The wheat and the chaff

[Bozo Erectus]

Bozo I dont have much time, but you really need to look into the history of your family's faith. Catholicism specifically has never advocated for a literal reading of every passage in the Bible. Never. It's a completely, sectarian, Protestant innovation.

To say that if someone doesn't believe certain passages are literally true that they don't believe other purposes or points contained within it seems obtuse. Have you much education on oral Hebrew literary style? Are you a Bible scholar? I'm not being confrontational I'm just saying the "common sense literal ideal" of Biblical exegesis is incredibly ill-informed and detached from the reality of the book's context.

So youre with Eran on this one. Youre saying that Christianity was never meant to be taken literally?

Now as an American it hurts me to say that because that style of exegesis is distinctly American but its the truth damnit. Anyway gotta go.

Yeah, and as another American, it really hurts me to be hit with words like exegesis.

Edit: And I just noticed you said the Bible is the basis of the faith. You play it up a great deal, but from a Catholic point of view it is the Church which is the basis of the faith. The Church made the Bible, not the other way round. If I may say so, you seem to misunderstand a lot of your "home faith".

You seem to be mistakenly thinking that Im speaking as a Catholic. I havent been a Catholic longer than most of you have been on this planet. Except for Mobboss, he's very old.

 

[MobBoss]

So youre with Eran on this one. Youre saying that Christianity was never meant to be taken literally?

I think we are merely talking semantics here. I mean in your exodus example we can literally say that God delivered the Hebrews from the Egyptians. The details are just semantics. What does it matter that we argue HOW God did it - isnt it enough that he did?

I am saying for the most part Gods word is literal, but it doesnt necessarily fall into our definition of what literal is. When Jesus gives a parable, there is a literal truth underlying it, although the parable itself isnt literal.

You seem to be mistakenly thinking that Im speaking as a Catholic. I havent been a Catholic longer than most of you have been on this planet. Except for Mobboss, he's very old.

Only comparatively.

 

[Dr Alimentado]

Dr, before the Enlightenment, the people who called themselves Christians believed that the Bible was the literal revealed Word of God.

Nope; (from wiki - but this quotes Augustine directly)

Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. In an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early 5th century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

Of course there are a lot of christians through history; not all will agree

Religion isnt a democracy. You cant on the one hand say that holy scriptures, the basis of your faith, are the living word of god, and then say next that youre going to pick and choose which of those words youre going to believe. Its everything or nothing. If its not everything, then you need a new religion. Thats where we are in the West, an interfaith period. The new faith hasnt arrived yet, or isnt recognized yet.

Religion may not be a democracy, but it is neither a strictly defined system. You might think that christianity isn't christian enough but what does it matter if they don't fit your label? In actual fact christianity (or rather the many diverse types of christianity that exist today) like any other belief system is constantly evolving; adapting and reacting to the world around it. It always has been too. The idea you are promoting that christianity is a monolithic static system and has been for 2000 years is demonstrably wrong.

Sure there are some christians that nowadays believe in the literal word of god, there are many more that have a different interpretation. Why are you pushing the fundamentalist agenda that only a literal christian is a true christian?

 

[Sidhe]

Bozo I think your being deliberately obtuse, the fact is in certain passages they are parables, not meant to be taken literally, in others they are Chinese whispers, we know better now, or at least Christians do.

What your trying to do is say that religion is an absolute, either A=believe everything or B=discount anything. It doesn't work that way, no belief system does, no philosophy and no science.

Of course the logic of picking and chosing is subject to criticism and believe me it's not very logical, often it's arbitrary and it depends on some x's interpritation, but this doesn't make some fudgefart more right than anyone else, or the Nicene council the absolute authority; they elided text, it's proven; the Catholic church turned Christianity form a pacifist religion to a warmonger, men are stupid, men are politically driven.

The Bible is a book, and like any historical text, it's never going to be 100% accurate, those who believe so are delusional.

 

[ybbor]

When Jesus is telling us a parable, its very clear. When he is speaking the Word as God incarnate, its also quite clear. A real Christian wouldnt say, 'well since Jesus used a parable over here, Im going to just go ahead and take the whole Bible as a parable and not take it literally.'

Well I must heartily agree with you Bozo (with your thread as a whole, not just the above quotation). A religion of a selective interpretation is no religion at all. You aren't following God, you're following exactly what you want to believe, the Bible is simply there to justify decisions you've already made.

Here's a good example: II Corinthians 6:14-18, especially focusing on the first sentence of 6:14.

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.

Now, literally, I guess one could interpret this not to be placed in an ox's literal yoke with a nonbeliever. I hope you won't count me as an atheist if I attempt to search for meaning beyond this Bozo.

