Christians Preferred: Are only Literalists True Christians™?

[alypius]

Evolution vs. creationism threads tend to attract only non believers on the evolution side even so most people who identify as Christian are not creationists/literalists.

So what is the literal interpretation of Matt 5:30: 'If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off'?

 

[YoursTrue]

If there is too little information listed in the Bible, then why make it a doctrinal belief statement? Why deliberately deny the science, when the Bible contains "too little information" about the subject?

Christians throughout the ages, major figures in Christian history that helped shape and form its history living during its first few centuries, such as Origen, didn't read the Genesis account as literal. And they did not even have the benefit of modern science. Why do modern fundamentalists then read it literally, as if it should be read as literal history and a literal account of origins, as opposed to allegory and metaphor, is the real question.

Can you answer that question for the rest of us? It cannot be because it says so in the Bible, since I don't read that, nor did a number of the early Christian church fathers, reading the same texts as you. What makes your reading true, and the rest wrong?


We are all created by God, and that makes all of us related, whether you accept science or reject it for some reason other than the data. I believe in God, and I embrace science. I believe we are related to other primates, as well as insects, fish, and birds. It says so in Genesis.

Related in what sense? Because lions, dogs and others will kill each other upon occasion. And there are many who think this type of behavior, although common among many humans now, is inevitable as long as they stay in existence. This idea clearly mitigates the Bible's clear message.

 

[YoursTrue]

While that may be true, just as today you have those who believe all sorts of ways about God and what scripture is and means. But it's clear that Origin was speaking from an entirely different framework than them. And it is Origin who was largely responsible for Christianity being taken seriously, as he moved it from a place of ridicule, to a well articulated philosophical/metaphysical system that had its place, that rivaled or surpassed the Greeks, whom he studied and taught.

This is a well-written article intended for both Atheists and Fundamentalists who misunderstand the reality of the early Christian church, and why is it wrong to assume the early church read the Bible literally. The Great Myths 11: Biblical Literalism - History for Atheists


To be honest, I am confused as to why they are calling those scientific theories, other than using the words hypothesis may confuse the average reader? The Theory of Evolution however is different than what you referenced here, which are hypothesis regarding the origins of life itself. That's not what the ToE encompasses.


There are certainly different Christian perspectives on that story. For myself, I see the entire gospels themselves as parables. So the story has significance from a spiritual perspective. To try to dissect it with science, is to completely be missing the intended point of it. This is my major problem with Creationism as a supposed "science" (which it is not). They miss the point of the story and why it was written. It wasn't to teach the earth sciences!


Mythologies use the names of real people all the time. Homer's Odyssey certainly named real historical places and people, but I'm pretty sure the cyclops and Poseidon, were mythic figures. But this did not address my question to you, which was,

"Do you understand how that can be so, that something can be true in its meaning, while the actual story that carries that message, may be a creative invention designed in order to effectively tell a story that conveys that truth?"​

Can the story of Adam and Eve been true, while the actual events of the story were purely allegorical and mythic? Can it convey the same, if not more depth of meaning to you, even if you understood they were not historical in the sense we think of historical facts today? If not, then can you explain how it can have meaning to those like me, who do not accept that they were two actual people identical as the story presents them?


If it isn't necessary for some for them to be true to find the meaning, then why do some feel it necessary to deny science when it appears to them to be encroaching on sacred ground, that being their beliefs about God and the Bible? You won't see me trying to "disprove science" in order to protect my views of scripture. You'll see it the other way around actually welcoming the insights, in order to better understand the nature of symbolic truths.


I wasn't intending that analogy to be challenging that. I brought that up because you had repeated that argument I've heard out the Ken Ham camp, telling the young ones when they hear a scientist in school teaching about of evolution, to challenge them as say, "Were you there???" Which is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Yes, science was there, in effect, because they are studying real things that came from back then. That rock was there however many million years ago. It's not made up make believe. Why should he cast it that way to the minds of these impressionable youth? Fear of truth? I have to ask.


I accept evolution, because the science is solid. I believe in God, because I have both faith, and experience of the Divine. That said, I believe God is the Ground of all Being, to use Paul Tillich's term. All that is, arises from the Divine as Source. That is, God is the Creator of everything. Evolution, is God creating, in the present continuous tense. While we can think of 'the creation' as a single event of the past, the reality is, as the science shows as well, that was the beginning. Not the end.

While the story of the Garden of Eden is set at some "time" in the past, that is an origin story, meant to relate each and everyone of us to that time, which exists within ourselves. That core union with the Divine, and falling from that deep inner origins of who we are, as creations of the Divine itself, is the story of the 'creation'.

But it's a story in a timeless past, not a fixed, historical date. Bishop Usher, had a very modernistic idea in his head, when he picked up sacred myth, and tried to approach it scientifically! Sadly, that type of thinking has impacted many generations to follow him towards that same conflation of disparate narratives. It unnecessarily confuses faith, IMO.


