am going to bet you don't apply it to anything else.
Actually I do. I do not typically take any single document to be the 'be-all-end-all' of physics, religion, history or science. I typically like to hear multiple sides of the same historical event for instance. I find poetry by Rumi to be spiritually valuable as well. I don't typically try to gain or constrain all knowledge from any single publication.
Is there anything on this planet people don't have a difference of opinion on?
Not generally anyway. We might all agree that the sun shines, but I couldn't say so with complete certainty.
People like yourself have this weird way of pointing out how Christians have various denominations and see passages differently therefore this and therefore that as if that's strange or unique.
I'm simply noting that Christianity enjoys a wide range of beliefs, not all of which have much to do with the teachings of Jesus, or the text that is found in the Bible.
Do you make the fact that some people believe the earth is flat affect your certainty that it isn't? Do tell.
Nope. I draw my own personal conclusions on that topic just like the topic of EV, big bang theory, quantum mechanics, etc.
SO since some people don't see Evolution the same or even the evidence for it the same then why in the world have you been arguing with them in this thread?
For starters because I post here all the time, and I happen to have an opinion on this topic. Is that a problem for you?
remember because people have different opinions it means according to you its up to personal choice.
True, and I've made my choice. I see no 'scientific' evidence to support YEC, so I've made a personal choice related to that topic.
Your claim that your choice is better in this thread on the issue of evolution betrays that you don't use that faulty logic on everything - probably just the bible.
When asking myself if "scientists" are likely to accept the concept of YEC, I frankly don't even see where the Bible is relevant to their opinions on that topic to start with. Not all 'scientists' are 'Christians' and even many "Christians" embrace EV theory.
If invoking the difference of opinion means we can't be sure about any opinions then sorry friend you can't know anything about anything because there is not a thing on this planet that you cannot find some people disagreeing on.
True, including the concept of whether or not we should interpret the Bible literally or metaphorically. Jesus himself however did use metaphors in his teachings, so why would I *assume* that everything recorded in the Bible *must be* interpreted literally? Can you even answer that most simple of questions about the content of the Bible and why Christ himself used metaphors?
Using the presence of different human perspective to claim you can interpret anything the way you want is horrible hermenuetics and just awful thinking.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but even scientists hedge their bets, and few if any of them speak in absolute terms. Ambiguity is in fact a part of science, and there are often multiple theories to explain various things in nature. For instance most scientists prefer a GR centric explanation of gravity. Other researchers prefer a QM orientation to explaining gravity. Some of them probably stick with Newton's ideas for all I know. That doesn't really change the nature of gravity of course, but it's not at all uncommon to have 'popular' and less popular explanations for the same events, even in science. Why should religion be any different in that respect?
It merely assumes all opinions are the same.
Actually I didn't say that. I assume that some opinions are more "scientifically" valid than others. For instance I have no clue how you personally "interpret" some of Christ's statements in red letters "literally", when they certainly *seem* to include the use of metaphors. (Bread of Life).
Meanwhile its overblown. Most denominations agree on most of the bible. All that separates many of them are a few verses not this mythical big difference all over Christendom you allege
The problem however is that various denominations all use the very same Bible, and yet some interpret various passages literally and some choose to interpret them as metaphors. I don't even know how you could *not* interpret some of Christ's statements as *metaphors* in fact. You might take a gander at that link I provided and explain why and how I'm supposed to interpret Christ's words "literally" in every single instance.
Because I don't buy your opinion that opinions matter except the early church. Not even a catholic can show me a first century document in the first century where Peter said that. You are asking me questions based on your own thesis. I am a document guy you are whatever opinions are out there guy so of course you think that s a legit question
In other words you're quite comfortable to denounce the Catholic Pope and then create your own 'religion', just like everyone else that doesn't happen to be Catholic.
You assume because you choose to distort the scriptures first before doing a more thorough examination
In what way have I "distorted" scripture in your opinion and what makes your personal opinion any more valid than the Pope's opinion?
if that is your response to possibly denying the bodily ressurrection of Christ then you are on a very thin line of being a Christian.
You obviously didn't understand what I wrote because I didn't say anything of the sort.
