1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Biblical Faiths: Which is more dangerous?

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Katzpur, Nov 29, 2005.

  1. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,178
    Ratings:
    +5,879
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I've heard a lot of people claim that it's dangerous to accept the Bible in a literal sense. While I agree that there are definitely some parts of the Bible that God intended us to recognize as allegorical or figurative, I believe that these are relatively few. If we want to understand what God has told us, we need to stop insisting that He meant something other than what He actually said. I believe that when we interpret the Bible figuratively, the chances of mis-interpreting it are enormous. I believe God wants us to understand Him, and we can't do that if we're constantly second-guessing what He meant when He said something.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,195
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    The Pharisees took a literal translation of the OT and look where it got them! What started out in excellence ended in hypocrisy!

    The Spirit enables us to "make a right judgement", and so on it, and it alone, I will rely to make known the mysteries of God's Scriptures. So far it has been an incredible ride.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,653
    perhaps the problem is where do you draw the line between allegory and what is literal?

    Noah and the Ark... seven days of creation... pillars holding up the sky... ostriches being bad parents

    There isn't any list telling you what is a metaphore and what is literal... save for Jesus' parables.
    How much of the OT is parable, how much is solid history?

    wa:do
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659
    Quite right, PW; that is one of the prmanent 'niggles' in the back of my mind. I am the type of person who prefers neat boundaries; Alas Christianity doesn't seem to give them.
     
  5. Green Gaia

    Green Gaia Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,780
    Ratings:
    +1,929
    What faith is supposed to be debating here?
     
  6. nutshell

    nutshell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,140
    Ratings:
    +672
    Christ is the key and apparently you don't know what he unlocks.
    :woohoo:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,713
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I have no idea why people have a problem with picking and choosing. Every writer had his own style of writing. Picking and choosing allows for that. The point for us catholics is to submit to teachings not necessarily one interpretation.

    ~Victor
     
  8. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Oldest Heretic

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    16,071
    Ratings:
    +3,518
    Religion:
    Anglican...heretic
    I would put far more into the Allegorical camp than you.
    The reason is, this was the common way of explaining things in those days and was the expected form.
    As it was common, they had far more experience in understanding it than us and were not confused.
    We of course often misunderstand passages in the Bible and this is indeed dangerous.

    It is rather like the Fairy tales of the brothers Grim. If a child thought that the Scissor man really existed he could be badly damaged.
    But even a young child knows how to get the intended message out of a quite nasty story.

    For some reason and at some point in the Christian history, many of us lost the ability to interpret the Bible stories.
    It could be that the Catholic church knew this when they would only allow Trained priests to do the interpreting.

    Terry_______________________
    Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
     
  9. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,713
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Good point. Here is a good example of why we have Oral Tradition. Most all early Christians KNEW that they had to baptize infants. The historical evidence is there to support it. Oral Tradition is the biases/lens when reading a verse in scripture. And the Bible backs up oral tradition.

    ~Victor
     
  10. nutshell

    nutshell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,140
    Ratings:
    +672
    How about Matthew 18:1-3 "AT the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest• in the kingdom of heaven?
    [​IMG]
    And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
    [​IMG]
    And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children•, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
     
  11. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,195
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Victor, you're killing me!

    The early churches were OFTEN wrong and chastised for it. As I have pointed out before, there is no compelling scripture to support your position, and many logical reasons to dismiss it.

    Christianity is all about the HEART... not just fulfilling a bunch of legalistic requirements. That being said, using your heart and the power of the Spirit to UNDERSTAND (not interpret) scripture is very important. Bible study should be done with an eye to change your heart and mind.
     
  12. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,713
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Are you talking about oral tradition or infant baptism? or both?
    I'll be more then glad to go thru history to see exactly what they were chatised for and what the conclusion was. :D But I've gone down this road before only to have most all of history get dismissed. Let me guess, you only stick to history in the first 100 years?

    Either you don't get it or you are oblivious to the fact that millions do this but somehow you and a few others have managed to get it right here or there. I alredy know this ND.

    ~Victor

     
  13. nutshell

    nutshell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,140
    Ratings:
    +672
    I'd be interested in knowing how any Catholics or Orthodox respond to the scripture above and how this scripture might be applied to the practice of infant baptism.
     
  14. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,713
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
  15. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,195
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Just read revelations my friend. Churches practiced odd things in the first century. Many still do!
     
  16. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,713
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    ND, I have read revelation and will continue to do so, just like you. Not sure how this is supposed to make me see that the RC is one of those churches, while the one you attend is not. But thanks for the suggestion. :)

    ~Victor
     
  17. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    I agree one hundred percent. Literal interpretation, following the rules of interpretation, is extremely important for finding out exactly what is meant in a passage. The church exploded with light, once folks were allowed to read and understand the Bible literally. Literal interpretation does not mean there is no recogniton of allegories, parables, or figures of speech in the Scriptures. It means to take each word and passage in its plain, common, normal, literal sense unless the context clearly demands otherwise. William Tyndale, who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into the common language of the people said,: Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but to go out of the way."

    There are 2 basic ways of interpreting scripture, one is to draw the meaning From the text itself, the other to read a meaning INTO the text that is foreign to the normal sense of the words, grammar, and context. The first is exegesis, the may be called eisegesis, which is to read into the text an allegorical or mythical meaning different from the natural meaning of the passage. This best describes the method used by Amillinnialists, Postmillennialists, and their recent offspring Dominionists or Reconstructionists. In varying degrees this method is also used by mid-tribulationists, pre- wrath rapture proponents, and post-tribulationists. pre-tribulationists are more along the lines of exegesis.

    A cardinal maxim of interpretation is, every passage has one basic meaning but many applications. You must first find the meaning of a passage before applying it, not start with your conclusion and find a Biblical illustration to support it.The most important single principle in determining the true meaning of any doctrine of our faith is that we start with the clear statements of the Scriptures that specifically apply to it, and use those to interpret the parables, allegories, and obscure passageds. This allows Scripture to interpret Scripture. The Reconstructionists in particular frequently reverse this order, seeking to interpret the clear passages by obscure passages, parables, adn allegories.

    The second most important principle is to consistently interpret by the literal, grammantical, historical method. This means:

    Each word should be interpreted in the light of its normal, ordinary usage that was accepted in the times in which it was written,

    Each sentence should be interpreted according to the rules of grammar and syntax normally accepted when the document was written,

    Each passage should also be interpreted in the light of its historical and cultural environment.

    Most false doctrine and heresy of Church history can be traced to a failure to adhere to these principles. Church history is filled with examples of disasters and wrecked lives wrought by men failing to base their doctrine, faith, and practice upon these two principles.The Reformation, more than anything else was caused by an embracing of the lieral, grammatical, and historical method of interpretation, and a discarding of the allegorical method which veiled the Church's understanding of many vital truths for nearly a thousand years.

    Thanks,

    Joeboonda
     
  18. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,713
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I don't blame you for saying such a thing. After all, you have to say such a thing to justify your own erroneous doctrines. Otherwise you would left to answer WHY most of history disagrees with you. Very typical.

    ~Victor
     
  19. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,195
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Victor,

    just as with all humans, it is my belief that ALL churches need to repent at one time or another. I did not mean however, to try and single out either of the Catholic churches as one of those named in the first few chapters of Revelations . If it came across as such, I humbly ask for your forgivenmess.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,713
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Yes I did take it as such, but don't blame you for that. Words have a way of confusing people...;)
    But just so you know, my view of the Church is just not on a local or individual type of view. But also a universal view as the Body of Christ with unity in doctrine. Authority and infallibility tend to do that to local churches/parishes...;)

    ~Victor
     
Loading...