I'll agree that humans created classification systems as part of doing good science. But I want to call out something you let slip here.

Man did not decide that humans evolved from a common primate ancestor shared by other primate species today. They discovered that to be the truth of our origins and ancestry through the tools of science, such as DNA mapping, for one. They "decided" that the data was pointing to that, and they confirmed that data and conclusions from multiple other sets of examinations. All pointing to the same conclusion.

That, is not just arbitrarily imagining it and 'just deciding' that was the case. That is a bad-faith argument, if that is what you were intending to imply?


Of course science does not examine these things. It's not the right set of eyes to use to examine it. We use other sets of eyes to examine the things of the Spirit. That's an interesting perspective on animals. How do you define spirit, and how do you define soul in this context?


I share that view myself. As I said, to examine the things of the spirit, that becomes a subjective interior exploration. Welcome here, deep mediators, prophets, seers, or otherwise known as the mystics. That's a whole subject in itself I'll skip over here, but suffice to say, Reality is a lot more than just the whole exterior side of reality, or the materialist perspective.

While the scientific and naturalist perspective is valid, and why I accept evolution as factual, to conclude that there is not spiritual truth or reality beyond brain and chemicals, is a limp claim. The greatest minds in science, recognize the spiritual, and holistic nature of reality, to the point of what you could call the Divine. I certainly see it that way myself.

I have scientists in my family. Some profess a form of religion based on the scriptures. Yet they do not believe them. But they, like many, do like certain aspects of what their religion teaches about the Bible. That's almost like saying that abiogenesis is not connected with evolution even though evolution wouldn't be possible without a start.

 

[Heyo]

So what is the literal interpretation of Matt 5:30: 'If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off'?

I think the authors wants you to prefer your ability to walk over your ability to manipulate things to the extend that if your hand interferes with your ability to walk (I don't know how that could happen), you should surgically remove your hand (limited to your right hand, why ever).
But I don't care as I am not a literalist and I don't take any advice from unknown people who lived thousands of years ago.
You should ask @ElishaElijah.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I think the authors wants you to prefer your ability to walk over your ability to manipulate things to the extend that if your hand interferes with your ability to walk (I don't know how that could happen), you should surgically remove your hand (limited to your right hand, why ever).
But I don't care as I am not a literalist and I don't take any advice from unknown people who lived thousands of years ago.
You should ask @ElishaElijah.

Did anyone cut off their hands or pluck out their eyes after that teaching? No, Why? Because the people Jesus was talking to in that culture, at that time, knew what He meant. The purpose of biblical hermeneutics is to do just that, what did God mean when He said something. The Literal Method of interpretation as I posted earlier briefly explains this. There are also qualifications a person needs to properly interpret Scriptures as well. For example, if a person is not born again of the Holy Spirit they won’t be able to understand or properly interpret a lot of the Word of God.

 

[metis]

no the truth cannot vary, the differences complement each other.
One example:

"the murderer had glasses"
"the murderer was a man"
Is that a contradiction? No, it was a man with glasses.


Actually, the approach of taking things literally is as old as Jesus.

• Jesus referred to the sign of Jonah - and meant it that way. Not some sort of parabolic Jonah in the air. He meant the real Jonah inside the real whale.
• Jesus referred to the murder of the prophets as actual murder. No hypothetical figure of speech there.
• Jesus referred to the flood as the flood. The global one. Because the thing he compared it to (his second coming) is also a global event.

I honestly don't see how the above deals with what I posted because my comment deals with how we may take what's written in scripture.

Again, using the women's visitation at Jesus' tomb as an example, the Gospel accounts vary, and there's no thread that could logically connect them in terms of the details.

Also, imo, literalism is basically a form of idolatry, namely making an object, in this case the Bible, somehow being "perfect", which in reality is a viewpoint that is not defensible logically based on all the what theologians call "variations" found within.

However, these "variations" do not take anything away from the general picture of what was happening.

 

[metis]

Should I be saying "Lamb"?

That's the only red meat that I sometimes will crave. As for beef and pork, if I never have any one of them to eat again for the rest of my life, I wouldn't shed a tear.

Fish is what we are trying to increase in.

We have fish an average of once a week.

What's sometimes funny is when we're in a restaurant and my wife and I order, the waiter/waitress often place the wrong item in front of us because I only rarely order any meat but my wife does more often than I. Thus, we often get stereotyped.

 

[Heyo]

Did anyone cut off their hands or pluck out their eyes after that teaching? No, Why? Because the people Jesus was talking to in that culture, at that time, knew what He meant. The purpose of biblical hermeneutics is to do just that, what did God mean when He said something. The Literal Method of interpretation as I posted earlier briefly explains this. There are also qualifications a person needs to properly interpret Scriptures as well. For example, if a person is not born again of the Holy Spirit they won’t be able to understand or properly interpret a lot of the Word of God.

