Reading The Bible Literally Is Not A Requirement Of Christianity?

[Open_Minded]

If God exists - then it is more in the form of an energy that we can utilise to help us deal with what does actually happen to us and around us. Not something that has any control over what does / will happen. My sister has said she feels things are done for a purpose but not in a literal Christian way - more in line with point 2 above - a sort of mystical way. But does even this view hold water?

 

Robert ... you ask very core questions. Actually, a few weeks back Serenity started a thread called More Specific Questions For Liberal/universalists Christians. She asked questions along the same line and several of us were involved in the discussion. Following is my first answer, but there are many posts from many different perspectives - and it really is worth reading through the thread.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=141977

 

Here is one excerpt from my response:

 

I can look at the Bible verse, "God is Love" and see it as just that LOVE. The energy of LOVE within all, through all, and beyond all. LOVE which is the 1st energy of creation, LOVE which brings order out of chaos (continually and infinetly in the process of bringing order out of chaos).

 

Having said this, I do believe there is such a thing as chaos. I look at my lovely niece who is mentally handicapped and I see LOVE within her - within every cell of her being. I see her ability to convey this LOVE as far superior to most adults I know. And I also see that she was born with a disability that no "loving god" in the far reaches of the universe would ever put upon an innocent child.

 

I see chaos in the world everyday. I see it in the life of my brother-in-law and his wife as they both battle cancer (each of them have cancer and it is questionable whether either of them will survive).

 

I see chaos in the world everyday. I see it in young children who commit suicide. I see it in lives cut short because of accidents. I see it the aftermath of hurricanes and tsunamis. I see it in man made wars and disease.

 

And yet... in all of this LOVE acts. LOVE reaches out from the hearts of people involved - and if there is not physical healing - there is spiritual strength given and recieved. This is where I see "God" acting, day in and day out in an infinite number of ways. I don't expect the chaos to end - it is a natural part of existence.

 

There is chaos in the world.... I accept that.

 

There is also LOVE within all, through all, and beyond all .... I have hope (and yes - faith) in this. That LOVE truly brings order in the midst of the chaos.

 

My brother-in-law and his wife may be fighting chaos right now, but they are fighting it with love. Will they live? I don't know. Are their lives better because they are loved, yes - indeed they are. They have told us this many times.

 

My niece - will have to live her whole life with a disability. She knows she will never marry - she sees her cousins growing up, going to school, getting jobs, getting married, having children and she knows that this will never be her. She is aware of it and she feels pain because of it. There is chaos in her life. But... she is loved ... and she feels this as well. Because she is loved she grows to the highest place that she can grow. Because she is loved she still smiles, she still laughs and quite frankly she brings more joy into the lives of others than many people without her "disability".

 

But, Amanda is correct, if LOVE is to prevail it must prevail within the hearts of humanity. We are not left without our part in it all.

 

IMO: "God" is not somewhere beyond all this, just watching humanity whither in pain. "God" is the LOVE in the midst of the pain, giving us strength to get up everyday and make a difference in the world, make a difference in the midst of the chaos.

 

Robert - please do feel free to ask me questions. I'm not sending you to the other thread to avoid questions. But there are many perspectives there, and they are all worth reading.

[Ziggy]

 

Robert - please do feel free to ask me questions. I'm not sending you to the other thread to avoid questions. But there are many perspectives there, and they are all worth reading.

 

Om Actually I remember reading that from the other thread. I just couldn't recall it as an answer to the question I asked in this thread. It was beautifully written if i may say A positive view immersed in realism

[Open_Minded]

 

Robert - please do feel free to ask me questions. I'm not sending you to the other thread to avoid questions. But there are many perspectives there, and they are all worth reading.

 

Om Actually I remember reading that from the other thread. I just couldn't recall it as an answer to the question I asked in this thread. It was beautifully written if i may say A positive view immersed in realism

 

Robert ... may I ask how many people are involved in your group ... and the range of answers you would find about this issue within your group?

