• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) Approves Gay Marriage

RevDeac06 said:
You want to worship a book, that's fine. But call it idolatry, not Christianity. I'm a Christian because I follow Jesus Christ, and if you think that you can encapsulate, summarize, and contain him to the pages of a book, then you don't know much about him.
Click to expand...

Maybe this belongs in another thread, but why do you think certain people are drawn to a literalness message? I've often thought it's because they like an absolute in their beliefs and don't want to worry about questioning their own beliefs.

Wakelaw2006 said:
Told him in pos rep, but just want to say how much I love reading RevDeac's posts.
Click to expand...

Total man crush!
 
bym051d said:
Maybe this belongs in another thread, but why do you think certain people are drawn to a literalness message? I've often thought it's because they like an absolute in their beliefs and don't want to worry about questioning their own beliefs.



Total man crush!
Click to expand...

I think some folks view religion general, and Christianity specifically, like a house of cards, and it's really scary to think about that potentially crashing down. Literalism is the safer approach to faith. I also think there is an unfortunate tradition that is hard to escape of a literate clergy manipulating a largely illiterate Christendom for thousands of years.
 
bym051d said:
Maybe this belongs in another thread, but why do you think certain people are drawn to a literalness message? I've often thought it's because they like an absolute in their beliefs and don't want to worry about questioning their own beliefs. / Total man crush!
Click to expand...

Haha, thanks. So Biblical literalism is not orthodox or a historically-held point of view. Karen Armstrong writes "Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge."

There is also a sense of security that comes from the sense of "being right" and not having any unknowns. But as I said, that's analogous to idolatry.
 
I've noticed that Wrangor won't openly support the literal implementation of the passages I posted that support slavery and the selling of your daughters in slavery.

Wrangor, how do you decide which parts of The Bible must be taken literally and which can be ignored?
 
RJKarl said:
I've noticed that Wrangor won't openly support the literal implementation of the passages I posted that support slavery and the selling of your daughters in slavery.

Wrangor, how do you decide which parts of The Bible must be taken literally and which can be ignored?
Click to expand...

Even more than literalism, an issue is putting the Bible above Jesus.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Haha, thanks. So Biblical literalism is not orthodox or a historically-held point of view. Karen Armstrong writes "Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge."

There is also a sense of security that comes from the sense of "being right" and not having any unknowns. But as I said, that's analogous to idolatry.
Click to expand...

Great passage there from KA.

Seems to me that there are still far more verses about the unknowability of capital T "Truth" or faith or God than there are about really understanding the words and the Gospel literally, but I admittedly take a very outsider, amateur view.

There seem to be a lot more 1 Corinthians 13:12 and Proverbs 3:5 than Mark 4:11.
 
TownieDeac said:
Great passage there from KA.

Seems to me that there are still far more verses about the unknowability of capital T "Truth" or faith or God than there are about really understanding the words and the Gospel literally, but I admittedly take a very outsider, amateur view.

There seem to be a lot more 1 Corinthians 13:12 and Proverbs 3:5 than Mark 4:11.
Click to expand...

Yes. A lot of the debate/misunderstandings comes from the ideas behind the differences in capitalization.

Truth vs truth (the unknowable reality and love of God vs. how Creation happened)
Evangelical vs evangelical (conservative vs sharing the Good News)
Word of God vs word of God (Jesus vs scripture)
Sin vs sin (state of brokenness vs specific errors)
Law vs law (Torah vs rules)
 
RevDeac06 said:
Yes. A lot of the debate/misunderstandings comes from the ideas behind the differences in capitalization.

Truth vs truth (the unknowable reality and love of God vs. how Creation happened)
Evangelical vs evangelical (conservative vs sharing the Good News)
Word of God vs word of God (Jesus vs scripture)
Sin vs sin (state of brokenness vs specific errors)
Law vs law (Torah vs rules)
Click to expand...

This is one of the most significant flaws with a literalism tradition based on a translated text, imo. Circling back to your comparison to Islam, that's why the Qur'an is not meant to be translated. The source language is essential to understanding the nuance of the text both in literalist and nonliteralist approaches to sacred texts.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
This is one of the most significant flaws with a literalism tradition based on a translated text, imo. Circling back to your comparison to Islam, that's why the Qur'an is not meant to be translated. The source language is essential to understanding the nuance of the text both in literalist and nonliteralist approaches to sacred texts.
Click to expand...

Agreed- though I'd argue that translation into English (or whatever language) is fine, so long as we understand that it is a corruption of the text. But so is reading a 2,000 year old text from another culture. As was the process that led to the editing of the text into the version we now have. This is why it is imperative to understand the Word of God vs the word of God. Scripture points to Jesus/God, but it's only a signpost, not the destination. Also, for this reason, we must take seriously the task of prayer, community, and being open the Holy Spirit as we work to discern God's will through usage of the Bible.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Agreed- though I'd argue that translation into English (or whatever language) is fine, so long as we understand that it is a corruption of the text. But so is reading a 2,000 year old text from another culture. As was the process that led to the editing of the text into the version we now have. This is why it is imperative to understand the Word of God vs the word of God. Scripture points to Jesus/God, but it's only a signpost, not the destination. Also, for this reason, we must take seriously the task of prayer, community, and being open the Holy Spirit as we work to discern God's will through usage of the Bible.
Click to expand...

Look, Rev, you do you, but as long as I have my King Jimmy with the RED LETTERS and the Prayer of Jabez, I think I'm doing just fine, thank you very much.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Look, Rev, you do you, but as long as I have my King Jimmy with the RED LETTERS and the Prayer of Jabez, I think I'm doing just fine, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Haha. I knew someone who worked at Borders (or some big box store) and had a guy come in and say "I want a real Bible." "What do you mean, sir? We have a lot to choose from." "You know, the kind Jesus carried around. I want that exact kind." Unfortunately, Borders was out of stock of the separate papyrus scrolls of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings.
 
Maybe one reason there aren't as many Jewish fundamentalists is that carrying torahs everywhere we go is a pain in the ass. Well maybe we could hire caddies.
 
Appreciate your posts Rev. I actually pay attention to their content instead of dismissing them as the usual tripe.
 
RJKarl said:
Maybe one reason there aren't as many Jewish fundamentalists is that carrying torahs everywhere we go is a pain in the ass. Well maybe we could hire caddies.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure YOU PEOPLE are already employing plenty of caddies with all your banking fortunes.
 
RevDeac06 said:
No response from the other side?
Click to expand...

I mean the response is "I read it how the version I read is written and I take it 100% literally (except when I don't, i.e. I don't stone men laying with other men, I wear polyester, I eat shellfish, I don't cast my wife from bed for a week when she's in her time of the month.)"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top