31% of American adults believe the Bible is Literal Word of God - Belief strongest among those without college degrees

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it does answer that question...you said faith doesn't require proof, and so shouldn't be threatened by things that question the literal truth of the text. I'm saying that since Christian faith is centered in events described in the Biblical texts, then if the texts are not true in the ordinary sense (the way events in the newspaper are true, not "Universal 'Truths'"), then that faith is misplaced.

As far as science goes, I don't accept the view that the Earth was made in 144 hours 6,000 years ago, nor do I believe that is how the text of Genesis 1 & 2 is intended to be understood. I do, however, believe in an actual Adam and Eve, who were created separate from animals, from whom every human being since is descended. I don't think there is any way around that, as far as the Biblical text is concerned.

But then how do you deal with inconvenient findings that question those "literal truths"? I mean, its one thing to point out methodological flaws and gaps in the evidence - but to go to the extent of fabricating alternative arguments with a political rather than scientific basis seems extremely questionable to me.

I mean, there are creationist "natural history" museums now that show Adam and Eve being chased out of the garden of Eden by Dinosaurs (conveniently forgetting the few million years between species)

I won't deny there's an internal logic in most belief systems, but I think rigidly holding and defending literal minutiae against strong evidence to the contrary are really missing the point of those belief systems. Ultimately, I think that's somewhat limiting. I mean... do Jesus teachings lose value if certain aspects of the supernatural just might not be true?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think there is something whacked about needing to believe the facts of Christianity (or any religion) are true in order to have faith. That's not even faith then, it's just acceptance of what you "know" to be true, the same way I know about Christopher Columbus or Henry VIII although I wasn't there. I wouldn't call that faith.

Faith isn't about rational explanations and documentation.

No it isn't.

The problem seems to be that the whole thing loses its lustre if the supernatural elements of it are untrue. I'll admit I'm not that strong a believer to really understand why that's so important. It doesn't make Jesus' teachings any less relevant.

[Scott & Lai 12]

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

Scott, can Jesus' message, the Gospel, not stand on its on merit in spite of history? I personally don't see that our Judeo-Christian faith must be rooted in a factual history to be legitimate. It's the message.

No, it can't. The message of the Gospel is that Jesus, who is God in real human flesh, died an actual death for the sins of the World at a specific time in real history, then actually rose bodily (physically) from the dead on the third day, and was seen by over 500 witnesses. If that didn't happen in factual history, then all of Christianity falls. That is how the New Testament writers, who were there at the time, and were witnesses of the events, spoke. They leave no room for a Christian message that is true even if the core events did not actually happen. There is a line in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds that the old 19th century theological liberals couldn't stand, and wanted to remove: "and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate." They didn't like that because it places the content of the Creeds in ordinary history, instead of some "Higher History" which was above and independent of everyday, newspaper type history. So they were very motivated to try to claim that Pilate never existed, and neither did the office that the Bible claims he held. Then a stone slab from the 1st century with Pilate's name and office inscribed on it was found..... they don't argue that way anymore

[JVKn'CVO 11]

This are examples on why I don't think the bible should be taken literally

Leviticus 20:27

"A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them."

Leviticus 24:16

Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

preety scary, uh?

But I think with common sense, the true message comes through and it is a good thing

Caro,

[Alex+R 0]

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

Scott, can Jesus' message, the Gospel, not stand on its on merit in spite of history? I personally don't see that our Judeo-Christian faith must be rooted in a factual history to be legitimate. It's the message.

No, it can't. The message of the Gospel is that Jesus, who is God in real human flesh, died an actual death for the sins of the World at a specific time in real history, then actually rose bodily (physically) from the dead on the third day, and was seen by over 500 witnesses. If that didn't happen in factual history, then all of Christianity falls. That is how the New Testament writers, who were there at the time, and were witnesses of the events, spoke. They leave no room for a Christian message that is true even if the core events did not actually happen. There is a line in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds that the old 19th century theological liberals couldn't stand, and wanted to remove: "and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate." They didn't like that because it places the content of the Creeds in ordinary history, instead of some "Higher History" which was above and independent of everyday, newspaper type history. So they were very motivated to try to claim that Pilate never existed, and neither did the office that the Bible claims he held. Then a stone slab from the 1st century with Pilate's name and office inscribed on it was found..... they don't argue that way anymore

So if it turned out that there was no resurrection, you'd stop believing in all the teachings of Christianity? What about the other details? What if it turned out there was no Lazarus, for example?

[JVKn'CVO 11]

So if it turned out that there was no resurrection, you'd stop believing in all the teachings of Christianity? What about the other details? What if it turned out there was no Lazarus, for example?

The topic of the Virgin Mary being a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ comes to mind

Before...yeah, I agree, Christ was the son of God...but during AND after?? that makes no sense at all...plus it's completely irrelevant to the divinity of Christ

This are the things that bug me about the church...these nonsenses distract the people from the important things in the message of Jesus...

[Scott & Lai 12]

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

Scott, can Jesus' message, the Gospel, not stand on its on merit in spite of history? I personally don't see that our Judeo-Christian faith must be rooted in a factual history to be legitimate. It's the message.

No, it can't. The message of the Gospel is that Jesus, who is God in real human flesh, died an actual death for the sins of the World at a specific time in real history, then actually rose bodily (physically) from the dead on the third day, and was seen by over 500 witnesses. If that didn't happen in factual history, then all of Christianity falls. That is how the New Testament writers, who were there at the time, and were witnesses of the events, spoke. They leave no room for a Christian message that is true even if the core events did not actually happen. There is a line in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds that the old 19th century theological liberals couldn't stand, and wanted to remove: "and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate." They didn't like that because it places the content of the Creeds in ordinary history, instead of some "Higher History" which was above and independent of everyday, newspaper type history. So they were very motivated to try to claim that Pilate never existed, and neither did the office that the Bible claims he held. Then a stone slab from the 1st century with Pilate's name and office inscribed on it was found..... they don't argue that way anymore

So if it turned out that there was no resurrection, you'd stop believing in all the teachings of Christianity? What about the other details? What if it turned out there was no Lazarus, for example?

Absolutely! No physical resurrection, that's it, I'd be done with Christianity, and religion in general. As a friend of mine put it:

"If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then the Bible isn't true.

If the Bible isn't true, then there is no God.

If there is no God, don't pi$$ me off!"

[Scott & Lai 12]

So if it turned out that there was no resurrection, you'd stop believing in all the teachings of Christianity? What about the other details? What if it turned out there was no Lazarus, for example?

The topic of the Virgin Mary being a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ comes to mind

Before...yeah, I agree, Christ was the son of God...but during AND after?? that makes no sense at all...plus it's completely irrelevant to the divinity of Christ

This are the things that bug me about the church...these nonsenses distract the people from the important things in the message of Jesus...

Well, of course she was a virgin during Christ's birth; by definition what makes a woman no longer a virgin is her first intercourse, not her first birth. As for after, well, I'm not Roman Catholic, so I don't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I believe she had ordinary marital relations with her husband, and produced other children after Jesus.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again the question still stands - how do you deal with scientific discoveries that question some of the literal truths, such as creation?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Why may I ask are you even in the United States?

He's not. He's inadmissible.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

she was a virgin during Christ's birth; by definition what makes a woman no longer a virgin is her first intercourse, not her first birth. As for after, well, I'm not Roman Catholic, so I don't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I believe she had ordinary marital relations with her husband, and produced other children after Jesus.

ok, I'll take your point on not being a roman catholic. (although, let me point out that the theory understands virginity as conserving the hymen)

we agree that the genesis 1 and 2 can't be taken literally...

so why is it that the genesis 1 and 2 not being "true" does not make you question the veracity of the bible...but then if Jesus had not in fact resurected, then that would make you doubt?

I believe that he did rise from death...but if Christ's resurection were a biblical symbol that his message lived on after he died and changed lives...that wouldn't make me question my faith...

Edited May 26, 2007 by JVKn'CVO

[Scott & Lai 12]

Again the question still stands - how do you deal with scientific discoveries that question some of the literal truths, such as creation?

It depends on which specific discoveries we are talking about, and how those discoveries are interpreted. I don't believe that it can be "proven," for example, that human beings developed from prior non-human species. Similarities can be shown, but that's about as far as we can go. They don't prove an organic connection. Now, as for animal evolution, even on a macro scale, well, that is a different issue. I believe that there is room for that in the Biblical text. Genesis 1 uses the phrase, "Let the earth bring forth" in relation to animals, which could suggest some kind of natural process being used in their creation. Ultimately, I see no necessary conflict between science and the Bible.

[Scott & Lai 12]

ok, I'll take your point on not being a roman catholic. (although, let me point out that the theory understands virginity as conserving the hymen)

Ok, well I also don't accept that theory's definition of virginity, nor do I believe that Mary's hymen survived Jesus' birth. It was an ordinary, human, fleshy birth. The only thing miraculous was the absence of a human father for his conception.

we agree that the genesis 1 and 2 can't be taken literally...

so why is it that the genesis 1 and 2 not being "true" does not make you question the veracity of the bible...but then if Jesus had not in fact resurected, then that would make you doubt?

Uh, not quite...I do take Genesis 1 & 2 literally. The question is in what sense. That's where interpretation comes in, to find out what the text is intending to say, and what it isn't. I don't believe that the literal sense of Genesis 1 & 2 necessarily require the conclusions of some Christians, that the Earth was made in 144 hours 6,000 years ago. The text doesn't actually say that.

I believe that he did rise from death...but if Christ's resurection were a biblical symbol that his message lived on after he died and changed lives...that wouldn't make me question my faith...

Well, part of the teaching of the New Testament is the physical resurrection of the dead, which is based in the physical resurrection of Jesus. If he (not just his message) didn't raise physically (not "spiritually," or "in the hearts of his disciples"), then neither will the dead (us) be raised.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

Scott, can Jesus' message, the Gospel, not stand on its on merit in spite of history? I personally don't see that our Judeo-Christian faith must be rooted in a factual history to be legitimate. It's the message.

No, it can't. The message of the Gospel is that Jesus, who is God in real human flesh, died an actual death for the sins of the World at a specific time in real history, then actually rose bodily (physically) from the dead on the third day, and was seen by over 500 witnesses. If that didn't happen in factual history, then all of Christianity falls. That is how the New Testament writers, who were there at the time, and were witnesses of the events, spoke. They leave no room for a Christian message that is true even if the core events did not actually happen. There is a line in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds that the old 19th century theological liberals couldn't stand, and wanted to remove: "and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate." They didn't like that because it places the content of the Creeds in ordinary history, instead of some "Higher History" which was above and independent of everyday, newspaper type history. So they were very motivated to try to claim that Pilate never existed, and neither did the office that the Bible claims he held. Then a stone slab from the 1st century with Pilate's name and office inscribed on it was found..... they don't argue that way anymore

I can see your point - the fundamental belief of Christianity is that God manifest Himself as Man, was crucified, died and then buried...and on the 3rd day rose again from the dead, etc. - however, if you look at that tantimount belief - the corner stone of Christian faith - the only verifiable historical fact is that a man named Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate. That doesn't validate the rest of that radical belief - that Jesus was the Christ Himself. So even though we can point out historical reference to certain events, we have no historical proof that Jesus defied death or that he was God incarnate - that requires pure faith. Perhaps that is what 19th century theologians were concerned about - not that that specific event (crucified by Pontius Pilate) didn't occur, but that Christians may see that as proof of faith?

Edited May 26, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Fuzzness 2]

question

here in the south, and i believe with many fundamentalists, it seems the old testament is more important than the new testament. why is that?

and why do they think the KJV is the only true bible?