I'm always mystified by the liberal Christian stance on the Wholly Babble. If its claims can't be defended and must be written off as metaphor, how can its larger claims about knowing the mind of God and the nature of the afterlife be relied upon?
Furthermore, if the whole story in Genesis is just a metaphor, then whence commeth the whole "fall from grace" that necessitated the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus, who himself believed in a literal Adam? No Garden of Eden means no fall. No fall means no Jesus. No Jesus means no Christianity. QED.
Furthermore, if the whole story in Genesis is just a metaphor, then whence commeth the whole "fall from grace" that necessitated the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus, who himself believed in a literal Adam? No Garden of Eden means no fall. No fall means no Jesus. No Jesus means no Christianity. QED.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist