soul of fundamentalism

Well, mostly we know it from the stories themselves. For example Genesis begins with an impossibility, two entirely different versions of creation. The Flood myth was just a retelling of a tale most everyone would have been familiar with, and again, in Genesis there isn't one flood myth but two distinct and mutually exclusive tales. Others were idiomatic and racist jokes poking fun at furners, stories like the Tower of Babel. Fortunately, the Bible isn't the only writing from the period. There are lots of other documents that can give us some insight into the era. I'm sure there are quite a few folk that take the Bible Literally, but not as many as you might think. In addition, it's very much a modern phenomenon. Mostly it's the modern Evangelical, Fundamental movement and not the vast mainstream of Christianity. They seem far move prevalent because they are the biggest adopters of the Theological Infomercial. Networks like TBN are big commercial enterprises selling their product just like a slice-n-dice.If you attended a Jesuit College, today or even hundreds of years ago, you'll find very few literalists. You'll find the same thing in most every other religious Higher Education EXCEPT, as mentioned, for the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Sects.But you need to understand that a Literal Interpretation of the Bible is still the exception as opposed to the rule.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Fortunately, the Bible isn't the only writing from the period. There are lots of other documents that can give us some insight into the era.

---

This is the stuff I'm looking for

There is a reason that some of us take the Bible literally. If you take it as just another tale of the many tales and fables written by man, you have effectively reduced Christianity from a spiritual impartation to a mere human philosophy. Christianity is more than just a set of "good morals" for people to adapt, such as philosophy would suggest. A literalist would see a verse such as the first part of Ephesians thusly:
Eph 1:1-14= Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus: In other words, Paul, writing as an apostle by the will of God..to the people of THAT day but also to US..who also are the faithful in Christ Jesus. In other words, if you are not seeking to know Christ in faith, none of this will make any sense to you at this moment.
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed usin the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. Who is "us"? Remember John 3:16? Us=whosoever believes.4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love
5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will- How many of us did He choose? "Whosoever" means whoever chooses Him. There is no set number. All that we know is that many are called, few chosen. Who is chosen? Whomever chooses is already chosen. Is it possible to not choose Him? Sure, but why would anyone do that??
6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace
8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.
9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment-to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-to the praise of his glory. In other words, Whosoever believes is saved by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Sealed. Notice that it says "you were included when you heard and believed." Keep looking at other writings, Chris but remember that studying the human philosophies of how people behave is not the same as studying the interaction between God and humanity and the action of belief as it applies to the future. Not ALL literalists are hucksters and con artists. We just believe in impartation rather than education as the method of attaining wisdom. Education is a valuable thing as well.

let's take the story of the Conquest of Canaan as an example. At the time that Joshua and his armies are supposedly rampaging across Canaan, taking City after City, the Folk living in and ruling the cities of Canaan are busily writing letters back and forth and don't seem to be aware at all of any Israeli Army.Other examples are that the Flood story is just about a direct copy of the Gilgamesh Saga. The patriarchs also seem to be directly copied from the Babylonians, except that the Hebrews didn't have the nerve to claim that their Patriachs lived anywhere near as long as those of Babylonians.Why don't yoou start by reading the The Armana Tablets and then read the Gilgamesh Saga.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why wouldn't someone making a literal reading believe that the part you quoted in white means just what it says and not as interpreted in your yellow portion?When you add material that is NOT in the initial letter, how can you say you are reading it literally?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If the letter was only addressed to Ephesus, none of the Bible would be written to us...today. Why would a faithful in Christ then not be as a faithful in Christ now? Besides that, how else can you explain John 3:16 "whosoever" if that does not include everyone since 33 A.D.?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-13-2005 11:14 PM

