Question to Christians Part Two

[AtheistBuddah]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

 

[SmedlyButler]

I've read are not "old Earthers". I don't know if there are any who post here. All literalists as far as I know. There may be some passages that are so far "out there" they call them poetry or whatever but I think all of them will defend the Adam and Eve tale as true history.

 

[ninja007]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

first off, paragrahs are your friend. Second of all, most Christian's DO take creation literally. I think you should ask the Catholics these questions as most think much of Scripture is allegory including Daniel and the entire book of Revelation.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

first off, paragrahs are your friend. Second of all, most Christian's DO take creation literally. I think you should ask the Catholics these questions as most think much of Scripture is allegory including Daniel and the entire book of Revelation.

First, that was a typical paragraph size. Read a book other than the Bible and you will notice what a paragraph actually looks like. And second. You and I have fundamental differences of opinion on what "most" means. Literalists like you and Ken Ham are the minority. It's really not up for debate it's just a fact.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

You really have NO idea what you are talking about.

Most Christians believe that Adam was the first man, and Eve was created from his rib. Noah and his family survived the flood and repopulated the earth. These are not metaphors except to people who are looking to destroy Christianity.

Now please find some Scripture to point out what Jesus said, and I will gladly explain it to you. Just telling us all that Jesus said something is nothing but trolling.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

first off, paragrahs are your friend. Second of all, most Christian's DO take creation literally. I think you should ask the Catholics these questions as most think much of Scripture is allegory including Daniel and the entire book of Revelation.

First of all, the paragraph part is funny.

Secondly, that is why I am a protestant. Unless it is specifically called a parable, then I believe everything else in the Bible to be fact, and I have no problems claiming to speak for the majority of protestants on that statement.

 

[Mad Scientist]

What's a "Moderate" Christian? A person who is only willing to defend HALF of the Bible?

Meh.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

first off, paragrahs are your friend. Second of all, most Christian's DO take creation literally. I think you should ask the Catholics these questions as most think much of Scripture is allegory including Daniel and the entire book of Revelation.

First, that was a typical paragraph size. Read a book other than the Bible and you will notice what a paragraph actually looks like. And second. You and I have fundamental differences of opinion on what "most" means. Literalists like you and Ken Ham are the minority. It's really not up for debate it's just a fact.

Only in your mind!

'Most' would mean, more than half. That's simple. The greater majority, around 90% or better of protestants would agree that the book of Genesis is fact.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

What's a "Moderate" Christian? A person who is only willing to defend HALF of the Bible?

Meh.

I'll gladly give you my definition of a 'moderate' Christian.

A 'moderate' believes that a divorce is 'ok'.
A 'moderate' believes that if you give 2 hours a week to God in Church, the other 6 days and 22 hours don't belong to Him.
A 'moderate' believes only the things that Jesus taught personally are all that matters.
A 'moderate' believes you can break up to 4 of the 10 commandments and still be 'ok'.
A 'moderate' believes the Church should accept anyone, even if those accepted are not willing to change their ways.

And here is what the Bible says about a 'moderate'.

Revelation 3:…15'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 17'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,…

Yes, a 'moderate' is the lukewarm Christian. Useful for very little, and useless most of the time.

 

[Mad Scientist]

What's a "Moderate" Christian? A person who is only willing to defend HALF of the Bible?

Meh.

I'll gladly give you my definition of a 'moderate' Christian.

A 'moderate' believes that a divorce is 'ok'.
A 'moderate' believes that if you give 2 hours a week to God in Church, the other 6 days and 22 hours don't belong to Him.
A 'moderate' believes only the things that Jesus taught personally are all that matters.
A 'moderate' believes you can break up to 4 of the 10 commandments and still be 'ok'.
A 'moderate' believes the Church should accept anyone, even if those accepted are not willing to change their ways.

And here is what the Bible says about a 'moderate'.

Revelation 3:…15'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 17'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,…

Yes, a 'moderate' is the lukewarm Christian. Useful for very little, and useless most of the time.

Sounds like World Council of Churches stuff. "Just show up, make a donation, and believe what you want. But WHATEVER you do DON'T GET POLITICAL!".

No thanks.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

You really have NO idea what you are talking about.

Most Christians believe that Adam was the first man, and Eve was created from his rib. Noah and his family survived the flood and repopulated the earth. These are not metaphors except to people who are looking to destroy Christianity.

Now please find some Scripture to point out what Jesus said, and I will gladly explain it to you. Just telling us all that Jesus said something is nothing but trolling.

To your first point. You do not and can not speak for all of Christianity. There are just too many believers for your interpretation to be representative of all of them. The numbers simply don't work in your favor.

To your second point. I respect your demand that I provide a quote from scripture and will do so as soon as I've had a moment to pour through it sufficiently but I resent the notion that I am in any way a troll. I take my posts here seriously and can't stand trolling.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

first off, paragrahs are your friend. Second of all, most Christian's DO take creation literally. I think you should ask the Catholics these questions as most think much of Scripture is allegory including Daniel and the entire book of Revelation.

First, that was a typical paragraph size. Read a book other than the Bible and you will notice what a paragraph actually looks like. And second. You and I have fundamental differences of opinion on what "most" means. Literalists like you and Ken Ham are the minority. It's really not up for debate it's just a fact.

Only in your mind!

