On 1/8/2011 1:53 PM, Warp wrote:
> 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.
>
It should be noted that if this *is* a false dichotomy, it is precisely 
the one that people like Ken Ham are scared to death of. They literally 
say that *everyone* has to be true, except if they so otherwise, or its 
all a lie. Examined purely from that stance, they are 100% correct. The 
problem, of course, is that, instead of reexamining their initial 
premise, they circle the wagons, and insist its all true anyway, and 
everyone else is wrong for pointing out to them that it can't be, or 
worse, that its not *necessary* for them to accept parts of it.

>    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.
>
We are not the ones making that argument. They are. So, by their 
standards, it can't be true *at all*, if the core part of it is 
allegory. I won't even bother with how many things are just plain stupid 
about it, or contradictory to physics, geology, biology, and human 
psychology, even if it is accepted as allegory.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message