At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-06-2014, 12:48 PM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2014 01:02 PM by =jesse=.)
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
It wasn't just Christians who decided to drink only bible lite. It's the rest of the world too. Personally, I find religious moderates not to be a cause of religious fanaticism or evangelicalism, but to me they are certainly the ones who allow it to continue.

We live in an era that enjoys scientific advancement in virtually every field that exists, we no longer suffer from geographic isolation, and our stances on human rights have evolved. The social restrictions by following the literal word (and even the inspired word) are simply too much. Either that or the people simply haven't read the entire bible. Sam Harris said it well that religious moderates are an equal betrayal of faith and logic.

For the most part, the moderates (and most people in the world) view peace as something achievable through tolerance, but it's not always the case. As long as we tolerate simple things like saying magic words before we eat and sleep and kneeling to pray 20 times a day, we will tolerate the more extremes of faith. The horrendous acts of violence may disgust other theists, but certainly not enough to criticize faith to the point of just letting it go.

ps- I got a little ranty there, but I think the 2nd paragraph more or less covers the OP. My bad brah

The religion of one age, is the literary entertainment of the next.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes =jesse='s post
17-06-2014, 12:56 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(17-06-2014 10:46 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 10:04 AM)pablo628 Wrote:  Jer, I think I made it clear with this post that I was asking about any god(s) other than the one you follow.
Once again, you avoided answering the real question I was asking. (It's what you do.)


What about the others gods? What makes them wrong and jebus right?

I doubt you'll give a straight answer, but what the hell. Frusty

Christians knew the bible was fiction when they wrote it. It is a product of "priest craft" which was an ancient "profession" just as all crafts were. It was practiced like other crafts by those who had a flare for it and were invited into the craft and the techniques were passed on from one generation to the next. It is an ancient form of indoctrination and carried on down though the centuries. It is associated with the "celts" who are people who worshipped in "cult-like" groups. It has a recognizable formal style. It involves creating stories which promote the values of a society which means the ruling class of that society. It is anonymously written and has a rustic as the presenter of the story, like Jesus, but these presenters are mythical. This tradition continued through celtic literature for many thousand of years and was studied by a Harvard professor, William Henry Schofield who wrote about it in this book: http://www.archive.org/stream/mythicalba...t_djvu.txt



There is a funny part in the book where Schofield examines the stories of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce and finds that they are exactly the same in many places. The writer of "The Wallace" just copied the same tales and attributed them to William Wallace, all to create a "Scottish" national hero. The author of this was supposed to be "Blind Harry", a minstrel who was blind from birth but the book is hundreds of pages long and written as a poem. Schofield shows how the real author went by the name "Stobo" but was actually a cleric employed by the Scottish royal court.

My view is that people really do have to stop looking at the Bible as "evidence" of the truth of anything in it. It just is a propagandist piece of work and as soon as you stray away from this and look at it as anything to do with history, you get bogged down in a quagmire of pointless arguments. We don't, today, have an understanding of why or how people wrote works like it but in "them days" rulers had to rule and they did so by scaring the hell out of the people they ruled, keeping them illiterate and poor and the best way to do that was to construct an ideology which most people accepted and which put the rulers at the head of it. It is much cheaper than having prisons and police and it justifies murdering people who get in your way. It's all part of our brutalistic past when leaders became leaders because they were mainly psychopaths who had no qualms about lying and killing to stay in power. Much like today.Laugh out load

I'd dare say that that is the origin of all fairy god monsters.

Just because YOU believe in fairies doesn't mean anybody else should.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2014, 02:37 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(17-06-2014 12:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 12:00 PM)childeye Wrote:  Just because I don't recall verbatim is no excuse to cry foul. The point remains the same, Eternal Life is not in the scriptures.

An interesting claim.

Romans 6 Wrote:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Have you read your own scriptures?
What is your point with all of this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(17-06-2014 02:37 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 12:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  An interesting claim.


Have you read your own scriptures?
What is your point with all of this?

Your claim that eternal life is not mentioned in your scripture is rather belied by the repeated mentions of eternal life in your scripture.

Unless, of course, your answer to the OP's question is that anything mentioning eternal life must be the parts not to take literally...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
17-06-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(17-06-2014 02:37 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 12:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  An interesting claim.


Have you read your own scriptures?
What is your point with all of this?

That you are ignorant, dishonest, self-righteous, and not a TRUE christian - that is all! Oh and delusional, lets not forget delusional.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(15-06-2014 04:49 PM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  "The Bible is not meant to be taken literally!"

This is an excuse that I hear all the time from Christians when ridiculous crap from the Bible is brought up in a religious argument. For thousands of years the Bible has been taken literally, and still is by many Christians (though they love to ignore all that immoral shit that is condoned in parts like Leviticus and Deuteronomy). It was considered to literally be the word of their infallible god. You were ABSOLUTELY NOT allowed to question "The Good Book", as they love to call it. It was considered to be 100% true and 100% historically accurate, and therefore not allowed to be questioned.

