They're also the first people to tell you that they're "faithful, but not religious", or that they believe it's all "absolutely, literally true", but they don't go to church because that seems like a waste of time and whatever, game is on.
Discussion
I believe it is all literally true and am very involved in my church, read my whole Bible through every year (+ other Bible reading) donate a large portion of my income to our church and to over 20 missionaries and have been growing closer and closer to God over many years. My belief in a literal 6 day creation and a literal worldwide flood have greatly increased my faith in my God and helped me understand why He has authority over my life and the world and why He can be trusted in all things. Genesis, especially the first 11 chapters, is the foundation of everything else in the Bible (sin, marriage, men/women, clothing, death, punishment, etc.). Without this foundation, the rest of the Bible is on a very shaky foundation. If you don't believe in a literal 6 day creation, do you believe in the virgin birth? If you don't believe in a worldwide flood that wiped out every person and animal that wasn't on the ark, do you believe that Jesus was really raised from the dead on the third day? If you can pick and choose which parts are real and which parts aren't, how can you be sure that Jesus's birth, life, and resurrection are real? I believe building my faith on a foundation of stone and not a foundation of sand.
The girls who talked big about a literal Bible and drifted away were people whose foundation was men (even if they were biblical leaders) instead of on faith and the Bible. There is no direct link between a literal interpretation and leaving the faith even if you know some people who claimed to believe one thing and left the faith. Sometimes culture influences people rather than the Bible and the Spirit.
My point is that there is also no direct link between a literal interpretation and remaining in the faith. I was mistaken, back then, for assuming that their faith was deeper than mine was, merely because they made grander claims and seemed more certain.
Most people are actually surprisingly shallow, so when they say something very emphatically, it doesn't really mean much. I was impressed, but that was me projecting my own inner ocean onto their pond.
I think this generally something that very cerebral/scholastic people struggle with: people who never question their own faith, who make massive, sweeping claims, but skip on the follow through. Makes the whole thing seem like a joke. They are a terrible witness and they do a lot of damage to evangelization.
I think you're obviously operating on a higher plane than I am, but I think people like me also have a place in the Church.
I also think Catholicism does a better job of ministering to people like me because it aims to be a Big Tent, with a minimum standard, rather than trying to constantly weed everyone out with purity tests.
That said, Catholicism also makes some Big Claims, of course. The Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ and not merely a symbol. And the Pope holds the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously. Literally. 😁
I mean, He LITERALLY said that it's His body and blood and that we should do this in remembrance of Him.
Everyone is cherry-picking what "literally" means, IMO, otherwise, we would all agree on everything.
I'm convinced that believing it _all_ literally is heroic virtue and only a small number of people have ever fully achieved it, but that doesn't mean that lots of other people weren't as faithful and aren't also spending eternity with Christ.
These are not things that perfectly align, or that humans can even accurately judge.
And, like, I bet the Pope takes it all completely literally, but I think he's wrong about some of it and is sometimes misinterpreting it.
😬 no further comment
Felt the opposite about the former Pope. He was more "sympatisch" for me and his writing really moves me.
I agree that the former Pope was much better. Honestly, I'm not convinced the current Pope is a true Christian, but that is between Jesus and the Pope and not my decision (probably a good thing).
I do think some things are clearly literal, some are more questionable, but can be logically determined, and some are clearly figurative.
When Jesus says, "I am the vine ..." he clearly was not physically a vine. His disciples were looking at Him and could tell. He then explains how he is like a vine.
Similarly, when Jesus claims to be the bread/wine:
"24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes." (1 Corinthians 11:24-26)
The statements "do this in remembrance of me," "This cup is the new covenant in My blood"(covenant), and "For as often as you ... , you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes" all suggest something more figurative, although it isn't crystal clear in its meaning.
On the other hand, in Genesis, God goes out of His way to make sure people understand it as a literal description.
God defines day (yom) "God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." (Genesis 1:5)
He then repeats with every numbered day, "And there was evening and there was morning, a second day, " "There was evening and there was morning, a third day.," etc. He knew we would question whether these events were literal 24 hour days, so He went out of His way to give us every clue (numbering the days, saying "evening and morning", etc.) In Exodus 20 when He commands the Sabbath, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:11) He says why He created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh to give an example to us. (He could have created everything in a millisecond.)
