No longer interpreting Genesis 1-2:3 literally...

Mindstorm, I meant to post something encouraging earlier but forgot to. Anyways, I've always regarded you as one of those civilized people who can discuss their religion openly without forcing it down others' throats. So all power to you for making an informed decision and keep doing what you're doing I guess. Judging by the values given to me by my Lutheran upbringing you're ten times the Christian of most of the other supposedly devout believers on OT.

inoperativeRS

And the next informed decision would be considering the Flood as not literal, and then the splitting of the Red Sea, and then Jonah, and then the walking on water, and then Jesus' resurrection, and then, hey....why not just convert to being an atheist? 

Oh and being a Christian isn't rated on a scale of 1 to 10. :roll: 

ok thx ;)

btw i actually don't agree with the CWU's evangelism either in soo many ways. Soo if you get kicked out, you still got my support ;)

Silenthps

Maybe you could mention it to Crushmaster, or give your thoughts on how it could be improved in the Evangelism HQ topic? :) 

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]

Mindstorm, I meant to post something encouraging earlier but forgot to. Anyways, I've always regarded you as one of those civilized people who can discuss their religion openly without forcing it down others' throats. So all power to you for making an informed decision and keep doing what you're doing I guess. Judging by the values given to me by my Lutheran upbringing you're ten times the Christian of most of the other supposedly devout believers on OT.

Lansdowne5

And the next informed decision would be considering the Flood as not literal, and then the splitting of the Red Sea, and then Jonah, and then the walking on water, and then Jesus' resurrection, and then, hey....why not just convert to being an atheist? 

Oh and being a Christian isn't rated on a scale of 1 to 10. :roll: 

Eh, is that the Holy Spirit's interpretation of my words? Cause it sure isn't what I intended to say (nor what they actually say.)

"Ten times the whatever" is a figure of speech, not an indication of the existance of an actual numerical scale. There's several kinds of Christians - those who read the bible as literal, those who don't, those who mix Christianity with the modern advances in science - and I respect all of them, as long as they don't make false claims about stuff they really have no cause to interfer in. I don't mind that you believe evolution doesn't exist - as long as you don't start making uninformed claims about what I myself should think. Or uninformed claims about how my own words should be interpreted.

There's something seriously wrong with your views if you give no room for individual thinking for believers IMO. A strong Christian is someone who has come to faith through personal reflection, not someone who accepts everything he is told 'just because everyone else thinks so'. You'll probably disagree but so be it.

Eh, is that the Holy Spirit's interpretation of my words? Cause it sure isn't what I intended to say (nor what they actually say.)

inoperativeRS

No. And your intended meaning was actually quite obvious, you were congratulating him for conforming to the world, rather than trusting solely in God's Word. 

 

"Ten times the whatever" is a figure of speech, not an indication of the existance of an actual numerical scale.

inoperativeRS

I wasn't being 100% literal when I said about the scale....either.... All I mean is that you can't be a "better" Christian than someone else, as such. 

 

There's several kinds of Christians - those who read the bible as literal, those who don't, those who mix Christianity with the modern advances in science - and I respect all of them, as long as they don't make false claims about stuff they really have no cause to interfer in.

inoperativeRS

No there isn't. There's ONE type of Christian. The type who's given their life to Christ, repented of their sin, and accepted the Holy Spirit into their life. Having a different interpretation doesn't make you a different type of Christian. 

 

I don't mind that you believe evolution doesn't exist - as long as you don't start making uninformed claims about what I myself should think. Or uninformed claims about how my own words should be interpreted.

inoperativeRS

Well that's good to know. But if you don't want people to misinterpret what you write....you might be a tad more specific.

 

There's something seriously wrong with your views if you give no room for individual thinking for believers IMO.

inoperativeRS

It's good I don't think that, then. By all means give your thoughts, just don't expect me to agree with them, or not argue against them if I feel it necessary.

  

A strong Christian is someone who has come to faith through personal reflection, not someone who accepts everything he is told 'just because everyone else thinks so'. You'll probably disagree but so be it.

inoperativeRS

A strong Christian is someone who is truly living by Christ's example, according to His Word, Trusting in God rather than man, and walking the Spirit. A strong Christian is someone who is truly 'in' the world, but not 'of' the world. 

Semantics... I'm not going to go the divide and conquer route, takes too much time, but in short - your sig asks me if I am a Bible-believing Christian. That is, in itself, an indication that there are different kinds of Christians. We don't disagree about what makes someone a strong Christian, my version simply explains the process by which I think someone should arrive there while you describe the end result.

And if you don't want me to misinterpret your posts you might want to be more specific. Sarcasm is hard to detect over the internet, whereas interpreting ambiguous phrases in the way you feel is most plausible is a decision.

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]

Mindstorm, I meant to post something encouraging earlier but forgot to. Anyways, I've always regarded you as one of those civilized people who can discuss their religion openly without forcing it down others' throats. So all power to you for making an informed decision and keep doing what you're doing I guess. Judging by the values given to me by my Lutheran upbringing you're ten times the Christian of most of the other supposedly devout believers on OT.

Lansdowne5

And the next informed decision would be considering the Flood as not literal, and then the splitting of the Red Sea, and then Jonah, and then the walking on water, and then Jesus' resurrection, and then, hey....why not just convert to being an atheist? 

Oh and being a Christian isn't rated on a scale of 1 to 10. :roll: 

Then should I also interpret Revelation literally?  How about treat Proverbs as absolute promices?  Or every verse of Psalms as truth as opposed to feelings of the individual?  Maybe I'm literally supposed to turn into a pile of salt and salt the earth?  Some things are not meant to be literal.  I merely do not think one passage should not be interpreted in such a scientific manner as many think it ought. 

This change does not mean I am going to deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Christ is my passion and my life, I seek him no different than before.  In fact, I feel as if I can more freely now as I am not bound to the Young-Earth debate anymore.  I can simply argue God created and seeks to restore his creation as opposed to argue so much about how he created.

Btw, does not God rate one's faithfulness?  (Job, churches in Revelation, etc.)  Indeed it's not a 10-point scale, but there is a progression.  In one manner there is a 2-point (dead in Christ and alive in Christ), but the "scale" of faithfulness cannot be questioned.  (Please do not think I'm trying to argue "I'm more faithful than you!"  Knowing my own flaws and failures causes me to never even desire to enter that debate...)

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

ok thx ;)

btw i actually don't agree with the CWU's evangelism either in soo many ways. Soo if you get kicked out, you still got my support ;)

Lansdowne5

Maybe you could mention it to Crushmaster, or give your thoughts on how it could be improved in the Evangelism HQ topic? :) 

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

ok thx ;)

btw i actually don't agree with the CWU's evangelism either in soo many ways. Soo if you get kicked out, you still got my support ;)

Silenthps

Maybe you could mention it to Crushmaster, or give your thoughts on how it could be improved in the Evangelism HQ topic? :) 

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

ok thx ;)

btw i actually don't agree with the CWU's evangelism either in soo many ways. Soo if you get kicked out, you still got my support ;)

Funky_Llama

Maybe you could mention it to Crushmaster, or give your thoughts on how it could be improved in the Evangelism HQ topic? :) 

Now they must Kung-Fu fight to the death!

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

ok thx ;)

btw i actually don't agree with the CWU's evangelism either in soo many ways. Soo if you get kicked out, you still got my support ;)

Funky_Llama

Maybe you could mention it to Crushmaster, or give your thoughts on how it could be improved in the Evangelism HQ topic? :) 

but theres lots of other stuff that i see wrong with it. and my constant trolling certainly doesn't help >.<

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

ok thx ;)

btw i actually don't agree with the CWU's evangelism either in soo many ways. Soo if you get kicked out, you still got my support ;)

Silenthps

Maybe you could mention it to Crushmaster, or give your thoughts on how it could be improved in the Evangelism HQ topic? :) 

but theres lots of other stuff that i see wrong with it. and my constant trolling certainly doesn't help >.<

I notice you ignored my comments where I asked you for the verses which justify your belief that the Holy Spirit doesn't guide a person to the correct interpretation. Any reason why.....? 

Then should I also interpret Revelation literally? 

mindstorm

Is Revelation written as a historic account? 

 

How about treat Proverbs as absolute promices? 

mindstorm

Again, are the Proverbs written as a historic account, in the same way that the five books of the Torah are?

  

Or every verse of Psalms as truth as opposed to feelings of the individual? 

mindstorm

-- The Psalms are not a history. They are book of songs and poems filled with imagery and poetic language.

  

Maybe I'm literally supposed to turn into a pile of salt and salt the earth?

mindstorm

Jesus begins the chapter using imagery, there is no reason to assume he is not still talking in imagery. Genesis, on the other hand, does NOT start with imagery, it starts as a historic account of the beginning of the world. 

In Exodus 20:11, Moses writes, "In six days the Lord made everything—the sky, the earth, the sea, and everything in them." 

And we all know what John 5:47 states: "If you don't believe what Moses wrote, how can you believe what I say?" - John 5:47  

 

 Some things are not meant to be literal.  I merely do not think one passage should not be interpreted in such a scientific manner as many think it ought. 

mindstorm

Like 'you' thought it ought, you mean? Obviously some things are not meant to be taken literally, I don't believe anyone claimed otherwise. But there's a difference between a scientific account and a historic account. One records 'what' happened, the other explains 'how' it happened. Which category do you think Genesis falls into?

  

This change does not mean I am going to deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

mindstorm

Well that's OK then. You're just going to deny His Word.

 

Christ is my passion and my life, I seek him no different than before.  In fact, I feel as if I can more freely now as I am not bound to the Young-Earth debate anymore.  I can simply argue God created and seeks to restore his creation as opposed to argue so much about how he created.

mindstorm

Why were you before? What bound you to it? Surely it was you who chose to enter that area of debate? You could just as easily have kept solely to the Gospels.

  

Btw, does not God rate one's faithfulness?  (Job, churches in Revelation, etc.)  Indeed it's not a 10-point scale, but there is a progression.  In one manner there is a 2-point (dead in Christ and alive in Christ), but the "scale" of faithfulness cannot be questioned.  (Please do not think I'm trying to argue "I'm more faithful than you!"  Knowing my own flaws and failures causes me to never even desire to enter that debate...)

mindstorm

Faithfulness =/= Being a Christian. ;)

I would but honestly, I don't have any good idea's atm. I don't wanna go in and say this this and this is wrong and then have no suggestions =S Silenthps

Yes, but surely you should say if you think there are problems? Even if you don't have any better suggestions? PM me with the problems you have, if you want. I'll look them over and give you my thoughts. :)

I notice you ignored my comments where I asked you for the verses which justify your belief that the Holy Spirit doesn't guide a person to the correct interpretation. Any reason why.....? 

Honestly... I got lazy.  Some of what I said can be taken completely out of context and I've been too busy to explain myself fully.  One day when I have time I'll write what I need to fully do the idea justice...

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

Then should I also interpret Revelation literally? 

Lansdowne5

Is Revelation written as a historic account? I'm not fully aware of dragons coming out of the ocean so...

 

How about treat Proverbs as absolute promices? 

mindstorm

Again, are the Proverbs written as a historic account, in the same way that the five books of the Torah are?  I mostly agree.  I just do not think Gen. 1-2:3 to be the same literary genre...

  

Or every verse of Psalms as truth as opposed to feelings of the individual? 

mindstorm

-- The Psalms are not a history. They are book of songs and poems filled with imagery and poetic language. 

Maybe I'm literally supposed to turn into a pile of salt and salt the earth?

mindstorm

Jesus begins the chapter using imagery, there is no reason to assume he is not still talking in imagery. Genesis, on the other hand, does NOT start with imagery, it starts as a historic account of the beginning of the world. 

In Exodus 20:11, Moses writes, "In six days the Lord made everything—the sky, the earth, the sea, and everything in them." Only part of the verse is used here, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." If the grounds of the Sabbath were the same for God as for man there might be some force in this argument.  God does not need rest like humans do.  The Sabbath commandment appeals to the creation week for the pattern "six-plus-one"; if the appeal is based on history, how do you explain the Sabbath year or the Sabbath of Sabbath years (Lev 25:2-11)?  Can you explain why no other description of creation such as those in the Psalms or Job do not mention six days of creation?  In summary, Moses here uses the days of creation for literary effect and not for historical record.

And we all know what John 5:47 states: "If you don't believe what Moses wrote, how can you believe what I say?" - John 5:47  I do...

 

 Some things are not meant to be literal.  I merely do not think one passage should not be interpreted in such a scientific manner as many think it ought. 

mindstorm

Like 'you' thought it ought, you mean? Obviously some things are not meant to be taken literally, I don't believe anyone claimed otherwise. But there's a difference between a scientific account and a historic account. One records 'what' happened, the other explains 'how' it happened. Which category do you think Genesis falls into? An apologetic argument against the false gods of the world, one which God reigns supreme...  Basically against the creation stories taught to the Israelites...

  

This change does not mean I am going to deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

mindstorm

Well that's OK then. You're just going to deny His Word. Do you not realize I've devoted my life to God's Word and seek to bring people to Christ through that Word?  ...hense the reason I'm graduating with a BA in Christian Studies in May and plan to attend Seminary in the Fall.  I am not denying God's Word, just an absolutely literal approach to a specific passage...

 

Christ is my passion and my life, I seek him no different than before.  In fact, I feel as if I can more freely now as I am not bound to the Young-Earth debate anymore.  I can simply argue God created and seeks to restore his creation as opposed to argue so much about how he created.

mindstorm

Why were you before? What bound you to it? Surely it was you who chose to enter that area of debate? You could just as easily have kept solely to the Gospels.

But if one does not believe God created the world then the deity of Christ is a problem for that person... to say the least.

  

Btw, does not God rate one's faithfulness?  (Job, churches in Revelation, etc.)  Indeed it's not a 10-point scale, but there is a progression.  In one manner there is a 2-point (dead in Christ and alive in Christ), but the "scale" of faithfulness cannot be questioned.  (Please do not think I'm trying to argue "I'm more faithful than you!"  Knowing my own flaws and failures causes me to never even desire to enter that debate...)

mindstorm

Faithfulness =/= Being a Christian. ;)

I know, but faithfulness to Christ in word and deed does give good evidence for one to be a Christian...

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]

Mindstorm, I meant to post something encouraging earlier but forgot to. Anyways, I've always regarded you as one of those civilized people who can discuss their religion openly without forcing it down others' throats. So all power to you for making an informed decision and keep doing what you're doing I guess. Judging by the values given to me by my Lutheran upbringing you're ten times the Christian of most of the other supposedly devout believers on OT.

Lansdowne5

And the next informed decision would be considering the Flood as not literal, and then the splitting of the Red Sea, and then Jonah, and then the walking on water, and then Jesus' resurrection, and then, hey....why not just convert to being an atheist?

Oh and being a Christian isn't rated on a scale of 1 to 10. :roll:

Let mindstorm has his own mindset and inner search. Noone can or should abide with theories like.. "once you do this, then you'll do this and this and this....."

It takes courage to redefine even parts of your faith system; and it also takes faith I think. ;)

Over the last 6 years I've now been somewhat of an Agnostic Evolutionist, a Theistic Evolutionist, a militant Young Earth Creationist, and now I simply make the claim that God created all that is.mindstorm

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]Over the last 6 years I've now been somewhat of an Agnostic Evolutionist, a Theistic Evolutionist, a militant Young Earth Creationist, and now I simply make the claim that God created all that is.jaydough

BUMP!

Some criticism now exists over a "lack of understanding" on 6 day (or 1 day, or half day) creationism as being the reason for not accepting it, on other boards here. The assertion that someone is "proving" God does not exist is also being made. Two examples are given to supposedly refute concerns over differing Genesis creation accounts "easily", The first rebuttal concerns the mistakes made using a secular "big bang theory". The second involves a defense of the differing biblical creation accounts by means of a web link.

To address the big bang theory first (conceived by a priest called Georges LeMaitre, so hardly secular...): The belief that "nothing" existed before the big bang does show a lack of understanding on the scope of such theories. The scientific concept of "nothing" also has no real meaning to scientists. To claim some knowledge about the certainty of light during the big bang and justifying that as the light that God separated from the Dark in the Genesis 1 account ignores the big-bang theory's estimated occurrence date. Of course, this red herring does not address the biblical innerrancy of the separate creation accounts at all.

The second attempt at enlightenment suggests that the difference in the accounts of creation are supposed to be "easily refuted" by visiting this web site:

http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

That web site says there are only two differences that could be misconstrued from the separate creation accounts. I'd suggest from my research that the explanations that site offers for these two differences are questionable in themselves: They refer to "vegetation" as opposed to "vegetation that requires agriculture" as being a resolution to the vegetable timetable issue. I can't see the difference between these two types of veg - since they can all be found in the wild together! The other issue is about when animals came along. This is apparently reconciled by creating them separately, then bringing them together. It completely misses the issue of timeliness though. The main issue with that particular source is the reality that there are many more issues with the many references to creation in the bible than they dismiss in that site, as discussed in this (supposedly impartial) site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

With additional discussion on the one day verses six day creation story here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl1.htm

The two most central points to this response are firstly a rejection of the idea that a "lack of understanding" is the reason for doubting the creation stories in the bible. I evidence this by dragging up this old thread that bears testament to academically accredited biblical knowledge that counters 6 day (or 1 day, or one morning (Job 38:4-7), or even what's going on in Proverbs 8:22-32) creationism.

