Church leaders do not believe in a literal understanding of the Bible

I read this in my local paper the other day and really wanted to reply to the discussion, but since you have to register with your RL details and security number to be allowed into the discussion under your national registered and confirmed name, I had to let it pass (grievously).

I especially wanted to reply to the second reader entry and I am perplexed that nobody did.

Article in Bergensavisen:

Three of four Norwegian Christian leaders believe that Genesis is only a pictorial narrative.
Only half believe the story of Noah's ark is historic.
This is the result of a small study ‘Vårt Land’ has carried out among 58 priests and pastors in Norway. 200 were asked, but only 58 answered the survey.
Half said they believed in evolution, while a third did not believe in evolution.
While more than half said that they thought that the story of Noah's ark and the flood is a historical event.


The Bishop in Bjørgvin (Bergen), Halvor Nordhaug, thinks a literal view of Genesis and the Flood is problematic at best.

- I think some people make it incredibly difficult for both themselves and others if they are to create a contradiction between the biblical creation story and what modern research reveals.
It is completely unnecessary, and it makes faith difficult, he said.

second reply:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Svein

What ignorant people think or believe, whether priest or bishop, lay, or scholar, it is written in the Bible, 2 Timothy 3, 16 -17 that: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, THAT GOD MAY BE PERFECT MAN, made ​​fit for every good work.
It says ALL scripture, not just some, or only partially, but ALL scripture.

It also says in John 7, 38: "Whoever believes in me (Jesus) as scripture says, from his heart will flow rivers of living water." (The living water = Spirit who gives life)

Had the priests and ordinary people had God-belief, so it would not be dry and little life, as in most churches around the country.
And this we can largely thank atheists from the left side, which has been seen to take away the foundation of a good, blessed, harmonious society, by removing Christian education from schools and to a large extent, also from our churches.
This by ordaining priests and priestesses, bishops and bishops inside, which is not grounded in the Word of God, and that replaces the word with humanism and human traditions, and activities that have nothing in common with God's Word.
May the Lord open their eyes so they can see what hope they have been called to.

---

I think he has a grievance towards the ungodly people of Norway not supporting the established institution of the church. But he is shouting in his introductory. And he is shouting that ALL scripture is God's word verbatim. You say straw man, because he is not saying this in the text. I have had enough discussions with Christians to know what lies behind the use of 2.Timothy. They are using it to prove an infallible Bible, to prove that all scripture has been given (KJ). In this case giving the nature of the article, a literal understanding of the Bible as it is written - hence Genisis creation story and the deluge should be understood as Gods own words and thereby historical fact.

I would have countered with a question of - what is ALL scripture? in particular - which books? Who decides what is scripture and what is not? Luther? Athanasius? Jerome?

But the survey does suggest a modernization of the church, something that Christian conservatives doesn't realize have already happened in the church several times over since the death of its figure head. Welcome to Christianity :sneaky:

Christianity in "generally cobbled together nonsense" shock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Christianity in "generally cobbled together nonsense" shock.

---

:laugh4:

BTW nice to see you Idaho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Christianity in "generally cobbled together nonsense" shock.

---

I find it harder to understand those who state they totally believe something that is mutually contradictory.

Welcome back Idaho

~:smoking:

Vårt Land. That made me chuckle.

Is this something new? A lot of people believe in literal interpretations of the bible and don't like being told otherwise. Is this part of a political game or just a survey?

Anyway, until you people change your flag you'll still be advocating state sponsored Christianity.

My response to the Bishop would be, "yes, and?".

I blame poor teaching, atheists claim that you have to choose between God and Science, then religious people claim Saint Paul demands adherence to litteral interpretation of the written word.

Both are fundamentally wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Both are fundamentally wrong.

---

I sincerely hope that was a pun.

When the contents of your holy book is decided by a council held well over a millenium ago you don't really ever have the right to claim that your book is the whole and literal truth.

Welcome back Idaho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I sincerely hope that was a pun.

When the contents of your holy book is decided by a council held well over a millenium ago you don't really ever have the right to claim that your book is the whole and literal truth.

Welcome back Idaho.

---

Well, it was because both sides of the "Religion vs Science" debate are ignorant fundamentalists, but it is also true. Both contetions, that Saint Paul demanded litteral adherence to the Word, and that who cannot accapt both religious faith and scientific reason are incorrect on a basic, foundational, level.

Hence, "fundamentally wrong".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I sincerely hope that was a pun.

When the contents of your holy book is decided by a council held well over a millenium ago you don't really ever have the right to claim that your book is the whole and literal truth.

Welcome back Idaho.

---

To be fair I dont think PVC has ever said it's literal ever.

If anything I'm really suprised that 1/2 of Norways Christians believe that the Noah's ark story actually happened, and that a further 1/3 do not believe in evolution.

Funnily enough when you look at the British population as a whole (so not just Chrisitians as with the Norwegian survey), it turns out that 1/2 of them don't believe in evolution.

Many priests don't believe the majority of Christian doctrine. How can you when you study it? The bible is a composite of various texts, tracts, myths, stories stitched together, edited, translated, edited, translated, appended, edited, translated, edited, appended, translated, edited, translated, appended....

Nothing wrong with the good book. It's a decent read, and a fascinating document. But let's not start thinking of it as anything other than a book of ancient wisdom and belief.



Edited to add a tip of the hat to all you old timers. I like to pop in every so often when I have forgotten that I've already argued about everything 20 times over without changing anyone's mind ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

If anything I'm really suprised that 1/2 of Norways Christians believe that the Noah's ark story actually happened, and that a further 1/3 do not believe in evolution.

Funnily enough when you look at the British population as a whole (so not just Chrisitians as with the Norwegian survey), it turns out that 1/2 of them don't believe in evolution.

---

Well it does say 1/2 were either opposed or confused about it but then gives no breakdown of the figure. It could mean 1% of that total 50% is opposed with 49% merely confused about it.

Surely thats not the same as opposition is it when your confused about evolution, it could mean they merely have questions they would like answered before they say yes.

People generally think anecdotally so any old clever arguement about how some animal article cannot evolve because of x is likely to sway people at least into the dont know camp.


Right on closer inspection of the article it says 10% are creationists and 12% prefer intelligent design while 23% are mixing elements from all three strands evolution, design and creation.

So that 23% would be easy back in either camp as they probably just dont blinking well understand what there being asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

If anything I'm really suprised that 1/2 of Norways Christians believe that the Noah's ark story actually happened, and that a further 1/3 do not believe in evolution.

Funnily enough when you look at the British population as a whole (so not just Chrisitians as with the Norwegian survey), it turns out that 1/2 of them don't believe in evolution.

---

It's like saying half of Britons don't believe that computers work using nanoscopic silicon switches which respond to electromagnetic signals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

It's like saying half of Britons don't believe that computers work using nanoscopic silicon switches which respond to electromagnetic signals.

---

not really when you think about it sure it's easy prove how a computer works even to the ordinary 5/8 on the street.

it's far harder prove evolution thats why it will never be the Law of Evolution, it is however the best and most likely expanlation were ever going to get.

I've always thought one of the great strengths of Christianity is that we do not, in the majority, regard the Bible as the literal word of God. As an earlier poster said, it's not a book; it's a library, cobbled together over millennia. It's full of poetry, wisdom, mutually contradictory instructions, stories, weirdness, sublime passages, the works.

A childhood friend of mine became a monk. He had an interesting take on the ritual and mind-bending contradictions of the Bible: "All of that **** is poetry. God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives." Which coincides nicely with Rabbi Hillel's take on scripture: "That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

it's far harder prove evolution thats why it will never be the Law of Evolution, it is however the best and most likely expanlation were ever going to get.

---

It's pretty easy actually. We see it happen in labs across the world every day and in our hospitals as well. Of course I am talking about bacteria who have undergone a fundamental change in order to become resistant to all of our overused antibiotics.

I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I've always thought one of the great strengths of Christianity is that we do not, in the majority, regard the Bible as the literal word of God. As an earlier poster said, it's not a book; it's a library, cobbled together over millennia. It's full of poetry, wisdom, mutually contradictory instructions, stories, weirdness, sublime passages, the works.

