Reply #56: Argument has raged within Christianity

[ironbark]

regarding the station of Jesus, the texts to be included in the Bible and the meaning (literal or metaphorical) of those texts since before The First Council of Nicaea.Those debates, discussions and arguments continue to this day and they are not resolved by the longevity of >any< tradition nor its number of adherents.




“We atheists are not the ones who made up the idea of the bible being literally true. Christendom came up with that idea. There are people who actually believe that the bible is literally true, as I'm sure you're aware.”

Yes…I am well aware that >some< Christians “came up with the idea of the bible being literally true”…others didn’t agree…others still don’t.

I am also aware that a religion (like a nation) is an organic and fluid thing…quite often there are parallel stages of difficult birth, struggling infancy, powerful adolescence, full flowering maturity, institutionalized power and progressive decay.



“I think that there is a problem for bible believers once we no longer believe it is literally true - the allegories, metaphors, and parables in the book are thousands of years old. If they are not recounting events that literally happened, they are of little practical importance to us.”

Here are links to a number of progressive Christians that do not share the belief in or need for exclusively literalist interpretation.
(The Uniting Church being the third biggest denomination in Australia, thus not a minority view)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/

http://www.paddingtonuca.org.au/pc/index.html

http://www.pcnvictoria.org.au/

Many of these ‘Progressive Christians’ hold that literal Bible interpretation is not only unnecessary but often a real impediment to understanding…even in matters as seemingly fundamental/literal as the ‘resurrection’. Some Christians argue that God being omnipotent there ought be no surprise (big deal miracle) in bringing back to life a dead body…God, by definition, having total command over the material world.
The one realm (in Christianity) that God is said to have relinquished command and control is in the hearts/minds of humanity….humans are granted free will to choose.
In this light and context Progressive Christians believe that the real miracle and resurrection was that of the Christian movement itself. When its leader was dead, key followers had denied him and scattered, Rome and local religious authorities held total control…….Christianity (even in the eyes of ‘Christians’) was dead….and yet it rose up…was resurrected (and went on to become bigger/more influential and enduring) than Rome ever was.

Non Christians may not count it as other than an historical aberration….I’m obliged to count it as one of extremely long odds ;-)

“They may contain good ideas, but can't we come up with betters ideas ourselves? Why do we need the book?”

That, to me as an agnostic, is one of the great questions and well worthy of pursuit.
Some of my measures are objective historical and some are purely personal/subjective. We all (believers, agnostics, atheists) pay taxes towards various social institutions and caring organizations…but I cannot ignore or deny the social justice measures undertaken by various denominations that are unmatched by any other political or social groups.
Whatever I may think of the often dodgy or absurd theology I am confronted by schools, hospitals, hospices, respite centers, aged care, shelters, soup kitchens and advocacy for social justice.
I respect the effort even if I don’t share the ideology.

Re other post- "What is scientific literalism"?....it appears to be the rigid expectation that when one is offered a scriptural quote (such as an "ant talking to Solomon") that this must be taken literally and examined in the light of science.