Help Me Understand, part duex

[Pyrrho]

Allegory. Next question?

That is a typical religionist response.  However, it is not even close to adequate on its own.  If it is an allegory, it needs to be explained what the allegory means.  And the details of the story have to fit that idea, or that idea is just made up bullshit.  So if you are serious about an answer to the question, you need to explain the allegory and show how the details of the story fit your interpretation.

Additionally, if any of the Bible is supposed to be literal, there needs to be indications of when the stories are allegories and when they are literal.  Otherwise, what one has are post hoc rationalizations about the parts one does not want to accept literally.  We have this all the time with people interpreting the Bible, where something was originally meant literally, but people now do not accept that version of things and so they claim it is metaphor or allegory.  Here is a thread about one of the many examples of this sort of thing:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-35733.html

So, what is it that indicates that this particular story is meant allegorically rather than literally?

If you are serious, we can expect a well-thought explanation of the "allegory."  Otherwise, we can dismiss your claim as empty posturing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Allegory. Next question?

So, what is it that indicates that this particular story is meant allegorically rather than literally?

If you are serious, we can expect a well-thought explanation of the "allegory."  Otherwise, we can dismiss your claim as empty posturing.

I do not feel compelled to correct your lack of discernment.

[Pyrrho]

So, what is it that indicates that this particular story is meant allegorically rather than literally?

If you are serious, we can expect a well-thought explanation of the "allegory."  Otherwise, we can dismiss your claim as empty posturing.

I do not feel compelled to correct your lack of discernment.

In other words, you like talking out of your ass.  Calling something an allegory does not make it one.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I do not feel compelled to correct your lack of discernment.

In other words, you like talking out of your ass.  Calling something an allegory does not make it one.

Let me know when you graduate above the level of Dick and Jane stories. Maybe then you'll be ready read things critically.

[Pyrrho]

In other words, you like talking out of your ass.  Calling something an allegory does not make it one.

Let me know when you graduate above the level of Dick and Jane stories. Maybe then you'll be ready read things critically.

You are quite the comedian.  You fling childish insults and pretend that I am the one who is a child.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Twinkle twinkle...

[Natachan]

I can tell you how I reconciled it.

I saw it as an allegory that represented the emergence of consciousness in humans. When humans became conscious they lost their innocence and as such gained the ability to sin.

[Jackalope]

Allegory. Next question?

Ah but what exactly is the hidden meaning?  What does the story mean?

As near as I can tell, it's something like "Do as you're told and don't question anything."

[Simon Moon]

Allegory. Next question?

Sorry, but that answer is idiotic. But I do understand the reason for reason for using it. 

Where in the Bible is the primmer that you used in order to tell which parts are allegory and which parts are literal?

Obviously a perfect god would understand that us fallible humans would quite possibly misinterpret his word, and need clear instructions to get it right. That primmer that you use in order to tell allegory from literal passages should be obvious to everyone. Please point it out. 

There are 1000's of Christian sects, many take those passages as literal truth that you understand as allegory. Why do they get it so wrong when they are reading the same texts as you are?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

An easier way to look at the "which parts are allegorical and which parts are factual" question, from the perspective of Christians, is to understand that there are essentially two kinds of Christians. We like to think of them as "literalists" versus "some parts are metaphorical"-ists, but it breaks down better if you think of the literalists as being those who say, "Ever word of the Word is God-breathed" (that's how they say it, verbatim), meaning they think of God as a boss who gave dictation, word for word, to His secretaries to write down for us.

The other group of Christians understand that most of the Bible is best described as man's attempt to understand God through humans who were holy men but still as fallible as the rest of us. They only take the words of Jesus as infallible, and the rest they are willing to filter through the flawed humanity who tried to describe God through their culture-influenced feelings on the subject. They don't think God ever literally wanted animal sacrifice, for instance, only that this is how the ancient Hebrews interpreted their place in the world (as in the story I posted earlier) and tried to make up for the "fall of man" from his primordial state in which man was in compliance with the natural world's laws, as created by God. So while they do cherry-pick which parts to follow and which parts to write off as human flaws and allegory, they don't see that as an inherent conflict but as an application of human reason to their belief in Jesus Christ as the only infallible thing that ever existed. Only the literalists think the Bible must be 100% or 0%.