A Modern Parable

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I only "agree" with the original.

Then why take issue with no1marauder when he points out how ridiculous the literalist interpretation of Genesis is? He was one of the folks who endorsed vistesd's excellent exploration of Genesis earlier in this thread, so it doesn't seem like he is "trying hard not to understand". The two of you actually agreed concerning the merits of vistesd's analysis, so why are you trolling his posts now?

Originally posted by chinking58
Not!

The problem with this kind of allegory is that it only tries to address a couple points at a time. To get the complete story you have to read the original, full length version.

To include Noah's ark in the Mom story, you'd ...[text shortened]... had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.

NOT NOT!

anyway after drowning most of em Mom promised them not to try to kill em all again. and was content in watching them kill each other for quite some time.

Then some of them learned how to read and write an had written down rules . Mom thought that was a good Idea and picked a chosen few to give a new set of rules to ,which only applied to this few, just like any of the many other Moms that the kids adopted had already done. then for some strange reason they left town and after Mom had changed her name settled in another town.
After awhile Mom decided to kill all the babies of the other town and as the family was leaving town Mom drowned the towns police that were chasing them.

to be continued,,,,

Originally posted by bbarr
Then why take issue with no1marauder when he points out how ridiculous the literalist interpretation of Genesis is? He was one of the folks who endorsed vistesd's excellent exploration of Genesis earlier in this thread, so it doesn't seem ...[text shortened]... its of vistesd's analysis, so why are you trolling his posts now?

I am commenting on what No1 actually writes down. The nonsense.

If he has such excellent interpretations then why doesn't he reason from his actual point of view ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

You are more rigid and closed in your thinking then any religious fundamentalist I ever had the privilige talking to.

You are very confused. I started the thread for the purpose of hearing other people's thoughts on the Modern Parable; how exactly does that equate to being "rigid and closed in [my] thinking"? As I have said, I'm looking to people's interpretations of an ancient story. It's mostly a thought experiment to me; like you I don't believe that there really was a Garden of Eden and that the story is allegorical; however, we still have to ascertain the meaning of the allergory. Unlike you, I don't simply accept as undenialable truth the opinions of the RCC Magisterum as the proper interpretation of the allegory. If anyone's being closed minded, it is you.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I am commenting on what No1 actually writes down. The nonsense.

If he has such excellent interpretations why doesn't he reason from his actual point of view then ?

What do you think I reason from if not "my actual point of view"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are very confused. I started the thread for the purpose of hearing other people's thoughts on the Modern Parable; how exactly does that equate to being "rigid and closed in [my] thinking"? As I have said, I'm looking to people's interpretations of an ancient story. It's mostly a thought experiment to me; like you I don't believe that t ...[text shortened]... terum as the proper interpretation of the allegory. If anyone's being closed minded, it is you.

I'll let you in on a little secret: I never read the Magisterium's interpretation, have you ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
EDIT: It seems to me that the same literal and fundamentalist methods are applied by No1 & friends to prove something that is as ludicrous as stating that the creation is 6000 years old.

Right, and that shows that you should not these read parts of the Bible literally, which in turn shows that folks like Coletti and KellyJay and Chinking are full of it. QED.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I'll let you in on a little secret: I never read the Magisterium's interpretation, have you ?

No, but as you know I went to a RCC-run elementary school and was taught what I believe is the official Church doctrine i.e. original sin and the rest. If you went to give a cite to an official RCC teaching on the Adam and Eve parable, I'll certainly look it over.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What do you think I reason from if not "my actual point of view"?

I'm afraid Bbarr doesn't think you do (BBarr: "Right, and that shows that you should not these read parts of the Bible literally, which in turn shows that folks like Coletti and KellyJay and Chinking are full of it. QED."😉

Bbarr is convinced of the fact that you want to make clear to the fundamentalist that he is wrong.

My view is that you do indeed reason from "your actual point of view".

My view is that your view and methods are as rigid and closed as the views and methods you are trying to combat.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, but as you know I went to a RCC-run elementary school and was taught what I believe is the official Church doctrine i.e. original sin and the rest. If you went to give a cite to an official RCC teaching on the Adam and Eve parable, I'll certainly look it over.

Yes, you were taught Church teachings in elementary school. It shows. Your belief never developed into an adult one. You keep on reasoning from a child's point of view and level of understanding. I must say it curls my toes sometimes, the way you approach things.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Yes, you were taught Church teachings in elementary school. It shows. Your belief never developed into an adult one. You keep on reasoning from a child's point of view and level of understanding. I must say it curls my toes sometimes, the way you approach things.

Outside of your idiotic insults, do you ever intend to offer anything in this thread? If my interpretation of the RCC's position on the Garden of Eden parable is wrong according to you, present what you think is the correct position. That's what the thread is for, not your childish personal vendetta.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Outside of your idiotic insults, do you ever intend to offer anything in this thread? If my interpretation of the RCC's position on the Garden of Eden parable is wrong according to you, present what you think is the correct position. That's what the thread is for, not your childish personal vendetta.

this might be worth a read

http://www.drbo.org/popeleo.htm

skimming through it i pick up these tidbits:

15........not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires

[41] -- that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt out side of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.

23..... Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures -- and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it.

25 ...it is impossible to attain to the profitable understanding thereof unless the arrogance of "earthly" science be laid aside, and there be excited in the heart the holy desire for that wisdom "which is from above." In this way the intelligence which is once admitted to these sacred studies, and thereby illuminated and strengthened, will acquire a marvelous facility in detecting and avoiding the fallacies of human science, ......

Originally posted by no1marauder
Outside of your idiotic insults, do you ever intend to offer anything in this thread? If my interpretation of the RCC's position on the Garden of Eden parable is wrong according to you, present what you think is the correct position. That's what the thread is for, not your childish personal vendetta.

You probably missed my contribution. It is a waste of time "discussing" things with someone who chooses to fight a regional political fight using religious issues. What you want is to impose your views regarding the subject on others. It won't work.

.... and please stop insinuating that I am insulting you.

Originally posted by bbarr
Then why take issue with no1marauder when he points out how ridiculous the literalist interpretation of Genesis is? He was one of the folks who endorsed vistesd's excellent exploration of Genesis earlier in this thread, so it doesn't seem like he is "trying hard not to understand". The two of you actually agreed concerning the merits of vistesd's analysis, so why are you trolling his posts now?

He doesn't have a clue. He refused to talk about it, he simply
repeated his point over and over. I even offered to discuss the
scripture as he reads it, and what did he do...simply gave me
an insult, and ended the conversation. He had no desire to
understand anything only insult those that do not agree with
his/her stance, just as s/he does any time s/he disagrees with
someone.
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
Right, and that shows that you should not these read parts of the Bible literally, which in turn shows that folks like Coletti and KellyJay and Chinking are full of it. QED.

Bbarr, sometimes it seems you do not recognise BS if it is labeled liberal BS.