Why read the Bible literally: take two

Of course it is. Did you ever read the story of the Pied Piper?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not if we learn from our history we wont. That's why it's important not to forget it to begin with.
After all, if we go back to paganism, no doubt, we'll be sacrificing our children for our own convenience again (to save us from our circumstances!)...(although I suppose some would argue abortion does that already!! - maybe we are further down that path back to paganism already, than we think!). Never mind exterminating those who don't agree with us!! We'll be killing ourselves!!...sorry, but that would not a smart direction to go in.

So you believe Jesus is on a par with the Pied Piper?? LOL
So what is your worldview anyway???

Ah. The question that always comes up. Sure sign that the person asking the question has a very limited imagination and capability.But to answer the question I'm a lifelong Christian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I was hoping you would answer my question seriously. You just gave me a lot of ifs. Does that mean you don't know how to tell the difference?

quote:

---

If Peter took it to be literally true

---

Did he actually take it as true? The author of 2 Peter also gave a lot of ifs.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Aren't those "if"s being used as a rhetorical device, and not to express doubt?

quote:

---

Aren't those "if"s being used as a rhetorical device, and not to express doubt?

---

Probably, I wasn't implying doubt. My point is that the writer or speaker doesn't really commit either way.Since 2 Peter is considered a second century writing and not written by the apostle Peter, the writer was probably, IMO, a gentile. His knowledge of the Jewish use of the story would be questionable and he would not have been influenced by the human Jesus.So the "ifs" are a good way to appear to be saying something "is" without really saying it "is".

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

I was actually referring to 2 Peter 3:3-7, which shows Peter is in no doubt...so the 'ifs' in your passage should not be interpreted to mean doubt about these things.

Thank you, NWR, you bet!

quote:

---

he describes the Flood as being God's judgment...

---

2 Peter 3 doesn't speak of the flood as judgment as you mentioned in Message 195. As I understand the history of Christianity, the grumblings about Christ's return were after the destruction of the 2nd temple. Peter was supposedly dead before that time. The book of 2 Peter is not considered to be written by the apostle Peter.Rhetorical questions are asked only to produce an effect. The writer of 2 Peter makes no commitment as to whether he took the flood as an actual happening or was using a Jewish story to illustrate his point.You still haven't really answered my question from Message 194 which concerned Jesus and not Peter.How can you tell the difference between whether Jesus believed the flood was an actual happening or whether he was using an old Jewish story to illustrate his point?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

He did refer to God's judgment in 2 Peter 2, which was the passage you quoted that I was responding to. In 2 Peter 3, he recognises that 'the world was deluged and destroyed'. No doubt there.
While the evidence for 2 Peter is weaker than for any other book of the NT, it is much stronger than for those books that have been excluded from the Canon. Needless to say, I do not subscribe to the liberal theory that it is not written by the apostle Peter...that fact is clearly stated in the epistle...if that fact is not true, it would not be in the Canon at all, as it would be a fraud. Therefore, my argument from the last post stands, re. Jesus and Peter's interaction with each other on this issue.
Looking specifically at Matt. 24:37 - Jesus is quoted 'For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man'. (NRSV)
If Noah didn't exist, if the Flood was just a story, then why think 'the coming of the son of man' will be any different?? Jesus warning would be empty indeed.
You may as well translate that as "For as the days of Noah WEREN'T, so will be the coming of the son of man'. Sorry, but these theories about Jesus not being literal when referring to these stories make the whole NT passage completely senseless. Actually, it's one of the major reasons I abandoned liberal scholarship a long time ago. They're really not much better than the Jehovah Witnesses.

Well, since there is no evidence that the Flood ever happened----- Now you`re getting the picture.

quote:

---

that fact is clearly stated in the epistle...if that fact is not true, it would not be in the Canon at all, as it would be a fraud.

---

No it would not be a fraud as we think of it today. It was just the way things were done back then.

quote:

---

If Noah didn't exist, if the Flood was just a story, then why think 'the coming of the son of man' will be any different?? Jesus warning would be empty indeed.

---

So you are unable to tell the difference. IMO he was illustrating his warning. So your determination that Jesus considered the flood to be an actual happening is based on the fact that you feel the warning is rendered useless if the comparison is not based on a real happening.Does that mean you consider all the parables that Jesus used to illustrate the Kingdom of Heaven to be actual happenings?Does the following have to be considered an actual happening for you to accept the warning? So your reason for reading the Bible literally is because you are unable to accept its teachings otherwise.Please pay attention to what you are writing.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

But you missed my entire point.The advice of those Commandments are an excellent quide to having a better society, and living a better life in general. But forcing the ideas on non-believers is immoral.
>>>>>>>>>>>Your reply is contradictory. Many, if not all of these adages are forced on society through secular laws. If you reflect, then you will see how they are applied prodigiously. Not-believers are most likely also inclinded to live a law-abiding life. I've not encountered a single one who came up with better guidelines than the ones in question.<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>
If I misunderstood, and you only believe that the ideas they represent and propose should be taken to heart by everyone as a guide to a better life and society, then I agree and apoligize for misunderstanding.>>>>>>Upon reflecting, I believe you understand that no force is applied by Christians and society has the right to make and enforce laws for the well-being of all its citizens.No apology necessary. There are some Christians that are other things before they are Christians. By their deeds you will know them.

How so? In the examples I mentioned, yes. But there is no secular law against adultery (especially the fundamentalist Christian definition of adultery). There is no secular law against bearing false witness (except in a court of law or when a paerson or their property is at risk). There is no secular law against coveting your neighbor's posessions or wife (so long as you don't steal the posessions or rape the wife). Etc. The only Ten COmmandment laws that apply are those that actually protect basic human rights, rather than those that are simply a "good moral code." I believe I just addressed that - most of the commandments you referred to have little or no representation in secular law, because they are religious law and have no place in government. I agree that they teach a great way to live - but if someone disagrees and believes they have a better system, it's not your place or mine to tell them otherwise so long as they don't infringe on our basic rights.Christians have forced their laws on unbelievers before. Sodomy laws used to exist over most of the US, and just about any form of sex other than missionary-style for-procreation sex was illegal, even between married couples. Those laws were struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - religious laws cannot be forced on non-believers. So then it seems we may agree. Why did you say that my response was contradictory?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.