CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[JettaKnight]

Right Jesus isn't literally a door.
Is jesus literally God and literally the holy spirit?
Reading the bible that sounds figurative to me.

Why is the starting point for us that the bible is perfect and we have to read it as such?
The answer, generally, is because our parents and those around us said so and we just carry on the tradition.

Im not attempting to use it as a trap, I'm pointing out glaring issues with a text claimed to be infallible.
Plop yourself in any other country where Christianity isn't followed by the majority and you'd be in the exact same position I am, wondering how so many people can be so sure their religion is the correct one.

I'm cool with working from a non-Christian view, but other than the creation story, and the idiom of "face to face", you really haven't given us much to work on.

And, the text decides what is 'literal' vs 'figurative' (to use simple terms).

 

[Cameramonkey]

So you dont follow the literal day interpretation?
What about Adam and eve being the first two people and everyone coming from them?
You can see my confusion as, just reading the text I never seem to get correct what is literal and what is idiom. There are as many interpretations of the bible as there are Christians and what's 'obvious' idiom to one is blasphemous to another.
Let's get to a verse you take literally.

I'll admit, I don't. Which is a very unpopular view in my church.

I also don't believe that Jesus is literally a door. (John 10:7)


Why don't I fully accept the 6 day view? Well, for starters I don't believe that was written as a historical account, I view it as a narrative that impresses upon the reader the key concept of a monotheistic God that is ageless and the creator of all and all things serve a purpose to him. It's explained and laid out in such a way that the original audience would receive it correctly.

It seems to me like you're attempting to use this as a trap: If you accept a literal six day creation then you're a simpleton; if you don't then you're a hypocrite who reinterprets scripture.

And isnt one of the main problems with Genesis especially an issue of translation? As I recall the original text used the word for "a period of time". but during translation there was no such word, so the word for "day" was chosen. Which of course changes the meaning entirely.

 

[Jludo]

I'm cool with working from a non-Christian view, but other than the creation story, and the idiom of "face to face", you really haven't given us much to work on.

And, the text decides what is 'literal' vs 'figurative' (to use simple terms).

Your interpretation of the text is what decides.

i haven't given enough to work on? Would a laundry list of biblical contradictions help this conversation?
Does that bread wafer literally become the body of Christ? A billion Christian's apparently think so.
There are plenty more examples but if your ground truth is that the bible is infallible then what's the point arguing about it?
The book is true, you just have to figure out how. Vs Read the book to make your own decision about whether it's true.

Im curious was the bible gods infallible word to you before you read it?
Most atheists here started from that position but lost faith precisely because they read the whole bible, not just the greatest hits which were highlighted on Sunday mornings.

 

[Jludo]

And isnt one of the main problems with Genesis especially an issue of translation? As I recall the original text used the word for "a period of time". but during translation there was no such word, so the word for "day" was chosen. Which of course changes the meaning entirely.

If that's the case shouldn't we translate a version of the bible that's accurate?
It may not be as poetic but id rather hear the more accurate version.

I'm sure a lot of the fundamentalists would get a lot out of a more accurate version as well.

 

[JettaKnight]

And isnt one of the main problems with Genesis especially an issue of translation? As I recall the original text used the word for "a period of time". but during translation there was no such word, so the word for "day" was chosen. Which of course changes the meaning entirely.

There was that whole issue where "non-six dayers" came up with a theory that day = 1000 years (or some period). This doesn't make sense when you think that there's water, land, plants, but no day and night for thousands of years.


I believe that view was popular in the 70s - 90s, but today, there's virtually no serious scholars holding to that view. The two large camps are "six days means six days" and the framework narrative folks.





My big problem is that the six days folks tie some serious theological baggage to it. The Answers in Genesis folks like to make it a solid doctrine that they equate to salvation, i.e. if you don't believe in six days, then you don't believe in sin or redemption. Kids grow up hearing this, go to college, start to ask question about six days, then everything crumbles because they tied them together.

 

[Jludo]

My big problem is that the six days folks tie some serious theological baggage to it. The Answers in Genesis folks like to make it a solid doctrine that they equate to salvation, i.e. if you don't believe in six days, then you don't believe in sin or redemption. Kids grow up hearing this, go to college, start to ask question about six days, then everything crumbles because they tied them together.

It's exactly the conversation we're having here and Sam Harris makes a great point that the fundamentalists have an easier time making their case. Its much easier for Ken Hamm to just say the whole bible is literal truth than for the folks who try to split out which parts get taken literally. The problem the fundamentalists obviously run into is then trying to make science fit a 6000 year old earth.

 

[ATM]

Another agnostic who fancies himself an atheist without putting in the work.

yawn.

 

[JettaKnight]

It's exactly the conversation we're having here and Sam Harris makes a great point that the fundamentalists have an easier time making their case. Its much easier for Ken Hamm to just say the whole bible is literal truth than for the folks who try to split out which parts get taken literally. The problem the fundamentalists obviously run into is then trying to make science fit a 6000 year old earth.

Ironically, that was taken on it's surface, but Song of Solomon was recast as an allegory.

 

[foszoe]

Your interpretation of the text is what decides.

i haven't given enough to work on? Would a laundry list of biblical contradictions help this conversation?
Does that bread wafer literally become the body of Christ? A billion Christian's apparently think so.
There are plenty more examples but if your ground truth is that the bible is infallible then what's the point arguing about it?
The book is true, you just have to figure out how. Vs Read the book to make your own decision about whether it's true.

Im curious was the bible gods infallible word to you before you read it?
Most atheists here started from that position but lost faith precisely because they read the whole bible, not just the greatest hits which were highlighted on Sunday mornings.

None of those billion Christians who believe that the wafer is the body of Christ are required to believe the Bible is infallible.

The pattern I see in your posts is confusing your audience.

The Bible wasn't infallible until 500 years ago and wasn't to be taken literally until within the past 200 years.

Your concerns are centered around mostly the American understanding of Christianity which is what you are exposed to so its understandable, but an individual picking up the Bible and reading it then interpreting it for oneself is a recent phenomenon.

Christianity existed long before the Bible was
a) Written
b) Individually interpreted

 

[Jludo]

The pattern I see in your posts is confusing your audience.

I'm talking to different people with wildly varying views on the subject so it's impossible not to confuse my audience.

 

[JettaKnight]

Foszoe's right, most Christians who subscribe to transubstantiation don't solely look to scripture for doctrine. I doubt they could get to transubstantiation with the Bible alone.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm just gonna let that gauntlet stay where it is.

 

[foszoe]

Foszoe's right, most Christians who subscribe to transubstantiation don't solely look to scripture for doctrine. I doubt they could get to transubstantiation with the Bible alone.

Transubstantiation and the rapture, two doctrines not found in the Bible

 

[Jludo]

Foszoe's right, most Christians who subscribe to transubstantiation don't solely look to scripture for doctrine. I doubt they could get to transubstantiation with the Bible alone.

Doesn't the bible say this is my body? non Catholics take it figuratively and Catholics literally, am I oversimplifying it?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

transubstantiation

are you in the right place

we talk about those in the SJW thread

 

[JettaKnight]

Doesn't the bible say this is my body? non Catholics take it figuratively and Catholics literally, am I oversimplifying it?

Like we said, Jesus also is quoted as saying, "I am a door"...

Transubstantiation and the rapture, two doctrines not found in the Bible

Do we want to lump the Trinity into that?

I tend to hold any eschatological doctrine very loosely.

 

[foszoe]

Like we said, Jesus also is quoted as saying, "I am a door"...


Do we want to lump the Trinity into that?

I tend to hold any eschatological doctrine very loosely.

Sure, we can throw the trinity in there with that alonw with all 5 solas.

 

[Jludo]

Like we said, Jesus also is quoted as saying, "I am a door"...

Exactly the point, what's obvious metaphor to you is literal to a billion other people.

 

[Dead Duck]

So...
Are you going to open the door or not?

It's as easy as that.

 

[JettaKnight]

Exactly the point, what's obvious metaphor to you is literal to a billion other people.

I've yet to see a church with a door nailed to a crucifix.


So now you've pointed out places where the Bible is not completely crystal clear and are trying to extrapolate that to mean that Christianity is ????


If you don't believe God exist, and you don't believe Christ... I'm failing to understand the point of this exercise other than to attempt to prove the Bible is not the inspired and infallible word of God. (you haven't even come close to it) If you don't believe in God to begin with, why focus on this? You must know you really aren't going to get anyone to say, "Gee, you're right. Since we don't agree on transubstantiation, Christianity is a sham."


T.Lex and I are on opposite corners of the Christian spectrum (judging by affiliations), yet we still agree on... spitballing... 80% or more (could be higher if you weighted them by importance). And those are all the key doctrine, the things that make Christianity different than every other religion.