I don’t know. It strikes me rather difficult to over-analyze something as simple as “Thou shalt not steal.” Yet when critics of Judeo-Christian belief declare it a myth, they state it categorically, admitting no mitigation. That strikes me as, if anything, under-analysis. You left out 1). Things don’t work without it. Holy Scripture is loaded with literal meanings that cannot be ignored, many confirmed by Science itself. I don’t pretend expertise in either theology or science, yet even I understand that. The story of Jonah and the great fish (a favorite target of scripture scoffers) provides us a literal lesson in obedience, willingness of spirit, gratitude, repentance, compassion, and God’s patience and mercy, even if we do not understand how Jonah could spend three days in the belly of a great fish. The scoffers would have us focus on the great fish (watch the birdie) and declare the whole story a “myth.”
But, I think analysis not the motive of most Judeo-Christian critics. I think it, rather, to be Derrida deconstruction, focusing on the text isolated from the author’s intention and the literary tradition inspiring its structure. Deconstruction has become a popular weapon in politics, social debate, and various other intellectual issues. Deconstruction is focused equally on attacking Judeo-Christianity, indeed all Western Civilization. That must be understood, and cannot be ignored.
“If the Bible says X and observation shows Y, then there is a conflict if you believe X literally.”
Such as “In the beginning”? I was undisturbed when Science declared “the beginning” a myth, and felt no different when Science said, “Whoops! Guess there was a beginning.” Ever since Science has been trying to walk that faux pas back. It’s become kind of difficult to do. The cat’s out of the bag, but I’m sure Science will go on trying to explain what it really meant.
The Lord counsels patience. There’s a reason for this. Scripture scoffers counsel a rush to judgment. There’s a reason for that. Road kill represents the attempt to walk a line between the two.
“No, you are attributing his thought as mine.”
Not at all. I asked for clarification. You’ve clarified.
“I was just explaining someone else's position.”
To what end, if not as supportive of your own?
The cat's never out of the bag with science. Its nature is to constantly change with new information and analyses.
To what end, if not as supportive of your own?
To show that successful astronomers can be Christian. In fact, about half of scientists are religious, with most of them being Christian. Actual atheists, the group from which would spring your hard-core Christianity haters, are a minority, less than those who don't care about religion. While there do exist those in science who would punish someone for his beliefs, there is no larger anti-Christian conspiracy.
Besides, I do have the ability to support others. I'm not Catholic or Jewish, but at times I find myself defending them.
I see the problem here. Literalism in general is a slope, somebody gets to decide what is purely allegorical and what actually happened in history. I am talking about the people who actually believe that a guy spent three days in the belly of a great fish. The division is moved all the way over to history's side. My teacher treated Creation as allegory, not history. Others treat it as history, and we call them creationists.