Pew Statistics: How USA Believers see their "Holy Books"

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I read the Bible holistically, not literally. There are some passages that are impossible to be correct, such as Satan taking Jesus to a mountain and showing him all the kingdoms of the Earth, so it is obviously not intended to be taken literally in its entirety.

There is a valid argument for saying that the world is 6,000 years old and was created in the span of six days, but I do not agree with that argument and do not believe that the creation story is literal.

" Some books are literal; some are myth with a 'lesson'; some are allegory; some are folklore with a lesson. That's how it is supposed to be read."


News to me. Is there a disclaimer somewhere in the front of the bible where it says, 'this is allegory, somewhat like 'Green Eggs and Ham'; read accordingly!

How do you make that connection with the fun turn events took in the Dark Ages where torturing someone to save their souls was in vogue? And where burning people at the stake was as popular an entertainment as a modern sit-com?

lol its funny how most(Christians obviously since its US) think the religion that came before Abrahamic trios are "written by man" yet they think their religion is word of god.

signalfire
News to me. Is there a disclaimer somewhere in the front of the bible where it says, 'this is allegory, somewhat like 'Green Eggs and Ham'; read accordingly!

Information Here on how to read the bible from Protestant and Catholic sources.

@adjensen _''There are some passages that are impossible to be correct, such as Satan taking Jesus to a mountain and showing him all the kingdoms of the Earth'' _________________________________________ Well, the passages about Jesus' virgin birth and his rising from the dead are just as impossible as seeing the earths kingdoms from a mountain. Like I asked earlier, do you believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection as literal... Or do you let ''faith'' take over when it comes to these ''impossible'' passages in the Bible?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Well, the passages about Jesus' virgin birth and his rising from the dead are just as impossible as seeing the earths kingdoms from a mountain.

Unless Satan was able to make the Earth transparent, there is no way to see "all the kingdoms on Earth", no matter how high the mountain was, so that claim is a logical impossibility. It is not the same thing as the virgin birth or the resurrection (which, obviously, I believe are actual events,) which are made possible through the omnipotence of God.

adjensen
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Well, the passages about Jesus' virgin birth and his rising from the dead are just as impossible as seeing the earths kingdoms from a mountain.

Unless Satan was able to make the Earth transparent, there is no way to see "all the kingdoms on Earth", no matter how high the mountain was, so that claim is a logical impossibility. It is not the same thing as the virgin birth or the resurrection (which, obviously, I believe are actual events,) which are made possible through the omnipotence of God.

Unless he was shown those kingdoms in a vision, from atop the mountain. The bible isn't explicit on that point, and I'm not really sure why you've chosen to interpret that event as you have...

In regards to the OP, I have been following the other discussion closely, and noticed you'd posted this poll there as well. I'm not sure it can really be taken as being accurate since the categories are somewhat confusing in the first place. For instance, I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God, written by men. There doesn't seem to be an option for that sort of belief structure in the poll...

At any rate I think that most believers within the Christian church are open to interpretation of the bible. Using terms like "literalist" doesn't really paint the whole picture as 1 word can literally have 2 or more meanings (and thus interpretations). You can believe what the bible says literally in a section of verses and still come out with a different interpretation than someone else who read the exact same verses.

Take adjensens interpretation of Jesus being tempted in the desert vs mine. The thought that Jesus was viewing all the kingdoms of the earth physically from the top of a mountain had honestly never even entered my mind. From my childhood I had always understood that event as more of a visionary state.

reply to post by luciddream

lol its funny how most(Christians obviously since its US) think the religion that came before Abrahamic trios are "written by man" yet they think their religion is word of god.

Why did you single Christians out? As far as I know, all theistic religions are based on the "words" of their own Gods. And, everyone believes their own religious views to be true, and proper.

See ya,
Milt

@adjensen...... ''
Unless Satan was able to make the Earth transparent, there is no way to see "all the kingdoms on Earth",...so that claim is a logical impossibility'' _________________________________________ I always imagined satan showed Jesus the kingdoms on the 'land' seen from the mountain, and the word 'land' got translated as ''the earth'', which brings to our minds the image of our planet. Or maybe satan showed Jesus a hologram-ish image of all the kingdoms at the mountain. Either way, you clearly apply 'faith' to certain other things that logic and science deem impossible... such as the virgin birth and the resurrection. ________________________________________Given the content of the Op, how far do you apply ''faith'' when it comes to the Old Testament? How much of it do you dismiss as myth?

@wildtimes...''....your premise that one can't be a "Christian" while not believing in OT stories is disproven.'' _________________________________________ Anyone can call him/herself a ''christian'' but in rejecting the OT and contradicting the NT, he wouldn't have much of a foundation to his/her ''Christianity''. ________________________________________As for the polls and stats, they simply reflect the state of a religion in a given demographic. It has zero bearing on what the religion itself requires of its adherents.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Given the content of the Op, how far do you apply ''faith'' when it comes to the Old Testament? How much of it do you dismiss as myth?

Why should that matter to you? Are you trying to prove that, only, your religious views are valid. It, sure as Hell, seems that way.

You remind me of an old dog food commercial:
My dog's better than your dog, my dog's better than yours...

See ya,
Milt

BenReclused
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Given the content of the Op, how far do you apply ''faith'' when it comes to the Old Testament? How much of it do you dismiss as myth?

Why should that matter to you? Are you trying to prove that, only, your religious views are valid. It, sure as Hell, seems that way.

