Ah, well for some reason I am always comforted by the fact that the literal Bible belief really doesn't pop up until the 1800's. I do understand better now.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

What about the resurrection?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I was really referring to literal interpretation of Genesis and Revelation. Augustine writes in his City of God in 400 AD that Genesis is a metaphor. Luther says Revelation shouldn't be in the Bible. The literal interpretation of those books is a fairly new belief in Christian theology.

The resurrection has to be taken literal or else all Christian theology doesn't work.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

How can you take one piece as literal but insist that the rest must be interpreted?

Depends on context and intention of the literature. Genesis 1-11 is, for example, clear Hebrew poetry if one looks at it from a literature point of view and since when is poetry meant to be literal. Revelation is a book written in signs and symbols that would have meant something to the original readers (Christians under persecution in the Roman Empire). For example, Revelation speaks of the "fall of Babylon." If one read this literally, it would make no sense. Babylon is not now, nor really then, an important city worthy of mentioning. If we look at the context though, we know that "Babylon" was a metaphor for Rome. There are other examples like how the number 7 appears often and stands for perfection in ancient culture.

However, when we read the Biblical text, The writers of the New Testament are very, very clear that the resurrection is meant to be literal. 1 Corinthians 15:14- "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." As I said earlier, the resurrection cannot be just spiritulized or else the whole religion devolves into the greatest Christian Heresy (aka Gnosticism)

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Killing of witches is interpreted but stoning young harlots is literal.




Oh wait...

As far as differentiating the intended literacy of Biblical books go, it's also worth noting that sections such as the creation story in Genesis and just about all of Revelation are presented as timeless: Genesis speaks of "days" before there was a sun, Revolution uses any number of vague and non-specific references to time, but neither make any serious attempt to place themselves at specific points in our time-line. This is pretty much in keeping with most works that are intended to be taken as myth or fable; they're set "long ago" or "in ancient times". Since the goal is convey a moral or some larger truth, rather than to give a factual account, the specifics don't matter.

The gospel accounts, on the other hand, do place themselves quite specifically in time (and space, for that matter). They provide details as to precise locations visited, travel times, and references to particular governmental administrations. In this case (particularly in Luke's gospel), it's clear that the authors didn't intend it to be some fable that could have happened anytime, anywhere; rather they went out of their way to specify precisely when and where the events occurred.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

We have capital punishment today. What is the problem? They simply had more offenses that demanded it.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Wow. That may have been one of the few things Luther ever got right in his life.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

Well first thing you should note is that I am opposed to capital punishment. Taking a life for a life isn't justice. Its revenge.

After that the next thing to note is that killilng someone because they worked on a Saturday is a lot different than killing someone because they murdered someone. Even more ridiculous is the idea that you wage genocidal war against another tribe simply because they didn't want to worship your god as enumerated in Numbers Chapter 31 in the war against the Midianites. If you can't see the wrongness in that then I don't see any way for us to find any grounds for discussion.

So authentic christianity requires a literal belief of what would normally be considered impossible? How is that any different from a literal belief in genesis or revelation?

For that matter how is it any different from a literal reading of any type of religious faith?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

It is amazing the amount of cognitive dissonance you are willing to accept to maintain your faith. In one section of your mind you tell yourself the resurrection is literal truth and in the other section of your mind you tell yourself that the rest of the book must be interpreted. I actually have more respect for the people who believe the whole thing is literal truth because they are consistent. I don't agree with them but at least they don't bend over backwards to twist their brains to accept a dichotomy.

whats your point? that people are stupid and take things out of context? We've all admitted that here.

Don't blame the message, blame the dumbass who missed it.

so you don't really know anything, like I said, and flat refuse to learn more so we can have an educated discussion on the subject. Instead you flail around grasping at straws. Right. You wouldn't try to argue the philosophy of say Descartes or Aristotle, or Machiavelli, or Kierkegarde without actually reading the text first would you? NO? Then read the text first.

I think we need to upgrade to Religion 2.0. Those morals and ethics that were appropriate to the Iron Age need to updated for the Information Age.