luvluv

I think there are great masses of Christians who believe the Adam and Eve STORY the whole apple and tree of knowledge thing, to be a fable. It's true, in the sense that it reveals things that are true about us and our relationship to God, but it is not entirely factual. Somewhat like the prodigal son story or any of the parables. No one thinks the actual prodigal son ever lived, but the story is "true" in how it paints a picture of God.

But one can still believe in creationsim and not believe that God actually created Eve out of Adam's rib and the whole thing.

MadMordigan

But one can still believe in creationsim and not believe that God actually created Eve out of Adam's rib and the whole thing.

Can one still believe in jesus but not believe in the whole ressurection thing? What about the 10 commandments and the whole burning bush thing? Or revelations, but not the whole apocalypse thing?

luvluv

Well, some things are essential and some are not. I don't think that a belief in the ressurection is voluntary. I think someone who disbelieves in the ressurection can be safely said to be not a Christian.

But I have always thought that those who thought that the Bible was literally true, and those who dismissed the Bible because of specific things it said were both Biblical literalists. They both make the mistake of believing that in order to have a relevant truth, everything in the Bible must be literally factual. But obviously, the parables of Jesus were not factual, but they are edifiying and useful.

I consider the story of Adam and Eve to be a rough fable. I don't see any reason why God would try to explain evolution (if that is how He created life) to a bunch of pre-scientific, illiterate, ex-slaves. Only people who live in this empiricist age, who value scientific facts over relationships, would have such an absurd expectation. If your 2 year old daughter asked you how she came to be, and you said she was created out of the love between yourself and your spouse, would you be lying to her? Or would you be telling her something which, if it lacked literal facts, contained something MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the actual facts. In much the same way, God perhaps described to the ancient Hebrews the more important issues of creation than the actual facts. The Bible is not a scientific document, it is a record of the relationship between God and man. You would no more expect to find scientific disertations in it then you would in the correspondance between myself and my father. The relationship is the point of my correspondance with my father, and the relationship is the point of the Bible. To believe otherwise is to be a Biblical literalsit AND it is to project our current worldview that scientific facts are more important than relationships backwards through history.

ex-preacher

You must be aware that many liberal Christians have concluded that the resurrection itself was a metaphor or a "fable," if you like. Can one believe in metaphorical resurrection and still be a Christian?

More to the point, how exactly does one decide which things are fables and which are literal? I think we can all agree that the parables were never intended to be literal accounts. But how can you get away with allegorizing or spiritualizing something which is recorded as fact?

<strong> Straw man. I've never met or heard of anyone who dismissed the Bible because of the parables being fictitious.

<strong> Then why have so many millions (billions?) of honest, sincere and otherwise intelligent Christians seen it as a literal account? Are they complete idiots? Is it possible that the text itself appears to present a factual, literal account? Did God have any idea that this might happen? Did he know that a scientific era would one day begin and that many would lose their faith because of this fable? Did he understand that many people would take it as an attempt at literal history/science? Did he care?

So how far do you go in allegorizing Genesis? Did the flood actually occur? Are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph real characters? How do you decide?

And still, you are left with the fact that the Bible often asserts something as fact which is just plain wrong (like snakes eating dust or rabbits chewing cud).

luvluv

ex-preacher, maybe one day you are going to actually SEE this when I type it, but I am not a Biblical literalist. I think MOST of the Bible is divinely inspired, but I think it is not an error free book. The books I consider to be intended as parables are those that take place "out of history", like Noah, Jonah, Cane and Abel and the like. When they are said to occur within a specific historical framework (Exodus, David and Goliath, the ministry of Jesus) I consider it to be historical. In other words, when the historical context of the story either isn't mentioned or doesn't seem important to the writer (when he makes no attempt to ground the story in history) I assume it to be a parable.

But as far as snakes eating dust or rabbits chewing their cuds, it doesn't bother me because, AGAIN, I AM NOT A BIBLICAL LITERALIST. Beyond that, though, it doesn't seem impossible to me for there to have been a species of snake possibly now extinct that did eat dirt (or at least appear to), but I am not a zoologist or anything.

"Then why have so many millions (billions?) of honest, sincere and otherwise intelligent Christians seen it as a literal account? Are they complete idiots?"

Unless I am mistaken the entire fixation with creation being a literal account was only begun after the theory of evolution was developed. Christians saw it as a threat and acted accordingly. I don't think that throughout history Christians have been that adamant about the literal account of the book of Genesis (though before the theory of evolution came out, I guess the creation story in the Bible was as good as any other idea of where life came from). The Christians who have believed otherwise don't have to be idiots, they only have to be mistaken, which I believe they are. But maybe I am. Who knows?

"You must be aware that many liberal Christians have concluded that the resurrection itself was a metaphor or a "fable," if you like. Can one believe in metaphorical resurrection and still be a Christian?"

I don't really think so. I'd have to hear the position defended to really make a clear call on it.

ex-preacher

I have long realized that you approach the Bible much as one approaches the food cafeteria line. You pick and choose what you like. Fine. My question for you is what standard do you use to decide what is literal and what is not.

The related question is: What kind of a god would give his followers a book which is so unclear that they can't agree on what is literal and what is figurative?

<strong> This is a whole new approach to me. Did you invent this? I'll assume you know that "Noah" and "Cane [sic] and Abel" are not books. Both of these are stories in the book of Genesis. Are you saying that the entire book of Genesis is a parable? There are many places in the book that certainly try to represent the events as historical. How exactly did you decide that the story of Noah is "out of history"? Do you think that most Jews and Christians for the last few thousand years have also seen these stories as parables?

<strong> Wow. You have picked two stories - David & Goliath and the Exodus - that many other liberals would concede to be fictional. Why do you think that the liberal cafeteria approach to the Bible yields such startlingly different results?

<strong> Yet, you don't seem to apply this incredibly vague standard consistently. It sounds like you are a Bible literalist, you just think certain parts of the Bible have been misinterpreted as literal. A true non-literalist generally recognizes that certain stories were meant as literal but really didn't occur.

<strong> Pick a story and stick to it! It seems that you are only a literalist when it suits you. Your approach seems to be: "It's not literal unless it is something that could have happened - then it's literal." But if god is involved, then isn't anything possible - even the flood?

<strong> You are mistaken. Utterly and completely mistaken. Why did Christians see evolution as a threat? Because they believed in special creation! In fact evolution is a threat to the Bible.

<strong> So you're admitting that they took the creation story literally before the theory of evolution? That's the point!

<strong> Your methodology certain inspires a lot of confidence, doesn't it? The point here is that your god has made a fine mess of things.


<strong> Read a little Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong. A "clear call"? You must be kidding. Do you know how many different Christian groups have a perfectly clear understanding of the Bible and how to interpret it? They all do.

Tinker

ex-preacher
I have long realized that you approach the Bible much as one approaches the food cafeteria line. You pick and choose what you like. Fine. My question for you is what standard do you use to decide what is literal and what is not.
----------------------

Exacly my point as well. Christians do pick and choose what seems to suit them at any given time. I don't have a problem with this either, imo this is what humans tend to do all the time. However, the problem for christians is that they claim that they are the ones and the only ones who have access to truth, the only truth. They pick and choose things from the Bible which suit them, again I don't see a problem with picking and choosing itself. However the problem is that they tend to clam that they are the only ones right and all other christian groups/individuals who pick and choose opposing stuff from the Bible to be wrong. Eg. literalists claim they are the only ones right, non-literalists claim that they are the ones with the right interpretation, morality etc. Both sides can in a way back up their claim by the Bible, but the problem is because their views oppose and contradict each other. Christianity claims there is only one truth - then why all these contradicting beliefs. The contradicting beliefs which chirstians hold undermine their claim to having or knowing the truth, that is the only truth. If any one group of people says that there is one truth and one god, then by holding contradicting beliefs, the group undermines its own claims.

