Why read the Bible literally?

Evolution IS 2 + 2 = 4. You are welcome to believe any thing YOU want. But can you justify teaching children falshoods?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You aren't getting something.People have the right to be wrong. Even about 2+2.All freedom, all human rights and civil rights have to do with protecting people's rights to believe differently from other people. They all believe they are right and the others wrong. SOME OF THEM ARE NECESSARILY WRONG, but they have that right.

How do YOU justify harassing and coercing ordinary people to teach their children what YOU want them to teach them by YOUR definition of "falsehood?"

Belief is fine about non-factual things. But 2 + 2 = 4. It doesn't matter what you believe, 2 + 2 = 4. That's not opinion, that's a fact.The Earth is billions of years old. That's not belief, that's a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.The universe is tens of billions yeaars old at a minimum. That's not belief, that's a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.Evolution happened, man is a product of that evolution. That's not belief, that's a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.It is not me telling you what to believe, it is the only possible conclusion from the evidence. To believe otherwise is simply wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let people be wrong. You have no right to force them to be right. You have no right to interfere with what parents teach their children. You are simply giving the same rationale that every do-gooder dictator has done who ended up imprisoning and murdering people to make them agree with the Factual Truth.

You seem to have had time for a number of other posts Faith. In my message #241, I gave you two passages of scripture, one Matt 7:21 is Jesus talking and Romans 2:13-16 is Paul.The literal truth of what they are saying is obvious but you seem to discount because it doesn't agree with your theology.Why is it more important to have the story of Jonah or Noah be literally true than it is that the words of Jesus and Paul be literally true?

The thing is I don't have time. I'm merely angry and *taking* the time because of that, but it's going to cost me. What you want of me would require more thought and probably some research to show you how it isn't as obvious as it looks to you. Please allow me to address it later. Thanks.

I do. They are. I don't and can't force them to be right. The facts though make them wrong. What an absurd statement.You are free to believe anything you want.You can believe the earth is 6000 years old. You're wrong.You can believe there was a Biblical flood. You're wrong.You can believe there was a Biblical Garden of Eden and Adam and Steve. You're wrong.You can believe that the Exodus happened as described in the Bible. You're wrong.You can believe that only Christians can be saved. You're wrong.The question is, "How can you in good conscience teach such falsehoods to children?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think what the page is saying is that these people believed that creation literally took 6 days. But, it is doesn't follow that they believed that everything that is written about those 6 days should be taken literally.This time last year I thought that most of the Church fathers took the Bible literally, But Truthlover pointed out that I may be mistaken, so I did look into it as I was including a section in my dissertaion about the Bible as History. I checked out a lot of Church fathers and couldnt find one that explicitly claimed that everything in the Bible should be taken literally. As I said, there may be a few but I didn't find them, and the internal and external examiners didn't make any comment to contradict my findings.If you want I can have a look at some of the writings of the people on that list when I go into Uni on Saturday and let you know.Brian.

If you ever wonder why I cannot really be arsed with you, then making statements like this should be a clue.What is wrong with saying: "Brian, I think you could be mistaken here, have you considered that this really means....."As for it being a vile slander, I am afraid that you are mistaken:(Deuteronomy 7:6) "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. So, what did it mean then?I sometimes think that we owe the syrophoenician woman a great debt, if she hadn't shown Jesus how stuck up and unfair he was being we would all be doomed, except the Jews of course.Clever lady, she out thought God.Brian.

Well, good, it's always nice to be loved for one's style. I should no doubt cultivate something of the sort but it often sounds mealymouthed and wimpy to me. This isn't racism. It is made very clear that God doesn't choose the Jews for any special qualifications of their own, but just because He chooses them, because He wants a people for Himself. This is the principle of Election that continues into the meaning of the Christian Elect, who are chosen "by grace alone through faith alone, and not of themselves lest anyone should boast." The choice of Abraham is God's separating out people by covenant with them, people He himself MAKES holy by instruction in His ways. The same concept is extended by God to believers in His Son as the Elect, again, those who make a covenant with God and learn His ways, and the Christian message is catholic (universal) in the true meaning of the word, the opposite of racist, and all are invited. That God "has mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and whom I will I harden." That God has mysterious plans for the salvation of those who love Him. It has nothing to do with race or any quality whatever of the people themselves, but it does have to do with primacy, blessing and authority, which God conferred on the Jews (but ultimately only those who were faithful, not all) and later the believers in His Son -- from His own sovereign will. So it also means that God IS sovereign, God is in charge, God is Lord of all, He does as He pleases. In sum, it's about GOD primarily, about God's authority, and about His justice, His love, His mercy, to humanity, not about ANY particular people. Except that Jesus, being God, who knows the heart, knew she would. {EDIT: His making reference to the Gentiles as "dogs" was a way of pointing up the self-righteous racism of the Jews of the day, and His praise of her faith was one of the many times He hints that He has "another sheepfold," in anticipation of His sending Paul to the Gentiles.} His kindness to her -- and to the Samaritan woman at the well, and to women in general, and to the Roman centurion, and many of His parables as well -- demonstrate His favor to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. Most pointedly He demonstrates this in the parable of the Good Samaritan, as it shows a member of a racial group that was despised by the Jews, to be more righteous than the Jewish priests who stepped around the wounded man, which was intended to skewer the Pharisees with their own self-righteousness.Jesus over and over shows the universal leveling intent of God's plan of salvation from the beginning. The Jews had special privileges, for the gospel was to go to them FIRST, but ALSO to all the peoples of the world. The Jews didn't grasp this, they misunderstood the heart of God (though hundreds of thousands did believe) as they misunderstood the mission of the Messiah. They did have a false sense of their own superiority, having misunderstood the calling to be the chosen, but Jesus over and over makes clear that they were wrong, and bit by bit as the gospel goes out to the Gentiles it is demonstrated that "God is no respecter of persons." (But the Jews do have an ultimate place in God's plan, as their inability to understand is a case of God's hardening THEIR hearts so that He can extend mercy to the Gentiles, but the Church is "no Jew nor Gentile but all are one in Christ.")The universal reach of God's mercy is SO fundamental to the heart of the God of the Bible that it is a terrible thing to accuse Him of the very opposite. A vile slander.However, concerning my style, I will take your criticism under advisement and try to address you with more consideration if you will kindly stop descending to character assassination of me and all Bible believers.Personally I do believe you, Admin Brian, should suspend you, member Brian, for 24 hours for the post I identified as predominantly a personal attack. Unless you would like to apologize, as I've also requested of Crashfrog.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-24-2005 06:18 AM

