[lit-ideas] Re: small addendum to Matrix as philosophy

> 
> I believe that Christianity is the only religion that
> insists (in some 
> quarters, anyway) that their creation story is
> literally true.  
> Everyone 
> else has the sense to recognize symbolism and allegory
> and story when 
> they see it.
> 
> I believe that there is a difference between
> Christianity and Islam here - in Christianity it seems
> the orthodoxy demands literal reading of the accounts
> of Creation while in Islamic tradition it has long
> been largely accepted that the accounts of creation of
> the world in the Koran are not to be taken literally.

Hold on. Surely 'Catholics' are orthodox rather than non-Orthodox Christians?
Since when have Catholics believed in a seven-day-wonder world? How long is
it since even the papacy has come out to proclaim the validity of Darwinism? 

Without defining your point so that orthodoxy equals (by definition) 'literal
interpretation' [in which case..ho hum], it seems to me quite obvious that
'non-literal', symbolical and allegorical exegesis has always had a role in
Christian interpretation of the Bible, in both orthodox and non-orthodox
variants [where 'orthodox' might here mean little more, exegetically
speaking, than 'dominant']. 

In fact how is a literal interpretation of the Bible or Koran even possible,
literally speaking of course?

Donal


                
___________________________________________________________ 
Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win £10k with Yahoo! Mail to 
make your dream a reality. 
Get Yahoo! Mail www.yahoo.co.uk/10k
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: