-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians Preferred: Are only Literalists True Christians™?
- Thread starter Heyo
- Start date
It is a form of idolatry, because it places one's ideas and beliefs about truth, as the Truth itself. It elevates one's beliefs as equal to the truth of God. How many times do some ask, "Do you believe in God and the Bible", as if they were co-equals? I see that question posed that way, more times than I could count.
As mentioned by @Hockeycowboy, I don't think that any Christians takes the entire Bible as literal but I think you are talking more about "In the beginning"
Obviously the title "Arkansas inflicts abuse" because the insert Creationism is sensationalist reporting.
There is a broad spectrum of possibilities but I think the essence is simply that we believe God created man as we know him and that mankind didn't "evolve". There is just to little information listed in the Bible which permits multiple possibilities on how it all happened along with different possibilities on time-tables.
So, regardless on how the whole of the earth came into being, I am of the camp that I am not a monkey's uncle but rather created from a real Adam and Eve so, in that sense, I am a literalist.
Do you mean that literally?
Yes of course. That is literally what they are doing. But saying that, is not literalism. That's just stating facts. Literalism on the other hand, does not look at facts.Do you mean that literally?
Heyo
Veteran Member
That wasn't the question. The question was: "do you think of other people, who don't share your literalism but identify as Christian, as fake Christians?"
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorry.
Generally speaking, no, I don't think they are fake. (I'm sure there are always an exception).
But some can be real rascals.Fooled me. And, fortunately, monkey's ain't that ugly.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
IMO, a literalist interpretation of the Creation accounts simply is not even a remotely close match to what we now know about the evolution from the BB to what we have now. Thus, instead, I much more tend to think that they [Genesis 1:1 & 2:4 accounts] were probably written as a response to the earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian creation narratives.
We know that at least some in Israel would have known about the Babylonian accounts as there was a tablet of theirs found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis. At the synagogue I used to belong to, we went through this in a six session analysis based on a series from a archaeologist who's familiar with both.
We know that at least some in Israel would have known about the Babylonian accounts as there was a tablet of theirs found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis. At the synagogue I used to belong to, we went through this in a six session analysis based on a series from a archaeologist who's familiar with both.
If there is too little information listed in the Bible, then why make it a doctrinal belief statement? Why deliberately deny the science, when the Bible contains "too little information" about the subject?
Christians throughout the ages, major figures in Christian history that helped shape and form its history living during its first few centuries, such as Origen, didn't read the Genesis account as literal. And they did not even have the benefit of modern science. Why do modern fundamentalists then read it literally, as if it should be read as literal history and a literal account of origins, as opposed to allegory and metaphor, is the real question.
Can you answer that question for the rest of us? It cannot be because it says so in the Bible, since I don't read that, nor did a number of the early Christian church fathers, reading the same texts as you. What makes your reading true, and the rest wrong?
We are all created by God, and that makes all of us related, whether you accept science or reject it for some reason other than the data. I believe in God, and I embrace science. I believe we are related to other primates, as well as insects, fish, and birds. It says so in Genesis.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Especially when they weren't too "discrete" when we took our young kids to the Detroit Zoo many moons ago. True story, btw.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Then don't
Christians would fire that canon at Iraqi Muslims, then claim to be "fightin' evil" or "fightin' the Axis of Evil."
Has it ever occurred to Christians that they are the evil ones who created war, created torture camps, and have defied God to do so?
Do Christians confuse "worship" and "war ship?"
Does the Pentagon (symbol of killing) sound like a pentagram?
As we argue about evolution and creation, did we lose sight of God's commandments?
Do we spend all of our time studying the bible and no time putting it into action?
Is the bible an old rag...an archaeological oddity that should be ignored or studied by those well versed in ancient artifacts? Or, is the bible an instruction manual for all Christians about how to properly live and how not to harm others?
Christians pick and choose which sections of the bible to believe, and which sections of the bible to follow. They may believe that God doesn't want them to kill, but yet they join the armed forces, and they do kill. They even join as Chaplains and minster to the religious needs of soldiers.
