I meant to get back to this but I've been on holiday. Wales is wonderful if wet.

I'm not sure how to answer this. They may consider they have a moral obligation to convert people but their beliefs will entail beliefs about moral obligations, and those beliefs may disagree. On my account of morality they do not have a moral obligation because their premises are wrong.

Yes on my view they should reconsider their beliefs, however I accept that their beliefs provide a reason for them to act.

No worries, hope you had a good break.

Sure, but we're not talking about how you receive such efforts, only that they aren't making them in the first place.


If their beliefs provide a reason for them to act then why do the majority not act? How can they simply function and get on with their lives surrounded by people that they know are going to an eternity of torment and do nothing about it, is this not a gross failure of their principles?

The simple answer is that I don't think the majority of people believe that people who do not share some belief are destined for an eternity of torment.

Hasn't this brought us full circle? I thought I'd already shown how the Bible makes clear that non-believers are going to eternal torment and that there is an obligation on all Christians to spread god's word.

So, why are Christians not all doing their level best to save the rest of us?

I don't think Christians are committed to a literal interpretation of the bible and hence do not need to commit to the idea that those who do not believe are condemned to an eternity in hell.

I'm not sure how the term "literal interpretation" applies in this case. I don't think that having a personal opinion on this matter is really reconcilable.

My priest disagrees

To expand a little, when I was a catholic a new priest turned up in our parish and started his first homily with a joke about how a guy is being given a tour of heaven only to be told by St Peter that the ones laughing behind the wall are the catholics laughing because they think they are the only ones here. His point was that the belief that God refuses those who aren't catholics is wrong. This is despite passages like "there is no way to god but through me". When I was a catholic I didn't believe in hell, I don't I never had, while certain beliefs made sense to me hell never did and I was never cautioned regarding this belief despite discussing it with priests and lay catholics.

Why don't you think that Christians are committed to a literal interpretation of the bible?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/sa...literally.aspx

The numbers for literal interpretation are probably much lower outside of the US.

For a number of reasons, firstly as someone who considered himself a christian for a significant period of time I was never taught to read the bible literally. Given that mine was a pretty standard minimal religious education I don't expect others who would have been subjected to the same instruction to take the leap to a literal interpretation. Secondly as someone who has studied history to graduate level I am familiar with the fallibility of all historical accounts and given the nature of the bible believe that is subject to a great deal of error in areas where it attempts historical accuracy. Thirdly I don't think that all stories within the bible were intended to be taken literally, there are contradictory passages within the bible and committing to a literal interpretation requires belief in different accounts of the same event and finally because a lot of it is clearly not historically accurate.

What I don't comprehend is how this has become a 'leap'. When did it become almost the norm to have a choice in the issue? To be so certain that the bible isn't intended to be taken literally? Especially when you consider that there are still many hundreds of millions of people (billions?) who believe both the bible, and other works of religious literature literally, how have they failed to come to the same obvious conclusion?


Then why does this not cause you to completely lose confidence in the bible, why does it have any credibility at all for you? What does it contain that you have no explanation for except that it genuinely is the word of god and must be believed?

If you are taught to read the bible literally it is not be a leap to understand it so, if you are not taught the bible literally it is.

As to when it became acceptable I am not a student of the history of religion so I can't answer but it appears if one wants to reconcile a belief in god with a degree of confidence in what science tells us is true then one must give up a literal interpretation of the bible.

What confidence have I expressed in the bible?

But what and how you were taught is not indicative of whether or not the bible should be taken literally, it's just acknowledging that you were influenced in your outlook. For me, it raises the question of when it became acceptable to teach children not to take the bible literally and how those giving this instruction can be so certain of their interpretation given what it actually says in the bible.

But that hasn't always been the case, it seems to be a fairly modern phenomenon that Christians feel that they can be openly skeptical about the bible, what changed?

Perhaps 'confidence' isn't the right word but you said that you "don't think that all stories within the bible were intended to be taken literally" which suggests that you do think some are to be taken literally, isn't that a form of confidence?

You asked me why I didn't think Christians were committed to a literal interpretation of the bible and I answered that a contributory factor is many aren't taught the bible literally and that it is a leap to understand it literally given this. Hence being a Christian doesn't commit one to a literal interpretation. However those other factors, such as the contradictory passages and historical inaccuracy mean Christians should not interpret the bible literally.

I've said I can't answer this adequately but it seems that as our knowledge of the world improves we have to disregard beliefs that contradict it.

No, just because I think some of the stories in the bible were intended to be taken literally doesn't mean I think they are true.

