[QUOTE="the_plan_man"][QUOTE="Nicksonman"] See this is the problem. On one hand, we have people saying that the Bible requires a non-literal interpretation, yet when I give one, all of a sudden it's incorrect because it doesn't correlate to text, which shouldn't matter in a non-literal interpretation. This, to me, is a prime example of how divisive religions are. There's no uniformity. Each believer caters the system to themselves and their own mindset. It's so elastic that you can believe whatever you want, and criticise whoever you want for whatever reason you want. It's all correct and incorrect at the same time, depending on who you ask.
There's nowhere in the text to ever suggest that, even through an allegorical reading of the text. Writers tended to write allegorically, instead of literally to show the wonders of God. You can infer everything you want about what's not presented in the text, it would just be much less likely to be true. I'll accept that the drag queen example is extreme and incorrect because there's nothing about drag queens presented in the text. Let's tone down the example to something a bit more "rational". Say I read the Bible again, only this time, I take what's presented in the text as a set of allegories, open to interpretation and not taking anything literally. I'm only using the text as a foundation for interpretation. I read the Bible again, cover to cover, with this mindset. I come out concluding that the Bible is complete fiction, a product of imagination. Is it ok to conclude this? Or have I again done something wrong? You would not be wrong. People can either choose to believe the text to be true or false, and many (especially in this forum) DO conclude there's not enough evidence to support the Bible. It's up to you to believe what you want.
Log in to comment