Susan's Place Transgender Resources

 Is it really all that important to insist that the story of Jonah is a factual account or is more important to get the message of the account? I am beginning to wonder if it truly matters if one does or does not believe some of the finer points. Will it matter in the end?

I lost my faith in my late teens but I believe that following the lessons/advice is more important then believing the story.
From religion to mythology we have many stories throughout history that contain valuable life lessons regardless of the validity of the story.

I went to a pentacostle church & their main concern was that you believed in the holy trinity & conducted yourself as a good person, your personal belief about various religious tales wasn't an issue

Well at least it gave us this.


Burning Sensations - Belly Of The Whale (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeqCqxhxLtc#)

NOPE!!!

It depends entirely on how you view the Bible.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on September 25, 2012, 02:39:20 PM
It depends entirely on how you view the Bible.

Quote from: Jayne on September 25, 2012, 12:41:54 PM
I lost my faith in my late teens but I believe that following the lessons/advice is more important then believing the story.
From religion to mythology we have many stories throughout history that contain valuable life lessons regardless of the validity of the story.

I went to a pentacostle church & their main concern was that you believed in the holy trinity & conducted yourself as a good person, your personal belief about various religious tales wasn't an issue

That is where I am starting to struggle between what the traditional view teaches and what may be really there. Is the traditional view truly accurate and is truly based on what the Bible really says? What is meant by "The Bible is the inspired Word of God"? Does one mean the writers were given it word for word? Or does it mean something else? Could it be a combination of given word for word and something else?

What do we really mean by the Trinity? Is it a man made construct or is it something that we are not suppose to try to explain?

Too many questions butting up against the traditional views.

If you are orthodox then the bible is the word of G-d and you have to accept everything as factual, end of the discussion.

If you do not, then it is pick and choose, and lets interpret it to fit our moral and ethical values.

Personally, I do not think any book is holly. I believe when I quiet my spirit and mind I can hear the voice speaking to me through my soul.

Quote from: peky on September 26, 2012, 09:08:01 PM
If you are orthodox then the bible is the word of G-d and you have to accept everything as factual, end of the discussion.

If you do not, then it is pick and choose, and lets interpret it to fit our moral and ethical values.

Personally, I do not think any book is holly. I believe when I quiet my spirit and mind I can hear the voice speaking to me through my soul.

Not only that you also have to believe the three creeds,Apostles,Nicene,and Athanasian, depending on the franchise you also have to believe the same things about baptism and communion,etc,etc etc. But does a differing belief on those things mean that one is not a Christian? Does the Bible itself have a different view of what a Christian is? If so then saying you have to believe those things becomes a barrier.

People do that even if they believe it's the inerrant,inspired word of God.

The Bible itself was never meant to be an idol.

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 25, 2012, 11:18:47 AM
Is it really all that important to insist that the story of Jonah is a factual account or is more important to get the message of the account? I am beginning to wonder if it truly matters if one does or does not believe some of the finer points. Will it matter in the end?

For a non bible literalist, it's nothing to worry about. It's the message that's important. Not whether or not it actually happened.

For a Bible literalist it's devastating. Their line of thought usually is: "if it didn't happen then it downplays the inspired word of God and then anything can be up for interpretation."

I do not believe in the Trinitarian concept. If i die and find out it's real, then it's real. It's something I do not worry about.

As a Pastor, I am more focused on Social Justice issues than what really happened three thousand years ago.

You would be surprised how many Pastors really do not believe in Original Sin, Hell, Trinity, etc.

If you ask a Uniting Church Minister for example,  they will tell you they view the whole Bible as an allegory , so the question misses the point in attempting to look for a literalist answer. 
For a literalist who believes that the whole Bible is the infallible word of God, anything that can be proven incorrect  has to logically disprove the whole edifice, and they suffer a crisis of faith. 

Quote from: Annah on September 26, 2012, 10:29:39 PM
For a non bible literalist, it's nothing to worry about. It's the message that's important. Not whether or not it actually happened.

For a Bible literalist it's devastating. Their line of thought usually is: "if it didn't happen then it downplays the inspired word of God and then anything can be up for interpretation."

I do not believe in the Trinitarian concept. If i die and find out it's real, then it's real. It's something I do not worry about.

As a Pastor, I am more focused on Social Justice issues than what really happened three thousand years ago.

You would be surprised how many Pastors really do not believe in Original Sin, Hell, Trinity, etc.

That is where I am having to rework some things. The context is what should determine whether it is meant to be taken literally,not a broad based statement that the Bible is meant to be taken 100% literally.

What does one do with the Psalms and Song of Solomon? They were written as songs. Most songs use imagery,metaphors,and similes,and some literal lines. When David says God is my fortress is he saying that God is a castle in the sky with a moat and a drawbridge or is he using that as a colorful metaphor?

What then does one do with passages like these

Exodus 19:4

'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

Isaiah 40:31

but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.

Somehow I don't think they are suppose to be taken as literal.

The real question is What is the Biblical definition of a Christian?  Have we really been taught that or have we just accepted what the "church" says a Christian is suppose to believe? Are they one and the same or are they different? If they are different and one starts pointing that out they will be viewed as a heretic.

The def of Christian is a follower of Christ. I try not to get doctrine involved in something so simple. Plus, i do not take the word "heretic" very seriously as the word gets thrown around everwhere

Quote from: justmeinoz on September 27, 2012, 05:59:42 AM
If you ask a Uniting Church Minister for example,  they will tell you they view the whole Bible as an allegory , so the question misses the point in attempting to look for a literalist answer. 
For a literalist who believes that the whole Bible is the infallible word of God, anything that can be proven incorrect  has to logically disprove the whole edifice, and they suffer a crisis of faith.

There is a problem with that view. How do you deal with he epistles which are written as letters and meant to be used as instruction manuals? Paul even goes on to state that very thing

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What does it mean?

Quote from: Annah on September 27, 2012, 07:49:50 AM
The def of Christian is a follower of Christ. I try not to get doctrine involved in something so simple. Plus, i do not take the word "heretic" very seriously as the word gets thrown around everwhere

I think it's a little more than that but it is still very simple. Jesus also included believing on Him and obedience. Paul refines just a bit. He adds confession of the mouth. Do you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord? Do you believe in your heart that Jesus came in the flesh and do you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead? Do you obey Jesus? That is the Biblical definition of a Christian. Short,sweet,simple and to the point. Anything else just adds man made rules and regulations. If anyone else can find something else please let me know. I haven't been able to find it.

One shouldn't take the word heretic seriously unless the church ever goes back to the time of the Inquisition.

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 27, 2012, 08:44:04 AM
I think it's a little more than that but it is still very simple. Jesus also included believing on Him and obedience. Paul refines just a bit. He adds confession of the mouth. Do you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord? Do you believe in your heart that Jesus came in the flesh and do you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead? Do you obey Jesus? That is the Biblical definition of a Christian. Short,sweet,simple and to the point. Anything else just adds man made rules and regulations. If anyone else can find something else please let me know. I haven't been able to find it.

One shouldn't take the word heretic seriously unless the church ever goes back to the time of the Inquisition.

Actually, many of these verses can be interpreted is so many ways. For example. the "conversion experience" where one confesses by mouth, has a salvation moment wasn't really popular until the Calvin/and then Puritan movements. Before, it was suggested that one confessed Christ as Lord at infant baptism where one was given grace and your witnesses made the confession for you...it was up to you as you grew older whether or not to continue with that grace (pre Protestantism...current Catholicism)

Jesus being raised from the dead has interpretational views as well. I am not meaning to "demean" the resurrection. My opinion is: if he had a physical resurrection then he did...if he didn't then he didn't. Many have interpreted as a spiritual resurrection and a spiritual ascension.

Also, the Apostles Creed was written as a result of some Bishops disagreeing with others. They basically took a vote on it, and the ones who won the vote was "orthodox". The ones who lost the vote were "heretics."  For example, Mary being a virgin was just not something that was believed in the early church because the hebrew word for Mary being a virgin was a "young hand maiden." When the Greek Septuigent translated that, they did not have a word for young hand maiden and transliterate it to a virgin definition of someone not having sex before.

When the Apostle Creed was written and voted on, those who did not vote on the Virgin nature of Mary were heretics. Fast forward about some generations later, the church added on to this by saying Mary's mother was a virgin too. Anyone who disagreed with this was a heretic. Anyone who disagreed that Mary remain a virgin forever was a heretic. Then a doctrine was passed that Mary ascended and never experienced death. Anyone who disagreed with this was a heretic and not a Christian.

This is what I mean by the word "heretic" being thrown around like craziness. And the word "Christian" became more politically motivated than anything else.

Hell, the first theologians (Apostolic Fathers) are heretics by their writings. All of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Didache's writings are not coherent with the future doctrine of the Divinity/Human naturehood of Christ, etc etc.

So for me, the definition of Christian is still simply, "one who follows Jesus." In whatever way you follow him.

You have every right to your interpretation of scripture.  I don't happen to agree with or accept your version and that is my right.

Quote from: Annah on September 27, 2012, 12:20:52 PM
Actually, many of these verses can be interpreted is so many ways. For example. the "conversion experience" where one confesses by mouth, has a salvation moment wasn't really popular until the Calvin/and then Puritan movements. Before, it was suggested that one confessed Christ as Lord at infant baptism where one was given grace and your witnesses made the confession for you...it was up to you as you grew older whether or not to continue with that grace (pre Protestantism...current Catholicism)

I think at this point I want to stay away from both the sinner's prayer,(Salvation moment) and infant baptisim. I think that those open up a tangent that I would like to stay away from at this time.

Quote from: Annah on September 27, 2012, 12:20:52 PM

Jesus being raised from the dead has interpretational views as well. I am not meaning to "demean" the resurrection. My opinion is: if he had a physical resurrection then he did...if he didn't then he didn't. Many have interpreted as a spiritual resurrection and a spiritual ascension.

