• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Creationism & Abrahamic Religions

head of joaquin said:
As a Christian I would say that literalists are heretics and they are going to hell. Paul denounces literalists, especially those that use the Hebrew Scriptures to attack others. He states unequivocally that those people are to be rejected from the church.
Click to expand...

It would seem that such a belief that rejection of Literal Creationism equates to a ticket to Hell is a fringe belief not held by millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians. What bothers me about this, is that such an interpretation basically argues that nothing you do or believe matters except for Literal Creationism. Meaning that many within the Catholic Church are going to hell because the Catholic Church has long ago abandoned Literal Creationism.

To some degree, I get the notion that those who hold such an intolerant belief have an ulterior agenda. Everyone I've met that actually believes that is a power hungry maniac trying to argue their and only their interpretation is correct and that all others are wrong. Last I checked, it was God who did the judging. Not Man. To subvert that is to subvert God.
 
obvious Child said:
It would seem that such a belief that rejection of Literal Creationism equates to a ticket to Hell is a fringe belief not held by millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians. What bothers me about this, is that such an interpretation basically argues that nothing you do or believe matters except for Literal Creationism. Meaning that many within the Catholic Church are going to hell because the Catholic Church has long ago abandoned Literal Creationism.

To some degree, I get the notion that those who hold such an intolerant belief have an ulterior agenda. Everyone I've met that actually believes that is a power hungry maniac trying to argue their and only their interpretation is correct and that all others are wrong. Last I checked, it was God who did the judging. Not Man. To subvert that is to subvert God.
Click to expand...

Biblical literalism is a fringe movement that arose in the 17th century. It is mostly an American phenomenon, where it seems more important than it is due to the megaphone given to it by the rightwing noise machine.

And this ties in to your comment about having another agenda. Indeed, biblical literalism is a politically motivated movement which uses the bible to promote a particular conservative agenda that is misogynistic, anit-gay, anti-science, anti-worker, anti-democratic and anti-modern. It has the same well-spring as modern conservatism and the sense among its followers that modern society threatens their identity. That's why I call it a heresy. It's really just reactionary politics hijacking biblical texts for ugly social purposes.
 
head of joaquin said:
Biblical literalism is a fringe movement that arose in the 17th century. It is mostly an American phenomenon, where it seems more important than it is due to the megaphone given to it by the rightwing noise machine.

And this ties in to your comment about having another agenda. Indeed, biblical literalism is a politically motivated movement which uses the bible to promote a particular conservative agenda that is misogynistic, anit-gay, anti-science, anti-worker, anti-democratic and anti-modern. It has the same well-spring as modern conservatism and the sense among its followers that modern society threatens their identity. That's why I call it a heresy. It's really just reactionary politics hijacking biblical texts for ugly social purposes.
Click to expand...

Religion is misogynistic, anit-gay, anti-science, anti-worker, anti-democratic and anti-modern. If we are not to take the text of the bible literally then I guess we should just look at it like a collection of fairy tales written at a time that reflects it's context to be out of favor with the times. Kinda like some classic mother goose nursry rhimes.
 
head of joaquin said:
Biblical literalism is a fringe movement that arose in the 17th century. It is mostly an American phenomenon, where it seems more important than it is due to the megaphone given to it by the rightwing noise machine.

And this ties in to your comment about having another agenda. Indeed, biblical literalism is a politically motivated movement which uses the bible to promote a particular conservative agenda that is misogynistic, anit-gay, anti-science, anti-worker, anti-democratic and anti-modern. It has the same well-spring as modern conservatism and the sense among its followers that modern society threatens their identity. That's why I call it a heresy. It's really just reactionary politics hijacking biblical texts for ugly social purposes.
Click to expand...
"Biblical literalism" arose in the 17th century? This is one of the most shockingly uneducated statements I've ever seen on here.

They've been taking the bible literally and as the infallible word of god for almost 1800 years. They've always been anti-gay, anti-science, misogynistic and anti-modern, and they still are today.

The entire history of the dark and middle ages makes you look like a complete moron.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A “…mostly…American phenomenon…” that arose a century before America was founded? I doubt that.
Click to expand...

