libspero Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Tell that to a Catholic! The phenomenon of bibliolatry - the worshipping of the Bible as an irrefutable piece of documentary evidence - is relatively recent in Christian history, and was a desperate rearguard response to the growing authority of science and rationalism. Relatively recent perhaps.. but I thought that was largely what Christians believed to this day? The Bible can't be seen as 'valid' or 'invalid'. A book with no section much newer than 2000 years old can't be approached in the same way as a historical record. It's like saying if the works of Homer are invalid, there's not much left of classicism; or if the works of Shakespeare are invalid, there's not much left of the Globe Theatre...what's important is the moral and spiritual strength that people can draw from it. I'm not sure what parallels you are trying to draw? Shakespeare and Homer wrote fiction.. plays and epics. There's no supposition that it should be taken as fact. I thought the bible was taken as fact? Feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish? I mean, most people believe that's fiction.. but I thought Christians were supposed to believe that kind of thing? If you accept the bible is flawed (or perhaps I should say fiction if you prefer), then it is no longer gods word and no longer spiritually uplifting as far as I can see. Sure, you could still learn morality from it.. but you could do that from a book of Aesop's fables. I don't think just learning morality makes you a "Christian". Not in the traditional sense. Perhaps that will be what Christianity will become though.. if it doesn't just die out first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellerkat Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I thought the bible was taken as fact? Feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish? I mean, most people believe that's fiction.. but I thought Christians were supposed to believe that kind of thing? Actually that particular bit is taken as evidence of the love of Christ engendering ἀγάπη (agape) amongst the crowd - they all shared what they had. That's my only bit of theological knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Allegro Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Relatively recent perhaps.. but I thought that was largely what Christians believed to this day? I'm not sure what parallels you are trying to draw? Shakespeare and Homer wrote fiction.. plays and epics. There's no supposition that it should be taken as fact. I thought the bible was taken as fact? Feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish? I mean, most people believe that's fiction.. but I thought Christians were supposed to believe that kind of thing? If you accept the bible is flawed (or perhaps I should say fiction if you prefer), then it is no longer gods word and no longer spiritually uplifting as far as I can see. Sure, you could still learn morality from it.. but you could do that from a book of Aesop's fables. I don't think just learning morality makes you a "Christian". Not in the traditional sense. Perhaps that will be what Christianity will become though.. if it doesn't just die out first. I think it's a question of degree. Fundamentalist Christians view the Bible as 'fact' (or, the parts that they agree with; the rest they overlook). Directly dictated to the writers by a voice from the sky, probably with an American accent. Most middle of the road Christians would view it as being somehow divinely inspired, ie, that a higher power of some sort was using it to try to tell us something about the nature of reality, but would not entirely agree on which parts of it are inspired. Certainly they would overlook things like the book of Esther which is basically like something out of a Tarantino film. They would see the New Testament as being much more important than the Old. Then on the liberal end of the spectrum you get a lot of moderate Anglicans and other denominations, eg Unitarians, (and there are a lot of liberal Jews like this also) who would say that the importance of the Bible is in its moral and philosophical teaching, revealed through the character of Christ. That's not to say they equate the Bible with Aesop, or Jesus with Ghandi or some other great moral teacher. I think most would say that the character of Jesus Christ somehow transcends every human and moral teacher onto a level which is above, or beyond, normal humanity. That's certainly the impression I get. The more I read the Bible the more the character of Christ intrigues me, and the more I chuckle at all the silliness about talking Asses and pillars of salt etc etc. It's very difficult anyway to say what Christians are 'supposed' to believe. You can quote the Creeds, but even those can be interpreted in a totally secular way (Not the Nine O Clock News did a very funny sketch on that, here: I think ultimately the essence of Christianity is that a. there is a higher (or deeper, or more inward) power in the universe than pure materialism. Humans are part of something bigger. Somebody called Jesus Christ revealed that power in a more effective way than any other human in history. Stuff about virgin births, loaves and fishes, walking on water etc is mythology, trying to express a more profound meaning about reality in pre-scientific language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie The Tramp Returns Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think it's a question of degree. Fundamentalist Christians view the Bible as 'fact' (or, the parts that they agree with; the rest they overlook). Directly dictated to the writers by a voice from the sky, probably with an American accent. Snip >>> I must congratulate you for your very interesting posts on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Allegro Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I must congratulate you for your very interesting posts on this thread. OK that bit was a bit of an exaggeration for comic effect. But I did once meet a chap (from the little known Christadelphian denomination) who said that dinosaurs couldn't have existed because they weren't mentioned in the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Anything that looks superficially meaningful and clever but is really a load of illogical nonsense will appeal to the type of idiot who can't tell the difference between something that looks clever and something that actually is (style over substance appeal) and will start getting abusive towards anyone who points out how stupid both it and they are. This doesn't just happen with religion either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Anything that looks superficially meaningful and clever but is really a load of illogical nonsense will appeal to the type of idiot who can't tell the difference between something that looks clever and something that actually is (style over substance appeal) and will start getting abusive towards anyone who points out how stupid both it and they are. This doesn't just happen with religion either. I'm afraid you're correct. I do get the impression that religious types really struggle with the idea that non-religious folks can adhere to a moral code of their own devising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.