First post to this board...looking for some insight

[raphael_aa]

To filly, rafael_aa, randomguy and others...

Why are you Christians?

More and more I'm seeing people who believe in God but realize that much of modern science is hard to dispute.

You believe there is a god. Fine. Why the Christian god? There are obviously things in the bible that you don't take literally. Good for you. But there are lots of folks that would say you aren't "true Christians" then.

If you are going to pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe, why believe any of it? Explore other schools of thought. Why not Deism, Pantheism, whateverism?

I think gluadys answered the question particularly well.

You seem to be making the assumption that religious frameworks are mutually exclusive. I don't believe they are. I'm a christian because culturally and historically that framework has the most available resources for me to connect with. If I was born in another place and culture I might very well be a buddhist. But these differences of framework are to me only superficial in nature. They give us context and a language in which we live out our spirituality.

I'm not particularly concerned if some people don't think I'm a 'real' christian. We all have fought among ourselves for hundreds of years trying to prove who the 'real' ones are. I suspect we're all a bit right and all a bit wrong. For me, the greatest gift christianity has given the world is that our acceptiblity to God is NOT based on how RIGHT we are but rather our intrinsic worth as creatures worthy of communing with God.

 

[JohnR7]

To filly, rafael_aa, randomguy and others...

Why are you Christians?

I am a christian because after years of seeking after solutions and answers I found them in the Bible. I just read the Bible and I prayed and asked God to help me to understand the Bible.

 

[raphael_aa]

You need to read the Bible the way it was written. If a section of the Bible was written as a historical narrative you need to read it as such. The idea you must understand the Bible "literally" is a little misleading; you don't take a poetic verse and apply a literal interpretation of the verse.

However, Genesis is certainly not allegorical. The literary style of Genesis is a "Hebrew narrative" and you should read it as such.

I'm interested in your level of study in ancient Hebrew and its literary genres. Could you post your degrees in the subject? Or perhaps you just read that somewhere and liked it because it agreeed with your a priori position. It might be useful to visit your local theology library and see how many scholars are as adamant as you about the literary genre of Genisis.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

If you are going to pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe, why believe any of it? Explore other schools of thought. Why not Deism, Pantheism, whateverism?
[/size]

If we were Deists you could ask the same question, the list would just read; “Why not Christian, Pantheism, whateverism”. Do you see what I mean?

The question is meaningless, because at some point a choice is made and the question comes up again.

Ghost

 

[random_guy]

To filly, rafael_aa, randomguy and others...

Why are you Christians?

More and more I'm seeing people who believe in God but realize that much of modern science is hard to dispute.

You believe there is a god. Fine. Why the Christian god? There are obviously things in the bible that you don't take literally. Good for you. But there are lots of folks that would say you aren't "true Christians" then.

If you are going to pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe, why believe any of it? Explore other schools of thought. Why not Deism, Pantheism, whateverism?

When I first read this, I thought that you were a Creationist. It took me a second to realize that you had an atheist symbol. Anyway, like others have stated, Gluadys answered it perfectly.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

One could ask the question "Does one need a bible to be a Christian?"

Is faith so dependant on a book.

I consider myself a christian, but I regard the bible objectively. It is full of stories; many of which are myths or legends (some of which pre-date the Hebrews), and some of which are generally true. ALso, the bible is full of mistranslations, even blatant "editing" and insertions. A lot of people with their own agendas worked on that book.

Does this mean that I think the bible is a lie? Absolutely not. The bible is the work of men, over many generations. It is an interpretation, much in the same way that a painting is an artist's interpretation. Only in this case there are many interpretations all mixed up together.

So, can a christian say "the bible is imperfect" and still be a christian. Sure, I think (now even most of the theistic evolutionists will disagree with me on that point). God is perfect. God is not the bible. The bible is the work of man. Yet the message of "do onto others' and "love thy neighbor' shines through. That simple message is what is perfect.

If you hinge your faith on an literal bible then you are setting yourself up for failure. If you find out that Gideon's army only had 297 men - and not 300 - do you reject all you believe in?

Ask yourself "did Jesus carry a bible with Him?". or "Could a missionary still convert the natives in a remote jungle if he had lost his bible along the way?"

I would not be surpised if many people who insist on biblical literalness have even read it.

 

[JookieRed]

Actually, jookiered, you are thinking like a creationist.

We don't pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe, though creationists often accuse us of that.

Hey now! There's no reason for name-calling.

