Have we done this yet? Warning: Religious content

Cougar – Moderator

Difference is, he never claimed to, nor did any of his readers.

But Christians don’t claim literal truth for everything in the Bible either. Of course there are claims that need to be true, such as the actual life of a man called Jesus, but beyond that, details such as the Resurrection are matters of faith.

The Bible isn’t literally true, apart from the bits that are? How can you tell the difference?

Why does Jesus need to be true? If we applied the same allegorical logic against the entire thing (and other than tradition, why can’t / wouldn’t we?) then both sides might actually get somewhere.

Sadly, you probably would.

IS are just another bunch of brutal ideologues using religion as a justification for their actions. History is littered with incidences of groups of people using their strength to dominate and massacre others, sometimes religion is the justification, often it isn’t. The Nazis, Khmer Rouge and Stalin all committed genocide, they just replaced religion with another ideology. The Rwandan massacre was tribal.

It is too easy to blame the actions of some on the beliefs of many.

True.

“For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities.” – E. Hoffer

He’s so quotable 😀

Christians don’t claim literal truth for everything in the Bible either.

You used to though till even you knew it was wring and indefensible

Numbers 31:7-18New International Version (NIV)

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Is this true then ?
What is the moral here then ?

But Christians don’t claim literal truth for everything in the Bible either

Oh I think you’ll find a subset who do.

The Bible isn’t literally true, apart from the bits that are? How can you tell the difference?

It makes no sense to claim this but it is the latest attempt as some parts are indefensible
for example

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”[1]
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

When i studies theology what I realised was that even if you accept that god is true the message is still utterly inconsistent. This is what is being exhibited here with the it is true it is not true argument

Is it not a bit crap having an inscrutable message from a god? How does god tell you what to do then? Its like “through a glass darkly” – it means believers cannot explain why god does stuff or why the bible and facts dont match so you dont even try. Its straw clutching

God does not ‘tell you what to do’. To a believer, the language of God infuses all that is. That language speaks of beauty, symmetry, love, etc. When that language is misappropriated, then we end up with the opposite of those things. A great deal of what appears in the Old Testament records the development of a nation (that of the Israelites). As we would expect across any antique society, there was any combination of injustice, death, cruelty, etc., among them. The OT records these things, and sometimes comments on them, and sometimes condemns them. And some of what it recounts is mythological in the same way that the Gilgamesh Epic or the Iliad is mythological. I am no OT scholar, but that is the reality of the text. You are right: it is like seeing through a glass darkly (nice citation of St Paul, BTW); that’s why we have a history of religious teachers such as rabbis to read the stuff and interpret it.

Shakespeare is a work of fiction but even still if he did not get his message across he has still failed.
When god says homosexuality is an abomination and they should be killed – it is not poetry nor metaphor nor vague. Its just you dont want to talk about those bits

I disagree that Shakespeare is fiction. His work is poetry. Poetry is about very real human experience; that it is not written as an empirical textbook does not make it less true.

You used to though

Some still do, of course. “Christians do / don’t believe…” well, anything, frankly, is a generalisation. There are so many different denominations, and inside that everyone holds their own personal view (in the more liberal strains anyway), that such blanket statements are nonsensical.

I disagree that Shakespeare is fiction. His work is poetry.

I don’t recall ever going into a library and seeing “fiction,” “non-fiction” and “other” sections.

You either take the bible as the word of god or throw it away as a made up myth. It cannot be both and we now argue about which bits are the “real” bits and which bits just non literal stories.

Sort of agree or disagrre,can’t really decide ! The Bible and all religious texts for that matter were written ,edited ,compiled and interpreted by humans( some of whom claimed to have been spoken to by god)usally from oral traditions a long time ago then translated and amended throughout the ages.So it is consequently filled with all the flaws that inevitably come from that.Yes there are some eternal human truths in there (same with Shakespeare),allegorical truths and even “relative truths”,now debunked as well as lots of nonsense and now discredited interpretations of history and evolution.
If there is a god why does he need a book when he’s got the universe(s)?
It’s people who need the books.

nice citation of St Paul, BTW

Every now and again I like to come over as informed 😉

Can i also say as I rarely do on these threads IMHO religious people tend to be trying to live to an ideal that is very hard to adhere to. They tend to be amongst the nicest people on the planet and they are capable of things I could never even contemplate – immense acts of compassion and forgiveness for example

You are till wrong though.

You used to though till even you knew it was wring and indefensible

What I am trying to say is that, no, this assertion is not accurate. I am sure that there have always been Christians who have read the Bible literally, but they are not, nor have they ever been the mainstream.

I am not saying I always know what to make of all the texts you cite. But the implication inherent in your qualms with various passages is that each word and passage is equivalent in weight with every other word and passage just because it appears in the Bible. I cannot stress strongly enough that this is NOT the case, nor has it ever been. If it was, the Church would have shaped her doctrines in a very different way to what she has.

If I were to lay out the ‘important passages’ in the OT for mainstream Christian theology (read: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.), I would probably include (off the top of my head) the Creation, the Exodus, the Babylonian captivity, the Wisdom Literature (eg. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes).

Also, judging by some of the posts in this thread I reckon some of Hoffers books should be required reading for some of the posters on here.

it’s only in recent times where we’ve gained a better understanding of the world and the universe that we’ve had this “allegory” back-pedal.

It can’t have been a back pedal because the bike hadn’t been invented, Augustine was suggesting a non literal reading of Genesis and he died at the beginning of the 5th century.

It can’t have been a back pedal because the bike hadn’t been invented, Augustine was suggesting a non literal reading of Genesis and he died at the beginning of the 5th century.

You amuse me, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Carry on.

aaaaaannnyways, this has gone on long enough, anyone fancy a pint?
😆

but they are not, nor have they ever been the mainstream.

Are you sure about that? I’m not.

I cannot stress strongly enough that this is NOT the case, nor has it ever been.

But it’s the word of god?

I’m with you that in modern times you’re almost certainly correct. But I’m reasonably certain – no, I have faith – that this was not it’s original intention and not how it’s been presented by churches throughout history. People weren’t persecuted (excommunicated or worse) by the church for daring to disagree with allegories. How can we have the crime of heresy if the bible is allegorical?

Shhh!

Junkyard, the fact that you keep going on about explanations for the existence of the universe and life tells me that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are successfully criticising what you imagine religion to be, but that’s not what it really is. People keep saying ‘I don’t understand X and Y about religious people’ but then go on to assume that because you don’t understand how they can believe it then they must be idiots. But you are being the idiot by assuming your point of view is the only valid one.

I think I am right in saying that for most Christians their faith is not a theory on the origin of the universe. So arguing about the lack of robust evidence for creationism is pointless.

And Christianity is not the bible. Why do you think there are four different gospels in it? It is a collection of writings by different people, everyone knows this. So why should any reader not form an opinion on each bit? This is after all the point of Protestantism afaik, which is a fairly popular movement. You are criticising Christians for not believing the whole bible literally, but why? You are in no position to do that.

Cougar – I don’t think biblical inerrancy has been insisted upon throughout Christian history. Read up on it.

the implication inherent in your qualms with various passages is that each word and passage is equivalent in weight with every other word and passage just because it appears in the Bible

if the bible says the lord said this and the lord says that then you have two options
1. accept it
2. reject it
I dont think you can do both depending on what you think tbh.
If you do the then you explicitly accept parts of the bible are fiction/not true.
That is the way of the atheist not the believer
You then also have to discuss what bits are true and what bits are false and , even as atheist, that is unknowable. What is the point of the bible then – another test ?

it’s only in recent times where we’ve gained a better understanding of the world and the universe that we’ve had this “allegory” back-pedal.

Do you actually know this or is it simply an assumption?

Do you know it isn’t?

miketually, I can not stress enough that the Evangelical Alliance is not, nor has it ever been, considered part of the mainstream Christian tradition. In saying this, I am not trying to obfuscate or avoid what you are querying, but the Evangelical Alliance, along with many denominations such as various Pentecostal groups, Evangelical Free, different Baptist groups: while a few of them find their roots in the Radical Reformation, they all take their approach to Scripture from 19th century American fundamentalism. They have a strong voice because of the American religious landscape which has been so affected by them, but otherwise we would hardly hear about them. And of course, they have found some traction here in the UK as well.

I just chose that as a reasonably high profile example, and because his essay was the first place I saw the word hermeneutical.

I should perhaps have chosen the issue of women bishops. For ~2000 years the scriptures have been interpreted in one way but now some have interpreted them differently. But not all, which is odd for a group of people who have a personal relationship with their God.

… Sorry Molgrips, I’m being facetious again, burden of proof and all that.

It’s my understanding, I should be clearer in some posts. I may be wrong, I don’t believe I am but I’d have to research further to be certain.

How can we have the crime of heresy if the bible is allegorical?

For the most part because the Magisterium – that is, the teaching authority of the Church – is made up of more than the Bible. It is traditionally posited as a three-legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

The Church is the ‘compiler’ of Scripture, and also its interpreter. She does this using reason. So, for example, it is NOT reasonable to describe God as all merciful, and then inflict death on those that disagree. When this has happened, it is not because the belief of the Church necessitated it; it is because fallen, corrupt, and evil people perpetrated it.

Ultimately, the Bible belongs to the Church; not the Church to the Bible. If that makes sense…

vickypea – Member

I don’t understand the constant prodding from some atheists

I know, it’s weird, personally I leave the prodding to the protestants!

As I see it and I’m only talking about Christianity,the first 100 years after Christ are the most interesting and there is very little recorded history.All the discples who knew Jesus were executed(one survived).They were an undreground outfit spread by word of mouth,outlawed and persecuted by the evil occupying empire of Rome and rejected by the corrupt Jewish religious establishment who were in cahoots with Rome to maintain the status quo and their own privileged position in Judea.Then gradually it all became mainstream, the Church of Rome took over and so created the new establishment.Sort of like an allegory for warehouse music,raves and acid house becoming all Ministry of Sound and absorbed into the establishment with New labour and peerages and all that,God skunk is great.

SR > Interesting, thank you.

I should perhaps have chosen the issue of women bishops. For ~2000 years the scriptures have been interpreted in one way but now some have interpreted them differently. But not all, which is odd for a group of people who have a personal relationship with their God.

Good point. But that’s exactly why there is an ongoing debate. It was a moot point for most of the Church’s life, and now one major community within the Church says women bishops are possible, while others do not. I guess the only real answer to that – from the point of view of faith – is that in comparison to eternity (against which we try to discern eternal truths), what is a mere 2000 years? 🙂 Seriously, though, I think it really is one reason why we are seeing this debate now. And it is not unreasonable that society’s thoughts on the matter should have affected the timing. In the same way that feminism forced the Church to deal with other questions surrounding the theology of body and sexuality.

Do you know it isn’t?

Yes and I gave you the example of Augustine who first posited a non literal interpretation in the 5th century, Thomas Acquinus also followed this line of thinking in the 13 th century. So you are wrong, very wrong.

Two people is hardly a majority.

True, Cougar, but in terms of the Magisterium I referred to above, at least with respect to the Roman Catholic Church and the Western Church more generally, there are literally no two figures bigger or more important than Augustine and Thomas Aquinas other than Jesus and St Paul.

It included many more than two, some have argued that the enlightenment was impossible without Christianity.

Anyway

Enlightenment era religious commentary was a response to the preceding century of religious conflict in Europe, especially the Thirty Years’ War.[165] Theologians of the Enlightenment wanted to reform their faith to its generally non-confrontational roots and to limit the capacity for religious controversy to spill over into politics and warfare while still maintaining a true faith in God.

For moderate Christians, this meant a return to simple Scripture. John Locke abandoned the corpus of theological commentary in favor of an “unprejudiced examination” of the Word of God alone. He determined the essence of Christianity to be a belief in Christ the redeemer and recommended avoiding more detailed debate.[166] Thomas Jefferson in the Jefferson Bible went further; he dropped any passages dealing with miracles, visitations of angels, and the resurrection of Jesus after his death. He tried to extract the practical Christian moral code of the New Testament.[167]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

I’m sure I mentioned the contributions of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in a previous religion thread but clearly my remarks fell on stony ground.

I gave you the example of Augustine

he still did think it was the work of god and he only doubted whether it was done in 6 days or instantly. I get your point but it was still a literal interpretation and not viewed as a metaphor.
Did he not quote some other part of the bible for his reasoning?
Been a while
Checked wiki and it gives this

Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul (“He created all things at once”), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally

it’s only in recent times where we’ve gained a better understanding of the world and the universe that we’ve had this “allegory” back-pedal.

This is what I was disputing – nothing about a majority in that – but your comment illustrates your ignorance – Augustine and Thomas Acquinus weren’t just two people – they were two of the most important and influential Christian thinkers. If you are going to spout your understanding of theology, it would probably be a good idea to get a basic knowledge of its development first.

I’m sure I mentioned the contributions of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in a previous religion thread but clearly my remarks fell on stony ground.

Very good.

Neither of them disputed genesis and they both believed god was the creator of everything as it is said in genesis.
Neither talked of dinosaurs either to be clear or knew that things walked the earth before us which kind of ends the god made us claim .
Only in later years has it been a metaphor of the type, I assume, Cougar means – ie we know it is a false account / now viewed as a myth. Neither of them thought creationism was untrue or just a myth/story.

But Acquinus viewed that the study of nature (i.e science) was necessary for a true understanding of God so he would have had little difficulty in accepting scientific advancements – indeed he believed in their pursuit to get a better understanding. Absent that advancement, he relied on his limited data, including the religious texts.

This is a good Augustine quote to sum it up

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture

but he still agreed god made everything and the study was to [ further]discover this [glory] not to discover the truth.
We have no idea what he would have done when he discovered the scientific truth was counter to his pre held belief as his knowledge was not great enough to reach this point. Back pedal is my guess as the vast body of evidence to counter the biblical account doe snot seem to have massively dented the faith or the church numbers globally [ neither an insult nor praise just an observation].
I still think Cougars point is valid that it is only as evidence “trumps” the bible do the views change – heliocentric universe for example, and accepting evolution FWIW i think his current position is neither one thing nor the other and he seems to think both happened another hundred years for the full back pedal ??

He [ god] created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment,” Pope Francis said.

The earth’s origins were not chaotic, the pontiff said, but were created from a principle of love, reported Religion News Service.

“He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality, and so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things,” the pope said.

Pope Francis said the theory of evolution did not contradict the Bible or church teachings, as creationists claim.

Well we came from things that were not humans and other things predate us – we were not made in the image of god we evolved from apes and then all the way back to single cell organisms. TBH I am not overly sure WTF the pope is trying to say but it is not correct from an evolutionary standpoint

EDIT: written before seeing your quote – its too late for me to comment further