Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic?

What the hell does that mean? I know of no definition of Pantheism that renders it anything other than superfluous.As to the topic, i.e., "Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic", the question impresses me as sophomoric and, to the extent that it counterposes "true" and "symbolic", cognitively meaningless. It's a bit like asking: "Can Thursday be heavier yet less salty?"

i hate salty thursdays.

Only if your definition of truth is derived entirely from human wisdom.
Before humans were so much as a thought, concepts and situations (and words themselves) had meaning. We are not the originators of all definitions!

Maybe not, but we are the only ones who use the definitions.If wisdom could be imparted by some external source - say "God" - then that wisdom should be more or less consistent between different "receivers". That does not seem to be the case.Thus, it seems clear that all wisdom is at least "processed" by us lowly humans. External sources - which we can not agree on - are pretty much irrelevant.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

But theology asserts that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God...and also that humans prefer their vain imaginations to obedience....thus the conundrum

"To God", yes. But we are talking about the communication - if any - from God, to us. The only way we have of ascertaining what God thinks is foolishness is by our own interpretation of that communication. So we are still left to our own devices. The assertions of theology are the "vain imaginations" of humans. Else, why is there not one monolithic theology of all mankind?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Truth has nothing to do with wisdom. I agree, but only since 'we' would include you, and you are clearly most at home wallowing in nonsense.

If Jesus is alive then the Resurrection miracle is true. The Resurrection miracle was predicted by Jesus PRIOR to his death. Therefore, if true, THEN everything else Jesus said must be true since a prediction of a Resurrection miracle automatically makes everything else He said supremely reliable. Jesus was a descendant of Adam (1Chronicles genealogy; Matthew 1; Luke 4; Genesis 5 connects Adam with Noah). Also Jesus by inference said Genesis is true and written by Moses.Phatboy: Darwinian evolution is groundless; the Emperor has no clothes; anyone who says he does is suffering the Romans 1 blinding penalty by God for denying Him Creator credit. You believe Jesus is alive then good. The remainder of the data cannot be discarded because it exists in a source by which you accept Jesus alive.Ray

Ray---I cannot blithly accept that many notable scientists and intellectuals are simply "blinded" and that any backwoods fundie who believes "the whole Bible" is on to the absolute truth and mystery of the universe!we see things differently, you and I.I have seen the supernatural manifested before and around me. I know that there are many mysteries....and I know the words sttributed to Jesus. I also believe that I KNOW Jesus, and I know that God need not stoop to parlor tricks to prove His omnipotance, nor need He insist on a word for word literalism.A thought for thought parable oriented symbolic literalism (of Spirit and intent) is another matter, altogether....I believe in THAT.

That doesn't follow at all. If one thing He said was true, that does not in any way authenticate anything else that He said. If I say the sky is blue, does that "automatically" make everything else I say true?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

You seem to have no problem with the concept of "Thursday" which is a manmade concept. Every word ever invented has a definition! And thus you in your own legendary mind have deemed any theistic concept (except your ego) to be superfluous! And yet...if I deemed Monday to be superfluous, many would laugh and agree yet Monday remains an agreed upon human concept.
Thank God that He does, as well...although I would assert that He deems our puny egos to be quite superfluous as well. In fact, as a result of this logic, I rename myself Consequent Believer! Purely symbolic! Spirituality is only superfluous until you are dead!

Hmmmm...I can speculate on this one.
1) There is no agreed upon theology because humans by nature seek to save their lives (and egos...and the right to free thought) rather than willingly lose their preconceptions and trust any doctorine or precept.
2) Common sense and traditional theology do not mix. My argument is that common sense...a survival trait...also allows the fallen nature within us to survive....by denying any supreme Divinity.3) We agree that humans have vain imaginations. The only way to find truth within that reality is to test the vibes from each person whom you encounter throughout the day....and then even if you DO encounter a potential mystic in touch with the Spirit of God, you still must choose whether or not to believe or deny that innate vibe!

a) that's not a prediction
b) if it was a prediction as to tomorrows sky colour, it wouldn't be a particularily noteworthy oneIf you were to predict a sky tomorrow which was coloured green and big red and blue polka dots on it that would be more in keeping with what Herepton was talking about

---

People who think they have all the answers don't usually understand the question

What underwhelming insight. The fact remains that not all combination of words are cognitively meaningful. See Ayers. That incoherent drivel does not even rise to the level of non sequitur.On what grounds do you insist that my characterization of Pantheism necessitates an identical view of all theistic philosophies? Or do you simply babble to fill some void in your own reasoning? Whatever was behind your inane "thus you ... have deemed any theistic concept ... to be superfluous", most readers will understand that one can have one view of Pantheism, a second of Fundamentalism, an third of process theology, a forth of Kaplan's transnaturalism, etc.

My point is that people who do "willingly lose their preconceprions" don't all "receive" the same doctrines and precepts. Therefore, I conclude that the doctrines and precepts have an internal rather than an external source. No we don't. I was quoting your phrase - hence the quotes.Since our own imaginations are our only connection with reality, it is meaningless to call them "vain". Tell that to iano. He thinks you can tell a Christian by what they "believe".Outward behaviour is a more reliable and objective barometer of what's inside than any vague "vibe". Personally, I never get that "vibe" from people who claim to be "in touch with the Spirit of God". I think claiming to be "in touch with the Spirit of God" is one of the vainest of the vain imaginings of "fallen" man.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.