Pope's call to end Fundamentalism

[IndigoChild5559]

Roman Catholicism never was about “literal interpretation” as RC is not based only on “scripture. It is also based on a direct connection with the Holy Spirit by each believer.

I suspect you don't understand what literal verses figurative interpretation is. The Bible speaks both figuratively and literally, but some people take it all literally. For example, there are those who think that God creating the world in 6 literal 24 hour days is history, and others who understand that it is a creative teaching story, not history.

 

[CG Didymus]

What is "erroneous" in these "five fundamentals"? And I'd hope you'd say why.

In 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church identified what became known as the five fundamentals:[18]

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus... -- Fundamentalism - Wikipedia

That is a personal choice to decide CG.

Again, what is erroneous about Christians believing in those five things as being fundamental to their beliefs?

Isn't the problem that differences between the religions causes divisions? And some people take their religious beliefs to the extreme? So, what is the solution? Downplay the things within each religion that divide us? And only focus on the things within religion that unite us? To not take one's religion so seriously as to make it a reason to do harm to others? What is it that you expect believers to do? All religions have beliefs that cause divisions.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church identified what became known as the five fundamentals:[18]

• Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus... -- Fundamentalism - Wikipedia

Again, what is erroneous about Christians believing in those five things as being fundamental to their beliefs?

Isn't the problem that differences between the religions causes divisions? And some people take their religious beliefs to the extreme? So, what is the solution? Downplay the things within each religion that divide us? And only focus on the things within religion that unite us? To not take one's religion so seriously as to make it a reason to do harm to others? What is it that you expect believers to do? All religions have beliefs that cause divisions.

Again CG, that is your choice, what I beleive should not the foundation to what you choose to beleive.

The Message in the Bible is the foundation and no man has the right of interpretation and adding what is not written.

In Deuteronomy 4:2 Moses declares, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commands of the Lord your God which I command you."

The Message of Christ can be seen in all the Messengers.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Again CG, that is your choice, what I beleive should not the foundation to what you choose to beleive.

The Message in the Bible is the foundation and no man has the right of interpretation and adding what is not written.

In Deuteronomy 4:2 Moses declares, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commands of the Lord your God which I command you."

The Message of Christ can be seen in all the Messengers.

Regards Tony

But the Bible needs some things to be interpreted. Like when the NT says that Lazarus had died, but Jesus called out to him, and he came back to life. How should we interpret that? Literally or some other way? Like maybe believe that the writers were just making up legends and embellishing the Jesus story to make him a God/man? Would that be wrong to interpret the story that way? But what do we do? Literal interpretations are bad I thought? So, accept it as written, or do as Baha'is do and give it a symbolic interpretation?

Of course, you do. Because I doubt very much that you believe Lazarus was dead and came back to life. Just like you don't believe Jesus came back to life. The interpretation of a symbolic resurrection is important to Baha'is. And, if the Baha'i Faith is true, that interpretation would be the truth, and the literal interpretation of Jesus having come back to life would be the wrong interpretation.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But the Bible needs some things to be interpreted. Like when the NT says that Lazarus had died, but Jesus called out to him, and he came back to life. How should we interpret that? Literally or some other way? Like maybe believe that the writers were just making up legends and embellishing the Jesus story to make him a God/man? Would that be wrong to interpret the story that way? But what do we do? Literal interpretations are bad I thought? So, accept it as written, or do as Baha'is do and give it a symbolic interpretation?

Of course, you do. Because I doubt very much that you believe Lazarus was dead and came back to life. Just like you don't believe Jesus came back to life. The interpretation of a symbolic resurrection is important to Baha'is. And, if the Baha'i Faith is true, that interpretation would be the truth, and the literal interpretation of Jesus having come back to life would be the wrong interpretation.

The importance of those stories are for our spiritual growth as a united people CG.

They help us improve our own selves. Sorry off to work CG.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

The importance of those stories are for our spiritual growth as a united people CG.

They help us improve our own selves. Sorry off to work CG.

Regards Tony

That doesn't help in explaining how they should be interpreted. Going by what you said earlier, we shouldn't read into what it says. And it says Lazarus and Jesus came back to life. I'm more inclined to believe one interpretation which a Baha'i gave me. And that is that scientifically, it's not possible for a dead body to come back to life after three days. Therefore, there must be a symbolic interpretation. I just don't agree with the symbolic interpretation that the Baha'i gave me. For Lazarus, it was something about him not believing in Jesus and was spiritually dead. Then, when he came to believe in Jesus, he become spiritually alive. I don't think that fits the gospel story, though.

