“Pope Benedict didn’t call it a fairy tale, you did.”
No, I didn’t call it a fairy tale, I said he is essentially saying it is a fairy tale, because that is the implication of his words.
“What he said was: “The biblical account of creation isn’t a textbook for science.””
Well, that is only one sentence of his, it is not the totality of his statement.
“Is that passage to be taken literally or figuratively?”
Figuratively, obviously. You see, I agree that there are allegories in the Bible, and they are quite obviously allegories. There is not much room for misinterpretation, because the allegories are not written in a way that they could be taken literally by a reasonable person, and they are clearly demarcated from the historical, literal parts of the text. That isn’t the case with Genesis, though, so it doesn’t fit the pattern of a Biblical allegory. To claim that is what it is, despite the fact that it presents itself as a factual account, is to reduce it to a fairy tale.
I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, as in, "This is My Body"
I think your statement: “If Genesis is meant as a fairy tale, then that isn’t showing man love...” is you clearly stating that is Pope’s position.
The totality of his statements, if you read them, which I have, are reported here: http://www.uscatholic.org/news/201302/creation-story-isnt-science-reveals-gods-love-pope-says-26864.
For your edification, this text may be more meaningful to you:
In an age of science and advanced technology, how are Catholics supposed to understand the Old Testament account of creation that says God created the heavens and earth in six days, and rested on the seventh? the pope asked.
“The Bible isn’t meant to be a manual of natural science,” the pope told the estimated 5,000 visitors and pilgrims gathered for his audience. “Instead it is meant to make understandable the authentic and deep truth of all things,” he said.
The creation account in Genesis reveals the fundamental truth that “the world is not a collection of opposing forces, but has its origin and steadiness in the Word, in the eternal reason of God, who continues to sustain the universe,” the pope said.
Regarding John6:56, your interpretation is incorrect, as verse 61 contiues:
“[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.”
Jesus didn’t say, “Wait guys, what I meant was....” No!! He said, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
You may wish to reconsider you methods and practices around Biblical interpretation, as well as your interpretation of secular articles discussing religious topics.
What does "reasonable" mean? This is the starting point every man should consider in "debates" such as this.
Only until (and unless) at least a group of people, if not all humanity can and does agree about such a definition, then "debates" such as this are little more than exercises in futility.
The proof of this is right here. I believe it is reasonable to view the account in Genesis is "allegorical", you, apparently believe it's reasonable to call it "literal".
This obviously begs the question, "What does it mean to be reasonable?"
Please note I'm asking more an open ended question here. I don't expect an immediate answer or any answer at all really. It's a question intended to inspire serious self reflection and thought, not only for you but anyone reading this really.
Not one to start/continue a debate, or one to "prove" Creationism or Evolution, per se. Because that is never going to be solved on the Internet.