 

Just interested because, recently (especially since 9/11), I've noticed an increased willingness amongst mainstream Christians to tackle these issues on both a personal and cultural level. I know you are in the UK and have been wondering if you are seeing this same dynamic.

[Ziggy]

 

Robert ... may I ask how many people are involved in your group ... and the range of answers you would find about this issue within your group?

 

Just interested because, recently (especially since 9/11), I've noticed an increased willingness amongst mainstream Christians to tackle these issues on both a personal and cultural level. I know you are in the UK and have been wondering if you are seeing this same dynamic.

 

OM - We have had 2 meeting so far outside the normal Church meetings. These as you know were to discuss the more controversial topics - like the history of the Bible canon, Hell Other faiths etc.

The first meeting had about 45 people the second about 25.

I am not sure if the 9/11 thing was the only trigger but yes for sure I have found many Christians desparately trying to come to terms with the issues . Or at least a diluted version of them

 

I know there are lots here who left the church and christianity altogether ..but my feeling was that if possible the Church should be aware of the world it finds its self in now and carry out some self examination. There have been people willing to do this and i have a great respect for them for doing so I consider myself lucky to be involved

There may be a future for the Church yet I believe

[Ziggy]

PS I have not told them I have found inspiration from an EX Christian web site and spiritual guidance in the shape of ..a ..a... WOMAN!

 

Tongue in cheek of course

[Open_Minded]

I am not sure if the 9/11 thing was the only trigger but yes for sure I have found many Christians desparately trying to come to terms with the issues . Or at least a diluted version of them

 

I know there are lots here who left the church and christianity altogether ..but my feeling was that if possible the Church should be aware of the world it finds its self in now and carry out some self examination. There have been people willing to do this and i have a great respect for them for doing so I consider myself lucky to be involved

There may be a future for the Church yet I believe

 

I have my days, but I do believe that there is increasing pressure from both inside and outside the churches political establishment to change. And that is a good sign. We can only keep doing what is ours to do and hope for the best.

 

PS I have not told them I have found inspiration from an EX Christian web site and spiritual guidance in the shape of ..a ..a... WOMAN!

 

Wow ... now there's a bit of news. I guess I was assuming your church was more mainstream and had women pastors. I'm taking it that this was a wrong assumption????

 

BTW ... I was the first female president of our church council in a 150 year old congregation. That was several years ago. I served two terms. I didn't know it at the time and didn't ask because I didn't want to know while I was serving. I found out afterwards.

 

But - you know - with the exception of a few elderly gentlemen I was treated with respect. 99.9% of the people never brought up the fact that I was a female and the 2-3 men who did - were from a completely different generation. So... in my mind it really didn't matter.

 

But ... I did have one thing happen with another church while I was serving as council president. In my duties as council president I would sometimes participate in events, meetings, etc at other churches. One time I called another church about a meeting - I had a wonderful talk with the pastor and when we got to the point where were setting up the meeting schedule and it came out that I was council president - instead of church secretary - well his tone changed dramatically. Our eventual meeting was a hoot, my pastor was in the meeting as well. (There were other church representatives there as well - we were working on a community project.) But - I ran the whole meeting - this other pastor didn't have a clue what to do with a woman sitting at the head of a decision making panel.

 

He didn't attend any follow up meetings - neither did any representatives from his congregation. No loss .....

[Ziggy]

 

Wow ... now there's a bit of news. I guess I was assuming your church was more mainstream and had women pastors. I'm taking it that this was a wrong assumption????

 

BTW ... I was the first female president of our church council in a 150 year old congregation. That was several years ago. I served two terms. I didn't know it at the time and didn't ask because I didn't want to know while I was serving. I found out afterwards.

 

But - you know - with the exception of a few elderly gentlemen I was treated with respect. 99.9% of the people never brought up the fact that I was a female and the 2-3 men who did - were from a completely different generation. So... in my mind it really didn't matter.