This has been explained to you by several people across multiple threads, but here you are, back on the same topic yet again.

This idea that most Christians interpret the Bible literally is just an artifact of your imagination. It's only a very small minority of Christians that do that.

This is just your odd personal misunderstanding, or perhaps one of your strawmen. The more times you raise it and are corrected, the more likely the trolling/strawman hypothesis.

This is false, as are many of your beliefs about Christians and Christianity. It would be a relatively simple thing to take the time to read and learn information rather than persisting in ignorance, but here you are propagating your own imaginary history once again.

Several people across multiple threads have explained why Dereds doesn't think that Christians are committed to a literal interpretation of the bible?

Fascinating. However, I'll still ask individuals what they think if that's ok with you.

Not at all, it's stated quite clearly in the bible, I've already provided relevant passages, perhaps you missed them. That many choose to interpret those passages differently ( many, but not all, as you point out) is exactly what I'm exploring here.

I haven't been corrected, I've simply been presented with alternate viewpoints. Given that in your entire post you said nothing at all that advanced the discussion and instead spent all that time just attacking me, I'd say that you're the one most likely to be acting trollishly (new adverb, like it?).

Now, I'm genuinely not interested in this type of exchange so unless you have something worthwhile to contribute, we're done. PM me if you have more personal attacks to make. Don't try to derail the thread with them.

LOL.

Bringing facts to the table that counter your perception is a way of advancing the conversation. The conversation is only stuck because you seem to want to reject how things are and instead hold onto how you think things should be.

MB, you're choosing to remain willfully ignorant. You've been presented with the facts multiple times.

So you don't believe that the bible is the inspired word of god? It does seem to follow. God wouldn't make mistakes or be inaccurate.

So this would suggest that throughout Christian history, Christians have basically been getting a lot wrong and that as our knowledge continues to grow, it's possible that more and more of the bible will be revealed or understood to be non-literal, or worse, as not being from god at all. Given that, can any trust be placed in contents of the bible at all?

What I'm most curious about is how you know (is 'know' too strong?) which stories are intended to be taken literally and which aren't. It seems that the argument for 'interpretation' is not as strong as the argument that they are all intended to be taken literally. When you have contradictory stories (can you give me an example?) how do you know which is the one intended to be taken literally, or whether or not either of them are?

No I don't but then I've made it clear over the last 12 months or so that I do not consider myself a theist.

People have gotten a lot wrong through history but I do not consider the Bible authoritative in any domain. I don't believe it is the word of god and I suspect more and more people will come to that conclusion over time. The US presents a challenge to my view however given that more of the population identify as religious now than did 240 years ago.

I don't think Christians need take any of it literally. There are two accounts of Jesus genealogy in Luke and Matthew, the death of Judas is reported differently in Matthew and Acts. I don't think there's an upside to a literal interpretation of these texts but this is not to say they may not be instructive.

Ok, so I think we've reached the end of this conversation but I remain with the position that despite contradictions and inaccuracies, that there are clear instructions in the bible that it be taken literally and as such, Christians that aren't doing all they can to save non-believers from going to hell are grossly negligent of an act of human compassion and obvious moral justification, and are ignoring a direct instruction from their god. Alternatively, the bible contains such inaccuracies and contradictions that none of it can be trusted and as such Christians are not justified in using any of it to support their beliefs. So, either they should all be zealously evangelical, or they shouldn't be using the bible to justify their belief at all.

Fine I always thought having you grasp the practice, psychology or phenomenology of religious belief was a long shot.

And I thought the chance of you retaining your friendly tone and not being sarcastic or unpleasant was a long shot. Love the way you casually throw round words like 'phenomenology' though.

I think your argument was poor and that you're approaching this from entirely the wrong direction. It's irrelevant to the topic of whether or not Christians (or you) should take the bible literally that you were taught not to take it literally, or what the majority of Christians actually do. The closest you came to an actual argument was 'the bible contains historical inaccuracies and contradictions' but unless your conclusion is something like 'and so the entire bible should be considered unreliable, including instructions to take it literally' which you didn't say, then so what?

I gave you specific biblical passages (and have more if I need them) and you failed to explain why they don't support a literal interpretation, you just refer to the fact that people have interpreted them differently, again, so what, all those people could be wrong. So why would you have changed my mind?

Right... because what matters is the Mightbooshian claim that Christians should behave a certain way. That's clearly the best way to approach things and there's clearly no other meaningful way for religious people to behave.

You have made no argument that the Bible should be taken literally other than "I think it should be."