Pssst: think -- it's mostly an American phenomenon now. It arose in England a few centuries ago. A really stupid heretical development.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
"Biblical literalism" arose in the 17th century? This is one of the most shockingly uneducated statements I've ever seen on here.

They've been taking the bible literally and as the infallible word of god for almost 1800 years. They've always been anti-gay, anti-science, misogynistic and anti-modern, and they still are today.

The entire history of the dark and middle ages makes you look like a complete moron.
Click to expand...

You lose so badly it almost hurts through the internets. Clearly you get your history lessons from creationists.

Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Creationists present themselves as the true bearers and present-day representatives of authentic, traditional Christianity, but historically speaking this is simply not true (Ruse 1988, 2001, 2003, 2005; Numbers 1992; McMullin 1985). The Bible has a major place in the life of any Christian, but it is not the case that the Bible taken literally has always had a major place in the lives or theology of Christians. For most, indeed, it has not (Turner 2002). . . . It was after the revivals of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Britain and America — revivals that led to such sects as the Methodists — that a more full-blooded literalism became a major part of the religious scene. In America particularly literalism took hold, and especially after the Civil War, it took root in the evangelical sects — especially Baptists — of the South (Numbers 1998). It became part of the defining culture of the South, having as much a role in opposing ideas and influences of the leaders and policy makers of the North as anything rooted in deeply thought-through theology. (Note the important qualification, "leaders and policy makers" of the North. Many — especially working and lower-middle-class people — living in the large cities of the North felt deeply threatened by the moves to industrialism, the weakening of traditional beliefs, and the large influx of immigrants from Europe. They provided very fertile material for the literalist preachers.)

Read Turner, F M., 2002. John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, and report back in a sadder but wiser man.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A “…mostly…American phenomenon…” that arose a century before America was founded? I doubt that.
Click to expand...

In terms of how it is practiced today, it's mostly an American phenomenon. Just because it started elsewhere is irrelevant. And Joaquin's statement isn't wrong. All that user said is that it started a long time ago and now it's mostly an American phenomenon. Nothing is incorrect there.
 
head of joaquin said:
As a Christian I would say that literalists are heretics and they are going to hell. Paul denounces literalists, especially those that use the Hebrew Scriptures to attack others. He states unequivocally that those people are to be rejected from the church.
Click to expand...

Where does Paul state this?
 
obvious Child said:
It would seem that such a belief that rejection of Literal Creationism equates to a ticket to Hell is a fringe belief not held by millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians. What bothers me about this, is that such an interpretation basically argues that nothing you do or believe matters except for Literal Creationism. Meaning that many within the Catholic Church are going to hell because the Catholic Church has long ago abandoned Literal Creationism.

To some degree, I get the notion that those who hold such an intolerant belief have an ulterior agenda. Everyone I've met that actually believes that is a power hungry maniac trying to argue their and only their interpretation is correct and that all others are wrong. Last I checked, it was God who did the judging. Not Man. To subvert that is to subvert God.
Click to expand...

Very interesting post. Had planned to not return, but I have a bit of time today with the holiday and all.

Believing in creation, in and of itself, has nothing to do with going to hell. The issue is this: when one begins to reject certain parts of the Bible, how does he decide where to stop? "Oh, I agree with this part, so it's right. This part I don't like, so it's out." Salvation--going to heaven or not--is a matter of faith in Jesus Christ. I believe in creation because its in the Bible, science backs it up, and Darwinian evolution is ridiculous. (That ought to stir the bees!)

You are correct in saying that God judges hearts; He alone decides heaven and hell. People who know next to nothing about the Bible know the verse that says judge not. And yet, they know absolutely nothing about the context. Intelligent people judge/exercise discernment all the time. If I'm walking down a street and want to godown an alley, but it's filled with what appear to be dangerous people, I'm choosing a different route. That was a judgment on their character,could have been wrong, but it felt like the best thing. That's completely different than judging a persons heart, which is left to God alone.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A “…mostly…American phenomenon…” that arose a century before America was founded? I doubt that.
Click to expand...

Read about the "Darbyites".. It became popular in the US during the Dust Bowl and Great Depression when people were despairing.. Mainstream churches didn't teach literalism or "Creationism"... or focus on "futuristic Revelation".
 
