Simple answer: much of the bible is non-literal and instead is composed of parables.Why is there no discovery of such things?
Simple answer: much of the bible is non-literal and instead is composed of parables.Why is there no discovery of such things?
Heya, I'm not sure if I understand your first question. Do you mean to ask how to make sense of the beginning of a given world if all possible worlds exist (necessarily)? Full blown modal realism doesn't have to deal with the problem of genesis, and instead only needs to consider possibility, since on the modal realist account possibility is a necessary and sufficient criterion for existence. David Lewis' argued that possible worlds are like ours (but are different, of course!) and are spatiotemporally and causally isolated from one another (note that a science of possible worlds would therefore be impossible).If you are proposing a necessary existence (of the unmoved mover variety) for all possible worlds how to you appropriate this with the beginning of the universe for each of these worlds?
I'm also a little confused by your terminology here. Where as "possible world" is usually used as a maximal description of all reality, you seem to be using it as a description of the universe we observe? In short, I don't understand how multiple possible worlds could actually exist since all that does exist is encompassed within the term "possible world". I'm a little lost...
oh god why are there so many sub par trolls on this websiteI've already posted this in the "what proof is there that god exist?" so thought I might as well post it here as well :
What I don't understand is where do all the dinosaurs fit in. Did "god" create them, realised it was a mistake, then chuck a huge asteroid down on earth? Or did they die in the alleged "great flood"? Also, doesn't the bible mention giants (Goliath??) ? (Genesis 6:1-8, Jude 6 etc)
Why is there no discovery of such things?
Noah also built an ark because of a flood. How is it possible for the "Noah" family and 2 of every animal to repopulate the earth?
At the end of the "flood", god promised that it would never make another flood and made a rainbow to symbolise that promise. Science, however proves that a rainbow simply occurs because water is refracted by light, thereby producing 7 colours.
The bible also speaks of many miracles. Like how moses produced water from a rock. Or how he made the sun stand still. Why is there no record of such miracles nowadays?
Care to explain?</SPAN>
I can't give you an answer as I am neither a Christian nor a theologian. My point is that it is overly simplistic to assume that a Christian must defend a literal reading of the Bible given that (1) other approaches are available and (2) biblical literalism, as I understand it, is a relatively modern phenomenon which has its roots in the reformation and came to fruition in more recent evangelical movements.much of the bible? which parts are literal then? the part where women should be stoned to death for adultery or the part where homosexuals should be put to death? or maybe the part about not being able to eat shellfish?
I can't give you an answer as I am neither a Christian nor a theologian. My point is that it is overly simplistic to assume that a Christian must defend a literal reading of the Bible given that (1) other approaches are available and (2) biblical literalism, as I understand it, is a relatively modern phenomenon which has its roots in the reformation and came to fruition in more recent evangelical movements.
Consider, for example, St Thomas Aquinas who was both a philosopher and a keystone of the Catholic church. Aquinas made use of the Bible but also endorsed the approach of natural theology, which would have one notice that, if god exists, then surely the natural world and phenomena with which we are faced possess a significance which is at least on par with that of revelation through scripture and religious experience. In other words, it is important to take account of our moral and intellectual sensibilities, making psychology significant, as well as the form of things (plants, landforms), communities (politics) and ideas (say, geometry and metaphysics). All such things will be accessed through the interaction of human reason with the world, both of which Aquinas would assume to be structured by God and therefore to be of significance. Another doctor of the Catholic church, St Augustine of Hippo, similarly maintained that it is silly to cite biblical facts which directly contravene easily accessible scientific truths (for example, Augustine has a work in which he defends a non-literal reading of the genesis myth).
In the context of such thought the Bible must nonetheless remain an essential supplement (at least, for one who maintains the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth) but it need not be literal nor the sole determinant of Christian faith.
Yea great! so when my cook book says 'add a cup of sugar' I can interpret that to mean 'God is the breeze that vacates my ass when I take a shit'...Exactly. The literal interpretation is not the only interpretation.
No. I am saying that non-literal interpretation is an important form of biblical exegesis, and that historically it has even been a dominant trend if we go back to the fathers of the Catholic church. It would be wrong to say that the Bible is a metaphor, simpliciter. The more reasonable middle ground is to argue for a mix of literal/historical and non-literal/metaphorical passages.@ mirakon & KFunk, so you're basically saying that the bible is a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally? Then is god him/herself a metaphor as well?
Does a dog have Buddha nature or not? MuSo is the bible literal or is it not?? Sorry I'm slow >.<
ad infinitum is himself ad nauseum.It's so blatantly obvious that those that choose to 'interpret' the bible are in fact projecting what they want to read onto the scripture. So they 'interpret' genesis as a metaphor for 'the big bang and evolution moved through the spirit of the essence of god', etc, ad nauseum. When in fact genesis was intended to be a perfect account and representation of reality; which it is obviously not.
How do you tell the 'literal' parts from the 'metaphorical' parts? How do we know to ignore the part when it demands that we stone to death adulterers and to take take notice of the Ten Commandments (well some of them)? The Bible is either the word of God or it is not. It is clearly not. Done.
@Kfunk it is quite revolting to see you grovel at the feet of such a backwards lunatic as Aquinas. You make him out as some wise sage, when in fact his contemporary equivalents are those unforntunates who holler on city street corners with their bibles.
Regarding heretics he wrote:they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.
He also claimed that he could levitate. He also claied to know the mind/nature of god, and other such nonsense. No sir, I will not be putting any change in the dirty hat of this senile person.
A valid point. All I can say is perhaps, but then this raises the question, what is God a metaphor of?Then is god him/herself a metaphor as well?
A complete non sequitur response to what a wrote. Re-read what I wrote and perhaps respond to individual lines because you have missed almost every point I made.ad infinitum is himself ad nauseum.
Seriously, you're completely misconstruing the point that KFunk is making.
The fact is that just because a person chooses to interpret something metaphorically doesn't make it any more or less wrong. Your argument that you can interpret things in any conceivable manner is ridiculous, the various interpretations have actual grounds on which they are based, the metaphorical interpretations are based on a thorough understanding.
In fact it seems that those who have minimal understanding of such texts tend to take it more literally as they are not open to the possibility of another more subtle meaning. Such narrow-mindedness on your behalf indicates that you yourself have a poor udnerstaanding of the topic, especially as you consider the literal meaning of the Bibl, Qur'an etc. as the only one to analyse.
A valid point. All I can say is perhaps, but then this raises the question, what is God a metaphor of?
I'm sure that you are intelligent enough to understand what a false dichotomy is.So answer this: should the bible be taken literally or not?
Obviously you are not.I'm sure that you are intelligent enough to understand what a false dichotomy is.
Obviously the discussion here pretains to the matter of contriversal teachings presented in the OT. KFunk has just presented a completely rational arguement justifying these teachings.Obviously you are not.
How do you know what parts are meant to be taken 'literal' and what parts are meant to be taken as 'metaphor'?
Bingo. Certainly you can argue otherwise, but this strikes me as the most reasonable path. I know a couple of thoughtful Christians who view the bible as a mix of history, poetry, parable, etc. No doubt it is a challenge to work out which is which, and there are strong arguments to found in postmodern literary criticism which would even suggest that a sharp delineation is not even possible. Nonetheless, it is possible for well-tempered believers to be content with fallible truth claims (they are not God, after all).So its both literal and non-literal?
Aye, quite possibly. Whether or not it is ultimately correct (whichever way we wish to construe its claims to truth) it still remains an important cultural document which informs much of Western literature, philosophy, rhetoric and so forth.Either way, the bible is more trouble than its worth.
So my Church is this coming Monday the 30th November showing "Collision" COLLISION MOVIE - OCTOBER 27 - News the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Douglas Wilson... and I'm sure you'll find some down to earth answers there...FINALLY
If god is so above us humans in status, why does he require acknowledgement for his creation from us "servants" when he can do anything with ease?
Also how are we servants? If he is so mighty he wouldn't need servants.
That is my unique way on proving god is a myth.
This is my definition of religion...
"Religion is a thought made by an intelligent being (humans) to satisfy the curiosity [developed by this intelligence] of the unexplainable questions in life"
If you are pro-religion, please feel free to discuss any points I have raised. I assure you; you're logic does have a "down-to-earth" answer. No pun intended... maybe a little intended