But Generally, most religious teachers interpret this as a sign of not closely associating with non-believers to the point that it "corrupts" (if you'll forgive the harsh term) your value system. This is usually applied to marriage.

The danger comes, in interpreting that interpretation as a metaphor. They already made the decision that they want to marry a non-believer, so they decide what Paul really meant was that you could marry a non-believer if you really wanted to, as long as you're careful not to be "corrupted" (again, forgive the term). As if spending the rest of your life with someone proposes no serious threat to your value system.

That last interpretation completely disregards any "metaphor" that was in the book in the first place, because clearly the part about "Do not" was meant to be liberally "interpreted." I think the passage is a great illustration of where one can take the passage both too literally, and too liberally. Generally it's best to err on the side of a literal ox's yoke, than a Paul who's not really recommending anything at all.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You dont really believe Jesus rose from the dead, or any of the miracles associated with him.
<heavy snipping for the sake of the soul of wit>

How about if I not only believe in these miracles, but I believe that I've done miracles myself?

they elided text, it's proven

What's "elided"?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I think we are merely talking semantics here. I mean in your exodus example we can literally say that God delivered the Hebrews from the Egyptians. The details are just semantics. What does it matter that we argue HOW God did it - isnt it enough that he did?

Mob, so let me mke sure Im clear on this: when the bible states that God parted the Red Sea in order to allow the Hebrews to escape, its not true?

When Jesus gives a parable, there is a literal truth underlying it, although the parable itself isnt literal.

Ok that we agree on.

Only comparatively.

Yep, thats why compared to you, Im young. Hey I discovered a regular poster whos a couple of years older than me, I aint letting go of that!

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

Let me get this straight 'Saint' Augustine. Youre saying that its ruinious for a Christian to be caught believing the Bible? Because non Christians will laugh at him? Better fasten your seatbelt 'Saint', because its precisely that sort of complete crap thats going to drive away half the world from your brand of Christianity in few hundred years.

In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19&#8211;20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

A Christian shouldnt speak too rashly about the bibles truth? Do you even hear what youre saying Augie??

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures.

So already, in the 5th century, youve begun to peel Christianity away from the bible. How do you possibly expect anyone to be a true practicing Christian in the 21st century if they can use your stale old nonsense as a figleaf that allows them to disbelieve the holy scriptures of the Christian faith, and still call themselves Christians?

In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

Oh man, thats precious. God purposely lied to mankind, because he didnt think the truth of the world was any of their business? 'Saint' I'll ask you the same question Ive been asking people in the 21st century: why didnt you just come up with your own religion, if you decided not to believe the Bible, and stopped being a Christian?

Bozo I think your being deliberately obtuse, the fact is in certain passages they are parables, not meant to be taken literally, in others they are Chinese whispers, we know better now, or at least Christians do.

Im not the one being obtuse here Sid. I think Ive explained why although parables are used as teaching tools in the bible, that doesnt mean that the bible as a whole is one.

What your trying to do is say that religion is an absolute, either A=believe everything or B=discount anything. It doesn't work that way, no belief system does, no philosophy and no science.

I know that absolutes are currently out of fashion. But God is absolute, and presumably, so should his word be absolute.

Of course the logic of picking and chosing is subject to criticism and believe me it's not very logical, often it's arbitrary and it depends on some x's interpritation, but this doesn't make some fudgefart more right than anyone else, or the Nicene council the absolute authority; they elided text, it's proven; the Catholic church turned Christianity form a pacifist religion to a warmonger, men are stupid, men are politically driven.

I know, thats why if youre a Christian you try and find truth in the pages of the bible not in the words and opinions of other men.

The Bible is a book, and like any historical text, it's never going to be 100&#37; accurate, those who believe so are delusional.

Those who believe so are CHRISTIANS. You and I may feel that theyre delusional but thats completely irrelevant, or should be.

@Ybbor, thank you! Finally a Christian who understand where Im coming from appears Yes exactly, if one is going to call himself a Christian, then he should err on the side of literal belief in the Bible, not on the side of whatever popular public opinion happens to be in the century he happens to find himself in.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Religion may not be a democracy, but it is neither a strictly defined system. You might think that christianity isn't christian enough but what does it matter if they don't fit your label? In actual fact christianity (or rather the many diverse types of christianity that exist today) like any other belief system is constantly evolving; adapting and reacting to the world around it. It always has been too. The idea you are promoting that christianity is a monolithic static system and has been for 2000 years is demonstrably wrong.

Maybe Im wrong about that, but Im not wrong when I say it should be. I think its better to discard a religion that you dont believe in and find a new one that you can believe in. Nobody likes a hypocrite, particularly God

Sure there are some christians that nowadays believe in the literal word of god, there are many more that have a different interpretation. Why are you pushing the fundamentalist agenda that only a literal christian is a true christian?

Because its what I believe, obviously. (btw, let me state once again for the record in case anyone is confused by my last few posts: Im not a Christian)

 

[Dr Alimentado]

LOL, I love the fact that you are arguing the point with St Augustine

"but Im not wrong when I say it should be"; This also makes me

I know you're not a Christian, which is why this is so funny. (and why I asked)

Why do you believe this though? It feels like you want to make all christians fundys or non-believers; to what purpose? Just as an intellectual exercise in how-the-world-should-be according to your own internal logic?

 

[Sidhe]

What's "elided"?

Suppressed, or ignored.

And I don't know why your clapping Ybor, this sort of literalism is pointless and leads to delusion. I can see what your saying, I just think your playing semantics with beliefs, and you must know it's futile. It's like saying any historical tome is absolute and not subject to interpretation, it is just not going to happen; he may be right if your a delusional fool and you'd believe him, but texts have never been absolute and to say so is sophistry.

Just accept the fact that, history is not inviolate any more than it is always wrong. To me it's obvious, but if you want to spend five pages expressing the obvious, by all means go for it. To me it's just a semantic game. But then I'm not religious and I can accept the historical tome as sometimes in error, and man as sometimes in error in it's interpretation, just as I do any historical work. It's quite obvious.

As a historian you look for other sources, if they are found you use them to look at the original source an judge each source on it's level of accuracy in context, as a religious person, you don't have the freedom to do this, thus religious people aren't the best theologians. As you can probably guess the best theologians or historians are areligious and therefore without bias.

 

[MobBoss]

Mob, so let me mke sure Im clear on this: when the bible states that God parted the Red Sea in order to allow the Hebrews to escape, its not true?

My answer is yes, its true God parted it. How he parted it is certainly up for debate.

 

[CCA]

You dont really believe in the story of Genesis.

You dont really believe Moses parted the Red Sea, or made a stick turn into a snake.

You dont really believe Jesus rose from the dead, or any of the miracles associated with him.

In fact, not only do you not really believe anything in the Bible, youve never actually even read it. Furthermore, assuming it hasnt been years since you stepped inside of a church, chances are you only go on Easter and Christmas, or when a new baby in the family is getting baptized, or someone is getting married.

So honestly, why do you call yourself a Christian?

Don't have to

Don't have to

I do believe.

I go to church every sunday and sometimes on tuesday(twice!). I read the Bible for the bits where Jesus attacks the Rich and promises salvation to the Poor.

Because I am

 

[Nylan]

On the subject of the literal-metaphorical debate, whether you interperet scripture one way or another isn't what makes you a Christian. What makes you a Christian is, as was stated earlier, a belief and acceptance of Christ as your Savior, and a genuine desire to obey his commandments

Certainly there is no law that says "you must believe so-and-so to be a Christian" (although part of that may be because I feel the Council of Nicea did not have the authority to make such decisions)

but if you love someone you are going to want to do what they ask of you, right? You're going to trust them, right? Will you believe them?

Therefore, a true Christian will believe the word of God to be just that: The word of God


regardless as to what they interperet it as meaning (it doesn't make them less righteous, they may just not understand God's word accurately. They're doing the best they can with their given information)

but that's also why I believe a restoration of God's true gospel was necessary...and that's going off on a tangent

 

[Elrohir]

From my understanding, being a Christian means you accept Christ as your savior and that he died for your sins. Genesis is not a part of it. Neither is Moses. For that matter, even ressurection is optional.... just the fact that he died for your sins.

Of course, it's been many moons since I was last in a church or seriously discussed religion outside of the internet, so I could be a bit off on the whole ressurection bit.

It's generally accepted by most denominations that you have to believe in a physical resurrection of Christ in order to truly be a Christian. There are probably some liberal denominations that disagree - Unitarians, for instance, but they aren't really Christians, anyway. (Many don't even call themselves Christians anymore)

So youre with Eran on this one. Youre saying that Christianity was never meant to be taken literally?

I've never met anyone who believed the entire Bible was meant to be taken 100% literally. There are certain core beliefs, such as the existence of God, and the death and resurrection of Christ that are essential to salvation - and if you don't ascribe to them, you aren't a Christian. But whether you think violence is justified sometimes, or never, or whether God created the world in 7 literal days or over billions of years is only somewhat important, and actual, good Christians can have varying views on both of those issues.

 

[Irish Caesar]

You dont really believe in the story of Genesis.

You dont really believe Moses parted the Red Sea, or made a stick turn into a snake.

You dont really believe Jesus rose from the dead, or any of the miracles associated with him.