There is absolutely no Biblical reason to take these six days as anything other than six 24 hour days. It is only when someone puts man's word over the Bible that a person can think that it is a longer period of time. (Spoken as one who used to believe the day age theory, although I didn't know that is what it was called at the time because I came up with the idea on my own based on what I had learned in science class and what I had read in the Bible, not based on some person's theory. Now that I know the Bible better and the science better, that theory seems ridiculous to me, but it seemed like absolute, unassailable truth in my past.).
Sorry if this is too much. I want to help; I want to encourage; but sometimes I get carried away because of my passion for biblical truth. I want everyone to be as close to God as quickly as possible and to be as perfectly informed in the Bible as possible and sometimes I can throw too much at people. I know that is one of my faults. It is meant to be for your good.
You don't have to apologize to me for disagreeing with me. I'm an adult; I can handle it.
But I think this discussion sort of highlights my scepticism about the "literally" thing, because the schism in the Church is partially an artefact of which parts some faction took literally. Catholics tend to take everything Jesus said directly to His disciples absolutely literally because the people of the Early Church took them literally and the New Testament was put together years later, under their direction and divine inspiration.
These things Jesus said, with emphasis, are the Biggest Biblical Claims because they're the metaphysical claims. They're the wildest, most-outrageous parts of the whole Library, but they're also the parts that are impossible to disprove on Earth.
You can't go dig in the ground and find Heaven, but you might find Eden. In other words. But who really cares about Eden, when there is _literally_ Heaven?
And, like, Jesus said Mary is our mother, but y'all are like, He didn't mean that literally. Yes, He did! He legit took a break from dying to make the point. Seems like He thought it was an important point and that we should remember it and maybe even, eventually, write it down.
Determining what is _literally_ true, is what the Church has been fighting over for a couple of millennia, and we haven't even managed to reach universal consensus on Baptism.
When you say Jesus said Mary is our mother, what are you referring to? Are you just referring to His statement to John?
"26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household." (John 19:26-27).
If so, I disagree strongly. He was not making Mary all of our mother. He was being a good son and making sure His widowed mother was taken care of since He [Jesus] wouldn't be there on earth to take care of her. " From that hour the disciple took her into his own household."
Maybe there is some other verse that I don't remember.
He's making it clear that Mary is not "merely" His mother, which would already make her worthy of veneration, but that she's also John's mother and John is a stand-in for all Christians. He didn't forget about her, at The End. He emphasized her and reminded us all of her importance.
She is the Immaculate Conception and the Ark of the Covenant, after all. Even the angels greet her like a Queen. And remember Luke 1:
And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is his name.
No where in the Bible is the immaculate conception mentioned. She was a faithful young woman. She was blessed by God. She is an example of a servant of God, but even she admits she is blessed because, "the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is his name." She never claims to be holy herself.
There is nothing written in the Bible about calling her mother. There is not one verse saying we should pray to her or through her. In fact the Bible says,
"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Timothy 2:5)
The Bible even specifically tells people to not consult the dead, but to consult God:
"When they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?" (Isaiah 8:19)
I'll admit that my two biggest disagreements with the Catholic church are putting the Pope above the Bible and praying to Mary (and saints) like they are little gods. (I know people like you don't consider them gods, but mediators, but the actions seem like they are being treated as gods. It seems to me like a form of idolatry.)
I hate all of the splits in the church, but understand why they happen. One thing that can be seen in all human organizations, including the church, is that the low level workers work hard on the mission (serving Christ). Those that seek leadership tend to be those who care more about wealth and power than the mission. Over time the leadership gets taken over by the least Christian in the Church. They start leading the church/denomination in the wrong direction. Those who are still faithful to God and His word, then leave because the church/denomination has drifted from the path.
Although for every generalization, there are plenty of exceptions, my experience has shown the older the denomination, the more likely for it to have been corrupted. Even the earliest Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) that used to be very biblical denominations have become terribly corrupted. There may be a few decent churches left, but the denominations are totally messed up.
