Literalism and Autism

[Acrobat]

Once again, you're simply not providing a good enough reason to believe this. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The creation in Genesis cannot be compared to the behavior of monkeys reacting to a red ball, nor the commonly known phrase of "it's raining cats and dogs."

Having a vision can, I can compare human beings having a visionary experience to monkeys reacting to a red ball.

There being a lack of a specific wording or a qualifying statement doesn't suddenly mean that we should take it as a metaphor.

It also the presence of wording, words like "tree of knowledge of good and evil", sound highly symbolic. It should be said that even Literalist don't disagree with the metaphorical nature of the genesis account, they accept that, and believe it's literal. Not that taking it as literal negates it's metaphorical components. I almost never have to appeal to literalism, or non-literalism to discuss the meaning of the passages here.

Why I believe the story is not literal, is not all that important to my christian beliefs. It's just not problematic.

That would mean the whole of the scripture is to be taken metaphorically, unless explicitly stated otherwise. That is your reasoning and, apparently, it makes sense to you.

Every portion of scripture is to be judged on its own merits. Passages about ritual and dietary rules in the OT were meant to be followed literally, though they also had symbolic importance as well, like we could say of wedding rings. There's a literal ring my wife wants me to put on her finger, that symbolizes our union. Instructions about stoning x offenders, were all taken quite literally, etc....

There has to be direct or indirect reasons to assume a passage is literal or historical, if those are entirely absent, then it might not be that clear one way or the other, and we have to proceed with that ambiguity.

Once again, all you're really doing is giving a reason why you personally think the passage is allegorical. You haven't given anyone else a good enough reason to believe you, yet. I'm still waiting.

And you haven't pointed out anything about my reasoning thats flawed. If my reasoning is sound, and you just don't agree with my conclusions, then I can't do anything about that.

And, you still haven't adequately explained where the connection is on this topic to autism. What was that about? Do you have an adequate explanation? Or were you just trying to insinuate that some of us may be developmental disorders simply because we disagree with you?

I have. A few times already. I also indicated that I was not insinuating anything of the sort. If you're not satisfied with the response, we're just going to have to move on, rather than dwell on it.