 

But ... I did have one thing happen with another church while I was serving as council president. In my duties as council president I would sometimes participate in events, meetings, etc at other churches. One time I called another church about a meeting - I had a wonderful talk with the pastor and when we got to the point where were setting up the meeting schedule and it came out that I was council president - instead of church secretary - well his tone changed dramatically. Our eventual meeting was a hoot, my pastor was in the meeting as well. (There were other church representatives there as well - we were working on a community project.) But - I ran the whole meeting - this other pastor didn't have a clue what to do with a woman sitting at the head of a decision making panel.

 

He didn't attend any follow up meetings - neither did any representatives from his congregation. No loss .....

 

 

Hi OM. No our church is pretty mainstream now. Woman are very involved and speak / teach and pray etc ... there is no restriction. The church as it stands now used to be part of another (still existing) church. It was Bretheren but fairly open and this is where I grew up. In my mid teens I went to my first Annual Meeting where discussions on direction and current events concerning the church were held. At the meeting it was clear opinion was split between the traditional view (mostly older folks) and a new more progressive outlook.

The arguments took the form of what hymn books to use (the traditional songs of praise books would NOT be surrendered by the traditionalists), whether there should be guitars / drums used in the services (rather than an organ), and of course what was the role of women in the Church (including whether they should wear hats).

 

Some changes were agreed to but they were minimal and not enough to placate the people looking for more sweeping modernisation.

 

The next 2 years the meeting was held the same issues were discussed and the same result .. No real changes. The last meeting i remember a women standing up and trying to explain - using bible verses - why she believed that woman should play a much bigger role in the running of the Church than they did

Half way through one of the elders had to catch his Bus and just left ! Another guy was visably furious

 

There were two elders who were pushing for the changes and after that meeting they decided enough was enough and they annouced their resignation from the eldership and that they were going to leave the church altogether. This was 20 years ago now and when they left they took half the church with them and former the church I am now in

 

Funnily enough the speaker at our last meeting to discuss contentious faith issues was that woman who tried to convince the old Church that woman could and should do much more in the Church and was walked out on. She is a very bright and clear thinking person withing humilty and honesty - a real asset to the church

 

So now church responsibilites are split fairly evenly between men and woman although we do have more men elders than women.

 

I think i threw that woman comment in because at first i thought you were a man! i think others made this mistake too. Its funny how you build an image of someone based on their name and avatar. I hope it didn't offend in any way

[Open_Minded]

The arguments took the form of what hymn books to use (the traditional songs of praise books would NOT be surrendered by the traditionalists), whether there should be guitars / drums used in the services (rather than an organ), and of course what was the role of women in the Church (including whether they should wear hats).

 

<snip>

 

So now church responsibilites are split fairly evenly between men and woman although we do have more men elders than women.

 

I think i threw that woman comment in because at first i thought you were a man! i think others made this mistake too. Its funny how you build an image of someone based on their name and avatar. I hope it didn't offend in any way

 

No, no, you did not offend. Yes most people assumed I am male until I clarified. I could have clarified earlier, but it took me awhile to get comfortable enough to do this. My biggest concern was unfounded. At first I worried that a fundy from my own small community would recognize me because I'm fairly well known as a leader of this meditation group. And I didn't want any fundamentalist to put 2+2 together and realize that my home is open to the two girls you've heard me write about before. Once I realized that the chances of something like that happening were minimal, then I felt more relaxed about things.

 

Now ... about "reading the bible literally" and the role of women. Since I've never been involved in literalism - it would be interesting to hear from some of the women on this board about what they were taught in regards to their role as daughter, wife, church member, etc....

 

I grew up in a large - extended Catholic family and am familiar with this to some degree. But, from the outside looking in. My parents relieved all of us children from the boxes that Catholism expected men and women to fit in. So, I am only aware of it from observation of what I saw in my cousins lives.

 

It would also be interesting to hear from some of the men on this board, about the boxes that they were expected to fit in because they are male.

[Bobo]

For those of you who feel this way, what parts of the bible, if any, do you read literally.

 

If some is symbolic and some is literal, how do you determine which is which?

 

Or is none of the bible to be taken literally?

