We rationalists find the putative biblical metaphors blaspheme reason and -humanity! Michael Ruse harms the cause of rationalism with his saccharine accommodationist to Christ-insanity with claiming that, why, yes , Christians can use science to affirm their beliefs. Yet, as the previous article observes, the metaphors do not reflect reality. Why then would any rational person even try to find those life-enhancing metaphors for the hope that ahughty John Haught claims reverberates in the Bible?
No good metaphor can explain the Deluge: the real metaphor stands for might is right!
We can find excellent metaphors elsewhere. Why, Aesop's Fables enlighten us.
Why would any rational person find Yahweh's irrational outbursts of any sue for a food metaphors? That egregious anthology reflects the misanthropes who wrote it. As the author notes, in effect, Why would any rational person care fro their barbarism?
We need no God to underwrite morality and to punish erratically.
Neither Yahweh nor Allah or Ormazd exist .
We rationalist s have the duty then to mock all that effect of superstition!
No errantist can defend that anthology as having any divine verbiage anyway. Why then assume that other scriptures aren't just as authoritative? But,no, inclusivists who allege such, gloss over the differences with their reverence of the Holy. No rational person should think that any God had anything to do with any scriptures.
It behooves errantists-non-literalists- then to face the facts: no divine inspiration and hope and a utter s and an utter disregard of truth inheres in that work. They then are so oburate that they blaspheme themselves!
And why would any rational person expect other scriptures to have any relevance?