 Originally Posted by metcalfracing
I hate that argument. Christians INSISTED on taking the bible literally, until science stepped in and said "Well this not possible and here's why..."
Now you all in a vein attempt to believe this stuff, say well... its meant to be taken symbolically.
Yes, unfortunately many people today take the literal interpretation (which is always the base level of interpretation) to be the truth, even if it contradicts knowledge and experience. I will not go into why this is popular today, but I think the signs are obvious to anyone who is looking for them.
I am afraid you are somewhat confused (as many are today in regards to religion) about the history of Christian hermeneutics. Contrary to what many people believe today, Biblical literalism is actually a fairly recent phenomenon (this reminds me of the Christians in the U.S. that claim the country was founded on Christianity - and their distorted view of it at that!). The early church fathers never held the belief that is so popular today with modern conservative Christians that the literal interpretation of the Bible is above all others.
Origen, one of the earliest church fathers, wrote many exegeses that had as a central theme the discrimination against literal, historical interpretations in favor of symbolic, spiritual ones. He wrote about how the literal interpretation was the base meaning that was helpful to simple or new Christians until they (if ever) looked deeper into the spiritual truths behind the dead words. Origen was very aware of the many inconsistencies of the Bible and took great care to explain why they seemed this way. He held that the spiritual was a higher truth than the physical and rejected any literal interpretation of a physical Heaven or resurrection of bodies. An interesting side note: Origen also believed that souls do not go to Heaven or Hell for eternity based on the actions of this life alone, which is also a fairly modern perversion of religion, but that union with God was a continuous progression (one can find many similarities here with Buddhism).
Although there are others who shared similar views in the early Christian church, perhaps it is St. Augustine who wrote about this issue with the most clarity. Hell, he even wrote a 400 page book just about interpreting the first three chapters of Genesis! In it he describes how the six days of creation are not physical events in time, but rather symbols for degrees of angelic knowledge of creation. He held that these six days were in fact simultaneous and included the creation of time. He clearly states that if there is something in the literal interpretation of the Bible that seems to contradict one's own physical perceptions and rational faculties, that one should not take this to mean that physical science is wrong, but that there is a hidden, spiritual meaning that is intended in the text.
I would also recommend checking out Emanuel Swedenborg, if you are in fact interested in these topics; now there is the mother lode!
I could go on with this, but I think you get the point. These issues have been around since the beginnings of the religion, and have been thought and written about extensively. It is not the recent findings of science that have made people start interpreting the Bible symbolically. This is an ignorant and absolutely ridiculous claim to make. For one, there are still vast amounts of people who insist on interpreting the Bible literally, even though science contradicts certain passages read this way. Also, to think that the esoteric meaning of religious texts has anything to do with recent scientific discoveries is not only historically impossible, but is to completely dismiss the spiritual truths behind these texts that are fundamental to their creation and interpretation.
 Originally Posted by metcalfracing
Funny, I can recount story upon story of persecutions that happened because of people taking the bible literally.
But that leaves room for you to say "Well... those are a few odd people that don't really understand..." Not really.
{examples}
I don't know why you insist on grouping me into your previously conceived ideas on how Christians think. I don't even agree with the arguments you think I would make.
 Originally Posted by Jeremysr
That doesn't make sense if you read that part of the Bible. It says he created certain things on certain days. One day it was the oceans, one day it was birds and fish, another day it was land animals, then humans, etc. That doesn't sound symbolic at all, it sounds like a description of how God created everything.
Oh come on now, hermeneutics takes a little more effort than that! It makes sense if you actually examine it for yourself. Why are the days divided the way they are? Why are certain details mentioned? What does it mean that there were the waters before the light?
You think that the physical planet Earth existed in time before the Sun? This seems perfectly logical to you?
You know a symbol can be seen from two perspectives: the dead, outer shell and the living, inner soul. Do not rely on the obvious, gross forms if you want to gain any true Knowledge; it is in the hidden, subtle waters where Heaven resides.
|
|
Bookmarks