Bravo. Correct. Very little of the Bible was written to us...today.The Epistles are nothing more than letters. They were letters to a church with the intent that they would be read to the congregation. Paul was not writing to us, in fact Paul was pretty sure that the end of the world would come within his lifetime. If someone had told him that folk 2000 years later would be reading his letters his reaction would have been "Aw, go on!". It certainly would have lead to major changes in his Epistles.The Epistles were not even broadsheets like the Gospels. They were meant for specific audience and dealt with specific people and specfic local issues. One of the most misunderstood and misquoted verses from the Bible. Start a thread sometime on John 3:16 and let's discuss it. I think it's important because so much of the bigotry and exclusionary practices are based on John 3:16 by folk that simply misuse it.But there is a different reason.The Gospels are an entirely different form of communication than the Epistles just as Acts is an entirely different type of communication. The Gospels are broadsides, they are public documents, not addressed to a specific small community but to a body at large.You cannot compare the Gospels to the Epistles or to Acts. They are three entirely different types of writing for three entirely different audiences and three entirely different purposes.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, you know that I belong to a dispensationalist church. I don't know if you are familiar with that belief, but basically they also believe that while most of the Bible is written for us, not all of it is addressed to us. They differentiate between the Gospel of the Kingdom which was preached even by the twelve and Jesus, versus the Gospel of the Mystery which was and is addressed to the Body of Christ and was preached by Paul. This presupposes that you believe in the possibility of a Rapture.I am intrigued by your findings, but be advised that I shall never consider Christianity to be mere philosophy of do-good teachings.
The theology is addressed to a world of non religious folk who need only to accept Jesus and accept His grace given to us as a means of salvation. Israel had to be concluded in unbelief in order to usher in the age of grace. Peter was taught to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, as were the original twelve. Only after Israel chose unbelief rather than acceptance of the messiah did the revelation pass via the Holy Spirit to Paul, who then became the Apostle to the Gentiles.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-14-2005 03:58 AM

quote:

---

This is the stuff I'm looking for

---

Your question was, how did the Israelites think. Thats hard to address, even with documents, becuase of the kind of influences that holmes points out.So the only way to get a non-glib answer to this question is in essence to study anthropology, and hope. But really getting into an alien mode of thought is very very difficult indeed.It is instructive IMO though to read other things like the roman annals. Although these are far more like modern thought, probably, than tribal Israelite thought, they still provide an insight into ancient thought in general (things like the prominence of Egypt etc.)You can also try tackling Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts directly. These are fascinating, but harder. Anyway, I donlt think there is any particularly accessible easy answer unfortunately.

