there was no "whale".
Johan was merely in a three day depression over whether he should go to ninevah or not. so for three days he was in a dark state of indecision.
this is the "leviathian" that he was engorged in.
it is metaphor about indecision.
not a true story.
the point is simple. do not take the bible as a record of literal truth. it is poem, a metaphor, partial history written from the victor's side and a plan for how to do well to others, etc.
@the-grifter saidAre you an abused child of the Mormon persuasion or something? Either way, you're full of sht.
there was no "whale".
Johan was merely in a three day depression over whether he should go to ninevah or not. so for three days he was in a dark state of indecision.
this is the "leviathian" that he was engorged in.
it is metaphor about indecision.
not a true story.
the point is simple. do not take the bible as a record of literal truth. it is poem, a metaphor, partial history written from the victor's side and a plan for how to do well to others, etc.
20d
@the-grifter saidIt is possible that the account is allegorical and metaphorical.
there was no "whale".
Johan was merely in a three day depression over whether he should go to ninevah or not. so for three days he was in a dark state of indecision.
this is the "leviathian" that he was engorged in.
it is metaphor about indecision.
not a true story.
the point is simple. do not take the bible as a record of literal truth. it is poem, a metaphor, partial history written from the victor's side and a plan for how to do well to others, etc.
So what?
The problem of course is that if one part of the bible is seen as a metaphor, then where does that end? Was the crucifixion a metaphor? Did Jesus metaphorically rise from the dead? The 'Oh no, that bit was true.' argument ceases to hold very much water, since the whole thing then becomes a matter of opinion.
@Indonesia-Phil saidIt only matters if you are trying to convince someone that your particular piece of literalism is literal.
The problem of course is that if one part of the bible is seen as a metaphor, then where does that end? Was the crucifixion a metaphor? Did Jesus metaphorically rise from the dead? The 'Oh no, that bit was true.' argument ceases to hold very much water, since the whole thing then becomes a matter of opinion.
The problem lies in that the current version of the incorrectly titled “Holy” Bible is taken by some Christians as being the complete, exclusive and inerrant word of God. Of course there is absolutely no evidence, nor even an indication, in the Bible that this is the case.
@Indonesia-Phil saidThe problem of course is that if one part of the bible is seen as a metaphor, then where does that end? Was the crucifixion a metaphor? Did Jesus metaphorically rise from the dead?
The problem of course is that if one part of the bible is seen as a metaphor, then where does that end? Was the crucifixion a metaphor? Did Jesus metaphorically rise from the dead? The 'Oh no, that bit was true.' argument ceases to hold very much water, since the whole thing then becomes a matter of opinion.
If one studies the history of Christianity, this is exactly what most western Christians believed in most of the 1700s. They believed the Bible was written by God for man but that it all was metaphors and allegories, and that everything in the Bible never really happened; (paraphrased).
19d
@KingDavid403 saidOkay, so if (as some believe) everything in the Bible is a metaphor, from the creation onwards, and none of it actually happened, Jesus was never here, and so on, then that flies in the face of people here and elsewhere who think that everything in the Bible is literal truth. (The 'If it's in the Bible it must be true.' brigade) . Personally I have much more sympathy with the former position, it's a good story, and whether it was inspired by God or 'man' comes down to a matter of belief. If Jesus is seen as a revolutionary, whether metaphorically or otherwise, who challenged the greed and corruption of the established church, then we could do with another one of those now, I'd carry his cross for him, and it sort of begs a question: Is it possible to be a Christian, without believing in God?
The problem of course is that if one part of the bible is seen as a metaphor, then where does that end? Was the crucifixion a metaphor? Did Jesus metaphorically rise from the dead?
If one studies the history of Christianity, this is exactly what most western Christians believed in most of the 1700s. They believed the Bible was written by God for man but that it ...[text shortened]... was metaphors and allegories, and that everything in the Bible never really happened; (paraphrased).
19d
@Indonesia-Phil saidIs it possible to be a Christian, without believing in God?
Okay, so if (as some believe) everything in the Bible is a metaphor, from the creation onwards, and none of it actually happened, Jesus was never here, and so on, then that flies in the face of people here and elsewhere who think that everything in the Bible is literal truth. (The 'If it's in the Bible it must be true.' brigade) . Personally I have much more sympathy w ...[text shortened]... for him, and it sort of begs a question: Is it possible to be a Christian, without believing in God?
If one follows the teachings of Christ, then they certainly would be called a Christian. I personally don't like the word Christian; their are many whom call themselves Christian that are not.
However, Jesus said: "[Luke 10:25-37 NKJV] 25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading [of it]?" 27 So he answered and said, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.' " 28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 Then Jesus answered and said: "A certain [man] went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded [him], and departed, leaving [him] half dead. 31 "Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 "Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 "But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 "So he went to [him] and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 "On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave [them] to the innkeeper, and said to him, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.' 36 "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?" 37 And he said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
@Indonesia-Phil saidIt's not actually a question of "all or nothing". The oldest texts have the most problems with believability.
Okay, so if (as some believe) everything in the Bible is a metaphor, from the creation onwards, and none of it actually happened, Jesus was never here, and so on, then that flies in the face of people here and elsewhere who think that everything in the Bible is literal truth. (The 'If it's in the Bible it must be true.' brigade) . Personally I have much more sympathy w ...[text shortened]... for him, and it sort of begs a question: Is it possible to be a Christian, without believing in God?
Although your question is interesting. I fall in with the group that says Jesus was not only the Son of God, but God in the flesh, and so I lean towards no.
18d
@Suzianne saidFair enough, I'm just chewing the breeze, or shooting the fat, (or is it the other way around? ) , I shall continue in my sinful, heathen ways and hope for the best....
It's not actually a question of "all or nothing". The oldest texts have the most problems with believability.
Although your question is interesting. I fall in with the group that says Jesus was not only the Son of God, but God in the flesh, and so I lean towards no.
18d
@Indonesia-Phil saidWe have free will, man.
Fair enough, I'm just chewing the breeze, or shooting the fat, (or is it the other way around? ) , I shall continue in my sinful, heathen ways and hope for the best....
It's also my belief that those who tout the evangelical line, holier-than-thou and all of it, while still being morally repugnant, will have far more to answer for than those who are true to themselves, even if they do not believe.