Pope's call to end Fundamentalism

[danieldemol]

No, that's not how traditional Christianity has seen the bible.

I'm not seeing how your post relates to my statement.

I understand that traditional Christianity does not see the Bible as innerant.

But without innerancy how do you justify things like the virgin birth of Jesus or miracles given that these are most probably a product of hagiography?

In my opinion.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not seeing how your post relates to my statement.

I understand that traditional Christianity does not see the Bible as innerant.

But without innerancy how do you justify things like the virgin birth of Jesus or miracles given that these are most probably a product of hagiography?

In my opinion.

Inerrant implies everything is to be taken literally, not just the main events presented as historical in the NT.

 

[1213]

This speech by the Pope is worth considering.

Pope: Religions must be purified of extremism, self-righteousness - Catholic News Service

Pope Francis said.

“It is time to realize that fundamentalism defiles and corrupts every creed; time for open and compassionate hearts,”

And

“We need religion in order to respond to the thirst for world peace and the thirst for the infinite that dwells in the heart of each man and woman,”

So, will we finally see the breakdown of literal interpretation of scripture, which has been the fundamental cause of the demise and suppression of religion?

I would say to Pope:

Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.
Romans 2:1

It always sounds bad when people get the idea that they must purify. Most of the time it seems to lead to killing of the non-pure people. And in this case Pope is in my opinion doing exactly what he judges others to be guilty.

 

[PruePhillip]

Good for him. It always seems like the more loosely we interpret an ancient holy scripture, the more it becomes compatible with everything humanity has since learned about decency, empathy, and the pragmatic factors that promote human flourishing.

Churches are still good for improving socialization, self-contemplation, and marking life's milestones, which are important for being a happy healthy human. But we can get all of this from kinder interpretations, or even from secular sources. Without all that bronze-age baggage.

We can't 'loosely... interpret' Christianity if we read the life of Christ and his teachings. Pretty much black and white - mercy, love, compassion, fidelity, forgiveness, sacrifice, prayer, giving of oneself to God and others etc.. These are the real things people hate about the bible, not the claims of homophobia, slavery and the like. Thems just excuses to dismiss the life and teachings of Jesus.

 

[PruePhillip]

Inerrant implies everything is to be taken literally, not just the main events presented as historical in the NT.

No one claims the bible is 100% inerrant, no one claims the bible is 0% inerrant - we all chose where on the spectrum we want to be.

 

[exchemist]

No one claims the bible is 100% inerrant, no one claims the bible is 0% inerrant - we all chose where on the spectrum we want to be.

To quote Wiki:
Complete and restricted inerrancy. Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible lacks error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on.[12] Other Christians believe that the scriptures are always right (do not err) only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to humanity.[13]

 

[AlexanderG]

We can't 'loosely... interpret' Christianity if we read the life of Christ and his teachings. Pretty much black and white - mercy, love, compassion, fidelity, forgiveness, sacrifice, prayer, giving of oneself to God and others etc.. These are the real things people hate about the bible, not the claims of homophobia, slavery and the like. Thems just excuses to dismiss the life and teachings of Jesus.

You do understand that every single Christian believes that they personally have the correct interpretation of the bible? And there's no one who can gainsay them, because there is no objective standard to determine which interpretation is correct.

People can interpret the bible however they like. And the choice they settle on says much more about them personally than it does about the scripture.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This speech by the Pope is worth considering.

Pope: Religions must be purified of extremism, self-righteousness - Catholic News Service

Pope Francis said.

“It is time to realize that fundamentalism defiles and corrupts every creed; time for open and compassionate hearts,”

And

“We need religion in order to respond to the thirst for world peace and the thirst for the infinite that dwells in the heart of each man and woman,”

So, will we finally see the breakdown of literal interpretation of scripture, which has been the fundamental cause of the demise and suppression of religion?

Regards Tony

We can hope and pray that Rome will abolish its fundamental belief that priests should remain celibate rather than choosing marriage as an option--and other extreme fundamentalist views.

 

[metis]

Ok....

but how does that fit, "“It is time to realize that fundamentalism defiles and corrupts every creed; time for open and compassionate hearts,”"

How does one = the other?

It depends. If one takes the "my way or the highway" approach, that may well show a lack of objectivity and even respect. It also doesn't well represent reality. Heck, we can't even prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there is a god, let alone claim that there's only one.

Let me give you an example by putting you on the spot : Please provide objective evidence that the Bible is entirely, or even mostly, correct, but the Bhagavad Gita is not. or the Qu'ran.

Belief is all fine & dandy, imo, but we should never assume that just because I believe in something that it must be true.

BTW, I'm still waiting for Santa to deliver all the backlogged presents he owes me!

 

[metis]

Of course the point is that human intelligence should be used to understand what is meant to be taken literally and what is not.

And also to recognize the subjectivity of the source in that scriptures i general were written from a subjective perspective, not an objective perspective. For example, to take the creation accounts (there are 2 with a slight difference between them) literally doesn't make much objective sense with what we know now, but it can make much sense if taken subjectively.

 

[PruePhillip]

You do understand that every single Christian believes that they personally have the correct interpretation of the bible? And there's no one who can gainsay them, because there is no objective standard to determine which interpretation is correct.

People can interpret the bible however they like. And the choice they settle on says much more about them personally than it does about the scripture.

So... how do YOU 'interpret' Jesus turning the other cheek and forgiving those who persecuted him?
How do you 'interpret' his lowliness and meekness?
I can only see it one way. Someone finding excuse, in his name, to honor Christianity IN THE BREACH, can be caught out by asking, 'Would Jesus behave like this?' I don't see room for excuse.
Example - the Crusaders who massacred Jews because Jews were 'Christ killers.' Jesus forgave the real Christ killers. The Crusaders are not merely in 'error' but they face judgement for murder.

 

[PruePhillip]

To quote Wiki:
Complete and restricted inerrancy. Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible lacks error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on.[12] Other Christians believe that the scriptures are always right (do not err) only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to humanity.[13]

So you are left in the above case of being in the ninety nine percenters. You cannot believe two Gospel accounts when they differ, for instance.

 

[Muffled]

This speech by the Pope is worth considering.

Pope: Religions must be purified of extremism, self-righteousness - Catholic News Service

Pope Francis said.

“It is time to realize that fundamentalism defiles and corrupts every creed; time for open and compassionate hearts,”

And

“We need religion in order to respond to the thirst for world peace and the thirst for the infinite that dwells in the heart of each man and woman,”

So, will we finally see the breakdown of literal interpretation of scripture, which has been the fundamental cause of the demise and suppression of religion?

Regards Tony

I do not believe fundamentalism in essence is extreme nor self righteous.

Literal interpretation is not fundamentalism in essence but there is no doubt that not everything in the Bible can be literal. Certainly parables are fictional stories and should not be considered as literally occurring events.

 

[Muffled]

Good for him. It always seems like the more loosely we interpret an ancient holy scripture, the more it becomes compatible with everything humanity has since learned about decency, empathy, and the pragmatic factors that promote human flourishing.

Churches are still good for improving socialization, self-contemplation, and marking life's milestones, which are important for being a happy healthy human. But we can get all of this from kinder interpretations, or even from secular sources. Without all that bronze-age baggage.

I believe you have it backwards. Humanity learned about decency, empathy and flourishing from the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

Personally I see the kinder interpretations still come from all the bronze age bags

I see the elimination of fundamental mindsets will come about from embracing the kinder interpretations, that are the foundation of all the past Faiths.

Scientific advancement is a key to the elimination of a lot of literal interpretation.

Regards Tony

I believe a lot of that is not from a literal view but from a highly interpretive view. For instance a flood that covers the earth can be seen as local or worldwide. The science favors local and context also favors local but people would rather take a higher magnitude view without evidence for it.

 

[PruePhillip]

We can hope and pray that Rome will abolish its fundamental belief that priests should remain celibate rather than choosing marriage as an option--and other extreme fundamentalist views.

It's interesting what is titled 'fundamentalist' changes with the years. I recall when no liberal religious person would condone homosexual marriage. They had denied they would support abortion, divorce, gay marriage, transgender operations etc.. I have no doubt the liberal church will soon condone polygamy and 'recreational drugs' and openly challenge the legitamacy of the bible. Such people are led by the secular world, not the bible.

 

[exchemist]

So you are left in the above case of being in the ninety nine percenters. You cannot believe two Gospel accounts when they differ, for instance.

Inerrantists will tie themselves in knots trying to square such circles.

But I agree it's pretty ridiculous.

 

[PruePhillip]

Inerrantists will tie themselves in knots trying to square such circles.

But I agree it's pretty ridiculous.

Yeah, did BOTH thieves on the cross rail against Jesus, or did one?
Sensible people will state that these accounts are recollections, written years later. If they aligned perfectly, like two crooks being interrogated by the police, then you have to wonder about redactors being involved.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The problem I had was your statement of "So, will we finally see the breakdown of literal interpretation of scripture, which has been the fundamental cause of the demise and suppression of religion?"

How one translated into the statement what the Pope said, I am not sure. Can you help?

"It is time to realize that fundamentalism defiles and corrupts every creed; time for open and compassionate hearts,” the pope said Sept. 14"

All fundamentalism can be traced back to a literal or erroneous interpretation of scriptures, where the actions taken are justified by said scriptures.

"..With the world “plagued by the scourge of war, by a climate of hostility and confrontation, by an inability to step back and hold out a hand to the other,” he said, it is time for religions to purify themselves from evil, particularly the “presumption of feeling self-righteous, with no need to learn anything from anyone.”
“Let us free ourselves of those reductive and destructive notions that offend the name of God by harshness, extremism and forms of fundamentalism, and profane it through hatred, fanaticism and terrorism, disfiguring the image of man as well,” he said.

Again Fundamentalism has its foundations in the literal or erroneous interpretations of scriptures.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think the term fundamentalism applies to theological arrogance, the perpetuation of a "chosen people" attitude within ANY religion.

That would be a sound conclusion.

Regards Tony