Did you read the whole article, or just the beginning? The article says:
"But contrary to the Hadith interpretation of the Qur?anic verse, and contrary to the translation mentioned above, and to the erroneous interpretation rendered by Abdullah Yussuf Ali, the Qur?an does not deny the death and Crucifixion of Jesus, the Messiah. In fact the Aramaic language of the Qur?an is identical to the story of Crucifixion mentioned in the New Testament."
So, yes: Confirmed in the Qur'an.
Butt you still seem to be artfully dodging the intent of my questions which is HOW do YOU distinguish? And thus is it possible that those things you think "real" today you might think "allegorical" tomorrow?
I've tried to explain that you distinguish by erring on the side of learning. If the writings of the Bible guide you to leading a better life, more loving of your community, more supporting of your peers, more compassionate for those less fortunate, and more in tune with the world around you - then why does it matter which parts are allegorical and which parts are factual? Written by men who were subject to political forces of their time and subject to their own lack of knowledge of some things, it will contain factual errors. Inspired by divinity, it will not contain spiritual errors. It is a manual for life, not a history book.
God is reduced from being the actor, as portrayed in the book to serving in a capacity floating somewhere between irrelevant and vaguely influential.
No. God is portrayed as having created the whole thing from scratch, and embedding in it the narratives of our lives. Embedding within it all that happens. Allowing logical progressions throughout, and including his own acts within. When an author writes a book, most of it flows logically from one page to the next. That's what allows us to read the book and comprehend its contents. However, he is free (if he wants) to have a chapter where a character inexplicably can turn water to wine. By exerting this ability in only one chapter, is the author reduced to irrelevance or vague influence? No. He is the one without whom the whole story would not exist.
And, I might add, the characters who aren't in the book at the very beginning might ask, in character, "Why did it take so long for me to be added to the story?" The answer would be, "Because other parts of the story came first."
I find this:
"13:15. For when Pharao was hardened, and would not let us go, the Lord slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of man to the firstborn of beasts:"
It seems you are unequivocally saying that this is not true. And yet, it would seem, it is the basis for your belief. Thus, you can understand, my puzzlement.
Your puzzlement stems from putting words in my mouth. I never said the passage was unequivocally untrue. I offered an alternative explanation to show that there are different ways to interpret the passage. Did God slay each of the slain himself? Perhaps. To return to my previous analogy, if the author writes a chapter where every firstborn dies, did the author do the killing? Yes. Even if the story shows it being done by other characters? Yes.
I'll grant everything you wrote true or probable ... but if that is what happened then it was nothing but a deception. Hardly the basis for the worship of the Virgin Mary or for the tremendous amount of attention given to her in the Q'ran.
I think you may have missed my meaning. I didn't say that Mary and Joseph committed this act of deception. I don't believe they did. I believe in the virginal birth. However, I can acknowledge the possibility of a deception there. And that is a source of great consternation for me. That is the one pillar of my religion that must not fall. If it was somehow proven that Mary deceived the people around her and that the identity of Christ was a hoax, then it all comes crumbling down. Whether it is fortunate or unfortunate, that can never be proven either way. It is truly a matter of faith. And, like any Christian, I occasionally experience crises of faith. When I do, more often than not it is centered around that very question. It is a very frightening "What if" that I obsess on from time to time.
(How often do you hear a theist reveal to you his weakest point? When I signed up for a membership on this board, it was for the express purpose of discussing science. I didn't intend to being up religion at all. In one thread, I felt I should do so purely in the name of full disclosure when I was explaining one of my thoughts about QM, and somehow that exploded into me explaining a lot of things in great detail that I didn't think anybody here would be interested in. But, when the conversation began to focus on my peculiar brand of theism I promised myself to be completely honest about it. And so I have been. More honest, I think, than most people would have been. That said, I really would be more comfortable if this line of conversation ended soon. I'm here for the science. All the scientists seem to want me here for the theism. And before somebody cleverly points out that I wouldn't be uncomfortable if I "really" believed, let me just invite whoever would say that to first tell us all about their innermost feelings and beliefs and to reveal to us the things that make them most doubt themselves.)
w
