Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So then you really don't understand the difference between literal and inerrant?
Depends on your definition of "literal". In the context of your attempts to paint the Bible as a book of myths then both terms are relatable. In that case, you are going to be hard pressed to support a case that a majority of Christians believe Genesis is fiction which was the core of the argument.
If your point only involves Christians who believe that every single word is literal then fine, you got me. I don't even take that stance. For example, in Matthew 26:26, when Jesus says this is my body, I don't believe the disciples were actually physically eating his body.
Now, how about you back up your statements with evidence because I'm sure won't take anything you say at face value. You threw your credibility out the window with me.
I assure you that I have no concerns about your views of my credibility . Continuing on though, a literal view of the Bible typically means that you take the things like talking snakes and donkeys , a six day creation, and such to be literally true . Inerrant means that you believe the Bible to be free from error, but doesn't mean you can't take certain things to be symbolic or allegorical , as MOST of the Christian world does . Even those who claim they are literalists do this . No Baptist thinks Jesus is truly a door, or a loaf of bread . And no evangelical takes Jesus's words that you must eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved as literal like the Catholics and Orthodox do . So you take certain things to be symbolic yourself , it's just that you and other sects dispute which are symbolic and which are literal . Catholics and Orthodox will tell you the flesh and blood stuff is literal and you are wrong for claiming it is symbolic .
When you see the guy who has gouged out his eyes, cut out his tongue , or chopped off his hand because Christ said to do so and further emphasized the point by saying it is better to enter heaven missing some body parts rather than have your whole body thrown into hell, you will have met someone that truly takes the Bible literally .
I suggest you put as much distance between yourself and the crazy bastard as possible .
BTW, why do you avoid answering the question about Francis Collins?
Last edited by wallflash; 02-26-2016 at 08:47 AM..
Depends on your definition of "literal". In the context of your attempts to paint the Bible as a book of myths then both terms are relatable. In that case, you are going to be hard pressed to support a case that a majority of Christians believe Genesis is fiction which was the core of the argument.
If your point only involves Christians who believe that every single word is literal then fine, you got me. I don't even take that stance. For example, in Matthew 26:26, when Jesus says this is my body, I don't believe the disciples were actually physically eating his body.
Now, how about you back up your statements with evidence because I'm sure won't take anything you say at face value. You threw your credibility out the window with me.
You are being purposely obtuse Jeff. That is another reason you get treated the way you do on these forums: you are not honest.
In the 1950 encyclicalHumani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces
Catholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains how evolution proceeds. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach
According to Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church".[SIZE=2][2][/SIZE]
Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists.[SIZE=2][3[/SIZE]
This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, and some other mainline Protestant denominations;[SIZE=2][2][/SIZE] virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham. A 2007 poll showed that acceptance among American Buddhists, Hindus and Jews was higher than among any Christian groups (graph below). One recent survey, conducted by physicist Max Tegmark, on “of how different US faith communities view origins science, particularly evolution and Big Bang cosmology.†Although “Gallup reports that 46% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago", it found "only 11% belong to religions openly rejecting evolution
Both Jews and Christians have considered the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of a historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory. An example in Christianity would be the earlier writings by St. Augustine (4th century), though he later rejected allegory in favor of literal interpretation. By this Augustine meant that in Genesis 1 the terms "light", "day", and "morning" hold a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, and that this spiritual morning is just as literal as physical morning. Augustine recognizes that the creation of a spiritual morning is as much a historical event as the creation of physical light.[SIZE=2][6][/SIZE] [In later work, Augustine said that "there are some who think that only the world was made by God and that everything else is made by the world according to his ordination and command, but that God Himself makes nothing".[SIZE=2][7][/SIZE]] Three noted Jewish examples are that of the writings of Philo of Alexandria (1st century),[SIZE=2][8][/SIZE]Maimonides (12th century) and Gersonides (13th century).[SIZE=2][9][/SIZE][SIZE=2][10][/SIZE]
According to the data in that site 24% of evangelical protestants accept evolution which is one half the percentage as the total US population. According to our resident expert on this forum, over half the Catholics, mainline Protestants and Orthodox Christians are not Christians and perhaps also mistreat Jeff as they do not agree with him.
Google and the Internet both mistreat Christians as there is lots of information on it that either does not agree with Jeff or actually disagrees with him.
And Jeff: you like to through out statements and accusations and never defend them when you are called out on those statements. So I ask a second time: when have I ever called Christianity a lie? Not that I expect a direct answer as your MO is to come back with attacking me on a different matter or ignoring me. You know that I am debating people on this forum not Christians and atheists but individuals.
How is your world now that marriage equality is the law? We were both part of some heated debate, and now that a few months have passed, have things in your world changed?
Mine has not change other than a few more orders for baked goods, but that ebbs and flows anyway. But, the day to day things are the same.
How is your world now that marriage equality is the law? We were both part of some heated debate, and now that a few months have passed, have things in your world changed?
Mine has not change other than a few more orders for baked goods, but that ebbs and flows anyway. But, the day to day things are the same.
What have you noticed?
I can tell you how his world changed, and so can you. You know why? It changed the exact same way as everyone else, which is to say that it didn't change anything (Except for those same sex couples who can now enjoy the same benefits as other loving marriages).
Depends on your definition of "literal". In the context of your attempts to paint the Bible as a book of myths then both terms are relatable. In that case, you are going to be hard pressed to support a case that a majority of Christians believe Genesis is fiction which was the core of the argument.
If your point only involves Christians who believe that every single word is literal then fine, you got me. I don't even take that stance. For example, in Matthew 26:26, when Jesus says this is my body, I don't believe the disciples were actually physically eating his body.
Now, how about you back up your statements with evidence because I'm sure won't take anything you say at face value. You threw your credibility out the window with me.
No it wasn't. Most Christian don't see it as fiction, they see it as allegorical, which is not the same thing as fiction.
Say what you will, few Christian believe the Bible to be literally true. That does not mean it loses value to them. They look to the meaning and the beauty behind the Bible, not what it literally says. It's a fact that most Christians do believe in evolution. The official stance of the Catholic Church, by the way, is that evolution is correct, but it was guided by God. I'm sure your extensive and objective research showed you this.
If your point only involves Christians who believe that every single word is literal then fine, you got me. I don't even take that stance. For example, in Matthew 26:26, when Jesus says this is my body, I don't believe the disciples were actually physically eating his body.
You are absolutely correct. Even fundamentalists acknowledge that some passages are clearly figurative and not to be taken literally. I was taught this formally and informally during my entire experience as an evangelical. It would create terrible practical problems, for instance, if people literally started ripping their eyeballs out if their sight was presenting a temptation to them.
The place where this discernment breaks down though is when a passage is not overtly metaphorical, such as the creation or flood accounts. If a thing can be conceptualized as data to be taken on board, such as these accounts, then an evangelical will nearly always do so, uncritically and unquestioningly. It would never have occurred to me when reading those passages as a Christian, "well obviously this couldn't possibly have happened, so it is allegorical". I would suggest that the difference of opinion between a literalist and a liberal Christian is not what is figurative or metaphorical, but rather what is historic vs allegorical.
One of the ways this works is via a very strong compartmentalization mechanism which puts miracles firmly in the distant past. This allows one to look at the ancient world completely differently from the modern world, and to dispense with cognitive dissonance when reading fantastic claims and stories. Between the miracles in the Bible and the more secular legends of fire-breathing dragons and magic swords, the past is easy to think of as a world in which different rules applied and anything was possible.
I used to think it a bit odd that outside the charismatic movement, most evangelicals associate the closing of the canon of scripture with the end of signs and wonders. But this also fits with keeping the ancient world in a nice tidy compartment. And I think this was the right decision, because from the charismatics I have known, they just have a lot more trouble rationalizing much higher expectations which are constantly dashed when cancers don't vanish and the like.
I can tell you how his world changed, and so can you. You know why? It changed the exact same way as everyone else, which is to say that it didn't change anything (Except for those same sex couples who can now enjoy the same benefits as other loving marriages).
A revelation came to me more clearly today. I understand why atheists gleefully jumped right in front of the whole gay marriage debate last year and passionately defended it. It wasn't out of some grand desire for equality and justice for it. It wasn't a moral crusade. It was only because the issue gave them a vehicle to easily scapegoat Christians, hence the constant "bigot" term tossed around and stubborn refusal to even try to understand the other side of the debate.
Tell me, where was the atheists in 80s and 90s when the gay culture was really under attack during the AIDS epidemic? I certainly didn't see great waves of protest when the defense of marriage act was signed. Well of course, a Christian coming out speaking against homosexuality in that era would not have received any criticism. You couldn't scapegoat us then.
The world can change all it wants. God's Word is forever. And because of that, homosexuality is still and will always be a sin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