In fact, not only do you not really believe anything in the Bible, youve never actually even read it. Furthermore, assuming it hasnt been years since you stepped inside of a church, chances are you only go on Easter and Christmas, or when a new baby in the family is getting baptized, or someone is getting married.

So honestly, why do you call yourself a Christian?

I absolutely believe Jesus rose from the dead, and I've read the Bible cover to cover. But I'd be a bit concerned if anyone were to take every word in the Bible as literal fact. Of course Genesis isn't all literal, and it's not all historical fact, but that doesn't make it not true.

I'm a bit curious, Bozo, why you ask this question as if you alone can define what it is to be Christian. I'm curious why if Jesus spoke to his followers in parables, it makes no sense that his Father might so the same.

I certainly don't want to fit your definition of a Christian, which appears to be a Bible literalist who abandons all reason; I think it's an awful lot more Christian to try to follow Christ's teaching and example and use the reason that God gave us to try and see the world and understand it.

Am I not a Christian because I study nuclear engineering despite no verse in the Bible saying, "And yea, did the LORD speak to the earth and say 'Let uranium 235 be fissile,' and it absorbed thermal netrons and emitted 200 MeV, and the LORD saw that it was good."?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The Bible is not and never has been, really, the basis of Christianity. Christ is. Even if four particular authors happened to get a lot of details wrong on him, doesn't mean anything. The idea that the Bible is the real basis of Christianity is a rather modern idea.

 

[classical_hero]

From my understanding, being a Christian means you accept Christ as your savior and that he died for your sins. Genesis is not a part of it. Neither is Moses. For that matter, even resurrection is optional.... just the fact that he died for your sins.

Of course, it's been many moons since I was last in a church or seriously discussed religion outside of the internet, so I could be a bit off on the whole resurrection bit.

The reusrrection is vitally important to the Christian faith. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then his death was in vain.
1 Corinthians 15:12-19 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Clearly it is very important that Christ rose from the dead since is what makes Christianity powerful.

Romans 1:3-4 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

I've heard Christians lament that the term Christian is being used as another word for 'good person', when it should actually refer to someone who believes in the whole shebang of Christianity.

That is the problem with most words that are used today, as they have lost all meaning from what they once meant. Unfortunately just about anyone who says they are Christian are considered to be one, without even having a standard that one would consider to be what a Christian should be.

A person who tries his or her best to live by Christian values whatever they are, I'm pretty harshly discriminatory on what constitutes a Christian, as I said going to church doesn't make you a Christian.

On this web site I'd say

Katheryn

Mob Boss

Civ General

Erin of Arcadia, Matt Brown etc

Elrohir

Quasar(although that guy is scarey , no offence)

And a few others who seem to make Christianity more about saying the word and paying lip service.

These are what I would call proper Christians, amongst others who I can't recall atm.

I can't believe you left me out.

Why do I call myself a Christian?

Because I can't resign from church, and my mum is Christian so the law says that I'm Christian.

That is a totally wrong definition of being a Christian. No one is ever born a Christian, but instead you must be born again.
John 3:3-12Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Also verse 12 is a good explanation of the Parables. Jesus often told Parable to give a story about heavenly a way for us to understand them by giving us a story about things on earth. If we cannot understand the meaning of the Parables, then how one earth (pardon the pun,) are you going to understand something that it spiritual?

Oh of course, duh!

Yes thats what Im saying. Tell me if this makes any sense:

Is this your religion?

Yes.

Ok. Do you believe this passage?

No.

This one?

No.

This one?

No.

This one?

No.

This one?

No.

This one?

No.

This one?

No.

(two hours later)

And finally, how about this passage?

Nope.

Is this your religion?

Yes.

Unfortunately too many "Christians" are like that. I really do not see how they could even say they belong to a particular religion without understand something about that religions holy book.

The Bible is not and never has been, really, the basis of Christianity. Christ is. Even if four particular authors happened to get a lot of details wrong on him, doesn't mean anything. The idea that the Bible is the real basis of Christianity is a rather modern idea.

That is the weirdest thing I have ever heard. I would like to see where people get their information about Christ if not from the Bible. Even Jesus said that the Bible is very important and that he is the theme of the Bible.

John 5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, why do you trust the Bible?

Bear in mind that at least the first generation or so of Christians didn't even have a New Testament, and at the time that Jesus made that quote in John it didn't exist.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

classical_hero@ According to the law I am Christian. I don't feel like a Christian, but I am one.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But the New Testament is about Jesus Christ. How can one be 'redeemed through Christ' if he believes the New Testament is superfluous?

The Gospels are about Christ, not the whole new testament. Pretty much the rest, after the first four books is repercussions around the Mediterranean after Jesus' death. Except for that weird book we call Revelation. I peronally think St. John was kinda nutty, because this book goes against the whole rest of the Bible.