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

reply to post by wildtimes


He seems to be of the misplaced belief that only Fundamentalists who are proponents of Biblical Inerrancy are "serious Christians". The number of people who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, flawless and factual in all its parts is pretty small.

Those of us who dismiss that view do not "disbelieve in the Bible", but see it for what it is, a text written over a 1,500 year period, with mythology, historical recollection, speculation, poetry, prophecy and interpretation woven together to tell the story of God's relationship with a people, and their relationship with him.

@adjenaen...''You do realize that that belief did not originate with Islam, right? It's a heresy from the earliest days of the church, called'' _________________________________________ you didn't read my post properly. The explanation is that the REAL human Jesus had his soul taken from the cross and later returned to his body before he was taken up by God. Docetism seems to be teaching something else. Anyway, this makes for a different topic.

sk0rpi0n
Unfortunately for you, Christians believe in a literal Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham etc.

Unfortunately for you, you don't seem able to understand that you are dead wrong.
You've been proven wrong. Here's a small reminder ...

Protestant Rev. Dr. Rock Schuler - One minute VIDEO - Should the bible be read literally or figuratively?
Answer - Neither. The bible contains a whole array of literature ... a collection of many different books. Each book should be read understanding the purpose of the book. Some are myths; some are literal; some are historical. It takes a whole lot of study to understand which books are literal and which are figurative and which are myth with a lesson ....

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Thats strange because the Catholic church seems to say otherwise.

When did I say that I was the Catholic Church?

At any rate, I was responding to this question:

adj, do YOU take the stories about Adam and Eve and Noah, etc. literally as true documentation?

And my response was "No, of course not." I do not believe that the stories in Genesis are literally factual, but that does not preclude there being actual people named Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, and all the rest.

@adjensen...'' I do not believe that the stories in Genesis are literally factual, but that does not preclude there being actual people named Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham,....'' _________________________________________ I didn't ask you about whether or not the OT stories are ''literally factual''. I just asked if you believe that a literal Adam and a literal Noah existed. That was my question that you omitted in your quote. I'm also NOT concerned about metaphors that may have been used to tell the 'story' of Adam and Noah... But rather, whether or not you believe those people existed.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


sk0rpion:
this thread is about a Pew Research survey that shows how "Americans" (by this I mean US residents) of ALL DENOMINATIONS see their Holy Books - it has nothing to do with your thread about "being a Christian while rejecting figures of the OT" except that it provides data refuting it.

I'm glad, though, to see you actually questioning people, rather than "projecting" your preconceived notions of "serious Christians" onto ALL CHRISTIANS.

Clearly, a majority of Christians understand that the Bible is a combination of writing styles and do not feel the need to take it literally whether in terms of certain individuals mentioned having "existed" or in the "tales" spun about them.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I just asked if you believe that a literal Adam and a literal Noah existed. That was my question that you omitted in your quote. I'm also NOT concerned about metaphors that may have been used to tell the 'story' of Adam and Noah... But rather, whether or not you believe those people existed.

I replied to WildTimes' question, I didn't see yours.

I have no definitive answer for you, sorry. As I said, the fact that the stories in the Bible are not literally factual does not preclude the people named in them from existing. And, as I have said in the past, I believe that there are factual nuggets behind most, if not all, Biblical tales, so it would not surprise me to find that there were real people named Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham and Joseph, and am more inclined to believe that they existed than not, but have no factual claim to make on the matter.

Speaking of polls, I remember reading an article about a poll showing that a vast majority of ''Christians'' (in the UK, I think) actually don't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus(!). Their reason is also that they don't take all of the bible literally. Yet, the Bible says he was literally born of a virgin. Seeing how Christians pick and choose what they want as ''literal'', where does it stop? Can a ''christian'' also believe that Jesus did not literally die and rise from the dead? Can he also believe that Jesus is not literally God?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Can a ''christian'' also believe that Jesus did not literally die and rise from the dead? Can he also believe that Jesus is not literally God?

No.

Both of those claims are attested to in the Nicene Creed, which is the statement of faith that defines who is a Christian. If someone rejects the claims made in the creed, they are rejecting Christianity. They can say that they are a "follower of Christ", but they can no longer say that they are a Christian (which they should be fine with, since they disagree with the tenets of Christianity.)

That is also why Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Trinitarians who believe in Christ are not Christians.

reply to post by adjensen


the Catholic Church under the Pope separated itself from the rest of the Catholic Church under the Patriarchs of the East, Rome was one of five original Patriarchates of the Catholic Christian Church,

Read about the History of the Church and pre-Schism Catholicism before 1054 A.D. and afterwards, it's quite interesting,

God bless you

edit: Merry Christmas to you and to all!

reply to post by adjensen


I agree,

in my mind anybody labeled a Christian is somebody who lives a life in accordance with the faith and doctrines established and set forth in the Nicene Creed and the Churches that follow said Creed - the Catholic Church (both Roman and Orthodox), and some mainline Protestant Churches (Anglican, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc), although we can argue Ecclesiology for days on end :p

P.S., for anyone wondering, the Creed is:

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

reply to post by godlover25


Just to clarify, my remark wasn't as regards what the "true" catholic (little "c") church is -- I believe that to be the collective body of Christ -- it was just to clarify that there is no such thing as the "Roman Catholic Church".

I am Catholic (big "c") because it is the closest thing to the original teachings of the church as I can come in my geographic area, though I would have been open to converting to Orthodox Catholic if there had been a church anywhere near me.

Merry Christmas to you and yours, as well

reply to post by adjensen

though I would have been open to converting to Orthodox Catholic if there had been a church anywhere near me.

We have one here in my 'hood. I happened upon it one day while hunting for rocks to use in my garden...
it was under construction still (at least the grounds were - the building was done); and went in to ask if they minded if I took some of the dug up rocks.

The lady invited me to attend their services, of course (though I haven't), but I did bring home a calendar they had there - had all sorts of Saints listed - one for every day, as I recall.

Do you think the orthodox is an "encompassing" style of using Eastern and Western thought??
I kind of like that idea.
Reminds me of the Ekklesia Gnostica. They have quite a few American branches. Have you looked into them at all?

Happy Christmas to you and the little guy.

reply to post by wildtimes

Do you think the orthodox is an "encompassing" style of using Eastern and Western thought??

Not really, though an Eastern Orthodox member could probably give you a better answer. The "Eastern" just refers to that branch of the church having its origins in the Eastern Mediterranean, and having been more influenced by theologians on that end of the empire (as opposed to, say, St. Augustine.)

Merry Christmas to you and yours, my dear friend!

sk0rpi0n
Seeing how Christians pick and choose what they want as ''literal'', where does it stop? Can a ''christian'' also believe that Jesus did not literally die and rise from the dead? Can he also believe that Jesus is not literally God?

Watch this, Sc0rpi0n:

John 1:29
"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

Do I believe that John thought Jesus was a literal lamb? Of course not. Do I believe that Jesus took away the sin of the world? Of course I do. In just that one verse, we can see that the Bible can be read both literally and figuratively simultaneously. In addition, I can also read other parts of the Bible int he style that they were written (the love poetry of Song of Solomon, the epic of Jonah, the poetic fiction of Job, the worldly wisdom of Proverbs, or the history of 1st and 2nd Kings). Also, look at all of the imagery that is used and not supposed to be taken literally: Light, Word, Water, the Garden, the Tree, the Paschal Lamb, The Rose of Sharon, et al.

The Bible isn't a singular "book"; it is a collection of sixty six books written by different authors over a long period of time, and one has to consider what style each was written in, as well as to whom it was written for.

Just my two cents.

reply to post by yeahright


Hello.

In Islam the Qur'an is part literal, and part allegorical. ALL of it is from God, all of it is true. Just some needs to be taken in the sense that hidden spiritual meaning is there and some word for word.

Where I agree and understand Flyers Fan, is that she will turn to scholars of religion for some of her understanding, however, in my opinion and according to my religion you have to be very careful not to blindly follow scholars, but to learn from the scholars.

So here is where I disagree with some people, as some did not seem to learn from the reasoning of scholars and seek many different scholars to learn from for a variety of viewpoints.

"Seek Knowledge even as far as China" - Imam Ali (as)

Where I disagree with Christians is those who throw out the whole basis for being Christian and everything which supports Christianity from the old books. While they may still call themselves Christian I feel they did not seek to learn, but rather just dismissed what they couldn't understand, rather than learning from the scholars, and seeking guidance from God Himself, who does guide us to all understanding... they can therefore no longer be called "true" Christians, in such a sense as I believe a believing Christian is or would be.