Not exact ones. Its been nearly 20 years since I did much of my study on the subject and I can't remember names very well (unless they are highly unusual). Since then I have read things from time to time but never kept track of what they were by name.And in a way I'd almost feel like I was not helping you by simply pointing to specific books. Contra was right in that nothing will show you exactly how people thought, but rather you have to study many different things from and about cultures at that time to get a feel for what truth meant back then.But I will try to guide you in the right direction for sources.First of all you can seek out writings from around or before the time of Jesus. They will write about Gods and expectations of Gods and what knowledge is.A really good Greek example would be Plato, specifically Plato's Republic. There he deals with truth as a commodity that can be altered in order to serve the interests of the state. They were seeking to create ideals to reach for, not truths of human nature or exact models of the world.You can of course read Homer and other fictonal writers which show doubt in Gods as well as facts regarding their abilities.And Contra was also right in pointing to Roman annals. That would be good even for after Jesus. They observe the flaws within their own pantheons and how xianity operated as a religion back then, when it was one of many many more religions.You might also want to read books on how the scientific method evolved over time, and the effects the clock and time keeping in general had on how humans viewed the world. We have become more concrete in our thinking and acting, more expectant that truth is an objective reality, rather than an objective ideal.Second, and I think this may even be a better place to start so as to focus on people within your own religion (though they were within those same regions), look to histories about the creation of the Bible. The Bible did not exist before Jesus, and even the Torah and Talmud were not always around in the same form. You have to remember that the printing press is a relatively new phenomenon. How was the Word spread then? Much like everything else, word of mouth and local transcriptions.Before the Bible or the Torah there were many writings about God and all were held to be important by some groups or others. There was no set right or wrong writings. Then for Jews and later Xians, events took place where powerful groups of men, not Gods or angels, gathered much of the writings together to canonize a set of writings as most important.Well what does this act say about their belief in the literalness of the texts? Decisions weren't always unanimous either. Yet the final product was accepted as a good standard. What does this say about their feelings with regard to literalness?More so, with the writings of Xians one can see direct ripoffs from other Gods and demigods before Jesus (like Mithra). Roman historians observed this at the time of its rise. This was not cheating either as that was a common practice, adapting stories from other mythologies to create a more interesting/acceptable figure for worship.And certainly if you study the history of your church and all of its holidays you will see the practice of absorbing local religion into Xian belief continued throughout the rise of the Church. What does this say about the desire for literal truth, if other religious doctrine can be adopted?If you don't know where to start to look for titles on the subject, I would suggest going to a library or googling.If one specifically wants to look at literal elements within the Old Testament (as that is what impacts creationism), then look to Hebrew scholars on the nature of the Torah and Talmud. There are many different beliefs regarding what they were, including some that believe in a sort of gnostic version where what is written is not important or truth (it is superficial) because the language itself is a code for something more important. This is supported by the fact that the Torah had to be written in a specific way, and that numbers and letters were interchangable.That last fact also fell into Xian writings and may account for what satan being 666 really meant. It turns out that that was more than likely a reference to the Roman Emperor and not a supernatural nomenclature for the Devil.I believe Kabbalah are big practitioners of reading the Bible beyond the simple "what does it say" for finding the actual truth.You could even rent the movie Pi. It was a pretty good flick and introduced (in a fictional story) the quest for some jews to find the name of God as a number within the Torah.I think simply accepting the Bible as literal truth actually undermines one's own religion as it demands one reject looking back at the history of that religion. Isn't that observable and recorded truth important before stating literal truth of the writings you have as a result of that historical process?I mean really I could reedit and start up my own press for a new version of the Bible. There is nothing that could stop me from doing so, and if I keep the changes from being overtly devisive it could become quite popular. Does having a printing press and a popular following mean I have a divine source of literal truth? If not now, why then?Given the way they lived back then with acceptance and rejection of various texts now all bound up (and some excluded) from the Bible, it just seems patently false to claim literal truth was the measure of why something was believed.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

OK. But if you read other books with which to challenge and contrast with the Bible, how can you be sure that you are able to form a literalist view, given that the other books are not inspired?Either:
No books including the Bible are in any way inspired, in which case human wisdom is proven to be the source of wisdom.OR:The debate is never solved because human wisdom and the many interpretations of history, archeology, sociology and the purpose of the Bible go directly at odds with the literal Spirit of God manifest through the Bible and/or some of its interpreters. This sums up the contrast! Does man write and create truth through expression of human ideas or does God show man in all his sinfulness and inability to become perfect...grappling with the absolute truth of a Creator?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-21-2005 08:34 AM

There seems to be a couple questions so bear with me as I try to sort it out.Earlier you use the salutation from one of Paul's letters. In that one example you add several pieces of understanding.

• that it was not a letter simply written to a specific congregation and that either Paul's and/or GOD's intended audience were future people.
• If you are not seeking to know Christ in faith, none of this will make any sense to you at this moment.

Is that an accurate summary of your position?On to questions two.In this message you again add a question that's somewhat hard to answer. To answer that we will have to resolve the issues above. But again, there are several major asumptions in your question.

• That it's possible to have an informed understanding of the Bible without considering other sources.
• That looking at other unnamed sources will somehow keep you from arriving at some as yet undertermined viewpoint.
• That the other yet unnamed sources are not insired by GOD.

Once we get the former issue resolved then we can tackle the later ones.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Mostly. We as Christians have always used the Bible to verify our understanding and perception of the character of God. The Bible can be an anchor that keeps us from losing our bearings...or it can be a ball and chain that keeps us mired in the mud of absolutist dogma and the stifling of our God ordained creativity!I may be waffling a bit, here. Stimulates the conversation, you know?

So would you agree that it's okay to add meaning not in the original?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, the book says not to do that, so no.The question is this: What is/was the original meaning, intent, and expected target audience?