Its a mistake to assume that biblical errency is easily challenged - its based on very real premises and demonstrable evidence through higher and lower source criticisms, literary translation analysis an anthrapological studies. There's no escaping scrutiny of a book which claims it is not wrong, but has plenty of evidence within it (aside from the creation stories) that says it is.

The second important point to note is that I see no "proof" and no earnest attempts to "disprove" being made on this particular forum. I see our division as one group of people asking necessary questions, seeking sensible answers, debating and expressing considered opinion. I see the other group as holding on to their "pre-determined world view", evidenced by their unwillingness to debate their ideas in public discussion, and despite the common-sense reasons against those views. It would be refreshing is if the creationists who rush to admonish all those who think differently from them would stop thinking so judgementally and consider rational evidence outside of the "truth(s)" revealed in their book.

A sincere desire to learn the truth is usually demonstrated by using more than one source of evidence and being open to debate and discussion.

"God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches ALL things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." - 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 

The Words were written by the power of the spirit. It follows that he is the one who would be able to interpret them to us. As the verses above assert. :)

Lansdowne5

You seem to take verses out of context a lot. Paul here is talking about his teachings as an Apostle are inspired by the Spirit. Obviously, Christians today don't teach under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Mindstorm, you may find this book interesting as well. Below is a quote giving a general overview of the view proposed in the book. It's from this thread where I debate it with Lansdowne5.

I typed this somewhere else to answer someone's question about Genesis 1.

First off, the author wasn't writing a scientific narrative here. More importantly, the hebrew word for create here doesn't carry the idea of "manufacturing" with it. It's more about ordering (if you want a source for this, just ask). Also, if you read the whole narrative with an eye for it, you will see the author is more concerned about talking about functions and functionaries, and not the structure of the universe. Thus the first couple of days show that God in creating what we see around us is the one who orders the universe (and therefore its functions).

This is why the author can use language reflective of the ancient world cosmology we know not to be true to communicate this and not be saying the cosmology of the universe is actually like that. He wasn't concerned with communicating about its structure, but functions (like there being waters above the sky which is making the point that God wanted a world where it rained, not that there is actually a water canopy floating in space above the earth).

Also, the first seven days are literal, but as I said, the word for create doesn't carry the sense of manufacturing, so God proclaimed what would happen over billions of year (kind of like a prophecy).

MatrixSamurai27

Just to let ytou know Matrix, neither Mindstorm or Lansdowne post on Gamespot anymore. So you probably wont get a reply.domatron23

I didn't realize Lansdowne5 is not posting anymore. That's too bad. 

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Just to let ytou know Matrix, neither Mindstorm or Lansdowne post on Gamespot anymore. So you probably wont get a reply.Genetic_Code

I didn't realize Lansdowne5 is not posting anymore. That's too bad. 

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Just to let ytou know Matrix, neither Mindstorm or Lansdowne post on Gamespot anymore. So you probably wont get a reply.Teenaged

I didn't realize Lansdowne5 is not posting anymore. That's too bad.

From my understanding the guy's suspended indefinitely afterhe threatened GS with legal action. TBH, I have no idea when we'll next here from him if at all.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Just to let ytou know Matrix, neither Mindstorm or Lansdowne post on Gamespot anymore. So you probably wont get a reply.MetalGear_Ninty

I didn't realize Lansdowne5 is not posting anymore. That's too bad.

From my understanding the guy's suspended indefinitely afterhe threatened GS with legal action. TBH, I have no idea when we'll next here from him if at all.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Just to let ytou know Matrix, neither Mindstorm or Lansdowne post on Gamespot anymore. So you probably wont get a reply.Teenaged

I didn't realize Lansdowne5 is not posting anymore. That's too bad.

From my understanding the guy's suspended indefinitely afterhe threatened GS with legal action. TBH, I have no idea when we'll next here from him if at all.

Oh really? Thats news to me. I guess he's just probably just busy with schoolwork or something in that case then.:?

