Originally posted by royalchickenSo be it. What's in a name? That which we call this Christian Debate Tactic by any other word would be just as slick.
I spoke to Hrothgar; he informs me (I'm paraphrasing) that pure pairs of Ps are the paragon of profanity. Unless you feel very strongly about this, I recommend substituting 'CCCC'.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFrom atop the purple pole, Hrothgar acknowledges that you're right, but, being the incredibly diplomatic berserker we know he is, he points out that when coaching people it's best not to swear at them.
Hroth can pounce on Barney's purple pole. Connotation is for pansies. Denotation is divine.
Originally posted by NemesioNo, I do not concede that - I agree with that. I don't think being a Christian is defined by believing that Jonah's story was literal - but I would wonder why he asserts it is not. After all, we are dealing with a supernatural being.
Ah! Here we go.
So, will you concede that someone could entirely disbelieve the story of Jonah (say)
as a history, but embrace wholly its moral message and still be a Christian.
Nemesio
What makes would cause someone to disbelieve Jonah was literal swallowed by a whale. If God can move mountains, Jesus can turn water into wine, and there is no limit to the power God has over creation - then why assert that Jonah is not literal? If Jonah's story was a metaphor, then why not Jesus's? And by what authority could one justify asserting Jonah is story is not literal.
However, Christian's can make mistakes in interpretation and still be saved.
Does a literal view of Jonah contradict other Scripture?
Originally posted by Coletti
No, I do not concede that - I agree with that. I don't think being a Christian is defined by believing that Jonah's story was literal - but I would wonder why he asserts it is not. After all, we are dealing with a supernatural being.
You really struggle with terms. You'll note that I wrote:
[w]ill you concede that someone COULD entirely disbelieve the story of Jonah...
as a history, but embrace wholly its moral message and still be a Christian.
I'm not suggesting that it is necessary that he assert it. I'm saying that it is unnecessary
for him to do so.
I'll ask the question again: Do you concede my point?
Nemesio