Then there is still my point that those who seem to follow the Bible to the letter seem to be one of the most judgemental, unforgiving and hard people, which is again a contradiction - dont' you think that it would make sense that believing in and following the instructions made by a compassionate, just and kind god (chistians claim) should create followers who are also compasionate, just etc etc. But as I said before, the opposite is true - it is the most liberal christians who seem to be the closest to the chistian ideal (kind, loving, compassionate) and their beliefs deviate from the Bible and christian tradition to a great extent. But are they still christian then, or are they just good and kind people and would be so in any case, with or without religion?

luvluv, I too am wondering by what standard do you(or any other christian) decide which parts are literal and which are not. There are many things in the Bible which are ouside of the way we know the world/universe around us operates. So, on what basis do you then believe some and discount the others? Why do you not believe in literal interpretation of the creation account and why do you believe in the literal interpretation of resurection account? Do you believe that Jesus walked on water, do you believe in virgin birth, do you believe that Jesus raised people from the dead, that Elisha or Elijah (I forget which one) raised the child from the dead, that Jesus fed thousands from few loaves of bread and some fish, that Jonas was swallowed by the whale and came out again alive. Christianity claims that god can work miracles, Bible claims that god can work miracles. If you define 'miracle' as an event outside of the natural workings of the universe as we know it - why do you pick and choose to believe some 'miracles' and not others? Do you, by not interpreting the Bible literally, discard and dismiss as many miracles as you possibly can, because all of them don't make sense and because they are so unbeliavable and because we don't have any evidence that they happened? And do you keep the 'essential miracles' so as to be still able to say that you are a christian? Is that you standard in deciding which parts of the Bible and christianity you take as literal and which you don't?

Tinker

luvluv

"The related question is: What kind of a god would give his followers a book which is so unclear that they can't agree on what is literal and what is figurative?"

As I've said, for most of the things which I consider to be parables it wouldn't matter in the least whether they happened or not. The application would be the same. That's the definition of a parable, it's a timeless truth contained in a story.

"This is a whole new approach to me. Did you invent this? I'll assume you know that "Noah" and "Cane [sic] and Abel" are not books. Both of these are stories in the book of Genesis. Are you saying that the entire book of Genesis is a parable?"

No I didn't invent it as far as I know. No I don't consider the whole Book of Genesis to be a parable, only the stories that are supposed to have occured before the Exodus. I consider those to have been oral stories handed down and finally recorded in the Bible. (Though I do consider the stories of Abraham and his lineage that led to the Jews to be factual, because they are traced through history to the story of the Exodus)

"It sounds like you are a Bible literalist, you just think certain parts of the Bible have been misinterpreted as literal. A true non-literalist generally recognizes that certain stories were meant as literal but really didn't occur."

I don't see any reason for me to make any attempt to live up to your definition of what a Biblical literalist is "supposed" to be. However, I do think what many of the Biblical writers meant as literal did not really occur, or did not occur literally as they were presented.

"Pick a story and stick to it! It seems that you are only a literalist when it suits you. Your approach seems to be: "It's not literal unless it is something that could have happened - then it's literal."

No actually I said that it is literal if I take it to have occured within history. I was just pointing out that just because we don't see any snakes that appear to eat dirt or rabbits that appear to chew their cud (actually rabbits do kind of make a chewing motion with their mouths, don't they) does not mean that they never existed. I have no opinion on the matter, I am just pointing out that your specific examples might not be examples of things that are demonstrably false.

"But if god is involved, then isn't anything possible - even the flood?"

Perhaps you are getting the impression that I don't believe in miracles. I do. I believe the Red Sea split, I believe in the miracles of Jesus, his ressuerection, etc. But I am not sure whether or not it matters that Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale. If someone were to prove it didn't happen, it wouldn't bother me too much.

"Your methodology certain inspires a lot of confidence, doesn't it? The point here is that your god has made a fine mess of things."

It's kind of obvious that free will is going to lead to a difference of opinion, isn't it? If we can choose to believe whatever we want, it's logically implied that we will ocassionally chose to believe differently. That's hardly suprising. At any rate, it isn't God making a fine mess of things, it's people. And generally speaking, what we disagree on doesn't amount to a mess.

"Read a little Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong. A "clear call"? You must be kidding. Do you know how many different Christian groups have a perfectly clear understanding of the Bible and how to interpret it? They all do."

What are you talking about? Why are you always so hostile? All I said was I have never heard the position defended, so I can't comment on whether or not it is possible to be a Christian who disbelieves in the ressurection. My inclination is to say no, but since I am not completely informed on the position I can't make a clear call on it. Sheesh.

ex-preacher

You do not think it matters that Christians disagree significantly on which parts of the Bible are literal?

Yet elsewhere you insist that the correct interpretation of certain things does matter - like the resurrection. Or hell.

My point: You approach the Bible subjectively, as does everyone else. You have developed your own standards for interpreting it, as does everyone esle. You seem to rely on reason and experience, as does everyone else. You seem to think you have the best method for understanding the true meaning of scripture, as does everyone else. So why should anyone think that your methods and conclusions are better than everybody else's?

Does your god not care that his followers disagree so completely on how to understand his word?

Incidentally, your definition of a "parable" could make the entire Bible a parable.

<strong> Why do you draw the line there? The writers/editors of Genesis certainly try to leave the impression that they are writing literal history.

<strong> So nothing after Exodus came from oral tradition? How did you figure that out?

<strong> Ah, a whole new standard. Forget the oral tradion standard. You have me baffled here. Does anything that relates to the Jews now become literal?

<strong> Why do believe in certain miracles, but not others? Again, what is your standard?

<strong> So god's word is perfect (in places), but our free will results in all these differing opinions? Is it possible that the problem is not in human interpretation, but in the book which humans are trying to interpret?

BTW, I disagree completely with the notion that we can choose what to believe. I am convinced that we can choose our behavior, but not our beliefs.

Can you choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese? Can you choose to disbelieve that Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Belief is a complicated thing which is affected by many things - but fundamentally I can no more choose to believe in god than you could choose to believe in the tooth fairy.

<strong> What is hostile about this? I'm trying to point out to you that many liberal Christians see the resurrection as a myth or as metaphorical. Can you see that it is difficult to find firm footing when the Bible is full of quicksand? I apologize if my comments seem hostile - they certainly are not intended as such. I'm just trying to practice tufftuff luvluv.

luvluv

"Yet elsewhere you insist that the correct interpretation of certain things does matter - like the resurrection. Or hell."

I think that a belief that Jesus is the Messiah and a belief in the ressurection are the only disqualifiers. Don't believe I ever said the correct interpretation of Hell is neccesary in order to qualify for a Christian.

"So why should anyone think that your methods and conclusions are better than everybody else's?"

Because I'm smarter than everybody else. Haven't we gone through this before?

I'm just offering my opinions here, son, same as everybody else. You have my permission to disagree with me.

"Does your god not care that his followers disagree so completely on how to understand his word?"

No, so long as we play nice with each other.

"Incidentally, your definition of a "parable" could make the entire Bible a parable."

Right. Except for the parts that actually happened.

"Why do you draw the line there? The writers/editors of Genesis certainly try to leave the impression that they are writing literal history."

I don't know about that, I'll have to look at it again.

"So nothing after Exodus came from oral tradition? How did you figure that out?"

BECAUSE I'm smarter than everybody else. Are you writing any of this down?

For real though, I think that much of the Old Testament was lore because no one could have possibly been alive to see much of the things described there. The other stories could have emerged as oral traditions, but it is not impossible that those passing on those oral traditions could not have been eye-witnesses.

"Ah, a whole new standard. Forget the oral tradion standard. You have me baffled here"

Well, you're the one who keeps giving names to my standards. I'm just going with the flow. I'm assuming the stuff about the Exodus to be true because otherwise I don't know where the Jews came from. Do you?

"Why do believe in certain miracles, but not others? Again, what is your standard?"

What miracles don't I believe in?

"So god's word is perfect (in places), but our free will results in all these differing opinions? Is it possible that the problem is not in human interpretation, but in the book which humans are trying to interpret?"

Do you know of a book that everybody 100% agrees on?

"I am convinced that we can choose our behavior, but not our beliefs."

I am convinced that we can choose both.

"Can you choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese? Can you choose to disbelieve that Abraham Lincoln ever lived?"

Bad examples, those two things are pretty provable.