Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>>   I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
> >>> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
> >>> of christianity.
> > 
> >> What did Jesus die for, if there is no original sin? Indeed, why should 
> >> anyone worship YHVH if he *isn't* the creator?
> > 
> >   The question is literal interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation.

> But we're not talking about the allegorical "sun rising" kind of thing (vs 
> Earth orbiting the Sun). We're talking about whether some supernatural being 
> intentionally created humans as they are, told them lies, then punished them 
> and all their descendants for believing some other third party that pointed 
> out the lies were lies. Then killed all but a handful because they disobeyed 
> him some more.

> I don't see how you can turn that into an allegory that makes "sin" still be 
> a reasonable concept. What might have *really* happened that would make it 
> possible for the death of a rabbi a couple thousand years ago capable of 
> affecting what happens to you after you're dead? I just can't imagine what 
> would give YHVH any moral authority to dictate what humans do and to punish 
> them for failing to do so, if YHVH didn't actually create humans.

  You are making many category mistakes here. The most prominent one is
"either the story of genesis is literal and God created the universe and
the principles we must obey, or the story is only an allegory and God did
not create the universe nor the principles we must obey". It think this
is called a false dichotomy.

  Just because the story might be told with allegories doesn't necessarily
mean that the gist of the story is not true. Just because something is
expressed as a metaphor doesn't make what the metaphor is referring to
false.

  Another mistake you are doing is straw man argumentation: You are taking
the (well, *a*) literal interpretation of the scripture and then mocking it,
arguing that since it makes no sense, nothing of it can be true (not even
the idea that is being expressed in allegorical form).

  Note that I'm not saying anything about the story is true. I'm just
saying that your argumentation is fallacious.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message