o_O.Q said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
Ok now I understand your argument better, and I agree with it. You're saying that the bible stories were all made up in order to teach moral principles. That makes sense.
But that wasn't what I was asking for. Whenever a literal interpretation of the bible disproves christianity, apologists will claim that *that* specific passage was never intended as literal. But how do we know which parts of the bible were intended as literal, and which parts were merely stories to illustrate a moral point? What if Jesus' ressurrection on the cross wasn't meant to be literal, but was just to illustrate a moral point? That would undermine all of Christianity. There needs to be a clear cut set of rules for determining which parts of the bible were meant as allegory, and which parts were meant as literal. Otherwise a Christian can just convieniently claim that *that* passage wasn't meant as literal, and an Athiest can claim that Jesus' whole life story wasn't meant as literal.
|
you determine what means what with the scientific method, testing to see what works over and over again, but the problem with that is that you first have to understand what the intention of the original passage was, if you want to do a comparison and i think a lot of that information has been lost or at least that its not taught widely
"What if Jesus' ressurrection on the cross wasn't meant to be literal, but was just to illustrate a moral point? That would undermine all of Christianity."
i do think that was metaphorical and yes it would undermine christianity because christianity to a large extent has lost its way, its placed significance on the wrong things
then there's the fact that the origins of the bible and how its been altered have to be taken into consideration
|
Are you a Christian, a Deist, or an Atheist? If you're a Christian you should run for office, because that would make you exactly the kind of person we need right now. Have you read Stealing Jesus?
