When it agrees with whatever you think.

You hate gays? The Bible can be made to say that.
Don't have a problem with gays? Same.
Women need to shut up and be subservient to men? Here are your Bible verses.
Women bring as much spiritually to the table as others? Here are some other verses.
God hates and will kick your ass if you misstep? Well, here's the OT for ya.
God is Love and Peace? Here's some NT for ya.

TlalocW

It also happens when right and left speak about what is termed the "original intent" of the Founders of the US Constitution.

Also, nobody says every word of it is perfect and cannot be changed.

Scalia argued that the first half of the Second Amendment was, in his words, merely prefatory.

Metaphorical would be if he argued that they weren't real militias, but were actually cooperative farming ventures.

is to subvert the actual intent of the document?

And if the people in power tell you what to think, that is the true meaning. Until those are overthrown and then the "truth" changes...
m

at any given time. That's convenient, isn't it?

Were you raised in a literalist tradition?

Your (former?) church takes a considerable amount of the bible literally. As do you, since you still consider yourself a Christian.

Why are you a literalist, g?

Nor do you know what I was taught at school, nor what I experienced at university level.

That is a literalist sect, because they take significant parts of the bible literally.

No point in speaking further because you obviously know the entirety of my religious education.

Damn dude, you really think everyone else is stupid, don't you?

They don't help you.

You are a literalist until you prove otherwise, demonstrating that you take NONE of the bible literally.

And I cannot argue with your creation. So have fun with it.

Implied because you never actually stated it, but yours because you frequently accuse others of being literalists.

including directly to him, that I am not.

And he has acknowledged that some of my posts are not aligned with RCC thinking, so the leap he makes that I am an unaligned non-literalist proves that I am a literalist is an Olympic caliber leap.

And this very thread, my thread, shows that literalism is not required or followed in the RCC.

And the obvious contradictions between believing the Bible is a set.of fairy tales and taking fairy tales literally.

So his responses are still interesting.

And the articles that I referenced validate that a non-literal reading is acceptable.

And the article is somewhat disingenuous in that Catholic doctrine does take certain things literally, such as the resurrection.

So does the RCC. Certainly not ALL, but then you haven't required that a literalist do that. Merely quoting one verse to be taken literally - even in a hypothetical scenario - is enough for you to brand someone else a literalist, which you have done repeatedly.

And disagree with it.

You can't, so you're going to scurry away like you always do.

Not impossible, simply useless.

Am I too stupid to understand?

I bet you can't. That's why you won't.

Wouldn't you just LOVE to put me in my place for once? Show how I'm totally wrong, and you're totally right? You know, like so many people do to you here all the time?

Go for it. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

So I can add nothing to that.

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2018, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Expected. You're gaslighting.

How much of a holy text must one take literally in order to be called a literalist? Is 25% enough? How about 50%? Does it have to be 100%? Because if it's 100%, then NO ONE is a literalist and the term is meaningless.

Answer that question, and I'll know if you're a literalist or not.

But I bet you can't - or won't. So I'm left with the conclusion that you are a literalist.

For me, the Bible is a book some people use to guide themselves. I do not use it that way, but study it to understand those people who do better. As a child, I was presented with the Bible as a collection of factual stories. When I became an adult and actually began to study those things, I realized that it was a collection of myths, and was of little actual use.

If you ask atheists how they interpret the Bible, most will tell you that they don't interpret it at all, since it is mythical fiction.

And many do so.

But many theists do not.

As to interpretation, one can look at a story and find a meaning apart from the literal aspects of the story itself.

as a literal story. I can't think of even one. I know some Christians who do, though. I don't know them well, because they talk nonsense all the time, but I know some like that. I know some Christians who believe some of what's in the Bible, but take other parts as allegories or metaphors. I don't know anyone who takes the whole thing metaphorically, though, and who calls themselves Christians.

