Lets say God DID create everything...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

No offense man, but your way off. Study up on the puritan/calvinist movement! Perfect examples of bible literalism. While I'm at it, the settler's WERE basing the colonies around religion... luckily our founding father's actually had a great deal enlightened ideas between them.

---

Neither of these things you just mentioned deems my previous post "way off". I never said there weren't movements in Christianity that favor literal interpretation over the symbolic; I only said it was a fairly recent phenomena. I guess you could argue what "fairly recent" entails, but my point was to refute your statement that literalism came first and then symbolic interpretations came only after certain scientific discoveries. I think I showed in my last post how this is no where near the truth.

As for the foundations of the United States it is well known that people came here based on their religious beliefs, and I am not denying this. The reason I even mentioned this is because I think it is dangerous for Christians now to impose their beliefs onto the foundation of the country. They would like to see the United States as a Christian nation, when it just is not nor was ever intended to be. You said it yourself: the founding fathers had a great deal of enlightened ideas between them. They were smart enough to separate church and state based on what was happening in Europe. I am not saying that they weren't spiritual people, I am just saying that the people today who claim that the US was and is supposed to be a Christian nation are imposing their beliefs onto history. But this was only a side note, and you didn't respond to the main part of my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

Preconceived ideas of how christians think!? The irony! X_X

You see, the very agruement that a person who used to be on of the most prominent christians on this board for a time has "Previously conceived ideas on how christians think" makes you look like an asshat! I must pick up backwards ways of thinking fast!

---

Again, I do not disagree that there are preconceived ideas that many Christians have, but to assume that everyone speaking on the topic of Christianity has these same ideas is ignorant. You assumed something about me that just wasn't true.
First, I didn't know you used to be a Christian, but that still doesn't excuse you for making assumptions about someone before even talking to them. If it makes me look like an "asshat" to believe that people should look at the world critically and always keep an open mind then so be it.

. . .

Ok to be fair, I wasn't in the best of moods when I posted that. I was out of line.

But the fact is, the puritan movement is not new thing its about 500 years old or more. That makes bible literalism not a new thing... and I seriously doubt at 0ad people weren't taking the bible literally, bible symbolism is, in fact, the recent phemomeon.

... and as far as making assumptions about you, I didn't. You said yourself that you believe it to be symbolic. At that point, there's not need for assumptions. I did say Christians insisted on taking the bible literally until science proved that it can't be. Can you tell me that this is uncorrect? I know my fair share about theology and the history of religion, and its just flat out true.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of worshipping somethat you know isn't true, but rather "symbolic"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

But the fact is, the puritan movement is not new thing its about 500 years old or more. That makes bible literalism not a new thing... and I seriously doubt at 0ad people weren't taking the bible literally, bible symbolism is, in fact, the recent phemomeon.

---

It is true that people have been interpreting the Bible literally since the beginning of the religion. The early church fathers even warned against this, but it has never been as popular as it is today until fairly recently. It has now become a main movement in Christianity, as well as other religions, or at least it seems that way.

I still don't understand why you insist that symbolic interpretations of the Bible is a recent thing after my response to you. It is very, very clear that it isn't, and that in fact, symbolic interpretations of the Bible were favored over literal ones when the religion was being founded. How can you say otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

... and as far as making assumptions about you, I didn't. You said yourself that you believe it to be symbolic. At that point, there's not need for assumptions. I did say Christians insisted on taking the bible literally until science proved that it can't be. Can you tell me that this is uncorrect? I know my fair share about theology and the history of religion, and its just flat out true.

---

Well, you tried to tell me what I was arguing, or what I will argue when I didn't believe in those arguments. This is what I meant by making assumptions.
As for showing you how your statement about symbolic interpretations coming after scientific evidence that proves literal interpretations impossible, I clearly did that when I responded to you. Did you read it? The church fathers knew that literal interpretations contradicted sensory evidence and reason and therefore warned against taking the literal as the highest understanding. They clearly favored symbolic interpretations, and I already proved this to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of worshipping somethat you know isn't true, but rather "symbolic"...

---

Why do you think that symbolism makes something untrue? It is in fact quite the opposite. If we take Genesis as an example (since that was the original topic), we can see that it is speaking about the Creation. If one is speaking about the Creation that includes the world as we know it today (with time and space as we conceive it), then what one is speaking about is something beyond the limits of our understanding and therefore can only be spoken of symbolically. This does not mean that the thing being expressed is not real, it only means that in order to understand it one must get there by way of symbols. The symbols themselves are dead and not real, but what they are able to point to is more real than the ground you stand on. Since the Creation is Infinite, it therefore cannot be expressed in our limited language without completely distorting it. Symbols are a kind of path, if you will, that leads one back to the original meaning. They must be meditated on and understood internally. This can only be done by oneself; no one can explain it to you like they would do with something of this world. Since we each contain the source within ourselves, we are able to use symbols to connect the external, sensory world as we understand it to the more subtle worlds within.
This reminds me of a Zen saying: "Do not confuse the finger that points at the moon with the moon itself." When we interpret symbols literally, they become dead and meaningless. We must look beyond the apparent reality to what it is really pointing at. This is the purpose of symbols.