Problems with Judiasm/Christianity

[UTAlan]

I agree with that, I guess. What I'd really like a source on is this:

The leaders of most Christian denominations agree that much of the Bible is metaphorical or allegorical in nature.

This does not seem consistent with what I've seen in the churches I've been to/been a member of (though that is obviously a small sample size). If this is true, I'm curious as to which church leaders and denominations believe that.

[Aves]

Well, do the churches you've been to make any claims on the Earth being flat, having oceans guarded by sea monsters, being ~10000 years old, once having experienced a global flood in those 10000 years, etc? I am not a christian, and am somewhat ignorant of this, but I believe those are all things mentioned in the Book of Genesis; however, I doubt that most modern religious leaders would assert that those things are literally true, given the wealth of evidence gathered by science that would point to an alternative model.

[UTAlan]

Taking a step back: I guess I agree that "much" of the bible is not meant to be taken literally. Revelation, for example, and many portions of Daniel. The poetic books are obviously not literal. So, we are probably arguing very similar stances (though I believe the bible to be true, so we certainly don't agree on everything in this matter - just depends on which specific part of the bible we're discussing).

[ElementalDearWatson]

That seems to say the opposite.

Biblical literalism first became an issue in the 18th century

This is saying that until the 18th century, most people (Christians) accepted the bible as literal. Am I reading this wrong?

You are reading that wrong.  Read it in context with what the previous paragraph has to say about Augustine of Hippo, and what the sentences after it have to say about the connection between Biblical literalism and the advent of scientific thought.

[ElementalDearWatson]

This does not seem consistent with what I've seen in the churches I've been to/been a member of (though that is obviously a small sample size). If this is true, I'm curious as to which church leaders and denominations believe that.

Well, for just one example, see how many Church leaders (including the Pope) say that they agree with the Theory of Evolution.  If Darwinian Evolution is true, as they say, then the accounts of creation in Genesis cannot be literal.

[MasterofPun]

Jesus himself references Adam and that He was made at the beginning - not millions/billions of years after the beginning. Jesus, as the Son of God, cannot tell lies. IF Jesus ever sinned (by lying), then our faith is in vain and we still have no hope in this world. Because Jesus never sinned, we have hope for today and a reason to live! And more than that - we can have a saving relationship with Him!

So the 7 day Creation is very fundamental to Christian belief, and the root of the entire Bible!

Mark 10:6

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Jesus himself references Adam and that He was made at the beginning - not millions/billions of years after the beginning. Jesus, as the Son of God, cannot tell lies. IF Jesus ever sinned (by lying), then our faith is in vain and we still have no hope in this world. Because Jesus never sinned, we have hope for today and a reason to live! And more than that - we can have a saving relationship with Him!

So the 7 day Creation is very fundamental to Christian belief, and the root of the entire Bible!

Well, the Pope disagrees with you on that score, although he does agree that the part of Genesis concerning Adam and Eve is literally true.

[MasterofPun]

Jesus himself references Adam and that He was made at the beginning - not millions/billions of years after the beginning. Jesus, as the Son of God, cannot tell lies. IF Jesus ever sinned (by lying), then our faith is in vain and we still have no hope in this world. Because Jesus never sinned, we have hope for today and a reason to live! And more than that - we can have a saving relationship with Him!

So the 7 day Creation is very fundamental to Christian belief, and the root of the entire Bible!

Well, the Pope disagrees with you on that score, although he does agree that the part of Genesis concerning Adam and Eve is literally true.

I do not find adequate Biblical explanation for the Pope's Authority. The reference to Peter as the rock of the church is distant - and the idea that this somehow makes those that follow after him capable of defining God's will seems silly and dangerous to me.

If you find evidence to support the pope's existence in the 66 book canon Bible, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.

[ElementalDearWatson]

I don't think the Pope's existence is in doubt, is it?

[Espithel]

What MasterofPun is calling into question, Watson, is whether the bible calls the pope an authority on what the bible says. If it doesn't, Pun's argument follows that what the pope says is merely the pope's interpretation, and thus what the pope believes is true has no relevance over what the bible states as true.

TL;DR: The pope isn't Jesus.

[ElementalDearWatson]

That doesn't seem relevant as to whether or not various church leaders interpret parts of the Bible as metaphorical, rather than literally true.

[MasterofPun]

ElementalDearWatson, it seems that you are stuck on the idea that church leaders have mighty authority over the Scriptures. That's a popular Catholic idea, but is a dangerous idea as well. I have people I respect and agree with about the Bible. Those people do not define what the Bible says, however. They can be wrong as well as me.

The Pope claims to be beyond that - he claims to be able to make more Scripture and be able to define what Scripture says. Changing/defining Scripture is not a human ability - we can only interpret as we see ourselves.

Am I clear or not clear?