Islam and Creation?

Its not true. Humans evolved from earlier hominids, they were not created out of clay by an eagle.

Thanks for sharing that, its a hoot. Oh, he goes beyond tacit assumption and right into blatant proclamation.

I was surprised that the eagle had the coyote bang the human's girlfriend... twice. Sure. Haven't you played the Telephone Game?

Why not? I mean, its not that hard to come up with a few ways that are, at least, consistent.Like, you could just compare it with reality to determine which parts aren't literal.For example, we know that snakes don't talk so that suggests that the story never really happened.Or you could pick some weird random way, but just keep it consistent... like, all the words that begin with a 'W' are allegorical, and all the words that begin with an "M" are literal. That's silly, but that could still be consistent. What could "One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish" be an allegory for? Hrm, I'm not really picking up what you're putting down. What do you mean by literal?Like, Darth Vader was never a real person, we all know that Star Wars is fiction. But, literally, according to the story, he did use a red lightsaber.In the same way, in the Garden of Eden story, the snake literally did talk, but recognizing that doesn't mean accepting that the events in the story actually took place in real life. Are you trying to tell me that when I read that Jesus was the lamb of God, that I should read that as saying that he was literally God's baby sheep?And if I see that as a metaphor then I am nitpicking?'Cause that don't make sense...

And when Jesus offers a parable, would that literally be an allegory?Why can't I be consistent when I see that the parable of the Good Samaritan is an allegory while also accepting that some of the other events that are described actually did happen?Where is the inconsistency in that? See, this is where I'm getting confused.In the story, the snake literally did talk. But that story never happened in real life.So is that taking it literally or not?Usually, when people talk about taking the Bible literally, they mean that they accept that the events did happen in real life.I don't usually see people talking about taking the Bible literally as being reading something as literally happening within the story even though they realize that the events never took place in real life.

Welcome to the fray! So far, so good.Even though you're not crystal clear, and least you're nice and genuine. So which one are you claiming that a Christian cannot be consistent with? Huh? Is there an extra "not" in there?Are you saying that Jesus meant to say that the events in the story of the Good Samaritan actually happened in real life? Jesus said that he would use parables to explain things. The events in the parables are not spoken of as if they ever actually happened in real life. Which "literally"?Here is a list of the parables that Jesus offered:http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/parables.htmAll of them describe events that never actually happened in real life. They are ficticious stories that are designed to explain a message.Now, I suppose you could say that the events in the stories literally happened within those stories, but I don't see any point in bringing that up? That still creeps me out when people say that

You'd be surprised how often us Bible believers do debate the fictional consistency of many of the stories.There's been whole threads on The Flood and the Garden of Eden where us Bible believers, who know that The Flood and GoE never actually happened, had long and drawn out debates on the consistencies within that fiction.Granted, they typically stem from someone who thinks The Flood and the GoE literally happened, but we do go off on tangents with each other and debate the finer points of the fictional consistencies in those stories.