 

Thanks in advance for your replies,

Dan

 

 

Good question, but let's get a tad more specific. Why wouldn't we read the Bible as literal fact?

 

One of the best and most popular reasons not to read the Bible literally is Genesis. Evolution has clearly obliterated most of it as history or science. But here's where Christianity becomes a house of cards.

 

A literal Adam & Eve/Garden of Eden story happens to solve an important logical problem for Christians (and Jews for that matter): how the natural world got to be so cruel and twisted (even without the human evil) in spite of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and morally perfect God. The story says God made everything perfect only to have it corrupted by human and serpentine sin. According to Answers in Genesis, Adam, Eve and all dinosaurs once peacefully coexisted as strict herbivores.

 

Thus, earthquakes, floods and predators suddenly started wreaking havoc only after the fall. Indeed, a common Christian response is that "we live in a fallen world."

 

But, assuming most of the earth was already in place millions of years before humans entered the mix, how does one explain the diseases, predators, meteors and other natural disasters that inevitably contributed to the path that evolution took?

 

Natural selection, by definition, depends on adversity, scarcity and death. Thus, if natural selection explains our origins, then it is logically impossible for God (in the theistic sense) to have caused it. So, by compromising the Bible's explanation of the origins of mankind to accommodate modern science, you effectively emasculate God. Liberal Christianity is not without its own set of problems.

[Golden Meadows]

For those of you who feel this way, what parts of the bible, if any, do you read literally.

 

If some is symbolic and some is literal, how do you determine which is which?

 

Or is none of the bible to be taken literally?

 

Thanks in advance for your replies,

Dan

 

 

BOBO: Good question, but let's get a tad more specific. Why wouldn't we read the Bible as literal fact?

 

One of the best and most popular reasons not to read the Bible literally is Genesis. Evolution has clearly obliterated most of it as history or science. But here's where Christianity becomes a house of cards.

 

A literal Adam & Eve/Garden of Eden story happens to solve an important logical problem for Christians (and Jews for that matter): how the natural world got to be so cruel and twisted (even without the human evil) in spite of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and morally perfect God. The story says God made everything perfect only to have it corrupted by human and serpentine sin. According to Answers in Genesis, Adam, Eve and all dinosaurs once peacefully coexisted as strict herbivores.

GM:Augustine of Hippo, presumably drawing on existing tradition said that Genesis should not be read literally, that its truth's were in the spiritual sphere, and this was in the 4th century. I think the kind of bible literalism we see is maybe more a modern phenomena.

Thus, earthquakes, floods and predators suddenly started wreaking havoc only after the fall. Indeed, a common Christian response is that "we live in a fallen world."

 

But, assuming most of the earth was already in place millions of years before humans entered the mix, how does one explain the diseases, predators, meteors and other natural disasters that inevitably contributed to the path that evolution took?

GM: The point you make does seem to undermine a claim Paul makes in the NT that the very fabric of creation was tarnished by what happened with Adam/Eve and led to decay and death. As you suggest the major problem with this explanation is that whole species came and went before man appeared. That being said there are other takes on what the NT said about the the consequences of the so called fall, e.g Augustine believed that we were already mortal before the test of free-will took place. When I thought of this as a xtian the only thing I could come up with related to the fall having taken place outside of time and therefore tarnished everything in time. This is not entirely off the wall since Origin taught, heritically, that souls existed before they were incarnated and there is a suggestion by another early church father that man took on a body when he was ejected from Eden.

 

Natural selection, by definition, depends on adversity, scarcity and death. Thus, if natural selection explains our origins, then it is logically impossible for God (in the theistic sense) to have caused it. So, by compromising the Bible's explanation of the origins of mankind to accommodate modern science, you effectively emasculate God. Liberal Christianity is not without its own set of problems.

GM:I have no problem with a God working through the medium of evolution but I am unsure how to fit evolution through natural selection with the xtian idea of an omnibenevolent God. Perhaps xtians might argue that this red tooth and claw mechanism only came about through a fall having taken place out of time. Another person might claim that this is the usual xtian mental gymnastics, and ever inventive speculations to deny the truth but its worth bearing in mind that 1600 years before Darwins theory was published xtians were already speculating on these same points, i.e its not entirely a cycnical response to the findings of modern science.

 

[Thackerie]

... Are Unitarians "christians? ...

 

I am a Unitarian and NOT a christian, but I do know of plenty of Unitarians who also label themselves christian. It's a "creedless" religion.

 

Frankly, I don't really get how someone can claim to be a christian without actually believing in its central tenet (i.e., Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected), but if all christians were like OM and my christian friends at the Unitarian church, the world would be a far better place, IMO.

[Antlerman]

A literal Adam & Eve/Garden of Eden story happens to solve an important logical problem for Christians (and Jews for that matter): how the natural world got to be so cruel and twisted (even without the human evil) in spite of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and morally perfect God. The story says God made everything perfect only to have it corrupted by human and serpentine sin. According to Answers in Genesis, Adam, Eve and all dinosaurs once peacefully coexisted as strict herbivores.

Another question to ask would be is it possible for humans to extricate their thinking about the soul of man from the natural world? What I mean is that Genesis offers an explanation for the dilemma of the world we live in, namely that all life in the natural world is dependent on death. We eat things that were recently living – all things. *

 

A mythology gives a language to articulate this emotional contradiction, this angst of life in a way that we can approach feeling at peace with it: “This was not the original design. Here’s how we got here”. It explains our dilemma by placing us as separated from that original perfection. So the question is it possible to continue to use the language of mythology to express the emotions of this dilemma, without it crossing the line into the language of science, polluting our understanding of the mechanics of the natural world with emotional language?

 

When there was no language of science, the language of myth worked for that also because the accuracy seemed less critical. But today, where we obviously depend upon accurate knowledge of the natural world in the many fields of science the world over, extracting “truth” from the book of Genesis isn’t exactly going to tell us much about the behavior of genes.

 

Most Christians seem to be able to compartmentalize these languages, but the literalist/fundamentalist, seems to be creating a new angst for themselves, and a new emotional dilemma beyond the contradiction of life from death, where they have to bury their heads in the sand and try to deny the validity of knowledge of science in an attempt to preserve the language of the mythology that has meaning to them for the original angst. So in reality, they are now doubly angsted.

 

* The modified mythology offered by the “Answers in Genesis folks, that “Adam, Eve and all dinosaurs once peacefully coexisted as strict herbivores,” is laughable. Even in a pre-fall mythological paradise, plants are living things. Not only are they bad at science, they’re not even good at offering a decent mythology! How about this: Prior to the fall there was no need to eat anything, as death did not exist. Why eat? So you don’t die. Oh wait… Genesis has them eating. Oh well, I guess it’s not too consistent as a mythology either.

[Ouroboros]

A literal Adam & Eve/Garden of Eden story happens to solve an important logical problem for Christians (and Jews for that matter): how the natural world got to be so cruel and twisted (even without the human evil) in spite of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and morally perfect God. The story says God made everything perfect only to have it corrupted by human and serpentine sin. According to Answers in Genesis, Adam, Eve and all dinosaurs once peacefully coexisted as strict herbivores.

GM:Augustine of Hippo, presumably drawing on existing tradition said that Genesis should not be read literally, that its truth's were in the spiritual sphere, and this was in the 4th century. I think the kind of bible literalism we see is maybe more a modern phenomena.

l keep on coming back to this, Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-40 CE) interpreted the Torah allegorically.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Philo (20 BCE - 40 CE), known also as Philo of Alexandria and as Philo Judeaus, was a Hellenized Jewish philosopher born in Alexandria, Egypt. The few biographical details concerning him are found in his own works, especially in Legatio ad Caium, ("embassy to Caius") and in Josephus (Antiquities" xviii. 8, § 1; comp. ib. xix. 5, § 1; xx. 5, § 2).

 

The only event that can be determined chronologically is his participation in the embassy which the Alexandrian Jews sent to the emperor Caligula at Rome for the purpose of asking protection against the attacks of the Alexandrian Greeks. This occurred in the year 40 CE.