The Catholic church started out really good. They then dealt with some true heresies, but overcorrected. Their initial reactions were not terrible, but led to future generations being led astray. As the Catholic Church got more rich and powerful, ungodly men sought leadership. I think there were many Popes, including the current one, that are not Christians. When I was younger, it seemed like every Catholic I met didn't really have Christian beliefs. It felt like they used Catholicism as a "don't witness to me" card. Today, I know a bunch of Catholics who I believe are strong Christians. I can't be sure, but it seems that even though the leadership has become more and more liberal and anti-biblical, many of the members have become more devout and more biblical (even if I disagree strongly on certain points). Maybe I just met the wrong Catholics when I was younger and the right Catholics when I got older or maybe God has been calling His Catholic brothers and sisters back to Him. I don't know.
Although being part of a Christian church and participating in certain group callings like the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) and Baptism, we need to all go to the Bible for our theology, not men. We need to be like the Bereans:
"Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11)
There are definitely plenty of purity tests out there. My denomination generally makes a distinction between members (minimum standard) and officers (subscription to theological standards required). Not all are capable of being so nuanced.
Because they don't see us all as Pilgrims at different stages on the journey, or people who are simply limited by nature and doing their best with what capabilities they have been giving.
They don't actually believe that faith is enough for eternal life, even if it is as small as a mustard seed. That's the part that they _literally_ skip over. 😏
> So Jesus said to them, “Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.
The faith can be tiny and still grant you superhuman strength because the strength comes from the Holy Spirit, not from you. Just as eternal salvation comes from Christ and not from what you think about some particular passage in the Bible. He doesn't need our help to save us.
We simply face the decision of whether we accept that salvation and join Him in the Light forever, or stay apart and alone, in the Dark, outside of communion with Him. We have to consciously choose, even if we don't really understand it or have questions.
Literally.
And I think they miss out on people's gifts and talents, by demanding too much perfection in one particular thing.
Like, churches that are highly charismatic and don't want you around because you're too introverted and spergy, or whatever. Dealt with that, once. Because it _literally_ says that we can speak in tongues and I'm like, sorry I got nothing. I don't even hear voices, when I pray. I'll just see myself out.
That is a definite problem. (If we go back to the Bible it does talk about God giving different people different gifts and to not just focus on one particular gift. With every disagreement, we need to go back to the Bible.).
God gave us each different gifts and talents. He leads us to sanctification along different paths (all through Jesus). We all tend to focus on the stuff we are good at and look down on people who aren't doing as well in that area. Frequently the person who isn't as strong in our area of strength, is much stronger than us in another area.
And, like, I don't think He necessarily meant a _literal_ mountain. I think it's a metaphor for a hard task. I'm open to it including literal mountains, tho. Maybe they are also needing some moving or something, so mountain moving happens.
Faith is all you need for salvation, but true faith should lead to action. Knowing and living God's word leads to fruitfulness. I don't want to slip by with the minimum. After all God did for me, I want to give Him my all. (Definitely not saying you aren't. I know your faith in God is a key point in your life.)
I agree.
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
James 2:14-26
(Looking forward to being able to put some 30041 notes here, instead of copy-paste. 😁)
Definitely.
You are 100% right that we are all at different stages of growth in Christ. That being said, you don't want the brand new Christian, who has very limited understanding of the Bible, Jesus, God, etc. to be teaching other believers.
Not allowing an immature Christian shouldn't be taken as putting them down. An immature Christian should spend their time learning, praying, and growing closer to Jesus not leading, teaching, or discipling. Later in life, they may be the one teaching or God may have another task for them like hospitality, and care giving of those who are physically, mentally, and spiritually hurting.
It all goes back to the passage about the body of Christ. We aren't all eyes or mouth, or feet, but all are important even if not all get the same attention and praise.
Here's the thing: I think Christians who have matured continue to have different talents and they live out their faith with different sets of works.
I have a talent for creating welcoming, inviting spaces, online and offline, so that's what I focus on, by being a sextant and running the parish website. I also have a talent for being a systems analyst, so that's also what I put my focus on. That's why I'm concentrating on digitizing and distributing the Bible on an uncensorable data storage system on Nostr, and making it readable over an open-source interface on git, so that everyone, everywhere can get hold of a copy, read it, and share it with their frens, and jump into the Bible study section and tell me everything I'm saying that is wrong. 😁
The Bible is not the project, but it was the impetus for the project and probably a big factor in the longevity of the project because building the first three minor releases of Alexandria and then spinning it off into #Biblestr is something that really motivates because it feels like building a digital cathedral.