'Most' would mean, more than half. That's simple. The greater majority, around 90% or better of protestants would agree that the book of Genesis is fact.

I'm prepared to quote surveys to back my claim, are you?

 

[Smilebong]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

True. If you reject Genesis as literal, you reject Christ.

 

[Sunni Man]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

first off, paragrahs are your friend. Second of all, most Christian's DO take creation literally. I think you should ask the Catholics these questions as most think much of Scripture is allegory including Daniel and the entire book of Revelation.

First, that was a typical paragraph size.

Paragraph's aren't about size or length.

They are about logical topic flow and sentence segments containing continuity of thought.

There are 3 to 4 paragraphs in your above rambling screed. ..

 

[PostmodernProph]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

True. If you reject Genesis as literal, you reject Christ.

lol.....

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

You really have NO idea what you are talking about.

Most Christians believe that Adam was the first man, and Eve was created from his rib. Noah and his family survived the flood and repopulated the earth. These are not metaphors except to people who are looking to destroy Christianity.

Now please find some Scripture to point out what Jesus said, and I will gladly explain it to you. Just telling us all that Jesus said something is nothing but trolling.

To your first point. You do not and can not speak for all of Christianity. There are just too many believers for your interpretation to be representative of all of them. The numbers simply don't work in your favor.

To your second point. I respect your demand that I provide a quote from scripture and will do so as soon as I've had a moment to pour through it sufficiently but I resent the notion that I am in any way a troll. I take my posts here seriously and can't stand trolling.

First of all, what you consider a Christian, and what I consider a Christian are two totally different concepts. And I have no doubt at all that I can speak for Protestant Christians and have the vast majority of them back me up. And vast majority is 9 out 10.

I do not speak for 'moderates' as you call them, I don't consider most of them to be Christian. Going to church on Christmas and Easter only, is not what a Christian would do. I call them as they are, lukewarm Christians.

And lastly, I apologize for calling you a troll, and do sincerely ask for your forgiveness for that.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

First, that was a typical paragraph size. Read a book other than the Bible and you will notice what a paragraph actually looks like. And second. You and I have fundamental differences of opinion on what "most" means. Literalists like you and Ken Ham are the minority. It's really not up for debate it's just a fact.

Only in your mind!

'Most' would mean, more than half. That's simple. The greater majority, around 90% or better of protestants would agree that the book of Genesis is fact.

I'm prepared to quote surveys to back my claim, are you?

Surveys? Most Americans make the wrong assumption that Christian equals Catholic. Though there are many Catholics who will be There, it won't be due to the teaching they had.

If you have a survey of protestant Christians, I would love to see it.

I quote Scripture, not surveys. Many people claim to believe in God, yet the numbers that bother to go to church do not match up with those claims. And do these same people actually believe that God the Father will accept the same excuses they use here on earth? I can tell you right now, He will NOT!

 

[sealybobo]

This questions pertains to an interpretation of the Bible that most moderate Christians have. The interpretation that some parts of the book are literal (ie. the parts that talk about Jesus and pretty much all of the New Testament) and the parts that are metaphorical and meant to be a guideline for how to live your life as opposed to the literal and historical truth of the world. This view confuses me. Where do you draw the line between historical fact and poetic allegory? Many Old Earth Christians that embrace the general principal of evolution (which is the vast majority of Christians) say that stories like the one's in Genesis about Noah's flood and even Adam and Eve and the Creation story are metaphors. Handed down by Moses and through the generations the way people back then could understand them. But now I get to crux of my question. Which is this. Jesus certainly didn't think the story of Adam and original sin was allegory. He allowed himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross in order to forgive mankind of that original sin. Your supposed savior sure didn't think he was up there on that cross for a metaphor. So why then do you look at Old Testament stories like the creation story as metaphor? How can you justify having an interpretation of the Bible that so clearly contradicts what your savior Jesus believed and said?

If Noah, Adam & Eve & Moses are allegories then so is the Jesus story.

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

 

[Avatar4321]

All the more reason to believe the bible as it is rather than picking and choosing

 

[AtheistBuddah]

You really have NO idea what you are talking about.

Most Christians believe that Adam was the first man, and Eve was created from his rib. Noah and his family survived the flood and repopulated the earth. These are not metaphors except to people who are looking to destroy Christianity.

Now please find some Scripture to point out what Jesus said, and I will gladly explain it to you. Just telling us all that Jesus said something is nothing but trolling.

To your first point. You do not and can not speak for all of Christianity. There are just too many believers for your interpretation to be representative of all of them. The numbers simply don't work in your favor.

To your second point. I respect your demand that I provide a quote from scripture and will do so as soon as I've had a moment to pour through it sufficiently but I resent the notion that I am in any way a troll. I take my posts here seriously and can't stand trolling.

First of all, what you consider a Christian, and what I consider a Christian are two totally different concepts. And I have no doubt at all that I can speak for Protestant Christians and have the vast majority of them back me up. And vast majority is 9 out 10.

I do not speak for 'moderates' as you call them, I don't consider most of them to be Christian. Going to church on Christmas and Easter only, is not what a Christian would do. I call them as they are, lukewarm Christians.

And lastly, I apologize for calling you a troll, and do sincerely ask for your forgiveness for that.

I will admit that my criteria for what classifies someone as Christian is probably differs greatly from yours.

And apology accepted Water under the bridge.