Donal: "In fact how is a literal interpretation of the Bible or Koran even possible, literally speaking of course?" It's very easy. See below. Veronica, teaching comparative religions, is talking about the part of the New Testament story of Jesus turning water into wine at Cana, where a wedding took place and the guests ran out of wine. Student: Jesus didn't do that. He changed the water into grape juice. Veronica asks student how he knows this and student says, it's a mistranslation, good Christians don't drink alcohol. This is called cafeteria Biblical interpretation. What you want to take literally you do, such as homosexuals being an abomination. What you don't want to take literally, you don't. Cafeteria Christianity is similar. It might be that divorce is bad, child abuse is bad, disobeying one's husband is bad, etc., etc. But, but, but, this case, my case, is different. Veronica > [Original Message] > From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 11/28/2004 4:36:27 PM > Subject: [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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html