What do you do about Thomas? Thomas did not just doubt,he would not believe unless he could touch the nail prints and Jesus side. It implies a physical touch not a spiritual one. You also have the claim of the empty tomb,the 500 eye witnesses,the two men on the road to Emaus,and the fact that most of the disciples died claiming that He rose pyshically from the dead.

Quote from: Annah on September 27, 2012, 12:20:52 PM

Also, the Apostles Creed was written as a result of some Bishops disagreeing with others. They basically took a vote on it, and the ones who won the vote was "orthodox". The ones who lost the vote were "heretics."  For example, Mary being a virgin was just not something that was believed in the early church because the hebrew word for Mary being a virgin was a "young hand maiden." When the Greek Septuigent translated that, they did not have a word for young hand maiden and transliterate it to a virgin definition of someone not having sex before.

Plain and simple the Apostle's creed was not written by the Apostles.

Quote from: Annah on September 27, 2012, 12:20:52 PM

When the Apostle Creed was written and voted on, those who did not vote on the Virgin nature of Mary were heretics. Fast forward about some generations later, the church added on to this by saying Mary's mother was a virgin too. Anyone who disagreed with this was a heretic. Anyone who disagreed that Mary remain a virgin forever was a heretic. Then a doctrine was passed that Mary ascended and never experienced death. Anyone who disagreed with this was a heretic and not a Christian.

Mary remaining a virgin is a man made tradition. It leaves out the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters by His earthly father Joseph. James for sure one of His brothers and possibly Jude,and the Bible implies sisters also.

Quote from: Annah on September 27, 2012, 12:20:52 PM

So for me, the definition of Christian is still simply, "one who follows Jesus." In whatever way you follow him.

The question remains is that the Biblical definition?

Quote from: Sarah Louise on September 27, 2012, 12:29:25 PM
You have every right to your interpretation of scripture.  I don't happen to agree with or accept your version and that is my right.

At this point I should state why I believe why I can take the Bible as being the written word of God and it is to be taken literal unless the text indicates otherwise. It goes down to one thing I believe that what Jesus said is true. Jesus never gives any indication that the stories of Noah,Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah,Jonah or Elijah are to be taken as allegory's He Himself implies that they are as stated and written. In many cases He uses them as examples.

He then also deals with Moses and the Prophets that they testified about Him. It implies that He saw them as being true. Being Jewish He would have been taught and believed  that the scriptures were the revealed written word of God. If He did so should I not also believe likewise?

I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on September 27, 2012, 04:12:35 PM
I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

even the Old Testament?

The entire Bible.

Quote from: Annah on September 26, 2012, 10:29:39 PM
For a non bible literalist, it's nothing to worry about. It's the message that's important. Not whether or not it actually happened.

For a Bible literalist it's devastating. Their line of thought usually is: "if it didn't happen then it downplays the inspired word of God and then anything can be up for interpretation."

I do not believe in the Trinitarian concept. If i die and find out it's real, then it's real. It's something I do not worry about.

As a Pastor, I am more focused on Social Justice issues than what really happened three thousand years ago.

You would be surprised how many Pastors really do not believe in Original Sin, Hell, Trinity, etc.

As the Old Testament is of Hebrew origin, many Jewish scholars recognize that some of the accounts are allegorical, and, as you say, designed to convey a message.

Quote from: Jamie D on September 27, 2012, 04:22:05 PM
As the Old Testament is of Hebrew origin, many Jewish scholars recognize that some of the accounts are allegorical, and, as you say, designed to convey a message.

Right

Even conservative Jews do not see much of the Old Testament as a literal translation. Many of our "literal ideas" come much much later. For example, many Jewish rabbis will tell you The Book of Jonah was a satyr on Prophets of the day. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

The problem is when you take things literally (especially in the OT) then you are severely limiting yourself. If you take the Old Testament literally, then homosexuality is punishable by death. The mentally and physically handicapped are not allowed in Church. A woman who is raped must marry her rapist or the rapist must pay a dowry to the father.

I could go on and on and on about how dangerous taking the Bible Literally is. I used to believe the Bible literally too. But things just didn't add up. For example, Jonah's fish? Some say it's a whale. Then others say it's a big fish. Also, the flood story. There is no way Noah had fit two of every animal into the Ark. There was no world wide flood...no evidences of it. Now, there was a localized flood..that I believe because many early middle eastern civilizations writes about. If you were to take Noah's account literally, then you must believe it was a world wide event.

Also, the creation story. No way one man and one woman could have procreated a race without severe genetic retardation by the very first generation. The Tower of Babel is more of a fable just as the Prodigal Son is: the story has a moral to it....not the literalness behind it. Etc etc

Personally, I find it much more spiritually fulfilling to see truths in the scripture without having to take everything literally because when you take everything literally then you (in my opinion) are severely limiting what God can do.

For example, The city of Jericho never had huge walls...it never had walls at all until after 1000 years after Joshua's time. No walls = there was no march around the city so that the Jews could commit genocide. We learned and talked about the archeological evidence showing there was no wall and a student had a rather hard time with this. Which is fine. But to me, I was relieved that the story in the Bible where God gave the Jews a high five for killing every man, woman, and child (plus livestock) wasn't true. However, what was more shocking is this: why did someone feel the need to add that genocidal story in the scriptures? Now, that's disturbing

Nah, asking a father to kill his son to prove his faith is disturbing.  Once you read through that little tale the rest of the book is pretty much over.

I sort of felt sorry for the whale. A vegetarian animal swallowing humans, sounds a bit odd.

Quote from: Annah on September 27, 2012, 07:16:09 PM

I could go on and on and on about how dangerous taking the Bible Literally is. I used to believe the Bible literally too. But things just didn't add up. For example, Jonah's fish? Some say it's a whale. Then others say it's a big fish. Also, the flood story. There is no way Noah had fit two of every animal into the Ark. There was no world wide flood...no evidences of it. Now, there was a localized flood..that I believe because many early middle eastern civilizations writes about. If you were to take Noah's account literally, then you must believe it was a world wide event.

What is the definition of animal that is used? If it is referring to a main breeding pair (IE wolves,horses,foxes) and not broken down to the smaller sub species and breeds (IE Collies and Basset Hounds,Arabians and Clydesdale,Silver and the Red) It makes one huge difference. If Amphibians are not included that also makes a big difference. (What need was there to bring them as part of their life cycles are in the water?)

Even Evolutionists believe that all dogs have one common ancestor. All dogs came from wolves. All horses came from one common ancestor. In and of itself it does not disprove the flood.

All of the "evidence" whether ones believes in evolution,creation or the flood is nothing more than a sign post that depending on how you look at it either points one way or the other. It can not by itself prove either directly. No one living today saw either. No matter how one wants to force it one way or another the geologic column only proves one thing,and one thing only. Those animals lived,died,and were buried under a lot of mud (One does not completely cover a Brachiosaurus with just a tiny little bit of mud,try more like 7-8 feet deep.) How they got buried is subjective and not provable by the data we have now.

Quote from: Annah on September 27, 2012, 07:16:09 PM

Also, the creation story. No way one man and one woman could have procreated a race without severe genetic retardation by the very first generation. The Tower of Babel is more of a fable just as the Prodigal Son is: the story has a moral to it....not the literalness behind it. Etc etc

Not necessarily so. If the first couple was genetically pure mutations would show up very slowly.

Does not history show that civilization spread out from Mesopotamia (Balyonian area)? Isn't that what the Bible says also?

Quote from: Annah on September 27, 2012, 07:16:09 PM

For example, The city of Jericho never had huge walls...it never had walls at all until after 1000 years after Joshua's time. No walls = there was no march around the city so that the Jews could commit genocide. We learned and talked about the archeological evidence showing there was no wall and a student had a rather hard time with this.

Does not finding the walls actually mean that they were never there? All it means in and of itself is that we can't find them at this time. To much time has passed to prove that they weren't there to begin with. Lack of evidence is not disproof. Add to that a certain amount of Archeology is based on assumptions and not necessarily fact it opens up another can of worms.

Quote from: Annah on September 27, 2012, 07:16:09 PM

But to me, I was relieved that the story in the Bible where God gave the Jews a high five for killing every man, woman, and child (plus livestock) wasn't true. However, what was more shocking is this: why did someone feel the need to add that genocidal story in the scriptures? Now, that's disturbing

It bodes the question Why were they to be destroyed? he Bible always indicates that it is because of continued,complete and total wickedness. Could it be because the Canaanites were so utterly wicked? What were they doing? Could it maybe be that human sacrifice was common and included children? Could it be from continued temple prostitution,incest,and violence? Is that is just the tip of the iceberg and we really don't understand just how bad it was,because it's a bit beyond our comprehension?

Why bother believing in God if you think His Word is "just" a book, a gathering of fables?

Quote from: Sarah Louise on September 28, 2012, 09:26:41 AM
Why bother believing in God if you think His Word is "just" a book, a gathering of fables?

I'm sorry, but the bible is not Gods word.

The bible, like every text, was written by people. It contains their bias, their contradictions, and most of all their fantastical explanations and stories for things they don't understand.

Not to mention the bible was not originally in English, let alone fully intact when translated. Many things were lost and changed. If the bible truly is God's word, then God is even dumber than his creations.

My biggest problem with Christians is that even when faced with overwhelming evidence that the Bible is simply a book, they refuse to accept it out of some deep seated fear that everything they believed to be an explanation of the unknown, soon becomes false and the known becomes unknown again. People fear the unknown and its that very fear that is responsible for the persecution and blind hatred of people like us.

Now this is just what I was told by the people on another forum. This is what some literalists believe. They believe that because the earth is so young it allowed for dinosaurs to coexist, we also have to take in consideration if that were true megalodon would be swimming about. If that were true, then God would have control over this hell fish. If that were true then a megalodon came outta frikking nowhere and ate him up.

If we, as a community, don't show tolerance for the beliefs of others, among ourselves, why would we expect others outside of our community to show tolerance to us?

Quote from: Jamie D on September 28, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
If we, as a community, don't show tolerance for the beliefs of others, among ourselves, why would we expect others outside of our community to show tolerance to us?

I'm just giving the side I was given by others. To help people understand how one may think from that pov. It's neither bad nor good.

In my faith, old testament = how not to worship God. Why else would He have had any need to send his son if we already had it right? Much of the old testament talks about the Messiah being this warrior type who would lead them into conquering their mortal enemies. Christ was anything but that. The old testament instructs us to kill someone if they do dozens of different things. I don't believe that was Christs message to us. God instructed a father to kill his son as a test of faith? Not the God I believe in. They make a big deal about all sorts of silly ceremonies/rules which have nothing to do with how we treat one another. The old testament God was angry and vengeful, not full of love like Christ taught us. Why would a God that loves us flood the world and kill everyone on it? While I do see the old testament a history of mans struggle to understand God and there are some good parable type stories, it's not what I base my faith on.

I believe Christ was Gods love brought to our world to show us how to love one another. We should try to follow his example and share Gods love with others. That was the simple message Christ brought to us yet many Christians seem to over look it. The rest is just minor details IMHO and really don't matter much. We really should just be doing what Christ asked us to do, which most of us aren't.

Quote from: Abracadabra on September 28, 2012, 10:52:58 AM
Ahhh... because the BOOK... is not God...?

Axxx

You are right. The book is not and never will be God. When the book takes the place of God it becomes an idol. That is not and will never be the purpose and reason why it was given to us. And the biggest problem with that is it leads to legalism.

It was given as a picture window into the heart and mind of God. It's a plumb line to show me where I line up in accordance to His will. It's a scalpel for my heart. It's about His desire to show mercy.
Even under the law He included grace. It's what the sacrafices were for. Even going back as far as Cain,God didn't strike him dead on the spot. And when Cain said that others would try to kill him God placed a mark on Him as a warning to others not to kill him. Even further in the Old Testament God point blank states that He desires mercy over sacrifices.

That is the whole point of the book of Jonah. It's not whether it's a fish or a whale. More than three times in the book it points to God's mercy. God had mercy on the people on board the ship when it was going down and they threw Jonah overboard. God had mercy on Jonah when He sent the fish to keep Jonah from drowning. After being spit on the shore he goes to Nineveh and proclaims God's judgement. The city of Nineveh repents. God then shows His mercy to Nineveh. But Jonah is so sure that God is going to destroy them. He goes outside the city to wait for the fireworks. Plants a vine and sits and waits under it in the shade. Keeps waiting,and waiting and waiting some more. Doesn't happen. Jonah then gets mad at God for not destroying them. Jonah even throws a temper tantrum. God then asks Jonah why is he so angry. Then Jonah has the gall to tell God off. He tells God that he didn't want to preach to Nineveh because he knew that God would show mercy and Jonah wanted them to be destroyed. (Sound familiar) And once again God shows Jonah mercy in that He didn't destroy Jonah right on the spot. The whole book of Jonah points to God's mercy. The point of it is not  whether it's a fish or a whale.

The other point is that God can and will use unusual methods to keep us on the path,even things that seem so extraordinary and beyond our comprehension. Even things that seem impossible to our
limited and finite minds.

If I am convinced of one thing it's this, I do not believe that we are going to be given a 1,500 page test on our understanding of  Catholic,Lutheran,Baptist,Pentecostal,Assemblies,or any other denominations pet list of doctrines. If any one can point to where Jesus ever spent much time explaining doctrine,be my guest. His focus was always believe in Me,follow Me,and obey.

The real questions will be Did you know Me? Do you love me? Do you trust and believe in Me? and Did you obey Me? The key to those is relational not doctrinal.

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 29, 2012, 09:17:34 AM
If I am convinced of one thing it's this, I do not believe that we are going to be given a 1,500 page test on our understanding of  Catholic,Lutheran,Baptist,Pentecostal,Assemblies,or any other denominations pet list of doctrines. If any one can point to where Jesus ever spent much time explaining doctrine,be my guest. His focus was always believe in Me,follow Me,and obey.

The real questions will be Did you know Me? Do you love me? Do you trust and believe in Me? and Did you obey Me? The key to those is relational not doctrinal.

Actually his message IMHO was "As you do unto others, you do unto me". Just loving Jesus, I feel, misses His whole point. He wants us to love each other and in that, we are loving Him. I don't believe Jesus was looking for people to worship Him directly, but instead doing it through their actions.

I also believe anyone who shows love to others is pleasing Him, whether they believe in Him or not. I don't think His goal was to have everyone on the planet bow down to Him. It was for us to love one another and treat each other as He did. I can't believe a loving God will send anyone to hell who loved others and treated them with kindness but, for one reason or another, chose the wrong doctrine to follow to get to that point. Like he is going to say "You lived as I told my followers but unfortunately you were reading from the wrong book >banish to hell<". For example the God I believe in is not going to send the Dali Lama to hell for spreading the message of love and compassion just because he isn't preaching "the gospel".

Quote from: Stephe on September 29, 2012, 11:50:40 AM
Actually his message IMHO was "As you do unto others, you do unto me". Just loving Jesus, I feel, misses His whole point. He wants us to love each other and in that, we are loving Him. I don't believe Jesus was looking for people to worship Him directly, but instead doing it through their actions.

I also believe anyone who shows love to others is pleasing Him, whether they believe in Him or not. I don't think His goal was to have everyone on the planet bow down to Him. It was for us to love one another and treat each other as He did. I can't believe a loving God will send anyone to hell who loved others and treated them with kindness but, for one reason or another, chose the wrong doctrine to follow to get to that point. Like he is going to say "You lived as I told my followers but unfortunately you were reading from the wrong book >banish to hell<". For example the God I believe in is not going to send the Dali Lama to hell for spreading the message of love and compassion just because he isn't preaching "the gospel".

Showing love to others is part of obeying Him it is the second of two commandments that He gave us and the other is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart,and with all your soul and all your mind and with all your strength" which He places as the first and most important. Both are needed.

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 29, 2012, 12:08:54 PM
Showing love to others is part of obeying Him it is the second of two commandments that He gave us and the other is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart,and with all your soul and all your mind and with all your strength" which He places as the first and most important. Both are needed.

Here is where we will have to agree to disagree..

I don't think you can put one of these as being "most important". I see WAY too many Christians who focus on loving God and totally ignoring this one you say is secondary, loving others. This "secondary" one was the majority of what Christs message was to us and these are actually parts of the same message. Loving others IS loving God as he is in everyone. Note how many time Jesus says things like "Feed someone hungry and you have fed me" etc. This was the message he was trying to drive home. I notice that comments from many Christians focus on "You must love God" Or "accepting Christ as my Lord and savior" without much talk of this "secondary" part as you call it.

I also don't see this as "obeying" anyone. You can obey someone without believing is what they are asking you to do. Again we will just have to disagree there.

I don't disagree with you. They are equally important. That is the whole message that John goes through in 1 John. Both Jesus and John go into that they equate love of God with loving others.
It wasn't in this thread where I did go through 1 John but I did a copy and paste below

"1 John 2:9-11

9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister[c] lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.

1 John 3:15

Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

1 John 4:

20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

Isn't it very plain and to the point? Does it not show that someone who claims to be a Christian yet hates his brother or sister is a liar and they are false? So much so that loving your brother and sister is equated with loving God. It leaves no room for debate on the fundamentalists side. They can't do both loving God and hating their brothers and sisters. They are in opposition to each other."

I didn't mean to make it sound like we are to do the one without the other. I do apologize for the  confusion.

When I say the one is more important I see it as the foundation and then the other flows out of it. Both Jesus and John puts both love of God and love of each other,that love of others is the evidence of the love of God. They are inseparable.

Do we really understand what Jesus meant by love? And do we really understand just how deep it is suppose to be? We have a wrong basis if we think He is talking about a feeling,because He always equated with an action. The thing is Jesus takes it to  level that goes beyond food pantries,Goodwill and those type of things. (Not that there is anything wrong with doing that) He takes it even deeper down to a one on one personal level.

I am including myself in this : Do we take a bag of groceries to the new guy at work who hasn't had a job in six months? Do we help him with his electric bill? Do we take some of our sweaters when we have plenty to the new girl who comes in with only one outfit? Do we spend time talking to the new person that others are poking fun "Oh,look at her clothes,she must have shopped at Walmart" and then refuse to talk to her? Do we take the fruits and vegetables that we have grown and try to squeeze every penny out of them or do we give them away to those who can use them? Do we get that that is the level of love that Jesus is talking about? He puts it point blank that that is exactly what He is talking about.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on September 28, 2012, 09:26:41 AM
Why bother believing in God if you think His Word is "just" a book, a gathering of fables?

same way I believe Abraham Lincoln was a good and honorable man without believing the tale that he walked two miles barefooted in a snowstorm to return an overdue library book. The story in itself is not true but there is truth in the story. The story emulates Lincoln's admiralty to resolve a crises in our Nation at the time.

Same with George Washington. He cut down a cherry tree with an ax and then said, "I must not tell a lie, I did cut down that tree." While the story is not literal, it conveys a truth that George Washington was a man of devout honor.

I follow the same logic with the Bible.

I believe God is infinitely just and full of abiding love. The scriptures, while not literally true, has stories of truth to emulate God's essence.

I believe in God and miracles just as much as any Bible literalism Pentecostal. I just do not take the stories literal. Some of the stories would be impossible. The dimensions of an ark to house two of every kind of animal would have been much bigger than 137 by 23 by 14 meters (440 feet long, 73 feet wide, and 43 feet high). Even the smallest town zoo is 10 times that size and only houses a miniscule percent of animals (even if one did take into consideration the origins of each primal animal in the world at that time).

So, the story of the ark is a literal impossibility but the truth of the story is there: God will always see humanity as a creation that is worthy of a second chance. That, in my opinion, is much more important than believing whether or not Noah built a boat.

So given that Jonah got out we can safely assume the whale spits.

*hides in cardboard box and sneaks away*

Quote from: Annah on September 30, 2012, 01:05:41 PM

I believe in God and miracles just as much as any Bible literalism Pentecostal. I just do not take the stories literal. Some of the stories would be impossible. The dimensions of an ark to house two of every kind of animal would have been much bigger than 137 by 23 by 14 meters (440 feet long, 73 feet wide, and 43 feet high). Even the smallest town zoo is 10 times that size and only houses a miniscule percent of animals (even if one did take into consideration the origins of each primal animal in the world at that time).

So, the story of the ark is a literal impossibility but the truth of the story is there: God will always see humanity as a creation that is worthy of a second chance. That, in my opinion, is much more important than believing whether or not Noah built a boat.

Do we have anything else on a modern system that could give us an idea of how much space that really is and can give us an idea of how many animals that could be held in that space? The purpose of a zoo is far different than a holding container.

Taking on the basis that it might just be closer to a chicken breeder farm than a zoo for the purposes of containment. Translate the cubic feet to inches it comes out to 198,887,040 cubic inches. The current chicken breeder farm allows 130 cubic inches per chicken. That comes out to that the ark could if all the space was used for chickens for a total of (drum roll please)............ 1,529,900 chickens. Split the space in half and that is still over 750,000 chickens. This is a modern method of the amount of space used by breeders farmers in this day and age.

I don't have a problem with the whale thing. It's possible Jonah got scooped up by one of those plankton eating monsters half a block long that swim the oceans with their huge gaping maws wide open scooping up plankton by the tons. I do think it will be a problem for those who are unable to believe in what they can't see, touch or feel, because humanity's reality will change dramatically when the fourth dimension suddenly ceases to exist.

Quote from: Shantel on September 30, 2012, 06:29:45 PM
I don't have a problem with the whale thing. It's possible Jonah got scooped up by one of those plankton eating monsters half a block long that swim the oceans with their huge gaping maws wide open scooping up plankton by the tons. I do think it will be a problem for those who are unable to believe in what they can't see, touch or feel, because humanity's reality will change dramatically when the fourth dimension suddenly ceases to exist.

True but the stomach is for digestion. A human wouldnt live past 4 minutes before drowning in bile ...much less than 3 days

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 30, 2012, 04:08:53 PM
Do we have anything else on a modern system that could give us an idea of how much space that really is and can give us an idea of how many animals that could be held in that space? The purpose of a zoo is far different than a holding container.

Taking on the basis that it might just be.... 1,529,900 chickens. Split the space in half and that is still over 750,000 chickens. This is a modern method of the amount of space used by breeders farmers in this day and age.

The measurements i gave are the exact measurements in Genesis. There is no way two of ebery primal animal could fit....and coming from a family of 4 generations of chicken farmers i can assure you that you cannot fit 1.5 million chickens..
Plus you need to factor in animals such as lions, elephants, hippos, rhinos, etc

Next you're going to be trying to tell me that there was no talking snake either...

Let's see. Uh, it was on an island. And there was this snake.
And the snake had legs. And he could walk all around the island.
Yes. That's true. A snake with legs.
And the man and the woman were on the island too.
And they were not very smart.
But they were happy as clams. Yes.
Let's see. Uh...then one evening the snake was walking about
in the garden and he was talking to himself and he saw the woman
and they started to talk. And they became friends.
Very good friends.
And the woman liked the snake very much. Because when he
talked, he make little noises with his tongue, and his long tongue
was lightly licking about his lips.
Like there was a fire inside his mouth and the flame
would come dancing out of his mouth.
And this woman liked this very much.
And after that, she was bored with the man.
Because no matter what happened,
he was always as happy as a clam.
What did the snake say? Yes! What was he saying?
OK. I will tell you.
The snake told her things about the world. He told her about
the time there was a big typhoon on the island
and all the sharks came out of the water. Yes.
They came out of the water and they walked right into your house
with their big white teeth.
And the woman heard these things. And she was in love.
And the man came out and said: We have to go now!
And the woman did not want to go. Because she was a hothead.
Because she was a woman in love.
Anyway, we got into their boat and left the island.
But they never stayed anywhere very long.
Because the woman was restless. She was a hothead.
She was a woman in love.
And this is not a story people tell.
It is something I know myself.
And when I do my job, I am thinking about these things.
Because when I do my job, that is what I think about.

Laurie Anderson, LANGUE D'AMOUR

Quote from: Shantel on September 30, 2012, 06:29:45 PM
I don't have a problem with the whale thing. It's possible Jonah got scooped up by one of those plankton eating monsters half a block long that swim the oceans with their huge gaping maws wide open scooping up plankton by the tons. I do think it will be a problem for those who are unable to believe in what they can't see, touch or feel, because humanity's reality will change dramatically when the fourth dimension suddenly ceases to exist.

The thing is if everything was created by an all powerful God,who created all of the dimensions,all of the seen matter,understands how things work to the most minute details,who created the very sub atomic particles,"step" into the physical realm and suspend natural processes or change the very molecules that He created. If so then for God to have a whale or a fish swallow some one,spit that person out on the shore and have no damage done or if damage was done to bring that person back to life is well within the capabilities of God.

I don't understand why many Christians think that because one part of the Bible is wrong than all of it must be wrong and since that cant happen they have to believe that all of those ridiculous stories are actually true.

That's like saying that because there is a piece of misinformation in a science textbook that the entire textbook is invalidated and wrong and that science doesn't really exist.

Quote from: MaidofOrleans on September 30, 2012, 08:02:14 PM
I don't understand why many Christians think that because one part of the Bible is wrong than all of it must be wrong and since that cant happen they have to believe that all of those ridiculous stories are actually true.

That's like saying that because there is a piece of misinformation in a science textbook that the entire textbook is invalidated and wrong and that science doesn't really exist.

It is because if you can doubt one portion of it, you can doubt any portion of it.  Plenary verbal inspiration and literal interpretation are a house of cards.  If the Noahic story is not 100% as written, then the validity of my salvation is in doubt.

If the Bible can be proven wrong historically, archaeologically (sp?), scientifically, or in internal consistency, then the truths contained within can be doubted.

Quote from: Annah on September 30, 2012, 06:48:56 PM
The measurements i gave are the exact measurements in Genesis. There is no way two of ebery primal animal could fit....and coming from a family of 4 generations of chicken farmers i can assure you that you cannot fit 1.5 million chickens..
Plus you need to factor in animals such as lions, elephants, hippos, rhinos, etc

I never said that you would try to fit that many chickens in there. But you could. Breeder farmers do do that. It's part of what PETA and HSUS are fighting against because it really is so far from humane treatment.

First one has to look at the text to get what it says.

Genesis 7:14-16

14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

First it is limiting. The only animals included in that list are animals that move along the ground and birds,and things with wings. First off what does that list not include? Amphibians are limited,all reptiles that are ocean and water dwellers,no sea mammals,and no fish or any other water dwelling creature.

Kind is also a limiting factor. It is closer to genus as opposed to species.  You would not need all of the different canines,felines,butterflies etc. You would need say a lion and a tiger because they can not produce fertile offspring,but not necessarily a tiger and a panther.

Average size of the animals is also a factor. Take all of the animals from the biggest to the smallest and the average size is smaller that a house cat. That makes one huge difference.

Factor in age of the animals also makes a huge difference. An animal did not have to be full grown. An elephant that had reached the age of being weaned and just reaching adulthood is one half the height of a fully older age adult elephant.

Factor in that the ark was large enough to hold about 570 railroad boxcars.

It has been figured that the most animals that actually were needed is a bit less than 50,000,not the millions that is so often thrown around.

Figure them at an average size of sheep. The math adds up with room left for all the food and water,and room left for the families.

Quote from: tekla on September 30, 2012, 06:58:21 PM
Next you're going to be trying to tell me that there was no talking snake either...

People say it was a snake the same way they say it was an apple. The text says serpent and fruit.
The text also state that it was the craftiest of all of the animals. Is there a creature that was claimed to be able to speak and was crafty? What other creature was also called a serpent? What other creature looks very similar to a dinosaur? Could it possibly be what is known as a dragon? You decide.

Quote from: MaidofOrleans on September 30, 2012, 08:02:14 PM
I don't understand why many Christians think that because one part of the Bible is wrong than all of it must be wrong and since that cant happen they have to believe that all of those ridiculous stories are actually true.

That's like saying that because there is a piece of misinformation in a science textbook that the entire textbook is invalidated and wrong and that science doesn't really exist.

Sadly, some think this way. If there is one error, then everything, including any truths gleamed from the scriptures is all but lost, etc etc. This is why some conservative Christians look at me funny when I say I have a lot of faith and love in my God....even if the scriptures are just stories. A book doesn't have to literal in order for me to understand the awe of God; It transcends above a book.

When Christians shake their head and say "how can you believe in Evolution? This takes away from the creating power of God" Then some will use the anology, "the odds of Evolution happening is the same as a tornado whipping through a junkyard and forming a fully functional 747 Jet.

I then reply, "that's how awesome my God is. Knowing that my God can take something as against all odds and creating the spark of life, that in return, gave birth to us through countless years of evolution. If it is true that the odds of Evolution is as high as a tornado making a jet...then maybe the hand of the divine was involved in the process of evolution. That, to me, takes a lot more faith than reading about a man name Adam and a woman named Eve who were the very first people.

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 30, 2012, 08:52:47 PM
People say it was a snake the same way they say it was an apple. The text says serpent and fruit.
The text also state that it was the craftiest of all of the animals. Is there a creature that was claimed to be able to speak and was crafty? What other creature was also called a serpent? What other creature looks very similar to a dinosaur? Could it possibly be what is known as a dragon? You decide.

It is the Hebrew word for snake. No getting around that one :) If it was a dragon or a dinosaur they would have used the same Hebrew word as noted in the Book of Job and Behemoth.

And yes, you are right...it isn't an apple. Just an unnamed fruit.

Quote from: Incarnadine on September 30, 2012, 08:15:46 PM
It is because if you can doubt one portion of it, you can doubt any portion of it.  Plenary verbal inspiration and literal interpretation are a house of cards.  If the Noahic story is not 100% as written, then the validity of my salvation is in doubt.

If the Bible can be proven wrong historically, archaeologically (sp?), scientifically, or in internal consistency, then the truths contained within can be doubted.

So when  you found out George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree, or Lincoln did not walk barefooted in the snow, or that witches were not burnt in Salem, or that Queen Marie Antoinette did not say "let them eat cake" will you then discount the meaning behind the truths in which these stories were created and end up not believing in the people or the events that had transpired around the story?

While they are not historically accurate, you cannot discount the truths in which spurred the stories in the first place.

Quote from: Annah on September 30, 2012, 09:00:55 PM
So when  you found out George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree, or Lincoln did not walk barefooted in the snow, or that witches were not burnt in Salem, or that Queen Marie Antoinette did not say "let them eat cake" will you then discount the meaning behind the truths in which these stories were created and end up not believing in the people or the events that had transpired around the story?

While they are not historically accurate, you cannot discount the truths in which spurred the stories in the first place.

If you relegate the stories in the Bible as nothing more than folklore, then the truths contained within are no more valuable or authentic than the stories you mentioned.  If the stories you mentioned are on equal footing with the Bible, then your foundation upon which your life is built is folklore. 

Quote from: Annah on September 30, 2012, 08:56:54 PM
It is the Hebrew word for snake. No getting around that one :) If it was a dragon or a dinosaur they would have used the same Hebrew word as noted in the Book of Job and Behemoth.

And yes, you are right...it isn't an apple. Just an unnamed fruit.

That is part of the problem with reading it in English as opposed to Hebrew,Greek and Aramaic. I think we do lose something in translation. If I remember correctly Hebrew doesn't have any vowels or punctuation. We get so wigged out if it's a fish or a whale,does it really change it that much? Does it really matter if it's a snake or a dragon? I just think we get to worked upon the minor hair splitting details. We need to be able to get the message of what is being said. I have no problem that God did do what He said He did.

Somehow the story would lack a certain impact had it been a talking sloth.  "Whatever lady.  It's not like I care.  Eat, don't eat, I'm still hanging upside down."

will you then discount the meaning behind the truths in which these stories were created and end up not believing in the people or the events that had transpired around the story
That would seem to be the rational interpretation.  If Washington had been all that honest, couldn't they find a true story to illustrate it?  Is it possible that Marie Antoinette was not quite that brazen, perhaps, but of all the stuff that was said about her, that is actually pretty mild, when other accusations included sexually molesting her own son, and all sorts of other decedent sexual adventures.  Witches were not burned in Salem, but 19 were hanged, and one was pressed to death.  And I've never seen any accounts of burning in Salem, though the practice was common enough in Europe for a long time.  Ask Jeanne d'Arc, though I think that was technically for heresy.  But if you have something that is true, why then the need to make up something else? 

Quote from: Annah on September 30, 2012, 08:54:47 PM
Sadly, some think this way. If there is one error, then everything, including any truths gleamed from the scriptures is all but lost, etc etc. This is why some conservative Christians look at me funny when I say I have a lot of faith and love in my God....even if the scriptures are just stories. A book doesn't have to literal in order for me to understand the awe of God; It transcends above a book.

When Christians shake their head and say "how can you believe in Evolution? This takes away from the creating power of God" Then some will use the anology, "the odds of Evolution happening is the same as a tornado whipping through a junkyard and forming a fully functional 747 Jet.

I then reply, "that's how awesome my God is. Knowing that my God can take something as against all odds and creating the spark of life, that in return, gave birth to us through countless years of evolution. If it is true that the odds of Evolution is as high as a tornado making a jet...then maybe the hand of the divine was involved in the process of evolution. That, to me, takes a lot more faith than reading about a man name Adam and a woman named Eve who were the very first people.

Isn't that what they call "Theistic Evolution"? Basically the gist if I have it correctly is that God set it in motion then stepped back and let it "evolve"

One of the foundational reasons I do not believe that,has to do with Einstein's mathematical equation for the Theory of Relativity. E=MC squared,it fits creation. You may ask why.

And God said let there be light.

What happens when ones speaks? It creates sound waves,sound waves are a form of energy,energy becomes light and matter. It is one of those things that is a sign post. In and of itself it is not proof.
But each signpost strengthens the basis of my belief.

If one is a 100% literalist,What does one do when Jesus says things like these

Matthew 5

29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

If that is to be taken literally,then there should be an awful lot of blind male Christians.

Luke 9

23 Then he said to them all: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.

If it is to be taken literally,then there should be a lot of us carrying around a big piece of lumber. It would be very difficult to work if He meant it literally.

We need to be careful on which is to be taken literally and which is not. Taking a western mind set does not help. It was never written to be taken from a Greek Philosophical mind set. To often it is read from a modernistic perspective and it's best understood prayerfully,in context by book,who wrote it,to whom it was written,who was speaking and to whom was it spoken to,and within the historical context if known. then let the Bible explain the Bible. It works much better that way.

Quote from: Incarnadine on September 30, 2012, 08:15:46 PM
It is because if you can doubt one portion of it, you can doubt any portion of it.  Plenary verbal inspiration and literal interpretation are a house of cards.  If the Noahic story is not 100% as written, then the validity of my salvation is in doubt.

While I guess then this has no relevance to me. "My salvation" isn't why I'm a Christian nor is salvation the reason God sent Christ to our planet, YMMV on that one.

Quote from: Annah on September 30, 2012, 08:54:47 PM
...then maybe the hand of the divine was involved in the process of evolution.

This!

"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

― Dalai Lama XIV

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 30, 2012, 09:15:09 PM
Does it really matter if it's a snake or a dragon? I just think we get to worked upon the minor hair splitting details. We need to be able to get the message of what is being said.

This and honestly if people don't even get the "love one another" part of Christs message that MANY Christians seem to miss, who cares if Jonah swallowed a whale or not? 

It matters - at least to me, who's on the outside looking in - because the more picking and choosing that's going on, the more it resembles a cafeteria or a buffet line and the less it begins to look like a religion or anything faith-based.  I mean if Jonah isn't 'real' (in that it didn't actually happen) and is instead an allegory, then were do you stop?  Is that true with the virgin birth?  Did Joshua Fit de Battle ob Jericho, or not?  Was David not a divine king, but just a guy more brutal and with more lust for power than other men - you know, the kind of person who gets to be king in other places?

Cause once you start traveling down that path, I'll tell you where it ends, it ends with Karl Rahner and Hans Kung.  Thus: Resurrection does not mean either a return to life in space and time or a continuation of life in space and time but the assumption into that incomprehensible and comprehensive last and first reality which we call God.

So, if Jonah isn't really in the belly of the whale for what - 3 days, hummm - then maybe after 3 days the body is still in the tomb and the Resurrection is not a real event, but a metaphysical event of the spirit.  Edward Schillebeeckx has also written along the same lines, and like Kung got himself excommunicated for his troubles.

:) @ Tekla

Quote from: Stephe on October 01, 2012, 09:27:28 AM
This and honestly if people don't even get the "love one another" part of Christs message that MANY Christians seem to miss, who cares if Jonah swallowed a whale or not?

That's way so many see Christians as being false. Can't blame them. (Especially after spending a bit too much time researching Westboro Baptist Church) If that is all they have seen it's no wonder that so many can't stand or stomach those who claim to be fundamentalist's. It's repulsive,vile and down right hateful. How in anyone's right mind would you want to have anything to do with it? It certainly is not lovely,good or wholesome.

Quote from: tekla on October 01, 2012, 09:57:57 AM
It matters - at least to me, who's on the outside looking in - because the more picking and choosing that's going on, the more it resembles a cafeteria or a buffet line and the less it begins to look like a religion or anything faith-based.  I mean if Jonah isn't 'real' (in that it didn't actually happen) and is instead an allegory, then were do you stop?  Is that true with the virgin birth?  Did Joshua Fit de Battle ob Jericho, or not?  Was David not a divine king, but just a guy more brutal and with more lust for power than other men - you know, the kind of person who gets to be king in other places?

Cause once you start traveling down that path, I'll tell you where it ends, it ends with Karl Rahner and Hans Kung.  Thus: Resurrection does not mean either a return to life in space and time or a continuation of life in space and time but the assumption into that incomprehensible and comprehensive last and first reality which we call God.

So, if Jonah isn't really in the belly of the whale for what - 3 days, hummm - then maybe after 3 days the body is still in the tomb and the Resurrection is not a real event, but a metaphysical event of the spirit.  Edward Schillebeeckx has also written along the same lines, and like Kung got himself excommunicated for his troubles.

Agreed,but if we look at 3 days in our terms and not in Hebraic terms,instead of as little as 38 hours in the belly of the whale (Which is considered three days) up to that which we consider three days or 72 hours,it does make a big difference. We have to remember that the Old Testament was given to the Israelites and not Gentiles.

Quote from: tekla on October 01, 2012, 09:57:57 AM
It matters - at least to me, who's on the outside looking in - because the more picking and choosing that's going on, the more it resembles a cafeteria or a buffet line and the less it begins to look like a religion or anything faith-based.

I don't believe in the Buddhist concepts but it doesn't mean the message brought to us by the Dali Lama is wrong or isn't something I should follow.

And honestly I don't think the old testament has a whole lot to do with what Christ's message to us. Or what being a Christian means.  Wasn't the whole point: he brought us a "new covenant"?

And again, I think too many people see religion as a selfish "way to salvation" rather than how to live and treat others while we are alive.  You will not find enlightenment or salvation etc doing that. And if you listen to the message delivered by Jesus, the Dali Lama and others, they all say this same thing. Stop focusing on yourself and care for others.

Getting lost in details is not seeing the forest for the trees.

Quote from: tekla on October 01, 2012, 09:57:57 AM
It matters - at least to me, who's on the outside looking in - because the more picking and choosing that's going on, the more it resembles a cafeteria or a buffet line and the less it begins to look like a religion or anything faith-based.  I mean if Jonah isn't 'real' (in that it didn't actually happen) and is instead an allegory, then were do you stop?  Is that true with the virgin birth?  Did Joshua Fit de Battle ob Jericho, or not?  Was David not a divine king, but just a guy more brutal and with more lust for power than other men - you know, the kind of person who gets to be king in other places?

Cause once you start traveling down that path, I'll tell you where it ends, it ends with Karl Rahner and Hans Kung.  Thus: Resurrection does not mean either a return to life in space and time or a continuation of life in space and time but the assumption into that incomprehensible and comprehensive last and first reality which we call God.

So, if Jonah isn't really in the belly of the whale for what - 3 days, hummm - then maybe after 3 days the body is still in the tomb and the Resurrection is not a real event, but a metaphysical event of the spirit.  Edward Schillebeeckx has also written along the same lines, and like Kung got himself excommunicated for his troubles.

that make a lot of sense tekla. However, not for the same reason that someone who is a christian would think.  :)

Quote from: tekla on October 01, 2012, 09:57:57 AM

Cause once you start traveling down that path, I'll tell you where it ends, it ends with Karl Rahner and Hans Kung.  Thus: Resurrection does not mean either a return to life in space and time or a continuation of life in space and time but the assumption into that incomprehensible and comprehensive last and first reality which we call God.

Only if you are looking for a way to prove to yourself that you can just ignore everything in their message since you have proven to yourself "it isn't real"..

Lots of Christians who have faith in God don't believe everything in the bible literally happened. You don't get to "tell" people that unless we literally believe everything in this one book that we therefor shouldn't have faith in God or that my religion is a sham. You can make that choice but your "belief" is just that. Many people, can't see the forest from studying the trees and/or trying to make religion complex.

Quote from: Ave on October 01, 2012, 12:12:39 PM
However, not for the same reason that someone who is a christian would think.  :)

So why don't you explain to us what "someone who is a christian would think."?

That's an awfully broad brush you're wielding.

Sadly there is a brilliant scientist confined in a grotesquely crippled body, never knowing the warmth of a lover, unable to perform even the most rudimentary physical task, but understands the balance, order and symmetry of the universe and yet continually denies the existence of the God who knew his heart before he was born. And then there is another astrophysicist who proclaimed during his "Cosmos" series that he and many of his contemporaries know for certain that there is a parallel universe that we can't see or feel that is just outside of the dimension we know as time.

Quote from: Shantel on October 01, 2012, 02:08:15 PM
Sadly there is a brilliant scientist confined in a grotesquely crippled body, never knowing the warmth of a lover,

Are you talking about Stephen Hawkin? That guy has had more action than I ever will lol
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-28/entertainment/31106554_1_lap-dances-insider-physicists (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-28/entertainment/31106554_1_lap-dances-insider-physicists)

Quote from: Annah on October 01, 2012, 02:13:47 PM
Are you talking about Stephen Hawkin? That guy has had more action than I ever will lol
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-28/entertainment/31106554_1_lap-dances-insider-physicists (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-28/entertainment/31106554_1_lap-dances-insider-physicists)

The man knows how to do the hanky-panky quantum style  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

lol yes

You missed the point, it neither matters if Jonah was swallowed by a whale or not, nor does it matter that Stephen Hawking is a real horn dog or whatever, and no matter what anyone here believes or doesn't believe, the issue has been settled before the world existed.

The debate here was not about the existence or non-existence of god, but about the truth and varsity of a bunch of stories handed down since the Bronze Age.  Did the whale swallow Jonah and then ralph him up a few days later unharmed?  Did god make man out of dust and woman out of dust and the rib of man?  Did god send bears to eat children who taunted Elijah?  (I hope so, that scores god some pretty solid points in my book.)  Did Jesus walk on water?

And those are just the fun ones.  There are some very serious ones too.

Like many other people who have read it, and contemplated it, the story of Abraham and Issac is profoundly disturbing.
Are women inferior to men. (and that one is all over the book, and if so, I think you believers better quite down here because men-folk are talking, better get into the kitchen and make us a pie.)
Is slavery OK?
Is rape OK if you pay the girls father later?
Is the heart deceitful above all else?

And, once you start down a path of saying 'well this is no longer in effect' and 'that one is not true, it's meant as an allegory' then what are you left with?  That quote above is not mine, but from Hans Kung, and he is not alone in re-thinking the Resurrection as not a literal event, but an allegory for how Christ's love can transform us in day to day life, for everyday that we forgive, and accept forgiveness we are resurrected, we have triumphed over the death of our souls and are born anew in Christ's love.  I mean if Jonah is an allegory, who's to say that the Resurrection isn't an allegory too?

Of course, what that says in the end is that there is no life everlasting, no heaven, no hell, just this life, and we should find ways of making it better and not resenting it as some sort of test. 

Quote from: tekla on October 02, 2012, 03:24:09 PM
Of course, what that says in the end is that there is no life everlasting, no heaven, no hell, just this life, and we should find ways of making it better and not resenting it as some sort of test.

Bottom line hasn't changed no matter what an individual's level of disbelief or how much they may hate the message!

Quote from: Shantel on October 02, 2012, 06:52:33 PM
Bottom line hasn't changed no matter what an individual's level of disbelief or how much they may hate the message!

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." (Ps 53:1)

I don't think anyone is arguing that. What people are bringing up is how Bible Literalism can change how one views the message that is there.

Quote from: Annah on October 02, 2012, 06:59:19 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing that. What people are bringing up is how Bible Literalism can change how one views the message that is there.

Or vice versa

Quote from: tekla on October 02, 2012, 03:24:09 PM

And, once you start down a path of saying 'well this is no longer in effect' and 'that one is not true, it's meant as an allegory' then what are you left with?  That quote above is not mine, but from Hans Kung, and he is not alone in re-thinking the Resurrection as not a literal event, but an allegory for how Christ's love can transform us in day to day life, for everyday that we forgive, and accept forgiveness we are resurrected, we have triumphed over the death of our souls and are born anew in Christ's love.  I mean if Jonah is an allegory, who's to say that the Resurrection isn't an allegory too?

Of course, what that says in the end is that there is no life everlasting, no heaven, no hell, just this life, and we should find ways of making it better and not resenting it as some sort of test.

Paul even touches on that

1 Corinthians

12 So if the message that is preached says that Christ has been raised from the dead, then how can some of you say, "There's no resurrection of the dead"? 13 If there's no resurrection of the dead, then Christ hasn't been raised either. 14 If Christ hasn't been raised, then our preaching is useless and your faith is useless. 15 We are found to be false witnesses about God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, when he didn't raise him if it's the case that the dead aren't raised. 16 If the dead aren't raised, then Christ hasn't been raised either. 17 If Christ hasn't been raised, then your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins, 18 and what's more, those who have died in Christ are gone forever. 19 If we have a hope in Christ only in this life, then we deserve to be pitied more than anyone else.


Paul basically says the same thing if it's just an allegory,faith in it is worthless,because everything is based off that one thing they were claiming to be true.

to play devil's advocate, Paul never saw Jesus raised from the dead.

Heck, he never even chatted with Jesus ever...unless you count the part where Jesus knocks Paul off of his donkey and made him blind...a few months after the resurrection.

Paul also stated his generation will see the second coming of Christ. Never happened.

Quote from: Annah on October 02, 2012, 10:00:33 PM
to play devil's advocate, Paul never saw Jesus raised from the dead.

Heck, he never even chatted with Jesus ever...unless you count the part where Jesus knocks Paul off of his donkey and made him blind...a few months after the resurrection.

Paul didn't say that what he said was

1 Corinthians 15

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me, as if I were born at the wrong time.

like I said...Paul was never there when Jesus discipled his followers.

According to Paul, the resurrected Jesus in heaven knocked him off his donkey and made him blind for a short while.

And the author of Acts wrote it in another way. Paul (Saul) heard a voice. He never saw Jesus.  So Jesus did not appear to Paul as he did to James and the apostles (according to Acts)

Taken by themselves the four synoptic gospels preach a message that is pretty benign.  It's only the after market add-ons that really twisted that message into one that could be used for hate, persecution and intolerance.  And, at the heart of that hate, are the Pauline teachings and messages.

Quote from: Annah on October 02, 2012, 10:00:33 PM

Paul also stated his generation will see the second coming of Christ. Never happened.

If you are referring to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord's word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

In the context of the passage it's a general statement to the body of believers,it is the brothers and sisters alive at that time. When Paul uses we to refer to the body of Christ as a whole it's not a generational idea.

Quote from: tekla on October 02, 2012, 10:24:38 PM
Taken by themselves the four synoptic gospels preach a message that is pretty benign.  It's only the after market add-ons that really twisted that message into one that could be used for hate, persecution and intolerance.  And, at the heart of that hate, are the Pauline teachings and messages.

And the problem comes from people misusing them and leaving a lot out of the context. One would have to leave out the love chapter which was written by Paul

1 Corinthians 13

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Even Paul speaks of love of others not hate.

Paul also says that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church[1 Cor. 14:34–35] and also: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.[1 Tim. 2:11-12]

So one might well ask, according to Paulist doctrine, why are you presuming to talk about Paul at all?

Quote from: tekla on October 02, 2012, 11:01:15 PM
Paul also says that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church[1 Cor. 14:34–35] and also: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.[1 Tim. 2:11-12]

So one might well ask, according to Paulist doctrine, why are you presuming to talk about Paul at all?

Am I in Church? Both are within that context. There is also no restriction on women teaching women.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 02, 2012, 11:15:11 PM
Am I in Church? Both are within that context. There is also no restriction on women teaching women.

is there a restriction on women teaching men?

Also, for  1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, in Koine Greek it does not read as if Paul is talking about those who are alive when Christ returns in whatever generation that may be.

In Koine Greek it is in the accusative (referring to the direct object) and the 1st Person Present Perfect Active Indicative (verse 15). So, no. Paul is not writing for whatever generation who may be around when Christ returns. He literally means right at this present moment in time, within our Generation those who died first will be raised and we will proceed after the dead. In it's original language in which Paul writes in, it does not suggest whatever generation is around at the time. The grammar construct (as I pointed out earlier) refers to right now. Right in this generation.

I know what the translated Bible says. But I also know what the original language says too. I tend to believe the original language supersedes all translations.

But back to my initial question: is there a restriction on women teaching men?

Good question but does the text itself give a clue

1 Corinthians 14:34

34 Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Define which law he is referring to and you have your answer. Can you even find it in the Mosaic law? Does Paul even refer to the 616 various Mosaic laws? Where does Paul ever tell the Gentiles they are to fulfill the requirements of the Mosaic law? Paul does refer to the 10 commandments. So is Paul talking about a local law? If so then it also fits in with where he talks about submitting to the authorties. The point is they are breaking the law,and at that time did they not have such laws concerning women teaching and speaking in public? Remember women in ancient Greece were not allowed to do much in public by their laws.

Is there a restriction? Yes when you flaunt the laws of the land.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 03, 2012, 05:49:24 AM

Is there a restriction? Yes when you flaunt the laws of the land.

That's a mighty big assumption. So what laws of the land did this woman in the Church of Corinth flaunted to prompt Paul telling the women of the church to remain silent? Where did you get that?

Quote from: Annah on October 03, 2012, 12:17:25 PM
That's a mighty big assumption. So what laws of the land did this woman in the Church of Corinth flaunted to prompt Paul telling the women of the church to remain silent? Where did you get that?

1 Corinthians 14

Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

He is pointing out that they are breaking the law. Again which law is Paul pointing to is it Mosaic or is it Greek or Roman? Define that and you have your answer.

It's not hard to see that they may have been flaunting things when as Paul says they had pride and arrogance in who they were following,in Paul's own word "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father's wife. 2 And you are proud!",they were bringing law suits against each other,sexual immorality (prostitution),and they were proud about it and boasting about these things.

Curious question as you are the seminarian, Isn't part of understanding the text is by using
Hermeneutics and Exegesis in which one has at least a basic understanding of the culture and times,and by who and to whom it was written? And also understanding it within it's context?

As you were the one that did a thesis on part of Corinthians,did you do any back ground checking of any of the historical background? Because if one were to have done so would the meaning of the rest of the text within the context be obscure to the one had done so?

Yes. I actually have taken about 60 credits worth of Hermeneutics and Exegesis; which prompted me to make the statement that you assumed too much from reading that passage.

1. Yes it was a very patriarchal age
2. Yes you do need to gather all cultural and social relevance on the topic

However, you still assumed too much.

As my professors would have said, "How do you know there was a woman who was flaunting the laws of the land" There may have been an argument within the church between the sisters of the time. There may have been a dispute among the deaconess and one tried to overcome the other for a position. When you get into specifics like that, it's called you are assuming too much.

You must take the passage at hand and the passages preceding and following and then formulate any possible pericopes that may have surfaced from the studies. When I do this, I do not see the reasoning Paul said what he said because a woman flaunted the law of the land.

When I see the court issues, I see Paul saying we should not be like them and do what they do. Likewise, the church of Corinth did have Deaconesses and females were in leadership positions....so the idea that Paul was responding like he did was not because "a woman was flaunting the laws of the land" because the very essence of a woman being a deaconess in the first place was a direct contrast to the patriarchal age back then and this was not the issue Paul was addressing.

Oh...and yes..a Deaconess in the early church did teach men...wanted to throw that out there because your prior comment made it sound like women were not allowed to teach men

Quote from: Annah on October 04, 2012, 02:09:19 PM

However, you still assumed too much.

As my professors would have said, "How do you know there was a woman who was flaunting the laws of the land" There may have been an argument within the church between the sisters of the time. There may have been a dispute among the deaconess and one tried to overcome the other for a position. When you get into specifics like that, it's called you are assuming too much.

Yes you are correct I did assume to much and I do apologize for my error.

But again I ask which laws was Paul referring to?

Quote from: charlie on November 13, 2012, 12:20:43 PM
I believe he was and it is a reference to Christ being dead and buried too.

There are modern examples of people being swallowed by whales and recovered alive.

The question you can then ask if you're willing to not believe this is "Does it really matter of one does or does not believe that Jesus died and was buried in the tomb for 3 days?" as it is a reference to that.

Personally I believe both are factual accounts.

I believe that this is the passageyou are refering to

Matthew 12:39-41

39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.

Jesus takes it as being factual not an allegory.

There are modern examples of people being swallowed by whales and recovered alive.

Reliable citation needed.

My research show no such thing.  There are two old stories, one from a passenger on The Star of the East, back in the 1890's that's been discounted, and several from the whalers in New England (New Bedford holds most of the ship logs from that period) who talk about people being in the closed mouth (but not swallowed), and even being chewed, and surviving (albeit with missing parts). 

First there is only one species of whale that could swallow a man whole, that's a sperm whale (and they are not commonly found in the Med).  Now Jonah is going to have to make it past the jaws (about 30 feet) that are lined with 8 inch teeth without being chewed - because pretty much one chomp from a 15 ton animal with 8 inch teeth is going to do you in.  Then your going to have to go through the digestive tract (only a sperm whale has one large enough for a man to fit through, this has been well-researched by people attempting at the time - 19th Century - in an attempt to prove the Bible story true) to end up in an airless chamber of digestive acids and water , for 72 hours - then you're going to have to come back the other way.  And...and...and - all without panicking to the point of extreme shock that you would die of a heart attack,^* which BTW is a natural protection mechanism in most mammals to prevent them from having to experience things exactly like this, say with a boa.

19th Century scientists and archaeologists went to great lengths to try to use modern scientific evidence and methods to true the Bible stories (and other ancient myths/legends/stories/tales) and had much success.  (parting of the Red Sea, the story of Jericho, the existence of Troy)  But they also managed to conclusively prove that some of those stories could not have happened in the way the book recounts - as with Jonah and the belly of the whale.



* - about half the people who jump from the Golden Gate Bridge are not killed by the fall (220 ft. ave.) but die on the way down of a panic-induced heart-attack.

Instead of trying to prove (or disprove) of this scientifically, accept it as a Miracle of God.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on November 13, 2012, 02:23:46 PM
Instead of trying to prove (or disprove) of this scientifically, accept it as a Miracle of God.

The term faith comes to mind.  ;D

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 25, 2012, 11:18:47 AM
Is it really all that important to insist that the story of Jonah is a factual account or is more important to get the message of the account? I am beginning to wonder if it truly matters if one does or does not believe some of the finer points. Will it matter in the end?

It's an allegorical story, recorded long ago from oral traditions. That's how I look at it. It's hard to see these stories as anything else. In my mind, they aren't possible, practical, or believable.

Nineveh was not found until the mid 1800's either. For a long time it was questioned about Pilate also until 1961 when they located the Pilate stone. The interesting part of the finding of it was that they had reused the stone,it was a part of the stairs for a theater. So wouldn't it make sense that for some cities,you would not find a whole lot of rubble as it may have been recycled and reused? If you had perfectly good stones wouldn't it be easier to use stones that are already cut to size instead of cutting new stone out of a quarry? Considering that they did it by hand?

According to the Bible I read, God created the world.

If God can create the world, how big of a leap of faith is it to accept that God can make a fish large enough to swallow Jonah. 

Since I beleive in a God of miracles, I have no problem accepting what seems impossible to others.

Its called Faith (or it is to me).

Quote from: tekla on November 13, 2012, 02:11:35 PM

19th Century scientists and archaeologists went to great lengths to try to use modern scientific evidence and methods to true the Bible stories (and other ancient myths/legends/stories/tales) and had much success.  (parting of the Red Sea, the story of Jericho, the existence of Troy)  But they also managed to conclusively prove that some of those stories could not have happened in the way the book recounts - as with Jonah and the belly of the whale.

That is only if you leave God out of the equation. If science could really duplicate the ones that would seem impossible to our minds then are they really miracles? God being all powerful and knowing how He created things to work,would it be outside the realm of improbability that He would be able to change some molecules,or to suspend the natural order of things for a time,or for that matter to override nature itself if He so chooses?

Quote from: Sarah Louise on November 14, 2012, 09:34:02 AM
According to the Bible I read, God created the world.

If God can create the world, how big of a leap of faith is it to accept that God can make a fish large enough to swallow Jonah. 

Since I beleive in a God of miracles, I have no problem accepting what seems impossible to others.

Its called Faith (or it is to me).

A chemist I was having a conversation with told me that he had a problem with the concept of faith saying, "I am a scientist and as such I need to have scientific and at least empirical proof of things!" I said, "Then you are telling me that as you look at chemical compounds and the composition of things that exist you then must realize that there is balance, order and symmetry in the universe that couldn't just be happenstance but is evidence of intelligent creation?" He agreed. I went on, "Then you are obviously a well educated and intelligent man, so you're not going to have the audacity to tell me that you bought in to the concept that we all morphed out of some primordial sludge-pot initially from some single celled life form are you?" He said no, and agreed that he had just gotten somewhat of a handle of what faith is all about. Faith is the confidence in things hoped for and assurance about things not seen!

What makes the story of Jonah important is that it was used by Jesus as the only sign given to an adulterous people.
There is an old song "If He Said It I Believe It".
Scripture shows us Jesus said that to speak against the Holy Ghost is blasphemy that will not be forgiven. Therefore I just believe it as if ever there was a man speaking by the Holy Ghost it was Jesus.
One portion of scripture in the King James Bible that points out the difference between those who have faith and those who do not also shows those who have faith are blessed.
Jesus told Thomas Because thou hast seen thou believest but blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. He didn't say Thomas was blessed.
All throughout the word of God it speaks of faith in things not seen and that which is impossible with man. As written in Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible and again The things which are impossible with man are not with God.
The word of God is pretty clear that without faith one cannot please God and the wrath of God abides on them in their unbelief. Like Sarah said that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
If we can see those things that bear witness unto the Lord Jesus we do not have faith. We merely believe by sight. If we will only believe what God has said if we see evidence then we don't really count him as a faithful and true witness and our lack of belief in his honesty is a slap in his face.
It's not really a good thing to doubt the one who created us and can make the decision of whether we go to heaven or hell.
But, some will believe and some will not. Some will bear witness unto the greatness of his glory and others will mock.

I'm going to get my self in hot water here, but as a Christian I think that approaching the bible as a literal book is missing out on the big point.

for example: 2 Samuel 22 "God is my Rock,..." doesn't mean that God is a stone or some piece of granite or such.

The story of Jonah is not about the fish(whale) it's about the inevitability of doing what the Lord has commanded you to do.

Jonah gets ordered to send a message to Nineveh. At first Jonah either doesn't want to o doesn't heed the Lord's order, so he skips town and books a passage on a ship. The lord is not amused so he sends a storm to punish the ship. When the storm commences, Jonah, hides from the storm in his cabin. The crew has had enough of Jonah and then shoves him in the sea and God provides a fish for Jonah (Jonah spends the rest of his time praying inside the belly of the creature.

You can understand this as a child would and marvel about the fish and how Jonah managed to survive without air or such or you can learn something from the story.

The further Jonah escapes from God's will the closer he is to darkness, first away from land, then on a ship in a storm, then in a cabin below deck and finally inside the belly of the fish. But the Lord never forgets Jonah, all his hardships are the Lord's reminders. God Provided the whale (or fish) so Jonah would not drown, and in this darkness he prays until he returns to the light and commences doing God's will.

As a Christian I think the whole argument about taking the bible literally is silly, and am of the opinion that those who take it literally are somewhat misguided. It's not a history book.

Excellent point concerning the gist of what you have taken from the story Monica, meanwhile though I think the idea behind literal interpretation is intended to mean that we are not to parse out the parts we agree with from those that we either disagree with or are spiritually at odds with because of our condition as human beings. There is always a certain amount of common sense that applies. Here is a humorous example, and I'm not casting stones at anyone here either. I live in Washington state where the citizens have voted in favor of gay marriage and legalizing marijuana use and there's a joke going around that goes like this; "Gay marriage legalized on the same day as marijuana makes perfect biblical sense because:Leviticus 20:13 says: "A man who lays with another man should be stoned." One could take that old testament concept out of context and say that when two guys or gals sleep together they need to smoke a few fatties first! Pretty silly, but it makes my point about the business of literalism.  ;)

Quote from: Shantel on November 16, 2012, 12:11:31 PM
"A man who lays with another man should be stoned."

:laugh: That made my day. So, is being stoned a prerequisite?

Quote from: Tesla on November 16, 2012, 12:29:07 PM
:laugh: That made my day. So, is being stoned a prerequisite?

I dunno... suppose it should go in the bad jokes thread!  :D

Quote from: Shantel on November 16, 2012, 12:11:31 PM
Leviticus 20:13 says: "A man who lays with another man should be stoned."

I love this quote Shantel, may be a bad joke but it definitely made me laugh.

While I agree with what Monica says about the spiritual significanses of the story of Jonah there are also the natural issues. For with God nothing is impossible.
The Lord spake of parables and used them as well as stories in the natural.
Many times we see that truth is referred to as his word. Temple is his body and so on.
Where those who rely on the meanings of given words and their root forms miss the mark is with the word being spiritually discerned.
When Jesus gave the parable about the seed sowed on 4 types of soil in the natural many walked away thinking he gave a good farming lesson. His disciples whom he chose however were given the spiritual side where the seed is the word and the ground is the heart. That word meant what Jesus said and not Strong's Concordance or any seminary teacher.
The Holy Ghost can reveal the "mystery" as brother Paul said that is what will separate the wheat from the chaff in the end. As written in Psalms 96:13 he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.
Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness and Jesus said sanctify them with thy truth, thy word is truth.
In other words he will judge the world by whether or not they believe and his people by what they believe. Hence, Paul's warning about deceivers waxing worse and worse in the last days.
It says his truth. Not what people want to believe. Not what the dictionary, seminary or concodance says is truth. What he says is truth and reveals by his Spirit.
It is very important that we believe the right thing. The devil can mock everything and make some great sermons that will lead people straight to hell. The Lord will allow it if that is what people want.
It is also written that deceivers would lead many astray with good words and fair speeches.
Sadly too many men today stand behind pulpits and do this.It may sound great to live your best life now or make every day like Friday but these teachings won't save anyone's soul. They go against the words of Jesus and it's not wise for these men to teach people things that will damn their soul. That is not love of any sort. That is greed and a desire to be as gods like in the garden of Eden.
I agree we cannot read the Bible as a secular book. We need to read it with obedience, reverence, love and fear of the one who died for our sins knowing that it is he who has the power and authority to open our eyes unto the truth or allow us to believe a lie and be damned.
The history, laws and prophets and miracles were all to glorify Jesus and teach us that it is he that pleases God and we can only please God through him.
The riches spoken of are wisdom and knowledge in the word of God and the salvation of our souls. Not worldly gain or fame.
As written, ye are  chosen unto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
How can people be saved when they are not sanctified by the Spirit or they do not believe the truth?
Sadly, how many Christians don't even know what being sanctified by the Spirit is?
If they did the multitudes would not be doing the things they are in the name of Christ.
I believe the story of Jonah is both a spiritual teaching as this dear sister said and a warning as well. I also believe that he who spake the world into existance could make a great fish to carry a rebellious servant until he would repent and do as originally commanded.

And if Jonah had died in the belly of the fish God also has the power to have raise Jonah from the dead.

You know what my problem with the whole concept of nothing is impossible for the Lord is? It can be easily defeated by a childish thought experiment:

If nothing is impossible to God, then, can God make a Rock that weighs so much that even God cannot lift it?

For me, to say what God can or cannot do is beyond our capacity to comprehend as human beings, the whole concept of putting our petty desires and affirmations into what God is able or not doing seems ridiculous at its best and blasphemous at its worst.

As for what I believe, there was no whale and no fish. This is a story about the sadness that ensues when separating ourselves from God's will.

Good thing, that  I'm living in these times (but bad thing I'm not living in the future when we'll be able to get real female bodies with working wombs and the works), because this would have easily resulted in being declared a heretic in less illustrated and freedomless times.

In matters related to religion, it's going to be real hard getting someone to agree with your beliefs, so to each their own, I guess ::)

The term faith comes to mind.

Faith is far from universal. 

And, as is increasingly common, faith seen as irrational and (as could be easily argued about Jonah and the Whale) a basic ignorance of - or deliberate ignoring of - reality.

So you have something that is a strong belief in something with no evidence and/or sometimes a strong belief in something even with evidence against it.  The philosopher Bertrand Russell aptly noted, "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round.  We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."  There is a great problem in that, for we all don't share the same emotions, or weight them equally in life.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins criticizes all faith, describing it as a process of active non-thinking.  He states that it is a practice that only degrades our understanding of the natural world by allowing anyone to make a claim about nature that is based solely on their personal thoughts.

So, as we move away from these old stories and myths, and move into the current age and time - who should, and who should not have input as to how we are going to organize and conduct our societies?  Do we base them on what a couple of people personally believe or the emotions of a few people, or do we base them on something larger, something more readily proven and examined? 

On a micro-level do I want someone teaching my kids science if they think whales can eat people, hold them in their stomach for three days and then return them otherwise unharmed?  On the macro-level do we want to structure our entire society based on a what a couple of individuals think is true on a personal and emotional level only.

Monica,
God already has made a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.
Remember how the scriptures say that if his people would repent and turn back to him he would remove their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh.
Remember how he hardened pharaoh's heart?
Spiritually speaking.
The Lord said the word is spirit and life.
Where people make mistakes is by looking at it from a carnal, or natural standpoint. It is written lean not unto your own understanding. His ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts. If we try to use our understanding or focus on the earthly things we will never see the spiritual things.
The multitudes of false prophets over the years have taken away the original gospel that some of us heard as children and in our youth.
Some of us have seen miracles back when the churches preached Christ and him crucified.
As the years passed and the gospel was changed into a carnal mess that has grown into doctrines and sermons that go against the words the disciples and apostles say Jesus spake the miracles ended. As written because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall wax cold. That love is Christ and he has departed from many today. They just don't see it.
David wrote in Psalms If I heed iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me. David was a prophet and man after God's own heart. If he said God would not hear him why do people claiming to be Christians insist that God will hear them when they love iniquity? Who do they think they are? It's no wonder prayers aren't answered and miracles ended when the church has strayed so far from Christ.
Sadly, when these people teach things that go against the words of Jesus they cannot see the devilish spirit that tells them they are a god. That they know more than Jesus. The word calls it a spirit of antichrist. 
It does matter what people believe about scripture as the Lord told his disciples that a time would come when men would kill his people thinking they do God service. If people do not believe the truth they can easily do such to the Lord's people. And that will not be a good thing.
May God bless.