When I said that Lans wasn't posting on gamespot I wasn't just referring to his indefinite suspension. Blackregiment reported that he flat out wouldn't be posting anymore.

Here is what happened

Customer Service FINALLY, after 4 weeks of asking, changed the leadership of the CWU and made me the leader which is not what I asked for. I asked for Maheo to be made leader. Since 20 % of the members did not vote in the election, they auto assigned me as leader temporarily based on senority.

I wrote the following to Maheo and Lans since neither of them have been posting here of late. 

------

Lans and Maheo, I need to know if either of you plan to post on GS anymore and if so which one of you wants to be the active leader. I will assign the leadership to whoever wants it.

Please let me know.

God bless BR

------

Lans wrote back and said he was not going to post on GS anymore. I have not heard from Maheo yet. He is usualy on on Mon. and Thurs. ir Fri. When I hear from him I will let you know what is going on.

 

blackregiment

When I said that Lans wasn't posting on gamespot I wasn't just referring to his indefinite suspension. Blackregiment reported that he flat out wouldn't be posting anymore.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Here is what happened

Customer Service FINALLY, after 4 weeks of asking, changed the leadership of the CWU and made me the leader which is not what I asked for. I asked for Maheo to be made leader. Since 20 % of the members did not vote in the election, they auto assigned me as leader temporarily based on senority.

I wrote the following to Maheo and Lans since neither of them have been posting here of late. 

------

Lans and Maheo, I need to know if either of you plan to post on GS anymore and if so which one of you wants to be the active leader. I will assign the leadership to whoever wants it.

Please let me know.

God bless BR

------

Lans wrote back and said he was not going to post on GS anymore. I have not heard from Maheo yet. He is usualy on on Mon. and Thurs. ir Fri. When I hear from him I will let you know what is going on.

 

domatron23

Funny - that post. Maheo has posted here (in conversation with BR) since that post was made and Lans posted in the AtM just 4 days beforehand. Do you think there really is an 80% turnout criteria for union elections here, or could those voting figures have been reversed? Is it based on the number of votes cast in that CWU election thread? 

Its good (shadenfreude) to see such an open and transparent process in action, anyway!

you should not interpret any of the bible literally.chopperdave447

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"]you should not interpret any of the bible literally.mindstorm

Is that the one "fact" from the bible that you would pin your faith on?  I think its the biggest lie in the book!

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"]you should not interpret any of the bible literally.mindstorm

Is that not picking and choosing what you want to believe?THUMPTABLE

Not interpreting something literally is not the same as not taking it seriously.  It just means that you believe that the message or ultimate purpose contained therein is not that which the literal text contains.

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"]Is that not picking and choosing what you want to believe?GabuEx

Not interpreting something literally is not the same as not taking it seriously. It just means that you believe that the message or ultimate purpose contained therein is not that which the literal text contains.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"]Is that not picking and choosing what you want to believe?THUMPTABLE

Not interpreting something literally is not the same as not taking it seriously. It just means that you believe that the message or ultimate purpose contained therein is not that which the literal text contains.

Well, yes... what I'm saying is that not interpreting something literally doesn't mean that you don't "believe" it (i.e., it doesn't mean that you're picking and choosing what to believe and not to believe); it just means that what you feel you are to get out of the passage - and what is the ultimate purpose of the passage - is not the bare facts presented in the text.

What if jesus only used god as a parable for instilling morals and a sense of hope in people?

If you needed scientific evidence to accept that some parts of the bible arent literal, you need to open your eyes and realise that what you are believing in could simply be a load of ****.

Your own post shows how immensely confused you are, how hard you try to believe in the bible. When there is so much confusion why believe something? Why not just put aside that irrational fear of the unknown and say proudly that you are an "agnostic"?

And in all seriousness god could actually have been just one of jesus's parables, there is absolutely no way you can throw away that possibility. 

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"]you should not interpret any of the bible literally.THUMPTABLE

And thats because impulsively we assume that the default "nature" of picking and choosing is arbitrarity and conveniency.

There are other criteria to be used though. When you do have some criteria (other than conveniency) then picking and choosing isnt necessarily wrong.

Surely, one could say that no matter what criteria you use nothing guarantess that you treat the Bible the way its supposed to be treated, because in the end we cant be sure of how to treat it.

Nonetheless, imo, picking and choosing isnt always synonymous to cherry-picking (which "cherry-picking" I think refers to picking and choosing based on conveniency and arbitrarity).