So when did Christians decide that the Bible was no longer to be taken literally? Seems to me like nothing more than a cheap cop-out by Christians to create some excuse to hold onto all the garbage in their book in today's technologically advanced society.

One of the many religious classes I have taken was christian spirituality vision. In it, they presented christian doctrine which states that much of the bible was analogies (no shit). For example, here is the presentation of "hell".


Source is Reason, Faith and Tradition by Martin C. Albl, Chapter 7 page 188 – describing hell.

"We begin with a reminder of limitations of our language. Since hell, according to Christian doctrine, is a supernatural reality, it can only be described in analogies. Holy Scripture teaches us the essence of hell in images. When it speaks of the fire of hell, it is not to be understood in a grossly realistic sense. The images of fire and pain were ways of expressing the essential Christian understanding of hell – that it is a separation from God. We may define heaven as simply being with God, and hell, in contrast, is simply being without God. It is thus an existence without goodness and without meaning."

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2014, 05:15 PM
At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
.
My hope is that I'm still alive when the question becomes:

At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Seriously?

Or that I'm dead before some cataclysm of mass stupidity pitches us into an epoch whose end will be marked by THIS question:

At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Intravenously?

Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Airportkid's post
17-06-2014, 06:04 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(17-06-2014 05:15 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  .
My hope is that I'm still alive when the question becomes:

At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Seriously?

Or that I'm dead before some cataclysm of mass stupidity pitches us into an epoch whose end will be marked by THIS question:

At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Intravenously?

Tongue

Genius, I'd rep you again if I could.

Just because YOU believe in fairies doesn't mean anybody else should.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2014, 08:26 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?


(16-06-2014 07:36 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 07:33 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  The implications of the question.

Now, please awnser, if you can, why the Bible is the insprired and not the Quaran.

I will compile some references for you and send them to you in a PM sometime tomorrow. I am about to go to bed now.

Sooooooooo.....Did it happen yet?

[Image: SaganPortrainWide.png]
A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LandShark's post
17-06-2014, 08:43 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
I am late to this thread, and don't have the time to read through 10 pages. However, in my book, Manifest Insanity, I covered the history related to the OP's question. However, it wasn't that Christians decided it shouldn't be taken literally, but that it should...

“Moving on from the dispensionalists to the Presbyterian stronghold of the Princeton Theological Seminary, it is here where we discover the origins of the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy in the mid-1800s. It was at this bastion of Calvinist intensity that the faculty theologians dreamt up the concepts of literal and inerrant interpretations. They then taught it to thousands of student ministers who, unfortunately, went out amongst the flock and spread this particular brand of fertilizer into the minds of millions of Americans over the last one hundred plus years.

“Thanks to leaders of the Seminary, like Charles Hodge and his son Archibald Alexander Hodge—both of whom published definitive papers on scriptural inerrancy and the literal truth of the Bible—these rigid new ideas began to insidiously pervade the American landscape. Charlie’s book, Systematic Theology, uses a scientific basis—really, I’m serious—to defend his belief in the inerrant and literal truths of the Bible. His son, Archie, also defended this newly thought-up literal stance in the Princeton Review by stating categorically that the Bible was ‘absolutely errorless and binding for faith and obedience.’ The Bible says so, therefore, it must be true and you better obey it.

“It is ludicrously ironic that the Hodges attempted to use science to rationalize a wholly unscientific and circular argument. What is even scarier is that millions of people now subscribe to this exact doctrine, thanks directly to their influence over the generations of ministers coming out of their fundamentalist Seminary. Or, as Karen Armstrong described it: ‘There was desperation in Princeton theology. “Religion has to fight for its life against a large class of scientific men,” Charles Hodge declared in 1874.’ This desperation was fueled by fears of an uncertain future in a rapidly changing modern world, a world in which religion was losing its place. It was this desperation and a need for reassurance that drove the quest for absolute certainty, an imagined guarantee which formed the inflexible core of the literal and inerrant interpretations of fundamentalist doctrine.

“These doctrines of literalism and inerrancy were codified into evangelical beliefs when the American incarnation of the Presbyterian Church issued the Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910, establishing five key fundamentals as essential to their Christian beliefs. It is from these five core beliefs that fundamentalists derive their name. Those five beliefs being: the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore Scripture is inerrant, the virgin birth of Jesus, his death as an atonement for human sin, his bodily resurrection, and the historical reality of his miracles. If you choose not to believe these five fundamentals, then we have some lovely parting gifts for you. So long, don’t let the door hit you in the butt on your way out of the church. You obviously don’t play well with others and we don’t want your kind around here infecting the minds of decent conservative Christians with your liberal reasoning, so be off with you."

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Diogenes of Mayberry's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: