Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is directed at Christians who are not fundamentalists, and who acknowledge that Noah did not really gather two of every animal on the planet and store them on a big wooden boat, how do you pick and choose what portions of the Bible are allegory and what portions are real?
Many concede that Genesis, the Towel of Babel and Noah's Flood are almost indistinguishable from the fairy tales that your parents would tell you before tucking you in at night, and that god was clearly attempting to teach us a moral lesson through stories (although why he couldn't, in his all seeing eyes, add in a "this isn't to be taken literally!" disclaimer to save, you know, millions of lives is beyond me), but what about other portions of the Bible that you still take as literally true?
How do you know the trek of Moses and the Jews isn't allegorical? How do you know Abraham is not an allegorical figure? How do you know Jesus's miracles aren't allegorical? How do you know the Resurrection isn't allegorical?
This is directed at Christians who are not fundamentalists, and who acknowledge that Noah did not really gather two of every animal on the planet and store them on a big wooden boat, how do you pick and choose what portions of the Bible are allegory and what portions are real?
Many concede that Genesis, the Towel of Babel and Noah's Flood are almost indistinguishable from the fairy tales that your parents would tell you before tucking you in at night, and that god was clearly attempting to teach us a moral lesson through stories (although why he couldn't, in his all seeing eyes, add in a "this isn't to be taken literally!" disclaimer to save, you know, millions of lives is beyond me), but what about other portions of the Bible that you still take as literally true?
How do you know the trek of Moses and the Jews isn't allegorical? How do you know Abraham is not an allegorical figure? How do you know Jesus's miracles aren't allegorical? How do you know the Resurrection isn't allegorical?
And here's the kicker:
How do you know god isn't allegorical?
Too many questions in one post.
But the short answer is anyone with half a brain who takes the time to study the Bible will learn which portions are meant to be literal, which parts are metaphorical, symbolic and which parts are poetry. Yes, a few parts of the OT are not clear as to whether literal or allegorical.
(and don't you nontheists ever tire of the "seed of doubt" strategy?)
But the short answer is anyone with half a brain who takes the time to study the Bible will learn which portions are meant to be literal, which parts are metaphorical, symbolic and which parts are poetry.
Yes, a logical analysis will lead to the conclusion that it is all allegorical or just plain fabrication.
A rational Christian acknowledges that the Towel of Babel is clearly not literally true. But the Resurrection is only marginally less ridiculous. Heaven and Hell are even more ridiculous than Noah's Ark or the Garden of Eve, but a rational Christian puts a mental block on these issues and refuses to consider whether they are allegorical. It's not because these stories are more plausible or supportable through scientific fact -- they're just more necessary for the entire theology to stand.
Which is the whole issue with Christian apologism. You believe in god because you want to, and then after the fact, come up with rationalizations to support your belief. This is an extremely unscientific and disingenuous manner of analysis. Any statistician who generates numbers selectively to "prove" a point will be ridiculed. But for theists, this is "logical".
This is directed at Christians who are not fundamentalists, and who acknowledge that Noah did not really gather two of every animal on the planet and store them on a big wooden boat, how do you pick and choose what portions of the Bible are allegory and what portions are real?
Many concede that Genesis, the Towel of Babel and Noah's Flood are almost indistinguishable from the fairy tales that your parents would tell you before tucking you in at night, and that god was clearly attempting to teach us a moral lesson through stories (although why he couldn't, in his all seeing eyes, add in a "this isn't to be taken literally!" disclaimer to save, you know, millions of lives is beyond me), but what about other portions of the Bible that you still take as literally true?
How do you know the trek of Moses and the Jews isn't allegorical? How do you know Abraham is not an allegorical figure? How do you know Jesus's miracles aren't allegorical? How do you know the Resurrection isn't allegorical?
And here's the kicker:
How do you know god isn't allegorical?
The point of an allegory is to communicate some message, idea or lesson in a (hopefully) entertaining and easy to comprehend format.
I'm not a believer but I have to wonder why the literal truthfullness of the tales in the bible matters so much to them?
The point of the tales from the beginning was to teach people "how to live" in their own real lives, not teach history lessons. Whether the stories actually happened is inconsequential to to the goal of the storytellers (which is to steer large numbers of people into seeing and understanding the world in a particular and useful way).
To me, insistance on biblical literalism shows a deep, uncomfortable suspicion of the source material in the believer's minds which they are trying to silence at all costs...and rightfully so, as the source material IS suspect.
Yes, a logical analysis will lead to the conclusion that it is all allegorical or just plain fabrication.
All you say? What can I say? You seem to believe that it is all allegorical. I say this because you do not have evidence to back up your claim. Same for the idea of fabrication. I've heard this stuff for years and ask for evidence. The best I ever get is some link to an article from Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism
Thought: if the premise of a logical analysis if faulty then the conclusion is incorrect.
All you say? What can I say? You seem to believe that it is all allegorical. I say this because you do not have evidence to to back up your claim.
Once again, you mix up to whom falls the burden of proof. It is up to you to prove that the claims made by a book without sources are true. In the absence of evidence, especially in the presence of contradicting evidence, labeling biblical stories as allegorical is just me being generous to you.
This is logic 101. There's a reason why I would not declare that, because you cannot prove that there do not exist invisible pink unicorns, they must exist, and we must dictate social and fiscal policy on His whims.
There is no evidence that Heaven or Hell exists. Indeed, both clearly violate the laws of thermodynamics and present a host of logical fallacies. There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Indeed, one would question why he would physically ascend into a place that even the most diehard fundie would admit does not reside in the sky. There is no evidence that god himself exists. Indeed, his very existence poses an innumerable list of logical contradictions. And there is no evidence that Moses and the Jews ever wandered the Sahara either.
Christians try to rationalize this by selectively dismissing certain biblical stories as allegorical. But they still hold desperately onto the Resurrection and god himself, for not at all unbiased reasons.
Yes, a logical analysis will lead to the conclusion that it is all allegorical or just plain fabrication.
Let me get this straight. You make the assertion the the Bible is all allegorical or just plain fabrication and then claim the burden of proof is on me to disprove your assertion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
Once again, you mix up to whom falls the burden of proof.
Sorry bud, but you're the one making the assertion. It is not up to me to prove you wrong. It is up to you to prove that you are right--that your assertion is correct.
Now if you don't any evidence to back up your claim. That's fine. Just say so. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
There are some parts of the Bible that have to be based on real events. The Assyrian attacks, the exile, the maccabean war. The theological take on them is open to doubt. The history at least is supported. Job is surely allegorical and Jonah must be, too. Partly because the days in the fish is hard to swallow (sorry) but mainly because preaching to the people of Nineveh (capital of the assyrian empire) - supposedly successfully - is utterly unbelievable.
What about the Ark and Exodus? The Ark, even if the flood was based on some some ancient memory of a huge flood, cannot be historical and, while I was prepared to accept some kind of 'Exodus' event, after discussion here, I think it has been proven historically impossible.
How about the New testament? The first thing that has to go is the massacre at Bethlehem. It is utterly impossible that nobody at all other than Matthew knew about it or that they would consider it not worth a mention. Discussion also shows that the nativity is fabricated. Using the same sort of analysis, the resurrection, too seems to be too contradictory to be eyewitness report and thus it must be strongly considered to be invention.
Metaphor, symbolism or allegory will not do. The events in Jesus life are generally intended to be taken as actual and factual. If they cannot be, then Christianity collapses. The believers may not accept it, but it does.
Let me get this straight. You make the assertion the the Bible is all allegorical or just plain fabrication and then claim the burden of proof is on me to disprove your assertion?
I can't help you if Burden of Proof is too complex a concept for you to understand. You are still under the impression that anything written in the bible defaults to being true, and I somehow need to "disprove" its literalness (ie, prove that it's allegorical).
I think invisible pink monkeys exist. Now prove I'm wrong.
Quote:
Sorry bud, but you're the one making the assertion. It is not up to me to prove you wrong. It is up to you to prove that you are right--that your assertion is correct.
Now if you don't any evidence to back up your claim. That's fine. Just say so. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
You...aren't very good at this, are you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
