The Fish of Time Redux

Meeting Two of the Rational Theists

The rational theists of YouTube got together for their second show the other day, The Fish of Time Show, to talk about Creationism. There was some interesting discussion, but there are some things I feel I'd like to address.

The Fish of Time

My Thoughts on Show 2

At 00:38:46 into the show, one of the participants (sorry, I don't know them all by name) mentioned that you have to consider the Genesis story to be allegorical, but the story of Jesus' death and resurrection to be fact. The thing is, how do you decide what to consider allegory and what to consider fact? Is there evidence to support the notion that some parts of the Bible are fact where others aren't? Is there evidence that suggest anything about the Bible is factual at all?

Now, I'm not saying that there is absolutely nothing true or factual in the Bible; you just can't depend on the Bible as a book of facts. For a book purported to be The Word of God this is problematic. How can you count on the Bible to reveal truth if it can't recount facts in a reliable fashion? Even if the Bible turns out to be The Word of God and is Truth, this lack of reliability in terms of facts doesn't lend the Bible much credibility.

So, once you start deciding that some parts of the Bible aren't to be taken literally due to a "fact deficit" what's to stop you from doing the same to ever more and more parts of the Bible? The above is what happened to me. The more I learned the more I realized that the revealed truth of the Bible didn't conform to the observed facts of science.

Listening to The Fish of Time Show I wonder how they can deny one part of the Bible, but accept another part? The truth is, no Christian accepts the entire Bible as literal fact as some amount of interpretation is required. If we were actually to accept the entire Bible as factual and true it would be insane, some parts of the Bible were meant to be allegorical!

I was amused when they laughed at the Koran. Two holy books, which is truer? Good question, is there an answer?

Addendum

04 Dec 2011

After a conversation with a historian friend of mine (where she pretty much waxed the floor with me regarding evidence in classical studies) I feel it's necessary for me to add the following:

• Some parts of the Bible's historicity are verifiably true
• Some parts of the Bible's historicity are verifiably untrue
• My primary issue is how different sects of Christianity determine what is true and what isn't
• My secondary issue is how Christians believe the veracity of one set of claims of the miraculous in the Bible over others
• My tertiary issue is how some Christians' belief in the Bible being inerrant leads them to acts which are technically immoral by any sane reasoning, harmful to the people around them and to trying to restrict basic human rights

Thanks Jo for kicking my ass and keeping me honest.