If part of the bible is wrong, then the veracity of the entire bible is called into question. What part is right? What part is wrong?
If the bible is to be taken piecemeal (follow this, but don't follow that), then which piece do we ignore?
A king once criticized Mozart for having "too many notes." "Which one, sire, should I remove?" If he removes a single note, the entire phrase falls. If the phrase falls, the entire piece falls. Is this not true of the bible?
Either God intended us to believe in the whole bible, or intended us not to believe at all.
Yet, it is well known that the bible was written after all of the apostles were dead (probably by divine ESP). Yet, there are errors, either as a result of mis-translation, or as a result of intentional re-writing by offended kings or popes. There are many parts of the bible that are contradictory or wrong.
How, then, can we follow a bible that we know is wrong?
Maybe this is like quantum mechanics? We know that quantum mechanics is a statistical process. Maybe belief in the bible is statistical. We know that some parts are wrong, but we also know that some parts are right. Therefore, statistically, we can be fairly accurate by reading and following the whole bible. Sure, there will be some mistakes, but that makes little difference to the outcome.
That's a good question and I wish there was a simple answer. People are people and no one really has a corner on the market. There was a time when Einstein's theory of relativity was rejected by scientists. Why? Or, at one time eggs were good for you, then eggs were bad for you and now they are good for you... why?
I guess people can get dogmatic on certain areas although no one will deny that gravity is real and we can be dogmatic about it.
Origen, I'm sure you know, had his own interpretation of Genesis 1 being spiritual and Genesis 2 being natural. But when you come right down to it, does he really know too? It remains his interpretation.
The Bible, in my view, isn't a compendium on creation but rather the history of man.
What if there was some literal aspects to it and yet had some metaphorical meaning also? Or metaphorical with some literal information?
No one was there when it all happen so, even in science, there are different theories on creation that people subscribe to and some more dogmatic than others.
Which part of what I have said makes my reading true? (Since I have specified on how creation started)
We are all created by God, and that makes all of us related, whether you accept science or reject it for some reason other than the data. I believe in God, and I embrace science. I believe we are related to other primates, as well as insects, fish, and birds. It says so in Genesis.
Happy that you believe in God and I do accept science for what it has to offer and what it discovers (the universe truly is an amazing creation and there is so much that man has and will discover - as scripture references.)
I agree that we are all creation is created by God. Both Genesis 1 & 2 says that mankind was created from the ground but how the animals were created isn't specified. Science is always correcting itself and has many theories that change from time to time.
So, my position is that we are not related to the animal kingdom. We exercise dominion over those areas and are to take care of those areas.
My advice is to begin with the scripture of History. That is the background for every other kind of knowledge, and it can give you comfort and stability in the storm. The books of the bible fit into a healthy education and are life giving. They are a testimony to peace and to love. History is not all about competition. Its not about breeding or survival or dynasties. Millennia ago someone cared about you, and that is worth finding out about.That is generalizing to too many people, and when Pres. Bush said it he included N. Korea which is not Muslim. He was talking about fascism, not Muslims....I hope. Anyways he is not all Christians and is also not thought to be a great thinker.
Why put these questions to me? I'm not going to condemn Christians. They are not 'The evil ones who created war'.
I point out that the bible is a library not a book. It is a collection of poetry, sayings, anthologies, analogies and stories. It is Ok for one thing to be wrong, such as an argument of Paul's. Its Ok, because you can go "Hey that is wrong."
Maybe God does not intend anything? One of the works in the NT (1Peter) says that the prophets seek to learn the secrets of God in order to reveal them to others. We tend to think God approaches and speaks to prophets, but maybe that is not how things actually work? A man who trusts a prophet has chosen to do so. It sounds to me like God's secrets are not as easy to come by as we'd like, but as with quack medicines and diets we are easily baited into purchasing useless pills sometimes. I don't think Christians are the only ones, and I think History backs me up on this. To say that 'God' wants to believe the whole bible or not sounds like a diet pill gig.