I guess I'll never understand how some people take the entire bible literally and others don't. How do you decide which parts are history, poetry, legend, or whatever? The ambiguity of the bible is why I don't believe any of it.

(mumbling to self)...thinking like a creationist? Geez! I've got to get away from this forum for a while.

 

[gluadys]

Hey now! There's no reason for name-calling.

I guess I'll never understand how some people take the entire bible literally and others don't. How do you decide which parts are history, poetry, legend, or whatever? The ambiguity of the bible is why I don't believe any of it.

(mumbling to self)...thinking like a creationist? Geez! I've got to get away from this forum for a while.

Don't knock ambiguity. The ambiguity of the bible (and its many interpreters) is why we can still take it seriously millennia after it was written.

 

[Linux98]

I'm interested in your level of study in ancient Hebrew and its literary genres. Could you post your degrees in the subject? Or perhaps you just read that somewhere and liked it because it agreeed with your a priori position. It might be useful to visit your local theology library and see how many scholars are as adamant as you about the literary genre of Genisis.

Hey, if you want to say Genesis is allegorical go right ahead. You'd be wrong, but that's your right. In addition, your request for my degrees in "Hebrew literature" is laughable; a common everyday English major can distinguish between an allegory and a narrative, why do you think it takes a special degree in Hebrew literature to know the difference?

Now if you are interested in using an "allegorical" method of biblical interpretation then you are free to take those ideas to the Hermeneutics Forum - good luck with that.

 

[Linux98]

1. it is the faith I was raised in and I feel at home in it (like being abroad for a long time and returning to where I can speak English). Christianity, has provided me with my vocabulary of faith. 2. I find it more satisfying in many ways than other faiths. That may simply be because I don't know the others well enough. But I have to go with where I am at right now.

You are not a Christian based on 1) how you are raised, or 2) because it feels more comfortable than other faiths. In addition, going to a Christian church every Sunday does not make you a "Christian". A Christian is a "Christian" based on his belief system regarding Jesus Christ (the core of Christian teaching.)

You are in the light-shade-of-gray area when it comes to being a "real" Christian. The question asked by the other poster was a valid question. I don't understand why you would want to call yourself a Christian based on the reasoning you provided. If you want to figure out if you are a "real" Christian ask yourself who you think Jesus Christ is and what significance his sinless life and his death on the cross has. If your sin and his act of redemption does not figure into the equation you are not a "real" Christian.

 

[gluadys]

You are not a Christian based on 1) how you are raised, or 2) because it feels more comfortable than other faiths. In addition, going to a Christian church every Sunday does not make you a "Christian". A Christian is a "Christian" based on his belief system regarding Jesus Christ (the core of Christian teaching.)

Well, I am not at all sure what this means. I know it does not mean standing in front of a group of people pledging belief in a statement of faith or creed. Nor does it means receiving baptism or confirmation. All these things identify a person as part of the Christian community. They don't necessarily identify them as one whose name is written in the Book of Life come judgment day.

So if a public profession of faith does not mean one is a "Christian" (TM), does lack of a visible connection to Christianity mean one has been written off by God? Does connection with another community of faith mean one has rejected Christ? Maybe the only reason a person is not visibly a Christian is that they have learned a different language regarding salvation. As Mother Theresa once said, we don't know how God is appearing to another soul.

Take the wise men Matthew wrote about. People from another country, foreigners, not Jews, having no stake in the Jewish Messiah. What brought them to worship the infant Jesus? Why did the star mean something to them?

I don't have answers here. The church has always struggled with the fact of the righteous pagan. I don't think any of us can presume to know how God's justice will resolve this question. But I don't think it will be by shutting them out of the kingdom of heaven.

I don't understand why you would want to call yourself a Christian based on the reasoning you provided.

Perhaps you need to listen to the testimony of devout Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. and to humanists, agnostics, and even atheists about what their values are and why they try to live by them. You may be surprised how much you have in common with them. I have found again and again and again that much of what I believe as a Christian is reflected in other faiths and philosophies. It is often as if we are speaking of the same spiritual realities in different languages. And if they are the same spiritual realities, who am I to say that Christ cannot draw believers to him through any cultural or religious tradition?

If you want to figure out if you are a "real" Christian ask yourself who you think Jesus Christ is and what significance his sinless life and his death on the cross has. If your sin and his act of redemption does not figure into the equation you are not a "real" Christian.