Ultimately it is between them and God however.

I have decided for myself that if I have a question on Christianity I will seek my husbands answer, and not anyone elses. I was asking other Christians because my husband did not want to tamper with my religion, but I am a curious person in general, and wanted to know a few things that he refused to answer.

But we have decided if I ask it is okay for him to answer.

We can understand each other through each other, and the others religion through the other, and the rest of the world can go about their merry way, while I and he go about ours.

I just wanted to understand him best, and often to do that you have to understand deeply held beliefs, but... ATS is not a place to learn about Christianity. ATS taught me that.

adjensen
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Can a ''christian'' also believe that Jesus did not literally die and rise from the dead? Can he also believe that Jesus is not literally God?

No.

Both of those claims are attested to in the Nicene Creed, which is the statement of faith that defines who is a Christian. If someone rejects the claims made in the creed, they are rejecting Christianity. They can say that they are a "follower of Christ", but they can no longer say that they are a Christian (which they should be fine with, since they disagree with the tenets of Christianity.)

That is also why Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Trinitarians who believe in Christ are not Christians.

Actually, you are quite wrong.

The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos)—meaning "follower of Christ"—comes from Χριστός (Christos)—meaning "anointed one"—with an adjectival ending borrowed from Latin to denote adhering to, or even belonging to, as in slave ownership.

A follower of Christ who adheres to the teachings of Jesus to the point of being a slave to Him, is the literal meaning of "Christian"

The word was used in the New Testament, in the book of Acts which happened well before the Nicene Creed, written during the 4th century A.D. solely in an attempt to unify the Christian church under emperor Constantine.

Before that day few believed that Jesus was God in the flesh. But after that, it was taught as if it was fact, and people thereafter were converted to this belief. This does not make it originally so.

Non-Trinitarians are Christian, in the sense of the word, as they believe Christianity was meant to be believed, the same as you believe of yourself. You cannot throw out of Christianity whomever you disagree with because they disagree with a philosophy not taught until the 4th century AD.

If Jesus wants to reject them He will, as He has promised to do to those He does not know, on the Day of Judgement. But be careful, because it could be you He is rejecting.

Some people do reject the name because of a distaste of being grouped in with the mainstream when they are far from it. The majority is not always right, in fact, usually quite the opposite.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Actually, you are quite wrong.

Actually, I am quite right.

As Christians, we have the right to define what that term means, and it means an attestation to the creeds. The Nicene Creed affirms the Trinity, so anyone who rejects the Trinity rejects the Creed and rejects Christianity. Like the Gnostic Christians of the Second and Third Centuries, they are preaching a different religion, and therefore should not be labelled with the name of the religion that they do not profess.

The litmus test is whether the orthodox (small "o") churches will accept another faith's baptism. I was baptized as a Methodist, and because the Catholic Church recognizes that as a valid Christian church, I did not need to be baptized when I converted to Catholicism. However, someone who was baptized in the Mormon Church would have to be baptized if they converted, because they have not received a Christian baptism.

sk0rpi0n
Speaking of polls, I remember reading an article about a poll showing that a vast majority of ''Christians'' (in the UK, I think) actually don't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus(!). Their reason is also that they don't take all of the bible literally. Yet, the Bible says he was literally born of a virgin. Seeing how Christians pick and choose what they want as ''literal'', where does it stop? Can a ''christian'' also believe that Jesus did not literally die and rise from the dead? Can he also believe that Jesus is not literally God?

Coincidentally, Catholic Doctrine teaches that Mary was a virgin her entire life, yet Jesus had siblings. Would seem there is quite a bit of disagreement on that issue.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Coincidentally, Catholic Doctrine teaches that Mary was a virgin her entire life, yet Jesus had siblings. Would seem there is quite a bit of disagreement on that issue.

Though I am a Catholic, I'm not really into all the Mariology end of things, but the standard response is either that if Jesus had siblings, they were half brothers/sisters, Joseph's kids from a previous marriage, or that the terms "brother" and "sister", in the culture of the time, could refer to cousins, other relatives or even family friends.

The compelling argument that she had no other children is this:

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. (John 19:26-27 NIV)

If the "brothers" of Jesus, such as James, were children of Mary, that bit from John would not exist.