Catholics are free to believe in young earth creationism or evolution, as the book of Genesis does not explicitly state how long the earth took to be formed or whether animal species had ancestors they evolved from or if they were created whole and complete.

"the words of Genesis...proximately maintain nothing else than that the earth with all that it contains and bears, together with the plant and animal kingdoms, has not produced itself nor is the work of chance; but owes its existence to the power of God. However, in what particular manner the plant and animal kingdoms received their existence: whether all species were created simultaneously or only a few which were destined to give life to others: whether only one fruitful seed was placed on mother earth, which under the influence of natural causes developed into the first plants, and another infused into the waters gave birth to the first animals — all this the Book of Genesis leaves to our own investigation and to the revelations of science, if indeed science is able at all to give a final and unquestionable decision.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Creation

The overwhelming scientific consensus supports evolution, so you will be hard pressed to find a Catholic (except ones that listen to too much right wing talk radio and Fox News) supporting young earth creationism.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A “…mostly…American phenomenon…” that arose a century before America was founded? I doubt that.
Click to expand...

Biblical literalism has been in existence since the end of the Dark Ages. People were viewed based on it, tried on it and burned because of it
 
ChuckBerry said:
Catholics are free to believe in young earth creationism or evolution, as the book of Genesis does not explicitly state how long the earth took to be formed or whether animal species had ancestors they evolved from or if they were created whole and complete.
Click to expand...

Actually it does
 
Machoid7 said:
Where does Paul state this?
Click to expand...

A bunch of places. Here's a couple.




Gal 2 11But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. 14But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Gal 5: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you.9 "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! 13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. 14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."15 If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

1 Cor: 9For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop.
 
wolfman24 said:
Biblical literalism has been in existence since the end of the Dark Ages. People were viewed based on it, tried on it and burned because of it
Click to expand...

No, literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, must acutely felt in the US. Medieval Christianity was highly symbolic, and followed Augustine's hermeneutic. They may have believed in demons and witches, and prosecuted people accordingly (mostly for self-serving political reasons under the thin facade of biblical admonition), but that has nothing to do with literalism. That was just superstition.
 
head of joaquin said:
No, literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, must acutely felt in the US. Medieval Christianity was highly symbolic, and followed Augustine's hermeneutic. They may have believed in demons and witches, and prosecuted people accordingly (mostly for self-serving political reasons under the thin facade of biblical admonition), but that has nothing to do with literalism. That was just superstition.
Click to expand...

I am a professional genealogist and I have an ancestor that would disagree with you. She lived in 1572 and was accused of a crime based on biblical scripture interpretation by the local pastor. She was "examined" for over 6 months and found not guilty.

There are other examples of others in Europe and this country.

If you read a serious work on American Early History you will see this.

The bible ruled both Catholic (not so much) and Protestant lives for centuries. Early European courts had both judges and clerics presiding. WHY? biblical interpretation and law. Societies conformed to biblical teachings. and so on.
 
Machoid7 said:
Very interesting post. Had planned to not return, but I have a bit of time today with the holiday and all.

Believing in creation, in and of itself, has nothing to do with going to hell.
Click to expand...

Then why did you argue otherwise?

The issue is this: when one begins to reject certain parts of the Bible, how does he decide where to stop? "Oh, I agree with this part, so it's right. This part I don't like, so it's out." Salvation--going to heaven or not--is a matter of faith in Jesus Christ. I believe in creation because its in the Bible, science backs it up, and Darwinian evolution is ridiculous. (That ought to stir the bees!)
Click to expand...

Then do you follow every piece of the bible literally? Or are you just as guilty? And science does not support creationism. At all. Period. It's quite clear you do not understand evolution, so you saying it's ridiculous doesn't mean anything more then someone who doesn't understand chemistry saying stoichiometry is wrong. Your statement is from a position of ignorance. It as if someone who never hear of Christ saying that Christianity is false. Does his opinion mean anything? No. It is even less worthless because he is saying it from a position of ignorance? Yes.

Besides, there is clearly parts of the Bible meant to serve as lessons, not literal history.