A childhood friend of mine became a monk. He had an interesting take on the ritual and mind-bending contradictions of the Bible: "All of that **** is poetry. God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives." Which coincides nicely with Rabbi Hillel's take on scripture: "That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

---

That is close to Quakerism. Most high churches aren't going to say all their heirachy, money and power is tacked on and not required. Women are still not ordained, priests don't marry due to dogma.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Women are still not ordained, priests don't marry due to dogma.

---

Not ordaining women and maintaining celibacy have good reasons behind them. I see no problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Not ordaining women and maintaining celibacy have good reasons behind them. I see no problem with that.

---

Care to elaborate?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Care to elaborate?

~:smoking:

---

Sure. Women do not get ordained for the simple reason that all of Apostles were men. Jesus deliberately only chose men for those roles.

As for maintaining celibacy, I'm a husband and a father, there's no way I can fully dedicate my life to God. 1st Book of the Corinthians puts it best:
"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, gnot to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.

---

there is some stuff about the black sea being the candidate

Unmarried men have no knowledge of marriages, married life, families, women or children. They are fundamentally flawed from the outset in their pastoral care. It also selects against balanced individuals who want a marriage and a family. Quoting a book from the bible merely shows the lack of insight that is shown - someone out to say why their choices are right. Nothing shows this better than the rulings on celibacy - getting a task force of the celibate to say what to do. A group of married men and women with grown up children would have a far more realistic take on this.

Although no women were apostles, there were many women who had important roles within early Christianity, yet was increasingly sidelined - and this of course ignoring the selection of early texts that took place that indicates women had a far more substantial role.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Unmarried men have no knowledge of marriages, married life, families, women or children. They are fundamentally flawed from the outset in their pastoral care.

---

Flawed how?

Quote:

---

It also selects against balanced individuals who want a marriage and a family. Quoting a book from the bible merely shows the lack of insight that is shown - someone out to say why their choices are right. Nothing shows this better than the rulings on celibacy - getting a task force of the celibate to say what to do. A group of married men and women with grown up children would have a far more realistic take on this.

---

The conflict of interests is undeniable when it comes to married clergy.

Quote:

---

Although no women were apostles, there were many women who had important roles within early Christianity, yet was increasingly sidelined - and this of course ignoring the selection of early texts that took place that indicates women had a far more substantial role.

---

The fact remains: Jesus deliberately chose only men. It does not imply that women are incapable of doing the priestly duties, but Jesus only chose men.

Every time I see articles like this where people believe these stories word for word I thank god for leading me to
Mother church where science and religion aren't always at odds

rvg surely 1 Timothy 3:2 is an example of the scripture approving of bishops having wives?

Also for what it's worth, Catholic Eastern Rite priests usually are married, and there are Latin Rite priests that are married having converted from Protestantism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

rvg surely 1 Timothy 3:2 is an example of the scripture approving of bishops having wives?

Also for what it's worth, Catholic Eastern Rite priests usually are married, and there are Latin Rite priests that are married having converted from Protestantism.

---

Orthodox priests get married, yes. They get married *before* they become priests though. There are Eastern Rite Catholic priests that are married, but most are celibate. And yes, married Anglican ministers are allowed to become full fledged Catholic priests. Nonetheless, the fact that married clergy exists does not subtract from the fact that a married man has to split his duties between God and family while an unmarried man can totally dedicate himself to God. Doesn't mean that married clergy is bad or anything like that, but a married man has to think about putting food on the table, providing for his wife and children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.

---

Although GC beat me to it, there are lots of examples of flood myths from the ancient world. Possibly due to warble gloaming in pre-historic days. No factories caused it though. :disguise:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Although GC beat me to it, there are lots of examples of flood myths from the ancient world. Possibly due to warble gloaming in pre-historic days. No factories caused it though. :disguise:

---

No, but there was this end of an Ice Age with attending melting of the poplar ice sheets and glaciers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Possibly due to warble gloaming in pre-historic days. No factories caused it though. :disguise:

---

Costanza.jpg