Creationism, Evolution, taking the Bible literally - here are the root of these conflicts as best I can explain it

[skace]

Taking an underlying message is easy. You could condense the bible into a 12 page book if all you needed was underlying messages. Thus why arguments always go beyond them. Nobody is going to argue not to be good to your neighbor or treat others like you would wish to be treated.

 

[przero]

Astaroth33 - Through a study of the entire Bible. Old and New Testament. Through listening to various Bible scholars. The entire Bible points to the coming of the Messiah. Individual verses should be taken in context with the entire Bible. One verse does not a Bible make.

 

[Warthog912]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Interesting post. I have met many people who seriously believe that "if it's in the Bible, it is literal truth", and very interesting discussions arise when such things are questioned. It'll be interesting to see what petrek's opinion is, as I know he's really into this.

Well he takes it literally.
I am not sayign he is right or wrong.

But, what I want to do is shed some light onto why folks hold these different beliefs.
I think that helps us all, no matter what our personal beliefs are, to understand why other folsk hold hteir beliefs.

I also want folks to realise that MOST Christian DO NOT take it literally.

Some denomination explicitly state that the old testament is almsot completely allegory.
Well, maybe they are wrong, going to hell, or wearing black Nikes waithing for the alien space craft.
That is not my point.

The point is simply that people need to realize that most Christians, be they right or wrong, DON"T take it literally.

You're saying that the Bible contains errors. Therefore, it's wrong to take it literally, no?

I must be stupid because I'm failing to see your point.

Can you pretend I'm a second grader and make it clearer to me?

There are 2 points:
1. The Bible contains errors. I listed many in my first post.
That does not mean not to take it literally; it just means it does contain errors, and that is just about impossible to dispute.

2. The reason people take it literally is a process that spans from the protestant reformation to something modern and fairly American. Once Church authority is forsaken, all you have left is the Bible, hence the idea of ?sola scriiptura.? Maybe ?sola scriptura? is the right thing. I am not saying it isn't, but it is most certainly not they way Christianity was practiced for 1500 years. You have to realize Christianity is older than the Bible. So, somehow you have to realize Christianity is something which can existed WITHOUT the Bible.

3. To be fair, there is a problem also with the so-called 3 legged stool of Scripture, Church teachings, and Tradition. We know without a doubt the church has made horrible mistakes and abused their power.

I believe in God. He has worked in my life in real tangible empirical ways. I do not hold either the Bible or the Church to be infallible, nor do I need them to be in order for me to have faith. It is ok. I gain from reading the Bible. I learn much from tradition, and I feel a peace going to church.

I am impressed. Such an intelligent post without bias, yet with so much information that one with or without faith could easily understand. I wish religious posts like these could exist more often

Thanks for the info-