So, just to clarify, because you are born again of the Holy Spirit, you know to interpret scripture, when something is to be taken literally and when allegorical. And you know that, when someone interprets scripture other than you, that s/he isn't born again of the Holy Spirit, ergo, not a True Christian™?

 

[Windwalker]

Related in what sense? Because lions, dogs and others will kill each other upon occasion. And there are many who think this type of behavior, although common among many humans now, is inevitable as long as they stay in existence. This idea clearly mitigates the Bible's clear message.

From a theological perspective, we are all related because we all come from the same Source, namely God. We share the same "parent" in other words, the same Creator. From a scientific perspective, we are all related because all animal life on this planet evolved from a single animal life form, likely the ancient sea sponge.

I have scientists in my family. Some profess a form of religion based on the scriptures. Yet they do not believe them. But they, like many, do like certain aspects of what their religion teaches about the Bible. That's almost like saying that abiogenesis is not connected with evolution even though evolution wouldn't be possible without a start.

Abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution, is a correct statement. It's not addressed by the ToE, just as the study of black holes doesn't address abiogenesis either. That's not its focus.

But as far as someone embracing a religion, and not believing the scriptures, that really depends on your definition of what it means to "believe in scripture". To me, to believe in them, means you find truth on its pages, in the symbolic meaning of the stories.

But to others, to believe in scripture, is interpreted by their minds to mean they accept them as infallible, direct dictations from God, perfect and accurate in matters of not only faith, but in matters of science and history. I don't believe that myself, nor do a large number of Christians.

 

[ElishaElijah]

But I don't care as I am not a literalist and I don't take any advice from unknown people who lived thousands of years ago.

If you have this view, don’t see how you would be able to discern what Scripture says or means.
Some qualifications are:
*Must be born again of the Spirit or you won’t comprehend what He is saying.
*Attitude of humility, reverence and respect for God’s Word
*Accept the total inspiration of Scripture
*Have a renewed mind
There are other qualifications as well.
As far as actually interpreting Scripture once you are born again there are certain principles that need to be followed like context, time frame, figures of speech of that time period, other Scriptures, different Covenants that God made at the time etc.

So to answer your question about being born again and knowing the difference between when God means something literal or allegorical yes I can discern the difference. The Body of Christ has many people with certain gifts, some are teaching gifts, so when we get together to study the Bible everyone has input and in this setting the meaning of Scripture and what God means is usually pretty clear on most things. Some things are still hidden though.

 

[Heyo]

Some qualifications are:
*Must be born again of the Spirit or you won’t comprehend what He is saying.
*Attitude of humility, reverence and respect for God’s Word
*Accept the total inspiration of Scripture
*Have a renewed mind
There are other qualifications as well.

Who defined these prerequisites and where?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Who defined these prerequisites and where?

They are in Scripture for example :
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭2:14‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
And the qualifications are from a Book by Kevin Conner Interpreting the Scriptures is the reference I use and glad gifted believers put this together. The qualifications have Scriptures as examples but that’s the reference.

 

[thomas t]

I honestly don't see how the above deals with what I posted because my comment deals with how we may take what's written in scripture.

Again, using the women's visitation at Jesus' tomb as an example, the Gospel accounts vary, and there's no thread that could logically connect them in terms of the details.

Also, imo, literalism is basically a form of idolatry, namely making an object, in this case the Bible, somehow being "perfect", which in reality is a viewpoint that is not defensible logically based on all the what theologians call "variations" found within.

However, these "variations" do not take anything away from the general picture of what was happening.

variations do not necessarily mean they are contradictory.
I think the different tonb stories fit together very well complementing each other.

My last reply also dealt with how we may take what is written in scripture. Just as your post did.

Even if there are variations, taking the Bible literally makes great sense and this is very well defensible, in my opinion. It is not idolatry.

When I say "this woman looks perfect!", I'm not making an idol out of her, either.
Similarly, when I say the Bible is perfect, I don't commit idolatry either. Declaring something perfect is not idolatry in and of itself.

 

[metis]

When I say "this woman looks perfect!", I'm not making an idol out of her, either.
Similarly, when I say the Bible is perfect, I don't commit idolatry either. Declaring something perfect is not idolatry in and of itself.

Logically, it would take perfection to correctly perceive something else as being perfect. Thus, are you claiming you're perfect?

And there is a difference between God and the Bible as the Bible is not God and God is not the Bible. The Bible is about God but is not God, thus they are not one and the same. Since that clearly is the case, if God is perfect then the Bible cannot be perfect because they are different, thus believing the Bible is perfect is indeed a form of idolatry.

BTW, iyo, is the Bhagavad Gita "perfect"? How can you tell if it is or isn't?

