why do people suspend disbelief and accept fairy tales as told in the bible, yet accept that other, non-biblical fairy tales are just that, fanciful tales made up to entertain and/or teach a lesson?.
take jonah and the whale (big fish - whatever).
fairy tale.
Leolaia - "I would guess that fundamentalists would still not recognize the literary genre of the story."
No kidding; remember the article a few years back about J.K. Rowling allegedly becoming a Satanist? The megachurch subculture was all over it until someone finally pointed out that the original piece was published in The Onion.
i was reading this debate this morning (decent arguments on both sides and an overall respectful demeanor):.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/205158/1/look-it-wasnt-a-global-flood.
much of the discussion revolved around other mentions of the flood in the bible.
snowbird - "You don't sound like a smartass..."
Awww....
snowbird - "I like skeptics!"
How much?
i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.
this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.
everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.
bohm - "...we should worship statues of fat ladies."
Thus saith Sir Mix-a-Lot.
i was reading this debate this morning (decent arguments on both sides and an overall respectful demeanor):.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/205158/1/look-it-wasnt-a-global-flood.
much of the discussion revolved around other mentions of the flood in the bible.
snowbird - "So far, I've found nothing to refute my beliefs, Vidiot."
Okeedokee, then.
I, on the other hand, have found increasingly obvious evidence and reasoning that refuted my former JW beliefs (hence, the fade). As such, my skeptical circuits kick into high gear whenever I hear the word "beliefs".
Sorry if I seemed like a smartass (although I freely admit that I occasionally am one - in fact, I'm quite good at it).
i was reading this debate this morning (decent arguments on both sides and an overall respectful demeanor):.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/205158/1/look-it-wasnt-a-global-flood.
much of the discussion revolved around other mentions of the flood in the bible.
Qcmber - "...I know I've said too much already..."
There is no such thing as saying too much. Saying too little is the fault, IMO.
Qcmber - "It was utter blasphemy to claim anything from Jehovah that was not correct. The very nature of God was so sacred that His name was treated as having special power. It is therefore difficult to accept a myth based story that includes a covenant between God and man. Which devout scribe would dare write down a covenant, uttered by God, in a made up story? Not only would that be blasphemous IMO but it would also lead to accusations that maybe other covenants throughout the OT were likewise fabrications."
Damn, I'd never thought of that.
Wow.
i was reading this debate this morning (decent arguments on both sides and an overall respectful demeanor):.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/205158/1/look-it-wasnt-a-global-flood.
much of the discussion revolved around other mentions of the flood in the bible.
miseryloveselders - "Another thing, Jesus likened his time on earth and his death to Jonah, which people use to verify the authenticity of Jonah's story. I find that interesting considering there's some evidence supporting Jonah's story to be a myth as well."
Once again for the people in the nosebleed section; a parable has just as much value as a teaching aid as does an historical account, and Jesus was first and foremost a teacher. That's what "rabbi" means.
"...He would not speak to them except in parables..."
Qcmber - "If the flood is a myth, then the snake/Eden thing is even more suspect which dislodges the whole need for an atonement argument. Faith can only give way to facts and natural laws if it can live with the realisation that they wash away all insubstantial things. If you accept a flood myth you lose the ability to argue (from the bible) for ANY historical supernatural events from creation through to dead rising from the graves."
Another BIG reason why many evangelicals have a real problem with evolution.
i was reading this debate this morning (decent arguments on both sides and an overall respectful demeanor):.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/205158/1/look-it-wasnt-a-global-flood.
much of the discussion revolved around other mentions of the flood in the bible.
Snowbird - "I'm merely stating my beliefs."
That's all well and good, Snowbird, but what if your beliefs can be refuted by evidence, reason, or a combination of the two?
i was reading this debate this morning (decent arguments on both sides and an overall respectful demeanor):.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/205158/1/look-it-wasnt-a-global-flood.
much of the discussion revolved around other mentions of the flood in the bible.
Augustine also said that Christians shouldn't be so dogmatic about some things, 'cause the real world might prove 'em wrong and make 'em look stoopid.
(I'm paraphrasing, too)
Ironically, I seem to recall a WTS publication once labeling Augustine of Hippo an apostate.
i was reading this debate this morning (decent arguments on both sides and an overall respectful demeanor):.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/205158/1/look-it-wasnt-a-global-flood.
much of the discussion revolved around other mentions of the flood in the bible.
snowbird - "When Jesus of Nazareth spoke of the Flood, He also mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah. Was that a parable?"
Maybe. Maybe not. Surveyers have found what appear to be ruins at the bottom of the Dead Sea, but that's not the point.
The point is that a parable arguably has just as much value as a teaching aid than an actual historical account, and Jesus of Nazereth was, first and foremost, a teacher. The tendency for some "Bible-believing" Christians to assume that the Genesis-as-literal-history concept is the only valid one is, in reality, a relatively recent phenomenon.
While researching The Case for God, historian Karen Armstrong discovered that Biblical literalism was a sort of (ironic) byproduct of - believe it or not - the Enlightenment; the rational/scientific method for explaining the world around us had had unparalleled success, but an unexpected side effect was the discrediting of mythology, to the point where the word “myth” even became, for all intents and purposes, associated with “lie”. In reality, the two terms originally had different connotations.
I light of that, how could people who revered the Bible associate their cherished scriptures with lies? They couldn’t, of course, and so Young-Earth literalism, well, evolved into its the modern-day (and occasionally militant) form.
i can't believe it.
probably haven't been out long enough to know they lie like this.
now i just heard it with my own ears.
compound complex - "Some day the truth will out."
It is out.
It's really just making its way out further, now.