ElishaElijah
Return
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION – A Literal-Historical-Grammatical Approach
Maybe this will help with the confusion on what is meant by literal interpretation of Scripture.
Maybe this will help with the confusion on what is meant by literal interpretation of Scripture.
What it does goes to show, is that literalism was not a part of early Christianity the ways that modern fundamentalists seems to want people to believe it was. There was a lot of diversity back then, and Origin, among others of that time, who considered a literalist reading to be something worthy of ridicule, which is what he was responding to showing how it couldn't be literal.
I agree with you that anything anyone reads from scripture is an interpretation of it. Which is why I will rebuff those who try to prove evolution is wrong based upon their interpretation of Genesis, or the Bible in general.
When it comes to science however, it's demands for supporting evidence is considerably higher than just mere opinions. A "theory" in science, is more accurately understood as a highly supported model based upon strong evidences. Something does not become a theory, if it is a guess or a simple hypothesis. So one cannot be truthful if they try to equate what science says about nature, with how someone reads scripture as being of equal weight or truth. That is a comparison between discussing apples and astronomy. You cannot consider them equals or comparable.
I would say it accurately reflects the human condition through the metaphor of the Garden of Eden. But I would not call it history in the sense of what really happened in history. It's imaginary, yet true. It is not necessary for Adam and Eve to have been literal human beings, in order for the story to be the truth about us.
Do you understand how that can be so, that something can be true in its meaning, while the actual story that carries that message, may be a creative invention designed in order to effectively tell a story that conveys that truth? I am curious to see if you agree with that or not.
Well, that can be true of course. Take for instance the narrative stories about Jesus. I believe Jesus was a real person historically. But stories of him walking on water, are by design, theological truths, to convey meaning. Whether that actually occurred, is beneath the point of its inclusion in the story.
One can derive meaning and truth from the story, while not necessarily believing it literally happened. You can believe it literally happened if you need to find the meaning of it, but it is not necessary for faith to do so however. Others can derive the meaning, while not really believing it literally happened as the story presents it. Rather, we see it as a story to convey great spiritual truths and meanings, through symbolism.
This is unfortunate that you don't have an understanding of how science works at this point, after so long on this forum with such aware members who correct Christians all the time about this. In reality, science was there. They are looking at, examining, testing, the items that literally were there!
That rock is not 5 minutes old. It's 3 million years old, and existed 3 million years ago. They don't speculate, and then call that science. Science and theology, are entirely different things.The way you worded this, is that because of how you read the Bible, evolution cannot be true. That is making a truth claim. Other than your reading of the Bible, why should you dismiss the scientific Theory of Evolution? I can't think of any other reason, other than it challenges your belief in God the way that you hold it. But is that a bad thing? I see that as a good thing, personally, to have our notions about God stretched, modified, and or dropped altogether. That as an exercise, keeps Faith healthy. Can you agree with that, at least in principle?
While there are differences in human beings from the other animals in the world, humans are in fact still animals. We follow the same basic designs as all the rest of the animals, within our classification system. We all have a bilateral body plan, we have a spinal column, a brain, blood, etc, etc. etc. There is no way we are not created from the same stuff. There is no way we are not part of the animal kingdom.
That does not mean, that God did not create us.
As far as "science has many theories that change from time to time", that is untrue. A scientific theory is rigorously supported, and it is extremely rare when they a Scientific Theory is overturned. Again, I am either surprised, or a bit dismayed, that you are unaware of this at this point. Either you missed it, or are simply choosing to ignore it. The former if understandable, the latter is not. I hope it's just the former.
What Do We Mean by “Theory” in Science?.
Even when I was a YEC I didn't believe non-YECs weren't Christians. Geez.
I've heard of "Hyper-Calvinism" (the belief that you have to be a Calvinist to be saved) but Hyper-Creationism? That's a new level.
Who is they?