Atheists unite

No, second bit was to kedge.

If the scripture is to be taken literally then it is an issue with the scripture. I suppose you can say "it's a metaphor!" but that doesn't really change the fact that the book describes a talking snake (which if the snake is anything like a modern snake, is impossible. It's vocal chords are not geared towards human speech).
 
tbyeah said:
No, second bit was to kedge.

If the scripture is to be taken literally then it is an issue with the scripture. I suppose you can say "it's a metaphor!" but that doesn't really change the fact that the book describes a talking snake (which if the snake is anything like a modern snake, is impossible. It's vocal chords are not geared towards human speech).
Click to expand...

Genesis isn't supposed to be taken literally, the snake isn't a snake anyway, its a Serpent and is a figurative symbol of the Temptation of satan (not as is commonly assumed Satan himself) and the symbolic advent of Desire being within the Garden. The Serpent is a common symbol used in many belief systems to symbolise such.

So again, the issue is with how a person interprets the scripture rather than the scripture itself. Throughout Early Christianity, Genesis has been accepted as an analogy describing the spiritual relationship between God and Man..not a literal account of Creation. That has been a relatively modern interpretation that is held by a minority of Literal Biblicists such as Kedge, and even they don't believe The Serpent was a Talking Snake literally.
 
Last edited:
tbyeah said:
The fact that he didn't even comment on the talking snake part leads me to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing with most of the Atheists on here. They just dont understand the bIble! They dive in with comments without knowing what they are saying!

I am far away from being an expert on the bible. There is more to it than just words!
 
koolpc said:
I am far away from being an expert on the bible. There is more to it than just words!
Click to expand...

But there isn't really. It is just words. Without it you would not have your faith. Back in some distant time, when it was written, it was regarded as truth by many. Now it is being questioned by the majority we have become intelligent enough to do so. Science being the major factor.
 
kedge said:
Even the demons believe—and tremble! James 2:19. Also it depends on your definition of faith. The Bible does note that faith is neither blind nor illogical.
Click to expand...

A statement of faith states that that faith is neither blind nor illogical.

That's not a compelling argument. It's not an argument at all. It's just self-referencing repetition.

It isn't logical to be certain that something is true without any evidence that it is. Saying that it's logical because it says it is doesn't make it logical.
 
koolpc said:
This website is full of atheists which puts Kedge and me in the minority and always out numbered and ridiculed.

It doesnt bother me as like Kedge i know that what you say wont change my views and vice versa. We will always be attacked for our strong faith. Thing is, you dont see me attacking you for your 'beliefs'. Or lack of them!

To a Christian, the Bible 'is' a valid source and unless you have the faith that makes a Christian you will always bad mouth anything that is Bible related.

Castiel is probably the only guy on here who is understanding of a Christians view / standpoint.
Click to expand...

What I'm bad mouthing at the moment is dishonesty.

If you want to think something is absolutely definitely true without any evidence, that's one thing.

If you want to claim that it's logical to do so, that's another thing entirely.

If you want to claim that your bible is a valid source for details about your faith, that's one thing.

If you want to claim that your bible is a valid source for reality, that's another thing entirely.
 
tbyeah said:
Koolpc, do you take it literally?
Click to expand...

No i dont. Like i said earlier, there is more to it than just words. There are parts of the bible that one cannot take at face value. To do so would never be right in my eyes. Though, there are parts that one can take at face value.

Its a big book with lots of twists and turns etc. Nobody can read it and then claim to understand it instantly.

Jesus taught in parables and i believe that the bible is somewhat like that in areas too. Areas that need thought and guidance.
 
Well no issue then.

I only have a problem when it is all taken literally, people take the bad values from it also.

Also when people like Ken Ham teach Creation as scientific fact.
 
koolpc said:
No i dont. Like i said earlier, there is more to it than just words. There are parts of the bible that one cannot take at face value. To do so would never be right in my eyes. Though, there are parts that one can take at face value.

Its a big book with lots of twists and turns etc. Nobody can read it and then claim to understand it instantly.

Jesus taught in parables and i believe that the bible is somewhat like that in areas too. Areas that need thought and guidance.
Click to expand...

This is a serious question:

How does that differ from a society creating its own system of laws and ethics and explanations of how the universe works, based on thought and guidance by consensus? In other words, a secular democracy.

I agree with you on one point at least - there are parts of the Christian bible that it would not be right to take at face value. There's some really vile things in it. But if you don't take the Christian bible at face value and instead rely on thought and interpretation and guidance from people you consider to be authorities, how is that different to not using it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom