skepticgirl

I have the impression (don't know if correct) that Christians today interpret the bible more liberally than they did in the past. (Example: the sexist passages about women not teaching men) But I wonder to what extent this is true, especially within the Catholic tradition (and perhaps the Othodox tradition) as these have been around much longer than Protestants

Toto

The Catholic Church has never "idolized" the Bible. They rely on church tradition and doctrine.

The Protestant reformation introduced the idea of "sola scriptura" and started taking the words of the Bible more seriously.

Today Christian Fundamentalists have introduced the idea that the Bible is inerrant, which goes beyond any previous interpretation, while liberal Christians are more liberal, especially on issues like women teaching men.

Gamera

Interpretations of scripture is constantly changing through history -- which is inevitable with any text. All interpretations of texts are in flux, not only institutionally, but individually.

To give you an example, early Christianity eschewed literally, with Origen being almost apologetic for the obvious historical and empirical "inaccuracies" in Genesis. His point was that scripture is to be read with intent in mind, not factuality.

This led to the exegetical hermeneutics of Augustine and later clerics.

In the 19th century, mostly for cultural/political reason, a literalist school of exegesis arose in America and is now ensconced as the Christian Right. It is at odds with historical Christianity's view of exegesis.

Every generation has the burden of reinterpreting texts. So it isn't surprising that this happens with the bible too.

creature

>I have the impression (don't know if correct) that Christians today interpret >the bible more liberally than they did in the past. (Example: the sexist >passages about women not teaching men)

I think it would be hard to say if that is true, because you would have to define who is in the group you are calling Christians. Also, there are lots of cases in which you can find in which a church's leadership/hierarchy has a view that is more conservative or more liberal than many of its members.

Go back in time 500 or 1000 or 1500 years and imagine the same situation. We wouldn't necessarily have written records of the beliefs of the average Christian, but all that might remain would be the beliefs of the hierarchy.

However, since the time of the Reformation 1520 to a small extent, and then in England, and then in the USA after 1787, and then in other parts of the world, it became more and more possible to disbelieve and disagree with the hierarchy of the church in your area without being burned or persecuted for it. And these people have used their freedom to write books about the earth going round the sun, about free will, about Bible errors, and many other similar things. So, there are whole churches which think that everybody will be saved, or that women as pastors are OK, or that God isn't upset with homosexuals, or whatever.

The question is whether or not at least some people believed these things in the past and called themselves Christians. I think the answer is yes, but their opinions were not the majority report. And the dissenters didn't usually have a printing press they could use.

>But I wonder to what extent this is true, especially within the Catholic >tradition (and perhaps the Othodox tradition) as these have been around >much longer than Protestants

James Brown

No two people worship the same God, or understand the same scriptures, in the same way. There are as many gods as there are worshippers, and there are as many Bibles as there are readers.

Depending on your temperment, this can either be something to resist, or embrace.

Foobear

The Nicene Creed (the core of Christian doctrine) has been unchanged for the last 1700 years, though there was a minor revision in 380 or so.