A question for Christians ...

How many Christians on OT are fundamentalists, and how many have a more moderate view of their faith?

And if your views are more moderate, how do you regard biblical stories such as Noah's ark, the garden of Eden, etc?

I don't want to start an argument, religious or otherwise, I am genuinely curious.

Very liberal "Christian" (if I can even be called that...). I believe in Jesus. That's about it. And as for those stories in the Bible, I consider most of it to be allegorical and symbolical. At least books like Genesis and Revelations that is.

I don't know what I would be considered. Starting out by calling those Fables isn't a good idea if you don't want a Religious argument though.

I believe the Bible 100% (a.k.a. Lutheran.) I don't fast, or do anything like that though.

No TC, you're not curious, you just want to see people argue about the same thing this god forsaken place has been arguing about for years. Because you and I both know that this place is predictable as hell and both sides of the argument are going to make very ignorant claims about stuff they barely know about and wouldn't know the first thing if it meant their lives.

Screw religious threads.

*Allows OT to carry on and argue*

I don't know what I would be considered. Starting out by calling those Fables isn't a good idea if you don't want a Religious argument though.Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]I don't know what I would be considered. Starting out by calling those Fables isn't a good idea if you don't want a Religious argument though.scorch-62

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]I don't know what I would be considered. Starting out by calling those Fables isn't a good idea if you don't want a Religious argument though.Snipes_2

While I do believe that the Bible is written by men who are inspired by God, I also believe that due to the fact that the Bible is compilation of several books by different authors, there's going to be different ways of looking at a verse or story. I'm not going to take Proverbs or Psalms literally nor will I interpret the 7 days of creation as literal 24 hour days.hiphops_savior

Very liberal "Christian" (if I can even be called that...). I believe in Jesus. That's about it. And as for those stories in the Bible, I consider most of it to be allegorical and symbolical. At least books like Genesis and Revelations that is.

MystikFollower

Point taken, "fables" is now "stories".

At least 3. blackregiment... then, that guy with the Pickachu for an avatar... then... who else?CRS98

I thought blackregiment and his band of merry men left GS 'cause their threads kept getting shut down.

I can see the symbolic meaning throughout the Bible, but I have a hard time believing in any of it, even Jesus... To me it's just to find guidelines and morals throughout each individual story.

I am United (not by choice) and take my faith very lightly.

[QUOTE="CRS98"]At least 3. blackregiment... then, that guy with the Pickachu for an avatar... then... who else?Frattracide

I thought blackregiment and his band of merry men left GS 'cause their threads kept getting shut down.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="CRS98"]At least 3. blackregiment... then, that guy with the Pickachu for an avatar... then... who else?gameguy6700

I thought blackregiment and his band of merry men left GS 'cause their threads kept getting shut down.

I regard stories such as the ones in Genesis as parables intended to teach certain fundamental religious tenets, such as humanity's sinful nature, without any intention to relate bona fide historical facts. Oral storytelling was a pivotal way in which information was passed along at the time the Bible was written, and it should be interpreted in light of this fact. The idea that anyone hearing the creation story would have put their hand up and asked, "Now, is that six literal days?" is pure anachronism.

I regard stories such as the ones in Genesis as parables intended to teach certain fundamental religious tenets, such as humanity's sinful nature, without any intention to relate bona fide historical facts. Oral storytelling was a pivotal way in which information was passed along at the time the Bible was written, and it should be interpreted in light of this fact. The idea that anyone hearing the creation story would have put their hand up and asked, "Now, is that six literal days?" is pure anachronism.

GabuEx

If that is the case, when and why do you think this whole idea of a 7 day creation got kicked off? When did it stop being a parable, because there are a lot of people who consider it fact.

If that is the case, when and why do you think this whole idea of a 7 day creation got kicked off? When did it stop being a parable, because there are a lot of people who consider it fact.

Frattracide

Well, there have always been people who have tried to find historical facts in that story (although, contrary to popular belief, there have also always been people who recognize it for the parable it is), but oddly enough the rise of modern science is really what kicked things off. As odd as it might sound to us, at the time the Bible was written there was really no such conceptual idea as an objective fact. There was no scientific method, nor any sort of falsification or peer review process, so, really, although some form of examination existed, there was nothing particularly rigorous about it. It was only with the rise of the scientific method and a steadily growing base of facts that have stood the test of scientific rigor that the real dogmatic you're-hellbound-if-you-don't-think-Genesis-is-literally-true group of people started to grow. There have been people since forever who felt that the Bible was literally true, but that belief didn't exactly form any sort of foundation of their faith.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I regard stories such as the ones in Genesis as parables intended to teach certain fundamental religious tenets, such as humanity's sinful nature, without any intention to relate bona fide historical facts. Oral storytelling was a pivotal way in which information was passed along at the time the Bible was written, and it should be interpreted in light of this fact. The idea that anyone hearing the creation story would have put their hand up and asked, "Now, is that six literal days?" is pure anachronism.

If that is the case, when and why do you think this whole idea of a 7 day creation got kicked off? When did it stop being a parable, because there are a lot of people who consider it fact.

because a Day in Gods eyes is considerd 1000 years. and using that context it makes more sense and also backs up the whole statement where he saids adam will die in the same day he eats the fruit and he dies at 900+ years old and no man even broke the 1000 year old mark. but people tend to miss this little tidbit.kayoticdreamz

You miss the other half of the statement: that not only is a day as a thousand years, but that a thousand years are also as a day. It's a poetic statement intended to say that the concept of time has no meaning at all when applied to God, not to literally set forth the exact proportion in which time is experienced by God as compared to us.

Honestly - and I mean no offense by this - some people try to make the Bible such a dry, dead text. :P

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

If that is the case, when and why do you think this whole idea of a 7 day creation got kicked off? When did it stop being a parable, because there are a lot of people who consider it fact.

Well, there have always been people who have tried to find historical facts in that story (although, contrary to popular belief, there have also always been people who recognize it for the parable it is), but oddly enough the rise of modern science is really what kicked things off. As odd as it might sound to us, at the time the Bible was written there was really no such conceptual idea as an objective fact. There was no scientific method, nor any sort of falsification or peer review process, so, really, although some form of examination existed, there was nothing particularly rigorous about it. It was only with the rise of the scientific method and a steadily growing base of facts that have stood the test of scientific rigor that the real dogmatic you're-hellbound-if-you-don't-think-Genesis-is-literally-true group of people started to grow. There have been people since forever who felt that the Bible was literally true, but that belief didn't exactly form any sort of foundation of their faith.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]because a Day in Gods eyes is considerd 1000 years. and using that context it makes more sense and also backs up the whole statement where he saids adam will die in the same day he eats the fruit and he dies at 900+ years old and no man even broke the 1000 year old mark. but people tend to miss this little tidbit.GabuEx

You miss the other half of the statement: that not only is a day as a thousand years, but that a thousand years are also as a day. It's a poetic statement intended to say that the concept of time has no meaning at all when applied to God, not to literally set forth the exact proportion in which time is experienced by God as compared to us.

Honestly - and I mean no offense by this - some people try to make the Bible such a dry, dead text. :P

I happen to be of a liberal Christian. As for "Noah's Ark", The stories of Adam and Eve (well pretty much the Book of Genesis), those stories are an allegory.

I have no intention of attacking anyone 's beliefs in this thread, but if it helps I'll list some definitions and change "Christian" to "Religious",

(i) Fundamentally Religious: Literal truth of religious texts: ie- Events described in said texts physically did occur,

(ii) Moderately Religious: Belief in moral,ethical messages of religious texts but not that every event in these texts actually did occur in reality,

(iii) Spiritual but not religious: A belief in souls, afterlife, spirit-beings etc, but not according to any major religious doctrine,

(iv) Non-religious & non-spiritual: Physical reality is all that there is.

This is just to help and you're free to totally disregard it if you wish.

PS: I didn't know that happened to Blackregiment!! :o

of course by the same token science has always been subjective and ever changing and i can hardly consider science pure fact some of it sure like 2+2= 4 but science is ever changing about every 10 years its always something new or disproving something else etc. i hardly consider science a permanent fact with such a spotty track record on a great deal of things. never mind the countless studies done that disprove or prove something new that was originally thought as fact and is now replaced by this brand new fact. and with technology constantly growing its easy to see science is hardly the constant fact people like to make it out to be. some basics are forever facts like the 2+2= 4 but alot of it is far from a constant permanent fact whereas the bible has been consistent and has always been what it has always been and for the most part has stayed the same and i always find it odd a history book is a reliable source of history but the bible is all lies.....sorry last school book i read left out the bill of rights hardly a reliable public school history book.kayoticdreamz

No offense, but this is just wrong, on two levels:

1. With the rise of scientific rigor, nothing that has stood for a long time in science is ever overthrown entirely. The theory of relativity did not overthrow Newton's laws of classical mechanics. Rather, it merely refined them into a form that held even for relativistic speeds. The equations for motion in special relativity all collapse back to Newton's old equations when a velocity is much, much less than the speed of light. The idea that science is constantly throwing everything out and starting over again is just patently false, and I must admit a certain amount of frustration at the extent to which this idea has propagated.