Don't worry. On that basis I am certainly a "real" Christian. I may be speaking a different Christian "dialect" than one you are familiar with, but it is still well within the framework of Christianity.

Note on Christian "dialects" We are preparing an ecumenical education and action campaign to draw attention to the need to be vigilant in keeping water clean, safe and accessible to everyone. Naturally, since we are Christians speaking to Christians, we want to emphasize that water is a gift of God and to be treated as such.

One way of saying that is "Water is a sacred gift" or simply "Water is sacred". Some Christians are leery of such language because they think it suggests a worship of nature. I was making the point that a good proportion of people in our denomination (Presbyterian) would not relate well to the concept of "sacred water" for that reason. I offered the alternative of thinking about water as "holy" which for some reason (at least to me) seems not to evoke the same reaction. Immediately a Catholic in the circle said that "holy water" has specific connotations for Catholics and they would have a hard time thinking of tap water as being "holy water".

A few years ago, when creating a similar set of resources, all the primary issues (including theological) had been agreed to by eight different denominations. The exact wording of every book, brochure, and post-card had been vetted and approved. Then, we spent weeks settling the one final question. When we speak of "E/earth" in these resources do we spell it with or without an upper-case "e"? You wouldn't believe how much abstruse theology lies behind the answer to this question!

 

[raphael_aa]

Hey, if you want to say Genesis is allegorical go right ahead. You'd be wrong, but that's your right. In addition, your request for my degrees in "Hebrew literature" is laughable; a common everyday English major can distinguish between an allegory and a narrative, why do you think it takes a special degree in Hebrew literature to know the difference?

Now if you are interested in using an "allegorical" method of biblical interpretation then you are free to take those ideas to the Hermeneutics Forum - good luck with that.

LOL ... An english major with a decent education would know that genre forms differ both across cultures and across history. If we compare the Genisis account with accounts from similar cultures and times, we find it fits a mythic genre quite well. Of course, it is possible that I'm wrong. I'm simply going on the best scholarship currently available. You, on the other hand, seem completely certain of your interpretation. Did the Holy Spirit reveal to you that your interpretation is correct?

 

[Linux98]

You, on the other hand, seem completely certain of your interpretation. Did the Holy Spirit reveal to you that your interpretation is correct?

See, that's my point: you are trying to apply "allegorical" interpretation, I simply spoke of the literary technique itself. This seems to be a confusion to you. Just take a jog into the Hermeneutics Forum and you will get plenty of help in this regard.

 

[raphael_aa]

See, that's my point: you are trying to apply "allegorical" interpretation, I simply spoke of the literary technique itself. This seems to be a confusion to you. Just take a jog into the Hermeneutics Forum and you will get plenty of help in this regard.

Now hold on a minute. If YOU have a counter argument, YOU make it. You obviously didn't understand my post. I'm interested in the basis for YOUR interpretation of a literal narrative reading of Genisis. I've explained WHY I believe Genisis is not to be taken literally. You've responded with rudeness. I've asked for education and you refuse to divulge this. I've asked if the Holy Spirit confirms your interpretation. I've got no answer from you. Instead of being patronizing to a brother in Christ who has studied and read extensively and been a christian for 25 years, perhaps you could simply answer the question: On what basis do you believe Genisis can only be read literally?

 

[Linux98]

I'm interested in the basis for YOUR interpretation of a literal narrative reading of Genisis. I've explained WHY I believe Genisis is not to be taken literally......You've responded with rudeness. ....... Instead of being patronizing to a brother in Christ who has studied and read extensively and been a christian for 25 years, perhaps you could simply answer the question: On what basis do you believe Genisis can only be read literally?

Okay, did I say it should be read "literally"? Let's start right there. Cut and paste where I said it should be read literally.

Thing is...I've only been a Christian for 7 years, yet I know the difference between "literal" interpretation, "allegorical" interpretation and "good" interpretation. In addition, this is not an issue of my personal "interpretation", it is an issue of literary technique. And the Holy Spirit tells me it is stupid to discount the literary technique when conducting biblical exegesis. Genesis is not written as an allegory, it is a narrative. For you to say otherwise is careless and inaccurate.

Furthermore, to tell me I should go down to my "local theological library" was not only patronizing but misses the point entirely. I never delved into the theological questions, I focused right in on the hermeneutical question, specifically an exegetical question: literary context. On the other hand, my "rudeness" is a matter of personal application and due to my frustration with your obsession to say I promote a "literal" interpretation of scripture. A more astute observation would be to say I believe in the "inerrancy" of scripture.

