Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Social and Religious Issues ⇒ Bible Study ⇒

Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic?
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 11 of 64 (250246)
10-09-2005 10:25 AM 		Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
10-09-2005 10:05 AM

Phat writes:
​
does this mean that the Bible should be taken literally(in a symbolic sense), or do we just junk the Bible and approach God through prayer, meditation, and communion in His name with other people?
​
Are those the only alternatives you can think of?
​
Literal means real. That the idea really happened. That the story you are about to read is true. The events and the names were changed to protect the innocent.
​
That's a very loose definition of "literal".
​
I wouldn't say that a story is literally true if only the idea of it really happenened. I would say it is literally true only if the events and names were presented exactly.
​
A literal story can have symbolic content. But if a story is not literally true, then it is not literally true.
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 10-09-2005 10:05 AM Phat has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 19 of 64 (259064)
11-12-2005 10:45 AM 		Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
11-12-2005 1:41 AM

Re: Symbolic Spirituality
Phat writes:
​
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 11-12-2005 1:41 AM Phat has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 11-12-2005 1:15 PM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 21 of 64 (259108)
11-12-2005 1:36 PM 		Reply to: Message 20 by Phat
11-12-2005 1:15 PM

Re: Symbolic Spirituality
Phat writes:
​
... theology asserts that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God...
​
"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.
​
...and also that humans prefer their vain imaginations to obedience....
​
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 11-12-2005 1:15 PM Phat has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 11-22-2005 4:52 AM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 25 of 64 (262155)
11-21-2005 7:53 PM 		Reply to: Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object
11-21-2005 4:22 PM

Herepton writes:
​
THEN everything else Jesus said must be true since a prediction of a Resurrection miracle automatically makes everything else He said supremely reliable.
​
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-21-2005 4:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 11-22-2005 6:07 AM ringo has replied
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-22-2005 7:06 PM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 30 of 64 (262367)
11-22-2005 11:00 AM 		Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
11-22-2005 4:52 AM

Re: Symbolic Spirituality
Phat writes:
​
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.
​
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.
​
3) We agree that humans have vain imaginations.
​
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".
​
The only way to find truth within that reality is to test the vibes from each person whom you encounter throughout the day....
​
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".
​
... 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!
​
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 11-22-2005 4:52 AM Phat has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 31 of 64 (262374)
11-22-2005 11:17 AM 		Reply to: Message 28 by iano
11-22-2005 6:07 AM

iano writes:
​
that's not a prediction
​
Prediction or not doesn't enter into it.
​
Herepton said, in Message 23:
​
quote:
THEN everything else Jesus said must be true since a prediction of a Resurrection miracle automatically makes everything else He said supremely reliable.
​
I was simply pointing out the flaw in logic: one correct prediction by Jesus does not "automatically" make anything else He said reliable. A series of correct predictions would inspire greater confidence in His predictive ability, but one correct prediction could just be a lucky guess.
​
Suppose I do predict tomorrow's weather accurately. Does that mean you'll accept everything I say from now on?
​
if it was a prediction as to tomorrows sky colour, it wouldn't be a particularily noteworthy one
​
"Noteworthy" doesn't enter into it either.
​
It is more likely for a mundane prediction to come true, but that doesn't mean that a "noteworthy" prediction can not be a coincidence. It doesn't mean that the predictor is "automatically" correct about everything.
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 11-22-2005 6:07 AM iano has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by iano, posted 11-22-2005 1:28 PM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 33 of 64 (262445)
11-22-2005 1:54 PM 		Reply to: Message 32 by iano
11-22-2005 1:28 PM

iano writes:
​
if you promise to rise from the dead and do the I would be very impressed with you indeed
​
Okay, I promise - but you may have to wait a while. I don't plan to drop dead for your convenience, and my crucifixion doesn't seem to be imminent either.
​
Of course the problem still remains: How would I substantiate my death and subsequent resurrection - or anybody else's? Two thousand years from now, will people read this post and believe in me?
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by iano, posted 11-22-2005 1:28 PM iano has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 36 of 64 (262562)
11-22-2005 8:23 PM 		Reply to: Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object
11-22-2005 7:06 PM

Herepton writes:
​
If it did happen (and we know it did) THEN everything else Jesus said is true also.
​
You can repeat it as often as you like - it still doesn't follow. One successful prediction - of any kind - does not guarantee infallibility.
​
You're welcome to believe that it does, but logically it doesn't.
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-22-2005 7:06 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-22-2005 8:30 PM ringo has replied
 Message 42 by iano, posted 11-23-2005 9:05 AM ringo has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 39 of 64 (262571)
11-22-2005 8:38 PM 		Reply to: Message 37 by Cold Foreign Object
11-22-2005 8:30 PM

Herepton writes:
​
Yawning in response to the most extraordinary claim of all time and the ramifications shows how unreachable/illogical you actually are.
​
​
No yawning - just pointing out your lack of logic.
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-22-2005 8:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024