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.
It also doesn't mean it is the truth or even a good thing to teach.
So if stories that fall into the categories of allegory, fiction, or mythology, should not be taught then I guess all the world's literature teachers should be out of jobs since they teach a lot of those. Seriously, I understand getting upset when people teach myth or allegory as historical fact but I don't understand getting upset that they teach it at all.
These kind of stories are integral to humanity. They exist in and permeate every culture. They help to give more concrete form to those values, ideas, and understandings that seem otherwise intangible.
So if stories that fall into the categories of allegory, fiction, or mythology, should not be taught then I guess all the world's literature teachers should be out of jobs since they teach a lot of those. Seriously, I understand getting upset when people teach myth or allegory as historical fact but I don't understand getting upset that they teach it at all.
These kind of stories are integral to humanity. They exist in and permeate every culture. They help to give more concrete form to those values, ideas, and understandings that seem otherwise intangible.
Before responding.
............why are you misquoting me in message 71?
Well, by logic and common sense the whole story is untrue and un-doable.
It was you who brought up the theory of literal interpretation.
I'm not suggesting that Noah's story did not happen.
I am suggesting that the story did not unfold as told in the Bible.
What I am suggesting that to take the stories in the Bible as being literally true is irresponible and incorrect.
The stories in the Bible were written for an audience at a point in time - and to draw conclusions in this present time as being literally true based upon the actually words used in the Bible - is
ludicrous.
So if stories that fall into the categories of allegory, fiction, or mythology, should not be taught then I guess all the world's literature teachers should be out of jobs since they teach a lot of those. Seriously, I understand getting upset when people teach myth or allegory as historical fact but I don't understand getting upset that they teach it at all.
These kind of stories are integral to humanity. They exist in and permeate every culture. They help to give more concrete form to those values, ideas, and understandings that seem otherwise intangible.
So, what you are saying is that, by studying the Bible, we can learn a lot about the general ignorance of the times. However, education does not strive to reinforce ignorance.
If a literature teacher teaches that Gulliver was a historical figure who was actually tied down by a little Lilliputians, or that people actually turned to stone if they looked at the snaky-haired Medusa, that teacher should be out of a job.
The whole purpose of education is to teach children the difference between reliable truths and fictions, and allegories are only useful if they are properly placed in the appropriate category, or if the children are taught to evaluate the allegoey and judge it for themselves.
So if stories that fall into the categories of allegory, fiction, or mythology, should not be taught then I guess all the world's literature teachers should be out of jobs since they teach a lot of those. Seriously, I understand getting upset when people teach myth or allegory as historical fact but I don't understand getting upset that they teach it at all.
I have nothing against these stories/parables being taught.
I am RC.
However, I have a serious issue with the literal interpretation of the Bible being taken.
It is crucial to remember when reading the Bible, one has to take account of the fact that the books of the Bible were written thousands of years ago, with a specific audience in mind.
For example, why aren't locations such as NYC or London or Berlin or Moscow referred to in the Bible?
This may seem to be a facetious question, but bear with me.
The writers of the books of the Bible could only relate locations proximate to their audience - so as to make the books more easily understandable.
If Johns Gospel referred to the end of time taking place in Beijing, it would have meant nothing to his audience.
The fact that John mentions regions located in the present Middle East, is because those locations were known to his audience.
Beijing would not have been known to his audience.
Wow...... you guys sure spend a lot of energy trying to disprove something you say isn't true.
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.
