Warp wrote:
>   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.

No. I'm asking if God didn't create the universe and humans personally, why 
humans would have any moral obligation to God.  Why is it the case that we 
*should* obey God, rather than just God imposing his will on us like the 
ruler of an invading army would?

>   Just because the story might be told with allegories doesn't necessarily
> mean that the gist of the story is not true. 

I'm asking what parts you think is the essential "gist" that would lead to a 
real actual Son Of God being sacrificed being necessary for the eternal 
salvation of your soul.

You can't just say "it's not true, but you should believe the results of it 
as if it was true." If it's an allegory for something that *actually* 
happened and indeed *is* actually happening, you ought to be able to say 
what it is that is *actually* happening that leads to the same conclusions 
as the allegory. You can't say "it's just a metaphor for something else that 
I can't describe, but you should come to the same conclusions anyway."

> Just because something is
> expressed as a metaphor doesn't make what the metaphor is referring to
> false.

I'm just asking what could possibly be the actuality that would lead to the 
same conclusions.

>   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).

I'm not mocking anything. I'm sincerely asking for an interpretation of the 
scripture that's consistent with the Big Bang and evolution wherein the 
execution of a Jewish rabbi 2000 years ago has an effect on my eternal soul.

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

It's not an argument. It's a question. You say "it's really an allegory, 
it's not true, but the conclusions are the same."  I'm asking what the truth 
is that would lead to that allegory and the same conclusions.

I.e., you say "just because it's allegorical doesn't mean it isn't 
describing a real event."  Fine. What's the "real event" that Genesis is 
describing? Then, given that real event, where does Jesus dying for your 
sins come into it?  I'm happy to listen to your description with an open 
mind. But it's a cop-out for you to follow "it's just allegorical but 
describing a real event" with "and by the way, you have to invent a 
satisfactory real event for yourself."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message