Most of that second group, though, is clear on what they take literally and what they do not. If I ask them, they'll tell me which parts they take either way.

I know a very few people who consider themselves to be Christians, however, who will not say what they take literally and what metaphorically. I'm not sure whether they don't know which is which or they are teetering on the edge of atheism. I know at least one such person here in the Religion Group.

And I am certain that you understand why anyone might not care to write a dissertation on their own faith.


My objective here is to discuss specific issues that I feel might be of interrest.

Yes, indeed.

But something considerably shorter than a dissertation and longer than an oblique reference or a countercharge of "literalism" is often welcome.

But, you could just copy and paste in whatever creed it is that you pledge and follow. Those creeds are generally concise statements of beliefs. But you knew that, of course, since Latin is one of your languages, right. "Credo..." "I believe..."

Here's the current version of the Nicene Creed, as spoken by every young Catholic at confirmation. You say you were raised in that tradition, so you must have recited or read this aloud to confirm your faith. Has that faith changed? The Creed is a statement of belief. No doubt you have made that statement. Do you still believe those basic things? If so, you needn't write anything, see, much less a dissertation.

were guillaumeb to respond to this, honestly and earnestly.

Therefore, I predict he won't.

Failed to convert in three tries, I suppose.

Here's the thing: If he was raised as a Roman Catholic, he no doubt took catechism classes and had a confirmation, where he would have recited that creed. It expresses the RCC beliefs in a nutshell. There are other creeds of Christianity, but they all say about the same stuff, with minor changes due to doctrinal disputes.

If one declares him or herself to be a Christian, there is a basic set of beliefs that goes along with that declaration.

Some people won't say what they believe, despite there being a short form expression of those beliefs readily available.

Some people are, I think, close to having no belief at all, really. They just haven't taken that last step.

He no doubt holds some very specific beliefs about his creator fellow, who its messengers are, and what it wants from us. But he knows that to openly state any of those beliefs makes them easy to disprove, so he won't say what they are.

Basically he knows he can't defend them, so if he never declares them, he won't have to. They remain totally unchallenged and intact (in his mind).

I think, like some others who have lost their way, he's searching around among belief systems, looking for one that is satisfactory for his "theism." One day, he'll quote from Rumi. The next, he has discovered Meister Eckhart from the 14th Century and is off into the world of Theosophy and spiritualism. Next, he may meet Madame Blavatsky, herself. He has reduced his deity to an amorphous "Creator." Our fellow Religion Group member is off on a journey that has no logical end other than disbelief.

I recognize the path, actually. I did somewhat the same as I headed toward atheism. Looking here and there for common ground among religions, you find all sorts of side journeys to take before you finally dismiss it all as myth and philosophy. I've been down all the side roads, and all ended up going to the same place, really.

It's a familiar journey, but some people get sidetracked in digging into related ideas and never take the last step and recognize religion for the man-made thing that it is.

He essentially worships the Great Nothing, which amounts to thinking like an atheist but pretending to be religious.

when they're young. Others spend their entire lives on the journey and never quite reach a conclusion.

Once one realizes that all religions are just variations on a theme, there's only one conclusion to draw, really. They're all products of the human mind. That's the real "Creator" of it all.

It's the search that is interesting. The search for understanding. But, there are many signposts that lead nowhere.

Frequently the op has clearly not even read the text, the headline appeared to fit the agenda so it got posted here.

is the entire scope of capabilities. And limiting oneself to one or two sources saves time and effort. One needs an outlet, I suppose.

More or less...

In Christianity, there are varying views.

One view, the hierarchical view, holds that only the Church hierarchy can determine what is the acceptable interpretation of the Bible, or verses in the Bible.

In the RCC, for example, the tradition in which I was educated, the following passages might help to understand how the RCC advises theists to read the Bible.

I am asking you to define your terms. This isn't difficult.

"Valid" means an interpretation that guillaumeb finds acceptable.

