How to embrace God's wisdom?

[Jon Miller]

Boris, if they went to the people who voted 'The Bible is literally true, word for word' and asked them what they meant by that, they would respond that they thought the beasts of daniel were allegories and that the four corners of the earth were poetic language and so on.

That has been my point. My point hasn't been that biblical literalism isn't a problem among Christians, it is that what Al thinks of as biblical literalism doesn't really exist.

No (or very few) Christians are actually literalists. Despite saying so on polls and so on. Probably most of those think 'biblical literalism, yeah I believe that God created the earth as said in Genesis, word for word!'. But I would garuntee that all of those that responded that way don't actually think that and would (if you took some other part of the Bible, not the burning bush) respond that some part was poetic or allegorical or so on (while insisting that they read everything as literal). If you define literalism as believing in a young earth creation than you would be using the same definition as they do, but don't argue that they are retarded due to literal readings of the Bible which are contradictory.

People who do believe in the burning bush or the pillar of salt or even the flood aren't any less intelligent or less honest or so on than you.

I will agree that Christians believe things that are demonstrated as not being true, but many of your examples aren't this. Many of your examples comes down to your belief that miracles and supernatural events don't exist. For example, if there were actually talking bushes around I would have more doubt in my faith, not less.

Even young earth creationism or world wide flood could be miracles (and so historical events). I no longer think so, not because God isn't capable of miracles (which is your argument, and others who are even Christian), but rather because the Bible isn't God writing down the history of humanity, but rather men writing down about their relationship with God. For example, in many places the Bible says something is 'the whole world' when it is pretty obvious that it means 'the whole world that the author knew' or even 'region which is relevant'. Which is perfectly valid because it is the 'whole world' to the author. As such, I think that it was a regional (and still miraculous) regional flood. But it isn't because I disbelieve in miracles that I take the non-biblical literalist interpretation on that story. (Besides as Imran mentioned, according to the Bible that would be an oral story passed down to Moses who wrote it down. Some biblical literalists think that God told Moses those stories, but that is of course not literally found in the Bible.)

JM

[Boris Godunov]

I love debating the gays.

And this has what to do with my being gay?

I'm not an atheist because I'm gay, you know.

If I were to comment that I love arguing with people who failed spectacularly in their marriages, there'd be no relevance to that issue, either.

Also, I agree that it's a problem. The point is that the poll data is misleading because most of the people who say they take the Bible literally would say that they actually don't if you asked them about specific things like "Do you think Jesus really meant to hate your family?" Most would say "no he didn't literally mean that."

As I said to Jon Miller, there is an obvious distinction to be made between proverbial and allegorical language that is clearly such vs. statements of purported historical/scientific fact. Is it really a relevant difference between someone who A) thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, people were created from actual dust and the Sun revolves around the Earth; and B) someone who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, people were created from actual dust and the Earth revolves around the Sun? I see no reason to treat person B) as any more reasonable and grounded in reality than A), just because he has one less insane belief.

[Kuciwalker]

*fewer

[Boris Godunov]

Boris, if they went to the people who voted 'The Bible is literally true, word for word' and asked them what they meant by that, they would respond that they thought the beasts of daniel were allegories and that the four corners of the earth were poetic language and so on.

Again, you're basing this totally on your unwillingness to accept that it's true. But your two examples here are flawed, anyway. It's a prophecy, and there is a big difference between prophecy vs. historical account of events past. Within the book of Daniel itself the Beasts are interpreted by Gabriel as being kingdoms, so a literal reading of the entire text requires one sees them as allegorical. I already addressed the "four corners" and use of obvious poetic language as well. That you keep repeating this line is baffling.

That has been my point. My point hasn't been that biblical literalism isn't a problem among Christians, it is that what Al thinks of as biblical literalism doesn't really exist.

No (or very few) Christians are actually literalists. Despite saying so on polls and so on. Probably most of those think 'biblical literalism, yeah I believe that God created the earth as said in Genesis, word for word!'. But I would garuntee that all of those that responded that way don't actually think that and would (if you took some other part of the Bible, not the burning bush) respond that some part was poetic or allegorical or so on (while insisting that they read everything as literal). If you define literalism as believing in a young earth creation than you would be using the same definition as they do, but don't argue that they are retarded due to literal readings of the Bible which are contradictory.

There is no real theological difference between someone who says "word for word" to mean Young Earth, worldwide Flood, Leviticus is law, etc. and someone who says that AND happens to think something like the world is flat. But that's still irrelevant, because you are failing to grasp that I already am discounting poetic language and obvious allegory. I'll just repeat what I said to Kidicious, because the point stands:

As I said to Jon Miller, there is an obvious distinction to be made between proverbial and allegorical language that is clearly such vs. statements of purported historical/scientific fact. Is it really a relevant difference between someone who A) thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, people were created from actual dust and the Sun revolves around the Earth; and B) someone who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, people were created from actual dust and the Earth revolves around the Sun? I see no reason to treat person B) as any more reasonable and grounded in reality than A), just because he has one less insane belief.

People who do believe in the burning bush or the pillar of salt or even the flood aren't any less intelligent or less honest or so on than you.

I would argue that people who believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence are certainly more gullible than me, although I never made claims of them being dishonest, and I didn't even say they were stupid people. I said literalism is a stupid mentality, which it is, but intelligent people can be stupid about certain subjects. Especially ones where a lifetime of emotional investment is concerned.

I will agree that Christians believe things that are demonstrated as not being true, but many of your examples aren't this. Many of your examples comes down to your belief that miracles and supernatural events don't exist. For example, if there were actually talking bushes around I would have more doubt in my faith, not less.

because God isn't capable of miracles (which is your argument, and others who are even Christian),

Where did I make the claim that a god wouldn't be capable of miracles? I've never said that.

I do think it would be absurd and illogical for a god to go through the trouble of creating such tight physical laws only to violate pretty much all of them in abundance on repeated occasions, and then to go a step further and cover his tracks by having all the available evidence faked to appear to contradict said miracles while at the same time telling one person on the planet how he really did it as some sort of, I don't know, test of faith for the world or something. Not impossible, no. Just pretty ****ing stupid to think that's how it happened.

As for your last statement about Moses... well, reading John 5:46-47 seems to indicate Jesus wouldn't agree with your interpretation.

[Kidlicious]

And this has what to do with my being gay?

I'm not an atheist because I'm gay, you know.

If I were to comment that I love arguing with people who failed spectacularly in their marriages, there'd be no relevance to that issue, either.

I guess you didn't take my comment as sincere. I actually love debating with you. That said, I'll add that being gay doesn't make you an atheist, but gay people do seem to go in that direction for a couple of different reasons. One of which is that gays are susceptible to herd mentality the same as straights.

As I said to Jon Miller, there is an obvious distinction to be made between proverbial and allegorical language that is clearly such vs. statements of purported historical/scientific fact. Is it really a relevant difference between someone who A) thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, people were created from actual dust and the Sun revolves around the Earth; and B) someone who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, people were created from actual dust and the Earth revolves around the Sun? I see no reason to treat person B) as any more reasonable and grounded in reality than A), just because he has one less insane belief.

Who do you think you are, or who do you wish to be? Spock, a vulcan? What makes you think you are so grounded in reality? Human beings are the same whether they are religious or not.

But since I don't share some of JM's opinions I'll let you continue the debate with him, and I'll stay out of it.

[N35t0r]

I guess you didn't take my comment as sincere. I actually love debating with you. That said, I'll add that being gay doesn't make you an atheist, but gay people do seem to go in that direction for a couple of different reasons. One of which is that gays are susceptible to herd mentality the same as straights.