(September 8, 2014 at 9:26 am)Michael Wrote: Also the more scripture is read the more you get to see what the 'mata-narrative' is and so the more the small bits can be fit into a broader context; that often helps to separate out whether something should be considered more literal or not.
This bit here, the idea of meta-narrative, has been troubling me as of late. Here it's said that the more the bible is read, the better you are at telling which parts are just stories and which are literal. This just isn't going far enough. You need to build a mete-narative of life using reason and scientific understanding. The more you understand the physical world, the better you are at telling which parts of the bible are just stories. Noah's Flood. The young earth. Miracles.
It's hard to argue a theist when their whole narrative is found inside the bible (not all theist). How do you expect fossil bones of homo Neanderthalensis to be hard evidence against your opponent when they reject the dates? But that's the least of my worries. There was a time when I might have been ok with my daughter learning the different religious beliefs, but I can't in good conscience knowingly teach her things that are absolutely incorrect or susceptible to misinterpretation.
