(September 18, 2015 at 11:01 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
