• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not [W:775]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Religion is a hangover from a primative pre-scientific age. As knowledge waxes religion wanes. Do you deny that as civilisation has progressed and spread so has religious belief been gradually consigned to history?

I treasure our old Swedish churches, often with their 14th cent painted interiors, as monuments to a bygone age. But an ignorant and superstitious age which I am glad I have not lived in.


Very well put. I too love the paintings, statues, and especially the cathedral architecture but the belief system is fading.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I

And to this day, after all the sophomoric attacks and attempts to diminish or negate it, the resurrection accounts of Jesus Christ in the New Testament have still not been discredited or falsified.

Jesus is Lord!


Well of course they've been discredited. Today, thanks to the availability of information at our fingertips, we're only a click away from the study of much, much older religions that used identical stories about killing a god/man, cannibalizing him (in Jesus' case, symbolically as communion) and then the god/man rises from the dead three days hence.

The Jesus story is a knock-off of previous Savior stories, and realistically, only ONE savior would be needed to save the world (if we're talking about this pagan idea) so the world would have been saved long before the Jesus story was created.

The Jesus myth certainly gained more traction than its predecessors, but popularity and truth are not synonymous.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Very well put. I too love the paintings, statues, and especially the cathedral architecture but the belief system is fading.

How can it be because, "belief is fading?"

What do you mean by not taking the Bible literally? A lot of Christians know that the Bible is full of figures of speech, thus of course.....everything can't be taken literally.


That a Christian is not a literalist, does not mean her belief is fading or diminished.
It could mean, she studied the Bible. It could simply mean that she now knows not everything should be taken literally.



I have only read the OP......so I must be missing something.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Christians are very lucky that Logicman's views are seen by most as an extreme version, and not considered mainstream. God couldn't have chosen a worse PR man.

I agree with this. The vast majority of Christians do not hold that extreme view. Most are caring, compassionate people. This thread is just to note that the LITERAL interpretation of the Bible is waning and that religion is falling away. I think there's a difference between religion and spiritualism however.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

How can it be because, "belief is fading?"

What do you mean by not taking the Bible literally? A lot of Christians know that the Bible is full of figures of speech, thus of course.....everything can't be taken literally.


That a Christian is not a literalist, does not mean her belief is fading or diminished.
It could mean, she studied the Bible. It could simply mean that she now knows not everything should be taken literally.



I have only read the OP......so I must be missing something.


Your answer is fair. And, I agree with it.

Most Christians do not hold a literal view of the Bible. Those are the more moderate Christians.

The statistics are just showing that both "organized religion" and a literal interpretation of the Bible is declining.

However, one can still love the old architecture and artwork. It's some of the best the world has to offer.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

The statistics are just showing that both "organized religion" ..........is declining.

In America.

And what your source is saying isn't really accurate. I don't think it has anything to prove about secularization.


And.....just so to be clear, here's from gallup:


Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word," similar to the 26% who view it as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man."

This is the first time in Gallup's four-decade trend that biblical literalism has not surpassed biblical skepticism.

Meanwhile, about half of Americans -- a proportion largely unchanged over the years -- fall in the middle, saying the Bible is the inspired word of God but that not all of it should be taken literally.

Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God




The difference is simply about those who takes the Bible literally - to be taken word for word - which I explained above, does not necessarily mean their belief had diminished or faded away.

It could just mean that they've studied the Bible, and it became clear to them that there are things in the Bible that are not meant to be taken literally.

In fact - to study the Bible, or to discuss about it - shows a desire to understand it more.


Still, while biblical literalism has waned, the vast majority of Americans -- 71% -- continue to view the Bible as a holy document, believing it is at least God-inspired if not God's own words.
 
Last edited:
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I don't care if someone claims to have faith or says they are spiritual. But I want an explanation of what it means. The claims always seem to imply that there is something special about faith and spirituality. What is so special about it?

Nothing, to you. To that person, it's usually very special.

I myself am not spiritual nor do I necessarily have faith. Yet I respect someone's right, need and/or want to their beliefs (as long as no harm to others and it isn't shoved in my face)

If it makes them happy and helps them get through life, who is anyone to **** on that?
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

It should be read as an amazing document of early human thought and imagination.
But it should not be read as the literal words of a god. And as fewer and fewer people do so, the world will improve.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201705/bible-belief-in-decline

:roll:


Let's just be accurate, okay? Dis-information can be the cause of the world's problems today!

And to think that this opinion piece is published in "PSYCHOLOGY TODAY".....seems to be saying much about the psychology driving this article's author! Over-zealous, are we? Reading somethings that aren't really there? :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

However, one can still love the old architecture and artwork. It's some of the best the world has to offer.

Architecture doesn't do it for me. But that's me.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Okay, I get that. So, your position is that the Bible is not literal but that it contains a valuable message. I find that to be a reasonable, intelligent take on the subject. Thomas Jefferson had a similar take. He dismissed the OT, which I agree with, but then he rewrote the NT (you can find online copies, it's called the Jefferson Bible) and he removed all the hocus-pocus -- all the supernatural stuff -- and at the end, he had them putting Jesus body in the tomb, rolling the stone into place, and then walking away. No Resurrection - just a man with a message.

I didn't know about that. But if it's true (and accurate)......I'm curious, what makes you believe in Thomas Jefferson?
 
Last edited:
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

The preponderance of the evidence substantiates the accounts of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

I'm all ears.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

So what? Satan has his view without God's help too.

And Satan is not even an atheist...he and his demons believe because they have seen for themselves who God is and yet they still rebelled...James 2:19
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I'm all ears.

It will be your eyes. He'll post that book cover again, the book he has never read. He seems to think that posting it constitutes evidence
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

It will be your eyes. He'll post that book cover again, the book he has never read. He seems to think that posting it constitutes evidence

That's always the proof. The bible is the word of God because the bible says it is.

A circular argument.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Nineteenth century writer H.L. Hastings once forcibly illustrated the unique way in which the Bible has withstood the attacks of skepticism:

“Infidels of eighteen hundred years have been refuting and overthrowing this book, and yet it stands today as solid as a rock. Infidels, with all their assaults, make about as much impression on this book as a man with a tack hammer would on the Pyramids of Egypt.

“When the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, ‘Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.’ So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives.”

“No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet? The Bible is still loved by millions, and studied by millions."

Dopamine is a helluva drug.

Priests push it.

For profit and power.

Simple as that.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I agree with this. The vast majority of Christians do not hold that extreme view. Most are caring, compassionate people. This thread is just to note that the LITERAL interpretation of the Bible is waning and that religion is falling away. I think there's a difference between religion and spiritualism however.

Both things are make believe.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Nothing, to you. To that person, it's usually very special.

I myself am not spiritual nor do I necessarily have faith. Yet I respect someone's right, need and/or want to their beliefs (as long as no harm to others and it isn't shoved in my face)

If it makes them happy and helps them get through life, who is anyone to **** on that?

I don't respect beliefs and no one is required to. I respect people, but only if their character is deserving. This is a specific sub forum in a debate forum where I will express my views honestly. No believers need to be here, but if they are, they shouldn't expect beliefs to be respected.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

And Satan is not even an atheist...he and his demons believe because they have seen for themselves who God is and yet they still rebelled...James 2:19

Satan might be a JW.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

What does it matter to you if someone has faith or are spiritual or not. Why can't people just leave one another alone and let them believe what they want? Who says it's irrational, you? Who are you, to decide that for someone else?

I don't believe as you do, therefore you are irrational. Sounds reasonable. :roll:

They try to legislate their faiths tenents.

If they didn't do that there wouldn't be a problem.

Its cheating anyway.

God supposedly wants you to obey him on your own.

He doesn't want you to obey because there are men with guns to force you to.

That isn't a "test".
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Liberalism is a scourge to humanity. It screws everything up royally.

Jesus was a liberal.

Jahweh is an asshole conservative.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

So what? Satan has his view without God's help too.

He shouldn't have given his second creation souls and raised them above his first.

Dick move.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Okay, I get that. So, your position is that the Bible is not literal but that it contains a valuable message. I find that to be a reasonable, intelligent take on the subject. Thomas Jefferson had a similar take. He dismissed the OT, which I agree with, but then he rewrote the NT (you can find online copies, it's called the Jefferson Bible) and he removed all the hocus-pocus -- all the supernatural stuff -- and at the end, he had them putting Jesus body in the tomb, rolling the stone into place, and then walking away. No Resurrection - just a man with a message.

And pretty much the same message, modified for the audience, as Buddha, Krishna, etc.

The golden rule is at the heart of every spirituality.

Someone has shown up everywhere with that message at some point.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I didn't know about that. But if it's true (and accurate)......I'm curious, what makes you believe in Thomas Jefferson?

Jefferson stated that he felt the lessons of Jesus were valuable, but that he did not believe that Jesus was a son of God nor anyone other than just a person.

It's not that I believe Jefferson, I'm just talking about his personal belief -- that Jesus was a leader -- but not any sort of deity.

I have a hard time believing Jesus existed at all, based on the lack of supporting contemporary extraneous evidence -- but that's just me.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Both things are make believe.

Certainly, but I think the difference between the two beliefs indicate movement away from organized religion. The spiritualists, in my opinion, are closer to agnostics.
 
Back
Top Bottom