How much of the Bible do you believe literally?

[Laza]

How would a snake talk in terms of its physical structure?

Everytime i bring this up they tell me that snake didn't talk, it was the devil through the snake, and then they act like they explained it rationally

[Alex K]

I believe Quirinius was actually Governor of Syria. When he ordered which census, however, is less clear. It would make sense to have the census just before Christmas though, when everybody is at home anyways.

[Ryantology]

If most Christians understand that much of the crazier shit in the Bible is just metaphorical, at which point does it not occur to them that God himself is the same?

[truthBtold]

If most Christians understand that much of the crazier shit in the Bible is just metaphorical, at which point does it not occur to them that God himself is the same?

They turn a brown eye.. I mean blind eye... haha

[Sword of Christ]

If most Christians understand that much of the crazier shit in the Bible is just metaphorical, at which point does it not occur to them that God himself is the same?

Metaphors have to refer to something else that is actually real as it would just be a pure fiction which isn't metaphorical at all. Harry Potter is metaphorical for anything.

[Ryantology]

If most Christians understand that much of the crazier shit in the Bible is just metaphorical, at which point does it not occur to them that God himself is the same?

Metaphors have to refer to something else that is actually real as it would just be a pure fiction which isn't metaphorical at all. Harry Potter is metaphorical for anything.

Harry Potter is a metaphor for a great many different things. Most fiction is.

Your God is a metaphor for authority and nature, pretty much.

[Sword of Christ]

Harry Potter is a metaphor for a great many different things. Most fiction is.

Sure but Harry Potter is not a metaphor for someone or something else he's just a fictional character same goes for Bilbo Baggins or Darth Vader there's no meaning behind them they're for entertainment.

Your God is a metaphor for authority and nature, pretty much.

God created nature he isn't nature or part nature itself. The Bible does labour this point.

[Minimalist]

I believe Quirinius was actually Governor of Syria. When he ordered which census, however, is less clear. It would make sense to have the census just before Christmas though, when everybody is at home anyways.

It is not unclear at all. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed Imperial Legate of Syria at roughly the same time as Augustus granted the petition of Judaea to oust Archelaus from his position as tetrarch and become a Roman prefecture under the auspices of the Imperial Legate of Syria. A man by the name of Coponius was appointed Prefect. Josephus makes it clear that one of the first undertakings that Quirinius undertook was to conduct the census. That would place it in 6 AD.

Of course, as Legate of Syria with the newly added territory of Judaea he would not have been the least concerned with fucking "Nazareth" which, even if it existed was in Galilee and would have been under the rule of Herod Antipas until 39 AD.

[Ryantology]

Sure but Harry Potter is not a metaphor for someone or something else he's just a fictional character same goes for Bilbo Baggins or Darth Vader there's no meaning behind them they're for entertainment.

Speaking from experience, most fictional characters are representative of real people, sometimes several.

God created nature he isn't nature or part nature itself. The Bible does labour this point.

And we're talking about what in the bible is metaphorical and what isn't, so way to miss the point.

[orangebox21]

All good examples for the sake of this conversation. I would add Jonah being in the fish three days and virgin conception, not metaphors all actual historical events.

How would a snake talk in terms of its physical structure?

Supernaturally.

What would happen if the earth suddenly stopped rotating? Or actually went in reverse? Which would have to happen to make the sun stand still in the sky or a shadow move backward. In terms of physics I would expect that it would be the end of terrestrial life. Humans, animals and most other surface objects would fly off into space.

Empirical science agrees with you. But for those of us who believe that "all things (creation included) are held together in Christ" it's reasonable that a God who can speak the world into existence (including gravity) could easily simultaneously stop the earth from rotating and create a new type of gravity that would hold everyone/thing on in the interim. It seems unreasonable to anyone who automatically rules out a transcendent God who can work both empirically and supernaturally.

No, you can't play the argument from ignorance game. These are empirical questions which need to be settled by evidence. If someone told you in all seriousness that unicorns really exist, you would not feel that you had to prove they do not exist.

No, I don't have to prove that fairies or gods exist or that violations of the laws of nature do not occur. The burden of proof is on those who believe such things.

The "burden of proof" argument is more of a tactic than it is sound debate. The burden of proof is on both the person making the claim and the person who disagrees with the claim. This is foundational to debate/science/truth seeking. The claim that these are empirical questions that need to be settled by (empirical?) evidence is made by you. These may be empirical questions but they could be very well explained as supernatural events. My evidence is the written testimony of these events. If the truth is outside of your set of beliefs, to say it's not possible as truth is an argument from ignorance. The Laws of logic say that truth is justified independently of a person's beliefs.

I do not have a religion. I have beliefs and opinions based so far as possible on reason and evidence.

"Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:" Fits extremely well. People hear religion and think deity but not all religion's have a god per say.

Has anyone ever noticed that sometimes a theist will try to denigrate atheism or science by calling them "religion"?

Why does calling something "religion" denigrate it? Seems like the prejudice toward the word is on your side?


If you rule out the answer before you ask the question, you will either search for the answer forever or you will accept any answer as truth.