4x4Wire TrailTalk Forums Index

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Ah. First, you're making the mistaken assumption that I see the descriptions of the book of Genesis as being literal fact, which I and many theologians do not. When you're dealing with works of amalgamation of oral traditions and pre-cultural existences, taking it as 'gospel' (yes, I'm being humorous there) makes little sense. Rapture? What is rapture supposed to be? I don't personally subscribe to the idea of a sudden lifting of spirits into some happy, glowing cloud or such. These are assumptions made to generalize a very diverse and differentiated group by some who choose not to explore it more thoroughly, both within and outside those nominal belief structures. You just got done telling us that all scientists don't believe the same way, why assume that all religionists do?

---

Apologies. Please forgive the assumption. I should know better It sounds like you would get along well in the Anglican church. That was the bulk of my religious experience. My Grandfather and my uncle were both Canons.

In basic terms we probably agree on scripture interpretation. I see it mostly as a book of Bronze age myths. However, we may differ in that I don't think it has any relevance to modern day society.

Out of interest, what about miracles? What's your view of things like the virgin birth, the resurrection etc? Also, I am often confused by a sensible, non-literal interpretation of scripture AND belief in a deity. Where does the belief originate if the bible is not considered the word of 'God'? Having said that I certainly don't think that supernatural belief and religion go hand in hand. You can certainly have one without the other. Perhaps you can throw some light on the matter? Just curious

I agree that a purely metaphorical interpretation of scripture does not conflict with science. Otherwise you may as well say that Harry Potter directly opposes the scientific position However, this brings us to my earlier point about personal interpretation and still leaves the scientific question of supernatural existence. Either gods exist or they don't.

---

I do want to do these questions justice, but my schedule the last couple of days hasn't really let me get on here and put it together. I'll elaborate more another time, but a few shortish answers:

- I don't see the Bible as being largely myths, although I would say that the earliest segments (Genesis for example) are not good sources to take literally, but do represent the best available collection of pre-cultural understanding available at the time of their writing. That's a lot of room for human interpretation though. Later authors (Luke comes to mind) were known for being scholars, archivists, and the scientists of their time, so their works seem much less likely to be myths to me. I do see there being modern applicability to the stories and understandings, as they add large amounts of experience and understanding to the cultural and social identification and structure that we still work within when dealing with others.

- 'Virgin' is not a word that existed in the original language the story was written in, so that part's a case of poor translation to my mind. Was it a supernatural fertilization? I have no idea, and it makes relatively little difference to me. Of course, one does have to believe in a supernatural being to believe it could have happened. I'll have to deal with the other miracle questions at a later time or I'll be up forever.


More will be coming if you're interested, or we could take it to PM and not hijack the thread any further.

--------------------
Happiness is building a Lego catapult with your daughter to besiege the living room couch.

Post Extras