I don't find it perturbing that people think my personal theological views are wrong. I've spent decades thinking them through and researching them, as have those defending the counter-argument. I find it perturbing that they think that they mean that I'm not a Christian. Because I think it's obvious that I'm Christian, otherwise my behavior makes no sense, at all.
I believe you are a Christian (even if we have some theological differences). I also think your spiritual gift is hospitality (as described above). I also think you can do a lot of good for the kingdom using that gift.
Church shouldn't seek to be big tent or small tent. It should stand up for the truth.
"“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." (Matthew 7:21)
It doesn't do anyone any good if we make them feel good, but they are being fooled about being a child of God and are caught surprised at the final judgment when they are thrown in Hell.
At the same time, we are all fallen humans that all have some error in our beliefs and fail to live life fully according to God's will. It is difficult to find the right balance of correcting error so people are not misled and miss out on a true relationship with Christ, but we don't want to be a Pharisee either who judges all who don't live according their own man-made interpretations of good. Being perfectly in balance is very difficult. I'm not sure anyone acts and thinks in perfect balance. Most of us error to the strict or the permissive side. We need to seek to speak "... the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ," (Ephesians 4:15)
Your experience with churches is either different or your interpretation the churches' statements/actions is different than mine because I don't see the purity tests like you do.
When I encourage someone to read the Bible more or not seek to allegorize God's clearly stated words, I am not judging or trying to push someone away. I am trying to draw them closer because I've seen how these changes have grown my faith and made me closer to God. I was where they are and want to help them grow faster than I did. I want to share the joy it has brought me. I'm sorry if it sometimes feels judgmental. It isn't meant that way. I want everyone to feel the joy and peace I feel in Jesus.
I'm from the South and there's a lot of ambient religiosity there, for cultural reasons, and it sometimes gets mistaken for piety or real reverence.
I think this is generally the case, in any region; that there are ethnic artifacts, or habits, that have sort of been integrated into the local religious practice. But my impression is that Protestants often can't tell that they've done that because it's all sort of "social/philosophical", rather than "traditional" (like with Catholics, where you can point to painting styles or relics and processions, and whatnot). Like, claiming it's unchristian to drink alcohol, or claiming that everyone can speak in tongues or handle snakes or whatnot. It _sounds_ like theology, but it's just whatever they're into around there.
And I tend to lump the Young Earth stuff into the same category. There was a surge of scientism, in the American past, and that is a locally-derived reaction to it, that doesn't translate well to someone sitting in Siberia, Buenos Aires, or Paris, because we are raised on people demanding we take a stance on that. We are very focused on the New Testament and the Traditions.
*we weren't raised* sorry
Like, a lot of (American) Protestants have gotten mocked for having an irrational, illogical belief system and it's made them overly defensive, so they feel more like they have to take a hard line on stuff other people are more ambivalent to. America went full-crazy on the eugenics and scientism stuff, and the theological backlash hasn't died down because y'all won the war and never had to formally repudiate moral materialism.
That's why they find it difficult to understand how we can stay ambivalent about it, and we find it difficult to understand why they are so preoccupied with the topic, but don't really care about important-to-us things like the Eucharist and the liturgical calendar.
Of course, people like you have a place in the Church. Sorry if anything I said made it seem otherwise. I have never doubted your sincerity of faith or that you are a true Christian.
Revelation, parables etc. are not literally true. This is a feature not a bug and in no way invalidates Jesus’ life. What Genesis is exactly is a hermeneutical question. We don’t have to freak out about it.
I should clarify myself. I believe all of the passages that don't have strong reason to be taken allegorically, are literal. Passages like Genesis 1-11 are written in a very literal way, but most people today take them as allegorical. When AI is trained on literal and allegorical passages where there is no disagreement and then asked if Genesis 1-11 is literal, it says literal. Jesus and the disciples refer back to Genesis 1-11, creation, Adam & Eve, and the global flood and consider them literal. There is zero textual reason to take them allegorically.
Revelation is harder. There are images, like the harlot on a red beast, that are clearly meant to be taken allegorically. I, however, think that much of the prophecies described in Revelation will be fulfilled literally. As technologies are created that make these predictions possible, I become more an more convinced of this reality.
Can someone still conclude the bible is the literal Word of God even if they believe the whole thing is allegory? Once that is concluded, the logical next question for them to ask would be, "Why would God lie?"