To those who believe Bible is not literal...

[solja247]

But people do take it literally.

They take it as literally true because they have been brainwashed to believe the bible and its in the bible,
Without any sign that it is not litteral so they accept it as true.
These dumb fuckers are all over you tube. (People like the infamous venomfangx).

This is at least partly because the book is so badly written in ambiguous and poetic language that has, (as you admit) some crazy whacko parts in it.

Those people are dumb. The problem is, people dont want to think, it takes to much effort, so they build their little fort, even if its contray to logic, they will continue to dig a hole. I debated a naturalist once, who claimed that drugs were bad and a healthy diet would get rid of everything, even viruses. They dont care about what is true or not they are usually less inteligent and depend heavily on circular reasoning.

Sol, the whack jobs who take it literally would denounce you as "not a true xtian" for failing to do so.

I would get into a debate with them and show their wasnt really a good idea. Although that would rely on thinking and looking at the Greek and Hewbrew, which is too hard for fundies

---

Todays modern Christians have made most of the bible practically allegorical because taken literally the bible makes no damn sense. I have heard some Christians go as far as saying that Adam and Eve are not real historical characters and that the garden of Eden is not a literal place. But if this is so then why does the bible bother to give Adam a geneology and even tells you how old he was when he died?

You should read N.T Wright's work, its brillant and will answer your questions...

Also the N.T. acknowledges that Adam was a real person as well: 12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Romans 5:12-14

No. Paul was using Adam as a typology, all Jews did believe Adam was a litteral person, but get into Wright's books and you will find these answers, plus a lot more...

[Captain Scarlet]

Your knowledge and understanding is indeed deeply lacking anna.

okay then Let me give you an example, lets say I was a knight from the middle age who served to ecclesiastical court. And I killed many woman becouse I thougth they were witch. But I did this just for the god. What will happen to me?

You were mistaken in thinking that you were doing the will of God, because it clearly goes against Christ's teachings. How did you come to convince yourself of this fallacy? The question of your innocence lies there.

I would happily concede that you have greater insight to me in this. So I tentatively give a response, but...to be fair Frods my personal view is that the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth are not clear. They are infact anything but, just one example:

In Matthew 5:9 Jesus declares, "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God." But in Matthew 10:34 he says, "Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth. I came not to bring peace, but a sword." So much for peace making. To underscore this statement, in the very next verse Jesus makes a truly reprehensible declaration, "For I come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." This passage is repeated practically verbatim in Luke 12:51-53. It should be noted here that in Proverbs 6:16-19 there is a list of the things God hates, one of which is anyone who sows discord within a family!

So that leaves me very confused. If I were a Christian am I to go out and smite people OT style, and piss off the mother-in-law (mmmm beginning to sound attractive this Christianity lark!). Or am I to be a concilliator looking for the good and healing family discord?

[fr0d0]

Are you saying that bible directs you to question your faith??? I am sorry but its just stupid. Faith is not something to be questioned. Thats why you call it faith! You believe something without any evidence. This is faith! As I said before faith is not a rational thing. And bible can't ask for both questioning your beliefs and having faith. These two contradicts with each other...

Faith is trusting information to be true and as such is rational. That information is the evidence that faith is based upon. Not questioning = not caring. I don't believe because I don't question.. I have belief which is supported by questioning. If I didn't question I couldn't be sure what I believed was right. I continually question so what I believe is then the best understanding I can have.

---

I would happily concede that you have greater insight to me in this. So I tentatively give a response, but...to be fair Frods my personal view is that the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth are not clear. They are infact anything but, just one example:

In Matthew 5:9 Jesus declares, "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God." But in Matthew 10:34 he says, "Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth. I came not to bring peace, but a sword." So much for peace making. To underscore this statement, in the very next verse Jesus makes a truly reprehensible declaration, "For I come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." This passage is repeated practically verbatim in Luke 12:51-53. It should be noted here that in Proverbs 6:16-19 there is a list of the things God hates, one of which is anyone who sows discord within a family!

So that leaves me very confused. If I were a Christian am I to go out and smite people OT style, and piss off the mother-in-law (mmmm beginning to sound attractive this Christianity lark!). Or am I to be a concilliator looking for the good and healing family discord?

Yes. Two different subjects. Firstly: People who strive for peace are indeed to be revered. Relationships are precious. Secondly: the reality of belief is that you will be alienated, potentially, even from family. It's a statement about the real consequences of strongly adopting the stance.

[annatar]

Faith:Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
I thought this was the right deffinition of faith.. I may be wrong though since english is not my native tongue.
-You believe that we should not take bible literally. Becouse you have faith in god's existance and if bible were literal It couldn't be god's words.
-And your faith in god based on bible.
-And you believe bible is true becouse its illiteral.
Its kind of a circular logic. Well.. it is circular logic...

[Minimalist]

Quote:Sol, the whack jobs who take it literally would denounce you as "not a true xtian" for failing to do so.


I would get into a debate with them and show their wasnt really a good idea. Although that would rely on thinking and looking at the Greek and Hewbrew, which is too hard for fundies

Go for it.


Allow me to introduce you to Godschild. He should do.




The rest of us will sit back and watch.

[Captain Scarlet]

This is the heart of the problem whether you are a literalist or not, the whole thing is open to interpretation. If this was the work of a god and it had bothered to author something and or inspire authorship, then you would have expected to see a reduction in religious confusion. Instead we have the opposite.

[Paul the Human]

Faith is trusting information to be true and as such is rational.

That's some funny shit right there.

[Minimalist]

Faith is trusting information to be true and as such is rational.

That's some funny shit right there.

Er...I think he was smoking some funny shit, right there!

[fr0d0]

Faith:Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
I thought this was the right deffinition of faith.. I may be wrong though since english is not my native tongue.

Faith: Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

[chatpilot]

Shame then there's the other version of events that completely blows a hole in all of that. If you research the historicity of the text and the way it was written I think it's a long stretch to conclude that a literal interpretation fits.

Here is a quote from a well known Rabbi on the subject of the literal days of creation: "Our mesorah insists that the six days of Creation, counting from the first creative act, were six literal days.4 One cannot insert the evolutionary explanation into the p’sukim by claiming that the days were actually billions of years. Even the idea that Creation was anything less than a totally miraculous process, not conducted through natural processes at all, ─accelerated” or otherwise─is rejected by the Maharal "

Read it for yourself at http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/2010/01/to...ation.html

Now who would you rather trust an interpretation from someone who is interpreting from the sources written in their own language or from some modern Christian moron trying to make the bibles version fit with what modern science has shown to be completely erroneous?