Forum theists: when you have a moment, please...

[Angrboda]

Literalism was the traditional interpretation at one time. You're arguing a game of numbers. Your interpretation is only better than another in terms of the number of people who agree to the base assumptions you've made, as I originally said, and as is clearly pointed out in your latest reply to me. It's only better in terms of who you can get to agree with you.

By the way, I'm disappointed in your answer to my questions as well. It's a dodge.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Literalism was the traditional interpretation at one time. You're arguing a game of numbers. Your interpretation is only better than another in terms of the number of people who agree to the base assumptions you've made, as I originally said, and as is clearly pointed out in your latest reply to me.

If it is germane to question being asked, the strength of an opinion takes into account the base assumptions. Otherwise a doctrine taken from Sacred Scripture that is based on a comparison of relevant passages across multiple books is stronger than one based on a single ambiguous quote. Any reasonable person can see that. That is not to say that there at some texts are more difficult to reconcile or just plain obscure. Those do exist, like Matthew 17:12. At the same time, some doctrines, like a final judgment, are made crystal clear in multiple verses (Rev. 20:12-13, Heb. 9:27, 2 Cor. 5:10, 1 Peter 4:5, Rom. 2:16, Dan 12:2, Matt 25:46, 2 Peter 3:7, Matt 16:27, Psalm 98:9, Isaiah 16:5, etc. )

By the way, I'm disappointed in your answer to my questions as well. It's a dodge.

Whether the flood story in Genesis 6-9 describes a historical global flood, a local event turned legend, or pure fiction does not concern me. I’m not looking for a lesson in history or geology; but rather the meaning(s) the writer(s) attached to that and other narratives. I don’t need a sacred text to justify belief in God. The general revelation of Nature of which Paul writes (Romans 1:20) has been adequately demonstrated since the time of Thomas Aquinas and sufficiently defended against the misconceptions of modern skeptics. All I ask from special revelation is that it is consistent with spiritual truths that have already been rationally demonstrated and that it rewards deep reading.

[Delicate]

While you attempt to condescend Jor she'll just sneak up behind you with a samurai sword called "Logic" and some nunchucs called "Wit" and kick your ass.

Must take someone pretty dimwitted to carry around a samurai sword and still rely on their kicking to do most of the work.

[Hmmm?]

Nope, just takes someone awesome...don't know the context, just saying.

[Edwardo Piet]

While you attempt to condescend Jor she'll just sneak up behind you with a samurai sword called "Logic" and some nunchucs called "Wit" and kick your ass.

Must take someone pretty dimwitted to carry around a samurai sword and still rely on their kicking to do most of the work.

It's very theistic of you to be that literal-minded. Have a cookie.

[Mr Greene]

Interesting, so we agree that the literal interpretation is a non-starter and a waste of time for all involved.
(Alas the majority of the wanna-be prosletysers we see, tend to be of this type and are thus dismissed rather quickly)
One thing you do seem to have in common with them is this concept of being 'saved through "grace"'. which seems to come from Paul.
Generally this is presented as some sort of 'get out of jail free' card which rings false with me and I suspect a fair few of the other atheists.
Personally I'm inclined to view Paul as putting words in Jesus mouth and find this concept to be at odds with his actions.