Throwback to an older question

[Pauliesonne]

It's just, I was thinking back to when I was a christian, albeit, a protestant one, when I read the bible it was clear by the writing what was and what was not supposed to be taken as a parable.

Anyway, what I ( ali-g quote ) is asking is what reason people have to presume something something is a parable in the bible when clearly it was not meant to be taken as one.

[Zep]

Throwback to an older answer:























One of its legs is both the same.

[brodski]

It's just, I was thinking back to when I was a christian, albeit, a protestant one, when I read the bible it was clear by the writing what was and what was not supposed to be taken as a parable.

Anyway, what I ( ali-g quote ) is asking is what reason people have to presume something something is a parable in the bible when clearly it was not meant to be taken as one.
because people (with many things) often look for "evidence" to support conclusions which they have already reached. Some parts of the bible clearly are allegory, so it's no great stretch to claim that other parts, which are less obviously allegory (or obviously not in your opinion), are allegory, in order to "prove" a conclusion which you (or your church) have already reached.

[Soapy Sam]

I think the banal answer to the question is history of teaching. There are traditions in religious teaching, which are hammered out periodically by the various religious bodies at pow-wows, where they beat log drums and inhale mushrooms, or snort incense and Claret (select organisation of your choice).
This becomes received wisdom until the next time.
As an Irish Prod you would be exposed to Sunday School teachers , often kids themselves, who recited what they had been told at bible study class that week. This was where my problems with the whole notion first became apparent...