I haven't read all the church fathers, but a statement that the six days are to be taken literally should count for something on this topic, a great deal in fact given that the time period of Creation is a central element in disputes about evolution.Even Origen, in his weird statement, criticizing Celsus for believing in a shorter time period, still confines the age of the earth to a mere 10,000 years.

Hi FaithI realize I'm repeating myself here but you keep saying that you will answer later, but you don't. It appears to me that as a literalist you pick and choose what to take literally. Why do you not take the teaching in these passages literally? There is only one way to take that literally. It is clear teaching and if there is any book in scripture that we should take our theology from it is Romans. It is a letter written to an entire society of mostly well educated people explaining the Christian faith to them. Other letters of Paul were written to specific churches or individuals often dealing with situations that applied specifically to them. The truth is there in both the words of Jesus and the words of Paul and both from the Holy Bible. God didn't just create Christians. Every man, woman and child is part of his creation and he loves them all. Unfortunately from God's perspective not everyone will follow that "small still voice" that God has put in the hearts of all of us but his wish is that we would.The literal truth of what they are saying is obvious but you seem to discount because it doesn't agree with your theology.Why is it more important to have the story of Jonah or Noah be literally true than it is that the words of Jesus and Paul be literally true?

I'm occupied elsewhere GDR and don't mean to ignore you but your questions ARE going to take more thought than I can give them right now. Thanks.P.S. I've many times been assured here that there is no rush on these threads, only to find out that sometimes there seems to be. Going off and getting into a battle on another thread isn't a good excuse, nor is getting behind on my work, nor is losing a night's sleep and now having to take a long nap, but that's the situation. Please forgive me. AND the question DOES require thought, because it's all about context.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-24-2005 11:08 AM

OK, I did what I could with this: While I admit that the passage seems to lend itself to your interpretation, the fact is that traditional commentators do not read it that way. Paul is addressing the Jews who put themselves morally above the Gentiles because of their tradition in the Law, and pointing out that the Law is written on the hearts even of the Gentiles, so that the Jews are no better than they. There is no hint in any commentary I looked at that the Gentiles are said to be AS GOOD AS the Jews -- the idea is that the Jews are AS BAD AS the Gentiles.Here's how Luther puts it in his brief introduction to Romans Two in his Commentary on Romans:

quote:

---

The Apostle rebukes the sins of hte Jews and shows them that [they] are in the same guilt as the heathen; indeed, in a certain sense [he says that] the Jews are even worse than the Gentiles.

---

Specifically addressing verses 14 and 15 Luther says (basing this on Augustine):

quote:

---

...The Apostle here mentions the heathen because they have observed the Law as little as have the Jews. Hence both are sinners, no matter how much good they may have done: the Jews, because they fulfilled the Law only according to its letter; the heathen, because they fulfilled the Law only in part and not at all according to its spirit.

---

Where are you getting this idea? Romans was written to the CHURCH at Rome just as all Paul's letters were, to Christian believers, which is clearly shown in Romans 1:6-8: "Among whom are you also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints." He goes on to say he thanks God that their faith is spoken of throughout the world. He had no cause to write to any but believers.In any case, as I say above, at least according to Luther your way of taking it literally isn't the only way, and what it is teaching is that the Jews are no better than the Gentiles, not that the Gentiles have any claim to a right standing with God.And here are a couple of other commentators on this passage: Haven't I already answered this? He is addressing believers, those who HAVE God's revelation, HAVE the gospel, and warning us that even those are so privileged may be deceived, may yet fail by having a superficial understanding of the gospel and not doing the will of God. This is NOT about UNbelievers, those who do NOT have the revelation of God, the Gentiles who are outside the hearing of God's word. You are reading that into it. God wants His gospel to be preached to all human beings and His desire is that all be saved, but He doesn't save anyone apart from the gospel. To read these passages to mean that is to be in contradiction with all the REST of Paul's teaching. Yes of course I discount it because it doesn't agree with my theology. You are judging the passage by your theology too, and yours allows you to believe the passage means Gentiles can be saved, whereas mine takes into account all the ways the Bible says NOBODY can be saved except by belief in Christ, so that while this passage is hard to understand in its own wording, it isn't hard to understand in context. A theology is our understanding of what the Bible is saying overall. Yours and mine disagree. You keep using the idea of "literal" in a sense I don't. I've simply been using it to contrast with an allegorical or metaphorical understanding of some passages such as Genesis 1-11 and Jonah. That's why I don't think this discussion belongs in this thread but should be taken over to the thread started by Mr. Ex Nihilo. The contrast with metaphor doesn't apply to the words of Jesus or Paul where we're not talking about reading them metaphorically but simply having a different understanding of what they mean. ALL of it is "literally" true to MY mind using the word in the loosest sense.