You should take a serious look at the Nicene creed which this site uses as defining what a Christian is. At any rate its incoherent as to the virtues of Christianity
Where does the Nicene creed mention the age of the Earth or EV theory?
- The Budhist can point to what has the most personal meaning to him, The satanic church members can talk about the personal influences in their life and and the religious fanatic about to blow up a building can show by action how much his faith means to him.
But we're discussing science and Christianity, and whether or not Christians are *required* to interpret every passage of the Bible "literally". We aren't discussing Buddhism or some other unrelated topic. How about sticking to the topic?
You are trying to redefine Christianity from its first century roots of objective truth to replace it with your emotions
Since the Catholic Church is the earliest denomination, and my beliefs about the age of the Earth and EV theory jive with that Church, it seems that you're projecting your own process on me. Even the Lutheran Church wasn't around in the first Century and it's the second oldest "Christian Church". Having grown up in the Lutheran Church, I can assure you that Lutherans are not obligated to interpret the Bible literally either.
and I have seen it over and over again. People such as yourself who hold they can twist any passage the want by calling them metaphorical who end up spouting all kinds of false doctrine (by first century standards)
I still have no clue how you can say that with a straight face, and not see that it could also be you that is spouting 'false doctrine" rather than the Pope. How do you justify that claim since your beliefs don't jive with the Pope's beliefs?
such to the point that what they have left isn't even faith by any objective truth standard.
How is your position any less subjective again?
Sure they keep the name Christian. even Mormons keep the name but once you have so warped Christianity that you can say meh....resurrection of Christ?.....my personal feeling matters more you no longer have historical Christianity anymore anyway.
Other than your 'personal feelings' what evidence can you present that your position is more scientifically or religiously valid?
Such people forget (or think metaphorical) that the word faith often appears with the definite article - The Faith. which embodies a certain set of truths not some wishy washy - whatever your opinion is.
My opinion are actually very congruent with the Catholic Church, as well as congruent with the fact that Christ himself used metaphors in his own teachings. I don't even have any idea how you justify your belief that *every* passage in the Bible *must* be interpreted literally in fact.
Whatever distortions you have to attempt
I resent your statements about 'distortions' since you haven't demonstrated that I've done anthying of the sort. Thus far you simply tried to beat me into submission by trying to cut me out of the Christian Church for not agreeing with your *literal* interpretation of the Bible, even though Jesus himself *used* metaphors that appear in the Bible.
in order to keep your religion afloat I guess.
Well, at least I'm not required to deny vast amounts of scientific literature to keep my religion afloat, unlike a YEC. Then again this thread isn't about *my religion* it's about science and whether or scientists will embrace YEC. We might have an easier time with one another if we stuck to the topic rather than fixating on individuals.
Its circular to think the writers of the bible actually mean what they write (unless in poetry ,songs or visions)? Ridiculous nonsense.
Psalms 78:35
And they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer.
Do you believe that God is literally a "rock" too? How can I possibly believe that Jesus was literal "bread", or is it ok for me to interpret *that* passage as a metaphor?
What if I decided to propose now that everything you are writing is metaphorical. I could actually change the meaning of everything you write and have you saying something you never said. You know what young people including your kids might call that?
Lying
Until you can explain how you can be sure that every passage in the Bible has to be interpreted literally, your "Lying" commentary is simply irrelevant. I'm not obligated to agree with you or face a bunch of verbal insults.
But please in your next post since you claim to know how all scientific evidence flies in the face of my literal interpretation proceed to tell everybody what my literal interpretation is WITH DETAILS or someone might get the impression you are being less than truthful. Please don't skirt answering this as I will ask it over and over until you tell me what my literal interpretation is WITH DETAILS since you claim to know it so well that all science flies in its face.
Your post is now going off the rails. I simply noted that there isn't any scientific evidence to support YEC, and therefore YEC isn't likely to be accepted by 'scientists'. From there you've taken this conversation into the realm of individual religious beliefs while insisting that I personally am obligated to use a literal interpretation of a book that is *full* of metaphors. I'm not getting into the personal side of this debate anymore with you. Either address the scientific aspect, or don't, but stop making the thread "personal'.
