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.
Christ spoke in parables. Almost all of Christ's teachings were figurative.
Do you realize that being God in the flesh that Jesus parables could have easily been true stories giving good examples for what He was conveying? DO me a favor, name a parable that could not have trully happened.
This is the fundamental (no pun intended) rift on these forums. If any offer experiences in God and Christ that differ from a literal interpretation of the Bible, they are asked "Where is that in Scripture??", accused of "apostasy" and "heresy", and their spiritual paths are slandered in the most horrific of ways.
I really immersed myself sometime back in learning whether or not the Bible is true. After studying the history of its creation, the lost scriptures and those not voted to be included in the Bible by the official Church, as well as testing the ideas in the Bible against the wisdom I was gaining from a direct experience with God (i.e. not simply following rules), it became clear to me that there is certainly inspired wisdom in the Bible but it has mostly been co-opted by the ignorance of mankind trying to project what he believes to be God's word over the ensuing centuries.
If you look at people on the planet today capable of experiencing the miracles Christ did - walking on water, dropping one body and taking on another, and raising the dead - they come from many walks of life but share one commonality: they have tapped into the force that binds all of life (what Christians might call the Holy Spirit) and elevated to a state of pure love.
I believe this is what Christ demonstrated and taught we are all capable of becoming, not simply worshipping him. Why, otherwise, would millions have been so compelled by him? Certainly not because he demanded they follow, but because they wanted to follow. As time went on, that faded into the church's demands to follow. But, in the end, only fragile egos need to be worshiped and the God imagined to need our worship was created by kings and rulers who needed worship. True masters and Gods seek to create other masters. From that perspective, you begin to see the wisdom in the Bible and its limitations.
Bluefly, you may know me as an affirmed and often aggressive atheist. I am, but your post above is one of the most honest and likely-correct analyses of a rational and reasonable interpretation of the bible I've seen.
It touches on many obvious truths, and supports a rational, spiritual interpretation, unfettered by silly literal versionisms of biblical allegory and fable, which have, as you've said, been re-interpreted so many times that the current version means little in an exacting sense.
It (Like, say, BibleWord v5.8.96) has to be taken with a large lump of salt. I mean, what did those revisionists have in mind after all? King James as inerrant biblical scholar? When all he really wanted was a church-blessed divorce?
So, from an unlikely source, accolades for your clarity. I'm just cruising around here, reading what the Christian side might be thinking tonight. Perhaps I'm "homesick"? Nahhh... I think I'm allowed in... they certainly show up & post in the Atheism threads!
I once was an interested and believing Christian, but the very essence of dogmatic fundamentalist foot-stamping declarations of literacy drove me off as though they were a pack of rabid wolves.
Bluefly, you may know me as an affirmed and often aggressive atheist. I am, but your post above is one of the most honest and likely-correct analyses of a rational and reasonable interpretation of the bible I've seen.
It touches on many obvious truths, and supports a rational, spiritual interpretation, unfettered by silly literal versionisms of biblical allegory and fable, which have, as you've said, been re-interpreted so many times that the current version means little in an exacting sense.
It (Like, say, BibleWord v5.8.96) has to be taken with a large lump of salt. I mean, what did those revisionists have in mind after all? King James as inerrant biblical scholar? When all he really wanted was a church-blessed divorce?
So, from an inlikely source, accolades for your clarity. BTW, I once was an interested and believing Christian, but the very essence of fundamentalist dogmatic foot-stamping declarations of literacy drove me off as though they were a pack of rabid wolves.
and yet wrong! Tell me how in the world can Bluefly give you an in depth anaylsis of the bible when Bluefly doesn't believe in the bible. You agree with a non Christian what a surprise. Mystics and atheists agreeing.
Last edited by Fundamentalist; 05-04-2009 at 08:06 PM..
Don't you ever tire of your straw man arguments, Fundy. All Christians believe in ALL of the bible . . . just NOT in the mindless literal interpretations of it that represent a refusal to use exegetical and other sources of knowledge to interpret the SPIRITUAL messages . . . NOT the CARNAL MILK. A literal interpretation is a position born of ignorance and exemplifying the elevation of ignorance to a virtue, IMO.
and don't you tire of making stuff up other than the voices you hear in your head because without the bible that is all you have. You still like to play god?
Last edited by Fundamentalist; 05-04-2009 at 08:07 PM..
Christ spoke in parables. Almost all of Christ's teachings were figurative.
Did Christ say the parables and can they be applied literally? The messages in the parables are literal instructions not open for interpretation or alteration.
Hoping this helps someone, again, from earlier in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMRohde
(A Literal Translation is not the same as a literal interpretation. Here's an excerpt from something else I wrote that addresses "interpretation" of the Bible
"The Bible, being a book of WORDS, is entirely symbolical! The letters "c-h-a-i-r" cannot be sat upon. They cast a SPELL in your consciousness to conjure up the awareness of a "chair." Depending on the extent of your development, as far as what Scripture produces in you (though more practically what the occasion calls for) this can evoke a carnal or worldly emphasis in an outer court interpretation of something for your body to _sit_ in; or, it may cause a thought of a psychological abstraction, a position in relation to a collegial body (corresponding to the holy place,) like the _chair_man of a department; or, something more spiritual in nature (the third realm of the tabernacle in analogy,) like what the implications are when God makes us who were dead to be alive and awakened "and _seats_ us together among the celestials (or, in the heavenlies,) in Christ Jesus..." (Eph 2:6) Words are symbols; hence, the Bible, being a book of words, is entirely a book of symbols. There are various legitimate understandings of these symbols or words. Like the largely time oriented interpretations of the Revelation: historicist, preterist, futurist, spiritual or symbolic, all have some validity without being "the last word" on the meaning of the text. While we know what is meant by a "literal" interpretation, there can actually only be interpretation since we are dealing completely with symbols. I believe in each letter and every word of the original as directly God inspired."
Bluefly honestly. you have no clue what you are talking about. Rabbis not just Jesus spoke in parables back then.
...Okay. Doesn't change the fact that Jesus spoke in parables and didn't tell literal stories, as was the original suggestion. I don't know why the fact that Rabbis also spoke in parables takes anything away from that.
Thanks for playing, but I can assure you I have a clue. The love of Christ shines forth yet again.
For Robin69 - Is it plausible that the story of the boy who cried wolf could happen? Did it happen, or was it created out of thin air to teach children a lesson, never meant to be taken literally?
...Okay. Doesn't change the fact that Jesus spoke in parables and didn't tell literal stories, as was the original suggestion. I don't know why the fact that Rabbis also spoke in parables takes anything away from that.
Thanks for playing, but I can assure you I have a clue. The love of Christ shines forth yet again.
For Robin69 - Is it plausible that the story of the boy who cried wolf could happen? Did it happen, or was it created out of thin air to teach children a lesson, never meant to be taken literally?
because the people understood the parables. not to mention Jesus said parables out of mercy for the ones who would reject the truth. Remember what Jesus said to the disciples who asked Him, why does He speak in parables?
Why on earth would you not take the literal meaning from the parable? This is how Christians loose credibility amongst them selves and any one else for that matter! Did God really say don't eat the fruit? Pick up your swords it is apart of the armor.
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.