 

[Linux98]

Don't worry. On that basis I am certainly a "real" Christian. I may be speaking a different Christian "dialect" than one you are familiar with, but it is still well within the framework of Christianity.

"Jesus is God and I place my faith and trust in His works and His death as wholly necessary and wholly sufficient to pay for my sins." is a far cry from "I was raised that way and I feel comfortable going to a Christian church."

Christians in China and North Korea give up their comfort and well being to be "real" Christians. It isn't a matter of differing "dialect" when you completely obfuscate your fundamental Christian beliefs.

I agree with the analysis of the other poster. In fact, Paul addressed this very issue of "picking and choosing" in 1Cor15:12-20 >> if you don’t believe Christ was raised from the dead then your "trust in God is useless". Hence, why call yourself a Christian?

To be clear, I am not saying you aren't a Christian. But I am making the point that if one believes in free markets yet calls himself a communist, he is not a communist; he is a confused capitalist.

 

[raphael_aa]

Okay, did I say it should be read "literally"? Let's start right there. Cut and paste where I said it should be read literally.

You apparently believe Genisis should be read as a literal historical narrative. If this is incoorect, then I apologize.

Thing is...I've only been a Christian for 7 years, yet I know the difference between "literal" interpretation, "allegorical" interpretation and "good" interpretation. In addition, this is not an issue of my personal "interpretation", it is an issue of literary technique. And the Holy Spirit tells me it is stupid to discount the literary technique when conducting biblical exegesis. Genesis is not written as an allegory, it is a narrative. For you to say otherwise is careless and inaccurate.

Many well educated Biblical scholars disagree with you there. Not all, but many. It is hardly 'careless and inaccurate'. It is just DIFFERENT to your interpretation. The reason I disagree is that it assumes the superficial features of a narrative always imply that a text is an historical narrative and an historically accurate one at that. The truth is that ancient writers had no notion of historically accurate narrative. Reading other ancient texts which also have apparent features of narrative which we KNOW to be historically inaccurate tells us this. Look for example at the Odyssey. Ancient writers were more concerned with great themes than they were with historical accuracy. For your interpretation to be correct we'd be compelled to argue that Greek myths are historically accurate.

Literary technique needs to be applied with respect to historical and cultural context. One can't look at an ancient text and apply modern textual analysis.

On the other hand, my "rudeness" is a matter of personal application and due to my frustration with your obsession to say I promote a "literal" interpretation of scripture.

Is it or is it not fair to say you conclude Genisis is a literal historical narrative, ie did the events outlined in Genisis happen as written? It's hardly an 'obsession'. I'm just responding to what you wrote. You seem to be utterly convinced that your interpretation of Genisis is correct. You even graciously allow me to be 'wrong' with mine. lol. I just wonder whether you are open to the possibility that you may be wrong in yours? That was why I was asking whether the Holy Spirit told you it was. In my experience many christians will say the Holy Spirit told them the darndest things!

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

You need to read the Bible the way it was written. If a section of the Bible was written as a historical narrative you need to read it as such. []

However, Genesis is certainly not allegorical. The literary style of Genesis is a "Hebrew narrative" and you should read it as such.

So I trust you are a geocentrist and not one of those backsliding heliocentrists who picks and chooses which narative verses to read literally.

 

[Linux98]

Is it or is it not fair to say you conclude Genisis is a literal historical narrative, ie did the events outlined in Genisis happen as written?...I just wonder whether you are open to the possibility that you may be wrong in yours? That was why I was asking whether the Holy Spirit told you it was. In my experience many christians will say the Holy Spirit told them the darndest things!

When you say "literal historical narrative" you are getting a lot closer. However, that is a far cry from "literal" interpretation. I believe Genesis is an accurate historical narrative from Adam to Joseph.

Can I be wrong on an interpretation, sure. But I also understand that scripture must be read and understood within the context of scripture when deriving personal application as well as interpretation. And the rest of scripture always treats Genesis as narrative all the way through the OT and straight into the NT, wouldn't you agree? So it was certainly the belief of the biblical authors that Genesis is a narrative.

 

[Linux98]

So I trust you are a geocentrist and not one of those backsliding heliocentrists who picks and chooses which narative verses to read literally.

#1) I don't know what a geocentrist is.
#2) I don't know what a backsliding heliocentrist is either.

So, at the present time, I cannot provide clarification on your statement.