The other problem is that back 2000 years ago. no one had that level of scientific knowledge. So, my guess is that the story was told as if true but was very possibly a made-up embellishment based on legends and tradition about the life of Jesus. And, other than for some Christians, what would be wrong with that explanation?

 

[England my lionheart]

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

There’s some irony there,Opus dei?,

 

[pearl]

And it says Lazarus and Jesus came back to life.

Probably best to say Lazarus brought back to physical life, only to die again until final resurrection, while Jesus was 'raised' to new life.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think so, but I still don't understand the line of thinking.

In other words, no matter what the belief system is codified as in the catechism, of the RCC, it doesn't matter because anything goes. almost. Including the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics, getting out of purgatory, maybe (?) going to heaven because then some are declared saints, and so forth. Since there is a likely standard Catholic interpretation of the Bible, doesn't seem to matter about beliefs much. Because anything goes. just about.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think what the Pope is talking about is that we shouldn't kill others just because their religion is different than that of another.

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?

Well, the Pope sometimes declares his resistance to war. Do Catholics listen and so stop killing others they don't know?

 

[YoursTrue]

Probably best to say Lazarus brought back to physical life, only to die again until final resurrection, while Jesus was 'raised' to new life.

Is that what the RCC says, or is that your interpretation of events in the Bible?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That doesn't help in explaining how they should be interpreted. Going by what you said earlier, we shouldn't read into what it says. And it says Lazarus and Jesus came back to life. I'm more inclined to believe one interpretation which a Baha'i gave me. And that is that scientifically, it's not possible for a dead body to come back to life after three days. Therefore, there must be a symbolic interpretation. I just don't agree with the symbolic interpretation that the Baha'i gave me. For Lazarus, it was something about him not believing in Jesus and was spiritually dead. Then, when he came to believe in Jesus, he become spiritually alive. I don't think that fits the gospel story, though.

The other problem is that back 2000 years ago. no one had that level of scientific knowledge. So, my guess is that the story was told as if true but was very possibly a made-up embellishment based on legends and tradition about the life of Jesus. And, other than for some Christians, what would be wrong with that explanation?

Yes, you have your choices to make. Personally I found the Kitab-i-iqan by Baha'u'llah was a sound and true explanation.

All the best CG, change is now unfolding with increased rapidity, so what will it take before we considerour oneness?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There’s some irony there,Opus dei?,

Yes indeed, live the life and find the Light of God from no matter where it shines.

Regards Tony

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes indeed, live the life and find the Light of God from no matter where it shines.

Regards Tony

Perhaps it doesn’t shine from corporal mortification like a cilice

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Perhaps it doesn’t shine from corporal mortification like a cilice

But then it may, as Muhammad and Ali were the Light of God and as Prophecy dictated, they were clothed in sackcloth.

Regards Tony

 

[England my lionheart]

But then it may, as Muhammad and Ali were the Light of God and as Prophecy dictated, they were clothed in sackcloth.

Regards Tony

They were lightweights then,a celice doesn’t itch it’s intentional pain,flagellation is intentional pain which is an old practice in the church to share the pain of the Christ,even today people still practice it like Opus Dei so in light of your OP he’s not really.

 

[CG Didymus]

But then it may, as Muhammad and Ali were the Light of God and as Prophecy dictated, they were clothed in sackcloth.

Regards Tony

That sounds familiar... it wouldn't happen to be based on a Baha'i interpretation of some verses in the Book of Revelation, would it? Oh, and when were Muhammad and Ali wearing sackcloth?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

They were lightweights then,a celice doesn’t itch it’s intentional pain,flagellation is intentional pain which is an old practice in the church to share the pain of the Christ,even today people still practice it like Opus Dei so in light of your OP he’s not really.

I see that practice should now be put aside and changed for a useful service to humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That sounds familiar... it wouldn't happen to be based on a Baha'i interpretation of some verses in the Book of Revelation, would it? Oh, and when were Muhammad and Ali wearing sackcloth?

There is a lot we can consider, about change that is required.

Regards Tony

 

[pearl]

Is that what the RCC says, or is that your interpretation of events in the Bible?

There are also parallels between this story and Luke’s parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus. In both a man named Lazarus dies; in Luke, there is a request that he return to convince his contemporaries of the need for faith and repentance, while in John, Lazarus does return and some believe but others do not. Lazarus is a token of the real life that Jesus dead and raised will give to all who believe in him. It is the longest continuous narrative in John outside of the passion account and is the climax of the signs.