See ya,
Milt

I don't think that is what he's trying to do at all. I think he's trying to have a debate on theological standards, and even though he might differ in religious beliefs from me, I agree with the points he is trying to make, and with the importance of having that discussion.

The way I have interpreted the debate thus far, Sk0rpion is basically saying that if you can cherry pick which parts of a religious text are real and which are fictitious, then why bother with the religion in the first place? What standards are in place for a person to be able to decide which parts of the text should be adhered to and on whose authority?

I don't think he's opposed to the idea of scripture being open to interpretation, but rather opposed to the idea that you can discard entire swaths of the bible as being fictitious while holding others to be universal truths. That's not necessarily a declaration of the superiority of one religion over another, but rather a necessary critique of theological standards.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

The way I have interpreted the debate thus far, Sk0rpion is basically saying that if you can cherry pick which parts of a religious text are real and which are fictitious, then why bother with the religion in the first place?

Really? How did you miss the anti Christian bias? He's got a definite agenda against Christians.

See ya,
Milt

FlyersFan

signalfire
News to me. Is there a disclaimer somewhere in the front of the bible where it says, 'this is allegory, somewhat like 'Green Eggs and Ham'; read accordingly!

Information Here on how to read the bible from Protestant and Catholic sources.

So now I'm supposed to know enough to read the 'how to read' thing before I read the infallible word of god?

Yes, but that had to be added separately, and isn't sold included when you buy a bible, right? Was this authored as a caveat by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (or whatever the various and sundry saints were, I can't keep track)?

Do Protestants want you to read it one way (perhaps with a hammer and nail ready?) and Catholics another? How does this work with the whole non-fallibility of god, the writer, stuff?

Give me some flying spaghetti any day. No need for instructions on 'how to read it'; just boil water.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Unless he was shown those kingdoms in a vision, from atop the mountain. The bible isn't explicit on that point, and I'm not really sure why you've chosen to interpret that event as you have…

Then why go up on a mountain? The text does not say that he saw a vision, and I'd even question whether Satan could make God see a vision.

Seriously, read the text like a person who lived 2,000 years ago would have written it -- they knew that you went up high to see more, so the implication is that there was a mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the Earth, which we know is not the case.

So, we have three choices -- read the text literally, which is nonsensical; invent and insert some explanation, as you have done; or accept that it doesn't describe a literal event, and proceed from there, as far as deciding whether it is an embellishment of the author to make the story more interesting, or if it actually means something.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

The way I have interpreted the debate thus far, Sk0rpion is basically saying that if you can cherry pick which parts of a religious text are real and which are fictitious, then why bother with the religion in the first place?

Skorpion is a Muslim, and we all know what their beliefs about Jesus are. That's all he's trying to further.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Either way, you clearly apply 'faith' to certain other things that logic and science deem impossible... such as the virgin birth and the resurrection.

I think, as usual, you're not bothering to read what I write. Thus, I will repeat myself -- seeing all of the kingdoms on Earth from a mountain is nonsensical, it's like the "can God make a stone so large that he cannot lift it" argument -- a logical impossibility that self-invalidates itself. Claiming that it was a vision, hologram, or whatever, is not supported by the text, so that is complete supposition on your part. The virgin birth and resurrection are both accomplished by a supernatural being, God, who has the power to do both, as they are not logical impossibilities.

Are you claiming that God is not omnipotent and is incapable of making a virgin pregnant or bringing someone back from the dead?

Given the content of the Op, how far do you apply ''faith'' when it comes to the Old Testament? How much of it do you dismiss as myth?

I don't know that I have any statistical figure for you. Though I am currently in the process of re-reading it, I personally have little interest in the Hebrew Bible.

reply to post by adjensen


I think you are interpreting the text just as freely as I am. Matthew 4:1 opens with this:

"Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."

I don't think I am stretching things to suggest that these events could have been taking place in a visionary state or in the spirit.

As for sk0rpion, I am aware he is a muslim. That doesn't mean his points aren't worth consideration. He isn't even attempting to debate the two religions in this particular case, so I fail to see how his argument is somehow invalid because he is of a different faith.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

I think you are interpreting the text just as freely as I am. Matthew 4:1 opens with this:

"Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."

I don't think I am stretching things to suggest that these events could have been taking place in a visionary state or in the spirit.

There is nothing that says or implies that it was a vision or a hologram or anything other than a "real" event.

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written,

‘One does not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written,

‘He will command his angels concerning you,’
and ‘On their hands they will bear you up,
so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’”
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written,

‘Worship the Lord your God,
and serve only him.’”
Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him. (Matthew 4: 1-11 NIV)

According to the text, he was physically taken to a "very high mountain" and the devil "showed him all the kingdoms of the world". Nowhere is it indicated that he had a vision, or that the devil had some hologram projector.

Occam's Razor -- the author believed that a mountain existed from which the whole of the world could be seen.

adjensen...... ''skorpion is a Muslim, and we all know what their beliefs about Jesus are. ''.....and sk0rpi0n seems to believe more of the OT than christians do...because according to some Christians, the OT isn't foundational to the NT claims about Jesus, despite the fact that the NT makes several references to the OT. _________________________________________ Also, for the mountain thing, if you believe satan cant show 'God' a vision. What makes you think he could dare to ask 'God' to worship him? And if you reject the bits about the mountain, then why not dismiss the other two instances of the temptation? It seems christians cherry pick bits from their own bible, while rejecting large portions of it.