 

[YoursTrue]

From a theological perspective, we are all related because we all come from the same Source, namely God. We share the same "parent" in other words, the same Creator. From a scientific perspective, we are all related because all animal life on this planet evolved from a single animal life form, likely the ancient sea sponge.


Abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution, is a correct statement. It's not addressed by the ToE, just as the study of black holes doesn't address abiogenesis either. That's not its focus.

But as far as someone embracing a religion, and not believing the scriptures, that really depends on your definition of what it means to "believe in scripture". To me, to believe in them, means you find truth on its pages, in the symbolic meaning of the stories.

But to others, to believe in scripture, is interpreted by their minds to mean they accept them as infallible, direct dictations from God, perfect and accurate in matters of not only faith, but in matters of science and history. I don't believe that myself, nor do a large number of Christians.

It really doesn't matter to me if abiogenesis is not considered as the "beginning" of evolution. Because frankly, my dear, it must be considered. it is, frankly again, bordering on the insane side to not consider it. Thanks, and have a nice day. You can go with the theory of evolution. I'll go with the Bible which says in the beginning, God created the heavens and...the earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you have this view, don’t see how you would be able to discern what Scripture says or means.
Some qualifications are:
*Must be born again of the Spirit or you won’t comprehend what He is saying.
*Attitude of humility, reverence and respect for God’s Word
*Accept the total inspiration of Scripture
*Have a renewed mind
There are other qualifications as well.
As far as actually interpreting Scripture once you are born again there are certain principles that need to be followed like context, time frame, figures of speech of that time period, other Scriptures, different Covenants that God made at the time etc.

So to answer your question about being born again and knowing the difference between when God means something literal or allegorical yes I can discern the difference. The Body of Christ has many people with certain gifts, some are teaching gifts, so when we get together to study the Bible everyone has input and in this setting the meaning of Scripture and what God means is usually pretty clear on most things. Some things are still hidden though.

I agree that the body can discern. Is the body always right. No because while God's spirit is perfect, human members on earth are not. However I don't imagine too many would think Jesus literally meant to cut one's hand off if it offends. Not at all. Upon a realistic reasoning of it, let me say that a person can have what is termed a "right hand man." Just as one possible way to look at it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Logically, it would take perfection to correctly perceive something else as being perfect. Thus, are you claiming you're perfect?

And there is a difference between God and the Bible as the Bible is not God and God is not the Bible. The Bible is about God but is not God, thus they are not one and the same. Since that clearly is the case, if God is perfect then the Bible cannot be perfect because they are different, thus believing the Bible is perfect is indeed a form of idolatry.

BTW, iyo, is the Bhagavad Gita "perfect"? How can you tell if it is or isn't?

God's words are recorded to an extent in the Bible. Not all of them, of course. I'm sure He spoke many more words than those in the Bible. All scripture is inspired of God. That's what the Bible says. 2 Timothy 3. Do circumstances affect the understanding of them? Of course they do.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I agree that the body can discern. Is the body always right. No because while God's spirit is perfect, human members on earth are not. However I don't imagine too many would think Jesus literally meant to cut one's hand off if it offends. Not at all. Upon a realistic reasoning of it, let me say that a person can have what is termed a "right hand man." Just as one possible way to look at it.

This is what I mean
“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are in Scripture for example :
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭2:14‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
And the qualifications are from a Book by Kevin Conner Interpreting the Scriptures is the reference I use and glad gifted believers put this together. The qualifications have Scriptures as examples but that’s the reference.

That is quite the stretch.

Of course that is the reason there are so many different sects of Christianity. They tend to be based upon a charismatic leader that had his own interpretation of the Bible.

How does one test one's beliefs without relying on confirmation bias? Almost everyone's beliefs are "confirmed" when one uses confirmation bias so it is not a reliable pathway to the truth.

 

[Windwalker]

It really doesn't matter to me if abiogenesis is not considered as the "beginning" of evolution. Because frankly, my dear, it must be considered. it is, frankly again, bordering on the insane side to not consider it. Thanks, and have a nice day. You can go with the theory of evolution. I'll go with the Bible which says in the beginning, God created the heavens and...the earth.

Abiogenesis, is about how life began. Evolution, is about speciation, or how animals diversived in the ways that we see today. Why are there the species that they are, and what the process that made them that way.

The TOE deals only with what happened, after it all got going. It is not that field to look into abigenoses, as it is outside that question. So is the best egg batter to use for a recipe. While fascinating, it doesn't relate the focus of that field of research.

Why do you think it should include it? I don't understand that reasoning. Do you think that the ToE should be a scientific examination of whether or not there is a God that started it all? Should that be the focus of science for you? Examining whether or not God exists?

And yes, I believe the Bible too when it says, "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." What science shows us, is how He did that, and is doing that.