Last edited Wed Dec 12, 2018, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)

A valid interpretation is any interpretation that allows guillaumeb to find any interpretation acceptable.

Or for the purposes of the immediate position taken, anyhow...

Gil isn't interested in meaningful discussion, only providing sermons. This isn't surprising really when you consider that's exactly the tradition in which he was indoctrinated by.

Read them again.

Do you always simply assume everyone else is too stupid to understand you?

But one of your responses in this thread makes me wonder if you read the linked articles.

masterpieces you THINK they are.

Clarify.

they have lines which you may not cross. You cannot deny the validity of the sacraments, for example. That would make you a Protestant.

And such ex cathedra speaking is considered authoritative and infallible.

Please forgive the Latin.

You don't want to eat the silly wafers ever again, you have nothing to confess, and you divorced your wife and now would like him to marry you and and your future husband?

However when he talks.to God, he should really use Hebrew or Greek, since God prefers those two languages.

But I try to keep my Latin expressions ad minimum for those who have an aversion to lLtin.

I would indeed speak Aramaic.

Coincidentally, I know a Syrian Christian family that speaks Aramaic.

so obtuse?

You'd think a perfect being could be clearer.

It's just a trip we lay on him. If we met him on the street, he might even have a limp.

"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Nor can we know the Creator's ability.

for being so inscrutable as to cause untold suffering in his name.

Any being calling itself a God of love or goodness that allows or promotes is not worth the name.

Ans BTW the basis of every religion is knowing and telling us what the Creator means and wants, including yours.

Can you prove otherwise?

Roman Catholic creed says about your "Creator:"

"Le Père tout-puissant, créateur du ciel et de la terre"

"All-powerful," as I translate tout-puissant in my head. No limitations there. So, apparently we do know the "Creator's" ability, which has no limits. Now as for that entity's will, I suppose it can do anything it wishes to do, making its will infinite in nature.

See how simple. Now, I know you learned those words during your education. You may have learned them in both French and English.

Do you no longer believe them?

with what I actually said.

Besides, it had more to do with it than you're willing to admit.

as the God character portrayed in the Bible stories does.

what the Creator sees clearly.

And a perfect, all knowing being can't figure out how to communicate with those less intelligent?

I can only give my opinion.

to the children being taught, it is the children who are at fault.

Interesting.

But do you have any evidence at all to support it, or are you just making this up?

we'll have to figure it out for ourselves. We're making some progress in that direction, I think.

to do so, then that creator is either incompetent, malevolent, or both.

a belief that such an entity exists. In that scenario, the instructions were drawn up by the "creations" themselves.

such argumentative escape routes.

If a person tries to play the "perhaps we can't understand god" card, the only proper response is "whose fault is that?", IMO.

This statement in particular: "In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation". From one perspective, that is an assertive statement, a claim, so to speak. But I see more in it than that. I also see the church stepping back and acknowledging that the ultimate meanings are between one's self and God. Because what is more personal than one's salvation? It's why I am turned off by people going around telling others they must be saved. Yea right... you first... is one of my responses. But honestly, it's none of their business. I hold that as true for everyone. When I'm in an atmosphere of respect and around people I love and who love me, that's just how it works naturally. Nobody is going to force me to say things I don't believe or tell me what a rotten person I am on one hand and offer me an antidote from the other. Exactly what is my "salvation" is strictly between me and God. If any aspect of it is shared between us, it should be mutual and nobody should be coerced into doing something they don't feel right for themselves. I like to picture it as being born in the middle of a flowing river. That river is made up of stories, the ones we tell ourselves about who and what we are. The river came before us and will continue long after we die. In it there are my personal stories, yours, and there are stories we learned from our families, communities and the culture at large. These later ones often take on a life of their own and live on beyond one or two generations, sometimes taking on importance politically, socially, religiously, historically. They give us a perspective of who we believe ourselves to be in a wider context. They are our collective dreams. And our free will is that we get to decide what we think about them. We may have been fed the stories to believe and not believe - by the well-meaning and the devious alike. I was. I've been fed stories by public education, religious education, television and radio, now the Internet. But at some point it comes down to the individual having to decide which stories have meaning, value and relevance and which ones don't. Free will.

And then there's the church. In this case, the RCC that has lasted for almost two thousand years with roots going back even further. That's no short story in an encyclopedia. That's a tradition, a central pillar for millions of people. That is an epic, a grand story that people find important to keep alive generation after generation. It has attracted scoundrels and saints, of course, but also people just wanting to connect to something meaningful and sometimes mysterious. Back to the article, it states church has no official position on interpretations of scripture and I think that is good. I see the RCC as a place one can go to practice purposeful rituals of one type or another, gain an orthodox perspective on reality and, in essence, feed one's soul. It is a rich fountain of information and community that, if it speaks to you, it's available. Or should be. If the relationship between each individual and God is respected, there is great power in the church. Which is why the abuses of power, manipulations of people's minds, the sexual abuse going on within its walls, and general fuckery that people do with religion is so abhorrent. All those things are poisoning what should be something that should be a place for people to find refuge, community and guidance if wanted but a place to always be respected as a living being regardless of the conditions or circumstances of their lives. It should be that, it's our story to tell and it seems to be the story it's trying to tell.

These excerpts tell me that there are people within the church who know this which is why it lives on. But it's got some serious problems. It's like how the republican party is attracting nazis, racists, anti-semites, fundamentalists, and generally cranky people. It's bringing them down. It's also happening to the Catholic Church as well. Choking on some serious poisons. I hope that the good isn't killed off with the bad. But, as I see it, it needs to get off its high horse and get rid of the people who are abusing it. I'm not going to wait around for things to get better, though. I don't trust the power structure as it is. It's not my church either but I've had the good fortune to meet some really great people in the church who helped me get through some tough times...without the pressure to be anybody but myself or be "saved by Jesus". I know the power of good is there, it's in the people in the congregation, and the priests, bishops and popes and everyone in between ought to realize they are there to serve the communities of people that gather there. What a privilege! I'll get off my soap box... it just pisses me off to see the privilege abused and the pain, anger, hatred and resentment it causes. If the story dies, maybe it deserved to.

I liked your point that meaning is part of a relationship, and part of a discovery process.

In any large organization, there will be people who do very bad things to others. This is a feature of humanity, and is not caused by membership in an organization.


And I also appreciate your point about the community of believers. Humans are social creatures, and a church is one place for people to find the community that we all need.

And, we all acknowledge our imperfection as we attempt to behave better everyday.

I learned much about interpretation from the Jesuits who taught at the university I attended.

Finally, I think that your response here would make an excellent stand alone post.

Because your god won't say who is right.

Scripture has more than one level of meaning. The two basic levels are the literal and the spiritual senses, the latter of which may contain up to three different kinds of meanings
_

In other words, Scripture is meaningless.

And what's that bullshit about how it is not meant as a science book? Tell that to Galileo.

read them again.

Oh wait, those things actually are contradictory.

...or sell your daughters into sexual slavery.

So they give people a pass on those rules, but still require adherence to others some of which have no biblical imperative. If you're wondering who gets to decide on these things and why, it ain't you.

What makes it valid? Choose the interpretation that reads the way you want it to. There are many versions.

I feel the only true version is the original written in Aramaic on scrolls, and even that one is suspect since it was written from so many different viewpoints.

Sooooo, for me, the current Bible is more like the Pirate Code. Who has come up with tons of versions? Usually the leaders in a community. Leaders in a community are also sometimes known as politicians. I think you could trust politicians in Jesus' day just about as much as you can trust them to tell the full truth now.

The evidence for Aramaic as the original language for any of the gospels is slim. The general consensus is that the were originally written in Greek.