You are correct in saying that God judges hearts; He alone decides heaven and hell. People who know next to nothing about the Bible know the verse that says judge not. And yet, they know absolutely nothing about the context. Intelligent people judge/exercise discernment all the time. If I'm walking down a street and want to godown an alley, but it's filled with what appear to be dangerous people, I'm choosing a different route. That was a judgment on their character,could have been wrong, but it felt like the best thing.
Click to expand...

Except that you judge their characters on a very odd set of criteria
 
wolfman24 said:
I am a professional genealogist and I have an ancestor that would disagree with you. She lived in 1572 and was accused of a crime based on biblical scripture interpretation by the local pastor. She was "examined" for over 6 months and found not guilty.

There are other examples of others in Europe and this country.

If you read a serious work on American Early History you will see this.

The bible ruled both Catholic (not so much) and Protestant lives for centuries. Early European courts had both judges and clerics presiding. WHY? biblical interpretation and law. Societies conformed to biblical teachings. and so on.
Click to expand...

I'm a Ph.D. medievalist, and I disagree with you. The issue is literalism (a hermenuetic), not using the bible to punish people based on various admonitions and the Law (a practice). The two are separate issues. A nonliteralist can be a legalist, and an antinomian can be a literalist.
 
head of joaquin said:
I'm a Ph.D. medievalist, and I disagree with you. The issue is literalism (a hermenuetic), not using the bible to punish people based on various admonitions and the Law (a practice). The two are separate issues. A nonliteralist can be a legalist, and an antinomian can be a literalist.
Click to expand...

Fine but it happened the way I said and how I said. And it was not an isolated case.
 
wolfman24 said:
Fine but it happened the way I said and how I said. And it was not an isolated case.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it did, but my point is that's not an example of bibilical literalism (which is a form of exegesis), but a religious practice which puts into social effect laws, rules, and other admonitions in the biblical texts. The two are unrelated, or rather, aren't necessarily related: a literalist can be an antinomian and a legalist can follow a highly symbolic view of the bible. It's probably true most legalists are literalists now; but not in the 16th century.
 
Paul was a heretic.
 
Uh, Joaquin, I'm trying to figure out the connection you see between these passages and Your contention that Paul did not interpret the Law and the Prophets literally. What Paul railed against, as did Christ even more vociferously, was people like the Pharisees who were pious religious zealots, but whose hearts knew the true and living God not at all. It was a game to them--whoever washes their hands better, dresses more piously, gives the biggest sacrifices, wins. Paul followed Christ, and Christ clearly taught the literal 6-day creation.
 
Machoid7 said:
Uh, Joaquin, I'm trying to figure out the connection you see between these passages and Your contention that Paul did not interpret the Law and the Prophets literally. What Paul railed against, as did Christ even more vociferously, was people like the Pharisees who were pious religious zealots, but whose hearts knew the true and living God not at all. It was a game to them--whoever washes their hands better, dresses more piously, gives the biggest sacrifices, wins. Paul followed Christ, and Christ clearly taught the literal 6-day creation.
Click to expand...

Paul directly rejects literalism in this passage.

1 Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned?

Paul says, it's literally about oxen, but that's not what it means -- "Is it for oxen God is concerned". No, Paul answers, the law is a symbol of paying those who do service, in this case, ministers like himself.

10Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop.

Entirely! The entire meaning of the passage is not literal. It isn't about oxen. It's symbolic for a relationship between ministers and their flock.

This is how Paul interpreted the entire Hebrew scriptures (since of course there were no Christian scriptures at the time). And this is why he says that they for "instruction." They aren't geology books, but texts that instruct us on how to live. If you take them literally, you miss the instruction, which is the purpose.

Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.

Thus Genesis is for instruction -- not for biological knowledge. And thus it is symbolic, moral, spiritual. Thus:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
(although Paul probably didnt' write Timothy its from the school of Paul).

As to Jesus, he also rejected literalism. Quoting Genesis 2, he says:


Matthew 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

But of course Jesus doesn't believe married people become one blob of flesh. He doesn't take it literally (nobody can). Married people do not literally become one flesh. They only do so metaphorically. It has a spiritual meaning.

So unless you think Jesus actually believes married people become a single blob of flesh, he doesn't take Genesis literally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom