Reply With Quote
When the hell did I hold up Genesis as fact?
You're trying so hard here.
elephant.
If I was mistaken and you take the creation story and tale of Adam and Eve literally, believe the story of Noah's ark is true and that Christians can drink poison freely,battle demons and sometimes see the future, then I take it back. If that's the case it makes some of your earlier posts confusing though.
When the hell did I hold up Genesis as fact?
You're trying so hard here.
elephant.
You mentioned not agreeing with Intelligent design earlier, so I put you in the group of people who don't take Genesis as fact. It was neither a direct reference by you or odd association by me to make. Along those lines, you also made a point about how some people take things literally when they should be read as allegories. Following that I put you in the group of Christians who... don't take many of the once much more commonly accepted beliefs literally. So earlier I mentioned in passing that there were already plenty of points you disagreed on with other christians, and then to make sure I wasn't mistaken I threw in some of the fantastic elements of the new testament that weren't mentioned directly but are generally as well regarded as intelligent design is now, such as the belief in demons and the need to exorcise them.
Those were the elements of the faith I mentioned not having much value being put in them, and then you said "oh, but I do!" So I listed them again to make sure. If that is the sort of thing you believe, then I was mistaken; if it's not, then you're part of a trend in Christians not believing those kinds of things.
UGH tnl ate my reply
I don't think it is that big of a stretch for Christians to take the new testament more serious than the old, especially with something like genisis. Isn't the first documented recording of gen like written several 1000 years after the fact? But are the things described in the NT only written 30-70 years after the fact? There is a lot to be lost in a couple 1000 years.
I think the thing that Rezo doesn't get is that, a lot of the older stories can safely operate as allegory and still be a major part in informing faith. It's not a matter of saying "I don't buy that, I'll skip it", it's looking at the larger picture it's trying to paint. It's all important, though. I don't expect a free-wheelin' hard livin' skeptic to quite grasp that, though, and frankly it's not important to me that he does.Originally Posted by buttcheeks
I don't know if it can all be swept under the table as allegory. And if it could, what would be the point of the religion? A lot of people believe because the religion actually does things for them, and gives them hope. If the more miraculous things in the bible are just allegory, what purpose does it serve for those people? or anyone for that matter? If it just some good advice, why not just convert to one of the many other religions that give good advice that are far less morally constricting?
Whatever gets you through the day.
Thank you and goodnight! Have a good weekend.
you fing cop out
elephant.
I understand that just fine. The trend has been from moving things over from the area of literal meaning to allegorical. So the demons become a metaphor for natural personal issues; things like that.This is why I thought you were a part of that trend, and you are. The shape the religion and the beliefs surrounding it take change because of this; there is a tremendous difference between a Christian who believes in the literal actions of god in the old testament, the ability to apply those abilities in the new testament, and the coming end of the world, and someone who does not take the old stories literally, does not believe Christians have performable magic powers and does not hold the apocalyptic elements of the religion in any serious regard. I haven't tried to do anything more complicated than say "well, I guess Yellerdog is with this group, not this one."I think the thing that Rezo doesn't get is that, a lot of the older stories can safely operate as allegory and still be a major part in informing faith. It's not a matter of saying "I don't buy that, I'll skip it", it's looking at the larger picture it's trying to paint. It's all important, though. I don't expect a free-wheelin' hard livin' skeptic to quite grasp that, though, and frankly it's not important to me that he does.
That's true. It's actually common for people who almost completely ignore the OT to accept the most of things in the New. That's why I brought up New Testament elements to see if they were looked at in the same way as the Old.I don't think it is that big of a stretch for Christians to take the new testament more serious than the old, especially with something like genesis.
I still want an answer when I ask what is the point of christanity if it is just allegory?
All the good moral lessons can be gotten elsewhere. Why not swap it out for another religion at that point?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks