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.