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

[CountArach]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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".

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[Idaho]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[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."

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Beskar]

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.

[Idaho]

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 ;)

[CountArach]

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

I never said he did, I was responding to the article.

God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives.

The problem with that point of view (and I don't doubt that it is relatively popular) is that then how do we know what constitutes a good life without interpreting the poetry? "Good" is such a relative term that in order to objectivise it, as religious groups seek to do, it must be based on something and that something is the interpretation of the bible. Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.

[Lemur]

Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.

Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.

Difficult moral decisions will always be difficult. (Exemplum gratum: You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.)

I believe we as a species tend to over-complicate our relationship with the Divine. "Do good works" can be fairly easily derived from the Golden Rule, as per Rabbi Hillel. Nothing is going to make moral quandaries any less quandaratic (yes, I know that word doesn't exist, but it should).

[CountArach]

Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.

Exactly, some people need clarity in their lives, whether it is based on sound reasoning or not.

You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.

Drop both babies. Repopulate the planet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So does that mean that women can be popes but not priests?

Or is it just another story to pick and choose at like the rest of the Bible?

If "the Bible" were any other document you would have no problem with the practice of sifting it and trying to place a value on it's constituant parts. Demanding an all-or-nothing approach from Christians when you're an atheist is asking them to build your strawman for you.

One might as well. The Bible itself is picking and choosing - viewed by many as a document whose content has withstood the test of time, remaining inviolate over the years... Even though there are so many different versions and translations. To try and get a logical approach to this would hardly fit with belief in any case.

This is not a particularly accurate representation of the Biblical text. The Bible has been translated into most languages, but it has not been translated "through" them, all modern stranslation are based on Greek and Hebrew prototypes, it has got to the point that they are all based on the same protoypes. Further, as Greek and Hebrew are languages designed for accurate scribal reproduction erros are (relatively) easy to pick up. This is no way eliminates scribal error, but it goes a very long way to mitigating it.

As to a "logical" approach, philology and textual criticism were developed for the Bible.

I never said he did, I was responding to the article.

The problem with that point of view (and I don't doubt that it is relatively popular) is that then how do we know what constitutes a good life without interpreting the poetry? "Good" is such a relative term that in order to objectivise it, as religious groups seek to do, it must be based on something and that something is the interpretation of the bible. Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.

Moral "grey areas" are where you have a decision you don't want to make. You will never be in a situation where two decisions are actually morally equivilent.

[Papewaio]

Moral "grey areas" are where you have a decision you don't want to make. You will never be in a situation where two decisions are actually morally equivilent.

Never is an infinitely large statement.

What about the lady who had to choose which of her twins would survive, the other to be gassed?

I'm sure there is some Boolean situations where it is one survivor or the other.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.

Difficult moral decisions will always be difficult. (Exemplum gratum: You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.)

Quite simply, I would roll onto my back and place the babes on my chest. In this way I would turn myself into a human raft, this is the only solution which offers a chance of us all surviving, and it has the added advantage that it conserves my evergy if I live, and I should remain bouyant if I die, therefore increasing the chances the babes will survive and be resuced.

The key thing here is that both from a traditional moral and utilitarian standpoint the priority should be to save the babies becauce A: they are helpless and B: they are the next generation.

I believe we as a species tend to over-complicate our relationship with the Divine. "Do good works" can be fairly easily derived from the Golden Rule, as per Rabbi Hillel. Nothing is going to make moral quandaries any less quandaratic (yes, I know that word doesn't exist, but it should).

I detest this concept of the "Golden Rule", repricocity is all well and good, but self sacrifice in the interests of other is far superior. If everybody does as he would be done to some will take with the justification that you should only have what you can take and hold - and they will take until taken from. On the other hand, if everyone seeks the best for others and not themselves everyone will be looked after.

[rory_20_uk]

This is not a particularly accurate representation of the Biblical text. The Bible has been translated into most languages, but it has not been translated "through" them, all modern stranslation are based on Greek and Hebrew prototypes, it has got to the point that they are all based on the same protoypes. Further, as Greek and Hebrew are languages designed for accurate scribal reproduction erros are (relatively) easy to pick up. This is no way eliminates scribal error, but it goes a very long way to mitigating it.

There's the Catholic Bible. And the Protestant Bible. And the Coptic Bible. And the Greek Orthodox bible. And several others that I've forgotten.

They're different, containing different books. And all are of course the right one.

Quite simply, I would roll onto my back and place the babes on my chest. In this way I would turn myself into a human raft, this is the only solution which offers a chance of us all surviving, and it has the added advantage that it conserves my evergy if I live, and I should remain bouyant if I die, therefore increasing the chances the babes will survive and be resuced.

So, given the outcomes you were initially advised about, all three would die - as soon as you go under, the babies roll off. Although typical of the answer to this type of theoretical question with defined boundaries.

[Lemur]

I detest this concept of the "Golden Rule", repricocity is all well and good, but self sacrifice in the interests of other is far superior.

I've got a Matthew 7:12 in my back pocket that would question this line of reasoning. Anyway, self-sacrifice is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. As you illustrate in your answer to my silly hypothetical, sacrificing yourself for a child is almost always the right thing. Immolating yourself in the service of, say, a cult leader? A politician? An abstract cause? Not so much.

So, given the outcomes you were initially advised about, all three would die - as soon as you go under, the babies roll off. Although typical of the answer to this type of theoretical question with defined boundaries.

My hypothetical was just that, and I see no problem with his answer. Might work, might not, but it's a valid choice. PVC would choose the riskiest move in hopes of saving both children. (I plucked that example, by the way, from a real-life case that shook me up pretty badly when I read about it a few years ago.)