 

Philo included in his philosophy both Greek wisdom and Judaism, which he sought to fuse and harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had learned as much from Jewish exegesis as from the Stoics. His work was not widely accepted. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls them (De Somniis, i. 16-17), "opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the marvels of his exegesis. Philo's works were enthusiastically received by the early Christians, some of whom saw in him a Christian. Eusebius speculated that the Therapeutae, the Jewish group of ascetic hermits in the Egyptian desert that Philo describes in De vita contemplativa ("Contemplative Life") was in fact a Christian group.

[Golden Meadows]

A literal Adam & Eve/Garden of Eden story happens to solve an important logical problem for Christians (and Jews for that matter): how the natural world got to be so cruel and twisted (even without the human evil) in spite of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and morally perfect God. The story says God made everything perfect only to have it corrupted by human and serpentine sin. According to Answers in Genesis, Adam, Eve and all dinosaurs once peacefully coexisted as strict herbivores.

GM:Augustine of Hippo, presumably drawing on existing tradition said that Genesis should not be read literally, that its truth's were in the spiritual sphere, and this was in the 4th century. I think the kind of bible literalism we see is maybe more a modern phenomena.

l keep on coming back to this, Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-40 CE) interpreted the Torah allegorically.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Philo (20 BCE - 40 CE), known also as Philo of Alexandria and as Philo Judeaus, was a Hellenized Jewish philosopher born in Alexandria, Egypt. The few biographical details concerning him are found in his own works, especially in Legatio ad Caium, ("embassy to Caius") and in Josephus (Antiquities" xviii. 8, § 1; comp. ib. xix. 5, § 1; xx. 5, § 2).

 

The only event that can be determined chronologically is his participation in the embassy which the Alexandrian Jews sent to the emperor Caligula at Rome for the purpose of asking protection against the attacks of the Alexandrian Greeks. This occurred in the year 40 CE.

 

Philo included in his philosophy both Greek wisdom and Judaism, which he sought to fuse and harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had learned as much from Jewish exegesis as from the Stoics. His work was not widely accepted. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls them (De Somniis, i. 16-17), "opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the marvels of his exegesis. Philo's works were enthusiastically received by the early Christians, some of whom saw in him a Christian. Eusebius speculated that the Therapeutae, the Jewish group of ascetic hermits in the Egyptian desert that Philo describes in De vita contemplativa ("Contemplative Life") was in fact a Christian group.

 

Hans,

I can see why Philo would be liked by early xtians since they relied heavily on OT events and people as being types, prefigurements for NT happenings. I liked the bit about his frustration with literalists - it seems some things never change

 

Below is something I found on Wikipedia :"

 

"The "Clergy Letter" Project, drafted in 2004, and signed by thousands of Christian clergy supporting evolution and faith, states:

 

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator." (An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science)"

 

The whole article is worth a read as it covers much of what the past few posts have touched on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_i...ions_of_Genesis.

 

p.s Can anyone tell me how they get those pretty quotes that span a number of posts?

[Ouroboros]

I find it so strange that Christianity was born in the concept of allegorical reading of Genesis, and our time they have reverted back to belief that Genesis is literal and historical. Christians of today wouldn't recognize their own kind back in the 1st century. Today's Christians would claim them to be heretics! Thanks for the links GM.

[Antlerman]

p.s Can anyone tell me how they get those pretty quotes that span a number of posts?

I just do them manually. I either copy and paste the person's name and post number line for each section I wish to stand out and follow it with . So it will look like this:

 

 

(person's words here)

 

 

The other way is just to do a

followed by the forward slash quote in brackets. This is fine except it doesn't link to the original post which is nice, especially if you are pulling from mulitple post numbers from different people. I like to be able to quick link to the original post to see the full contexts.

 

Also when you have and inconsistent number of open and close swithes, none will come out properly as in this post showing the examples. Also, if you have more that 10 quotes in one post it won't allow it and will look like this also.