2. If you want to specifically address the contents of the Bible, you will sadly find a lack of scientific correctness in its text. I'll give you a very clear-cut example: the Hebrew word raqiya', used in relation to the sky. In modern Bibles this is glossed over with translations such as "expanse", but the King James Version got it right by translating it as "firmament". Note the presence of "firm" in that word. This is not an accident; the ancient Hebrews believed - as most everyone else did at the time - that the sky was a solid, transparent object, and that the blue tint in it was due to water being present beyond that object. This is, of course, wrong, and today we understand that the blue tint in the sky is due to a very different phenomenon, but that is what they believed back then, and the authors of the Bible clearly did not have any greater cosmological understanding than anyone else contemporary with them.

And for the record, I consider myself a Christian, and I certainly do not hold the Bible up as "all lies", but at the same time I cannot simply ignore the true nature of its contents.

yes im aware that is its point that time is meaningless in the eyes of God which makes sense and is merely created for human use. but calling genesis a story and nothing more and saying the whole idea of 7 days doesnt make sense so i was trying to point well hey it makes much more sense if you tell the whole story.kayoticdreamz

There are tons of things in the Genesis story that make it obviously an allegory. For starters, God is seen not as an omnipotent "other", but as a physical being walking around. And this is true even after Adam and Eve are thrown out of the Garden of Eden, and give birth to Cain and Abel. Then, the personified God mysteriously vanishes, never to be seen again. Keep in mind that Jesus is supposed to be God incarnate on Earth, yet if Genesis is a literal story, then Jesus is the second time God has been physically present within space and time, an idea that goes completely against basically all Christian doctrine. Furthermore, much of it doesn't even make any logical sense if we take it as literal and assume that God is an omnipotent, omniscient being that he is supposed to be. For example, he tells Noah to get in the boat because humanity is wicked and sinful, but then afterwards humanity is still wicked and sinful, only God doesn't seem to care anymore. I mean the entire flood is utterly pointless in every way if we suppose that it is a literal historical account. And to go even further, God is described repeatedly in the Old Testament as being a jealous God, yet we are told in the New Testament that God is love, and that love is not jealous.

The bottom line is that none of this makes any sense whatsoever when interpreted literally, unless truly tortured logic is applied in an attempt to somehow corral it all together and special-case this and that just so such that it all flimsily works out. I mean, hell, even Paul himself refers to a rather fundamental part of the Old Testament as figurative in his letter to the Galatians.

of course by the same token science has always been subjective and ever changing and i can hardly consider science pure fact some of it sure like 2+2= 4 but science is ever changing about every 10 years its always something new or disproving something else etc. i hardly consider science a permanent fact with such a spotty track record on a great deal of things. never mind the countless studies done that disprove or prove something new that was originally thought as fact and is now replaced by this brand new fact. and with technology constantly growing its easy to see science is hardly the constant fact people like to make it out to be. some basics are forever facts like the 2+2= 4 but alot of it is far from a constant permanent fact whereas the bible has been consistent and has always been what it has always been and for the most part has stayed the same and i always find it odd a history book is a reliable source of history but the bible is all lies.....sorry last school book i read left out the bill of rights hardly a reliable public school history book.kayoticdreamz

In colloquial terms when we say "fact" we don't mean the same thing a scientist does. In common use the term "fact" is used to refer to something that is considered to be truthful beyond reproach, or as you described it, permanent. Thinking of things in these terms is is convenient for every day life but the rigours of science demand a little more. When a scientist refers to a "fact" he does so provisionally (unless he is talking about math) What that means is that scientific "facts" are thought to be true because they best explain all observed phenomena. With the exception of math, nothing is ever "proved" in science, all of our knowledge is provisional and the provision is that the "fact" in question is what best explains all the observations but that could change if more evidence is discovered.

No scientist makes the claim that a theory or discovery is permanent, only that it is the best answer we have right now. This self correcting process is what makes science work so well.

Well the Bible says the word is from God, and that it IS God. I don't think God is a liar so I tend to believe what I am reading. I am not a fan of 'religiosity' though. Faith is a relationship not a religion.

Well the Bible says the word is from God, and that it IS God. I don't think God is a liar so I tend to believe what I am reading. I am not a fan of 'religiosity' though. Faith is a relationship not a religion.

Taegukki

I cannot say I agree with your reasoning but, putting that aside for a moment, if the account of creation in the bible is a parable then that does not make god a liar by any means. Jesus spoke in parables all the time. Let's consider the options:

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that the earth is older than six thousand years so either

A.The genesis account is a parable and does not literally describe the creation of the earth in seven days. (Using the week and specific acts of god as metaphors) and god is speaking the truth in parable

B. The account is meant to be literal and as such is wrong. The implication here being either the bible got it wrong and is not the word of god or that god is lying.

Does it matter?LJS9502_basic

Ultimately, no. :P

That depends upon how you define the term fundamental. Do I hold to the fundamentals of the faith as defined by various creeds across church history (Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed, Westminster Confession, etc.)? Yes. Do I define myself as a Fundamentalist, no. Because of the stigma surrounding Fundamentalism that does not relate to me, I do not associate myself with the label.mindstorm

By "fundamentalist" I mean belief that events described in the bible did physically occur in this reality, not that you hold the fundamentals of Christianity to be true.

If you believe in the moral, ethical guidelines of religion but that certain biblical events are meant to be taken as a metaphor, ie "they didn't actually happen", I would class that as a "moderate" religious belief, (only according to my guidelines.).

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]That depends upon how you define the term fundamental. Do I hold to the fundamentals of the faith as defined by various creeds across church history (Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed, Westminster Confession, etc.)? Yes. Do I define myself as a Fundamentalist, no. Because of the stigma surrounding Fundamentalism that does not relate to me, I do not associate myself with the label.Krystyan68

By "fundamentalist" I mean belief that events described in the bible did physically occur in this reality, not that you hold the fundamentals of Christianity to be true.

If you believe in the moral, ethical guidelines of religion but that certain biblical events are meant to be taken as a metaphor, ie "they didn't actually happen", I would class that as a "moderate" religious belief, (only according to my guidelines.).

[QUOTE="Krystyan68"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]That depends upon how you define the term fundamental. Do I hold to the fundamentals of the faith as defined by various creeds across church history (Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed, Westminster Confession, etc.)? Yes. Do I define myself as a Fundamentalist, no. Because of the stigma surrounding Fundamentalism that does not relate to me, I do not associate myself with the label.mindstorm

By "fundamentalist" I mean belief that events described in the bible did physically occur in this reality, not that you hold the fundamentals of Christianity to be true.

If you believe in the moral, ethical guidelines of religion but that certain biblical events are meant to be taken as a metaphor, ie "they didn't actually happen", I would class that as a "moderate" religious belief, (only according to my guidelines.).

OK, fair enough.

I think some people are wary of the term 'fundamentalist' because they equate that with 'extreme, violent fundamentalist' which was not my intention at all.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Krystyan68"]

By "fundamentalist" I mean belief that events described in the bible did physically occur in this reality, not that you hold the fundamentals of Christianity to be true.

If you believe in the moral, ethical guidelines of religion but that certain biblical events are meant to be taken as a metaphor, ie "they didn't actually happen", I would class that as a "moderate" religious belief, (only according to my guidelines.).

Krystyan68

OK, fair enough.

I think some people are wary of the term 'fundamentalist' because they equate that with 'extreme, violent fundamentalist' which was not my intention at all.

who cares ?

I regard stories such as the ones in Genesis as parables intended to teach certain fundamental religious tenets, such as humanity's sinful nature, without any intention to relate bona fide historical facts. Oral storytelling was a pivotal way in which information was passed along at the time the Bible was written, and it should be interpreted in light of this fact. The idea that anyone hearing the creation story would have put their hand up and asked, "Now, is that six literal days?" is pure anachronism.

GabuEx

I'm a Christian and did my year of civil service at a church. I'm not somebody who's deeply religious, but I have my beliefs. As for the bible, I've never read it. I want to someday. Now and then I attended church service as a musician and heard some passages. I think those stories (be they true or not) usually have a good moral or a quintessence that can help you understand stuff a little better, thats going on.