The wheat and the chaff

[Eran of Arcadia]

How so? It uses a lot of unusual imagery, but its message is that Christ is Lord of all - fits the rest.

(Not that that is really the topic of discussion here . . .)

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Bozo, it hurts me to say it but Sidhe is right, you really do seem to be acting deliberately obtuse and as I have said, ignorant of your own Catholic tradition.

You have a Protestant conception in your mind that the Bible is the measure of Christianity and even further that the Bible, a collection multiple books written over hundreds of years by dozens of authors, should be simply interpretable in a literal, common sense, "dur I'm a jackass who has no knowledge of this culture but will somehow understand exactly what the author is saying" kind of way. Whereas as Eran has correctly said that extremely vital though the Bible is, it is not the final authority of Christianity, at least, it was not for a millenium and a half in Christian tradition.

That is to say during the period where Catholicism and Orthodoxy is dominant. In fact in Orthodox countries, where they of course never had a Protestant Reformation they usually find the idea of Sola Scriptura and Biblical Literalism confusing and absurd. The see only the whole of the Church with the Bible being one (admittedly massive) support in the structure.

Lastly I'll leave you with a comment by the Catholic Encyclopedia on such "common-sense" individual interpretation of the Bible.

The early Reformers were wont to claim that the genuine text of the inspired and canonical books is self-sufficient and clear. This contention does not owe its origin to the sixteenth century. The words of Origen (De princip., IV), St. Augustine (De doctr. christ., I-III), and St. Jerome (ad Paulin., ep. liii, 6, 7) show that similar views existed among the sciolists in the early age of the Church. The exegetical results flowing from the supposed clearness of the Bible may be inferred from the fact that one century after the rise of the Reformation Bossuet could give to the world two volumes entitled, "A History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches".

In fact, have a blast and read the entire entry on Biblical Exegesis at the encyclopedia. It go's over a lot info on traditional Catholic styles of interpretation.

P.S. I don't mean to slight Protestants like MobBoss, I'm simply trying to present to Bozo with the limitedness and historically speaking absurdity of his views of what is "Christian". Let's not make this an argument amongst Christians, we need to present a united front against Bozo's misunderstandings.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

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

So far he hasnt delivered a stinging rebuke, I should argue with dead people more often.

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

I always took notes during Rumsfelds press conferences

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?

Im not concerned with Christian orthodoxy so much as Im concerned with honesty. This thread has revealed that a number of those who identify as Christians and who often appear in the Athiests vs Christians thread, actually dont take the Bible much more seriously than the Atheists do. Theyre followers of Christianity-Lite (half the calories of real Christianity, and with none of the required reading). How can people with a straight face claim to belong to a religion who's Holy Book they dont believe in? Its not even a question of having different interpretations of Gods word, they dont see it as Gods word. Its as if people demanded all of the rights and privileges of American citizenship, and then in the next breath, said that the Constitution is unimportant. For a Christian, the Bible should be his Declaration of Independence, his Bill of Rights, the bedrock foundation of his city on the hill. You cant claim to be a Christian if the only part of the Bible you believe in is a few pages in the New Testament. How can you say 'I only really believe in the tip of the spire of the Empire State Building. Everything between the point of the spire and the ground isnt very important.'

 

[MobBoss]

You cant claim to be a Christian if the only part of the Bible you believe in is a few pages in the New Testament.

Which came first...Christ or the New Testament? I think that proves the validity of your statement.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Princeps, why do you keep trying to saddle me with my Catholic tradition? As I keep saying, Im not a Catholic anymore, havent been for a long time. Lets get this out of the way: Princeps youre right about the history of Christian thought, and Im wrong. Except for my exchange with St Augustine, Im talking to Christians today. Why do so many Christians today believe that one can be a Christian and not take the Bible literally, as the word of God? I guess what youre saying is 'Relax Bozo, its no biggie, its always been like that.' That doesnt change anything though. What difference does it make to me if some Christian theolgians 500 years ago were just as wrong headed as the majority of 'Christians' today?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Which came first...Christ or the New Testament? I think that proves the validity of your statement.

Which came first Isaiah or the birth of Christ? To a Christian Isaiah should be required reading and no less valid than the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

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.

Christians have been presented with a book, which is purported to be the Word of God. Gods message for Mankind. At what point does it become acceptable to begin ripping pages and entire chapters out of it, until all youre left with is a pamphlet covering the birth, teachings, death and resurrection of Christ? Please dont get me wrong, if that works for some people, and it gives them a sense of spiritual fullfilment, thats great, I have no problem with it at all. Maybe in this instance Im as concerned with labels as everyone else, because what Im saying is this: if you have two groups of people, one which takes the bible as a whole, in its entirety as being essential to their faith, the holy word of God, and then you have another group of people, who only feel that way about a handfull of pages in the New Testament, these two distinct groups of people cant be called 'Christians'. Because if youre going to call them both Christians, then the word Christian has no real meaning.

edit: there are others to reply to, but my brain is like half melted swiss cheese I'll be back to do battle with the forces of Christianity-Lite

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Princeps, why do you keep trying to saddle me with my Catholic tradition? As I keep saying, Im not a Catholic anymore, havent been for a long time. Lets get this out of the way: Princeps youre right about the history of Christian thought, and Im wrong. Except for my exchange with St Augustine, Im talking to Christians today. Why do so many Christians today believe that one can be a Christian and not take the Bible literally, as the word of God? I guess what youre saying is 'Relax Bozo, its no biggie, its always been like that.' That doesnt change anything though. What difference does it make to me if some Christian theolgians 500 years ago were just as wrong headed as the majority of 'Christians' today?

I'm only trying to "saddle" you with anything to the extent that I'm saying that Christian hermeneutics has never been the simplistic endeavor you are implying. The Bible is in the eyes of most Christian a bunch of stuff. You're implying that we should read a history book the same way we should read Paradies Lost or the same way we should read a book on ethics. This comparison is especially apt because all these genres are in the Bible and more. History, Myth, Ethics, Philosophy, Theology, Biography, Letters. Nobody reads or interprets these types of writing in a uniform way. Did you read the link I gave? It goes into the many methods used in Catholic Biblical Exegesis. The other thing I guess you're not getting is that you have started from a Protestant stand point i.e. "The Bible and the individual's interpretation of it a the best authority for knowing God and his will." Whereas the original Catholic tradition is much wider than that.

From the Catholic viewpoint the Bible has been removed from it's context, that of the Church which forged it, and is now being used to judge that same Church. It's completely backwards.

Nowhere in the Nicene or Apostle's Creed is there anything I can find about "the Bible is the foundation of the entire Faith and so I must interpret all the books in it in the fashion which Bozo Erectus, a "Dumb Pothead" from the 21st century mandates." That doesn't work. From the traditional Christian perspective your interpretation is aimless and ungrounded unless its based on the judgments and tradition of the Church itself. Now I can feel you missing the point again so I'm going to state it again and you can base it on what I've been going on about.

You are measuring Christians, particularly the Orthodox and Catholics, by a ruler they never conceived, let alone pledged themselves too. That ruler being your specific conception of how all the diverse readings in the Bible must be read and how the Bible itself must be viewed. The traditional conception of being Christian was not related to the Bible in any real sense. It was always, as far as I know, based on belief in the creeds and baptism into the Body of Christ.

 

[Sidhe]

How so? It uses a lot of unusual imagery, but its message is that Christ is Lord of all - fits the rest.

(Not that that is really the topic of discussion here . . .)

I side with the Catholics, the Revelation already happened, Nero Caesar was the anti Christ. How can a kajillion Catholics be wrong

Christians have been presented with a book, which is purported to be the Word of God. Gods message for Mankind. At what point does it become acceptable to begin ripping pages and entire chapters out of it, until all youre left with is a pamphlet covering the birth, teachings, death and resurrection of Christ? Please dont get me wrong, if that works for some people, and it gives them a sense of spiritual fullfilment, thats great, I have no problem with it at all. Maybe in this instance Im as concerned with labels as everyone else, because what Im saying is this: if you have two groups of people, one which takes the bible as a whole, in its entirety as being essential to their faith, the holy word of God, and then you have another group of people, who only feel that way about a handfull of pages in the New Testament, these two distinct groups of people cant be called 'Christians'. Because if youre going to call them both Christians, then the word Christian has no real meaning.

edit: there are others to reply to, but my brain is like half melted swiss cheese I'll be back to do battle with the forces of Christianity-Lite

If you ask me it's not so much that you should tear anything out, but that some stuff that got included over other stuff is crap. I think they should tear out the gospels and replace it with The Gospel of the Twelve, being as it agrees with the gospels, it's a single more consistent account and is written in Aramaic and dated to 70 AD.

That'd be great, get rid of the inconsistent books written by x, in some cases hundreds of years after. And put in a text that actually makes sense in context with the other accounts like Corinthians of a spiritual ascendence of Christ not a bodily one, Corinthians is the oldest book in the NT I believe as well. Oh but crap that'd expose all the elisions made by the Nicene councill, damn forgot I spoke, let's bury it in the archives of the Vatican and pretend it doesn't exist, champion

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Because of their parents, cultural reasons, tradition and because they don't have the gutts to join the atheist movment. (we need to give these people a kick in th behind and make them take to the streets)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

There seem to be two issues here:

a) there are people who call themselves Christian who don't go to church, don't believe in any doctrine like the Resurrection, don't base any of their moral beliefs on Christianity. They are dishonest.

b) there are people who call themselves Christian who don't hold the Bible to be 100% literal and inerrant. They are just a different sort of Chrtistian from those who do think that.

So the OP discussed mostly the first, but this thread has become more of a discussion of the second.

 

[Sidhe]

There seem to be two issues here:

a) there are people who call themselves Christian who don't go to church, don't believe in any doctrine like the Resurrection, don't base any of their moral beliefs on Christianity. They are dishonest.

b) there are people who call themselves Christian who don't hold the Bible to be 100% literal and inerrant. They are just a different sort of Chrtistian from those who do think that.

So the OP discussed mostly the first, but this thread has become more of a discussion of the second.

Well A historical tome is just that and should be weighed accordingly, A Christian to me is someone who pays more than a nodding respect to its tradition, they need not take everything literally, but they do need to accept guidance in their beliefs, and proceed according to their personal beliefs within some sort of context.

This is often the way with beliefs, but to say one church is wrong the other right is not healthy and it's also not really what Christianity is about; OK if one Church says that on the seventh day God created a midget and a tennis court and then he went off and smoked a stogie, fair enough that's just silly, but to differ on very slim ecumenical things is nothing, in the context of the similarities of all the Christian faiths.

AS PJP II said it's not the differences that should divide the faiths its the similarities that should bring the faiths together, and that was meant for all Abrahamic faiths; I think he has a point, to try and labour that somehow x has to be true to be y, is little more than semantics IMO opinion and his I think.

 

[Lotus49]

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 don't doubt any of it. And btw, I tend to read my BIble every day. I call myself a Christian because the "Good News", which has been written, and shared orally with untold millions, is the cornerstone of my faith, which in turn is the cornerstone of my being.

 

[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

I hate to have to quote myself, but a lot of these issues are pointed out and explained right here

 

[Quasar1011]

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.

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

If Jesus didn't resurrect, there is no real reason to believe in Him.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

There seem to be two issues here:

a) there are people who call themselves Christian who don't go to church, don't believe in any doctrine like the Resurrection, don't base any of their moral beliefs on Christianity. They are dishonest.

b) there are people who call themselves Christian who don't hold the Bible to be 100% literal and inerrant. They are just a different sort of Chrtistian from those who do think that.

So the OP discussed mostly the first, but this thread has become more of a discussion of the second.

Wich is a pity, because the first issue would be more interesting to discuss IMO. How large part of the western world is really christian? I don't think people from example a) are dishonest, they just haven't questioned what they say and do or why, much in the same way most people don't question any other aspects of their lifes.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

To sum up what seems to be the consensus among our 'neo-Christians', apparently many of you see the Holy Bible as being mostly 'junk DNA', worthless stuff left over from an earlier time that no longer serves a purpose. All that really matters are a few parts of the New Testament. Youd never know it from the discussion here, but there are actually Christians out there who believe that the entire Bible is holy scripture. I guess the thing is its highly unlikely any of those would spend time on an internet game forum.

 

[Turner]

Now, I didn't say that it didn't serve a purpose. I said it was metaphorical, meaning that it was not to be taken as literal truth.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Now, even though I do think that the Bible is somewhat hit-or-miss, I don't really think that it is what defines a Christian. Besides, there is a difference between thinking the Bible is the word of God, even completely, and thinking that it is literal in all things.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Now, I didn't say that it didn't serve a purpose. I said it was metaphorical, meaning that it was not to be taken as literal truth.

I understand, but Im sure you can see where that leads. As soon as one begins making judgements as to which passages are the Word of God, and which are just metaphors, its the beginning of the end. Youve started going down the slippery slope until before you know it, this book which your entire civilization once saw and promoted as Gods message to mankind has been reduced to the status of the tale of Gilgamesh, or something like that. Interesting from a historical or literary point of view, but thats about it. Dont get me wrong, I dont think theres anything wrong with that, people are free to make whatever judgments they want about these things. All Im trying to say is that people who dont believe that the Bible is the word of God should call themselves something other than Christians, in order to differentiate themselves from those who do. According to the majority opinion in this thread, you never even have to crack open a Bible to call yourself Christian. You just need to announce in front of an audience that you accept Christ as your lord and savior.